[News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X - Linux ; On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:51:34 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom scribbled down: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out > this bit o' wisdom: > (Snippage) > >> 4) Everything flows. Apple HCI guidelines really work., Everything is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

  1. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:51:34 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom scribbled down:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >

    (Snippage)

    >
    >> 4) Everything flows. Apple HCI guidelines really work., Everything is so
    >> well integrated. Linux is massively off here.

    >
    > Again, if you like the package, go for it. I'd be more interested in
    > how much you /can/ tailor OSX, myself.


    (* another post of yours)
    *> However, I have a very mixed desktop, running gnome, kde, fox-toolkit,
    *> wxwidgets, console, and other kinds of apps on a fluxbox desktop with
    *> help from KDE, Gnome, and XFce theming items.
    *>


    Here's the difference in how our brains are wired. I like
    software/computer industry as much as anyone. But I couldn't see myself
    spending loads of time to "customize" my desktop. To me the desktop is
    just a place to run apps. I spend /my/ time editing, compiling, adding on
    to a intranet site I wrote for myself and stuff like that. That's the sort
    of stuff that interests /me./

    For me as long as a desktop isn't disruptive or repulsively ugly then I
    don't really care. To me the whole notion of a rotating 3D cube with fish
    swimming around in it is almost a joke. I'm way too old school for that.


    *> Does it look as slick as a Mac, or even Win 2000/XP classic? Not
    *> really. Does it do what I want? And how!

    So what is it exactly that /you/ do with your desktop that's so demanding?
    Seriously... because I'm definitely not understanding this whole thing
    where people are spending some measurable amount of time customizing and
    tweaking their desktop. What's the benefit at the end? (Other than it
    looks nice.)


    > I didn't like being locked into one company's idea of a user interface
    > with Microsoft, and there's a good change I wouldn't like it with Apple,
    > either.


    That aspect of it isn't something that I worry or even
    think about. I need a desktop to launch apps and for somewhere for the
    apps to run. Yeah... there's file managers and stuff like that but I'm
    talking about the "desktop" here.


    > But I've had this argument with Snit, so no need to rehash. Simply put,
    > I like the way I do things just fine.


    I'm not going to argue of what desktop is better/best. I'm just curious
    what's all this customizing/tweaking that people are doing to their
    desktop.


    >> 5) Applications. Mac has some great cant live without applications. Mac
    >> developers unlike Linux/Win seem to understand what makes a good
    >> interface. Applications like Coda, Transmit, Toast, iWork and the Omni
    >> group are just so good. Linux cant compete. Again you can accomplish
    >> the task but not as productively, or well presented on Linux.

    >
    > All in all, the guy's a fan of Macs. Cool.


    It's not that. For example gdesklets has this thing that "looks" like the
    3D dock in OSX 10.5.0 (Leopard). But if you've ever used the two the OSX
    one is simply better. It's "okay" and kinda works but OSX simply did it
    right.



    > I don't care. As I've noted before, the thing that will most push Linux
    > right now is advertising. Not chasing someone else's idea of a desktop
    > look-and-feel.


    Advertising would do more than anything else. Redhat/IBM/HP/etc advertise
    Linux but they target IT types. Not general consumers. I really can't
    think of any substantial advertising of *consumer* Linux. (A mention in a
    Toy'R Us sales flyer isn't what I'm talking about here.)


    >>> I remember DFS jeering at the theming in Linux, not realizing that all
    >>> he needed to do was install some theme engines.

    >>
    >> Themes can be installed. I think the point is that OSX comes with a
    >> damn good theme "out of the box" which is a plus for the many people
    >> who don't want to tweak and configure their desktop.

    >
    > How difficult is it? Select the Themes menu and pick one.
    >
    > Who's going to pick a Mac solely because it has a nice default theme?


    I'd say that hardly anyone picks a computer "solely" because of any one
    feature. It's the whole package that people want... especially with Macs.

    And with this theme thing... Linux *can* be tweaked with gDesklets and
    stuff like that. But you need to know this even exists, download it,
    install it and then configure it. OSX... you plug the computer in and it's
    all there and ready to go. Most people do like *convenience* and it's 10x
    more important if you're talking about 'consumers' who fear computers and
    would have no idea how to download and install something from a repository.



    >> My Ubuntu desktop with Compiz is
    >> rather nice and it wasn't all that difficult to configure.
    >>
    >> The larger point is #4 and to a lesser degree #5. I don't use a Mac but
    >> several people around me at work do. The consistency and integration
    >> between all applications and the OSX is first rate. I find that with
    >> Linux it isn't as consistent. Example - I typically use emacs for
    >> editing source code, scripts, etc. Use the clipboard on Emacs and I can
    >> copy text into it and paste it into other Emacs buffers. But often I
    >> can't paste the text into other Linux apps.

    >
    > Such as?
    >
    > I'm having a hard time believing that one. One can even cut-n-paste
    > between a Windows VM and Linux vi session. X is what handles it.


    I do this with VM's, my desktop and remote X-sessions on
    Solaris/AIX/whatever machines 5-days a week. And in most cases it does
    work. But I was doing something the other day at work and I couldn't copy
    text out of some app. Annoying as hell.



  2. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:19:05 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:


    > Here's the difference in how our brains are wired. I like
    > software/computer industry as much as anyone. But I couldn't see myself
    > spending loads of time to "customize" my desktop. To me the desktop is
    > just a place to run apps. I spend /my/ time editing, compiling, adding on
    > to a intranet site I wrote for myself and stuff like that. That's the sort
    > of stuff that interests /me./


    Same for me, only digital audio stuff.


    > For me as long as a desktop isn't disruptive or repulsively ugly then I
    > don't really care. To me the whole notion of a rotating 3D cube with fish
    > swimming around in it is almost a joke. I'm way too old school for that.


    Exactly.
    nice as a proof of concept, but almost totally useless for productivity.

    Give me a nice background, good color combinations, clear crisp fonts and
    virtual desktop's and I am happy.
    That's all I need.


    >
    > *> Does it look as slick as a Mac, or even Win 2000/XP classic? Not
    > *> really. Does it do what I want? And how!
    >
    > So what is it exactly that /you/ do with your desktop that's so demanding?
    > Seriously... because I'm definitely not understanding this whole thing
    > where people are spending some measurable amount of time customizing and
    > tweaking their desktop. What's the benefit at the end? (Other than it
    > looks nice.)


    What else do they have to do?
    Compile kernels?

    Seriously the Linux users are morbidly hung up on customizing things.
    They call it choice.
    I call it a waste of time.


    >
    >> I didn't like being locked into one company's idea of a user interface
    >> with Microsoft, and there's a good change I wouldn't like it with Apple,
    >> either.

    >
    > That aspect of it isn't something that I worry or even
    > think about. I need a desktop to launch apps and for somewhere for the
    > apps to run. Yeah... there's file managers and stuff like that but I'm
    > talking about the "desktop" here.


    So exactly what does Gnome, kde,windowmaker,fluxbox etc do that is
    exclusive to each of them?
    Each of those systems can be made to act just like the others given some
    time and tweaking.
    You can run gnome apps under kde and kde apps under gnome.
    You can have docking panels like Windowmaker in either of them.
    etc.....
    >
    >> But I've had this argument with Snit, so no need to rehash. Simply put,
    >> I like the way I do things just fine.

    >
    > I'm not going to argue of what desktop is better/best. I'm just curious
    > what's all this customizing/tweaking that people are doing to their
    > desktop.


    What they are doing is wasting time.



    >
    >>> 5) Applications. Mac has some great cant live without applications. Mac
    >>> developers unlike Linux/Win seem to understand what makes a good
    >>> interface. Applications like Coda, Transmit, Toast, iWork and the Omni
    >>> group are just so good. Linux cant compete. Again you can accomplish
    >>> the task but not as productively, or well presented on Linux.

    >>
    >> All in all, the guy's a fan of Macs. Cool.

    >
    > It's not that. For example gdesklets has this thing that "looks" like the
    > 3D dock in OSX 10.5.0 (Leopard). But if you've ever used the two the OSX
    > one is simply better. It's "okay" and kinda works but OSX simply did it
    > right.


    Exactly!
    The system is integrated, works out of the box and yet is highly
    custimizeable.
    Maybe not as much as Linux, but who cares?

    Do you know why most people's Macs are still mostly stock?
    Because stock WORKS and because Apple did their UI homework and released a
    system that appeals to the majority of people.

    >
    >> I don't care. As I've noted before, the thing that will most push Linux
    >> right now is advertising. Not chasing someone else's idea of a desktop
    >> look-and-feel.

    >
    > Advertising would do more than anything else. Redhat/IBM/HP/etc advertise
    > Linux but they target IT types. Not general consumers. I really can't
    > think of any substantial advertising of *consumer* Linux. (A mention in a
    > Toy'R Us sales flyer isn't what I'm talking about here.)


    If the netbooks loaded with Linux catch on that will be a good way of
    introducing Linux to the public at large.
    Unfortunately many of these are also available with Windows and that is
    what most people are going to buy.


    >
    >>>> I remember DFS jeering at the theming in Linux, not realizing that all
    >>>> he needed to do was install some theme engines.
    >>>
    >>> Themes can be installed. I think the point is that OSX comes with a
    >>> damn good theme "out of the box" which is a plus for the many people
    >>> who don't want to tweak and configure their desktop.

    >>
    >> How difficult is it? Select the Themes menu and pick one.
    >>
    >> Who's going to pick a Mac solely because it has a nice default theme?

    >
    > I'd say that hardly anyone picks a computer "solely" because of any one
    > feature. It's the whole package that people want... especially with Macs.


    Mac people are highly applications based.
    They buy a Mac because they need to run xxxyyyyzzz.
    Not the other way around.

    > And with this theme thing... Linux *can* be tweaked with gDesklets and
    > stuff like that. But you need to know this even exists, download it,
    > install it and then configure it. OSX... you plug the computer in and it's
    > all there and ready to go. Most people do like *convenience* and it's 10x
    > more important if you're talking about 'consumers' who fear computers and
    > would have no idea how to download and install something from a repository.


    It's a total mess.
    Just look in the Ubuntu fora and see how many times the "How do I get that
    cube thingie" question gets asked per week.
    It's NOT easy, unless you know the secrets.



    snip---------

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  3. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    > I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    > or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    > inventing new ones.
    >
    > Same goes for sound.


    The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:




    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    In article <72sKk.73702$E41.21843@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
    7 wrote:
    > I'd second that by saying go to www.youtube.com and search for
    > Linux and compiz. I genuinely fail to see why windummies and appil retards
    > have such a hard time accepting their osen are nowhere near as good!


    Most people aren't as easily impressed as you. OS X had a compositing
    window manager in in 2001, and one that was able to use accelerated
    graphics hardware for compositing in 2002. Microsoft demonstrated one
    in 2003, which even used some of the same visual effects that Compiz
    used when Compiz arrived at the party, two years after Microsoft and
    four years after Apple.

    The best you can say about Compiz in regard to OS X and Windows is that
    Compiz happened to include flashier effects for some things, such as
    transitions among desktops.

    And when you look beyond the window manager, it's no contest. Core
    Image, Core Video, and Core Animation are far beyond what you have in
    Linux graphics and video systems. (Core Audio, too, but the bar is so
    low there that someone accidently stepping on the tail of a cat would
    win that one...).

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    "Ezekiel" stated in post
    pan.2008.10.19.00.19.03.352799@nowhere.com on 10/18/08 5:19 PM:

    >> But I've had this argument with Snit, so no need to rehash. Simply put,
    >> I like the way I do things just fine.

    >
    > I'm not going to argue of what desktop is better/best. I'm just curious
    > what's all this customizing/tweaking that people are doing to their
    > desktop.


    I do a fair amount to customize my work environment... I use tools such as
    Typinator, DockStar and iClip to add functionality I prefer. I also have
    some pretty specific ways I like my OS preferences set.

    Some people, though, tweak for the sake of tweaking - to them it is an
    interesting hobby. To each their own. I still would like to see what
    "argument" he thinks he had with me, though.


    --
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    --Albert Einstein


  6. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:07 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >> I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    >> or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    >> inventing new ones.
    >>
    >> Same goes for sound.

    >
    > The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:
    >
    >


    Good find Tim!

    Seriously, sound and Linux is a cluster****.
    It really is.

    Look at Apple and Windows.

    Sound just works....

    The worst a person, professionals, have to do (Windows) is choose WDM or
    ASIO.
    99 percent choose ASIO because it works better.

    Normal users don't even get involved with this....

    Linux?

    Sound is a joke....
    It's a total mess.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  7. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:00:32 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> ____/ 7 on Saturday 18 October 2008 20:54 : \____
    >>
    >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> Switch to Ubuntu Linux not Apple Mac OS
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | So why are people not going over to Ubuntu? Beats me. If you are
    >>>> | looking for commercial technical support, Ubuntu does offer that. If
    >>>> | you are looking at extreme personalization options Ubuntu offers
    >>>> | that, probably even more than the Mac OS. If you are looking for easy
    >>>> | upgrades to future versions, Ubuntu offers that. If you are looking
    >>>> | for ease of use, Ubuntu offers that. If you are looking for
    >>>> | robustness and security, Ubuntu is the best. Ubuntu can be installed
    >>>> | on all types of hardware and even on older hardware. Mac OS does not
    >>>> | offer this flexibility.
    >>>> |
    >>>> | The more I use Ubuntu, the more I fail to understand the lure of the
    >>>> | Mac OS. Is it the snob value or stupidity that make people consider a
    >>>> | Mac over Windows and not Ubuntu?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I'd second that by saying go to www.youtube.com and search for
    >>> Linux and compiz. I genuinely fail to see why windummies and appil
    >>> retards have such a hard time accepting their osen are nowhere near as
    >>> good!
    >>>
    >>> http://www.distrowatch.com
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com

    >>
    >> Compiz is a big headache to Microsoft. It makes Windows look like the
    >> fugliest O/S, which it is.

    >
    > Until the person actually runs compiz and finds all the bugs.



    As opposed to 'finding features' in the windummy OSen like BSOD?

    Linux compiz working 100% and flawless from day one.
    The only thing you need to do is set it up properly
    and since I adore it so much, I really like doing it well.

    Compiz with 16 semitransparent virtual screens in a 'cube' is
    something I can't let go of - and because work is 100% (as opposed to work
    being defined as managing your daily BSODs on your WINDUMMY PC), I have
    several virtual machines running at the same time doing things and when
    speed is everything, even things like directory access lag with tens of
    thousands of files is some directories hogging the CPU for 2 or 3 seconds
    is an issue - so I bought an SSD which cuts that by about 25% to 50%.

    With the Pickit2 programmer from microchip being operated under Linux and
    Linux PIC compilers available, I am the point where dumping
    the windummy PC altogether is a commercial option and leaving
    it asside to support legacy stuff is the only reason for having it around.


  8. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On 2008-10-19, Ezekiel wrote:

    You've managed to jump out of the bozobin again. Oh well, let's just pop
    you right back in there again.



    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  9. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >> I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    >> or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    >> inventing new ones.
    >>
    >> Same goes for sound.

    >
    > The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:
    >
    >


    Don't be an asshat, Tim. We had this discussion already.

    "Linux" isn't Microsoft, and "Linux" isn't Apple. In spite of the
    variety of solutions, we still manage to have good userland and pro
    sound support.

    And there is no single line of thought in COLA. Nice try at painting
    the poster here as dazed followers of (who knows what?)

    --
    A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even
    his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.
    -- Kirk, "The Omega Glory", stardate unknown

  10. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > I must be doing something wrong. My KDE desktop is very nicely integrated
    > overall. Drag-and-drop interfaces are a joy!


    I much prefer pipes.

    How else can I find 22 related e-mails in my .maildir, count them, and
    copy them to a holding directory, in one line of code?

    --
    Surprise! You are the lucky winner of random I.R.S. Audit! Just type
    in your name and social security number. Please remember that leaving
    the room is punishable under law.

  11. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:51:34 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom scribbled down:
    >
    > *> Does it look as slick as a Mac, or even Win 2000/XP classic? Not
    > *> really. Does it do what I want? And how!
    >
    > So what is it exactly that /you/ do with your desktop that's so demanding?
    > Seriously... because I'm definitely not understanding this whole thing
    > where people are spending some measurable amount of time customizing and
    > tweaking their desktop. What's the benefit at the end? (Other than it
    > looks nice.)


    You're confusing customizing the desktop with using it. Whereas, in the
    part above that I snipped, you were properly separating them.

    With fluxbox, I have a lot keystrokes set up to do things such as mute
    the audio, start and stop the media player, bring up terminals or a
    calculator, move and resize windows.

    I actually miss it now that I'm XFce on this machine. Sure would be
    nice to have a way to transfer keystroke settings amongst the various
    WM's.

    But that's just for navigating on the desktop. For actually usage, I
    pretty much prefer just having a few open consoles, with some helpful
    environment variables to get to where I commonly go (e.g. $dev).

    >> I didn't like being locked into one company's idea of a user interface
    >> with Microsoft, and there's a good change I wouldn't like it with Apple,
    >> either.

    >
    > That aspect of it isn't something that I worry or even
    > think about. I need a desktop to launch apps and for somewhere for the
    > apps to run. Yeah... there's file managers and stuff like that but I'm
    > talking about the "desktop" here.


    Well, take Vista, for example. Actually, you can go back to XP, where
    Microsoft started open these humongous, bloated, difficult to navigate,
    and /different/ Start menus. I /hate/ them. That's the first thing I
    turn off.

    > I'm not going to argue of what desktop is better/best. I'm just curious
    > what's all this customizing/tweaking that people are doing to their
    > desktop.


    I'm a compulsive tweaker. I hate seeing the same backgrounds and window
    decorations every day. Boooooring. Also, I kind of like windows with
    zero-width borders. These fat XFce borders are ugly! Bevelling is
    /such/ a waste of space.

    > Advertising would do more than anything else. Redhat/IBM/HP/etc advertise
    > Linux but they target IT types. Not general consumers. I really can't
    > think of any substantial advertising of *consumer* Linux. (A mention in a
    > Toy'R Us sales flyer isn't what I'm talking about here.)


    Yeah. We need the DELL dude, smoking a joint, telling us about how cool
    "Linux" is.

    > I'd say that hardly anyone picks a computer "solely" because of any one
    > feature. It's the whole package that people want... especially with Macs.
    >
    > And with this theme thing... Linux *can* be tweaked with gDesklets and
    > stuff like that. But you need to know this even exists, download it,
    > install it and then configure it. OSX... you plug the computer in and it's
    > all there and ready to go. Most people do like *convenience* and it's 10x
    > more important if you're talking about 'consumers' who fear computers and
    > would have no idea how to download and install something from a repository.


    Indeed. But what if you decide you don't really like it? Take the
    machine back? Load a new desktop?

    > I do this with VM's, my desktop and remote X-sessions on
    > Solaris/AIX/whatever machines 5-days a week. And in most cases it does
    > work. But I was doing something the other day at work and I couldn't copy
    > text out of some app. Annoying as hell.


    I hate that. Especially when there's some interesting text in a GUI
    text label on a Windows app, and you can't even select the text. Or
    list-boxes where you can't highlight some of the entries and copy their
    text.

    --
    Man belongs wherever he wants to go.
    -- Wernher von Braun

  12. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:40:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >>> I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    >>> or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    >>> inventing new ones.
    >>>
    >>> Same goes for sound.

    >>
    >> The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Don't be an asshat, Tim. We had this discussion already.
    >
    > "Linux" isn't Microsoft, and "Linux" isn't Apple. In spite of the
    > variety of solutions, we still manage to have good userland and pro
    > sound support.
    >
    > And there is no single line of thought in COLA. Nice try at painting
    > the poster here as dazed followers of (who knows what?)


    WTF are those two trolls blubbering about sound for, & to whom?

    --
    Did you know?
    Hadron Quack & his wife divorced over religious differences.
    He thought he was God, but she didn't.


  13. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:43:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > I much prefer pipes.


    What a surprise




    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  14. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    In article <0UJKk.74027$E41.70642@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
    7 wrote:
    > > The best you can say about Compiz in regard to OS X and Windows is that
    > > Compiz happened to include flashier effects for some things, such as
    > > transitions among desktops.

    >
    > Well - that just about rounds it up as to why compiz is better.


    Let's summarize. Linux is currently capable of a limited subset of what
    OS X can do with graphics and video, but because the Compiz people
    happened to pick a fancier transition to use in their window manager,
    you think Compiz is superior.

    That would be like saying NT was the best operating system of its day,
    because it had the best looking screen saver of the day (pipes).


    --
    --Tim Smith

  15. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <0UJKk.74027$E41.70642@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
    > 7 wrote:
    >> > The best you can say about Compiz in regard to OS X and Windows is that
    >> > Compiz happened to include flashier effects for some things, such as
    >> > transitions among desktops.

    >>
    >> Well - that just about rounds it up as to why compiz is better.

    >
    > Let's summarize. Linux is currently capable of a limited subset of what
    > OS X can do with graphics and video,


    Interesting claim.
    So what is it OSX can do with graphics linux can't?
    After all, it has to be something spectacular because you claim linux
    graphics capabilities is just a "limited subset of what OS X can do"
    --
    Perl - the only language that looks the same before and after RSA
    encryption.
    -- Keith Bostic


  16. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    In article <48fb9ad7$0$14062$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    > > Let's summarize. Linux is currently capable of a limited subset of what
    > > OS X can do with graphics and video,

    >
    > Interesting claim.
    > So what is it OSX can do with graphics linux can't?
    > After all, it has to be something spectacular because you claim linux
    > graphics capabilities is just a "limited subset of what OS X can do"


    Do things like these in a few hundred lines of code:




    After that, make it so that a series of filters are applied to each
    frame of the videos, such as a gaussian blur and a lens effect, and make
    it so those filters are parameterized, in real time, by some aspect
    (volume, dominant frequency, or whatever else interests you) from the
    audio input from the microphone--without adding a lot more code.

    No doubt, you could do this on Linux, by writing a heck of a lot of
    OpenGL code.

    But on OS X, Apple builds this into the system. It's all available for
    quick and easy use by application programmers. The system handles
    compiling your stack of image filters into GPU code. It handles
    animating your animations between initial and final states--and if the
    final state is changed in the middle of an animation sequence (because
    you are doing this interactively and the user has changed something), it
    deals with smoothly transitioning to the new animation sequence.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  17. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <48fb9ad7$0$14062$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
    > Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >> > Let's summarize. Linux is currently capable of a limited subset of
    >> > what OS X can do with graphics and video,

    >>
    >> Interesting claim.
    >> So what is it OSX can do with graphics linux can't?
    >> After all, it has to be something spectacular because you claim linux
    >> graphics capabilities is just a "limited subset of what OS X can do"

    >
    > Do things like these in a few hundred lines of code:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > After that, make it so that a series of filters are applied to each
    > frame of the videos, such as a gaussian blur and a lens effect, and make
    > it so those filters are parameterized, in real time, by some aspect
    > (volume, dominant frequency, or whatever else interests you) from the
    > audio input from the microphone--without adding a lot more code.
    >
    > No doubt, you could do this on Linux, by writing a heck of a lot of
    > OpenGL code.


    Well, Core Animatin certainly looks fine. But the basic capabilities are
    already present in linux (see compiz et al). It just needs an additional
    layer like apples core animation.
    And I highly doubt that it would be "a heck of a lot of OpenGL code"

    > But on OS X, Apple builds this into the system. It's all available for
    > quick and easy use by application programmers. The system handles
    > compiling your stack of image filters into GPU code. It handles
    > animating your animations between initial and final states--and if the
    > final state is changed in the middle of an animation sequence (because
    > you are doing this interactively and the user has changed something), it
    > deals with smoothly transitioning to the new animation sequence.
    >


    This is all fine and dandy. But I need actually 0% of that. And the same
    would be true for most of the users out there.
    *And* it has nothing to with the underlying "graphics capabilities" of linux
    and/or OSX. The needed capabilities are present. In linux, just the CA
    layer needs to be filled in.

    I am certain when more than the current 3 users interested in those
    capabilities show up, those will be added ASAP
    --
    My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.


  18. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ William Poaster on Sunday 19 October 2008 14:04 : \____

    > On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:40:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >>>> I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    >>>> or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    >>>> inventing new ones.
    >>>>
    >>>> Same goes for sound.
    >>>
    >>> The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't be an asshat, Tim. We had this discussion already.
    >>
    >> "Linux" isn't Microsoft, and "Linux" isn't Apple. In spite of the
    >> variety of solutions, we still manage to have good userland and pro
    >> sound support.
    >>
    >> And there is no single line of thought in COLA. Nice try at painting
    >> the poster here as dazed followers of (who knows what?)

    >
    > WTF are those two trolls blubbering about sound for, & to whom?


    I'm going to do an experiment for a week and disable the filters. I might have
    the opportunity to insult the trolls before coming back to kf mode.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | D-I-S-C-O becomes D-I-E S-C-O
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkj7xVoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5ZvACggk+XbeQlRd MeH+PZeepAUvay
    4GYAoK0axrjVlIuwo+wy38ZWXgrX6tJ6
    =D4xe
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  19. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X

    On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:40:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > ____/ William Poaster on Sunday 19 October 2008 14:04 : \____
    >
    >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:40:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <9z0xwhaxxnp3.1nw6xdaewczsp.dlg@40tude.net>,
    >>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
    >>>>> I'll give you a hint, we don't need another iPod manager or compiler
    >>>>> or editor. Fix the ones that are out there already instead of
    >>>>> inventing new ones.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Same goes for sound.
    >>>>
    >>>> The state of Linux sound, outside of COLA:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't be an asshat, Tim. We had this discussion already.
    >>>
    >>> "Linux" isn't Microsoft, and "Linux" isn't Apple. In spite of the
    >>> variety of solutions, we still manage to have good userland and pro
    >>> sound support.
    >>>
    >>> And there is no single line of thought in COLA. Nice try at painting
    >>> the poster here as dazed followers of (who knows what?)

    >>
    >> WTF are those two trolls blubbering about sound for, & to whom?

    >
    > I'm going to do an experiment for a week and disable the filters. I might have
    > the opportunity to insult the trolls before coming back to kf mode.


    Nobody cares what you do Roy Schestowitz.

    You're a bumbling idiot whose importance to the Linux movement exists only
    in your twisted mind.

    Most people consider you to be a crackpot.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  20. Re: [News] Desktop GNU/Linux a Better Mac Than Mac OS X


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:48fbc482$0$13403$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article <48fb9ad7$0$14062$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>,
    >> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >>> > Let's summarize. Linux is currently capable of a limited subset of
    >>> > what OS X can do with graphics and video,
    >>>
    >>> Interesting claim.
    >>> So what is it OSX can do with graphics linux can't?
    >>> After all, it has to be something spectacular because you claim linux
    >>> graphics capabilities is just a "limited subset of what OS X can do"

    >>
    >> Do things like these in a few hundred lines of code:
    >>
    >>
    >>



    Tim - Amazing videos. I normally don't watch you-tube vids but I saw these
    and was impressed.


    >> After that, make it so that a series of filters are applied to each
    >> frame of the videos, such as a gaussian blur and a lens effect, and make
    >> it so those filters are parameterized, in real time, by some aspect
    >> (volume, dominant frequency, or whatever else interests you) from the
    >> audio input from the microphone--without adding a lot more code.
    >>
    >> No doubt, you could do this on Linux, by writing a heck of a lot of
    >> OpenGL code.

    >
    > Well, Core Animatin certainly looks fine. But the basic capabilities are
    > already present in linux (see compiz et al). It just needs an additional
    > layer like apples core animation.


    Well then. I guess those capabilities are already present in just about
    every OS. All that's needed is a bunch of stuff that doesn't exist. Hell...
    every feature is available in Windows. All that's lacking is a few million
    lines of code.

    > And I highly doubt that it would be "a heck of a lot of OpenGL code"


    Then you should have no problem either writing or finding a Linux demo that
    can do 20% of what the OSX demo just did.


    >> But on OS X, Apple builds this into the system. It's all available for
    >> quick and easy use by application programmers. The system handles
    >> compiling your stack of image filters into GPU code. It handles
    >> animating your animations between initial and final states--and if the
    >> final state is changed in the middle of an animation sequence (because
    >> you are doing this interactively and the user has changed something), it
    >> deals with smoothly transitioning to the new animation sequence.
    >>

    >
    > This is all fine and dandy. But I need actually 0% of that. And the same
    > would be true for most of the users out there.


    Are these the same Linux users who drool over "wobbly windows" and a
    rotating cube with fish swimming inside?


    > *And* it has nothing to with the underlying "graphics capabilities" of
    > linux
    > and/or OSX. The needed capabilities are present. In linux, just the CA
    > layer needs to be filled in.


    As long as the graphics card works with the computer then in theory every OS
    has this feature. Hint for you... the fact that the CA layer is missing on
    Linux means that the feature doesn't exist.


    > I am certain when more than the current 3 users interested in those
    > capabilities show up, those will be added ASAP


    Right after they perfect the "wobbly windows" and rotating 3D cubes. Yeah...
    it's not like Linux users are interested in eye candy or anything. Clearly
    Compiz has no ambition to do anything like this. Isn't it Shuttleworth on
    record as saying that Ubuntu needs to be more like a Mac? Then again...
    Shuttleworth knows nothing compared to you, Schestowitz and 7.


    > --
    > My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
    >




+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast