[Cialug] OT: mac-mini?

[Stuart Thiessen]

On Oct 20, 2005, at 18:21, David Champion wrote:

> I get functionality updates from MS to things like IE and Media  
> Player. I don't use either of those much because the suck, but I  
> didn't have to pay for an OS update to get them.
>

Neither do MacOS X users.  Same difference.

> I pay for the MS OS at home because I want it to play games that are  
> only available on that platform. If I could get those games to run  
> reliably on Linux, I would. Other than that I have no reason to need  
> or want Windows at home. Hopefully either game developers will start  
> releasing more Linux versions, or WinXP will be sufficient for those  
> needs for a while, and I won't have to buy Vista.
>
> p.s. Get your Quake 4 Linux Client :  
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/ 
> 1831234&tid=112&tid=10
>
> Either way, I have to pay for Windows, and you have to pay for MacOSX,  
> so the amount really just accounting.
>
>>> MacOSX is a nifty / pretty *nix, but it's:
>>>
>>> a. Proprietary (read today's comments on /. regarding OO.o and  
>>> Carbon)
>> ooh, it's on slashdot so uh, it must be true.
>
> Oh. So there's already a MacOSX native port of OO.o 2.0 that nobody  
> knows about? I don't know all of the semantics, but if I understand  
> correctly there's an ugly(?) X11 port, but the native OSX port is a  
> bit behind.
>

There is OpenOffice.org on X11 or NeoOffice using a Java approach. Both  
are good. NeoOffice has a better interface with the OS.

> I don't currently see the comment there, it may have gotten modded  
> down below my threshold. Anyone with an opinion on /. is obviously a  
> troll. ;)
>
> Apple chose to use a proprietary WM / envirionment / whatever you want  
> to call Cocoa / Carbon... and Mac users have to wait for things like  
> OO.o to be ported to it. I'm sure there are benefits to it, but it's  
> no fun to point those out! :)

True. But that is what they based their business model on ... the  
interface.  The nuts and bolts of the OS is opensource (Darwin). Apple  
like any other vendor simply add its unique software and look on it.  
Maybe it's not pure open source, but so far, I have to say I prefer Mac  
OS X to most Linux desktops I have worked with so far.  For a GUI  
interface to the operating system, Mac OS X is much more friendly than  
Linux right now. Yet at the same time, I can tinker with the works  
underneath using the same tools that a Linux/BSD person would use.

>
>>> b. Not OSS (would follow a. then, wouldn't it?)
>> uh, no. you loose, thanks for playing. there are elements of the OS  
>> that are totally proprietary (IIRC I think several Linux distros  
>> include some non-free tech) but there is a core of tech (OpenDarwin)  
>> that is roughly equivalent to a normal BSD/Linux that IS definitely  
>> OSS - by OSDL standards. You're just wrong there Dave.
>
> You are correct that some Linux distros, including Mandriva, do  
> contain some closed code. For instance, they distribute the  
> proprietary nVidia drivers. However, I can use the free
>
> OpenDarwin is the commodity part of the OS, that has little to  
> differentiate itself from BSD or Linux. Without the proprietary stuff,  
> there's no reason for me to want OSX.

People could use OpenDarwin and build a better GUI on top of it if they  
wanted to. Or run it with KDE or Gnome.

>
> MacOSX != OpenDarwin.

I think it is a container relationship. Mac OS X contains OpenDarwin. I  
don't think anyone says it is the same thing.

>
> Saying that MacOSX is a little bit proprietary is like saying someone  
> is a little bit dead.

Uh, Oh, Black and white thinking. If we wanted to talk about a  
continuum from proprietary to open source, we could say that Microsoft  
is way over on the proprietary side, Apple is more in the middle, and  
Linux is on the open source side of things. Honestly, I don't mind them  
having something that pays their bills if they do a good job in making  
the computer work for me. I mean compared to Microsoft, all the  
development tools are included to build for MacOSX. That is something  
in their favor in my opinion.

>
> Apple does a lot for OSS - like the Rendezvous / zeroconf thing. But  
> they also do a lot of proprietary and downright unfriendly things. Ask  
> any one of the many people who've been sued by them.
>

What company is perfect? (aside from WordPerfect .... ha ha).

>>> Uh, end rant.
>> uh, end rant rant.
>
> End? That's no fun!
>
> I would argue that most of the useablity issues remaining with a Linux  
> desktop system relate to issues like what we were fighting at the  
> meeting last night with Dave Swagler's Gateway laptop... which ties  
> back to my comments earlier this week with hardware vendor support for  
> Linux drivers, or at least providing specifications for someone to  
> develop them. (BTW, Barry got the Broadcom wifi driver loaded, but  
> it's not connecting to the WAP yet).

Not just hardware driver support, but just configuration issues too. I  
have to be honest ... I have tried to use Linux at home. The command  
line didn't faze me much, but the GUI interface leaves a lot to be  
desired in configuring the system. Ordinary users want to be able to  
set everything up easily without ever having to go to the command line.  
The challenge with Linux is that there is no clear indicator how to  
perform those tasks.  That caused me to lose motivation to have Linux  
on my desktop before because my wife and kids want something they can  
follow. When I had to replace a stolen tower, I just decided that Mac  
OS X has what I was looking for in a user experience that still allows  
me to work with Unix based tools, etc.  I really recommend that the LUG  
seriously consider how to educate the public on how to _use_ the  
desktop on Linux so they can get more comfortable.

>
> Installing Linux on hardware that's a year or so old is usually fairly  
> simple. It's new / exotic cutting edge hardware that causes headaches,  
> unfortunately.
>
> Once a Linux system is up and running, it's very user friendly. I have  
> had non-technical people using a Linux desktop for web browsing, word  
> processing and other common tasks, and they often don't even notice  
> that it's Linux until I point it out. My fairly non-technical parents  
> were using a Linux desktop system for about a year for web surfing and  
> word processing.

This is true ... until they need to configure the system in some way.  
Then I don't consider it quite as user friendly. My experience so far.  
Maybe the new distros have improved some things since SuSE 9.3.
>
> Using a USB drive, or my digital camera, or my MP3 player in Mandriva  
> Linux is just as easy as it is in Windows or I would assume a Mac. I  
> plug them in, and they work.
>
> In the end, we all have the choice to use whatever OS we want (as long  
> as we can afford it)... and I personally think it's great that we have  
> so many choices. For instance if buying a Mac Mini will keep your wife  
> happy, then by all means, buy one. But this is ostensibly a Linux  
> F/OSS User Group, so I think it is our responsibility to support the  
> F/OSS alternatives to proprietary systems.

Fortunately, many F/OSS work well in a Mac environment so it is a good  
place to promote it as a intermediate stage. Fink is another good tool  
to bring F/OSS to the Mac platform.

I'm a fan of Linux in a server environment, but I'm not yet sold on  
Linux for the desktop. :) I will be happy to be convinced some day  
otherwise. :)

Stuart

> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
>