OS X Wins the OS Wars this Year- PCMag

the review said:

The Ubuntu core, however, is a text-based OS—something Windows spent years getting away from. And unfortunately, you still have to use terminal input to install software or configure settings far too often, even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1. Until Ubuntu can do away with the terminal for all but the most geeky uses (as the Unix-based Mac OS does), it will never become an OS for the masses.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I wrote a few weeks ago in the MBP forum. Someone else stated Ubuntu didn't require Terminal use, but anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes setting up Ubuntu will testify otherwise; you simply spend too much time entering text into the box to make the OS viable for the vast majority of people. This was precisely why I ditched Ubuntu months ago after trying it on my laptop. They're never going to "catch on" as a mainstream alternative until using Ubuntu requires no more Terminal work than using OS X does.

As a matter of fact, here's the post:

heatmiser said:

Ubuntu's biggest flaws, in my opinion, are...

1. Too much reliance on the Terminal (you can use OS X without it; completely the opposite w/U)

2. Lack of a truly attractive GUI (built-in, from the start, no Beryl/Compuwhatever.)

If they fixed these two, the OS would be much more appealing to Windows users (who, let's face it, are the people they're trying to convert). The first issue is a bigger deal than the second, but the second is still relevant. Basically, they need to go a lot further in simplifying the downing and installation of applications. When they get to the point where 99% of apps can be processed the way you do so on Windows or on OS X, people will truly be able to just download a disk, burn it, and install the OS. Until then, it'll remain something you need tech support for, which limits its marketability.

Click to expand...

heatmiser said:

This is exactly what I wrote a few weeks ago in the MBP forum. Someone else stated Ubuntu didn't require Terminal use, but anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes setting up Ubuntu will testify otherwise;

Click to expand...

lol, I don't think so. running ubuntu for more than 5 minutes will require users to use some sort of terminal?

Lets put it here and let others comment on that.


PS. where is OS war? who against who? Isn't OS war supposed to be evaluation of market performance? like browser war I, and browser war II?

price: ubuntu 4.5/5, OSX 4/5? how exactly a free stuff can't score 5/5 in price comparison?

Interface: ubuntu 2.5/5, XP 3/5? how exactly does advanced 3D desktop lose to windows XP?

Bundled softwares: M$ loses $600,000,000 for a bundle of media player, how is that fair?

hardware: ubuntu 2.5/5, OSX 3.5/5, does Ubuntu run on more hardwares than OSX or not?

PcMag is trying, but its shallow as hell.

PS2. does anybody know the adoption rate of leopard? Last time SJ said it was 20%, how about now?

clevin said:

lol, I don't think so. running ubuntu for more than 5 minutes will require users to use some sort of terminal?

...

hardware: ubuntu 2.5/5, OSX 3.5/5, does Ubuntu run on more hardwares than OSX or not?

Click to expand...

It depends on the person. Some people who use Ubuntu may never need the Terminal. Some will need it in the first 5 minutes just to get everything working. It depends on your computer's hardware. Yes, Ubuntu will run on a lot more hardware than OS X, but having OS X also implies that you have a Mac, which is more or less guaranteed to not give you any driver troubles. If you try to put Ubuntu on some computers (like my old Dell I installed it on a few weeks ago), you'll pretty much need to delve into the Terminal to get it to work. I had to, and, yes, it worked eventually, but it was a headache and I don't think the average user could necessarily do it. If they have hardware that works well with their distro of Linux, it'll be a piece of cake, but if not, yes, it can be rather difficult.

By the way, I'm a supporter of Linux. I think it's made great strides in the last several years, and it's much more usable now than it used to be. I think many, many normal users could install Linux completely without trouble. But there are still plenty of setups that can cause driver issues that ultimately force the user to use the Terminal. I don't think this is something that's Linux's fault, because trying to support every hardware setup everywhere, especially for equipment without open-source drivers, is very, very difficult. There's not a whole lot Linux can do about it, but it's an issue to remember nonetheless.

I used a shell (not Terminal, a shell 😀) extensively in order to configure my ubuntu distro. I had to chmod stuff, chown stuff, sudo edit text configuration files, hunt down and build obscure wireless drivers from source, hunt down and download the mp3 codec (it is not included in the canonical repository for legal reasons, apparently), download and configure Beryl, download some usable fonts, and that's just what I can remember off the top.

I don't know how much of this stuff I could have done with a GUI. Probably not the wireless drivers part: anyone who wasn't an expert would have been screwed on that end, and that's a complete deal breaker. Especially if they didn't have a second computer available to google about wireless networking in Ubu.

And even if I had used a graphical text editor instead of emacs, configuring text files is just as "bad" as using a shell, from the point of view of a technophobe. I'm willing to wager that some of the files I edited did not have a gui front end.

My general feeling about Ubuntu is, like the guy in the article said, "who has the time?" I agree that the price should have been a 5, but if the category were "cost", it would have been lower than a 4.5 in my book.

But yea, I agree with you again, clevin, interface score is 2.5 v 3? Windows XP is butt ugly. I would give "out of the box" ubu a 3.5 and "out of the box" XP a 2 or less, just for the horrible text rendering, ugly, junky window chrome and ugly default background and choice of background pics. (That's a two WITH Clear Type enabled, which it is not default).

They called Safari a bad browser. Wtf... I love Safari? I downloaded it for Windows!

GradientMac said:

They called Safari a bad browser. Wtf... I love Safari? I downloaded it for Windows!

Click to expand...

I didn't understand this, either. I mean, for someone who likes Firefox or Opera a lot, it may not be their, but it's certainly better than IE...

kuwisdelu said:

I didn't understand this, either. I mean, for someone who likes Firefox or Opera a lot, it may not be their, but it's certainly better than IE...

Click to expand...

Not only is there already a thread on this article over in the MacBytes forum, but it's now three pages of mostly browser infighting. 😉

With Apple, users pay every year (or so) to get a major upgrade. Microsoft provides its major Windows upgrades, called Service Packs, free of charge. Paying more for Mac OS upgrades is a bit galling when you've already paid a premium for the hardware.

Click to expand...

Now this is thinking different! A bit galling! An underhand blow that will be believed and regurgitated the windoze crowd.

killmoms said:

Not only is there already a thread on this article over in the MacBytes forum, but it's now three pages of mostly browser infighting. 😉

Click to expand...

I know. I even posted there. 🙄 But I tried to be an arbiter. It's possible to like both Safari and Firefox while bashing IE 😀