alex goldman wrote:

How many of Linux users here would rather use Mac S if it were freely
downloadable, and Mac hardware was priced close to PC hardware with
comparable specs?

No me. I own an iBook, but chose to run Linux instead of MSx
because Linux suits my needs better.

Erik

2005-07-12, Erik de Castro Lopo <nospam@mega-nerd.comwrote:
alex goldman wrote:
>>
>How many of Linux users here would rather use Mac S if it were freely
>downloadable, and Mac hardware was priced close to PC hardware with
>comparable specs?
>
No me. I own an iBook, but chose to run Linux instead of MSx
because Linux suits my needs better.

<aol>

Me too!

</aol>

(Though on occasion I do run S X in mol in order to run programs not
available for linux, like Quicken.)

2005-07-12, googlemike@hotpop.com <googlemike@hotpop.comwrote:

Not me. When you add the latest GNME, rdesktop, Samba, Screem, Gimp,
3ddesktop, , Firefox, and Thunderbird to Linux, it's almost
as slick and user-friendly to me as Mac S.

You can add most, if not all, of the above to S X.

I also like to customize
and tinker too much and Linux lets me do that more than Mac.

There's a whole lot of tinkering that can be done in S X. It's
basically FreeBSD with a lot of add-ons, after all.

There are
also just too many free apps out there for Linux compared to Mac S.
Last, if something isn't coded yet for Linux, I often find that it's
not too hard for me to do many things on my own with it -- that many
doorways are not superglued like they might be with Windows or Mac S.

As I said, many of these free apps are easily available on S X. Look
into fink: fink.sourceforge.net. That's probably the doorway you're
seeking.

Having said all that, I still use linux as my primary S on my iBook.
But S X is *not* Windows comes with bash, even! (If only bash were
the default shell)

Poly-poly man wrote:

ray wrote:
>
>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:43:30 -0700, alex goldman wrote:
>>
>>
How many of Linux users here would rather use Mac S if it were freely
downloadable, and Mac hardware was priced close to PC hardware with
comparable specs?
--
To me, this is how the world works:
--
windows: the dark side of computing, stupid, garbage, etc.

Mac: the gray side of computing, fun happy, etc.

Linux: the bright side, development, games, anything, etc.

I suppose nothings possible on a 'doze box, but a mac is not made for
business, or huge networks, I think it is just for fun (and it is).
Linux, everything is possible.

So there it is. I would rather keep a linux box, but I wouldn't mind a
little mac in my life.

Certainly Macs are attractive - I use a Tiger iBook for my daily work.
The Linux desktop has been slow advancing, probably more due to
psychological fud than any real technical drawbacks, though I think I'm
seeing signs that it is becoming more acceptable to general public. I
hope that's real and that Linux starts pushing Windows off desktops.

Mac's move to Intel may ultimately make Mac's a much easier choice for
the common folk. At least right now, they have a little less fear of
Mac than Linux, and the Intel move may give them even more reasons to
feel comfortable (the possibility of running Windows apps through VMWare
or other virtualization, for example).

the other hand, Linux is becoming less of a bogeyman. There are more
and more books that are focused directly on the home user thinking of
switching, and of course all that advice doesn't hurt in the office
either. I do have customers who use Linux desktops, and wouldn't mind
seeing more.

However, if Linux on the desktop can't catch fire, a world of Mac
desktops and Linux servers would be a great improvement over what we
have now, wouldn't it?

2005-07-13, Poly-poly man <pyrophobicman@gmail.comwrote:

I suppose nothings possible on a 'doze box, but a mac is not made for
business, or huge networks, I think it is just for fun (and it is).
Linux, everything is possible.

Would you care to justify the position that a Mac (which is, after all,
basically FreeBSD!) is not made for business or huge networks, but linux
is?

Keith Keller writes:
Would you care to justify the position that a Mac (which is, after all,
basically FreeBSD!)
SX is not FreeBSD. It is a modified Mach single-server kernel with a
FreeBSD compatibility layer.

ray wrote:
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:53:24 -0400, Tony Lawrence wrote:

>>Mac's move to Intel may ultimately make Mac's a much easier choice for
>>the common folk. At least right now, they have a little less fear of
>>Mac than Linux, and the Intel move may give them even more reasons to
>>feel comfortable (the possibility of running Windows apps through VMWare
>>or other virtualization, for example).
>
>
How is that? My understanding is that they will be using a proprietary
chip, they have basically just switched suppliers.

Being able to offer a virtualization product like VMWare could open up a
lot of doors for Macs that are now closed. I'd love a box that could
run Tiger, Linux in various flavors, and XP, because I have to do
support in all those environments. Many other people would love such a
box because they want Windows QuickBooks (Mac version is always way
behind), Safari or Entourage or whatever, and some Linux app that
doesn't port well to BSD. Good tech support people would adore such a
box because they could troubleshoot six ways from Sunday using all
manner of tools.

In article <1121257251.168029.247900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
Poly-poly man <pyrophobicman@gmail.comwrote:

To me, this is how the world works:

windows: the dark side of computing, stupid, garbage, etc.

Mac: the gray side of computing, fun happy, etc.

Linux: the bright side, development, games, anything, etc.

How about :

windows: the dark side of computing, stupid, garbage, etc.

linux/unix: the awkward, irregular, side of computing only for nurds and
sysops

VME: the lighter side of CLI computing - highly orthogonal (regular)

Mac: the gray side of computing, fun happy, etc.

RISCS: the light side, easy, fun, simple

:-)

Dave

2005-07-12, alex goldman <hello@spamm.erwrote:

How many of Linux users here would rather use Mac S if it were freely
downloadable, and Mac hardware was priced close to PC hardware with
comparable specs?

Unless/until MS can run on hardware I've dragged out of a dumpster
(like most of my current computers), I don't think I'll be interested.