Mac OS X v. Linux

Eric Dunbar eric.dunbar at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 07:06:03 CDT 2005


You can cc: any response to the list, if you want. I'll leave most of
your response text in.

On 6/29/05, Charles Mauch <cmauch at gmail.com> wrote:
> * On Tuesday, June 28 2005, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > It
> > > appears to me that you really don't have a desire to learn, explore, or
> > > simply find out if a different "text editing paradigm" is indeed more
> > > useful.
> >
> > I have no NEED to learn a complex text editing paradigm, nor do 95% of
> > people (number pulled out of my derriere as syn. for overwhelming).
> 
> For sure.  I felt the same way when I first leaned vi.  The learning curve
> was a real PITA.  However, it was worth all the effort.  Just like anything
> else really.
> 
> That was really the point I had really.  That in order to get something
> worthwhile out of a project of any kind - you have to put in some time and
> effort.  Learning how to use vi/vim was worth all the pain.  My productivity
> is much higher as a result.
> 
> > A small fraction of them would be helped if they *could* do more
> > advanced work but, even for that small portion of the 95%ers, a
> > slightly advanced gedit (with grep for e.g., hypothetically called
> > geditgrep) would do. They already have ALL the skills needed to use
> > geditgrep if they know how to use MS Word, Photoshop (YES, Photoshop
> > has transferrable skills that are directly relevant to gedit),
> > FireFox, etc.
> 
> I certainly see the need for easy to use tools for people who don't ever
> plan on doing much with their computers other than game/surf/write emails.
> But considering the people who are attracted to GNU/Linux in the first
> place, I still have my doubts that this is something that's going to be easy
> to do or will happen in the near future.  It's a huge culture clash.

Although, that's changing rapidly. A few years ago, I'm sure you'd
find very few people who *couldn't* install their own hardware or
"roll" their own packages. Now a very sizeable portion of users
couldn't do either, and, in the future the overwhelming majority won't
be able to do either of those tasks. [more on culture clash later]

> I'll give you a stereotype that I believe is true as an example.  Most of
> the people I know who are attracted to the command line love books.  They
> love reading, grammar and syntax.  They love the interplay with words,
> regardless of the language.  It's just "who they are".  The people I notice
> who are fans of GUI's (I mean people who NEVER want to see a command line)
> grew up in an environment where they didn't read, they played video games
> and reacted quickly to visual information.  There wasn't a lot of time given
> to think about their actions.
> 
> Is this argument flawed? Sure.  But I think it illustrates two different
> mindsets about people interact with computers.  I think GNU/Linux and UNIX
> in general cater towards the literary crowd.  OS/X and Windows cater to the
> more visually inclined.  Getting both crowds to agree on anything is sort of
> like getting Democrats and Republicans to agree to something.  It takes lots
> of work, and the results never pleases anybody.

Interesting, I can't say I can either confirm or deny your observations.

> > > some rather romantic notions on how we (as computer users and developers)
> > > interact with the world in which we live.
> >
> > That's fine. At least you're not deluding yourself into thinking that
> > you necessarily have the best solution *because* it is FLOSS. You
> > appear to like to take it all apart and put it back together so for
> > you it is a good solution. However, for most people this is NOT a
> > consideration and it inhibits the use of tools.
> 
> I'm a quasi-developer, but mostly a heavy power user.  I build and secure
> networks for a living.  As a result, my perspective isn't that of a normal
> computer user I think.  I'm attracted to this environment because it suits
> me.  So naturally when I see folks trying to bend "my environment" I get a
> little nervous.  Sure it's irrational, but the reaction is still there.

[culture clash returns] I think it's a *good* thing people are trying
to bend "your" environment, and I don't think you or anyone else
married to certain ways of doing things will be harmed.

First of all, the reason I think it'll be *good*: by "bending" the
environment to make it more user friendly* you attract more people. By
attracting more people you attract more developers (including
proprietary ones, which is *good* (e.g. Real)) and investment, and,
with more developers and investment comes higher quality code and
novel code.

Also, by making the environment better to use than Windows (which is
easy) or Mac OS (which is harder) by adopting good GUI practices (as
informed by objective research, rather than the subjective whim of a
particular developer [group]) Linux will gain a level of respect that
it could not by merely being a clone of Windows (as, I still argue it
is at the moment).

*user friendly = usable to people without extensive experience with
the CLUI or manuals... you should ONLY ever have to read manuals for
the most complex tasks, NOT simple ones like saving or opening files
[which you do with vi(m), emacs, etc.

> > In time FLOSS will become more accessible to non-experts (and, the
> > bulk of Linux users *ARE* experienced computer users (and, you cannot
> > count "I set my mom up with Ubuntu and she loves it" because these
> > 'inexperienced' computer users have a geek behind them)).
> 
> My mom does use GNU/Linux.  And so do my brothers, my sister and most of my
> extended family.  Of course, they all prefer KDE because it reminds them of
> windows I think.  I'm a gnome nut. :)

You do fail to mention the experience level of said family, or how
much help they get from experienced individuals. I know very few
people who actually use Linux, and those that do are the "uber geek"
type of person (I'm perhaps the anomaly in that I have a profound
hatred of computers).

> > And, I really hope that FLOSS does become more accessible. As I've
> > stated before and elsewhere, FLOSS really offers a unique opportunity
> > for humanity. Not in its ability to create profound, earth shattering
> > software, which it *won't* and *hasn't* (virtually everything that
> > FLOSS has done of note has been copied). But, it will do two related
> 
> This is pretty typical Microsoft FUD. (That F/OSS doesn't innovate).  The
> reason people believe this is because F/OSS development is gradual, and
> doesn't happen in lurches with huge parties and announcements.  It just
> creeps up and happens, and then a proprietary vendor will latch onto the
> idea (or even the implementation) and make a big announcement and "shazam",
> we have innovation!  You see this even in the current news.  Case in point,
> Microsoft's adoption as "RSS" into their new browser and operating system.
> It made me giggle to hear about it.

[my take on 'innovative' is something important and widely used that
did not have a closed source precedent]

By-and-large I *do not* see innovation in Linux/FOSS. The only place
where there's important and noteworthy innovation IMO is in the realm
of internet and networking-related software. Perhaps this is because
the internet and FOSS movement grew up side-by-side. It is in the
realm of the internet/networking that you can point to software that
was novel and not preceded through the closed source paradigm -- e.g.
apache (though, perhaps apache was preceded too... I don't know squat
about early [closed] networking software).

I don't count a widget or two here-and-there in GNOME or KDE as
innovative, unless they profoundlly change the way a lot of people
work. There are some minor GUI innovations (e.g. virtual desktops,
although, was it GNOME/KDE/X.org/XFree that took virtual desktops from
the technology preview floor and used them or did early x-windows
implementations on UNIX use virtual desktops... never mind, I
experimented with virtual desktops on Mac OS  in the late 80s (I liked
them, but that was before a more mature app switching interface
developed) ;-).

OO.org is a clone of MS Office. GIMP is a clone of Photoshop.
FireFox/Mozilla are copies (well, technically they're progeny) of
Netscape (<=4.x) and Internet Explorer and benefit from all the $$$
that were pumped into their development during the "browser wars". On
the face of it FireFox 1.0.4 is not much different than Netscape 3.x
(it runs much better though) [though, all Moz/Netscrape browsers and
IE do have a common somewhat (or fully?) open origin ;-)]. s is a
clone of r.

Perhaps you can find minor softwares that are innovative but they
certainly haven't captured people's imaginations.

This isn't to say (hmm. seems ungrammatical) that FOSS doesn't do a
*good* job when it copies. Merely that it takes a good idea and
"opens" (if you'll pardon the pun) it up to users who can't otherwise
afford it or who need to be able to extend it.

There are some [minor] innovations, but, for the most part, FOSS
copies well! Under the hood, Linux and BSD are Unix clones.

> > things: (1) open up computing to the millions (perhaps billions) who
> > at present cannot AFFORD software (in developing nations); and, (2)
> > will allow people/organisations/businesses to standardise on a piece
> > of software and be confident that they will be able to use that
> > software on current and future hardware (provided they have the skill
> > to upgrade/fix the software).
> 
> This is one thing I really like about the ubuntu project.  They're focus
> seems to be a little outside of what I see in the foss community.  The best
> way I can put it, I think that while the Debian project is great, they tend
> to focus on making great Free Software and that's where their interest (in
> general) ends.  My first impression of Ubuntu is that they want the world to
> not only encourage the growth of Free Software, but as Lawrence Lessig
> defines it - Free Culture.
> 
> Cool stuff.
> 
> > Ubuntu is a good step in that direction, but even Ubuntu is not
> > explicitly focussed on making FLOSS accessible, yet (though, a loose
> > interpretation of the charter does suggest that this is part of
> > Ubuntu's goals). However, perhaps FLOSS is not mature enough yet for
> > such an ambitious project. There are many good programs available
> > under FLOSS, but, for the most part they are NOT ready for prime time
> > use. Even OO.org, the flag ship suite is too unstable to point to as a
> > "mission critical" app :-( (I must say that with Word 2002 and Excel
> > 2002 I haven't lose ONE minute of work in 6 months of use under XP...
> > yes, they've crashed (I do put Excel through a lot ;-) but no data was
> > lost).
> 
> I think GNU/Linux will eventually be plenty easy to use for most people.
> (It is for my family) Look at how far it's come in the past few years.  A
> couple of years ago Afterstep was the big windowmanger.  We've come from
> that to two different and complete desktop environments (KDE & GNOME).  In
> comparison to the sluggish evolution of the Windows environment, FOSS is
> advancing in this field at an ASTONISHING speed.

It is already plenty easy to use on a certain level, but it MUST
evolve beyond the status quo.

> > > All of those are perfectly valid reasons for using Ubuntu (or any piece of
> > > Free Software).  Just don't expect to convince me to convert to OS/X on any
> > > of my machines because it's got neat widget x, or new gizmo y.
> >
> > No need to "convert" you to OS X (PS it's not OS/X). OS X is Linux's
> > big brother. It's the show case of what *can* be done with Linux, if
> > only there was some will to abandon the Windows paradigm.
> 
> The big problem with recent converts from Windows is that they dislike
> change, and when you switch from any operating to another - it can be a
> little jolting.

[back to culture clash, and your concern with "my system"]

That's the beauty of Linux (I don't even need to write this, except
just to state it ;-), you *can* have different work paradigm
all-in-one. If Linux gets better, your experience with the CLUi won't
get worse, and, you can always keep the GUI components you like. Linux
GNOME/KDE do a good job of making the CLUI accessible but less so the
GUI. Apple does a good job with the GUI but less so the CLUI (hmm,
which one has more users? And which one grows as it focusses more on
the GUI ;-).

> > For a group of OSes that capture a lot of Windows escapees there's far
> > too much Windowsification of the interfaces. GNOME/KDE designers
> > haven't done their homework when it comes to examining good GUI design
> > and GNOME (or KDE) is exactly the place to do it!
> 
> I really like the new gnome actually.  It gets better and better, and I
> think it's pretty uncluttered compared to it's cousin KDE.  Of course, I'm a
> hater of the Windows GUI.  I get lost a lot, and have problems finding
> things when working in Windows.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  I don't
> see that there is a lot there we SHOULD be emulating.
> 
> The new Mac OS is better, and I like that they experiment.  But for an
> oldschool unix geek, it doesn't feel "right".  Not that this means much, but
> I tend to have a few gui apps open, and tons of terminals open.  I tend to
> use my desktop simply to augment the commandline, not the other way around.

The one thing that Mac OS REALLY does right is having fixed targets on
the screen. Floating menus are *bad*, *bad*, *bad* (plus, on laptops
they waste screen real-estate). Fixed menus are good, and
unfortunately there are only a few (poorly implemented) full screen
fixed menu-bar supporting apps in KDE. Hopefully this will evolve.

(Plus, I'd love to see Expose built into GNOME (provided there aren't
any relevant patents))

> > As long as the GUI solutions WORK, people will accept them. I don't
> > think being a Windows clone (which is what Linux really feels like
> > nowadays) is necessarily a selling feature. I certainly don't think
> > that being a Mac OS X clone would be any better a solution (although,
> > it would be more usable for most people)). It's a real shame that
> > GNOME hasn't taken the lead and incorporated the best from Mac OS (X),
> > BeOS, Windows and the best usability research available.
> 
> I think they have actually.  The changeover from gnome 1.4 to gnome 2.0 was
> a really DRASTIC change in appearance and functionality.  It's evolving.
> And with SUN really involved in gnome desktop, in a few years we're going to
> see neat new windowing ideas like lookingglass incorporated into it.  Gnome
> is where I think the exciting stuff is happening.

GNOME is looking much better now than when I first started
experimenting with it, but, it also is feeling more like Windows than
ever.

> In other words, if you like that sort of thing - the eye candy is coming,
> and it's gonna kick Mac's ass. :)

I really hope so!

> > In some ways it would be too much to expect a hodge podge of
> > developers to look to usability as the holy grail of computing, but
> > that's what it is. Companies have an incentive to make software better
> > in order to sell more units or differentiate themselves from the
> > competition, and this is where closed software is more successful than
> > open software. I guess it's like patents and invention. Patents
> > encourage investment of R&D to generate new ideas and, when they
> > expire other copy.
> 
> Patents aren't a bad thing, but I don't think Patent Law translates to
> software very well.  It's a mess right now, and if we don't fix the system
> it's going to kill not only the free software movement, but most of the
> small and mid-sized software development shops out there in a few years.

"kill... free software movement... small and mid-sized software... in
a few years"

That's a Microsofty FUD type statement too! It certainly will make
*some* things more difficult but it won't kill the free software
movement. If the FOSS movement is founded on such shakey ground, then
I suggest people examine the legality of their software anyway (and, I
don't think FOSS is founded on overly shakey ground).

> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html is a good read
> about patent laws and the threats to Free Software in particular.  Give it a
> read and let me know what you think.  A good article about copyright that's
> entertaining (on the same site) is
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
> 
> Thanks for the conversation, but I think that it's time that I go outside
> and enjoy the weather. :)

I will too. It's been 30-33 all week. Absolutely gorgeous weather in
sunny Toronto (plus, we've now got a thriving same-sex marriage
tourism business going... all the escapees from the US (what deluded
fool ever said Canada was like the US? ;-)).

Eric.



More information about the sounder mailing list