Subject: Re: OSX vs. YDL
From: Keary Suska (hierophant@pcisys.net)
Date: Fri Nov 30 2001 - 09:43:43 MST
On a side note, it's interesting that MOL runs faster than Classic mode. Go
figure. Perhaps Apple can learn more from open source initiatives.
Keary Suska
Esoteritech, Inc.
"Leveraging Open Source for a better Internet"
> From: Paul Guba <gubavision@home.com>
> Reply-To: yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:28:57 -0500
> To: yellowdog-general@lists.yellowdoglinux.com
> Subject: Re:OSX vs. YDL
>
> First off you are comparing apples with oranges. You may like oranges
> more but they will never be apples. Is YDL more flexible of course. It
> is this way by design but it comes at a price. Difficulty in it
> configuration and its installation upgrading. All the things that make
> it a very powerful and open platform also make it cumbersome and
> awkward. OSX however is less open in doing so it has more control over
> what it includes. Allowing for a more plug and play interface. This is
> by design simply put the average user does not have the patience or the
> know how to deal with the a full blown Unix or Linux based system. All
> you have to do is see the amount of install problems with YDL on this
> list. Do you really think that would fly in a mainstream product. As
> far as the bloat ware claim I do believe YDL install wants at least two
> gigs to install if I recall correctly. Claims that its slow I just
> haven't seen. If you run a classic app yes it slows down. I imagine if
> you ran some windows simulator on Linux it too would be slow. My
> network speeds and file transfer all appear to have increased in speed
> with OSX and native apps seem as fast or faster. If you were expecting
> FreeBSD from OSX tough what's the purpose in that it already exists why
> reinvent the wheel. So if you want control and an open platform go with
> Linux. I have booth and they live very happily together. In the mean
> time lets see who can connect a firewire CDR and burn a CD faster. If
> you win I'll bake you nice orange pie. ;-)
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 09:52 AM, cbsled@ncia.net wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/01, at 02:54 AM, "Nathan A. McQuillen" <nm@steaky.dhs.org>
>> said:
>>
>>> That's the thing: it remains a Macintosh, with some of the same
>>> sacrifices and
>>> tradeoffs, and much of the same design philosophy.
>>
>> Right, and that philosophy hasn't changed in over 15 years. They threw
>> out some of the best available *nix features, like virtual desktops,
>> and held on tight to all the truly annoying and dysfunctional parts of
>> the Mac GUI, along with its traditional "We Know What's Best for You"
>> lack of configurability. Before anyone flames me for that comment, go
>> take a look through the KDE Control Center. Now compare that with OSX.
>> It's pretty and elegant, yes, but it's also pretty clear that they went
>> for style over substance in the interface design.
>>
>> Then there's the matter of the 1Gig base os install footprint... And I
>> thought Microsoft was the king of bloatware. OS X is over 5 times the
>> size of 9.1. On a laptop? Better make it a new one. I dumped OSX off my
>> Wallstreet Powerbook within a week. Including the "developer tools",
>> which don't include a compiler BTW, it's over 1.5G.
>>
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Carl Brown cbsled@ncia.net
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Support Organized Crime-
>> Buy Microsoft products
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 09:56:29 MST