OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ? - VMS ; Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre machines. From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X roughly the same ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44

Thread: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

  1. OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre machines.

    From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?

    When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some edges.

    But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    the long term.


    In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    documentation standards.

    From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?

  2. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article <327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    >
    >Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    >opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre machines.
    >
    > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    >roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?
    >
    >When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    >quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    >a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some edges.
    >
    >But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    >is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    >the long term.
    >
    >
    >In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    >for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    >documentation standards.


    I've not been impressed with any of the on-line "help" documentation
    that ships with OS X. If there's something that I really cannot get
    to function, I typically find myself in one of the news groups or on
    Apple's Support Discussions pages. I find it is far better than the
    help I've seen on Weendoze.

    When you go past the GUI, underneath both OS X and Linux smell about
    the same. I've found very few differences between OS X and Linux in
    terms of command and switches, and in general management features.



    > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    >hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    >need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?


    I would tend to agree. I spent weeks looking around trying to find
    a fix for the ethernet driver on a Linux box. Everything worked and
    then about 24 hours, give or take a few depending on activity on the
    box, it would get into a mode where it just started spewing fragment
    packets on the wire. I've never had an issue with anything like it
    using OS X.

    The Pro-apps on OS X are top-notch. Aperture, Final Cut Studio and
    Logic Studio are pretty much the de facto standards in the creative
    realm. I have a neighbor who is a videographer and he has been told
    he must learn and use Final Cut, so he is now looking to buy a Mac.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  3. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre
    > machines.
    >
    > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?

    [...]

    I use Linux on my HP laptop, because my wife will not give up her iBook.
    :-)

    Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with Linux, except for the lack of
    an iTunes port. :-) I get around that problem by running the VMWare
    player in Linux, which I have loaded with the version of XP that came
    pre-loaded with my laptop. I guess for that purpose, Bootcamp (?) or
    Parallels(??) would suffice. Or just run iTunes "natively". :-)
    OpenOffice is a reasonable substitute for Office.

    Going slightly more OT, I attended an Open House at my son's high school
    this fall. In the "technology center" I was surprised and pleased to
    find a room full of iMacs - at least until I saw what was running on them.

    You guessed it - Windows XP. I made my feelings known to the technology
    teacher, who assured me that at least one iMac in the room was actually
    running OS X, and that she would be exposing students to it during the
    year. Still, what a waste!

  4. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/24/07 05:53, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , JF Mezei writes:

    [snip]
    >> From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    >> hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    >> need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?

    >
    > I would tend to agree. I spent weeks looking around trying to find
    > a fix for the ethernet driver on a Linux box. Everything worked and
    > then about 24 hours, give or take a few depending on activity on the
    > box, it would get into a mode where it just started spewing fragment


    Recently?

    > packets on the wire. I've never had an issue with anything like it
    > using OS X.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  5. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/24/07 02:22, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre
    > machines.
    >
    > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?
    >
    > When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    > quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    > a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some
    > edges.


    What exactly do you want to with this proposed box? That's the most
    important question.

    Run Oracle? Use Linux.

    Edit movies? Use OSX.

    Run Oracle *and* edit movies? Use Linux.

    Develop custom applications? Depends on the client base.

    Surf the web, listen to music and write documents? Both, of course,
    but a white box running Linux will be cheaper.

    Are you enamored of point-and-drool? Use OSX. With Linux, you can
    usually point-and-drool or edit text files.

    My non-tech cousin and her semi-tech finance have been using OSX for
    a few years now and "it just works". I've used desktop Linux for 8
    years and "it just works". My wife's PC ran Linux for a few years
    and she never had any problems with it.

    > But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    > is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    > the long term.


    Linux has been around long enough, and is popular enough in the
    server realm, that it's impossible to even consider it a flash in
    the pan.

    >
    > In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    > for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    > documentation standards.
    >
    > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    > hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    > need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?


    The only driver I've ever needed to "hunt" for is the NVIDIA binary
    video driver, but that's about as difficult as hunting for sparrows
    in the spring time...

    However, I did a bit of research before buying a printer, instead of
    just going out and buying some cheap printer that is uber-
    dependent on Windows drivers. http://www.linuxprinting.org is a
    good resource for this kind of work.

    And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset
    manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  6. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >On 10/24/07 02:22, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    >> opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre
    >> machines.
    >>
    >> From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    >> roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?
    >>
    >> When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    >> quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    >> a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some
    >> edges.

    >
    >What exactly do you want to with this proposed box? That's the most
    >important question.
    >
    >Run Oracle? Use Linux.
    >
    >Edit movies? Use OSX.
    >
    >Run Oracle *and* edit movies? Use Linux.
    >
    >Develop custom applications? Depends on the client base.
    >
    >Surf the web, listen to music and write documents? Both, of course,
    >but a white box running Linux will be cheaper.
    >
    >Are you enamored of point-and-drool? Use OSX. With Linux, you can
    >usually point-and-drool or edit text files.
    >
    >My non-tech cousin and her semi-tech finance have been using OSX for
    >a few years now and "it just works". I've used desktop Linux for 8
    >years and "it just works". My wife's PC ran Linux for a few years
    >and she never had any problems with it.
    >
    >> But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    >> is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    >> the long term.

    >
    >Linux has been around long enough, and is popular enough in the
    >server realm, that it's impossible to even consider it a flash in
    >the pan.
    >
    >>
    >> In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    >> for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    >> documentation standards.
    >>
    >> From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    >> hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    >> need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?

    >
    >The only driver I've ever needed to "hunt" for is the NVIDIA binary
    >video driver, but that's about as difficult as hunting for sparrows
    >in the spring time...
    >
    >However, I did a bit of research before buying a printer, instead of
    >just going out and buying some cheap printer that is uber-
    >dependent on Windows drivers. http://www.linuxprinting.org is a
    >good resource for this kind of work.
    >
    >And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset
    >manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret.
    >

    Can't be too bad since Linux is the platform of choice for wardriving, setting
    up rogue access points and other wireless hacking.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >--
    >Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >Jefferson LA USA
    >
    >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!


  7. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/24/07 09:20, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:

    [snip]
    >>
    >> And wifi is a bit problematic under Linux, since most of the chipset
    >> manufacturers have kept their programming interfaces secret.
    >>

    > Can't be too bad since Linux is the platform of choice for wardriving, setting
    > up rogue access points and other wireless hacking.


    It works great if you do the research to find a compatible wifi card.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  8. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?


    "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    news:327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre

    machines.
    >
    > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?
    >
    > When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    > quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    > a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some

    edges.
    >
    > But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    > is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    > the long term.
    >
    >
    > In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    > for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    > documentation standards.
    >
    > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    > hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    > need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?


    There are many factors come into this decision, and you have said very
    little about which of them may be important to you. Despite this, there have
    been many helpful replies, and I'd like to add my 2p:

    1) There is not one Linux, there are many. There is quite a difference
    between the ubergeek flavours and the "batteries included" flavours. If you
    are new to Linux you may prefer a "batteries included" one; I've found SuSe
    not bad, others may have other preferences. Ubuntu seems to be trendy, you
    decide whether trendy=good. One aspect of "batteries included"ness which
    SuSE still doesn't have quite right is the ability to play a wide variety of
    media formats "out of the box" without undue hassle; Novell/SuSE appear to
    want to stick strictly within the law as regards redistribution of codecs
    etc which aren't theirs to redistribute, or are of questionable legality.
    This isn't a problem in the Windows world where stuff which isn't part of
    Windows (such as a DVD player) is often supplied by the PC vendor, and there
    are plenty of websites which will supply a comprehensive codec pack (maybe
    of dubious legality, but does anyone care?). Dunno how this works on Macs,
    or on Linuxes other than SuSE.

    2) Wrt WiFi drivers: allegedly more and more Windows drivers are usable
    under Linux via NDISwrapper, for example the Broadcom on my laptop. Didn't
    work for me last time I tried it though (on SuSe 10.2, haven't yet updated
    to recently-released 10.3). As Ron said though, best bet is to pick
    something supported in your chosen Linux(es).

    3) Wrt documentation: Linux has lots to choose from, none of it like VMS's.
    SuSE's I've bought (yes you can pay for it as well as freeload it) have come
    with some of those "book" things, which some people find helpful, but any
    decent IT-type bookstore should have plenty of Linux books to choose from.
    Whether they will be up to date with your current chosen distribution is a
    different question, which is why SuSE's own books were interesting to me. Do
    you read computer comics er sorry magazines? There are a couple of Linux
    magazines I know of, there's probably a Mac magazine or two, is this a
    factor in your decision?

    4) Printing: as has already been said, this isn't the world of Windows. If
    you have special printing needs, Linux may not be for you, check first. Even
    if you don't have special needs, you still need to tread carefully, some
    printers are rather too dependent on Windows (or even specific versions of
    Windows).

    5) Development tools: do they matter to you? There's lots of free stuff for
    the GNU/Linuxes, what about for MACs?

    6) PDA synchronisation: do you have a PDA/smartphone and require it to sync
    with primary Calendar/Contacts/Email elsewhere? Then do some research.

    There are lots of things you can do under Windows which you can also do
    under Linux and (presumably) on a Mac, but only you know which are your
    essentials and which are your "would be nice"s. Do you have a list? You need
    one for your own benefit, even if you don't share it here.

    If the Linux world is "a flash in the pan", it's a rather long lived one.
    It's already been around a lot longer than some of the things talked about
    in this group, and it will be here long after some of them are gone. Whether
    Linux is a "serious contender" today depends largely on what industry sector
    you're looking in; in some, it has been a serious contender for years, in
    applications from consumer equipment (set top boxes and routers) to
    supercomputers, and a great deal in between. It just doesn't have the kind
    of visibility and "business ecosystem" that Windows has built up - for one
    thing, Linux doesn't *need* much of the Windows
    PC-jockey-administrivia-ecosystem stuff, regardless of what Kerry may
    sometimes try to have us believe. Similarly there aren't many commercial
    opportunities to "sell" stuff on the back of a "free" OS, so it doesn't show
    up in mass market shops much.

    Best of luck anyway,
    John



  9. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article <327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei writes:
    >
    > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?


    Depends very much on what features as you're sure to find something
    ported to Linux and not OS X, or vice-versa.

    I prefer OS X because I think Apple has long had the best GUI in the
    business and OS X is the best GUI-over-UNIX I've ever seen. KDE
    and GNOME followers will, of course, disagree, but you can certainly
    look for KDE and GNOME ports to OS X.

    One of my WNT die-hard-fan friends recently got a new Intel Mac and
    regularly runs OS X and Vista in parallel. He's going to load Linux
    on it soon.

    And my kids have been running OS X and Linux on thier PPC Macs for
    more years than I can remember, so even non-Intel Mac users don't
    really have to choose between OS X and Linux. They just don't
    have to worry about MS virii so much.


  10. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    John Wallace wrote:
    > There are many factors come into this decision, and you have said very
    > little about which of them may be important to you. Despite this, there have
    > been many helpful replies, and I'd like to add my 2p:


    I purposefully did not write what type of usage/apps I would want in
    order to get a more comprehensive set of responses from you guys (and
    they have been good so far).

    I've had a MAC since the fall of 1986. However, OS-X has very little in
    common with the classic OS, other than essentially being able to run an
    instance of OS-9 as an application. The Unix underpinnings make it
    interesting as a learning exercise, and that puts it in an equal footing
    with Linux.

    However, Linux appears to be a better carreer choice, even though the
    OS-X server, on paper (or rather on Apple's web site:-) appears to be
    much better packaged and fully loaded with what you need.

    Looking at all the advancements made by Apple, it makes VMS very very
    pale in comparison. Lets be brutally honest here, what we have to look
    forward to with VMS is essentially upgrades to support whatever hardware
    HP wants to sell.

    Both OS-X and Linux are growing, so either is better than VMS since HP
    is perfectly happy with the current pace of VMS shrinkage. OS-X appears
    to be better quality, but Linux seems to be more popular.

    Going from VMS to OS-X would be moving from underdog to underdog, but
    maintaining higher standards of quality. Going to Linux would be moving
    to a winner but lowering standards somewhat.

    Thing is that OS-X may still be seen as underdog in the server market,
    but what Apple has planned for it and the resources assigned to it gives
    me hope that perhaps it may become a much more popular platform.


    ------------------------

    A joke I heard from space (litterally !):

    What's at the bottom of the ocean and twitches ?

    A nervous wreck.


  11. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article <13hv3vfhvj5o4dc@corp.supernews.com>,
    "John Wallace" wrote:

    > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
    > news:327ef$471ef2d1$cef8887a$21072@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > > Ok, I ask here because there is more chance of getting informed agnostic
    > > opinions from people who know from both owrkstation to data centre

    > machines.
    > >
    > > From a features and future point of view, would people rate MAC-OS-X
    > > roughly the same as Linux, more desirable or less desirable than Linux ?
    > >
    > > When I look at MAC-OSX, from both the workstation and server sides, I am
    > > quite impressed with all the features that come in, and OS-X comes with
    > > a better "finish" while Linux appears to still be a bit rough on some

    > edges.
    > >
    > > But linux has a lot of market mind share right now, but not sure if it
    > > is a flash in the pan or whether it will be a truly serious contender in
    > > the long term.
    > >
    > >
    > > In terms of documentation, would either have an edge on the other ? OS_X
    > > for desktop's documentation has not impressed me, being used to VMS
    > > documentation standards.
    > >
    > > From an 8086 hardware point of view, MACs come with support for their
    > > hardware so no need to hunt for drivers. But with Linux, one sometimes
    > > need to hunt for drivers. Is that a fair statement ?

    >
    > There are many factors come into this decision, and you have said very
    > little about which of them may be important to you. Despite this, there have
    > been many helpful replies, and I'd like to add my 2p:
    >
    > 1) There is not one Linux, there are many. There is quite a difference
    > between the ubergeek flavours and the "batteries included" flavours. If you
    > are new to Linux you may prefer a "batteries included" one; I've found SuSe
    > not bad, others may have other preferences. Ubuntu seems to be trendy, you
    > decide whether trendy=good. One aspect of "batteries included"ness which
    > SuSE still doesn't have quite right is the ability to play a wide variety of
    > media formats "out of the box" without undue hassle; Novell/SuSE appear to
    > want to stick strictly within the law as regards redistribution of codecs
    > etc which aren't theirs to redistribute, or are of questionable legality.
    > This isn't a problem in the Windows world where stuff which isn't part of
    > Windows (such as a DVD player) is often supplied by the PC vendor, and there
    > are plenty of websites which will supply a comprehensive codec pack (maybe
    > of dubious legality, but does anyone care?). Dunno how this works on Macs,
    > or on Linuxes other than SuSE.
    >
    > 2) Wrt WiFi drivers: allegedly more and more Windows drivers are usable
    > under Linux via NDISwrapper, for example the Broadcom on my laptop. Didn't
    > work for me last time I tried it though (on SuSe 10.2, haven't yet updated
    > to recently-released 10.3). As Ron said though, best bet is to pick
    > something supported in your chosen Linux(es).
    >
    > 3) Wrt documentation: Linux has lots to choose from, none of it like VMS's.
    > SuSE's I've bought (yes you can pay for it as well as freeload it) have come
    > with some of those "book" things, which some people find helpful, but any
    > decent IT-type bookstore should have plenty of Linux books to choose from.
    > Whether they will be up to date with your current chosen distribution is a
    > different question, which is why SuSE's own books were interesting to me. Do
    > you read computer comics er sorry magazines? There are a couple of Linux
    > magazines I know of, there's probably a Mac magazine or two, is this a
    > factor in your decision?
    >
    > 4) Printing: as has already been said, this isn't the world of Windows. If
    > you have special printing needs, Linux may not be for you, check first. Even
    > if you don't have special needs, you still need to tread carefully, some
    > printers are rather too dependent on Windows (or even specific versions of
    > Windows).
    >
    > 5) Development tools: do they matter to you? There's lots of free stuff for
    > the GNU/Linuxes, what about for MACs?


    Developer tools are included on the distribution DVD as an
    optional install or you can download them from the
    developer.apple.com web site (you have to sign up for the free ADC
    membership).

    Many of the Open Source software has been ported to Mac OS X via
    fink.sourceforge.net or macports.org

    X11 is also an optional install from the distribution DVD, which
    is needed by some of the open source packages.

    > 6) PDA synchronisation: do you have a PDA/smartphone and require it to sync
    > with primary Calendar/Contacts/Email elsewhere? Then do some research.
    >
    > There are lots of things you can do under Windows which you can also do
    > under Linux and (presumably) on a Mac, but only you know which are your
    > essentials and which are your "would be nice"s. Do you have a list? You need
    > one for your own benefit, even if you don't share it here.
    >
    > If the Linux world is "a flash in the pan", it's a rather long lived one.
    > It's already been around a lot longer than some of the things talked about
    > in this group, and it will be here long after some of them are gone. Whether
    > Linux is a "serious contender" today depends largely on what industry sector
    > you're looking in; in some, it has been a serious contender for years, in
    > applications from consumer equipment (set top boxes and routers) to
    > supercomputers, and a great deal in between. It just doesn't have the kind
    > of visibility and "business ecosystem" that Windows has built up - for one
    > thing, Linux doesn't *need* much of the Windows
    > PC-jockey-administrivia-ecosystem stuff, regardless of what Kerry may
    > sometimes try to have us believe. Similarly there aren't many commercial
    > opportunities to "sell" stuff on the back of a "free" OS, so it doesn't show
    > up in mass market shops much.
    >
    > Best of luck anyway,
    > John


  12. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/24/07 15:37, JF Mezei wrote:
    > John Wallace wrote:
    >> There are many factors come into this decision, and you have said very
    >> little about which of them may be important to you. Despite this,
    >> there have
    >> been many helpful replies, and I'd like to add my 2p:

    >
    > I purposefully did not write what type of usage/apps I would want in
    > order to get a more comprehensive set of responses from you guys (and
    > they have been good so far).
    >
    > I've had a MAC since the fall of 1986. However, OS-X has very little in
    > common with the classic OS, other than essentially being able to run an
    > instance of OS-9 as an application. The Unix underpinnings make it
    > interesting as a learning exercise, and that puts it in an equal footing
    > with Linux.
    >
    > However, Linux appears to be a better carreer choice, even though the
    > OS-X server, on paper (or rather on Apple's web site:-) appears to be
    > much better packaged and fully loaded with what you need.


    The popularity at geek-fests of MacBooks running OSX belies your
    assertion.

    > Looking at all the advancements made by Apple, it makes VMS very very
    > pale in comparison. Lets be brutally honest here, what we have to look
    > forward to with VMS is essentially upgrades to support whatever hardware
    > HP wants to sell.
    >
    > Both OS-X and Linux are growing, so either is better than VMS since HP
    > is perfectly happy with the current pace of VMS shrinkage. OS-X appears
    > to be better quality, but Linux seems to be more popular.


    In the server space, but everything I've read indicates that OSX is
    more popular in the client space.

    Of course, the hidden masses of wiped Windows installs, and the
    difficulty of measuring such things *might* be under-representing Linux.

    > Going from VMS to OS-X would be moving from underdog to underdog, but
    > maintaining higher standards of quality. Going to Linux would be moving
    > to a winner but lowering standards somewhat.


    I've used desktop Linux for many years, and occasionally used OSX.

    My experience is that configuring wifi on OSX is a breeze, but that
    the GUI aggravates me. All those little icons popping up as you
    roll the mouse pointer over them really aggravates *me*.

    One of the things that I *REALLY LIKE* about Linux (specifically
    Debian) is that I can do most everything from a terminal window.
    Use the GUI when it gives better functionality, use a "DECterm"
    everywhere else.

    I'm sure that there are GUI tools for most of what I do at the CLI,
    but I *like* the CLI. I get the impression, though, that most
    management tasks in OSX *must* be performed via the GUI.

    > Thing is that OS-X may still be seen as underdog in the server market,
    > but what Apple has planned for it and the resources assigned to it gives
    > me hope that perhaps it may become a much more popular platform.


    Who in their right mind needs or wants a server with a GUI on it???

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  13. Re: OT: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/24/07 16:36, Bob Harris wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > If this is for home, then I would say go with Mac OS X as you can
    > then spend your time using the system, and not maintaining it.


    That's just out-and-out bull.

    The one professional down-side of Linux is that it server suff Just
    Works. Back in 2004 I set up Postfix to handle in- and outbound
    mail, and courier-IMAP to store my (and my family's) email.

    It works so perfectly with lack of any maintenance that I've
    forgotten how I installed it. If I had to do it all again from
    scratch, I'd have to go back to the documentation.

    Of course, I'd *never* set it up from scratch again, instead just
    copy of the /etc files and modify as needed.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  14. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    {...snip...}
    >I've used desktop Linux for many years, and occasionally used OSX.
    >
    >My experience is that configuring wifi on OSX is a breeze, but that
    >the GUI aggravates me. All those little icons popping up as you
    >roll the mouse pointer over them really aggravates *me*.


    That is a configurable option! System Preferences -> Dock
    Click off Magnification option.

    Strangely, when at a Stables recently, a clerk was demonstrating a Vista
    infected laptop to a customer. I saw a very similar feature when mousing
    over icons. Hmm...



    >One of the things that I *REALLY LIKE* about Linux (specifically
    >Debian) is that I can do most everything from a terminal window.
    >Use the GUI when it gives better functionality, use a "DECterm"
    >everywhere else.
    >
    >I'm sure that there are GUI tools for most of what I do at the CLI,
    >but I *like* the CLI. I get the impression, though, that most
    >management tasks in OSX *must* be performed via the GUI.


    Not true at all.



    >> Thing is that OS-X may still be seen as underdog in the server market,
    >> but what Apple has planned for it and the resources assigned to it gives
    >> me hope that perhaps it may become a much more popular platform.

    >
    >Who in their right mind needs or wants a server with a GUI on it???


    PeeCee Weendoze users! This annoys the hell out of me. I need to access
    a Weendoze server. I do so using VNC but, joy of joys, the VNC server on
    it dies periodically. The only way to access it again is to power-cycle
    it and *hope* that VNC starts. The machine can be power-cycled remotely
    via SNMP to an APC Switched Rack PDU that the PeeCee is plugged into. I
    am sure that yanking the power from the unit isn't the best way to reboot
    it but it's the only way once remote access is lost.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  15. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/25/07 05:53, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    > {...snip...}
    >> I've used desktop Linux for many years, and occasionally used OSX.
    >>
    >> My experience is that configuring wifi on OSX is a breeze, but that
    >> the GUI aggravates me. All those little icons popping up as you
    >> roll the mouse pointer over them really aggravates *me*.

    >
    > That is a configurable option! System Preferences -> Dock
    > Click off Magnification option.
    >
    > Strangely, when at a Stables recently, a clerk was demonstrating a Vista
    > infected laptop to a customer. I saw a very similar feature when mousing
    > over icons. Hmm...


    GNOME also has it with the Compiz window manager. I get the
    impression, though, that only boys and college-types use it.

    But maybe I'm just crotchety.

    >> One of the things that I *REALLY LIKE* about Linux (specifically
    >> Debian) is that I can do most everything from a terminal window.
    >> Use the GUI when it gives better functionality, use a "DECterm"
    >> everywhere else.
    >>
    >> I'm sure that there are GUI tools for most of what I do at the CLI,
    >> but I *like* the CLI. I get the impression, though, that most
    >> management tasks in OSX *must* be performed via the GUI.

    >
    > Not true at all.


    Really? You can configure wifi from an xterm?

    >>> Thing is that OS-X may still be seen as underdog in the server market,
    >>> but what Apple has planned for it and the resources assigned to it gives
    >>> me hope that perhaps it may become a much more popular platform.

    >>
    >> Who in their right mind needs or wants a server with a GUI on it???

    >
    > PeeCee Weendoze users! This annoys the hell out of me. I need to access
    > a Weendoze server. I do so using VNC but, joy of joys, the VNC server on
    > it dies periodically. The only way to access it again is to power-cycle


    And OSX users. Unless you've figured out a way to disable the GUI.

    > it and *hope* that VNC starts. The machine can be power-cycled remotely
    > via SNMP to an APC Switched Rack PDU that the PeeCee is plugged into. I
    > am sure that yanking the power from the unit isn't the best way to reboot
    > it but it's the only way once remote access is lost.


    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  16. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >
    >
    >On 10/25/07 05:53, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >> In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >> {...snip...}
    >>> I've used desktop Linux for many years, and occasionally used OSX.
    >>>
    >>> My experience is that configuring wifi on OSX is a breeze, but that
    >>> the GUI aggravates me. All those little icons popping up as you
    >>> roll the mouse pointer over them really aggravates *me*.

    >>
    >> That is a configurable option! System Preferences -> Dock
    >> Click off Magnification option.
    >>
    >> Strangely, when at a Stables recently, a clerk was demonstrating a Vista
    >> infected laptop to a customer. I saw a very similar feature when mousing
    >> over icons. Hmm...

    >
    >GNOME also has it with the Compiz window manager. I get the
    >impression, though, that only boys and college-types use it.
    >
    >But maybe I'm just crotchety.


    I believe it is part of the bigger Universal Access features. The Mac and
    OS X are big amongst the blind/nearly-blind and those with other handicaps.
    Having the application ICON grow in size makes it easier for people with a
    vision problem to better see.




    >>> One of the things that I *REALLY LIKE* about Linux (specifically
    >>> Debian) is that I can do most everything from a terminal window.
    >>> Use the GUI when it gives better functionality, use a "DECterm"
    >>> everywhere else.
    >>>
    >>> I'm sure that there are GUI tools for most of what I do at the CLI,
    >>> but I *like* the CLI. I get the impression, though, that most
    >>> management tasks in OSX *must* be performed via the GUI.

    >>
    >> Not true at all.

    >
    >Really? You can configure wifi from an xterm?


    Of course. The GUI is certainly easier but nearly everything you can do
    from the OS X GUI has a cli counterpart. In this case, the command line
    command is airport. It's in a special Apple directory but it does exist.

    Easiest way to access it is to link to the long path for the airport cli
    app using (Long directory on separate line. Type on one line with a space
    between each line entry.):

    % sudo ln -s
    /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Apple80211.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/airport
    /usr/sbin/airport
    Password: ******

    % airport -h
    airport AirPort v.429.6 (429.6.0)
    Supported arguments:
    -a --autojoin Join first available trusted network from list
    -p --applyprefs Apply settings as currently configured via System Preferences
    -u --updateprefs Examine network preferences and repair if necessary
    -z --disassociate Disassociate from any network
    -i --ibss= Create IBSS
    -f --file= use as airport preference file instead of
    /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.airport.preferences.plist
    -m --mac= use instead of current AirPort MAC Address
    -x --xml Print info as XML
    -h --help Show this help
    -o --oldencrypt= Encrypt string with Panther-style encryption
    -s --scan= Perform a wireless broadcast scan
    will perform a directed scan if the optional is provided
    -r --repeats= Repeat the command the specified number of times
    -A --associate= Associate to network
    will prompt for network name if arg is not specified
    and if necessary, for a password if the network is using WEP or WPA
    and the --password argument is not used
    -I --getinfo Print current wireless status, e.g. signal info, BSSID, port type etc.
    -P --psk= Create PSK from specified pass phrase and SSID
    -S --showstack Print the current list of known networks
    --bssid= Specify BSSID to associate with
    --channel= Set arbitrary channel on the card
    --password= Specify a WEP key or WPA password when associating to a network
    --property= Set a property in the driver's IORegistry
    --ssid= Specify SSID when creating a PSK, or associating to a network

    % airport -I
    commQuality: 69
    rawQuality: 49
    avgSignalLevel: -50
    avgNoiseLevel: -93
    linkStatus: ESS
    portType: Client
    lastTxRate: 54
    maxRate: 54
    lastAssocStatus: 1
    BSSID: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
    SSID: Throat-Warbler Mangrove
    Security: cipher: WEP 40



    >>>> Thing is that OS-X may still be seen as underdog in the server market,
    >>>> but what Apple has planned for it and the resources assigned to it gives
    >>>> me hope that perhaps it may become a much more popular platform.
    >>>
    >>> Who in their right mind needs or wants a server with a GUI on it???

    >>
    >> PeeCee Weendoze users! This annoys the hell out of me. I need to access
    >> a Weendoze server. I do so using VNC but, joy of joys, the VNC server on
    >> it dies periodically. The only way to access it again is to power-cycle

    >
    >And OSX users. Unless you've figured out a way to disable the GUI.


    I don't have to disable the GUI to access OS X. How do you think I was
    able to get all of the above? ssh into the OS X box and cut and paste.
    C'mon. It's unix.

    FWIW, I *could* start the box up without a GUI. There are key sequences
    which will start the box in different modes too: single-user, console-log-
    ging, and target disk mode (very useful for backing up laptop drives!).


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  17. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    Ron Johnson wrote:

    > And OSX users. Unless you've figured out a way to disable the GUI.


    While I still haven't found a way to telnet into the mac, I can ssh into
    it and issue plenty of unix commands. And I can run X applications on
    the mac that display on an x terminal. (But the native mac applications
    don't do that).

    A lot of people may be bitching about a GUI, but I have just spent long
    dark hours trying to get NFS to work with VMS. And I have found that the
    mac has a nice GUI LOG File viewer/manager. There is a list of various
    system log files on the left, you select one, and you see its contents.
    And the log file management appears to be really neat since it
    automatically .gz compresses older version of log files, to save disk
    space, but the log file viewer automatically decompresses it. And there
    isn't a 32768 version limit on the mac.

    This is way ahead of what VMS has to offer in terms of log file
    management. (ALL-IN-1 had something similar BTW, but of course, ALL-IN1
    was abandonned on the wayside just to please Bill Gates.)

  18. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    JF Mezei writes:

    > While I still haven't found a way to telnet into the mac


    sudo service telnet start

    --
    Rich Alderson "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."
    news@alderson.users.panix.com --Death, of the Endless

  19. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    On 10/25/07 09:41, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    >> And OSX users. Unless you've figured out a way to disable the GUI.

    >
    > While I still haven't found a way to telnet into the mac, I can ssh into


    Why do you *want* to telnet into OSX?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  20. Re: MAC OS-X or Linux ?

    In article <1acdd$4720ab25$cef8887a$15776@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
    JF Mezei wrote:

    > Ron Johnson wrote:
    >
    > > And OSX users. Unless you've figured out a way to disable the GUI.

    >
    > While I still haven't found a way to telnet into the mac, I can ssh into
    > it and issue plenty of unix commands. And I can run X applications on
    > the mac that display on an x terminal. (But the native mac applications
    > don't do that).


    To access the GUI stuff, I just use VNC and view the desktop. So
    I use a combination of ssh for terminal sessions and VNC if I want
    the desktop (I actually tunnel the VNC via an ssh tunnel over the
    same ssh terminal connection.

    Bob Harris

    > A lot of people may be bitching about a GUI, but I have just spent long
    > dark hours trying to get NFS to work with VMS. And I have found that the
    > mac has a nice GUI LOG File viewer/manager. There is a list of various
    > system log files on the left, you select one, and you see its contents.
    > And the log file management appears to be really neat since it
    > automatically .gz compresses older version of log files, to save disk
    > space, but the log file viewer automatically decompresses it. And there
    > isn't a 32768 version limit on the mac.
    >
    > This is way ahead of what VMS has to offer in terms of log file
    > management. (ALL-IN-1 had something similar BTW, but of course, ALL-IN1
    > was abandonned on the wayside just to please Bill Gates.)


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast