Linux vs MacOSX

Message

mugget · Post by **mugget** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:28 pm

craftyc, you mean because of their current (approximated) maket share?

well that's going to be changing i think... lots of people are realising how sucky Windows is. just look at how sucessful the Apple Switch campaign was. now all we need is a Gentoo distro that has an easy(er?) way to install, and a kind of automated portage system to keep everything updated, and viola!

"cutting edge, always up to date, free operating system!" sounds better than Windows? i think so...

craftyc · Post by **craftyc** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:09 pm

mugget wrote:craftyc, you mean because of their current (approximated) maket share?

well that's going to be changing i think... lots of people are realising how sucky Windows is. just look at how sucessful the Apple Switch campaign was. now all we need is a Gentoo distro that has an easy(er?) way to install, and a kind of automated portage system to keep everything updated, and viola! "cutting edge, always up to date, free operating system!" sounds better than Windows? i think so...

Dude, it was a joke.

I share similar view as you, in that Microsofts market share will decrease now. They haven't produced anything really innovative in the last ... hmm ... they haven't every produced anything innovative.

But people are catching on to that now. And people will switch.

pixel · Post by **pixel** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:48 pm

Linux sucks, nuf said

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:55 pm

pixel wrote: Linux sucks, nuf said

Then what the fuck are you doing here?

rossk · Post by **rossk** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:19 am

craftyc wrote:
mugget wrote:craftyc, you mean because of their current (approximated) maket share?

well that's going to be changing i think... lots of people are realising how sucky Windows is. just look at how sucessful the Apple Switch campaign was. now all we need is a Gentoo distro that has an easy(er?) way to install, and a kind of automated portage system to keep everything updated, and viola! "cutting edge, always up to date, free operating system!" sounds better than Windows? i think so...
...I share similar view as you, in that Microsofts market share will decrease now. They haven't produced anything really innovative in the last ... hmm ... they haven't every produced anything innovative. But people are catching on to that now. And people will switch.

In order to get more people to use Gentoo, we would need to have something like a "stage 4" installation or a completely different distro that has an installation which, while being less customized, just works. The current installation, especially for PPC because of OpenFirmware, is far too complicated for the average computer user to complete. It would need to auto-detect which drivers to use and install X11 and KDE or GNOME by itself. In ease of installation, microsoft unfortunately has the clear edge. Back on topic to MacOSX vs. Gentoo, this issue also applies. Mac OS X is unarguably easier to install than Gentoo, and I think this is a big issue facing the Gentoo community. At least 30 people per day come on the gentoo IRC channels needing help to install Gentoo. Also on the issue of just working I think Gentoo has a great start with emerge and portage. Installing new applications is extremely easy. Add in a GUI version of emerge (does one already exist) to this imaginary distro, and Gentoo would become something I would be willing to give my parents and friends (who are much less computer-literate than I) to install on their home computers.

bzImage · Post by **bzImage** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:07 am

In order to get more people to use Gentoo, we would need to have something like a "stage 4" installation or a completely different distro that has an installation which, while being less customized, just works. The current installation, especially for PPC because of OpenFirmware, is far too complicated for the average computer user to complete. It would need to auto-detect which drivers to use and install X11 and KDE or GNOME by itself. In ease of installation, microsoft unfortunately has the clear edge. Back on topic to MacOSX vs. Gentoo, this issue also applies. Mac OS X is unarguably easier to install than Gentoo, and I think this is a big issue facing the Gentoo community. At least 30 people per day come on the gentoo IRC channels needing help to install Gentoo. Also on the issue of just working I think Gentoo has a great start with emerge and portage. Installing new applications is extremely easy. Add in a GUI version of emerge (does one already exist) to this imaginary distro, and Gentoo would become something I would be willing to give my parents and friends (who are much less computer-literate than I) to install on their home computers.

I think that the objective of gentoo is to educate and help POWER USERS to deploy a powerful operating system, a totally customized and optimized system, not to provide beginners with a easy way to install linux (without really understanding something about linux).

A stage4 will really miss the point of gentoo.

There are other ppc (yellow dog) and x86 (mandrake, fedora, suse, etc) alternatives for beginners.

rossk · Post by **rossk** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:45 am

I think that the objective of gentoo is to educate and help POWER USERS to deploy a powerful operating system, a totally customized and optimized system, not to provide beginners with a easy way to install linux (without really understanding something about linux).

A stage4 will really miss the point of gentoo.

There are other ppc (yellow dog) and x86 (mandrake, fedora, suse, etc) alternatives for beginners.

Those points are all valid, and I don't argue them, but this thread deals with Mac OS X vs. Gentoo, so it still stands that Mac OS X gets points for installation and ease of use.

dgt84 · Post by **dgt84** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:47 am

zenlunatic wrote:*Aqua has no themability and system fonts cann't be changed. This sucks. Who are apple to say that font choice is confusing or against good UI? Fuck that! I want my freedom, thank you.

I'm not sure about fonts, but you can change the look of OSX easily:
http://www.resexcellence.com/themes/

as-33 · Post by **as-33** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:29 pm

I've been using Linux (Mandrake, Debian and Gentoo) for a few years, but now I'm planning to switch to a Powerbook with OS X, simply because of the poor hardware support for linux on laptops (suspend to RAM, WLAN and especially the DVI port - yes, I know it's not the "fault" of the linux developers).

I tried OS X on the 15" Powerbook in the shop, and even if it has a bit much eye candy I think I could get used to it. It is just nice to have everything work out of the box after so many years of compiling and tweaking - don't get me wrong, I often enjoyed this, and there is still a Linux server that needs my attention more than my workstation...

johnmc · Post by **johnmc** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 10:03 pm

OS X is my favorite Unix for a desktop, and it's not half-bad for a server, either. It's actually my favorite desktop, period.

I'm using it on a 17" Powerbook right now, and it's very, very nice. The hardware and OS are first class and the way they work together is powerful. Plus I get a real live Openboot like the servers I work with every day

My Gentoo setup on my Toshiba 5205-S703 notebook is also very nice, but I hardly ever use it anymore. Compared to OS X on the Powerbook, it feels a little...... rickety maybe, kind of thrown together and not as solid and luxurious as the Powerbook. The hardware/OS integration is very good and everything works as advertised, without fuss. Network with Bluetooth and Wifi? Yup. Hotplug all devices? Yup. Sleep and wakeup? Yup. Network and hotplug and Wifi all working after wakeup? Yup. Boot from external devices OK? Yup. Powersave modes and cooling all OK? Yup. It just plain works, and with style.

I'm a recent Mac convert and I've found that it's less stress to let the OS do things its own way and learn how it works before trying to force it to do things the way I want. I have 14 years of Unix admin experience (Interactive, SunOS, Solaris, AIX, Irix, Linux, BSD, SCO, Ultrix, Digital Unix) with VMS thrown in for flavor, and it helped me to lay aside some of my hard-earned experience and learn a new way.

When I need X I fire it up in rootless mode and run my apps just fine. Aqua is a nice interface, it's kind of Gnome-ish, so KDE people might not like it as well, but I've always been partial to Gnome. The default OS X iLife applications are fantastic, especially the interactions between Mail, Address Book and Calendar. My workplace is about 1500 Windows desktops, about 150 Mac desktops, 50+ Novell servers, a dozen or so Windows servers and about 30 Unix servers, and OS X fits in this environment really, really well. I'm the Systems Manager and responsible for all of it, and as you'd expect the Unix servers and OS X desktops give me the least trouble. My job has me doing hands-on work every day, teaching the admins that work for me.

If I had to choose one desktop platform it would be OS X. If I had to choose one server platform it would be Solaris for mission-critical and Linux or OS X for onesie-twosie applications. I tend toward Risc platforms and prefer to pay for production-quality support. I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy

Once I found all the nooks and crannies OS X has been easy to manage. There's a large software and support community to help with good forums full of people willing to help a newcomer. It's a lot of fun to impress old-fashioned Apple users with old-fashioned Unix knowhow, too.

If you end up trying out OS X, give it a fair shake, it's a worthwhile, quality OS and you can be very productive with it. If your primary occupation is maintaining and tweaking your Linux installation, OS X isn't going to be satisfying, it's not really made for that. Also, give Apple a little credit for creating new Unix people, they're producing a large crop of them lately. Apple people have always known their chosen OS is superior to anything out of Redmond, and now they're learning Unix, too. They're our friends.

I don't know what I'll be using in 10 years, except that it's going to be a Unix of some type. I'm planning on it.

gnuageux · Post by **gnuageux** » Sat Jul 03, 2004 7:25 am

Ive played around a little with OSX and the only real advantage that Ive been able to come up with is that it works "out of the box".

msimplay · Post by **msimplay** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 4:42 pm

i would say macs are expensive
i read earlier in this post they are inexpensive which is simply NOT true

i can get a maxed out amd athlon 64 for under a thousand pounds
i'm talking
1024 ram
dvdrw
dvd
256 graphics
serial ata 200gig hardrive
pc tv system
speakers
keyboard
etc etc << sounds like an advert but tis true thats a pc with amd athlon 64
where the speed is comparable to apple g5s

http://www.tiny.com/

where the cheapest one is going to cost you

1,999.00 without credit terms

in comparison in a pc i would say you get a lot more in hardware specification then a mac offers

and they say macs faster but in benchmark tests the amd 64 has been comparable in speed if not faster sometimes
so what constitutes the ludicrous prices is beyond me

the only thing that drives me to want to use a mac at all is sheer curiosity

bzImage · Post by **bzImage** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:08 pm

My 2001 ibook has never failed me, i have it on all the time even at night, my current uptime on this machine is 47 days.

In 2002 my company get me a vaio fx laptop but it has hardware problems after 1 month of use, later he replace it with a ibm laptop, same thing, after 3 days of constant use (24/7) the hard disk just died.

The cheap ibook keeps working like the first day, yes they are more expensive than others (1000 us dollars for a brand new risc processor laptop is expensive ??) but they have quality. (and the OS is great!!)

msimplay · Post by **msimplay** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:49 pm

bzImage wrote:My 2001 ibook has never failed me, i have it on all the time even at night, my current uptime on this machine is 47 days.

In 2002 my company get me a vaio fx laptop but it has hardware problems after 1 month of use, later he replace it with a ibm laptop, same thing, after 3 days of constant use (24/7) the hard disk just died.

The cheap ibook keeps working like the first day, yes they are more expensive than others (1000 us dollars for a brand new risc processor laptop is expensive ??) but they have quality. (and the OS is great!!)

erm an x86 with any unix/linux system can do what u just described in terms of uptime

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:10 pm

After seeing uptimes of near and over a year, 47 days does not impress me.

I never have good uptimes since I usually take my comp to my friends' houses and crap, but when school comes I probably will.

If I had an iBook I'd be using Gentoo on it because I see no reason to use OS X seeing that I'm not a fan of not having a terminal/virtual console and could do without all the "eye candy" which I like to call "ugly bloat".

apeitheo · Post by **apeitheo** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:24 pm

What is the point of having Linux vs Other_Operating_System threads? Just choose what you like and stick with it

Anyway, Personally I like the power of Linux, and the choice. I would love to have a frontend Mac OSX type interface that would be very customizable though.

Oh and the case for G5 looks ever so nice

wilburpan · Post by **wilburpan** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:21 am

Pwnz3r wrote:If I had an iBook I'd be using Gentoo on it because I see no reason to use OS X seeing that I'm not a fan of not having a terminal/virtual console and could do without all the "eye candy" which I like to call "ugly bloat".

There is a Terminal program available in OS X. It even has variable transparency!

Regarding the issue of whether Powerbooks represent good value or not: I still haven't seen the x86 based notebook that can match a Powerbook in terms of features AND form factor AND weight. You might get two out of the three, but not all three.

The closest would be some of the Sony ultralight laptops, but if you configure a 1.5 GHz Centrino V505 with a DVD burner, 256 MB RAM and a 60 GB HD, it comes out to $2150. The 12" Powerbook with a 1.33 GHz G4 and otherwise identical specs is $1799. You can argue as to whether the clock speed matters, but I'd be willing to bet that the two CPUs are pretty similar in performance.

In fact, the video card in the Powerbook (64 MB NVidia Geforce 5200) has twice the memory of the video card in the Vaio (32 MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9200).

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:40 am

wilburpan wrote:
Pwnz3r wrote:If I had an iBook I'd be using Gentoo on it because I see no reason to use OS X seeing that I'm not a fan of not having a terminal/virtual console and could do without all the "eye candy" which I like to call "ugly bloat".
There is a Terminal program available in OS X. It even has variable transparency!

Regarding the issue of whether Powerbooks represent good value or not: I still haven't seen the x86 based notebook that can match a Powerbook in terms of features AND form factor AND weight. You might get two out of the three, but not all three.

The closest would be some of the Sony ultralight laptops, but if you configure a 1.5 GHz Centrino V505 with a DVD burner, 256 MB RAM and a 60 GB HD, it comes out to $2150. The 12" Powerbook with a 1.33 GHz G4 and otherwise identical specs is $1799. You can argue as to whether the clock speed matters, but I'd be willing to bet that the two CPUs are pretty similar in performance.

In fact, the video card in the Powerbook (64 MB NVidia Geforce 5200) has twice the memory of the video card in the Vaio (32 MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9200).

I thought this was about Mac OS X and not the hardware that runs it.... Just a quick comment on the hardware. You have to remember that Macs are virtually impossible to upgrade except for RAM and the videocard. However, seeing that the topic was created about the Mac OS, I shall keep the rest of my post on that topic.

No matter how much "Joe" might like OS X, "Jim" might not like it. The so called "eye candy" to me only gets in the way and makes it look like crap. Some people might like a huge dock menu and many other pointless things like a 3D switching cube, but some hate those things and think they're fugly just like some people think that things are fugly without them.

It's all a matter of choice and preferences, and I prefer to build my own computer and run Gentoo. Even if I bought a Mac laptop I'd put Gentoo on it.

msimplay · Post by **msimplay** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:10 am

wilburpan wrote:
Pwnz3r wrote:If I had an iBook I'd be using Gentoo on it because I see no reason to use OS X seeing that I'm not a fan of not having a terminal/virtual console and could do without all the "eye candy" which I like to call "ugly bloat".
There is a Terminal program available in OS X. It even has variable transparency!

Regarding the issue of whether Powerbooks represent good value or not: I still haven't seen the x86 based notebook that can match a Powerbook in terms of features AND form factor AND weight. You might get two out of the three, but not all three.

The closest would be some of the Sony ultralight laptops, but if you configure a 1.5 GHz Centrino V505 with a DVD burner, 256 MB RAM and a 60 GB HD, it comes out to $2150. The 12" Powerbook with a 1.33 GHz G4 and otherwise identical specs is $1799. You can argue as to whether the clock speed matters, but I'd be willing to bet that the two CPUs are pretty similar in performance.

In fact, the video card in the Powerbook (64 MB NVidia Geforce 5200) has twice the memory of the video card in the Vaio (32 MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9200).

yes so are the g5 and amd athlon 64 except between mac and pc based computers mac is a whole lot more expensive
and also the fact that you have to buy a mac as it is
with pc's u can build from scratch and then it costs u a lot less
pc's have this alternative
but macs do not and so are more expensive then macs

ps no one in their right mind should by a sony vaio
i've got my pc maxed out with similar specification to the sony vaio computer except mine cost a fraction of that computer

if you think its not a fair comparison ,ie macs and sony's being brand computer names

pcs have their alternative whereas macs do not
i mean where would i be able to pic up an apple g5 under a £1000

probably nowhere at this moment in time
but pcs have their alternatives

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:32 am

msimplay wrote:
wilburpan wrote:
Pwnz3r wrote:If I had an iBook I'd be using Gentoo on it because I see no reason to use OS X seeing that I'm not a fan of not having a terminal/virtual console and could do without all the "eye candy" which I like to call "ugly bloat".
There is a Terminal program available in OS X. It even has variable transparency!

Regarding the issue of whether Powerbooks represent good value or not: I still haven't seen the x86 based notebook that can match a Powerbook in terms of features AND form factor AND weight. You might get two out of the three, but not all three.

The closest would be some of the Sony ultralight laptops, but if you configure a 1.5 GHz Centrino V505 with a DVD burner, 256 MB RAM and a 60 GB HD, it comes out to $2150. The 12" Powerbook with a 1.33 GHz G4 and otherwise identical specs is $1799. You can argue as to whether the clock speed matters, but I'd be willing to bet that the two CPUs are pretty similar in performance.

In fact, the video card in the Powerbook (64 MB NVidia Geforce 5200) has twice the memory of the video card in the Vaio (32 MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9200).
yes so are the g5 and amd athlon 64 except between mac and pc based computers mac is a whole lot more expensive
and also the fact that you have to buy a mac as it is
with pc's u can build from scratch and then it costs u a lot less
pc's have this alternative
but macs do not and so are more expensive then macs

ps no one in their right mind should by a sony vaio
i've got my pc maxed out with similar specification to the sony vaio computer except mine cost a fraction of that computer

if you think its not a fair comparison ,ie macs and sony's being brand computer names

pcs have their alternative whereas macs do not
i mean where would i be able to pic up an apple g5 under a £1000

probably nowhere at this moment in time
but pcs have their alternatives

This is one thing I also enjoy about the x86 architecture.

I like being able to fully upgrade my computer whenever I want and choose a case color that I like and not one that the hardware developers at apple thinks is nice. I'll take my black Enermax case(my real desk over a white and plastic-looking G5 or whatever any day.

It's all in what you like, and I like being able to know exactly what's in my system and upgrade every part.

JKosasih · Post by **JKosasih** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:46 am

Since this isn't about x86 vs ppc, I won't mention anything hardware-wise.

No matter how much "Joe" might like OS X, "Jim" might not like it. The so called "eye candy" to me only gets in the way and makes it look like crap. Some people might like a huge dock menu and many other pointless things like a 3D switching cube, but some hate those things and think they're fugly just like some people think that things are fugly without them.

With the 'eye candy' business, it's called configurability. You can change the looks of OS X if you don't like the default. You can change the size of the dock and even auto-hide it. Hell, you can even turn on magnification, which is done RIGHT (hello KDE developers). You can use themes and even change the fonts system wide to a certain extent. How about using OS X before saying stuff about it?

As for animations, like the 3d switching animation or the sheet sliding in animation, how does that make a desktop ugly? Yeah, the animation for Expose makes my desktop so horrid

I'll admit that you can't turn off them off but it doesn't really effect workflow like some people claim. The animations are short and quick and are not really distracting and it doesn't take a lot of processing power. Plus, animations add to the feel of the OS. But hey, if you don't like Aqua, then you could always put your favorite window manager on OS X (or not).

Honestly, sometimes I think people like to kick and scream about a product just because of the one thing they don't 'like' and they like to pile on a lot of BS to 'back' their 'argument'.

...my real desk over a white and plastic-looking G5 or whatever any day...

...see? Yeah, the current PowerMacs are 'white and plastic-looking'...

People use what they prefer but usually they only use what they use because they refuse to invest energy to learn about another platform.

P.S. It sucks to see some window managers not utilizing the power of today's computers. Even KDE+GNOME/X are far behind Aqua/Quartz and the future Avalon (I believe) in Longhorn. Non-unified systems suck (in general).

P.P.S. Linux sucks in the ease-of-use department really really bad like people mentioned above. Windows and OS X smokes it. Even the 'desktop' distros don't even cut it. Sit a noob in front of a linux box and then tell them to install a program. Tell them to change their wallpaper in a non-KDE/GNOME wm. Tell them to change the resolution of the screen. Tell them to connect to a Windows shared folder. Chances are

is the reaction you'll get.

dmouritsendk · Post by **dmouritsendk** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:12 pm

JKosasih wrote: P.P.S. Linux sucks in the ease-of-use department really really bad like people mentioned above. Windows and OS X smokes it. Even the 'desktop' distros don't even cut it. Sit a noob in front of a linux box and then tell them to install a program. Tell them to change their wallpaper in a non-KDE/GNOME wm. Tell them to change the resolution of the screen. Tell them to connect to a Windows shared folder. Chances are is the reaction you'll get.

Why in the love of god would you sit a newbie in-front of a non-KDE/Gnome wm?

Changing wallpapers is as easy on Gnome as on any other platform, right click destop choose "Change Desktop Background". Not exactly rocket science.

Changing resolution? Click the menu, choose Applications->Desktop Preferences->Screen Resolution.

Connecting a windows share. Open a nautilus window, click File->Connect To Server.

Installing programs isn't much of a problem on a decent distro, even-though i agree the Linux community needs some sort of a standardized binary package auto-installer ala setup on win32. KDE and GNOME should make their own, distro independent installers.

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:37 pm

EDIT: Double post for some reason. :\

placeholder · Post by **placeholder** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:43 pm

P.P.S. Linux sucks in the ease-of-use department really really bad like people mentioned above. Windows and OS X smokes it. Even the 'desktop' distros don't even cut it. Sit a noob in front of a linux box and then tell them to install a program. Tell them to change their wallpaper in a non-KDE/GNOME wm. Tell them to change the resolution of the screen. Tell them to connect to a Windows shared folder. Chances are is the reaction you'll get.

That's a stupid and pointless argument. The fact is that there are easier choices to use, it's not like GNOME/KDE is a challenge to figure out. Not every WM/DE is for everyone, and it would help a lot if you could learn that bit of information and apply it to the real world instead of using an irrelevant and stupid argument. It's not like a newbie _has_ to use Fluxbox or some other WM that requires some knowledge.

As for animations, like the 3d switching animation or the sheet sliding in animation, how does that make a desktop ugly? Yeah, the animation for Expose makes my desktop so horrid

Looks like someone doesn't understand people with other opinions. Look dumbass, you speak as if your OS X desktop looks awesome with expose and such, and I happen to not like useless menu/etc animations. I like alpha blending and no icons on my desktop and the Fluxbox style I made. If you don't, then that doesn't much matter to me. It's not like you're forcing me to use OS X with your setup or I'm forcing you to use my Fluxbox setup so where is the need to try to refute my opinions with yours?

Why in the hell are you trying to refute what I said if it's my opinion? It's annoying as hell and quite frankly people that do this shit IMO (that means In My Opinion if you didn't know that) are rejects that can't accept other people's opinions.

Oh boo hoo, I don't like certain features of OS X. I'll probably end up trying it sometime, however, I do know for certain that I don't like that 3D CPU cycle-wasting stuff, and auto-hide on toolbars annoys me. Unless I can kill the dock menu and almost every other 'eye candy' element then I don't call that customizable. Notice the use of "I don't like" and not "totally sucks" or something. Please, don't debate someone who's starting their damn opinion.

True customization, IMO(oh, that scary acronym again), is being able to choose what the GUI looks and works like completely and not what other people think you might want as an option. I think that is more controlled by the devs more than the users when it comes to Mac OS X. Also, I can't live without multiple workspaces and according to my Mac using friend there is an app that can somewhat do it but not perfectly.

What gives you the audacity to attempt to refute my dang opinion? I only state my opinion, I never say that anyone else's is wrong so you have no need to attempt to attack my opinion unless I try taking yours away. I mean, look at my post. Read the damn thing instead of crying because someone doesn't like the same exact stuff that you do. For example:

pwnz3r wrote:Some people might like a huge dock menu and many other pointless things like a 3D switching cube, but some hate those things and think they're fugly just like some people think that things are fugly without them.

Now if you pay attention to that sentence you will notice that I state that I don't like those elements but some people do and they think the opposite way. I'm not saying that everyone needs to agree with me. However, by the way you typed your post you seem like a self-centered prick who thinks that everyone is entitled to your opinion and not their own. Please, start using things like "IMO", "I think", "I like", "I prefer", and etc.

Now to teach you a lesson based on factual refuting, not over-opinionated-ness. You said:

It sucks to see some window managers not utilizing the power of today's computers. Even KDE+GNOME/X are far behind Aqua/Quartz and the future Avalon (I believe) in Longhorn. Non-unified systems suck (in general).

However, there is a major technical and factual reason that non-unified systems are more stable. Here are those reasons:

1) Layers - Instead of just running a GUI, Linux works with layers to add stability. This is the heiarchy:

System kernel -> Shadow apps (for login) -> shell(such as zsh/bash) -> X server -> WW/DE.

#Some people even stop at the shell with servers and the like. Now what are the benefits of that layered system you may ask?

a) In the case of an X server freeze, instead of the GUI locking the entire system as it does in Windows(not sure about Mac OS X so I'm not going to take a guess), you can kill the X server or Window Manager/Desktop Environment and then be dropped to the shell.

b) The shell doesn't freeze and therefor will be fine when the Xserver is shut off or if no X server is used.

c) Once you shutdown the X server you can run it again or fix problems because it's a program and not an integrated system binary.

You see, with unification of the GUI and etc, if the GUI goes down you may as well hit your reset button and stop playing around hoping that the mouse and keyboard will work again.

Now I suppose it's my opinion to like non-unified for stability reasons, but if you don't enjoy that stability, and instead like it all unified then that's fine with me. That's what _you_ like and I am _NOT_ required to agree, as I _AM_ entitled to _MY OWN_ opinion and don't care to have you try to shove yours onto me.

If you're going to attack something like non system-unity then make sure you know what you're talking about. I've done my homework on OS X via friends that use it and Google, however, it seems that you just want to bash on non-unity in order to attempt to say that people who like it are all wrong. I have a simple cure for you, why not go back to Pre-School and learn 'sharing' and what 'opinions' are. Or heck, look it up on webster.com.

~Pwnz3r(You can kiss my ass now, the post is over.)[/quote]

wilburpan · Post by **wilburpan** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:00 pm

Pwnz3r wrote:a) In the case of an X server freeze, instead of the GUI locking the entire system as it does in Windows(not sure about Mac OS X so I'm not going to take a guess), you can kill the X server or Window Manager/Desktop Environment and then be dropped to the shell.

Actually, this can be done in OS X as well. I've managed to lock up my iMac by having a network connection to my Gentoo box and then shutting down my Gentoo box without first breaking the connection. You can still open up a terminal and hack your way out of this mess. Also, if the Finder is locked up for other reasons, you can restart the Finder via the OS X equivalent of ctrl-alt-esc in KDE.

OS X is also layered. Remember -- it's a *nix based operating system. A schematic of this is on this page on the Apple website.

I think there may be a misunderstanding of "unification" going on here. OS X apps are unified the same was that KDE apps are unified and Gnome apps adhere (mainly) to the Gnome HIG. OS X is not unified in the same way that Windows is.