[Tfug] Why Desktop Linux Holds Its Own Against OS X | bMighty.com

[Bexley Hall]

> Mac OS X wraps a whole lot of good things from the open
> source community in a comprehensive functional distribution, 
> and also contributes back (see http://www.macosforge.org/, and
> projects like WebKit and launchd).

I think OS X owes a considerable bit to the open source
world and probably wants to acknowledge that (I think many
of the "key people" on their team have open source ties
and backgrounds)

> I'm not saying they're perfect - the DRM issues and

DRM is an important issue for them in that this is part of
their "toilet paper" business -- ongoing revenue stream.

> the fact that they don't support older OS releases as long as 
> I'd like are annoying.

I don't imagine you'll see many folks in the commercial world
pumping many resources into older OS's when the typical
business cycle is O(3 yrs) or less.  It just doesn't make sense
economically ("What?  We have to spend re$ource$ supporting an
older product with NO associated revenue stream just to help
keep these people from buying our *new* product???")

> I support free operating systems - often an OpenBSD, FreeBSD,
> OpenSolairs or Linux box is the appropriate solution for
> meeting someones needs. But for an end user who wants to get
> work done with a minimum of problems, OS X is a pretty slick 
> solution.

I think this is what many FOSS folks miss.  Most people buying
and using computers just want to get some work done.  They
aren't zealots.  They don't care about the philosophical issues
surrounding the whole FOSS idealogy.  They just want to get
a job done with the minimum amount of hassle (time/cost).

Computers have long since stopped being a tool/toy of the
elite.  They are commodities.  Like automobiles.  I.e. not
many folks care whether their car is made in the US or
overseas.  They don't care if it was made with union labor
or with overpaid executives.  They just want to get in,
turn the key, stomp on the gas and *go*.  And, they would
like it not to cost them an arm and a leg every 6 months
for service, repairs, etc.

I.e., give them another similar/better car and they'll
switch OVERNIGHT!

> In terms of cost, Apple doesn't make crap, and thus
> their machines aren't cheap.  What really makes them a 
> winner is that the long term support costs are much less
> than Windows.

OTOH, if you are planning on replacing your computer
in ~3 years, how much do people really think about support 
costs?  From what I have seen, Mac purchasers tend to
"underbuy" their hardware.  *If* new software/OS releases
there are as bloated as in the MS world, it seems like this
would be an even bigger issue for Mac users ("Boy, my
machine was slow before but now it is *dreadful*!")

[N.B.  This is more of a question than a statement.
I don't know how bad the bloat-curve looks in the Mac
world.  But, in the MS world it is a really heavy tax!]

> Then again, I'm biased - I'm an old hand at Apple
> having cut my teeth on a 512k, and am currently the 
> only up to date Apple certified system
> administrator in town.

Gee, I remember moving *up* to a 512K CP/M box and thought
*that* was bliss!  ;-)