“In early 2005, Apple was announcing the Mac mini computer. It was the answer to what I was looking for in a computer, so I bought one. This is a report about the early months with my new Mac, and how it compares to a Linux computer. (I have never owned a Windows computer.) In short, I am now both a Mac and a Linux user – Apple gets GUI simplicity, usability, and coherency right, and Linux everything else,” Thomas Driemeyer writes for bitrot.de.
“When switching operating systems, there is a strong tendency to whine about all the things missing in the new OS, or that are done differently and require a change of habits. The advantages become obvious only after some time. I’ll do my best to take that into account and present a balanced review. There are a few fundamental problems that I cannot ignore though,” Driemeyer writes.
“No doubt, the Mac mini is the most sexy box I have ever owned. For some reason, perhaps cost, a PC is invariably a boring big brick where all the designers’ creativity goes into coming up with yet another front plastic bezel, usually on the far end of the ugliness scale. It truly amazes me how PC designers have managed to produce one design disaster after another for thirty years straight, while Apple just gets it right every time,” Driemeyer writes. “But that’s not the reason I bought a Mac mini. The reason why I refuse to buy another PC is that today’s PCs are built for stone-deaf speed nuts who think it’s normal that a CPU must generate more heat per surface area than a stove, and require something that sounds like a jet engine to cool it lest it disappears in a rapidly expanding plasma cloud. I was looking for an unobtrusive and quiet machine that I can put on my desk without going deaf or getting sunburned. And I don’t care about gigahertz ratings when I do desktop work. I get all the horsepower I need for 3D rendering at work.”
“As happy as I am with the MacOS GUI, I am disappointed with the underlying operating system. It’s based on FreeBSD, a powerful and well-respected Unix variant, what can be wrong with that? It’s not a leading-edge OS, sure, but it is tightly controlled by a professional team. I understand why Apple chose it; I am sure they felt it’s more manageable than Linux with its countless features and developments. I am sure they also liked the license… To someone who knows Linux, FreeBSD is a little quaint. It doesn’t even have a /proc filesystem, many utilities like ps or ifconfig evoke happy memories of the early 90’s, network services are sparse (no rsh and no rdist, for example) and there just isn’t a lot of tools included. But it’s perfectly adequate for Apple’s purpose, and very stable,” Driemeyer writes. “So why am I disappointed? Because Apple botched the job. They totally crippled MacOS X with proprietary additions. In particular, they tore out some of the lower layers and replaced them with a Mach-like microkernel. Microkernels were all the rage fifteen years ago, but the idea totally crashed and burned because performance and resource usage was pitiful. All implementations failed, and today it’s deeply buried and forgotten.”
Full article, a very interesting read, here.
Advertisements: The New iMac G5 – Built-in iSight camera and remote control with Front Row media experience. From $1299. Free shipping.
Get Microsoft Office for up to 50% off when you buy a new Mac at the Apple Store. For a limited time, you can load up your new Mac with a full version of Microsoft Office and save up to $250 after mail-in rebate.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Chicago Sun-Times: Apple’s Mac OS X ‘the easiest, most reliable, and overall best operating system’ – November 28, 2005
Gartner: Ignore Microsoft Windows Vista until 2008 (why not just get Apple Mac OS X Tiger today?) – November 12, 2005
Windows switchers, now’s your chance: Apple Mac mini with Mac OS X Tiger for $379 – November 03, 2005
News & Observer writer dumps Dell with Windows for iMac G5 with Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger – October 23, 2005
Microsoft’s Windows Vista will attempt to incorporate many features from Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger – August 01, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
PC World names Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘Best Operating System’ – June 01, 2005
Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘is the most advanced operating system on the planet’ – May 31, 2005
TrustedReviews: After using Mac OS X Tiger ‘going back to Windows XP is something of a joke at best’ – May 18, 2005
I just don’t get it. I mean, whenever I’m tinkering with my procsys I always get plenty of rdist throughput. And what the hell’s up with the ilkorb and the /crock netconfig?
And why must I always re-set the mflorb to get it in sync with the xclamroot? Holy crap, this is also f-cking with the proprietary tdram uplincsys frangipan!!!
Damn you Apple!!!!!!!
This guy might be a Linux guru, but he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about when it comes to a real Unix… He states “[Apple} tore out some of the lower layers and replaced them with a Mach-like microkernel,” which is utter nonsense…
FreeBSD, is based on BSD, which was the original OS te be based on the Mach microkernal… it has been akey component of BSD since the mid ’80s.
I stopped reading at that point… No point in reading the opinion of another idiot… There are too out there on the web spewing crap as it is.
Interesting read, if a little typical of a Linux geeks way of seeing things.
Meaningless,
ROTFLH!
having really hard core computer geeks on apple’s side with the condition that they will complain about things that don’t make sense to 99.9% of the world is still worth it. The complaints about the under workings that most of us ignore might be valid and when a company pays attention to people who know what the hell they are talking about instead of people who are retarded e.g. the music industry who is pissed that they can no longer sell 15 dollar cd’s by writing one good song for britany. If linux geeks want to buy apple, and if they will buy more if apple works hard on real low level difficult architecural problems all the better. I’m not saying that apple currently doesn’t work hard enough but any benefit for a company to work on important things eventually benefits the user.
Linux SYSTEMS appeal to a technical user who enjoys a good command shell more than a GUI. Fine, I can appreciate that – you can spend the same money on two cars and get one that is better suited for comfort and one better suited for performance.
The command line utilities this guy is pining for (I don’t know all of them myself) are likely substituted for with other command lin eutils (there are so many) and/or with GUI equivalents. True Linux is more a tinkerer’s box, open to installing just about anything. FreeBSD has many of the same attributes so I would imagine that he could find much of what he is looking for my scooping up OS X Server and/or hitting a little known search site called Google.
It’s good. Somewhere along the line, Open Source will take over, but it’s early days yet. DVD Player? I don’t think I’ve ever used it because of the region limitation. Movie Player? VLC gives me less grief. Codecs? Well said. Mouseclick inconsistencies? Mac users don’t even think about it. Take the easy road instead: Attack Windoze! (Talk about flogging a dead horse.) Truth is, criticism makes one stronger. Read it.
Jay, who gives a shit? The point is, the guy sounds only HALF-educated — and VERY opinionated — about what HE wants to see in OS X.
I want what APPLE puts in there, because I know I’m not a tinkerer and I can just . . .
GET SOME F-CKING WORK DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then go back to Linux, I frankly don’t care how my machine works, just that it does reliably and consistantly everyday of the year.
Since I have gotten only one virus in my entire lifetime of using Mac’s I don’t care for anything else.
Excuse me I got a party to go to, enjoy the cold dampness of your mothers basement you sorry Linux puppy.
Hmmm girls, nice and warm and kissable. Skin so smooth and sexy.
Yum. 😀
Ther is always SourceForge and other sources of open source software. Many packages have been already reconfigured and recompiled for Mac OS X. For example, the Linux world is big on LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySql/PHP) for webservers. O’Reilly has a whole site dedicated to it. For Macs there is MAMP(Mac OS X/*/*/*). For more info see
http://www.webedition-cms.com/english/downloads/mamp.php
Other open source software is available as source code if you you are geek enough to recompile, making any necessary changes. And if you are geek enpough, consider sharing your work back through SourceForge, etc.
As for Linux & Unix – there are so many different flavors out there that no one can be considered the true version. Fact of life.
When switching operating systems, there is a strong tendency to whine about all the things missing in the new OS, or that are done differently and require a change of habits.
However he does a lot of that in his article.
An interesting read, but take it with a grain of salt (like a salt-lick block for livestock).
It’s certainly too bad that you seem to think that ad hominem attacks are useful in an argument or discussion. If anything, it gives evidence of your own personal insecurity and your delusional view of reality.
I won’t be happy until OS X is free, it can use any piece of software in existence, it can read any file ever produced and it runs on any piece of shit hardware you can find with absolutely unparalleled connectivity.
I’m going back to linux.
I have to say the beach ball seems way too common of late (tiger), he got that right.
The guy may have some good points about aspects of Unix that Apple have not implemented with OSX that will be needed for acceptance into the server market.
But and this is a bit but, OS X is primarily a consumer product. Ease of use and applicability for a regular home user is what they have to cater to. Therefore it is not surprising that cutting edge Unix technology is included. Tht takes time to implement and make sure it is rock solid.
Check the facts, NeXt and OSX is BSD sitting on a Mach 3 Kernel, Linux is sitting on a version of the Mach 3 Kernel. OSX applies the interaction differently than Linux and in theory is more secure. I believe OSX is much easier for the average end user than Linux is, but try telling that to a Linux user. The extra security in OSX provided by the “server” sffect of the system does slightly increase the overhead and slightly decreases the speed. It was a good geek article even though I did see some flaws in his opinions.
I won’t be happy until OS X is free, it can use any piece of software in existence, it can read any file ever produced and it runs on any piece of shit hardware you can find with absolutely unparalleled connectivity.
I’m going back to linux.
Enjoy your trip. My firm began developing products using Linux starting with v2.0, in 1998. Linux is a great OS, TODAY, but still has many shortcomings, most notably a GUI that works. We adopted a web interface (a very poor substitute for the Mac GUI) because it worked and didn’t pile on the overhead KDE or Gnome did.
Unless ‘geek’ is your middle name, and you prefer life in the basement eating candy bars and drinking Mountain Dew, Linux is not for you.
My apologies to the tons of developers that don’t fit the above mold (there are many). Of course, I wouldn’t expect the tripe this guy wrote from that group.
Leave it to a Linux geek to bash the system in order to show off his self imposed “superiority” only to encourage people to use it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Back handed compliments/reviews are always confusing and are better off discarded.
One comment that always irks me is about the mouse. Very few people use the original mouse that came with the system they bought.It either doesn’t have the correct number of buttons, (10?-Puleeze!) or it doesn’t fit the hand correctly for the tasks they do. Newbies don’t know any of this, so a one button mose makes sense to them. Fact is, most people buy third party mice no matter what platform they use, so quit complaining about the one-button mouse.
Cool article.
Some of you people in here should look up the word “jingoism” – it’s not just for describing the Republicans anymore.
^ No, it’s especially powerful in the hands of democrats.
Well, i am geeky in a Unix flavored way, and i can tell you this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. The simple truth of the matter is that BSD is Unix, and Linux is a Unix-wannabe. Where Linux differs from BSD is often a “Linuxism,” a BSD feature done a different way. It may very well be that Linux has some innovations worth adopting, but by and large that is not the case. And he shoots himself in the foot with his examples:
rsh (remote shell): MacOS X offers ssh (secure shell) instead. The difference between the two is essentially this: ssh is far more secure than rsh.
rdist: MacOS X offers rsync (and there is a GUI version available for MacOS X). CLI-Programmers may find rdist easier to use than rsync because of its make-like file selection, but rsync is far more efficient in file transmission and synchronization. To non-programmers, they’re both fairly obtuse to use. That’s where GUI wrappers come in handy.
/proc: Try man ps
“there just isn’t a lot of tools included”: <LOLROF>
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
“a Mach-like microkernel. Microkernels were all the rage fifteen years ago, but the idea totally crashed and burned because performance and resource usage was pitiful. All implementations failed, and today it’s deeply buried and forgotten.”: Not really; see this Wikipedia write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science)#Hybrid_kernels_.28aka_modified_microkernels.29
Okay “Not Nick”, since you obviously lack the mental capacities to look it up yourself, here’s the definition:
“extreme patriotism, esp. in the form of aggresive or warlike foreign policy.”
I agree that Mac OS X has some serious threading problems that are related to the microkernel. I thought it was the icrokernel that made the hardware abstraction possible. Maybe I’m wrong. Linux flavors cover different platforms, but it does seem like even in Linux a distribution is either for x86 or PPC and rarely both without alot of extra work.
Apple keeps the network PC-centric probably because it makes sense from a licensing standpoint. Linux actively avoids any barriers or categories and that is its greatest weakness. Nobody can decide what Linux is exactly, so it tries to be everything at once.
I like to read articles like this that point out the weaknesses and problems with OS X in a constructive way. It keeps the experience real.
Why does this upset some of you? I fully understand that 99% of computer-users find this to be too complex for them, or even irrelevant. But that shouldn’t mean we should abuse this guy.
The guy has switched to the Mac, and advises people to try it, despite the shortcomings he pointed out, and despite being a linux geek.
He was constructively critical: Pointed out the strengths, and when pointing out the weaknesses he tried to offer alternatives or at least explained why they were weaknesses in his opinion.
If it is upsetting that Mac OS-X is not perfect in the eyes of a linux geek and it is such a narcissistic injury to you, I hope it isn’t for Apple developers, because this sort of analysis is needed for Apple to continue to improve and continue to be miles ahead of Microsoft.
I say we need more analytic articles like these, even if the vast majority of Mac users would not see their relevance.
the mac is the coolest. i don’t care about the underpinnings… it just lets me work… and i like beachballs, they’re so much less mundane than hourglasses.
That’s how many a mac user sounds.
I found the article really interesting… and it makes sense.
Coming from Windows to a new iMAc G5 i didn’t expect all stupid things I hate about OS X, such as the scroll bar stuff and the slow graphics processing, and the lagging and the beachball when you access a network… oh that’s FRUSTRATING… it’s like os x is just ‘BUSY’ when you try to do something… it can’t do two things at the same time.
Too Hot! I think that you failed to see several of his points. First any comparison of the Mac GUI to KDE or Gnome is inherently flawed. Anyone who has used both with an eye towards everday use can see this. The desktops for Linux are as far behind in usability as OS 2 Warp. I’ve used environments as far back as the mid to late ’80s (think Amiga, Atari, etc) and would prefer some of them to the aforementioned glue-on eye candy. Usability is nowhere even close to where it should be. Win 95 was better by far (and that pretty much sucked).
This guy talks about double clicks and behaviors. Try KDE. Better yet give it to your secretary. He’ll be lost as soon as he tries to save something. Provided, that is, that the desktop doesn’t crash when saving.
Don’t be fooled by his seeming knowledge of Linux/Unix. If he really knew what he was talking about he would not have listed most of the interface items (virtual desktops? – c’mon) as real problems. Nor would he have mentioned Objective C. Graybeards? Who does he think oversees Linux (the man from whom the name is derived is no spring chicken). Nor is his assertion that Apple is making it difficult for people to write for the Mac. Pacal was the language of choice way back when. And there have been too many languages to count for Windoze. And Unix? Want COBOL, C, C#, C##, Fortran, etc. Take your pick. There all good for the tasks for which they were disigned. But this guy obviously thinks that it wasn’t written in his language by his community then it isn’t worth using (to be diplomatic).
He stated, “Sometimers, rarely, you find some freeware or shareware on the net that can help.” And, “As a Linux user, I am used to getting software for free. With my Mac, I learned about shareware. That’s software designed to work poorly or not at all, or just for a short time, until you pay money. No thanks, especially since most of the stuff ought to have been part of the system in the first place.” Again, get real!
Those two statements alone should have marked him as someone completely out of touch with the average users experiences, needs, wants and desires. Not knowing what shareware is (or pretending that opensource is the only true licensing vehicle for releasing software to the world) is laughable. He must have grown up on a commune. And by his own assertion no knew software should need to be created for Linux because everything you need, everything of value is already included in the operating system. Thanks but no thanks. I’ll take photoshop over GIMP anyday and whole host of other apps for everday use. Most professionals I know feel the same way. (and he can keep his 5-10 versions of the same app on Linux much the same as you can keep them on Windoze; Desktop Manager works great and it’s freeware not shareware so what’s the diff? What the writer didn’t turn it over to everyone to rewrite and hack?!?) GMAFB
And the fact that he would attempt to denegrate shareware in the way that he did (see above quote) shows that he had no real intention in providing even a remotely unbiased comparison of OSes or merely pointing out OS Xs weak points for everyones (Apple’s included) edification. This was just another Linux Fanboy no different from the Apple or Windoze Fanboys. Just know who you’re dealing with. Nobody seriously put him down. If you think they did then maybe you’re a Linux troll just trying to soften the Armies of Goodness. Won’t work.