>Get these two separated and you'll see why OSX is good
>for MANY people.
>This was exactly the point of the article, which it is clear a
>whole host of people missed (and called me all sorts of fun
>names in the process).
If that was your point, you should have stated it. If I need to make assumptions and read Tim's article to understand your point, then you're a poor writer. Especially since your point can be summed up with such a simple statement. If one sentence would have made all the difference, why didn't you include it in your article?
Sorry, I don't buy it. You're just back pedaling because it's painfully obvious that you don't know what unix is.
Linux isn't unix.
X Windows isn't unix.
fortune isn't unix.
gcc isn't unix.
bash isn't unix.
edlin isn't unix.
Tim O'Reilly isn't unix.
I have read your article, about 5 times now. And it still doesn't make any sense. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just writing, "OS X sucks, linux rocks.".
"They may even have a market in Unix users who want a desktop-focused platform for their home or desk at work, but they will never find one in Unix/Linux users who want a desktop environment. "
What? They have a market for desktop unix users, but not for desktop unix users? I guess I'm missing the difference between a "desktop-focused platform" and a "desktop environment" but so be it. Maybe years of using CDE is what messed me up. OS X is different that unix. Solaris is different than linux. Does that mean they're all bad, or that they're all not leet enough for you? OS X is different in that NetInfo is used as a substitute for some of what would be in /etc. NetInfo on my machine doesn't contain any application configuration like the Windows registry. I've only touched it once, to put in some host entries, like I would in /etc/hosts on a unix system. If I uninstall an application, and want to clean the "registry" of it's configuration, I delete a preference file that's stored in my home directory. It's a text file, like on a unix system. /usr/bin on my Mac has 553 binaries in it, on my Sun, the count is 584. I guess that means that Mac OS X isn't "real" or something, I don't know. All I know is that when I write a perl script or a shell script on my Sun, I have to change some paths if they're hard coded when I move it over to the Mac. I had to do that with linux, too. If that is just too much to bear, you're going to have a hard time when you get out of school and have to work on a commercial unix. If you're already doing it, then what's the problem? Linux zealotry is just as bad as Windows zealotry, when it comes to
getting the job done. As for the open source argument, the open source community needs to put up or shut up, but more on that later.
I've used unix and linux for years, I have a Sun box in my bedroom. Up until recently I was a professional unix system admin, on "real" hardware, the kind you can climb inside. Yes, I know how to use vi, but I prefer vim. I write Perl and bash. I can make a cron entry without a gui. I *like* the command line. I've re-written the Solaris lp system, because it's junk on 2.5.1. Blah blah, you get the point. My Mac with OS X mounts my home directory off the the Sun box, shared with NFS. If that's not "unixy enough" for you, then that's just too bad. I'm a unix user. I'm a real unix user, not another linux geek that just wants the kewlest theme for enlightenment on his pc. So much for "never find one in Unix/Linux users who want a desktop environment" That's exactly why I bought a Mac. CDE is slow and just plain sucks. Gnome blew past usability straight into bloat long ago. KDE is a knock off, of what I don't know, it changes too often. The only window manager I like any more is fluxbox, but that's just me. I think you're missing the point if you think that people who don't *want* to spend all their time messing with linux are also *unable* to mess with it enough to make that stable desktop that does all they want it to. I can, I have, and I'm tired of it. I don't want to spend 8-10 hours a day maintaining unix and then come home and do it all night. I especially don't want to spend that time making a gui work, when the command line is the reason I use it all to begin with.
I gleefully bashed Macs for years, too. Then I bought one when I heard about OS X. It does just work, and that's another reason why I bought it. It isn't open source, and that's just too bad. If this sort of usability was available with an open source OS or desktop, or whatever, then I'd use that. But it isn't. I was a linux cheerleader for many years, and even got linux servers put into production at a company that was terrified of it. They are still using linux today, and will likely use it more in the future. I doubt they'll ever use it for a desktop, unless it's just as a thin client. They'll never use it for a desktop because their users are typical lusers, and would never learn how to use it. That's the way life is, some people aren't enthusiastic about computers. There's a lot of those people that will still buy a computer, though, so they can "get on that internet thing". Those are the people that linux isn't relevant to, because it's too complex for people who aren't willing to learn how to use it properly. They probably never will learn, either. I don't care if they don't, that doesn't keep me from using what I want.
If traditional unix was going to be a desktop platform for the masses, it would have been by now. It's out there, for free (as in beer and speech, or any combination of) for all sorts of hardware, in many flavors, and it's not taking over. People use it for a desktop (I have) but those people aren't typical computer users.
The whining in the linux community about how OS X "isn't real unix" is just that, whining. If more open source developers would concentrate on making something like OS X, then people would use it. But most open source developers are scratching their own itch, and that's not the itch they have. Other itches resulted in projects like Apache and Perl. So obviously, the open source development model works, and it works well. It just doesn't work for the mass market. That's why freshmeat is packed full of apps that most people don't want. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been written, just that some people have different needs than others. Maybe you should contribute and write an alternative to Display Postscript. It's an Adobe product, not an Apple product. If you meant that Display Postscript should never have been created because it's closed source, then I guess your problem is evangelizing, not development.
Whining like yours isn't helping the open source community, or linux. It comes across as sour grapes because people didn't choose linux. It also makes you look like a poser that wants to spew about how his OS choice is leeter than yours. Leetness doesn't figure into my OS choice, sorry, I'm more concerned with results. Make linux relevant to desktop users, and they will use it. I'd prefer you didn't, I don't think there's anything wrong with linux now. So, maybe you shouldn't fault OS X, because there's a lot of people out there "using it for the right reason in the first place", whatever that means. Silly examples about Miatas and Leer jets aren't helping anyone, either, if you don't have any facts to make your point, whatever it is. I think your point is that Mac OS X is just a pretty toy OS. If that's true, it's hilarious because that's just how a lot of unix old timers still view linux. So, welcome to the club, maybe some day we both can get a "real" OS.