Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

I think that it is rather enlightening how Apple's OS/X system (and the iPhone...) approached the fundamental problem of how to make "Unix-like" technologies palatable to the masses. Most importantly, they completely buried 99% of the complexity. They reduced the "mental burden" of how to use their system to an absolute minimum.

(Note: I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro, with both a Linux box and a Windows box sitting right next door to it. My routine daily working life...)

OS/X is, of course, entirely based on Mach, and if you do more than just scratch the surface of the thing (which, of course, 99% of Apple's users never [have to..!! yay!!!!] do), all of the nasty complexity is right there. "Just like Linux." But Apple did a terrific job of creating a system that is absolutely usable by my mother.

(Windows absolutely screwed that up. It took quite a bit of work to persuade my parents to stay well clear of that OS. Fortunately for all of us, they did.)

I think that there's a positive lesson to be learned in Apple's general approach and in the success they have achieved using it.

And, by the way, I do not view this as a "versus Linux" approach, or for that matter, even a "versus Windows" approach. It's all high-technology, and we're all just trying to make money from it. In spite of our parents and grandparents. We can take lessons from anything, anywhere. Some are lessons that we follow; others, lessons that we avoid.

I own a macbook pro, and unusually am using it at the moment from my ubuntu partition. I hate Osx, i find it so bloody restrictive, can't customise anything; made my dock 2d.. wish i had a more windows/kde like panel though.

No argument about that. Although you can, and I do, run a case-sensitive file system that supports symbolic links and other essential necessities, the fact remains that Apple's approach is very much, "the Mac way or the highway." And it's also rather austere. (I finally grabbed from my supply of "rainbow" Apple stickers and put one over the top-light on my MBP, just so it wouldn't look quite so damm boring.)

I flip-flop about the iPhone, which I recently traded for an Android partly because (a) little by little, the iPhone was consenting to do less-and-less things (okay... it was an iPhone-2 ... I'm cheap), but also (b) because I really need a phone that can roam on networks other than AT&T. (I own a house in a mountain cove that AT&T's towers basically don't reach, so when I'm there I'm talking on some cheez-whiz local network ... when it's up ... but now I can do it.) There is definitely an utter and complete lack of the "slick-willy sophistication" of the iPhone, but in exchange for that you have a choice, including the choice to do things that Apple doesn't seem to be too interested in doing. Yet, now you have to figure out how to do things that the iPhone just does. I'm frankly of two minds about that.

I admit that I know myself to be curiously reticent about high technology even though I am in the business of designing and writing computer software! I bring about change, but I personally don't like change. I think that there is a very strong psychology element at play here, in addition to the technology. This might be something that Linux, in terms of general-public acceptance, has been a little bit slow to grasp. Or, not. Maybe it's just me.

I don't mind change if it's for the better. But if it makes it worse I don't understand why it was made in the first place. I suppose personal opinion always plays a hand in that determination though and I think software developers should always try to create an option to revert the change if the user prefers (with regards to software).

I used to have a MacBook Pro and I found the rigor of the EFI and OS to be particularly annoying. I actually bought it for the hardware originally -- I really like Apple's design when it comes to hardware, aesthetics and ergonomics.

Well, the first thing that I did with mine was to replace the default filesystem with a case-sensitive one, which also gave me goodness like symbolic links and so on, which I need.

I run several different guest OS's, including both Windows and Linux, using several distinct external (Firewire-connected) disk drives for that purpose. (In several cases, the entire drive is natively formatted as the guest pleases, and is made accessible only to that guest, who is given access to nothing else.)

Apple does talk about their system in great technical depth, but they do so only within the Apple Developer Network. They keep the "deep tech talk" entirely out of public view.

The most disconcerting thing about OS/X vis-a-vis Linux is ... Mach's not Linux.

The most disconcerting thing about OS/X vis-a-vis Linux is ... Mach's not Linux.

…reminds me of this little "rant" about the differences between BSD and Linux…for some reason.

Many of you have read or heard many myths about using linux. I want to address one of them which is Linux is an old operating system. I believe this came from the MS camp in the past.

Because linux has some of the roots of unix they believe linux it is old. Well, I don't think so.

Linux, windows and MacOS are just names. I believe it depends on the versions/kernels that determines an old or modern OS.

For example, if you are running a distro with a linux kernel of 3.x and a modern desktop manager, would you say it is a more modern OS than a windows XP or Vista? Or if it's a windows 7 OS would you consider them to be both modern OSes?

I know linux, windows and MacOS are entirely different beasts, but I am talking about operating systems versions in general. I believe the myth of linux being an old OS is wrong and they should look at the underlying hood and specs of linux before thinking so.

What do you think?

I've never heard anyone call Linux old, and if anyone had, i'd say they were simply getting it mixed up with Unix, because it's Unix like. The original Linux kernel was created in 1991 if i'm not mistaking, making it 21 years old, which is pretty young. Windows is infact older than Linux.

Thanks for replying.

Actually I wasn't talking about the age of the operating systems in general. I was referring to the versions of the operating system.

For example if someone is using windows XP and you are using the latest linnux distro with kernel 3.x, would you say you have a more modern oS

I think versions are self explanatory, (maybe less obvious with Microsofts system) Why would someone consider; the latest Ubuntu for example; an old operating system?

The reason I started this post is because my friend is using windows XP and I told him I am using Arch. He than says "Isn't linux an old OS?" I told him it depends. I asked him isn't windows XP an old OS of windows? he said yes, reluctantly...

So I told him my Arch OS is more modern than his windows XP. I know linux is not windows and windows is not linux and is foolish to compare them. So, I am talking in terms of operating systems in whole.

Don't worry we weren't bashing each others OSes. It was all in good fun.

It sounds like your friend probably thinks of Linux, the way someone would think of dos. Probably just misinformed.

Originally Posted by Linux-Rocks The reason I started this post is because my friend is using windows XP and I told him I am using Arch. He than says "Isn't linux an old OS?" I told him it depends. I asked him isn't windows XP an old OS of windows? he said yes, reluctantly... So I told him my Arch OS is more modern than his windows XP. I know linux is not windows and windows is not linux and is foolish to compare them. So, I am talking in terms of operating systems in whole. Don't worry we weren't bashing each others OSes. It was all in good fun.

Well, try to grasp this. I use Gentoo. It doesn't have a version like most Linux dostros do. Yea, they make a new CD every year and name it something but that is just the CD. I upgrade my OS a couple times a week. Rarely is anything on my OS more than a month or so old. Yea, some packages may not get updated very often but they are not old either.

Gentoo uses what is called a rolling release. When for example KDE releases something, it's available a few days later depending on whether you run unstable or not. I'm on KDE 4.8 right now. A lot of distros are not even up to 4.5 or so. Same with other things as well. If a new kernel gets released, I get it a few days later. Some releases are quicker than others since it takes work to get the new things added. KDE is likely the longest since it has a lot of packages.

I find it odd that people think Linux is old when Linux had tabs in its browsers long before MS's IE did. My ex hated tabs when she had to use my system since hers was broke. Laptops and beds do not make good friends when running. Tends to get smokey. Anyway, when we got her another lappy, IE had tabs. Well, welcome to the new world MS. That's just one I can think of off the top of my head.

I think most distros are more up to date and has newer features than MS could ever dream about. Besides, most new features, you have to wait and buy a new MS version to get it. In Linux, when you do your regular updates, you should get the new features. Even the slower moving distros get there faster than MS does.

Yeah, I know what you mean dalek

I seriously think that if you install and use Ubuntu or Debian you will know Ubuntu or Debian but if you install Slackware or Gentoo or Arch you will know Linux.
So how can someone who refer to Linux as Ubuntu or, worst, never seen Linux talk about Linux?
I'm a Windows/Mac/Linux user (I really need to know how to use them all for my job) and I can say the difference, but never, NEVER allow anyone to talk about what he doen't know without make him pay with incontrovertible arguments that make him appears like an idiot!