Macintosh vs linux

The Finder has a “Back” Menu item {Go->Back), which conveniently maps to the same Back mouse button used with a browser. AFAIK Back is the same as “Up.”
Also, the FInder has a multi-column view, which shows the current path at a glance.
And, it’s always been possible to command-click on the proxy icon in a Finder window to show the current path.
So, I don’t understand what you are whining about.

goofball, you’d probably get more targeted answers if you told us what your primary uses are likely to be.

As a long time user of nothing but Linux, I’d say Mac is probably best for someone who isn’t familiar with UNIX. It’s not that it’s hard, but you do have to learn some things whereas a Mac is a commercially sold product that should work pretty well right out of the box and be fairly idiot proof as well.

As for the GUI, I don’t know how the default Linux GUI (KDE or Gimp I assume) compares to a Mac, but you can pretty much do anything you want with the GUI on Linux. Example of Beryl desktop.


Off to IMHO



I’ve never come across this. Could you expand on what you mean? Sometimes to look into an application package, I have to hold the ‘ctrl’ button, click on the item, and scroll down to 'Show package contents". Also, the terminal gives me the unix command line, where I can get into absolutely everything. What third party softwares are you talking about?

Yep. Both Parallels and VMware Fusionhave a list price of 80 bucks, so it’s not a big investment to have your cake and eat it too if you get a Mac but want to run a Linux distro also. I use Fusion on my Mac and have virtual machines running Windows XP, Vista, and Ubuntu.

One really nice thing about both products is that they permit you to work with the applications from the virtual machines without having the guest operating system’s desktop in the way. The Coherence feature in Parallels, and the Unity feature in Fusion handle any open window from an app in your virtual machine as if it was a Mac window, and that can be put in the dock, and so on. Quite handy if you are bouncing around from app to app.

I wonder whether this is a reference to the way that the Finder does not show all the classic Unix directories by default. They’re there, though; you can go to them by selecting the Go to folder item from the Finder menu and typing in the name of then directory (for example, /bin). And of course they’re accessible through the command prompt.

Definitely subjective. We would not be able to use the same computer!

For me,

[li]having the menu at the top is retarded. [/li][/quote]

Love it, indispensible. I detest working in Windows where each document Window has the menu all over again (taking up unnecessary space), either that or it has one of those horrid “application windows” that make multitasking awkward-to-impossibie and take up even MORE unnecessary space. My number one desired Windows hack is something to kill all ‘MDI’ application windows and make all document windows freefloating.

[li]the three magic balls that don’t quite quit, don’t quite minimize and don’t quite maximize make no sense and make think of the “three seashells” in Demolition Man. [/li][/quote]

Dunno who or what is “Demolition man” but close window, minimize window, and zoom window are what I expect from window controls. I do wish Apple would add a “hide window” option, wherein the window can only be accessed from a Windows menu. Like Filemaker has.

[li]the interface is less skinnable/changeable than Windows, which is qutie an achievement [/li][/quote]

Agreed. And I do happen to hate Aqua. I find it ugly. I use ShapeShifter + a Classic Platinum skin for a retro experience.

[li]some applications tend to lack root windows [/li][/quote]

See prior comment about MS Windows and its stupid irritating useless deal-breaker “application windows” — I think those are what you mean by “root windows” ? Ugh! How can anyone like those? How the heck can you run more than 2-3 apps concurrently and see what the hell you’re doing, unless you chose Word and other Windows apps that had the good sense to do away with those horrid things?

So you can see them and arrange them as you see fit?

Anyway, i could sure compile a list of “hate this” “hate that” about Windows, but then folks who know a Windows PC well would say in genuine perplexity “Why don’t you just do ThingIDidn’tKnowAbout like other Windows users?”. Well, because I don’t know my way around Windows and I try to use it like a Mac and it has the poor taste to not behave like one. In fact this exact moment I have a remote window to a damn Dell and I have several windows of an app open; want windows 2 and 3 visible concurrently. bring Window 2 to the front and unmaximize it so it doesn’t take up entire freaking screen. bring window 3 to the front but because it was maximized previously it goes maximized and because it is maximized it minimizes Window 2, thank you very freaking much.

It’s what we are used to and know how to deal with. If you knew Mac it is possible & conceivable that it would still not be to your liking but most likely 98% of your frustration is because it’s not the system that you know. As Windows isn’t for me.

But only in Windows is that supported, no?

AHunter3, even Microsoft recognizes that MDI sucks, and now the default Office behavior (at least for Office 2003) is to open documents maximized in MDI windows, and multiple documents open in their own windows. You can still be masochistic and “restore” these documents to use the stupid MDI window if you really want to, though.

Or you could set a Finder preference from the command line to show all of the hidden files right in Finder. Yeah, hidden, but if you’re advanced enough to need access to /var/root, then you’re advanced enough to set a preference in a terminal shell. If you’re not advanced enough, then you probably shouldn’t see those files in the first place.

Looking at the Fusion Help it appears that XP and Vista are the only OSs described as fully supported. Looking at the 2.0 release notes, I see a few entries in the known issues section that talk about quirks when running Ubuntu or RHEL in Unity (like needing to turn off screen savers before). I use the XP virtual machine most of all, and only have Ubuntu running rarely, but I haven’t run into egregious problems yet if I have things in Unity. A power user might have a different experience.

They’re both good, but it depends on what you want to do with them.

I run linux and osx; linux for my main home/development system, and os-x on a macbook as the portable development machine.

Both run some variation on Unix, so the low-level (shell) interfaces are comparable. Macs are more of an integrated package, so if you mainly run commercial applications, things should more or less “just work”. Linux really does require you to fiddle with settings, edit configuration files and look up stuff in the manuals (though much of Linux has MUCH better in-depth documentation - Linux expects people to use the docs).

General advantages of OS-X over linux:

  • it runs the whole adobe creative suite, which more or less seals the deal if you need that. This applies for most commercial software/drivers: you do NOT want to depend on commercial software on linux, except for possibly some very high-end stuff.

  • if you get a macbook, you get well-working wi-fi support, meaning you can plonk it down in basically any office these days and get online in less than a minute. Linux wi-fi is messier (you need supported wi-fi hardware, and then you’re generally messing with all the different kinds of authentication/encryption schemes).

  • you don’t have to spend much time setting things up: it works out of the box, and all you really have to do is set up your networking/wifi passwords and keyboard preferences.

General advantages of Linux:

  • it’s much more pliable: for instance, I really don’t like the desktop/window dragging metaphor, so on my linux system I run the ion window manager, that just lets me manipulate all applications with the keyboard instead of having to drag stuff around and click on pictures with the mouse. Can’t do that AFAIK on osx.

  • I’ve found linux’s X-windows support to be astoundingly better: X-windows applications on my macbook are much slower and half the time, the X server doesn’t seem to want to start at all. This can be a big issue if you want to seriously use generic graphical “unix” applications on OS-X.

  • debian (my linux distribution of choice) has metric tons of software in an integrated package manager: you can search for available software and automatically download/install/upgrade pretty much everything good that’s available on linux using the same system. If you want to use a lot of free software, there isn’t anything on the mac that comes close (macports is OK; it has most of the things I really need, but it still has a lot less apps, and since it builds everything from source it’s very slow if you need to install significant packages)

  • It’s cheaper and you get all the source code.

By the way: the reason I bought the macbook in the first place is that my linux laptop broke on the first day of an important project, and I just didn’t want to spend more time than absolutely necessary to get a new working system. (And it HAS to be a unix system - windows is a joke as far as my work a software developer is concerned)

The value add to the mac is this: for a little more money this machine can be anything you want it to be. For the most part it is Unix with quality control. It’s ability to compile open-source code OR completely hide that from the end user is well implemented. Apps like fink and Macports allow you to download most popular open source products with little hassle. If you need to coexist in a windows environment, you can. If you must have code compatibility with XP, you can. If you need X or scp or rsync or unison or wireshark or mozilla or office or gimp or…or…or

That said, the worst time I’ve had was trying to implement a LAMP stack on a mac. (Linux/apache/mysql/php - for web application development)

What are Gimp and missing? I’ve never used Photoshop so can’t compare, but I haven’t noticed anything seriously lacking in openoffice.

FTR, I use Mandriva Linux at home and I love it. Their software downloader / installer is great. But all I use are web browsers, open office, gimp, and the apps for ripping / burning CDs and DVDs. Oh, and SETI@Home :smiley:

I’d been using NeoOffice on my Mac, which is an OS X native app based on OpenOffice. However, OpenOffice 3 has just been relesed for OS X. Previously, I had to run OpenOffice as an X11 application.

But for my last presentation, I chose Apple’s Keynote over NeoOffice’s presentation program because the graphics more gorgeous.

The Gimp and Inkscape (‘paint’ and ‘draw’ programs respectively) require X11 as well.

I don’t want to get into a pissing contest, but trust me when I say that professionals use Photoshop, not The GIMP. The GIMP might be fine for many people, but it’s just not Photoshop. Also, Open Office (and Neo Office) are passible substitutes for Office, but they are not 100% Office compatible, and they have issues that Office doesn’t have (Including font handling)

Agreed, Photoshop is leaps and bounds more powerful a tool than Gimp. That said, I’ve never needed anything more than Gimp to fiddle with pictures and stuff, though my dad is photoshop all the way cause he does a lot of photography and such.

I’ve not used Neo Office, but I didn’t like having to run Open Office in X11 (which apparently they’ve fixed) for various reasons, so I just switched to Office Mac (Windows Office for OS X) mostly due to compatability with my computer at work (which runs on Vista, much to my personal disapproval. That said, windows is windows, so I was able to instal a new printer even though I can’t read 80% of the menus on this machine cause they’re all in Kanji with spaterings of Katakana)

Part of the reason why professionals use Photoshop is that it is a very solidly-established industry standard. That’s not the only reason, but it is part of the picture.

Of course, PS is the industry standard substantially because of its functionality - but even if the GIMP were brought completely up to (or beyond) Photoshop’s level in every single area of function, it would still have a hard time dethroning Photoshop.

They’d have to call it something other than “The Gimp”, for a start.

Which is part of the [sarcasm]charm[/sarcasm] of Linux. The Gnu Image Manipulation Program is okay, The Gimp sounds less than professional. Amarok is a music player? I’m supposed to know that how?

I want to install a program. I use Synaptic? Yum? Yast? How do these SOUND like a package installation program?

Nautilus is a file system viewer

I need to burn a CD, do I use Brasero? Gnomebaker? Gcdmaster? Jack?

Linux’s biggest asset is also it’s biggest failing. There’s SO many fragmented applications, with non-intuitive naming, that often you don’t know which you need, Oinkmaster, or Barnyard. (Oinkmaster automates ruleset updates for the SNORT IDS system, Barnyard sends the output logs from snort to a central location.)

I’ve had a dozen times where I want to accomplish something (Rip a DVD), I search the repository and there’s 6 options. I pick one, it fails oddly, I pick another, it fails in another odd way, I pick a third and it can’t find a dependency.

I then go back to the Mac and use the one or two applications (also oddly named) that have floated to the top of the heap as they have the bulk of the positive reviews in Google Searches. (Handbrake and Mac the Ripper)