Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bill Joy on Linux and Mac OS X

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the pass-the-kool-aid dept.

OS X 223

(rfm)2 writes "In a Wired interview, Bill Joy mentions he just got a new dual 2GHz G5 Power Mac with 8 GB RAM and half a terabyte of internal disk. He is clearly underwhelmed by Linux: 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.'"

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In a sense, he's right (5, Insightful)

rkabir (575053) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524434)

After all, Mac OS has got solid user oriented UI... We're working on that with linux - but we've got years to go before it's set for the home user -> linux trounces for business of course :-D oh, and fp!

Re:In a sense, he's right (1, Insightful)

Confessed Geek (514779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525297)

If I hear one more person saying how wonderful the Mac UI is i'm going to puke. My wife picked up KDE's newest desktop faster than OSx's. MAC hasn't done any worthwhile innovation on the desktop since they ripped of Unix's X, (Which MS quickly ripped off for Win95). Flashy eye candy does not make for an intuitive effective User interface.

Have you tried the newest KDE3? Best UI i've ever used. Beats XP AND OS X. And I don't have to pay 100+ every few years to keep the "privelege" of using it.

Re:In a sense, he's right (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525339)

He prefers Mac OSX,

But he's using Linux to build his Meda Wall.

Re:In a sense, he's right (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525376)

Media Access Control never innovates, it's not designed to. It's a hardware address for networking. Are you sure you aren't a moron? I'm not sure you aren't.

Re:In a sense, he's right (1)

mrpuffypants (444598) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525538)

You don't have to keep paying just to be able to use it. Jaguar works great today just like it did the day before Panther came out. If you don't want to pay for an upgrade that improves the performance of your OS in remarkable ways then more power to you; Jag will keep working!

Re:In a sense, he's right (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525927)

my SE 30 runs OS 6 perfectly fine, dont know what all this fuss about upgrading every freaking year is about, You dont want to upgrade??? you dont HAVE to upgrade

Re:In a sense, he's right (2, Funny)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525660)

If I hear one more person saying how wonderful the Mac UI is i'm going to puke.

The Mac UI is WONDERFUL! I make love to it, AND enjoy it!

Come on. Puke! Puke! Puke like you drank a liter of vodka.

Did it work?

Re:In a sense, he's right (5, Insightful)

Spyky (58290) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525712)

Well certainly you have your opinion, and others have theirs.

I have the exact opposite opinion, I've been using KDE (on SuSE) as my desktop for over 3 years now. I've been very pleased at the evolution of KDE over the years. But I have to be realistic, it is still not as clean or consistent as OS X, or to a lesser extend, Windows. There are many aspects of system maintenance and configuration that are still far behind on a linux machine. The user interface has much improved in recent years, however, I still find many of the standard K apps to be inferior to their counterparts on other operating systems.

I recently (2 months ago) purchased my first ever Mac. It is now my primary machine, and I'm not looking back at all. I use the machine for all of the tasks I used my linux machine for, and more.

I agree that eye candy does not a user interface make, however, consistency in UI elements, and accessibility of configuration options *does*. And in those areas, KDE and Linux in general still falls short.

For what it is worth, I do keep my Linux box around, although I use it much less frequently. I also was quick to delete all Microsoft software off of my new Mac (Internet Explorer and Outlook).

I'm not particularly upset at having to pay $100 a year for the privilege of using such a high-quality operating system. As a software developer, I believe in paying for software I use, so I pay for SuSE updates every year or so anyway.

-Spyky

Re:In a sense, he's right (2, Informative)

lullabud (679893) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526318)

i have to say i feel the same way. i like the way KDE is coming along, but it really isn't as responsive, consistent, and clean looking (ie: tearing) as OS X. i still have a few linux boxes around, but only one of them still runs x. i think the alt-right-click and shift-right-click, and other tricks like that definitely give KDE some advantages over other UI's, but OS X is my fav, and it has only broken on me once, during a system update i might add... another thing i'd like to say about the user experience on the mac is that launchbar is INCREDIBLE, and is by far the best navigation tool i've ever used, hands down, no questions asked, period. if the old OSS guys made something like launchbar for KDE they'd be doing everybody a big favor, and getting innumerable brownie points.

This just in. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524445)

Bill joy is gay.

In a shocking move to the Linux community, beloved member, Bill Joy, shocked the FSF by claiming to be gay. Although no penetration has taken place, Bill's love of his new Mac confirms his sexual preference.

Wedding plans are set on June, 2004 at UMass.

My thoughts on the man (-1, Troll)

sirmikester (634831) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524447)

He has a very "proprietary" attitude... but what can we expect from a man who has made his money selling software licenses to people over the years.

Missing the point ... (5, Insightful)

OzPixel (559736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524451)

What he was doing in 1979 was academic work, and the source code was available. In the years since then, Unix has been locked away by various companies (e.g. SCO). Linux isn't about making the best user experience, it's about a return to making improvements based on freely shared knowledge.

David.

Re:Missing the point ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524658)

Bullshit. BSD yesterday, BSD today, BSD tomorrow.

Re:Missing the point ... (3, Insightful)

alangmead (109702) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525059)

Until the the Net1 release, the Berkeley code was intermingled with Bell Labs code, considered a derived work, and needed the purchase of an AT&T license. Your "BSD yesterday" corresponds to about BSD 4.4-lite, from 1994.

See Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable [oreilly.com] for details.

In a way OzPixel's post [slashdot.org] got it wrong too. People in the academic environment got the freedoms of liberal distribution, but people outside of the university environment who were interested in learning about or using these technologies were out of luck. Linux expanded to a wider audience than BSD was capable of reaching.

Re:Missing the point ... (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525264)

Linux isn't about making the best user experience, it's about a return to making improvements based on freely shared knowledge.

That's the point of GNU/Hurd certainly, but my impression is that most of the Linux world aspires to something beyond reimplementing late-70's Unix. Certainly most parts of the larger "Linux" world -- KDE, XFree, Apache, GNOME -- aspire to more than that. Certainly IBM isn't running ads saying "Linux -- it's just like before Bill joy wrote vi!"

The AC has a valid point, too.

UI Guidelines for Linux? (5, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524461)

What made Apple successful (if you can call it that) a strong set of UI guidelines that everyone is supposed to follow. Thus there are two key questions:
1. Does the Linux community have a set of UI guidelines?
2. Do Linux app developers follow them?

If the answer to either question is "no" then Linux is not likely to take over the desktops of average (= your grandma) users.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (5, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524519)


1. Does the Linux community have a set of UI guidelines?
2. Do Linux app developers follow them?


1) I suspect there are UI guidelines for KDE and Gnome, but not a unifying standard. The KDE/Gnome difference is part of the problem when you're looking for UI consistency.
2) No, but the same can be said of Windows developers. Microsoft has a standard, but people don't seem to follow it with any consistency.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524612)

Windows developers might not follow the UI guidelines as well as Apple developers but the MS folks sure have Linux beat.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (1)

cpeterso (19082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525843)


Instead of creating loose guidelines, they should architect their KDE/GNOME application frameworks so they enforce a consistent UI experience. The frameworks should make writing HIG-conforming apps easier than writing a non-HIG-conforming apps.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524681)

Linux is a kernel. It doesn't have a UI. Maybe you're thinking of X-Windows, or KDE, or GNOME. None of those are linux-specific, however.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (3, Insightful)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524738)


You do realize you just make linux that much less appealing to end users on desktop systems every time you and your kin start with this bullshit?

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (1)

adamy (78406) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525015)

No, he is right. Because KDE, Gnome, et Alles run on BSD and Solaris as well.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (3, Insightful)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525334)

It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it isn't a matter of being technically accurate, its a matter of not jumping on people for this kind of mistake, because they are going to make it, repeatedly.

You want to sell people on the idea of "Linux on a Desktop?"

Its less of a mouthful than "Linux with GNU tools, a UFS file system, the KDE window manager, and the bash shell running on a Desktop Computer"

Which is technically more accurate and more complete, covers the four principle components of a unix operating system, and is completely unintelligible to my mother.

If you want people to start adopting it, let them think of it as "linux on the desktop." When they say it needs a set of UI guidelines that people follow, just nod and recognize /what they are saying/ (which is dead on accurate in this case) rather than telling them that their terminology is wrong.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525752)

its a matter of not jumping on people for this kind of mistake, because they are going to make it, repeatedly.
True, true. It's called a learning curve.
On the one hand, things like mount, case-sensitivity, and granular permissions are very sensible.
Having cut teeth in a c:\DontCareAboutPermissions.exe world, these ideas took a little while to get the mind around.
I was trying to explain why I was downloading ACE to mom (who is really pretty technically competent), but the discussion couldn't get past the crayon level. The details Just Didn't Matter.
Linux for folks like mom comes in the form of Knoppix: 'Here, boot this'.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525093)

It's not bullshit, just because you and your kin have a hard time with the concept and terminology. Perhaps if everyone stopped refering to the OS as Linux, perhaps this would be less confusing.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525125)

Actually, there are some who will say that the OS is just the kernel, so I wouldn't start that discussion.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525283)

You do realize you just make linux that much less appealing to end users on desktop systems every time you and your kin start with this bullshit?

No, he's just whoring karma for another round of trolling. Think of it as part of the ecosystem.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525189)

Linux is also a name for a distribution. For example, Red Hat Linux (instead of Red Hat GNU Tools/Linux). Hence the RMS anger management courses now available at MIT.

It's 2003 now. No UI = Not an end user OS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525810)

"Linux is a kernel. It doesn't have a UI. Maybe you're thinking of X-Windows, or KDE, or GNOME. None of those are linux-specific, however."

And hence, Linux still has a LOOOONNNNGG way to go. This is isn't 1984 folks.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524799)

1 : yes , GNOME has the HIG : http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/

2 : Yes, Gnome developers and others not core applications are now in a very intensive use of the HIG
all the core gnome applications use it _now_ (gnome 2.2/2.4), all not core applications are in use or in implementation of them (gnumeric is now hig, gimp is in work, abiword is mostly hig, evolution 2 will be, gaim is,and so on )

openoffice 2 will use the gnome HIG

it's not joke. it's very now, in suse 8.x and upper, mandrake 9 and upper, Redhat 8/9 and fedora now. and other recent distribution (end 2002/ begin 2003, mostly)

of course, it has many works to do , many application to "hig", but it"s a really concern of many opensources developpers now. many speak about in their development, many "mature project" think about

in the same time, KDE is striving to inform developpers to follow some official guidelines to do "good" kde applications.

so, is linux is likely to take over the desktop of average (my grandma don't use computer at all and only watch tv for informations) users ? yes, because many developpers and industrial player WANT that , and there are still some Huge Work to do. but it grows well.

I recommand people to read some website like http://www.gnomedesktop.org or http://dot.kde.org to know that two community, and see (sometimes) presentation of new project or improvment of old project.

I also remind that two community can HELP MAC OSX
KDE applications could be use with GPL edition of QT for osx
and fink (http://fink.sourceforge.net) help to install some gtk/gnome applications which can useful and nice to use with osx X11.app.

linux is not about reinventing "unix"
it was done years ago

it's about a FREEDOM and OPEN COMPLETE OPERATING SYSTEM and DESKTOP Environment

linux is the KERNEL
GNU/Linux is the OS
GNOME is the desktop environment (for bsd, irix, aix, solaris and other)

all is VERY much more powerful and re-conceived from technologies of 1979.

to think it's now only re-inventation of the old good unix, is completely nonsense

or maybe, he has only a Vi and some shells on a poor lonely 2.2 linux kernel ?

very strange.

in the same time : OSX is a GOOD os. not so free, but very mature.

and HO, it mostly re-imaginated many unix concept too
the kernel is MACH, not so old good "unix"

the whole os fondation is BSD, so unix, but complete rewrite (and free of at&t copyright ) of the so good old unix
the userland high level API is COCOA, re-implementation of OPENSTEP, completely NOT unix, NOT xlib, NOT xtoolkit

the whole user interface is AQUA : a re-imagination of the nextstep interface.

in plain short : Mac OSX is _NOT_ the plain old unix no more than linux

in some part it's bsd, some mach, some gnu, some next, some new apple additions

to criticize linux to simply reinvent "unix" is also criticize OSX.

thanks to read me. I use daily linux, OSX and freebsd (at work and for my own need) , to chidlishly criticize one or all of them (with some dumb comment about the old unix) is a plain insult to ALL.

and please, I urge you to think about the fact a FREE(freedom) and the need to access sourcecode is also a goal which worth to write an OS. even if already good os are available.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (2, Insightful)

WatertonMan (550706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525016)

The real issue isn't whether they have UI guidelines but how often people follow them. Within the Gnome developers and KDE developers there is a core that try to adhere to standards. I think that overall Gnome is doing a little better here. Rumors for their next edition suggest they've been paying a lot of attention to interface. For a long time it seemed like both Gnome and KDE were simply following the Microsoft path. By and large though I think the main Gnome apps and the main KDE apps follow standards. (We can debate the standards they chose to promote of course - just as we can for Apple and its views on brushed metal)

Overall I'd judge both Gnome and KDE as about as good as Apple in this regard, although I prefer the Apple way of doing things. I also think Apple clearly hides the guts of Unix better than either Gnome or KDE do. (Try setting up internet sharing for instance)

The problem is 3rd parties. We have the big apps like OpenOffice which in effect have their own windowing model and standards. There are a few other big apps like this. Then there are all the smaller applications. Few, in my opinion, pay much attention to UI. Part of this is the basic utilitarian and pragmatic view that Linux users have.

Compare this though to the Mac where both developers and users fixate on UI. They are vocal about their complaints and won't use applications with poor interfaces unless they have to. Further they truly dislike inconsistent interfaces. (I think that's what most of the griping about brushed metal reduces to)

Now if Linux had that mindset in their community I think Linux would be far better off. (Even including all the excesses it brings in the Mac community) The fact of the matter is that most significant users in Linux are willing to put up with a lot of crap most people won't. This is echoed in most of their tools which are anything but easy to configure - even for standard situations.

So there are two problems in my mind. A significant number of non-standard inconsistent UIs for applications and a general willingness to put up with this UI wise.

Apple's not perfect. We've all griped at various inconsistencies in Apple products. (The toolbar button in the Panther Finder along with selection color in the same are two great examples) But overall Apple hides the guts far better than any Linux distro I've used. It also requires the user to do far less. Heavens, even using package systems on Linux (or even Fink on OSX) are not trivial. Compare this to how most applications run on OSX. A lot less hassel.

Re:UI Guidelines for Linux? (1)

spitzak (4019) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525230)

"guidelines" are not the reason OS/X works better. It works better because the graphics system itself is better.

Linux would be a lot better if all the morons who keep asking for "guidelines" and "unification" would stop doing the "fun" stuff and write code to draw anti-aliased shapes or write low-level interface code so that it is easy to create a window and draw into it and get events.

You can write a Mac program that violates every UI "guideline" you want and it will still be easier to write and easier to use.

ya.. well (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524487)

I'm a big fan of OSX.

but; give me a dual 2ghz system, gb of ram, and a half tb or storage, and I'll love whatever it runs. I'd take DOS on a system like that.

Re:ya.. well (1)

lullabud (679893) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526354)

personally, i'd take DOS off a system like that.

8Gb RAM? (5, Funny)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524493)

Does 'overkill' mean nothing to these people?

Re:8Gb RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524565)

It could be overkill, it could be furthest edge computing.

After all, when I had 256MB RAM in my new 1992 Quadra I was told it was overkill, a complete waste of money, and I'd never fully use a tenth that amount.

It paid for itself within months, though.

Re:8Gb RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524935)

I think your memory about memory is a little distorted. The most any Quadra could take is 128MB, and that's in an 840AV, a machine that wasn't released until 1994

Re:8Gb RAM? (1)

questamor (653018) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525048)

Many quadras could do more than 128MB, including the Quadra 605 at 132mb, Quadra 650 and 800 at 136MB, and Quadras 900 and 950 at 256MB each.

840AVs were discontinued in 1994. They were released mid 1993.

Quadra's could NOT DO 128MB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525564)

No Quadra could do 128MB AT THE TIME. The maximum size 30 PIN SIMM when a 950 was released was 8MB, and the maximum 72 PIN SIMM was 16MB. There's no way you could squeeze 256MB or even more than 128 into a Quadra until late 1999. Certainly not when the poster was claiming to be able to

Re:Quadra's could NOT DO 128MB (1)

IM6100 (692796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525831)

I have some 16MB 30 pin SIMMs that have a datecode far older than 1999. They are rare, but they exist. I am tempted to plug them into my SE/30 which presently only has 32 MB.

Re:8Gb RAM? (2, Funny)

Pegasus (13291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524654)

Oh, just try running OS X on 8gig box vs. 256mb or so one ... The difference in responsivness is tremendous. Remember that ram is an order of magnitude faster than hard disk.
I would love to have that amount of memory for KDE desktop, but unfortunately i only have a gig and a half and am therefore 'forced' to use xfce [xfce.org] :)

Such is computing for the impatient ...

Re:8Gb RAM? (2, Informative)

lylonius (20917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525349)

and sometimes even 5 orders of magnitude:
ram access time is ~100ns
disk access time is ~10ms (10,000,000 ns)

Re:8Gb RAM? (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524669)

Not really. 8GB of RAM would be great for doing things like running applications and such in. Load the whole app into memory and never have to touch disk except to write out a file or read one in.

Re:8Gb RAM? (1)

Josh Booth (588074) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525102)

You must be running Windows Longhorn.

No, but seriously, my computer (Linux 2.6.0-test5) rarely touches the swapfile. I have 256 MB of ram and right now I've got Netscape (3 tabs) and Open Office running on Enlightenment and not a bit of swapspace is used. Admittedly, I don't run too many apps anyway while you are probably running something else.

Re:8Gb RAM? (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525427)

Actualy, I'm recalling the old days of Mac Classic where if you had a program that you wanted to run faster and you had the memory, you could make a ram disk and copy the program into the ram disk and run it from there. It worked pretty well, though I rarely come across I program that I need to run much faster that I could load into ram, but I'm sure someone does.

Re:8Gb RAM? (2, Funny)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524783)

To quote a true master of such things, "So, the bottom line is, if you're a guy, you cannot have enough RAM. Bill Gates currently has over 743 billion 'megs' of RAM, and he still routinely feels the need to stuff a zucchini in his underwear."
I just wonder how long it will be until that is a small amount of RAM. It's currently a large storage array, but even I can remember when computers with 1 Gig of storage were reserved for profitable purposes only.

painful to say (5, Insightful)

schapman (703722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524528)

as much as it pains me to say this... linux needs to drift much more to the windows/MacOS way of doing things... point and drool works for the majority of the people out there. If u need a windows driver... click on it and it goes (most of the time :P )... I think Linux has the foundation to be the ultimate OS if there is an easy setup and configuration, along with the power to drop to the command line and change anything. I recently had a chance to try out the new MacOS, and was very impressed... if I could have a windowing system like that, with all the configuration abilities of linux... the world would be a happier place for me. as it is now.. the only reason i run windows now is because im a hard core gamer.. and too many games use DirectX(in my opinion, one of the greatest things MSoft has ever made (and free :P) ), but if i could game on linux and have the ease of use for others in my household that windows provides... I'd make the full switch no prob.

Re:painful to say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524585)

I think Linux has the foundation to be the ultimate OS if there is an easy setup and configuration, along with the power to drop to the command line and change anything.

The good thing about Linux is that even if the ultimate in consistent, well designed, simple, easy to use attractive interfaces were available in it, it'd be possible to still drop to a shell and do real work. I often see comments to people about a good controlled UI "dumbing down" linux. But that UI on top of everything else available doesn't change what's underneath, it ADDS to it.

Far better than the OSX solution IMHO, where the machine cannot be used without the GUI

Re:painful to say (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524689)

er... what exactly are you doing in the terminal that I can't do on my OS X box without the GUI?

Re:painful to say (1)

schapman (703722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524764)

bit of rambling on that post... what i meant, is I like the ease of use of MacOS and windows.. but dont like the restrictions WINDOWS places on me (should have said that.. sorry). I've only had a brief chance to play w/ MacOS X... and its very... veryy.. verryyy nice :P friend of mine bought a new G4 laptop (w/ the big-ass display)... note though: watch where u put your hands.. apparently theres a sweet spot on the button, where if u press (like if u hold it with one hand, your palm tends to rest there) you can screw up the RAM... he had his shut off a couple times.. and not start. Took it in and they said he had bad RAM. a strange flaw, with an otherwise gorgeous laptop.

Re:painful to say (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524748)

Far better than the OSX solution IMHO, where the machine cannot be used without the GUI

Sure it can. You might not ssh in and use Microsoft Office X, but I can't ssh into my linux box and use KOffice from the command-line either. But I do ssh into my G5 for remote sysadmin activities, same as I used to do with my NeXT slab (well, it was telnet back then).

Re:painful to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524765)

but I can't ssh into my linux box and use KOffice from the command-line either

two words: remote x windows session

Re:painful to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524788)

...in which case you're using the GUI. Anyhow, XWindows runs under MacOS X, so it's not a comparative advantage for linux/unix.

Re:painful to say (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525313)

> two words: remote x windows session

You can't count. Just a heads up.

Re:painful to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7526137)

You obviously haven't heard of base .5!

You've got to love the times we live in, where no one can ever, ever be wrong for any reason!

Re:painful to say (1)

seann (307009) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524844)

a few words:
gtk for console, etc.

Re:painful to say (-1, Troll)

peeping_Thomist (66678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525227)

Linux doesn't _need_ to do anything, fool.

Slightly Egotistical (5, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524567)

Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally.

And if Linux was entirely about re-implementing what Bill Joy designed in 1979, then he might have a point.

But the things Bill Joy designed and partially wrote back in the 1970s are functionally inferior to features found in modern Linux.

Sure, Linux and BSD share similar APIs, but it is more than a little deceptive to claim that BSD and Linux are the same design. Internally they're completely different.

This is like a 100 year old Mr Ford looking at a modern V8 EFI car with independent suspension and AWD and ABS and saying "pfft, it's not very interesting, I designed all this back in the early 1900s". It shows a complete lack of comprehension regarding the modern state-of-the-art.

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524614)

Oh. Yes. 15 years ago, the manpage for 'ls' wasn't 15 pages long.

And yes, ls is availible to me on every OSX Mac in the world. However, almost no mac users use it on a daily basis. There's a reason for this.

(slightly ot...) (1)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524685)

And it's weird, because ls isn't really that useful anyway. It doesn't actually "list" files that match a pattern, the shell does that for you.

ls just prints out information about the files.
It's only when you turn on recursion that it starts to make more sense, but even then, you could just get a lot of stuff that scrolls all the way up that you don't want to wade through.

For that kind of thing, a graphical interface is ideal.

"find" and -printf are TONS more useful in that respect.
It's gotten to the point that I hardly ever use ls anymore, just shell completetion and "echo".

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525030)

And yes, ls is availible to me on every OSX Mac in the world. However, almost no mac users use it on a daily basis. There's a reason for this.

Uhh, yes... so what's your point?

Are you trying to say that because Linux has ls, just like BSD in 1979, and just like MacOSX today, that Linux is inferior, but MacOSX isn't inferior?

Or are you saying that because Linux users use ls, and Mac users don't, that Linux is inferior to MacOSX? Or inferior to BSD? Does MacOSX become inferior if I choose to use ls?

Or are you saying that because the modern ls manpage is 15 pages long, it is inferior to the 1979 version of ls? Or inferior to the MacOSX ls?

Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Re:Slightly Egotistical (4, Insightful)

zpok (604055) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525158)

Well let me run with this a bit.

All this inferior-superior stuff is what you're looking for. Not me, and I doubt parent poster had any of that in mind.

Most people are looking for an experience. If you dig compiling, recompiling and using x systems on top of each other, not allowing for drag and drop between them, can't set your monitor resolution without turning your machine inside out, don't have the luxury of font management, printing, etc etc. then Linux is for you!

If you're not the adventurous type, not a programmer and don't enjoy beating your own system (see above), maybe OS X is really what you're looking for.

I don't mean to bash Linux here, but you all should stop pretending Linux is easy. It's not. It's wonderful, who would have thought it, but it's not for those a lot of Linux adepts deem "dumb" - even if they might one day give you a heart transplant.

Let me put it real simple: Linux is not for people who are not into Linux. And Mac OS X - even Windows (the horror) are systems for people who basically don't give a fuck. If I had done what mr Sun has done, I would not build a computer from spare parts and program drivers to get my linux box talking with my other stuff, I'd go out and buy a monster machine running OS X - if I were him.

So put all that superior-inferior crap where the sun doesn't shine (forgot where that was, somewhere between Lancre and Badass). That most certainly was not the point.

Hope you enjoyed my rant, Cheers!

Re:Slightly Egotistical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525359)

Werd, dude, werd. You hit the nail on the motherfucking head.

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525730)

Most people are looking for an experience. If you dig compiling, recompiling and using x systems on top of each other, not allowing for drag and drop between them, can't set your monitor resolution without turning your machine inside out, don't have the luxury of font management, printing, etc etc. then Linux is for you!

I don't know what system you're using, but your experience is not the same as mine.

I haven't compiled anything in years. I did all that back in 1993. These days I just click on the update tool. Why would I want to recompile things? I think you're confusing Linux with BSD.

I drag and drop all the time. My file manager (Nautilus) is completely drag and drop. I drag and drop into my music player (RhythmBox). I drag and drop into the CD burning software. I drag and drop into the word processor (OpenOffice). I drag and drop from my picture editor (also OpenOffice) into the word processor. No hassle.

Changing monitor resolution? I click on the icon that looks like a monitor in the panel and choose the new resolution from the list there. Works great. It's called the GNOME RandR Applet.

Font management? I click on Desktop Preferences then click on Fonts. That's it. Adding new fonts is as simple as dragging and dropping the font into my fonts folder. This baffles you?

Printing? I'm using GNOME CUPS and it's as easy as could be. Click New Printer and choose my model of printer from the list. That's it. I can administer the printer and manage the queues entirely in a graphical interface. Yes, drag and drop works.

Sounds like your experience with Linux is the same as Bill Joy's, but is based on Linux from 1993. Maybe you should update your knowledge before attempting another rant.

Re:Slightly Egotistical (2, Interesting)

zpok (604055) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525949)

Sounds like your experience with Linux is the same as Bill Joy's, but is based on Linux from 1993. Maybe you should update your knowledge before attempting another rant

Oh, I don't know about that. Most linux users would happily agree if I weren't mentioning OS X in the same post.

You may have got yourself a perfect system and may be fully capable to maintain it. That's really really cool (no sarcasm), but I'm sure I wouldn't be able to duplicate that.

Drag and drop: I'm sure you understood me right: most Linux people use different file managers that don't allow drag and drop between them. But maybe I was vague. Anyway, drag and drop in a program is not impressive. It's system wide drag and drop, between programs, programs and the system etc. Not some programs yes, others no, depending on more rules than you want to hold inside your head. Printing, monitor resolution, file manager: the beauty of linux is you can build yourself a nice frankenstein monster and make it rock solid. But the level of commitment and knowledge this requires is totally beyond most people and you are here talking about your system as if that experience comes out of the box.

Do tell me what box that is. But be fair and describe the install process a bit. If it doesn't include lots of separate installs, tweaking and meddling in the occult (config files) I might be tempted...

Here, read a bit of this, and all the comments. Then realize that most things said are way over the head of people who as I put it aren't into Linux. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/37872.htm

I do enjoy a good rant. Today is a good day!

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526183)

The world as I see it.

Linux/Unix = Geeks who REALLY know their shit, use Unix at work (or wish they could but cant thanks to managment) and who generallly want a system that doesnt have microsofts taint on it, but also dont want to spend the money to buy a mac, would rather use a x86 chip, and/or like having full control of their system.

Mac OS X = either upgrading (or new) users who a) love the simplicity and style and dont mind shelling out 2-3 hundred extra to get the "Apple" lifestyle (and dont say there isnt a lifestyle cause I used to WORK for Apple as a campus rep, I know there is a lifestyle, they actually have us bill it as a lifestyle and as a part of your life, not a appliance, hence showing people rocking out with a iPod, or people editing home movies when really who edits home movies?)

b) former apple user who wants to play with BSD and Unix, but doesnt want to have a dedicated machine (or partition) to do it so would rather have a machine that yes can work with unix programs and have all the benifits of a unix machine, but also has the nice comfortable mac gui that for all its strength and weaknesses is the reason why we bought a Macintosh when a Windows PC could work just as well.

And Windows a) People who saw price and really didnt care as long as it was cheap and did what they needed to do.

b) Came from the buisness world and used to use Windows 3.1 / 95 so feel comfortable with it, even if they have problems with it

c) Learned it in school because the school bought PC's instead of Macs (so they feel comfortable with it even if they have problems

d) gamers

All of which (except gamers for the most part but I know a few who do it as well) treat their systems like a tool, it breaks fix it, too much to fix it, buy a new one. Or they hate the system they are using but refuse to buy a different machine or load a different OS cause they dont want to either relearn, or they have grown up learning everything is inferior to Windows.

If you think about it, how many Linux or Mac users do you see running old systems compaired to Windows users, you might be surprise to find a LOT of them, cause we treat our computers with much more respect than a typical user would, maybe for different reasons some might have spent a lot of money on it, some might have spent a lot of time on it, and some just generally love their computer, but compaired to a windows user All my mac and linux friends have at least 2 or 3 if not more boxes at home (I personally have 5 macs from a SE 30 on up to my iBook 900mhz, and one old leading edge with a 486DX2 which replaced the 386sx that was in it all working perfectly) why my Windows using friends have one or two (maybe a laptop and a tower) sometimes they have a third (like my roomate) most times they tossed their old one and replaced it with a new one.

OK yes that was long, YES I cant spell (never have and I dont give a fuck either I have better things to do than proof a board posting) but thats how I have always viewed things.

course Im biased cause Im a mac user and all my friends have picked on me through school cause of it, but when it comes down to their systems, I can name every part, have overclocked 2 systems by desoldering jumpers on a board, and tailored my OS to how I like it and what I want installed since OS 7, and half my friends dont even know what a CPU is and TOOK computer classes in school with me where our teacher showed them what a CPU looks like. Im only 5 years out of highschool (finishing up college) thats not a lot of time and to have forgotten something so important to what you use... K I'm done..

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

bmorton (170477) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526252)

So put all that superior-inferior crap where the sun doesn't shine (forgot where that was, somewhere between Lancre and Badass). That most certainly was not the point.

A person who can so elegantly include a Discworld reference in a discussion about Linux vs. Mac OS X should be listened to.

-B

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526332)

Most people are looking for an experience.

I hear what you're saying, but I think in fact that most people are _not_ looking for "an experience," at least not in front of their computers. Most people are looking to get some work done with less pain than they had doing things however they did them before. Most people want a solution that works for them, that they don't have to put together or optimize or spend a lot of time understanding.

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526018)

I'm not saying that ls is inferior on any one operating system. (To my knowledge, I thought that ls was the same on most modern unixes)

What i'm saying is that Mac users don't need to use an overly-complex, antiquated mechanism to display a list of files in a directory. The finder does that for them. I don't want to have to properly format my syntax so that my files are sorted by size in an ascending order.

Joy's main argument is that modern unix-geeks have been unable to devise something better than what he came up with in 1979. And it's true. The only significant addition to the 'standard' the 'base' of unix accepted by the community today is X Windows - no matter what you may say, everything else is functionally the same as it was 30 years ago. Hell... unix continues to use the TTY acronym 25 years after the demise of the teletype machine.

So. Thirty years later we have unix. And we have X. Wow. that's a lot to be proud of...

Re:Slightly Egotistical (1)

merdark (550117) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526043)

Actually, it's more like looking at a kit-car. Sure, it beats the original ford cars no problem. But since then ford has now got *automatic*, *awd*, etc etc.

That kit-car is now just getting awd, independent suspension, etc. But some of it is donated by the big companies, and it still doesn't have automatic or any sort of standards since anyone can put it together differently and sell it to you.

Linux is just not interesting. Nothing in Linux is at all new or different. All the big unix features it's getting are already around and have been for some time. So it's not *interesting*.

It may be functional, effecient, even well designed. But it just isn't new and interesting.

Of course... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524578)

He can afford loaded G5! That system sells for $8474, if he got it BTO!

Of course he thinks a FREE OS sucks.

All high and mighty (3, Interesting)

n3bulous (72591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524665)

"They took systems designed for isolated desktop systems and put them on the Net without thinking about evildoers" - BJ

I haven't really followed Joy's career and what he's created, but if you look at everything on the net, TCP/IP, SMTP, et. al., they were initially dependent on unfounded trust. Once the masses got ahold of it, the evildoers expoited that trust.

For years, Sun shipped systems that were completely insecure right out of the box (blank root password, every inetd service enabled, etc...) It wasn't until the mid-90s that Sun started to do anything about it.

Granted, MS should have known better seeing as they were so late to the party, but Linux systems were no different until enough bitching occurred to make someone change the defaults.

What was that about not knowing your history?

Re:All high and mighty (1)

cpeterso (19082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525109)


plus the article says "Introduced by Bill Joy and a team of Sun engineers in 1995, Java was hailed for its ability to run software applications on any platform." This urban myth has got to stop. Bill Joy did not create Java. James Gosling created Java.

Re:All high and mighty yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525530)

the unix boxes were given to people who were expected to administer them to some degree. They were not given to 18 year old daughters as they left for college as a present.

Leaving food out to spoil in Alaska in the winter is not the same as leaving food out to spoil in Texas in the summer, while the actions taken may be very similar the surrounding environment is not and the net result is (not surprisingly) very different.

Anyway, Bill Joy is a helluva guy, and if he doesn't like linux then so be it. It's nice that he has a choice.

-theed

Re:All high and mighty yourself (1)

n3bulous (72591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525896)

I have no idea how old you are, but circa 1992, security for computers was slowly becoming a quiet issue, let alone the buzz word it has been recently. Right around that time was (one of?) the first big worm (i'm not bothering to research specifics, relying on a blurred memory)

In academia (still circa '92), servers and workstations were not usually behind a firewall for a variety of reasons (primarily money and remote access convenience.) Department budgets for IT were small and usually only had one staff member had more than minimal experience.

Regarding leaving food in the wild, I wonder how many years it took before Man realized he got sick from eating food that was left out too long? It took a few thousand years before bathing was commonly realized as important, let alone brushing his teeth.

The article might have been better titled... (2, Interesting)

thelenm (213782) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524686)

Bill Joy on Linux, Mac OS X, and George W. Bush. Yeesh, I didn't expect so much of it to be a political rant. Then again, it's Bill Joy, maybe I should have. :-)

Re:The article might have been better titled... (1)

overunderunderdone (521462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525155)

Yeesh, I didn't expect so much of it to be a political rant. Then again, it's Bill Joy, maybe I should have. :-)

Sometimes very smart people that are very good in one sphere of knowledge make the mistake of thinking that their expertise extends to ALL spheres of knowledge. So you see actors & musicians, and in this case computer programmers, that think they have brilliant political insights. Bill Joy is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to voice it in any forum he cares to - but I don't see any reason to assume that it is any more insightful than yours or mine. His opinions on computer science on the other hand are something we should be listen to with a great deal of respect.

Yeah, but... (3, Insightful)

anothy (83176) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524691)

Well, Bill, you may be right, but just keep in mind that re-implementing what ken and dennis designed before you probably didn't impress them so much, either.
seriously, he's spot on here. there's lots of good things about linux, but few of them are technical. OS X is doing real new stuff.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Crazy Eight (673088) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525639)

What is OS X doing that is new?

Re:Yeah, but... (3, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525804)

OS X is doing real new stuff.

I'd honestly like to know what this "real new stuff" in MacOSX is.

The kernel is BSD. That's the 1979 technology that Bill Joy was so quick to dismiss.

The display system is Display PDF. That's not exactly a gigantic leap from Display Postscript in the late 1980s.

The desktop interface is traditional Mac (the menubar at the top) from 1984 with the addition of a panel at the bottom. The panel concept is mid 1980s.

MacOSX is fundamentally minor tweaks on proven technology and proven interface design, using a proven operating system that's older than the Mac itself. I don't see why anybody thinks MacOSX is cutting edge.

That said, I think MacOSX is a sexy interface, the PowerBooks are great value for money, and the entire package is extremely slick. But I'm always baffled when people say shiny buttons demonstrate technological leadership. It's just shiny buttons! The technology in MacOSX is really ancient.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

IM6100 (692796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525872)

So you're saying that Ken T. and Dennis R. designed the vi editor, and Bill Joy came along and just re-implemented it again?

I personally find this very interesting (5, Insightful)

nthomas (10354) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524747)

Q: And yet you've been famously cool about Linux.
A: Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally.

[...]

Q: All right, you win. What are you doing for fun these days?
A: I'm figuring out a meditation wall for my apartment in New York. Eight feet high by 12 feet wide, with an array of overlapping rear projectors, each with a tiny Linux box and connected by gigabit Ethernet.

Fascinating.

Linux is 1979 technology and yet runs the projectors for his meditation wall -- built by a Walt Disney Imagineer and the inventor of massively parallel supercomputing.

I should like to ask Mr. Joy why these projectors are not running Mac OS X or even Solaris. Perhaps he owes a greater debt to those kids 20 years his junior than he imagines?

Thomas

Re:I personally find this very interesting (2, Insightful)

kendoka (473386) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524791)

Guys at that level probably consider the choice of *nix an implementation issue. =)

He may be cool on linux, but he didn't trash it per se, he just said it wasn't interesting to him. Not that I feel an overwhelming urge to defend this guy... but if I had been hacking this stuff out at CSRG 20 years ago I'd probably pass on heavy linux involvement too...

Re:I personally find this very interesting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525889)

I think this post illustrates that people seem to be manually inserting some sort of sneer to Joy's response about Linux. I don't think he was being snotty, cruel, or dismissive at all.

They asked about Linux and what he thought about it. Don't forget he worked for Sun for a couple of decades after the initial BSD push as well.

What if your entire life revolved around, say, rocket science, and you came up with some great propulsion theories and vehicles during your day. Now, you're not so much into rockets, but about the dangers of space travel, and people ask about your opinion of the new shuttle design. But you've designed shuttles. Really good ones. But life isn't utopian because of it, and you are re-focussing your energy.

What would you say that wouldn't sound all cocky and dismissive?

Not to say most of us here aren't cocky and dismissive at the drop of a hat, anyway...

Bill Joy - author of a monster (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524822)

Bill Joy: what a cunt.

Give the guy a break (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7524871)

Of course he's totally right.
Why should he be totally into Linux given his background. And why shouldn't he enjoy OS X on this droolproof hardware?

Give the man a good gui or go whine about something else.

I think Linux *could* one day make a comprehensive home user system - if that were a goal in itself - but I'm pretty sure most linux contributors are not the ones you should ask about the hi/gui guidelines. They don't care.

And as long as that's the situation, it's totally understandable someone prefers OS X for the everyday stuff and Linux for doing rocksolid stupid stuff like meditation walls - as long as he doesn't have to set it up himself.

I can dig linux for servers, since you expect the thing to not give you a head-ache *once you set it up*, but to do this constant maintenance on your main machine without the benefits a windows or os x machine gives you, ffff that takes guts and balls, not for me...

Joy doesn't seem to work the Unix way any more... (0, Insightful)

Florian (2471) | more than 10 years ago | (#7524886)

...otherwise he wouldn't prefer MacOS X on a G5 to a free Unix clone like Debian GNU/Linux or, to take a derivate of his own work, NetBSD on the same hardware. While OS X provides the more powerful (yet proprietary) GUI application layer, it is IMHO vastly inferior for being used the classical Unix way:
  • The Mach+BSD server design is a kludge creating unneccessary bloat, complexity and performance overhead without exploiting any of the potential advantages of a microkernel design like better portability or Hurd-style hack value like filesystems running as daemons in userspace etc.
  • In any case, Linux 2.4 and all the more 2.6 should beat, in terms of performance and scalability, the crap out of MacOS X' combination of vintage Mach with vintage BSD and a bloated GUI on top
  • Debian and NetBSD don't have compatibility bloat like the "Classic" virtual machine, m68k-CPU-Emulation and "Carbon"-API in MacOS X
  • They have much cleaner filesystem layouts than OS X with its inconsistency of Unix directories (/bin, /etc) which are hidden on the GUI level and application folders inherited from NextStep
  • They have a more consistent and robust configuration system than MacOS X with its horrible Registry-like "Netinfo" database that replaces some, but not all configuration files in /etc
  • They come with a more complete (and especially in Debian's case thanks to GNU) powerful set of classical Unix commandline applications
  • For the software which is not installed by default, they have consistent package management while MacOS X has a number of simultaneous/incompatible package managers and databases which don't know each other's dependencies: MacOS X install images, fink, GNU/Darwin, BSD-style pkgs/ports...
  • They install programs like vim, mutt, shells etc. with sensible default configurations while I find the commandline userland and MacOS X almost unusable they way it is configured out of the box
For someone who primarily works on the commandline and needs graphical programs only for the occasional web browsing, graphics/pdf and video viewing (for all of which excellent free, X11-based solutions like mozilla-firebird and mplayer do exist), MacOS X offers no advantages over a GNU/Linux or NetBSD system in which all the system- and commandline-level things are done cleaner and better. So it seems Bill Joy doesn't write in vi and work the Unix way anymore, otherwise he would have better things to say about Linux.

Re:Joy doesn't seem to work the Unix way any more. (2, Insightful)

EduardoFonseca (703176) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525266)

I don't agree. Even geeks (me included) like some "confortable" environments now and then. Thats why I'm migrating all my Linux (Gentoo and Debian boxes) to MacOS X shortly. I can keep doing my OSS work and have a great OS (or UI). I've used FreeBSD (which OS X is based) and I always liked it. The only reason I migrated to Linux was that Linux was more... agile. You surely can work the Unix way on the MacOS X. only prettier :)

Posterboy for the *nix geek who doesn't get it. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525774)

"For someone who primarily works on the commandline and needs graphical programs only for the occasional web browsing, graphics/pdf and video viewing (for all of which excellent free, X11-based solutions like mozilla-firebird and mplayer do exist), MacOS X offers no advantages over a GNU/Linux or NetBSD system in which all the system- and commandline-level things are done cleaner and better."

Heheh. It's precisely this type of attitude about *nix why it's no surprise that Linux just isn't "there" yet. I still find it amusing that it was Apple that brought *nix to the masses.

Re:Joy doesn't seem to work the Unix way any more. (1)

IM6100 (692796) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525904)

If you're going to work 'The Unix way' as you decree, you really don't need more than a VT-100 terminal plugged into serial port A of a SparcStation IPX. No fancy schmancy frambuffer, no nothing fancy. Yeah, a Unix greenscreen console.

Of course, there's no need to use Linux on said IPX. NetBSD is a nice alternative, it's a more unified codebase, etc.

Re:Joy doesn't seem to work the Unix way any more. (4, Insightful)

Ffakr (468921) | more than 10 years ago | (#7526246)

I'm sorry, but you're kind of 'out of it'

- Classic is not bloat. It's a feature to allow compatability. Classic doesn't introduce overhead to a system unless you NEED to run an old app. I didn't have Classic installed for over a year and never missed it. It's only on my machine now because I did a clean install of panther.
- Carbon API is an equal partner with Cocoa on OS X. It is based (heavily) off of the Classic Mac APIs but it isn't bloat. It's another enviornment that has benefits and disadvantages compared to Cocoa (or standard BSD libraries). The is a reason why the Finder isn't Cocoa.. it works better as a Carbon app.
- "Vintage BSD" is often a lot faster than your vaunted Linux. I know 2.4 and the upcomming 2.6 have made big strides, but the Linux compat in FreeBSD was faster than Linux for a long time, and as far as I know, still occasionally is faster than real linux.
- Linux files systems are anything but clean. Different distros put stuff in different areas, Major apps switch install and config locations between versions. For the most part, you rarely ever need to dig into the filesystem on OS X. Apps go in /Applications, home spaces in /Users, OS X specific System files in /Library and /System. I find the layout quit logical and quit consistent. As for the unix stuff in OS X, it's where you'd guess most of the time. BTW, why should /bin be shown in the GUI when you can't run command line apps from the GUI?
- Netinfo was depreciated in 10.2 and it's pretty much not used in 10.3. Apples moved everything into the BSD files and/or LDAP. Anyway, There really wasn't much in Netinfo. Comparing Netinfo to The Registry is total flamebait and it shows your lack of knowledge.
- consistent package management on Linux??? HAHAHA If I could count all the problems I've had with RPMs..
Fink automatically handles dependencies. The system software updater tracks packages. In general, the software install tools for OS X work fantastic. Package Manager is way better than anything on linux. And don't forget the use of Bundles. It makes a lot of software installs as easy as copying over an icon [which is a directory with all the goodies inside, but looks to the user like an app]
- haha, you consider the Mac OS unusable out of the box, yet you love linux. With so many distributions of Linux, do you really believe you wouldn't have to apply as much configuration to a distro you weren't intimately familiar with?

Give OS X 10.3 a real try and come back with a comparison to Linux. You'll find a quick, responsive machine. A great bundled development environment, best of class bundled apps, and a hardware accellerated X11 right out of the box.

ffakr.

I'm only 26, so... (5, Funny)

vivekb (111127) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525144)

Who's Bill Joy?

Re:I'm only 26, so... (1)

saddino (183491) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525234)

Why, this guy [sun.com] !

Re:I'm only 26, so... (1)

Confessed Geek (514779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525321)

Honestly? Now? Nobody important.

Re:I'm only 26, so... (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525609)

He wrote the first `vi'. It's true!

sure -- I'd do the same (1)

desau (539417) | more than 10 years ago | (#7525236)

Yeah -- I'd buy a Dual 2Ghz-G5 with 8 Gigs of ram and a half terrabyte of disc if I was making 100 million [fortune.com] off stock sales. Hell -- I calculate [apple.com] that price tag to be only a mere $8475 (without displays -- which would add another $2000 per display).

Mr. Joy is missing the point. No one is saying that Mac hardware/software is crap. It's just waay out of the spending range for mere mortals... which is perhaps the biggest reason why Linux is such a "cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon" -- we don't all have $10,000 to blow on a pretty desktop.

Don't get me wrong -- I think Bill Joy has fully earned his money -- he made some great career and life decisions, now he's enjoying the rewards.. more power to him!

Re:sure -- I'd do the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525407)

However, if you buy the extra RAM from another supplier, it would be much cheaper.

Re:sure -- I'd do the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525456)

And of course you're just looking to fulfill stereotypes with that comment--after all on your way to calculate the cost of the custom built, every-option-added machine, you must have noticed the iBook, eMac, and PowerMac G4 which all offer a fairly good price/performance ratio.

Dear Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525433)

Dear Apple,

I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.

Dear Randy "Pudge" O'Day (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7525450)

Dear Father O'Day,

Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.

I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).

Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!

Sincerely,

Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?