Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad
- Thread starter Eidorian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At least, Ubuntu has made a big improvement in support and usability for popular desktop configs.
IMHO, though, it's still a bit of "lipstick on a pig" - it's just that Canonical picks the shade of lipstick, puts it on the pig, and fixes it when it smears.
It makes it suitable for a hobbyist, rather than applealing to a professional geek.
The application support is still an issue. While there's often something "similar" to desktop apps and suites on Windows/OSX - the integration, quality and compatibility limit the appeal of Linux for most users.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing
, but the application support is a problem, and probably will be for awhile. I think commercial software houses are scared off by the GPL more so than the lack of marketshare. I know porting an OS X app to Linux isn't too big of a deal in many (not all) cases.
So now he admits it WAS TRUE several years ago. It doesn't occur to him or others flaming on this forum that if someone has tried and used Linux over a 10 year period their impressions are going to encompass ALL OF IT.
The fact you resort to calling names like "troll" (that would be a flame, BTW) simply because you do not agree with the opinions being presented speaks VERY poorly of your characters. In fact, calling me a troll for such reasons makes YOU look like trolls. Sorry guys, but you need to learn that not everyone in life is going to agree with you. You also need to remember where you are (Mac forums) and what the thread is about (Microsoft and Apple not Linux). If anyone is the troll here, it's YOU.
No, I haven't "installed" Ubuntu *lately.* I already said that I have Suse 11.x and Mandriva 2009.0 installed at the moment. What part of the that can you not comprehend??? Eh? Do you just gloss over everything that is written and assume I've been speaking about Ubuntu the entire time or what?
Everything I've said about Suse 11.0 is true. It DOES freeze for no apparent reason here. I tried 10.x also. It also froze on that same PC. There's something it doesn't like in my hardware configuration, it seems, but I've removed everything I CAN remove (and still operate it) and the freezes continued. Mandriva 2009 has NO SUCH PROBLEMS. Mandriva 2008 had no such problems. Earlier versions of Mandriva/Mandrake ran on my prior PC and they had no hardware problems except with my Intel camera which has had and seemingly will always have a bad driver. Whether that driver is even included with an installation is another matter. Sometimes it is, usually it is not. This is typical with installations over the years. There often IS a driver, but it's just as often not recognized on the initial configure so you then have to hunt for it and often manually install it...sometimes compile it. It's always BEST to include all the development tools beacause sooner or later you WILL need to compile your own software or do without. You can rant and rave that is no longer the case, but not all software is found in a repository and not all software is available in RPM, DEB and/or both. Sometimes one is available and one is not. Sometimes an RPM meant for Red Hat *will* work with Mandriva. Sometimes, it will not and it's not always apparent why (often it simply puts the binary in the wrong place...i.e. a directory not in your normal path).
The fact that some of these people are NEWER Linux users probably means I have more shell experience and know more about the backbone of Linux than they do, yet the accuse me of not having experience. It's utterly LAUGHABLE from where I sit. They have NO IDEA what I've been through and how much I actually know about the workings of Linux. I have spent hundreds of hours learning those things. No, that does not make an expert on the Ubuntu distribution. I'd wager, for example, that a slackware Linux user knows 100x as much these guys, but that doesn't mean he's familiar with the latest Ubuntu setup because he's not using it!
You want to know what I know about Ubuntu's specific distribution...not much. I installed it one time on my PPC PowerMac early on (i.e. two years ago) before I upgraded the hardware to see if the OS would be more responsive and/or useful than the Panther OS X that was included with it. It was NOT. It was definitely much slower than Panther with the same resources (512MB ram with an ATI Rage 128). I tried a few things out with it, but ultimately had no interest in running a resource hungry version of Linux that is far slower than OS X. That is all I can conclude about Ubuntu PPC from two years ago.
What do I know about Ubuntu Intel? I've tried a couple of Live CDs and had problems with getting them to run on my Nvidia 7900GS based PC. I had little interest installing the full distribution when the Live CD doesn't even work with my hardware. You can rant and rave all day long about how great Ubuntu is, but when their stupid Live CD won't even boot without having to degrade to the text level booter, I don't get a good first impression of the distribution. I'm sure that did NOT happen to you or you would have probably done what I did and that was to move to the next distribution (I had 4 ready to test at the time). I moved on to Suse. From Suse I moved to Mandriva 2008, which installed BEAUTIFULLY. I had only a few issues with 2008 (few bugs present), but 2009 solved those. The updater from 2008 to 2009 worked fine. It's in 2009 that the updater started having issues and has somehow screwed up the shutdown sequence. I'm going to have to go in an manually fix it. No "newbie" would have a clue there and it's things like that where I point out how Linux is STILL flawed.
"But I'm using Ubuntu and it's GRRREAT!" Yeah, good for you. Ubuntu wouldn't even BOOT off the Live CD here. "You didn't check the hardware list!" BS! The issue is not the hardware but the Vesa driver they're using INSTEAD of the CORRECT hardware because they do not use the proper driver from the start because it's not "open" (it is FREE, but that's never good enough with GNU worshippers. They have to make life difficult and not include it by default to 'protest' against closed source even though a company has EVERY RIGHT to close their source. They should be thrilled that Nvidia bothers to support them at all. ATI didn't a few years back and let me tell you it SUCKED to own a newer ATI card and try to run Linux with any kind of 3D acceleration). "But that was a few years ago". So? Like I said, I've been using it for 10 freaking years. Linux has been ROUGH AROUND THE EDGES. The ONLY thing that changed since then is that Nvidia and ATI are kind enough to provide their own drivers these days. If that hadn't happened, Linux would still be totally flaky. You cannot reverse engineer all drivers and expect them to run smoothly. You need support from the companies themselves. But when you insult them and harass them for not wanting to go open source on EVERYTHING, no wonder they want nothing to do with your platform.
Like I said, Compiz is pretty cool eye candy (more so than OS X), *but* it has bugs too (whereas OS X is pretty darn stable). I'm talking about things like transparency glitching around the menu bars at seemingly random times or the menu inverting video for no apparent reason. I'm talking about glitches like having two monitors and the interface being SLOW on one of the two monitors due to a bug in Compiz that never gets fixed. You can work around the problem by putting a delay in a script and manually starting the 2nd monitor, but that's not intuitive and gets back to the whole shell thing that they would have you believe is not really needed anymore. They seem to think just because I'm writing this from an ease of use perspective that somehow means I don't know how to use the shell. It's more like I know that I should NOT HAVE TO use it. Anyone that has used OS X knows that perfectly well. OS X is the perfect example of how you can have an OS that is running a Unix back-end and not even know it's Unix.
When Linux reaches that point and doesn't constantly remind me that I'm in a Unix environment, THEN it will have reached a major milestone. The package managers would be a good place to start. Linux needs ONE unified package manager, not 2-3 plus a lot of authors still only releasing source code. That's not a good system. Linux elitists will tell you that CHOICE IS GOOD! Yes, that's why there's dozens of window managers, two MAJOR GUIs that don't like each other (Gnome was created because they were "open" enough at the time for some GNU purists and even though now they are, Gnome plods on with its backwards way of doing things and separate GUI libraries that you better have (or vice versa) if you want to run any software that might use them even if you hate the Gnome environment.) Despite all those "chioces" you cannot get much commercial software, but you have two dozen window managers to pick from! To run what, though? That's the REAL problem beyond any glaring OS issues. If you don't have quality software, you don't have anything. This is where I would get the standard speech about how much free open source software there is out there...yeah and most of it is CRAP or at least inferior to commercial offerings (e.g. Gimp isn't even close to Photoshop; I've used both a LOT. There is no comparison and I can tell you why. But yeah Gimp is free and you "get what you pay for" (I hear that a lot from Linux apologists). Did I say was I poor??? No. Price is not the issue. It's whether it's USEFUL or not. I want quality software!
So between the constant reminders that I'm in a difficult OS environment (instead of an easy one like OS X or at least a relatively easy one like Windows) and the near total lack of commercial software, I've concluded Linux really isn't for me. So I've stopped using it on a daily level. I've stopped using it on a weekly level. I rarely use it at all anymore because there is NOTHING I cannot do from Windows XP instead or better. If free is all that matters, fine. Protest away. But somehow 9 years ago I thought Linux would both mature and attract more software. 9 years is a LONG time. There isn't much more on the commercial desktop user level today than there was 9 years ago! There is a lot of professional server support, etc. but that means jack to the average desktop user.
Things HAVE improved on a usability level, especially in the past few years. Like I said, they DO now have things like a joystick preference pane (just one example) in most distributions where a shell was needed before to configure it. My point is little things like that SHOULD have existed 8 years ago. In fact, I did point that out back then because the driver was really good (all my joysticks worked) an I wanted Linux to succeed because I hated Microsoft. The only answer I ever got back was "write it yourself" and I'm afraid THAT is the biggest problem with Linux. I'm not talking about this idea that people are allowed to do whatever they want (fine), but rather the total lack of centralized organization. Like I said before, only Linus Torvalds could provide that level of leadership because he is likely the only one that could convince competing camps (like KDE versus Gnome) to work together to create a unified system that works for everyone and gets rid of all the inconsistencies and problems associated with having distinctly separate environments and things like differing package managers. A commercial or even a shareware developer is supposed to support RPM, DEB packages and make sure they work with every major distribution out there??? NO WAY. Why should they? There's ONE method with Windows. There's two methods in OS X (either the installer or just drag'n'drop and neither cause issues with the other and both are always there). In Linux you have to choose. Most distributions do not include support for both RPMS and DEB packages and no way are they going to talk to each other if they are both present. The whole distribution is based around them. To get software, you have to use a "repository" made for that EXACT distribution. The repository for Mandriva 2008 will not work properly for the 2009 distribution so that means multiple repositories for the same company have to be maintained by someone.... It's utterly RIDICULOUS! Debian packages might be better than RPM, but what if the software you want to use isn't packaged for you? Have fun with the source code!
You know how the Mac solved this problem right? They include the libraries, etc. needed INSIDE the application package, which is not an application but a package containing everything needed to run it. Yes, it takes up more space, but it works! Hard drive space is CHEAP, anyway. You cannot put a price on getting rid of dependency problems, IMO. Despite all the attempts to make RPM better, it still flakes out sometimes even in a recent distribution like Mandriva 2009 (not ten years ago).
Yes, I'm an inexperienced yahoo that knows NOTHING about Linux. Right. I'd bet I've been using longer than the people calling me trolls. No, I don't use it every day anymore because I decided I'd rather use software than spend all my time playing with the OS. OS X is miles beyond Linux.
There is one thing I DO like about Linux and that is the open and sharing nature of it all. I think open source and sharing are great. *BUT* there is a point where things are taken too far. Some people make a living from writing software and it's pretty hard to make a living from it when everyone is using it for free. Charging for support is another whole ball of wax. Most programmers are too lazy to even write English readable manuals. They do not want to spend their time doing "support" instead of writing programs. The system is flawed. Linux could support commercial software more readily, but they need to provide an environment where it's WELCOMED, not insulted. But when you figure that most Linux users probably won't be willing to pay for a single thing (because they're used to getting everything for free), I'm sure they figure why should they bother. The Linux desktop market may be nearly as large as the Mac one. So why does the Mac get commercial support and Linux usually does not? That's a question Linux users and developers alike should be asking themselves. And if they ever want to attract commercial software, they should be asking themselves what they need to do in order to get there rather than spending their time insulting everyone that doesn't think like they do.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing
I figured as much
....The "pig" comment was meant in the sense that the underlying problem (kernel version dependencies) hasn't been fixed, but a dedicated crew with financial backing is doing all the legwork so that it looks good and easy for the end user.
That doesn't help those of us running business and enterprise applications that aren't certified on Ubuntu (it seems that business applications tend to ignore Debian as a base).
So basically you go on a tirade about how horrible Linux is, and we're all supposed to just swallow that as your opinion? Er, okay, you win.
When someone calls you out on something as remedial as media playback and graphics drivers, we're not accepting your "opinion"? Okay, you win.
BTW, you can download a .deb file called Alien, which automatically will convert an .rpm to a .deb, and it works great. Just an FYI, in case you ever want to try Ubuntu again and can't find a .deb version of the package.
Also, ironically enough I do like OS X better, and agree that it's what an ideal "UNIX OS" should be. It's my main machine at work. So I guess we don't disagree entirely.
All 3 OSes have their pluses and minuses, but I strongly believe Linux doesn't deserve the bagging on that it gets here.
I'm not really sure why they should be. If they're that threatened by it, then damn, they sure are insecure. But to be honest, I don't think it's the GPL they're concerned about. If anything, it's been how to implement certain kinds of functionality, or certain ways in which required resources are exposed in Linux, much of which has now, over the course of the last couple years, pretty much crystalized, particularly vis a vis the kernel and the major desktop environments.We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing
I, for one, would potentially buy certain commercial software for Linux.
I'd love to buy commercial software for Linux; I'd probably end up using it more at home too. The problem with the GPL is that any code that touches GPL-licensed code itself becomes GPL, which I think a lot of companies aren't fond of.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's how it works.
Yes that's how it works. The GPL is a viral license in that respect, which is why there are other open source licenses like the BSD style ones, which don't have the viral aspect to them.
It's a shame Free or OpenBSD hasn't caught on more then, because it would probably be more attractive to commercial developers. I've tried PC-BSD, and it's just godawful; very poorly executed for a "desktop" OS.
I wouldn't do a commericial like that for just $1500
That's because you're not a harlot!!
I never used the word horrible (you did). And maybe instead of calling someone a "troll" you could just present your own opinion. Did you ever think of that?
What I said is true of the installations I've done. Most don't include support for things like WMA files, MP4 etc. If Ubuntu now makes it easy, good for them. That's not typical, IMO. As for video, if the distribution doesn't recognize your video card, you're going to have a harder time getting it installed than if it DOES recognize it. Clicking a button to install the Nvidia drivers is all well and good as long as it recognizes it. One distribution I used told me I simply had a framebuffer (forget which one as I went through several while testing this new computer; I think it might have been Linux Mint, which I think it based on Ubuntu). I could not get it to see an Nvidia card. I still don't know what went wrong to this day. Maybe it's because the 7900GS I have is an AGP card instead of a PCI Express or maybe it was the particular driver revision it was attempting, but whatever it is, it didn't like it. It's things like that which can cause a "WTF" reaction in Linux. Mandriva recognized it right off the bat and installed the proper driver. So did Suse.
To be fair, Windows often just includes basic SVGA support until a driver is installed also. The difference is the driver installation is often much simpler and often comes with the video card (at least for the basic driver). If your distribution doesn't do it for you, you've got some work ahead of you. You need the source code header files for the kernel you're using in addition to the Nvidia drivers. I've been through all that trying to get the Nvidia drivers to work with that installation where it wouldn't see my card and run into the source header file thing regardless with Mandriva because the automated updater never seems to automatically include them during a kernel upgrade (once added, it'll compile/insert them automatically on a boot, though).
Does any of this sound like things a typical Windows user is going to be familiar with? It used to be if you wanted a kernel update, you had to do it yourself and it wasn't a simple task. Now the updaters attempt these things automatically and as long as it goes smoothly, great. If it screws something simple up like the video driver, you could find yourself staring at a shell prompt instead of your favorite x login manager. I think a typical Windows or Mac user might soil their pants the first time that happened to them. I know I wasn't happy.
BTW, you can download a .deb file called Alien, which automatically will convert an .rpm to a .deb, and it works great. Just an FYI, in case you ever want to try Ubuntu again and can't find a .deb version of the package.
I seem to recall reading about that some time ago, but it seems like I ran into a dependency issue when I tried to convert a package. Whatever happened, it didn't work. I ended up compiling from source, which seemed simpler than trying to figure out what went wrong. As long as you have all the compiling stuff installed, it's usually pretty simple to compile, although sometimes time consuming. It's not so easy to remove everything if you want to delete it all unless you use a program to keep track of where everything went.
I don't see it as a "bagging". If I didn't like Linux at all, I wouldn't still have it installed on my PC. It's simply more rough around the edges than OS X or Windows and like I said you cannot get much commercial software for it so if that's what you use, your options are extremely limited no matter how much you prefer the "open" or "free" aspects of it.
I used to think it was cool to use because I could customize the living heck out of it...well OK it still is cool in that regard. I have Matrix-style Fluxbox environment with several matching docked apps set up that I use sometimes along with a spiffy Compiz based KDE alternative I use the rest of the time (I used to like Gnome a few years ago, but I don't like where it's gone since then; KDE 4.x is getting better, but I still like the wealth of add-ons available for the 3.x environment; both are available to me, though). Until I got my first Mac, I considered Linux a safer environment for shopping, banking, etc., but now I do all that on my PowerMac that runs my whole house audio system. I did want to do my Handbrake encoding under Linux, but since the driver is flaky for my DVD-RW drive, it just wouldn't work reliably and so I ended up using the XP verison, which is far less "nice" to look at (no previews, etc. since it's just a front-end for the CLI command whereas the Linux version is now up to OS X quality), but I don't want to toss my DVD-RW Litescribe drive just because Linux doesn't like it. I rarely use it otherwise anyway (save games in Windows). I do most of my burning from my PowerMac DVD-RW drive.
I do think Linux could be every bit as good as OS X, but it'll never get there UNLESS there is a unifying movement at some point. Options are great, but not at the expense of hap-hazard here-nor-there issues associated with 80 different distributions doing software packaging a dozen different ways (RPMS aren't even compatible between distributions). If they could solve those sorts of things and maybe offer a unifying theme option between KDE and Gnome apps (looking completely different is not good and even worse than in OS X), it would go a long way to making Linux CONSISTENT. Options don't have to mean inconsistent. It simply means developers should try to communicate and worth together so their programs can at least communicate with each other, even if they don't really use the same underlying tools. And frankly, the GPL or nothing type movement doesn't help anyone, IMO. It certainly doesn't help attract commercial software. Other things like Linux never being able to use the ZDF file system because of licensing issues are also very bad. That's a darn shame there, really. It's the best file system out there. I can't wait until I can use it with my Macs.
One thing i HONESTLY DO NOT GET IS...why the hell are all these ads saying macs are too expensive, and that they need something in there budget, when freakin microsoft is giving them the money, for gods sake they freakin handed it to them right in front of the camera....now for someone who owns one of the most richest companies, making a commercial about how macs are expensive while they are giving the people in the commercial the money, then its just plain stupid...that is my opinion so yeah :/ not too intense but they would have enough money to afford a mac (aside from it being a PC commercial) so I don't get why they would limit it.
Apple tax aside I think the advert shows good parenting skills, I wouldn't give a child a £1000 laptop to spill cola over. I would also buy a cheap crap PC because the thing would be worthless anyway in 6 months time so who would care when that cup of cola got chucked over it.
It's probably why even cheaper netbooks are becoming the norm. I'm scared to take my MBP anywhere *because* it's so expensive. Accidents happen. More to the point, a "cheap crap PC" will *NOT* become "worthless" (in the useful sense) in 6 months these days because hardware advancements in terms of running basic core programs like browers, etc. are not advancing very quickly at all. CPUs have pretty much topped out in terms of single cpu speed and so they're going to multiple cores, which most programs do NOT support. Even if they did, how many cores do you need to surf the internet, check e-mail and run a basic word processor??? GUIs are getting as fancy as they possibly can short of holographic displays and basic programs just don't need 2 terraflops to operate. I know if I'm going to use a portable computer then browsing, e-mail, music and video playback are going to be its main functions....kind of like an iPod Touch or iPhone, only maybe a bigger screen and keyboard would make life easier in a hotel room. Yeah, netbooks sound kind of cool.
Do I REALLY care what OS is on it so long as I can browse, e-mail and chat? No, that's not the point for a travel computer. A laptop might be different because I need a portable studio to record in different rooms, etc. so I do have a use for a Mac there. But just to browse and e-mail on a trip? It could be Linux or NetBSD and it wouldn't matter. As long as Firefox and Thunderbird will run on it, PS/2 would be OK even. I'd just want cheap, portable and usable.
A small and inexpensive netbook, as the MSI u100 can easily have OSX 10.5.6 installed. Apple won't like it, but it's a cheap, versatile Hackintosh. I would not edit HD video on it, but it can do most other tasks. At the price of an iPod.
And for the weird members of this forum; Yes, you can also install Linux on it;-)
I hadn't really thought about doing a Hackintosh on a netbook, but now that you mention it, I remember an article demonstrating it before. Yes, that would make a nice system. I mean if OS X runs fine on an old PowerMac, I'm sure a netbook would do well. I assume you could dual-boot OS X and XP as well using Boot Camp just like the regular notebooks. That would make for a nice setup indeed. I wonder if there are compatible models with firewire that I could use with Logic Pro for a dedicated little recording studio or if it'd be fast enough there for that use. I could just leave it in place instead of having to move my notebook all the time.
Apparently the MSI Wind works the best.
http://netbooks.modaco.com/content/...ing-osx-leopard-on-your-msi-wind-advent-4211/
Pshaw!
Haha. Is still think Macs are better. I mean, I've had a PC all my life, until a year ago. They're so slow compared to Macs. You'd have to have a 10 pound laptop to have a decent gaming PC. That's my opinion.
GO
!
Haha. Is still think Macs are better. I mean, I've had a PC all my life, until a year ago. They're so slow compared to Macs. You'd have to have a 10 pound laptop to have a decent gaming PC. That's my opinion.
GO
!Haha. Is still think Macs are better. I mean, I've had a PC all my life, until a year ago. They're so slow compared to Macs. You'd have to have a 10 pound laptop to have a decent gaming PC. That's my opinion.
GO
And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.
It depends on what game you're running. If you're running a windows only game or a fps, I'd bet a laptop with a higher end video card will win hands down. CPU only takes you so far and you can buy the same intel stuff anyways. I wouldn't emulate a game in osx. You'd lose a lot of cpu power and memory to virtualize xp in the first place.
The point of the Ads are not necessarily that "Macs are expensive". THats not a new idea - everybody knows that. The message they are emphasizing is that PS are cheaper. Better value!!!! They are exploiting the economy to make people think they are getting a bargain.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220488
$1,000 shipped. No tax in most places.
Would be real nice to see a Macbook with similar spesifications (At $ 2.500 shipped - with Apple tax??)
Those grapes you are referring to sure do seem a heck of a lot sweeter from up here, now that you mention it.