Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Linux Users and Apple

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
February 7, 2007 5:14:35 PM

Would someone please explain to me why it is that whenever i talk to another fellow linux user, they always say nice things about apple? I grant that they have accomplished a few noteworthy things, but in my view they are just as bad if not worse than MS. Really the only difference between the two is that apple made some stupid mistakes back in the day which allowed MS/IBM clones to become the dominant computing platform.

I don't want to start a flame war here, so lets try to keep things civil, shall we? :wink:

-Zorak

More about : linux users apple

a b 5 Linux
February 8, 2007 2:31:19 PM

:lol: 

cousin / brother something like that :wink:


Unix is great in every form especially when it is well implemented.

It is ever better when it is open source :-D

It's too bad apple is proprietary even though they are based on BSD :cry: 



Quote:
its said: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
MC OS is enemy to M$
making it a fiend of Linux who is also an enemy of M$

in addition, Mac OS 10 is nothing but a Unix ... ehem - linux's brother (?!)
a b 5 Linux
February 9, 2007 5:32:01 PM

Yes, the fact that Apple picked-up some great, open stuff and has returned very little to the community does gall me. The had the opportunity to really advance some areas but did nothing with it.

Basically, they have a very nice system because of the hard work of a community and decided to give little back (yes, Darwin the kernel is open, but from all the stuff that they actually used, I feel a bit like they took more than they gave)

My $.02

Also, on a more technical side, Darwin is an amalgam of the Mach micro kernel with BSD external trappings such as the VFS layer and process handling, with substantial modifications to glue the two together and tailor the use to Apple's will.
Related resources
February 9, 2007 9:10:48 PM

I am glad to see that there is at least one other Linux user who doesn't think Apple is all "peaches and cream" (pardon the fruit metaphor). They may have a nice system and some nice hardware, but I just don't see why people don't include Apple in their thoughts when they scream about vendor lock-in. MS isn't the only company that tries to force you to use their software. Honestly, Apple even goes so far as to dictate what kind of computer hardware you use (although admittedly w/ the advent of intel macs this problem is lessened a bit). Not to mention the fact that you pretty much HAVE to use itunes if you have an ipod.

As good as UNIX is, just because something is a flavor of UNIX doesn't make it good if the company producing it has questionable business practices (Think SCO here).

That is just my opinion on the matter, and I realize that not everyone is going to agree with me, but I would at least like to get people to realize that MS doesn't have a monopoly on evil the way it does on desktop computing.

-Zorak
February 9, 2007 11:21:42 PM

I'm not a huge Linux user; though I have dabbled with it from time to time. I completely agree with you on Apple, though. The only thing that has stopped them from being condemned as much as Microsoft is their small market share. It amazes me that Mac users condemn Microsoft when Apple is as bad (perhaps worse). Just because you have your OS running on a pretty candy shell doesn't make it better; nor does it justify Apple's business practices.

The only reason Apple isn't viewed as a monoply is their market share... but when you consider the way they "lock-in" their customers, it's pretty clear that they ARE a monopoly all to their own. It shocks me that Apple users don't realize it.
February 10, 2007 1:07:34 AM

Yes, I'm no fan of Apple myself. They are just as cruel as M$, it's just because they only hold 2-3% of the computing world, no one really cares :lol: 
a b 5 Linux
February 10, 2007 5:12:21 AM

The reason, in my eyes, Apple is worse than M$, is that the average Mac user is really, really smug without really understanding the benefits inherent to OSX, they just know what marketing has told them. I know it's a bit superficial, but as they are the spokespeople for the platform, they just really do a poor job of presentation.

Both platforms are fundamentally flawed in their goal, it's just that there isn't the level of aggravating aire of superiority mixed with a healthy dose of lack of information on the Windows side of the fence, generally speaking.

Again, my $.02
February 10, 2007 6:40:47 AM

Quote:
...the average Mac user is really, really smug without really understanding the benefits inherent to OSX, they just know what marketing has told them


I couldn't agree with you more! And in all honesty i don't think that is superficial, quite the contrary. I think it is incredibly perverse that about 90% of mac users (at least out of the one's i've met) get all their information about apple from apple! And all the smugness and claims of being more enlightened than the windows users make things all the more ironic since they just follow propaganda as blindly as most windows users.

To the credit of MS, I have never seen them raise up an army of jihadists the way Apple has, but seeing as how MS isn't very good at either PR or making software, that isn't saying a whole lot.

I think if more people would just learn a tiny bit about computers instead of listening to marketing departments, we'd all be a lot better off. I realize that not everyone wants to get a degree in Computer Engineering and specialize in architecture design just to learn about computers, but at this point in time, it is damn near IRRESPONSIBLE not to have at least a modicum of knowledge about the machines that so permeate our society.

-Zorak

P.S. If we keep adding our two cents to this thread we may be able to generate quite the profit :wink:
February 10, 2007 4:44:00 PM

I wouldn't say that Apple is entirely harmful, but they aren't harmless either, but I guess more than anything, they are just really annoying.

As for the whole OSX/Linux compatibility issue, there are probably some programs out there that address that, but just because both are UNIX variants doesn't necessarily mean that they should be fully compatible with one another. For example, i am not certain, but I don't think you could run linux programs on FreeBSD. Also OSX and its programs were originally written for an entirely different architecture than your standard amd/intel box. Architecture considerations aside, there are also a bunch of extra libraries and things that Apple created for OSX that aren't needed or implemented by Linux (e.g. Cocoa) .

But like I said, there are probably some programs out there that address this compatability issue.

-Zorak
a b 5 Linux
February 10, 2007 5:47:30 PM

You are spot-on here, the *BSD's have a very light layer of compatibility framework (namely just allowing the kernel to read and execute Linux binaries) to allow them to run nearly all Linux-targeted software with no modification to the code (according to the FreeBSD site, it hovers around 90% of Linux code works fine with no modification).

Also, many of the overlooked low-level apps that ship on Macs are in fact ports or outright copies of Unix/Linux code (as Darwin and the low-level OSX system is Posix-compatible). These include things like less, grep, cat, find, and even bigger systems/apps. I kinda chuckled recently when I overheard a Mac user extolling this great system he just recently discovered for setting up and managing printers that was far superior to anything Windows had to offer. The system? the Common Unix Printing System, or CUPS. The same system that has been in use for years in OSS systems.

Most of the high-level apps, as Zorak so aptly pointed out, are missing system libraries from messaging subsystems to graphical layer libraries. If those could be reproduced or, say, released by Apple under a libre license, it would only be a matter of time before we saw OSX binary compatibility layers such as WINE.
February 13, 2007 5:02:43 PM

:trophy: Thanks for the brownie points! :trophy: :mrgreen:

-Zorak
February 15, 2007 1:37:35 AM

What I hate about Apple isn't the interface, or the hardware. Its the people.
I had to deal with a idiot Mac user a week ago.

She saw me using my laptop to do some stuff in Photoshop and told me that I could work more efficiently and get this, more creatively on a Macbook. So immediately I switch to angry black man, and reply with a scathing "Miss, how the hell does a certain machine allow you to be more creative?" She danced around that issue and kept going on about how the Mac's are simpler and don't crash as much as Windows PC's and the typical Mac evangelist bullshit. So me, being in a enthusiast, begin to dress down the twit about security issues and the like. I told her that there is no god given right to use a PC. Its a god damn privilage. It requires a certain amount of skill and at least some intelligence to work these machines. If you don't know how to use a computer without being swamped by spyware, or click on every fucking link that you see, then you deserve what ever viruses you get and would probably be better off using a damn Casio than $1000+ equipment.

After saying this, I reached over to her Macbook and proceeded to make it lock up.

And they need to stop equating all PC's to Windows. By the strict definition of the word, a Mac is a PC.

I was using Windows with Photoshop but god forbid if I was using Gimp...

I apologize for the colorful language, but stupidity irks me.
February 15, 2007 2:37:01 AM

Quote:
I was using Windows with Photoshop but god forbid if I was using Gimp...


I use Gimp 8) I support the community that supports me by using Gimp instead of Photochop, and by recommending it to all those who ask me for a simple, suitable program for photo editing that doesn't cost an arm, or a leg....

And to that's something that pisses me to no end, a MAC is a Personal Computer.... And I have yet to find a MAC to be more stable then a PC. I can crash them all! I believe MAC users think they are better because MAC users don't know how to abuse things. When I multi-task, I thrash my computer like it just stole the keys to my car! WinAmp, FireFox, F@H, Bit Torrent, Hamachi, Planeshift, MSN and IRC... I run them all at once when I need to! MAC or not, I'll crash it. 8) MAC users only seem to use one program at a time, with only 1 window open at a time.... Hence why they think MAC = Stable.

Some days I could almost consider avid MAC users to be "Technologically Racist" :roll:





***I know there are some good MAC users out there, this is just an opinion from my experiences with MAC users, don't take it personal***
February 15, 2007 4:35:58 AM

Ninja, don't worry about the language, I think it was quite funny :D 

Also, I am glad you tore that ignorant Mac user a new one, and you are absolutely right about computers. I think if everyone even had a clue as to what the hell is going on inside their machines, the world would be a lot better off. Unfortunately they don't, and the enthusiasts are left to pick up the pieces when the technologically ignorant do stupid things like installing random programs from the internet w/o regard to where they came from.

Honestly, "work more creatively in a macbook"? What a crock of shit! Hah! That is Apple zealotry and brainwashing at its finest. I also agree with what you were saying about equating PCs with windows, but I'd like to add that since most mac users INSIST that people are unenlightened unless they own a piece of junk with the apple logo on it, they are implying that the x86 architecture is inherently inferior and they are insulting the importance/power/stability of linux on the x86 architecture. Such attitudes are really stupid because it is difficult to compare computers that use completely different architecture sets (although now it should be easier to compare macs to other rigs).

On the linux note, it can do EVERYTHING MacOSX can and more. After all, they are both UNIX variants, so all the security and stability is just as present in linux as it is in OSX if not more so. Plus, with window managers like Beryl, it is now possible for linux to do things graphically that mac users could only dream about. Seeing as how these programs are all open source and extensible, while they may not "make you work more creatively", they certainly give you a lot of room for customizations and therefore they allow you to EXPRESS your creativity more. No other system that I know of (unless you count BSD separately) allows you so much control over everything including the inner workings of the program, or the operating system for that matter.

It seems quite typical for a mac user to assume that nobody on a "PC" would use anything other than windows... Anyways, macs have always been "PC's" in the strictest sense of the word, and now that they have become x86 boxes, they are really no better than overpriced dell or hp machines that come with a proprietary OS.

Of course, all of this stupidity and smugness can be traced directly back to apple and their damn encouragement of mindless zealots and sycophants.

In any case, the hour grows late, and I must take my leave of this forum for the evening. Good night.

-Zorak

P.S. I am not entirely certain what you mean by "god forbid if I were using the GIMP", could you clarify?
a b 5 Linux
February 16, 2007 9:36:17 PM

Apple. Think different. Just like everyone else who is "creative".
February 16, 2007 11:47:08 PM

Quote:
I am not entirely certain what you mean by "god forbid if I were using the GIMP", could you clarify?

They think the only graphics editing program anyone should use is Photoshop, on a Mac of course. Photoshop on Windows is painful enough, now imagine the Gimp in all its non posh glory... it'd give em a heart attack. Twice.
February 17, 2007 4:31:57 AM

Hah! you are right, they would freak out b/c the gimp doesn't look like their beloved photoshop. Maybe I should get a laptop and load it with linux and use the gimp in the middle of a mac store, just out of spite :wink:

-Zorak
February 17, 2007 4:04:05 PM

Quote:

They think the only graphics editing program anyone should use is Photoshop, on a Mac of course. Photoshop on Windows is painful enough, now imagine the Gimp in all its non posh glory... it'd give em a heart attack. Twice.


But, based on this article from early last year, it seems many linux users want photoshop ported over to linux too.

I think Adobe's dominance in the commercial world with its products has convinced regular users that the photo editing app of choice should be ps, Much like the word google has replaced "search," photoshop has replaced "edit."

Personally, as mac/linux user I have gimp on my ibook (ubuntu) and gimpshop on my imac. I also use PSE with add on plug-ins which gets it close to full PS. And I plan on buying Lightroom or Bibble for photomanagment. The great thing about Bibble is that its cross platform, but LR has the better interface.
a b 5 Linux
February 20, 2007 3:15:14 AM

I not only use The GIMP in front of a whole lot of Photoshop-using Apple people but I'll generally use semi-compatible OSS software in courses designed around some specific proprietary app. Then I also save my files in a standard format that all of the machines can read but isn't usually the common binary format, such as .rtf, .csv, .pdf, .txt, .dxf, etc. So I use Octave instead of MATLAB, GNU R instead of Prism, OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office, QCad instead of AutoCAD, Kate text editor + GCC + bash instead of the Microsoft VC++ compiler/editor and command.com, Firefox or Konqueror instead of Internet Explorer, Nvu or Kate instead of MS Front Page, and the list goes on.

I usually got away with using another program other than what was required, with the possible exception of Mathematica. I could not find any other program that would do what Mathematica did and spit out .nb files. The reaction to my using other programs was generally neutral to negative as the compatible files sometimes weren't handled 100% perfectly by the proprietary app, even though they were supposed to be.
!