Mac look alike?

[CLIFFORD ILKAY]

Mark Traceur wrote:
 >Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> When one is expecting a Mac, and the system does not behave like a
>> Mac, then the behaviour is wrong. A skin might look like a Mac, but it
>> does not behave like a Mac.
> 
> Naw, that means they bought the wrong computer, not that the system
> has failed them. If someone wants to be blinded and handicapped, they
> can buy a Mac, otherwise Linux has roughly the same features for no
> price.

I've noticed you've been excoriating various people here for "selling" 
OS X. First, who made you king? Your fanboyism does more harm to Linux 
than the people whom you accuse of treachery for daring to suggest that 
OS X or, gasp, Windows might even be more appropriate in some cases. 
Your ridiculous claims about OS X such as "no capabilities to allow the 
user to do ANYTHING except for blindly listening to iTunes and watching 
iPhoto slideshows" is the mark of a nutbar. So, the millions of people 
who use OS X do nothing other than listen to iTunes and watch 
slideshows? The old saying, "Better to keep your mouth shut lest you 
make a fool of yourself instead of opening it and removing all doubt." 
comes to mind.

Second, I recall a crappy Pontiac called the Fiero from the '80s. Some 
poseurs would buy fiberglass body kits to make them look like a Ferrari 
308. Did that magically transform a crappy Fiero into a Ferrari? Of 
course not. Just because they had "roughly the same features" didn't 
mean they were interchangeable. Admittedly, the analogy isn't perfect 
because it implies that Linux is the "crappy Fiero" and OS X is the 
Ferrari. Neither is the case but the analogy illustrates the folly in 
implying that a reskinning job is all you need to fool someone into 
thinking Ubuntu is OS X.

Finally, who said Linux has "no price"? There is a cost of ownership to 
everything. You seem to fall into the category of "knowing the price of 
everything but the value of nothing". If you're a graphic designer, or 
work with digital audio or video, regardless of how "expensive" Apple's 
hardware is,  OS X offers great value, even better than the "no price" 
Linux. If you're a web developer or hosting provider, Linux offers the 
best value. It's a fantastic developer's and hosting platform. If you're 
doing serious CAD/CAM or financial analysis, chances are Windows is your 
best bet.

I use Linux because it has the applications I want and need for my job. 
If it didn't have them, I wouldn't use it. That it's free, in both 
senses of the word, is a bonus but not sufficient. I also have to use 
Windows because as a web developer, I can't ignore Internet Explorer 
(though I wish I could). And yes, I also have an OS X machine on my desk 
because I can't just pretend to write portable code. I actually have to 
test on OS X too. If I did something else for a living, say worked as a 
fund manager as one of my brothers does, I'd be running Windows. The 
applications he runs only work on Windows and when you have millions at 
stake, you don't fool around with half-baked "it's almost Windows" 
implementations like WINE.

To claim that Linux is unequivocally the "best" choice regardless of the 
use case is either disingenuous or naïve. I think we do Linux greater 
service by being honest about its strengths and weaknesses.
-- 
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326