____/ Rick on Sunday 28 October 2007 11:55 : \____
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:39:43 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:45:32 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Sunday 28 October 2007 07:53 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:28:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some Leopard upgraders see 'blue screen of death'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>> | A significant number of Mac owners upgrading to Leopard on Friday
>>>>>>> reported | that after installing the new operating system, their
>>>>>>> machines locked up, | showing only an interminable -- and very
>>>>>>> Windows-like -- "blue screen of | death." `----
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> I think its a little early for the Leopard bashing to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why? Whenever MS botches an update, they get the deserved flak
>>>>> immedeately. Why spare apple?
>>>>> They have shown that their attendance to detail is not better than
>>>>> that of MS. The often mentioned "quality" of apple software is just a
>>>>> myth, and it has shown again
>>>>
>>>> People whom I know where left stuck with only the command-line after
>>>> rotten updates from Apple. It does not make that Mac so easy to use.
>>>
>>> That is not good. And yes, I think that Apples quality of hardware and
>>> software is over somewhat rated.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We need to eliminate the perception that Mac is like a prettier Linux
>>>> (Compiz-fusion+Plasma+AWN looks better) which is easier to use and
>>>> more reliable. When Linux is packaged and preloaded properly, it's an
>>>> excellent system that /anyone/ can use without requiring help.
>>>
>>> When Linux is properly packaged and properly loaded...
>>>
>>> How many distros have been distributed with 0 problems? And while
>>> Compiz Fusion is getting very easy to turn on, there still seem to be a
>>> large number of people with problems.
>>>
>>> OS X IS a nice looking OS. It IS user friendly. BUT ... Macs are fairly
>>> expensive, and the Apple software that makes them attractive (iLife and
>>> the commercial stuff) is all proprietary, and closed source. The
>>> commercial software is also expensive.
>>>
>>> It is a shame the commercial developers haven't figured out how to do
>>> decent ports of MacOS software to Linux and BSD.
>>
>> *BSDs work *very* well without being tainted by any MacOS crap, IMO.
>> It's because Apple have buggered about with BSD, & added their own
>> software that their machines crash.
>
>
> That may well be true.
Since many Apple Mac users prefer OSS to escape lockin (Thunderbird, Firefox,
NeOffice, etc), one must wonder why they go ga-ga after Aqua (proprietary).
When it comes to virtualisation (Parallels), they can use VMWare on Free
software (free in terms of cost also) and the same goes for their
applications. If they like Apple hardware, they can install/dual-boot Linux on
it. Well-designed laptops will come... and not just from Apple, which
admittedly employs creative people
I've used Mac OS X and it's good looking, but I can't see how it outperforms
Linux in any way. In fact, it lacks a lot of great stuff that exists in KDE
(not just applications). When it comes to looks, if that's a concern, Linux
can be put on 'steroids' that make it mimic OS X _PLUS_ a whole variety of
other things that suit one's personal taste (and are free... and available in
large numbers).
--
~~ Best of wishes
Unisys: open source software set to have a similar impact as the Internet
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
13:00:01 up 11 days, 22:45, 3 users, load average: 0.79, 0.76, 1.21
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
