Ask Slashdot: Mac To Linux Return Flow? 965
jasnw writes "I'm one of apparently many people who moved to OS X from Linux in the early/mid 2000s for their desktop system, keeping Linux boxes around for the heavy lifting and server work. I may also be part of a large segment of that group now considering a return because of all the iOS-ification of OS X, despite the fact that the Linux desktop still falls short in the 'it just works' area. I'm angry enough at Apple, and wary enough of Linux, that I might just go to using Windows 7 for the desktop (not Win8, however). What is the feeling/experience of other 'traitors' who run OS X for the desktop and Linux for everything else?"
Quality entertainment (Score:5, Funny)
*Munches popcorn and waits*
Re:Quality entertainment (Score:5, Funny)
Popcorn? You're munching popcorn?
Hmph. Everyone knows corn nuts are the best snack for well-reasoned and rational comment watching!
Re:Quality entertainment (Score:4, Funny)
Great news.
Now, will you give me an insight regarding "Almond Milk". I can't find almond udders - even with a magnifing glass.
Re: (Score:3)
I tried guzzling pork rinds, but they just powder and shoot out my nose...
Re:Quality entertainment (Score:4, Interesting)
There are still a couple things I miss from back when I used OS X (around 5-6 years ago now). Adium is by far the best IM client. Quicksilver was beyond brilliant. Omni Outliner helped me right many a long paper in college, and Onenote isn't quite as good. Textmate and Textwrangler was also very good. I haven't found replacements for these in Windows or Linux land yet, or replacements that can match their level of usability and polish.
Granted, none of these could woo me back to OS X, especially now, but they were better than anything I've found on any other platform.
OS X is the king of productivity apps, and the people who generally make OS X apps actually pay attention to their usability and interface, unlike most devs in Linux land.
Just start collecting livecd (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a livecd of each and every desktop available for linux. Try them, choose one, get things done.
MasterTroll (Score:5, Funny)
Your trollcraft is strong, you named every OS, praising it whilst simultaneously deriding it. I give you 32 troll points for what will likely be highly polarized responses and self-sustaining conjecture and disagreement.
Re:MasterTroll (Score:5, Funny)
BeOS would be the best, if it were not for OS/2.
Of course, OS/2 couldn't hold a candle to AmigaOS.
Unless RiscOS never existed.
Of course, if RiscOS was open source, *truly* open source, then it might be as good as FreeBSD.
However, FreeBSD isn't nearly as secure as OpenBSD.
And OpenBSD is great, unless you want to run it hardware people actually *own* which is why NetBSD is better.
Of course, NetBSD is missing all the amazing features of a mature OS like OpenVMS.
Except OpenVMS is a dinosaur, not nearly as modern as Solaris.
And if you're a masochist, Solaris is great, which is why sane people use ChromeOS.
Unless you actually want to *do* something, in which case there's QNX.
So the answer is... FreeDOS.
Does DESQView run in FreeDOS? 'Cause you do need an X server...
You and me both (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is a great kernel. Linux has never had a good or stable GUI environment. Ever.
OS X and iOS QA has gone to shit. They're toys from China that break a lot now.
Windows 8 is a LSD trip. Windows 7 is the new Windows XP. However the Microsoft people will say Windows "next version" will be super better!!!! (since about Windows 3.11) like a broken record.
What's wrong with paper again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You and me both (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't had to hack files to get video, wireless (wifi), wireless (cellular) or modems (do they still make those?) working since 2007, except I did have to download the proprietary NVidia driver to run OpenGL for Compiz. In 2007 my new laptop's ATI video card did need a bleeding edge open source driver, that was the last time.
Re: (Score:3)
No. He's just a lame troll repeating someone else's outdated FUD.
I originally switched to Ubuntu in 2006 because it "just worked" on a random company laptop.
I've never had problems with an Ubuntu upgrade.
Recently had a MacOS upgrade screw the pooch though.
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ. GNOME 2.32 was about as close to perfect as a desktop has ever been achieved.
(GNOME 3: you can still get the old UI back, but it's hidden as being a possibility. The 3.x Panel does work better with screen resolution changes (what games often do) since applets are snapped to left, center, or right instead of being freely placable (it's a good thing actually).)
Answer=FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Answer=FreeBSD (Score:5, Informative)
PCBSD is getting there. I still run FreeBSD-9 and FreeBSD-HEAD on laptops. But I've used PCBSD on netbooks and laptops - when the hardware support is there, it's actually rather pleasant.
The only hardware support issues have been video and wifi. I can fix the latter, I can't fix the former. :)
Re:Answer=FreeBSD (Score:5, Funny)
The only hardware support issues have been video and wifi.
Oh, that's it? I'm glad that there are no issues with anything important...
There and back again (Score:5, Insightful)
I went linux -> mac in about 2004, and mac -> linux in 2009. Basically got sick of the extra hassle required to get stuff that runs out of the box on linux running on mac. eg a mysql/php/apache stack that actually matched all the linux servers I administered; qgis, grass gis, inkscape, scribus,.. And by 2009 linux-on-the-desktop was a lot more 'just works' than it was in 2004. In short, the extra time I spend getting my mint linux setup working as I want from fresh install to doing work is much shorter than the amount of time spent doing the same on osx. But that's just me - my particular software needs are dictated by the kind of academic work I do, and what you do with your computers may make your experience different.
Re:There and back again (Score:5, Interesting)
2009 must've been a different year.
I installed a PostGIS, Apache, PHP, QGIS, mapserver stack on both a Debian server and my OS X desktop. Getting it to run on Debian required moving the entire server to unstable, but after that it was easy and painless. Getting it running on OS X required a few manual downloads, but no other troubles.
I mean, if you're happy then all is good. I'm just saying. Because I just did the mostly same thing.
I found much the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I found much the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything hard looks easy when compared to impossible.
Macs are fine so long as you stay on the guided tour. If you are the least bit creative with how you use technology, you will likely find that things aren't so easy.
What is the point here? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just cannot figure out what this "question" is all about? You *apparently* *might* be part of a *possibly* large group of OS X people who *might* want to go using Windows?
Well, I just might not feel like answering this. My experience is that this type of questions are apparently suggestive, and only meant to be so.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how he is concerned about, "iOS-ification" and then wants to use Windows which did what can only be described as a crappy version of iOS-ification in windows 8 while Apple has done little to OS X except cause ruffled feathers, mountains out of mole hills, noise at /.
since you asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. :-)
I'm not going back. I'm exactly as you describe - my desktop runs OS X and my mobile devices run iOS, but my servers run Debian.
Neither of which is going to change. Specifically, you would have to shoot me before I use Windows as my work environment. I'm happy that I can run a very similar environment on my OS X and Debian machines, which makes development just so much easier. I boot Win7 once a decade or so when I want to play a windows-only game, though mostly I pick games available for OS X (Guild Wars 2, League of Legends, yeah!). Every time I have to use windows for anything other than launching the game I want to play, I cringe. It's just so... words fail me. I don't understand why it's not considered a violation of human rights.
You wanted emotions, there you got em. OS X is the best desktop I know. Debian Linux is the best server operating system I know. Windows is the best reason to shoot someone.
Re:since you asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just can't get that emotional about an OS. I ran Linux on the desktop from the late 90s until about 2006, when I started getting seriously into digital photography. I reached a point where I needed Photoshop and real colour management, which left me with the choice of Windows or Mac. I already had the PC hardware, so I went with Windows.
Every now and then I look at the latest iMacs and think... maybe. When I really think about it, I just can't justify the price difference. Windows XP just worked for me. Windows 7 just worked. I'm now using 8, and it just works. I have WAMP to get a nice simple stack for web development, I use perl and imagemagick for some batch processing of files, but get to use Lightroom and Photoshop for the real work. If I wanted a real command line I'd stick cygwin on.
The OS is just a launcher. OK, the metro start screen is a bit clunky, but most of the time I'm on the desktop with a few apps and a browser running. It makes absolutely no difference to me which OS I'm using at that point, as long as it runs the applications I need. Since Windows does it cheaper, I use Windows.
Re:since you asked... (Score:4, Informative)
You get emotional when you have to work with the OS at a lower level than just launching applications. Ie, you need to write and run some scripts, or just type in commands. Windows is just painfully bad for having a text console; it's an ugly console with bad controls (as mentioned earlier, your normal highlight/copy/paste don't work well); it has a stupid command line processor as the default, and even the power user shell is verbose and non-standard. You can replace this by using Cygwin to get a much more sane Unix style, but it is slow and quirky and painful to integrate with existing Windows command utilities (such as \ versus / path delimiters).
Now many users don't have to deal with this. My friend who only uses Windows also only uses an IDE and he fails to understand what my gripe is about even though he started his career with command line oriented operating systems. Most of the time it's no big deal to me; if I use Windows to browse the web, play games, and do taxes, I don't mind it that much and it feels little different from Linux or OS X. However when I start developing code and enter my command line frame of mind then Windows drives me crazy (I do not use an IDE); whereas Linux and OS X work very smoothly in comparison. (even when just playing games I find myself opening up a Cygwin bash shell just to copy some patch files around, unzipping files, etc).
If the "applications you need" involve the command line, then Windows is annoying and will tempt the user to become emotional.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going back.
I am. I gave the Mac a shot... two years. But I just can't adapt myself to it, and it won't adapt to me. There are various small problems, but the lack of a usable focus-follows-mouse is huge. Linux is just more comfortable.
Re:since you asked... (Score:4, Interesting)
OS X is pretty nice, and I was dubious when I started using it. I don't see any iOS-ification, except for the launchpad which is trivial to ignore, and the apple store which is even easier to ignore. On the other hand you get a full Unix shell and API to work with while still having your enterprise applications that tend to be required at the office. This is much better than when I had both a Linux laptop plus Windows desktop, and I had to keep switching back and forth regularly. Of course, you're stuck using it only on overpriced computers with features you don't need, but we can't have everything.
Re:since you asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are my top 3 nits to pick on Windows. They sound very random, but that's because they have existed for many releases and would be VERY EASY for Redmond developers to address if usability was at all a priority.
-- Seth Johnson
Re:since you asked... (Score:4, Informative)
Command Console doesn't have simple highlight / copy / paste functionality.
Yes it does; it's just disabled by default (?!?!?!)
When the default application isn't set for a document type, the first choice that's provided in the resulting pop-up is "Do you want to wander around on the web to find an application that can open this document?" rather than the option of selecting an application from the list of installed applications.
This, surprisingly, is configurable too. Once again, stupid default, but can be changed on an entire enterprise if you desire with a simple policy update.
In SQL Server Management Studio, when you have multiple sessions open, they are tabbed. Even when you only have two or three tabs, the tabs are scrunched horizontally such that you can't read the labels, which usually start with the server name, then the database name. So, if you have six sessions all connecting to different databases on 'foo' server, all six tabs are labelled 'foo...'. Sure, that's not the OS, but that is an example of Redmond not giving a shit to produce quality usability in ways that would be trivially simple.
I could point to similar things wrong with Oracle and the various half-baked front ends to Postgres, MySQL and NoSQL. That's not even getting into the mess that is Hadoop front ends....
I've used Macs for 29 years; I've used Debian for 15 years... and I've used Windows for 17 years. Windows 7 has its annoying bits, but the points you made are not among them.
I'm still a "Windows in the enterprise, Debian Linux on the servers, OS X at home" person, and probably will be for some time to come.
Re:since you asked... (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly is this iOSsification people keep complaining about? There's nothing forced onto you that I can think of.
Quite a few things:
They got rid of spaces. You still have different virtual desktops, but I can no longer assign applications to always open in a particular one. They're also not always there, assigned in a configuration that was easy for me to remember, "from here, go to the desktop above to get to the browser, or the desktop to my right to get to xcode.
Applications no longer quit, instead they keep running in the background, if you click the red button. You can command-q for now, but they still try to retain state. Which is insane. When I open up a new video in quicktime, why would I want the last video that I watched to pop up in a window beside it? I keep having to go and close that other window. (At least now they give me the option to not save the current state of the desktop when I log out. No, I do not want to log back in and see what I was working on before. It's very unlikely I'll be working on the same thing. If I do have something that I always open every time I log in, and I do, I know how to set applications to start automatically every time.)
Applications are auto-saving on me. I don't mind that things auto-save into a backup file, for recovery purposes, but you should NOT overwrite the file I'm working on without my specifically clicking save. I know mac os x lets you get back to previous versions. That's cumbersome unless you're the one who chose to punctuate where each new version starts.
Applications are trying to save to iCloud by default, instead of the local drive. I don't have a problem with iCloud, but it shouldn't be the default location.
The launchpad displays applications in multiple screens and I gotta swipe right to see the other applications. That doesn't make any sense when you have a wheel mouse...I just want to scroll down. The applications folder still exists, so this one doesn't bother me as much, I can avoid using launchpad altogether.
When the iPhone came out, I remember many people saying that apple fully intended to eventually make OS X as locked down as iOS, and a bunch of people dismissing that as conspiracy theories. They have, however, been slowly moving toward that. They released the Mac OS X app store, which isn't really a problem. But then they made it so that you can't install any application that doesn't come from the app store by default, until you go and change the settings to allow it. My prediction is that the next step is going to be making it a setting that you can't get to without going to the command-line, and then they'll just not give you the option, and people will have to jailbreak their macs.
Re:since you asked... (Score:4, Informative)
You still have different virtual desktops, but I can no longer assign applications to always open in a particular one.
Not to say that there aren't some things that I would like back from Leopard, but what you say is not correct. I can still assign applications to open on specific desktops. This is the only way I could imagine things working for some of my workflows.
Right click open app's icon -> Options -> Assign to; that should get you sorted with this.
They're also not always there, assigned in a configuration that was easy for me to remember, "from here, go to the desktop above to get to the browser, or the desktop to my right to get to xcode.
This too works, except that up and down are gone. I have three desktops created that are always there by default. All you have to do is create empty desktops and leave them there.
Applications no longer quit, instead they keep running in the background, if you click the red button.
That is how it always was. Red button closes window, Command-Q quits. In fact, the one thing that bugs me now at times is that if an app has no open window, it automatically quits it. This is inconsistent. But either way, what you say is not how it works.
You can command-q for now, but they still try to retain state. Which is insane.
Agreed, if it did this by default, this would be insane. But this is not what any of the applications do anymore. When quit and restarted the application starts brand new. You can enable the resume previous state options, but in 10.8 that is not default.
Applications are auto-saving on me. I don't mind that things auto-save into a backup file, for recovery purposes, but you should NOT overwrite the file I'm working on without my specifically clicking save.
This might be personal preference, but I sort of like this. It makes it convenient in case of problems. My laptop had started randomly dying due to a very old battery and this feature saved me many times.
Applications are trying to save to iCloud by default, instead of the local drive. I don't have a problem with iCloud, but it shouldn't be the default location.
Again, iCloud is an option but not the default. Something seems amiss on your setup.
The launchpad displays applications in multiple screens and I gotta swipe right to see the other applications. That doesn't make any sense when you have a wheel mouse...I just want to scroll down. The applications folder still exists, so this one doesn't bother me as much, I can avoid using launchpad altogether.
Exactly, you can now use the Application folder, drag it to the dock and have it show as a stack or folder to quickly browse through every application you have, or use launchpad. Honestly, choice is good. This is not complaint worthy.
They released the Mac OS X app store, which isn't really a problem. But then they made it so that you can't install any application that doesn't come from the app store by default, until you go and change the settings to allow it.
At least you can disable it and even use an option-right-click to launch the application and ignore the security settings. Besides, having something like this is not bad as it ensure some degree of security, especially for "new" users.
Also, the default is not the mac app store only, but mac app store and identified developers. A year ago, this was irritating, but I just got a new Mac and I had to turn it off to install all but two applications. It is not as inconvenient anymore.
My prediction is that the next step is going to be making it a setting that you can't get to without going to the command-line, and then they'll just not give you the option, and people will have to jailbreak their macs.
This is highly unlikely to happen. But if i
End user control could be Linux' end-user entree (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: This is a very speculative long shot ....
But it used to be that differences between platforms in terms of end user control were a matter of degree. Now with commercial operating systems moving rapidly away from that, with more closed systems, restricted app stores, secure boot, locked devices, disregard for privacy, etc., Linux has a much larger opportunity to distinguish itself on that feature (as well as the security that goes with it).
Don't wait for users to tell you they need it; that will be too late. Though privacy and control aren't so 'cool' now, I find it hard to believe that suddenly human beings will have permanently stopped caring about them. The pendulum could swing back, and if that happens you want Linux firmly associated with end user control and privacy in people's minds.
Plus, Linux could educate them simply by presenting an alternative. Few end users understand the value of end user control and openness.
Just stop it (Score:5, Insightful)
What you do with the tools is more important that the tools themselves.
You gave us no real idea what you got going on with your computer aside from some comment made about "heavy lifting and server work." If you can use any of the platforms just decide on one. I have a boot camped rMBP that I use and I'm more than happy with it. I'm not exactly sure what the iOSification of OSX is suppose to mean but it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
BTW: My personal experience is that people who claim that they need a machine for "heavy lifting" just don't know how to make a reasonable computer do what they need it to do. Unless you're talking storage and if you're really using a full functioning computer for storage then you're just lost right out of the gate.
There's only one choice for you in the long run (Score:5, Insightful)
You're leaving the Mac platform because you don't like the direction that platform seems to be headed, right? That's certainly an okay reason to try your luck elsewhere.
But you've already indicated with your "not Win8" comment that you ALSO don't like where the Windows platform is headed.
Windows 7 may be further from the hated future of the Windows OS than the current Mac OS is from the hated future of the Mac OS, and so Win7 may seem nicer for a while because of that. But in less than a decade Win7 will be orphaned for security updates and you're going to have to jump ship again to an OS you don't hate, and the only OS it looks like you're going to want to consider at that point is Linux.
It's time to dive into Linux and start learning what you like and how to make it work for you. Better now while you've got some lead time than in a few years when it becomes an emergency.
I don't feel like a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
I have used both Linux and Windows pretty extensively for my desktop system, and for servers (not always my choice). I love using Linux servers (specifically CentOS) - they perform well for the tasks I use them for, and they are rock solid.
I miss Linux on my Macbook Air probably about as often as I miss having Windows on my Macbook Air. There are plenty of things I don't like about Apple: expensive hardware often lagging on the performance-features front (e.g. USB3 took a while), their 'our way or get lost' approach, how truly awful Finder is (and it is truly awful), and all of the bollocks about 'It just works' (it mostly works). However, I can use the apps I need on it (e.g. Photoshop: and no, Gimp is not a replacement; MS Office: and no, OpenOffice is not a replacement). The touchpad functionality is brilliant (multi-touch, swiping, etc). Menu bars always at the top of the screen is genius, as it turns out. I don't need to deal with installing GTK+, QT, etc etc - although this is mainly just an artifact of the packaging system.
So in essence, I don't feel like a traitor. I feel like I'm using different OSs for different things based on their match to my needs. Mind you, I revisit Linux fairly regularly to check on how it is going as a desktop OS (and was one of the weird folk who didn't mind Gnome 3), and it is certainly getting better, but I always wind up back on OSX (or Windows, prior to that).
If I stop being able to install apps without the app store, or they all need to be digitally signed and approved by Apple, then you'll see me switching to something else faster than you can blink, but that's a ways off yet.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a lot of things I loathe about Finder:
1. If I paste, it goes into the folder I am currently 'in', not the folder I currently have selected. I have to double-click the folder to go into it before pasting, which means I lose my context.
2. Cut and paste are annoying to use (you have to copy, then hold control+option+V, and that only recently became available)
3. There is no easy way to copy the full path of the current folder to the clipboard
4. Typing characters to find what you're looking for in the
iOSification? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "iOSification" of OS X is overblown hyperbole at the moment. Yes, Apple's simplified some of the core apps like iPhoto. Yes, Apple's made the Calendar app fugly. They added the "Launchpad", which you never have to actually see unless you invoke it, and they added the Gatekeeper security feature, which you can switch off with a few clicks of the mouse.
They also recently got rid of the guy who was responsible for some of that stuff, so we may see a roll back on the nasty skeumorphic nonsense.
The core OS, and its UX in general, are still excellent, and every single app distributed outside of the App Store still have as much freedom as they used to.
Re:iOSification? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can easily disable the new scrollbar behavior. I think the monochrome sidebar icons were a huge improvement, the old ones were too busy. Mail has a visual status indicator right in the sidebar unless you've specifically gone out of your way to turn it off (it's on by default). I'm not aware of any gestures being removed, though you didn't mention any specifically. They actually added a bunch of gestures in Mountain Lion that were useful. The iOS changes that most people are upset about can all be easily disabled via Preferences (scrollbars, Gatekeeper) or sit unused (Launchpad).
I'm not one to comment on what other people like. Use what you like. However, it's easy to see even from your examples why people say the issue is overblown.
Re:iOSification? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Overblown hyperbole"??? They changed their whole UI to make it more iOS-like.
Do you even use OSX or are you just reading from some website somewhere? I've been with OSX since it came out off and on, and solid since 10.5, the only time I've notice changes is for a few days immediately following an upgrade between one of those point releases when something with the dock changed that I can't even remember now (context menus or something), and after getting used to it I can't even remember what the change was, it was that trivial
Do you need scrollbars eating screen real estate when they aren't needed or you aren't scrolling? They appear when you scroll if you need them, just scroll a tiny bit and poof, there they are ... and they get larger if you hover near them so they are easier to hit. What EXACTLY is your complaint?
What else are you bitching about? You don't have to use launchpad or the AppStore. Notification center can easily be turned off if you're that upset by it.
What HIG are you following that says these things are counter-intuitive? What research do you have to suggest you know better than them? How many years designing UIs do you have? How much empirical testing have you done on the matter?
You sound more like someone who just bitches anytime they upgrade and things are different. You sound like one of those people who expect massive upgrades for free to something they bought 10 years ago, and then bitch like a raving nutter when the never version is in ANY way different than the old.
I'm willing to bet you feel ignored an aweful lot and don't even understand why.
Re: (Score:3)
"Overblown hyperbole"??? They changed their whole UI to make it more iOS-like.
No they didn't. The menu bar is the same as it always was. The Finder has no analogue in iOS. The Dock is still vastly more flexible and capable than what is in iOS.
So yes -- while a few things have changed, saying they've changed their "whole UI to make it more iOS-like" is overblown hyperbole. I'm willing to bet than less than 10% of the overall UI widgets and construction was changed in 10.8.
They made the scrollbars smaller, less colorful, and they actually disappear!
This isn't 1992 anymore. All modern Macs have shipped with mice and trackpads with scroll capability for what
anger and fear are the enemies of good decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
I use both...and am looking for a better option! (Score:4, Interesting)
Brief background: I've been using Linux since Slackware '96, with kernel version 1.0.0. I prefer using Linux for servers, but often have used Windows in cases where it presents some advantage (like using Active Directory so I can govern Windows desktops, etc)., and most environments I've worked in have become mixed Linux/Windows environments. Still, I am known much moreso for my *nix talents and content to leave Windows to the armies of Windows sysadmins out there.
For a while now at work, I've been using Windows 7. Using KiTTY (or PuTTY) I can generally work well with unix systems, and the Windows system gives me an environment like a normal user, which helps in reproducing issues, etc. The downside is, well, it's still Windows and prone to quirky issues, e.g. problems caused by Windows update, wanting to reboot more often than I'd like..
At home, I use Mac OS X rather than Windows 7. I run a custom-built hackintosh pro system (built late last year, i7-ivy bridge type). Using Mac OS X, I can still interact with systems I need to (using CoRD for Windows Remote Desktop), and it runs all the other programs I need elegantly. It also doesn't need reboots very often and is quite a stable system.
However, I too have been looking for a solution now that Apple is moving in the iOS-y direction for OS X, in terms of a system that lets me keep the awesome BSD power of Mac OS without being confined to Apple's walled garden of App Store restrictions etc.
Linux doesn't work as a Desktop environment for me for a lot of reasons, despite the fact I love Linux. It requires too much overhead to install software (packages, dependencies, etc), often doesn't run software I need (and/or open source equivalents fail to install on my distro, etc etc), and the end-user experience in X windows is generally clunky and not nearly as elegant/streamlined as Mac or Windows. A lot of open source products that do work are second-best to the product you could use on a desktop -- e.g. Microsoft Word on Mac and Windows vs OpenOffice on Linux. It'll work most of the time, but sometimes, it'll be a problem. I'm not a one man team and I work with people using Windows and Mac -- so I have to accomodate. In order to work in Linux, I'd have to have a VM running Windows or Mac -- and that kind of defeats the purpose of Linux.
So, in short, I am searching for an operating system that has the nice interface and POSIX-compliant backend of Mac OS, the openness of Linux, and runs all the software Windows can. Will a solution ever exist? :)
Apple Anger (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold fast to your Apple anger. It is liberating.
I divested myself of Apple shares in early 2012 to finance my daughter's education, and now I'm comfortable wishing ruin upon them without fear.
The choices they make are anti-consumer, anti-competitive and anti-free market. It pleases me that they've lost nearly 1/2 of their value.
As someone who was a great fan of Apple computers going back to before the first Macintosh, I find their current direction extremely disappointing and destructive.
What doesn't work? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've used a Ubuntu desktop for years and make my living working online. I use it because it just works. Once I get my desktop setup right it stays that way.
Maybe someone could explain what's not working so I know what I'm missing.
But what should "just work"? (Score:4, Informative)
My problem with these "just work" descriptions is that people have very different needs.
I use both Ubuntu and Mac OS regularly. The things that I need to "just work" are a lot of programming tools (gcc, python), databases, and servery stuff like databases, web servers, etc. Getting those to work on Mac OS is unpleasant. MacPorts and Homebrew are both terrible in comparison to the APT world. "apt-get install apache2" is very much "just works" in my book. On the Mac, I'm fine as long as I use Xcode and other Apple-specific tools, but anything else ends up being frustrating.
People complain a lot about desktop choices for Linux, but I never found any of them any worse than Mac, and some are better tailored for certain workstyles than others. All the major ones (GNOME with Shell or Unity, KDE, XFCE) are mature enough now for everyday work, even if they weren't so a few years ago. I really find all of them easier to work with than Mac's desktop. I don't like Mac's bubblegum dock, and I find the Finder to be perhaps the worst file manager ever made.
Another aspect of "just work" is installation. Installing a free OS can be painful on some hardware (and trivial on others). Since you can't (easily) install Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, this problem doesn't exist there, so it indeed "just works" in this respect. If you want a "just works" experience with a free OS, just buy a machine from System 76, a truly wonderful company that has yet to disappoint me. Comes with Ubuntu and everything working, great hardware and great support. And for me, all the things that I want to "just work" indeed do.
I use Windows 7, too, and it's fine, but I really need the Unix stuff to do my work.
Can we retire the "just works" phrase, or at least find better ways to qualify it?
Try a Linux Desktop (Score:3)
Been There (Score:5, Interesting)
- Beach Ball of Death (BBOD): While this didn't occur frequently, when it did it was more frustrating than a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD). At least you knew you were fucked when you saw the BSOD. With the BBOD, sometimes you would recover from it and other times you could wait for up to ten minutes before realizing that you're never coming back. During that period, you are completely unable to access the System menu or start another app to find the proc that is chewing resources so that it can be killed. In 2013, this is completely unacceptable from an OS.
- Mouse Acceleration: There is no way to modify the acceleration curve in OS X, let alone disable acceleration. This is not a problem when you are using a trackpad since the acceleration curve is one of the best out of all OS'es for that, but it is incredibly frustrating when using a mouse. I have gone through many forums and found many other users complaining about this issue, but no one has come up with a decent solution for disabling mouse acceleration. For situations in which I am better off with a mouse, I always hopped over to a non-OS X machine.
- Poor Multi-Monitor Support: Since the menu for each application is in a detached panel that is only displayed on one monitor, this means you will be racking up a lot of mileage on your pointing device to hop between apps on the secondary monitor and their menu on the primary monitor.
- Updating Settings Behind Your Back: For me, this shit started with Microsoft and was one of the big reasons I left their OS. After an update, some of your settings would be changed to whatever they felt you should be using. Apple has since taken up this behavior, doing things like resetting all of your file associations to iTunes after one of their many updates. This didn't happen with my latest update, so maybe they stopped, or at least took a break from this behavior, but it has still left a very bad taste in my mouth.
- Frequent Update Cycles: This would not be too bad of a thing if they didn't regularly remove features they didn't like (but you may have loved) as well as make changes that disrupt your workflow. At this point, I am an old curmudgeon who has everything exactly as he likes it. I don't want to upgrade and run the risk of having the upgrade go south. Such an issue would cause me to have to reinstall all of my apps from scratch and attempt to reconfigure tons of settings to get it to work like it did before the upgrade. And with the update frequent cycles, it won't be long before your current OS version is not supported. Once that happens, Chrome and Firefox support go out the window as well. And don't even get me started on how Apple stops supporting perfectly fine hardware when they come out with new versions of OS X. Apple: you control the hardware in your machines yet you can't be bothered to continue supporting it six years after it is released while Microsoft supported XP on an almost infinite number of hardware configurations for eight years and Linux even longer!
There are many, many more reasons, but these are the biggest gripes. None of them on their own were dealbreakers, but over time they wore on me to the point of driving me back to Linux. While I still use my Mac for some commercial software that isn't available on Linux, it's Linux for everything else.
Re:Been There (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to reply to myself, but I just thought of a few more biggies:
This reply is mainly for the benefit of those who still use OS X and may have some of these problems.
- Window Management: This wasn't as big of an issue until I discovered that Alt + Left Mouse Button allowed me to drag windows from anywhere inside of the window under Linux. After I learned that I could resize windows in Linux using Alt + Mouse Button 2 or 3 (button depends on your Window Manager), using OS X felt much more tedious. Even Microsoft Windows lets you resize a window by dragging any edge, but with OS X, you have to use the little corner in the bottom-right section of the window. In addition to this, switching apps on OS X with the keyboard shortcut doesn't restore iconified windows which means you still have to go down to the doc to get it. Better yet, you can not switch to one specific window of an app using the keyboard shortcut - instead, they all come to the front and then you have to find the window you want.
How long has it been since you used OS X? I don't remember when it happened exactly but most apps let you resize from all edges and corners now. I can't remember when this wasn't the case with OS X, actually.
App switching in OS X works like this: Cmd+Tab switches between applications, and Cmd+` (backtick, it's under the tilde and right above the Tab key) cycles between individual windows within an application. Took a while to give up the Windows-centric paradigm of treating each window as something totally separate to Alt-Tab through, but once I got used to treating each application as a set of grouped windows it was quite easy to work with. Without knowing the Cmd+` shortcut I'm sure it seems much more tedious to find the window you want quickly.
I think recent versions of Windows have improved window management, but my point is that window management on OS X is not nearly as bad as it is perceived to be. It's just different. Personally I find it remarkably efficient.
- Window Maximization: Some apps require a lot of real-estate and there is no way to maximize a window with a single button click in OS X. Intuitively you would press the green "+" button on the window, but that simply switches the window "between its standard state and its user state" and that behavior is always unpredictable. You can manually "maximize" the window by moving the mouse to the titlebar and dragging the window to the upper left portion of the screen and then moving the mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen to resize the window. I guess Apple figures if you have to do more work for something, you'll appreciate it more.
I have also been vexed by this issue after coming from the Windows and/or Linux world where maximize really means "use every available pixel to make this window as big as possible". I got used to it, and with the advent of larger screens over the years it's started to make quite a bit less sense for some apps (like web browsers where most web pages end up filling a small center strip of the window).
However, there is hope for those who can't get used to it: There is a SIMBL plugin called SizeWell that's been around a few years and almost completely solves this, bringing a true "maximize window" ability to the green/plus button in most applications. Both SIMBL and SizeWell are free and I've been using them both for at least a couple of years with no known problems. You can either assign "true maximize" as the default for the green button or have a right-click context menu that allows you to do all sorts of other things like sizing a window to a half/third/quarter of the screen, set windows to specific pixel sizes, change positioning or even move windows between different spaces. I use this all the time especially with Finder windows. It's awesome and significantly enhances the joy of using OS X. Spread the word.
Bonus: Most of the SizeWel
Either you're doing it wrong or I've slipped into (Score:3)
I've got 30,000+ software packages available to me from Debian's repositories, all of them tested before I install them. I don't have to deal with downloading funky software packages from questionable websites. I just do a sudo apt-get install and I'm good to go. Debian was so stable that I decided to upgrade the software on my workstation every day with a sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade for 3 1/2 years without problems.
I use KDE on my workstation an LXDE on my 7 year old laptop. Everything "just works" for me. Either I'm missing something or you folks must be using some really sucky Linux distro.
Maybe it's the hardware. I always check to make sure the hardware works with vanilla Linux. Are you folks using hardware made straight from Redmond? Are you using those funky windows drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDISwrapper)? I wouldn't trust that steaming pile for anything. Don't ever use a windows driver on your Linux machine. That's just insane.
If you've never heard of Debian Linux, do yourself a favor and check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Linux [wikipedia.org]
Ubuntu Linux is based off Debian, except Ubuntu is about the bling, Debian is about the stability.
Happy with Mint/Mate for the desktop at this point (Score:3)
I was a so-so Linux user, primarily using Windows for most of my tasks, and just sort of playing with Linux. I went to OSX for a laptop, and although didn't like it at first, and still have issues, I'm reasonably happy with it. New job though, and I'm in front of Mint Linux 100% during the day. I've found it surprisingly adept at just about everything I do for work (heavy embedded work, libre office, web, pdfs, etc)....enough so that I have a VM of it at home running 24x7 on my Windows machine, and use it quite a bit. In fact, I've scaled back the things I do on Win7 quite a bit, and with a few tweaks, think I could be happy running Mint full-time. It runs well enough as a VM that I'm inclined not to mess with it. I don't think I'd gain much from having it native, except the endless stream of background Windows updating that's always going on. I can't slam Win7 that bad though. It is rare as hell for me to need to reboot the machine, maybe once this year so far.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Grow Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Its funny that Windows 8 is starting to sound like what Linux was a few years ago and Linux is far closer to 'just works' now.
"Windows 8 is great! Now after you install it go to this link, download the app and follow the instructions. That will make your computer usable."
Sound familiar?
Re:Grow Up (Score:4, Insightful)
The key with Linux is that it is freely redistributable. Instead of having all of those tweaks and fixes spread to the four winds, you can bring them all together and package them up. You can distribute that without fear of being sued or imprisoned.
This has always been the case but is just more obvious with Microsoft's variation on Unity.
Re:Grow Up (Score:5, Interesting)
You say that like it's a bad thing... [oldbug.com]
Re:Grow Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grow Up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as annoying as one would gather from places like Slashdot, but it's annoying enough to justify paying $5 for Start8. Why change your habits and workflow for no good reason when you can keep them intact?
Re:Grow Up (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be fine if it were like buying a car - a 1980 Hooptiemobile drives on the freeway pretty much the same as a 2013 Whatchamotor, and the headlight switch, the horn and the gas pedal don't get moved every time I take it in for six month service.
After 20 years or so it does get a bit harder to find parts, and after 30 or 40 years it's definitely a hobby car. But that's still a lot better than having to go through hoops every two years having to either preserve the desktop UI that you are used to while the infrastructure (KDE, Gnome, etc.) gets completely redesigned according to the latest fad; or spend way too much valuable time trying to maintain a particular system while everything you run on it _has_ to be updated for security or compatibility reasons.
My personal productivity depends a lot on everything working the same. I run dual monitors. I put my mail client on one face of the Desktop Cube. I put other 'housekeeping' (IM, timesheet, Pithos, ...) functions on the same face. I put my editing windows and some web windows for previewing on the next face. If I have multiple projects open I have two more face available for that, or for miscellaneous short things like quick peeks at Slashdot or the news.
Between KDE, Gnome and now Unity (ugh), that requirement for a consistent stable working environment has been broken one too many times. I'm now looking to revert to a simpler window manager that isn't likely to do that any time soon. So far of the ones I've tried, Bodhi (Enlightenment) is the front runner but it's early days yet.
I don't mind the prospect of redoing my UI every five or ten years, but this constant shifting of the sands beneath my feet sucks. It's a fundamental problem of these big all-in-one desktop GUI environments. In short, I want to keep my Desktop Cube, and some other things. It's my metaphor and I like it. I don't want some other idiot's brainstorm of how the metaphor should be. So one way or another, I'm going back to a simple window manager, and I'll run other stuff on top as I see fit. And I can evolve the environment as and when I want. Maybe some bucket seats, a new stereo, exhaust headers, ...
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, the Distro's got it horribly wrong with their move the KDE 4. KDE said version 4.0 was only for developers and all the distro's pushed it out anyway.
I started using KDE around 4.7 or 4.8 when Ubuntu pushed out Unity that was utter crap, and the Gnome had gone to their 3.0 crap-fest. I have found KDE 4 awesome.
On lower powered compy's I've install Xubuntu. Way easier to install than Windows XP or 7. Wipe drive, format, and load Xubuntu. Worked without any screwing around with drivers or anything. I was mega impressed.
Re: (Score:3)
No, KDE 4.0 was always "the base is complete, we are going to make it into an awesome interface, look at what we have now!". Stop spreading lies.
The apps were mostly straight ports which were better or the same than their predecessors. The desktop was somewhat unfinished, but not worse than KDE3 was when the transition from KDE1 happened.
When the underlying libraries change API stuff like that is going to happen, and if you don't release, your bugs won't get fixed.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth considering MATE. It's a fork of Gnome2 that intends to develop into what Gnome 3 would have been had they not drunk the cool aid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now that Windowmaker (http://windowmaker.org) has been picked up again, you might look at that one. That's the one i always ran before switching to OSX.
And i'm pretty sure it's going to be the one i'm running when i move back since i already decided that my next laptop won't be a macbook anymore.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a HUGE and ugly truth about Apple. But it is also why they have shied away from the business and government markets -- they don't want to be required to do anythying for anyone. Apple is like "you like what we have and that is all there is." You can't ask Apple for anything -- they have already decided what they will offer and what you need.
They also block running the older OS on new system (Score:4, Insightful)
They also block running the older OS on new system.
Just think if all dells and other windows pc where locked to only windows 8 or newer.
Re: (Score:3)
In effect they are. Try running Windows 2000 on modern hardware (and XP isn't far off).
If there's even a generic driver for the hardware, then Windows 2000 generally screams along very nicely. Up until a few months ago, I had W2K Server running nicely on 2 year old rack mount systems very nicely.
Re:They also block running the older OS on new sys (Score:4, Insightful)
In effect they are. Try running Windows 2000 on modern hardware (and XP isn't far off).
Erm, no they aren't.
Lack of driver support is an issue yes, but they are not actively blocking you from developing your own driver. They wont make it easy for you but they aren't blocking you. Most of my XP/2000 applications have moved into Virtual Machines anyway and 2000 seems to work fine of VMware virtual hardware version 7. I wish the users who still require a Win 2K application worked half as well.
They'll also run fine with default drivers often (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have to run a really old OS on a new system, you often find that while there's no drivers, the default ones work fine. The "standard VGA" driver works ok for display and so on.
There's also the minor issue of 2000 being unsupported (meaning unpatched) and almost 14 years old.
I don't think companies should have to support everything forever, but MS and PC makers like Dell do a pretty good job with older and newer stuff.
We had to install Windows XP on some newer Lenovo systems, for temporary project. It worked surprisingly well. These were Sandy Bridge Core i5 systems, with Intel graphics, and Realtek NICs. We were able to get graphics, sound, and network all working without a problem. It wasn't as easy as setting up Windows 7, which they were designed for, but it worked. While these are exactly latest hardware, they're not all that old.
Also, as you say, it is quite different between not actively supporting something, and actively stopping it from working. Apple not only has extremely short support cycles, they only support to previous OS versions, and their OS release cycle is pretty quick, but they'll then go and actively stop old OSes from working on new hardware.
Microsoft support its OSes for a minimum of 10 years from release. That's pretty good, and far longer than Apple. PC makers generally doing okay job of supporting older OSes on their PCs at least for a good while.
I have no doubt that windows XP support is going to become fairly hard to come by for new hardware quite soon. This is because it is falling out of support in 2014. However, it's rather hard to hate on a company for "only" supporting something for 13 years.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's poor support of older OSX (Score:3)
Already happened to me; I bought Aperture, version 1, then upgraded to 2, then to 3. Then I bought a new camera, moving from a Canon 50D to a Canon 6D. Apple's support for the 6D only works under 10.8, not under 10.6, A large number of my scripts and such stopped working with my OS upgrade to 10.6.8 from 10.5, and although I've worked through most of that, I'm just not willing to do i
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get to say they took shit away from you when you actively have to do something yourself to have the change effect you.
Not true. Both Chrome and Firefox do not support OSX Leopard (10.5) anymore, and I'm sure there are a lot of other software that do the same. When Apple stops supporting an OS, software makers also stop supporting it, so you lose out on getting the latest software updates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Its retarded to say Sony took away 'Other OS' when you could have simply not upgraded
No, it is not. The advertised capabilities of the PS3 were "it plays games, and you can also run Linux on it!". Then Sony entered phase 2 of the bait-and-switch and that statement became "it plays games or you can run Linux on it, and once you choose option A you can never again have option B."
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm bitching that they won't let me eat the entire cake that I paid for, especially when the OtherOS feature was a significant factor in my choice to buy Sony. Guess why Sony have forever lost me as a customer?
Revisionism (Score:3)
I suggest writing about stuff here and now instead of playing games (intentional or not) with history based on nothing but your own personal memory. A comment like your one above makes you look dishonest with an agenda to push even if it's just an innocent comment.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a Mini right here that will do fine with the latest Ubuntu and will do fine with Win7 (and probably Win8) too. Yet it is now officially unsupported by Apple.
Apple feeds off of a userbase dominated by conspicuous consumers that look down on anything that isn't new and wasteful. That's reflected in it's products and how it treats users.
The single biggest problem with being a MacOS user is putting up with Macs. They have been overpriced and under spec'ed since the 68K days.
They are also now getting mor
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you prepared to defend the premise that people are only allowed to be upset by things that are forced upon them? That doesn't seem right to me. Nobody "forces" me to drive my Jeep Liberty but I still fucking hate the god-damned beeping sound it makes all the time. I've never thought "Oh, well you know, I could choose to cartwheel to the store instead of drive, therefore this car, other drivers, traffic, potholes and delays are off limits for annoyance." Nothing else in the world is like that so it seems silly to apply it to computers. Yeah, I could choose to live like the Amish, but I don't think that precludes the legitimacy of negative opinions about aspects of the computer systems I "choose" to use.
What the fuck is it with the Choice Police anyway? What kind of weird ideology is that? Where anything that can be tracked back, no matter how far, to a "choice" suddenly renders the outcome out of bounds for sympathy? It sounds like Republican bullshit to me. "Mmm, you chose to have that second cocktail, therefore you have to carry your rapebaby to term. No complaining! That's what you get for making choices, tsk tsk." Give me a break.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
KDE tried to copy Windows as much as they could - when I saw their annoying Windows-esque dialogue when you connect a USB mass storage device I was done with that. Then Gnome chased the "everything is going Web 3.0 and mobile" dream so this leaves me with only sensible window managers like XFCE and LXDE. Any other ones I should try?
I don't really understand this. How does one become so particular about the desktop system?
I personally do prefer KDE. Having said that, you can put me in front of a Gnome, Cinnamon, Windows, OSX, Windowmaker, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, environment and I only need a couple of minutes to find my way around and be comfortable with it. My preference for KDE is marginal. It is not a deal-breaker.
What is it about that USB dialog that prevents you from getting your work done? How is it a show-stopper for you? You described it as annoying, can you elaborate? I really want to understand this because I seem to be the oddball here.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are not the oddball. Most of us are happy and relatively flexible -- and KDE user according to the linux user choice awardss. People who feel compelled to explain how desktop X (KDE SC 4, GNOME 3) destroyed their workflow/unhinged their view of the universe by changing the three crucial pixels on which everything stood are mad.
Also, they try to convince you that their solution (a 1% preference on Linux which is itself a 2% preference in general) is the best thing ever for $BATSHIT_INSANE_REASON.
Now I do think that KDE in its latest iteration is the best desktop there is bar none. And I am irritated a times by the idiosyncrasies of the other desktops (windows, mac, gnome) when I need to use them. But if I had to work for any length of time in any one of them, I'd be OK and quickly pick up the habits. These threads only tell you what the crazies are all about this timeof year.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Interesting)
Having long been a fan of minimalist window managers like Fluxbox, a friend recently recommended xmonad [xmonad.org], which I promptly installed; and since doing so I have been amazed at how much time I can spend not managing windows.
There's apparently also osxmonad [bitbucket.org] for the 'traitors,' but I haven't tried that out yet.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually used KDE recently? The reason I ask is because I hadn't. I had it in my mind, like you, that it was basically a windows clone desktop (because that's how it used to be). Recently, Unity on Ubuntu annoyed me enough that I installed Kubuntu. I have to tell you, I was blown away. Modern KDE is nothing like windows. It's stunning, really - quite amazing, and has some great paradigms that I haven't seen in any other OS, like actually making the desktop area useful.
Navigating to apps etc.. is pretty awesome. Every time I boot it up I'm just struck by how beautiful it is, I really don't understand how Apple gets all this "beauty" cred. To me, it looks like a turd compared to KDE. It's in the eye of the beholder, I guess - but if you haven't tried it recently, I highly recommend giving it a shot.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Funny)
I've had great success with cinnamon on Linux Mint 14, give it a try
Does this belong on Slashdot or on a cooking blog?
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Informative)
so this leaves me with only sensible window managers like XFCE and LXDE.
Fluxbox- do-it-yourself!
This's about the only useful post I've seen here in this thread (so far).
That said, it may not be easy. Doin' it yourself (to make it do it the way you want it done) ain't what people want these days. Sad. Fluxbox stays out of your way leaving you to just config apps, but who nowadays wants to diddle with ~/.Xresources and ~/.emacs and ~/.muttrc ...? Oh, and it doesn't include "wizards" that magically config sound or WiFi or USB plugin mountpoints, ... You may need to $google.
Who nowadays even runs Xconsole, or knows the differences between XTerm and urxvt and KTerm and Gnome-Terminal?
Meanwhile, I have three tabs open in urxvt, Xconsole constantly tells me what's happening, Gkrellm tells me thousands of things (including the weather), slrn watches Usenet news, irssi does IRC, mutt watches my IMAP mail (and Gkrellm pings me on newcoming), ... On ALT-F2, I have Firefox, Gimp, Alsa Mixer, LibreOffice, ...
$kidsthesedays.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As Windows XP was to Windows ME
As Windows 98 was to Windows 95
It's like every other version is the experiment, followed by the practical application of it.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Informative)
The "every-other-Windows-sucks" pattern isn't based on comparing NT kernels. It refers to Microsoft's OS releases for the "home user" space, and Windows NT and Windows 2000 weren't aimed at that market - unlike 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista, Win 7 and now Win 8.
Re: (Score:3)
Did Dell ever say? "Oh it's not fair to market a non-NT kernel OS as the now current and premier home OS?" NO, they didn't.
So yes, it holds that every other consumer Microsoft OS, regardless of what kernel they chose to use at the time, has been the result of somebody deciding they wanted to "think outside the box", "shake up" the OS industry, or whatever BS they thought was more important than quality control.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming you a) have the skill and b) have the time and c) give a flying fart and d) don't want to commit seppuku by the maze of patch dependencies.
Re:Windows 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the Gnome developers did make the new version incompatible with the old version. That's why there's even a MATE or Cinnamon project to begin with.
Otherwise we could all have just kept using the old binaries.
Re:Linux just works... (Score:5, Informative)
That just is NOT true anymore. Windows 7 has been stable from the word go. Uptime measured in days and weeks for a DESKTOP computer that is only interrupted by important updates and other administrative tasks that require a reboot. Otherwise, it Just Works. This coming from a guy who LOVES Linux- on servers.
Re:Linux just works... (Score:5, Informative)
That just is NOT true anymore. Windows 7 has been stable from the word go. Uptime measured in days and weeks for a DESKTOP computer that is only interrupted by important updates and other administrative tasks that require a reboot. Otherwise, it Just Works. This coming from a guy who LOVES Linux- on servers.
That's the first problem with Windows : there is so many things that needs you to reboot it is ridiculous. And the freakin updates that FORCES me to reboot. Only thing you can do is tell it to postpone the reboot for 4 hours. Then 4 hours later that fu***n thing pops-up again requesting you to reboot. And the worst : if you are not in front of you machine when it pops, after about a minute it will decide that it can just reboot. So you come back, your computer is at the login screen and you just have to re-open everything to get back to work. Who the f**k decided this was a good idea ?
Now I don't have that problem anymore. I installed Mint on my work computer and the only time I need to reboot is when I upgrade the kernel. After the upgrade there is a popup that tells me it needs to reboot to fully apply the update. If I click postpone IT WILL NEVER BOTHER ME AGAIN.
Also, I measure uptimes in months, not days and weeks. In fact I have an internet-facing server that is up for more that 5.5 years.
Re:Linux just works... (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth, I'm running Ubuntu 12.10 with Cinnamon and I swear I have to reboot just as much as I do in Windows. There are prompts for updates almost every other day, and probably a reboot prompt every other week or so. Now, I know in Linux I probably don't *have* to reboot and could just kick services, and it's probably a lot related to the desktop manager and I could just restart that. But at least for me it's far from the panacea of infinite uptime, at least from a desktop user perspective.
Re:Linux just works... (Score:5, Informative)
Then, every time I want to do something more advanced, I have to go hack the registry to do it ?
And the first big warning is that if you fuck the registry, your computer may not boot anymore.
Like if you want to disable that CapsLock key, you have to modify some hex value in the registry. On my KDE machine, I just went into the control panel and assigned the CapsLock to another CTRL.
Re: (Score:3)
I have seen more Linux crashed than windows crashes from XP on.
However the stability is really based on the hardware and drivers more than the actuall OS now adays, having running windows on good hardware and Linux on cheap hardware isn't really a fair test. But compared to the mess of the DOS based windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME. It is rather stable.
Re:iOS-ification? (Score:4, Insightful)
I also don't see the problem. A few changes to the UI and people scream and shout as if the world ends. Grow up, choose the tool you need and get to work.
With me it's been the same desktop since 1997 (Score:3)
I've got a similar attitude - I've got the same e16 theme on my desktop (ganymede) that I was using in 1997. So from RedHat linux 3.0 to Fedora 17 it has looked the same and acted the same way. At home I'm using e17 and some day I may bother setting up a similar theme in that to use at work. Having windows with red, green, blue or grey borders depending on task importance is good when you have tasks spanning weeks that you go back to
Re: (Score:3)
One of my biggest pet peeves with Mac OS X is it's non-conformance to Focus Follows Mouse. Why can't Apple fix that for fucks sake?
For Focus follows mouse to be reasonable, they'd have to offer a way to turn off the menu at the top of the screen, and place the menus at the top of the application windows... otherwise, choosing a menu item without maximizing the window could be very difficult.