71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
OS X's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having icons, menus and windows bolted on to a desktop is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or big screens. Unix machines have traditionally been used with big monitors. It's not surprising at all Gnome uses lots of pixels. And there is nothing forcing you to use Ubuntu's default layout. You have literally hundreds of options to choose from. I tend to change look and feel more or less on a monthly basis.
Why is it a good thing to have hundreds of layouts to choose from? The paradox of choice is real: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...
Am I the only one who thinks that at the GUI level Ubuntu is better than OS X? (I use Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 8.04 extensively)
Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right, but as a developer, package management makes a significantly more pleasant experience. I also really hate how every OSX app has it's own way of doing updates. Even if the OSX makes desktop apps not need dependencies, it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push. As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day.
> it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push. No. If you are asking for updates and fixes, you are doing it wrong. It should be automated, because you shouldn't have to bother to remember pressing a button. I set up my mother with a Linux box and sure as hell I don't count on her pressing buttons without some prompting. > As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day. If you…
Actually, I prefer the five. When you have a shared library, and bugs are fixed, applications that use the library might well break. Shared libraries mean that either applications are at risk of completely failing to work, or that the library developers have to flag the bugfix as a new version to avoid that. Either way, incompatible bugfixes require application updates anyway, so you might as well avoid the breakage and use static libraries.
It seems to me that the only good non-mirage reason for shared libraries was disk space usage, and that's just not a problem any more. Down with shared libraries and dependency hell, I say! ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
OSX's biggest downside is having a fixed region of the screen that changes according to the context of the selected window on the desktop. That makes it impossible to check what two windows can do or even what program is responsible for them until they are selected. That's terribly inelegant solution that separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data (the menu). Admit it. That's a…
This is handled by title bars in Gnome, OS X and Windows, not window menu bars.
"separates the data (what's inside the window) from the menus that act on that data"
The menus don't just act on what's in the window. At least some menu items act on the application itself.
In a multiple document interface with a system that ties menus to windows, the menu of one window acts on multiple other windows. The other windows are either sub windows shoved inside the main window or they are windows floating independently from the window with the menu, which means you need to return focus to the main window to use the menu.
In a single document interfaces, the same menu, application controls and all, is repeated on each individual window.
Furthermore, in both of those cases, once you close the window with the menu bar, you no longer have access to any controls for the application, which is why most applications in these windowing systems can't run without at least one window open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need an Apple that peddles Linux systems is what it boils down to. Someone needs to swoop in, add sexy branding, make it attractive to hipsters/teenagers/some other trend-setting crowd, and everything would work out just fine. The Mac/Apple fad is all about style and message. We need a company that will add style and message, that will make simple choices available to consumers (Apple has only a few different cons…
I really disagree with this. I'm a developer, I spend 90% of my computing time in Vim and Terminal. I use a Macbook as my primary computer, and tend to bring it to work with me. I try to go to Linux probably twice a year, and have for a long time. I use a mac because despite the tools I use being written originally for Linux, they work better on OS X. I've never neen unable to connect to a wireless network, I've neve…
You say that vim and Terminal work better on OS X than they do on Linux, and then proceed to give examples that have nothing to do with either vim or Terminal. I think the biggest annoyance I have with Terminal is that I can't highlight text and middle-click paste it like I can with X.
How much work does it take to get OS X on a Windows machine? Quite a lot. Are you complaining that OS X makes you think too hard because your machine, which originally came with Windows, is finnicky about OS X?
WiFi, suspend/resume, etc. all work fine in Linux on most of the hardware out there, and you don't have to think about upgrading the kernel if you don't want to -- just tell the updater to run automatically in the background and you'll never know the difference.
My post is about an OEM that sells computers pre-loaded with Ubuntu and integrates the whole system into a desirable identity, as Apple sells computers pre-loaded with OS X and has integrated OS X and the rest of the Apple brand into a desirable identity.
People want to be seen with a MacBook because it's stylish and cool and on top of that, it's more enjoyable than Windows.
It's about the brand, the identity. It's not about the computer going to sleep. Most computers sleep and connect to WiFi without any issues at all. People are not buying Macs because they sleep and connect to WiFi.
Am I the only one who thinks that at the GUI level Ubuntu is better than OS X? (I use Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 8.04 extensively)
In some respects - I switched from GNOME to OS X and I found that Nautilus respected the tree a lot more than OS X did, NetworkManager also showed signal strength before OS X's top bar network thingy did. Only reason I quit is that after speccing hardware that had OSS drivers (and was fairly underpowered to boot), drivers in Ubuntu still didn't work 100% (eg, connecting to external displays broke X render support) an…
Ugh, I had this same problem. Every time I upgraded Ubuntu, hardware rendering got another 10x performance decrease and more bugs. Eventually I couldn't even enable vsync, so I got horrible tearing while watching videos. I partially blame Ubuntu for this, since they could have held back Intel's driver updates. Ultimately though, it was Intel's fault for releasing ever-buggier drivers.
A lot of the bugs you're talking about were fixed in updates to 9.10, but I gave up and got a Mac way before that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need an Apple that peddles Linux systems is what it boils down to. Someone needs to swoop in, add sexy branding, make it attractive to hipsters/teenagers/some other trend-setting crowd, and everything would work out just fine. The Mac/Apple fad is all about style and message. We need a company that will add style and message, that will make simple choices available to consumers (Apple has only a few different cons…
I really disagree with this. I'm a developer, I spend 90% of my computing time in Vim and Terminal. I use a Macbook as my primary computer, and tend to bring it to work with me. I try to go to Linux probably twice a year, and have for a long time. I use a mac because despite the tools I use being written originally for Linux, they work better on OS X. I've never neen unable to connect to a wireless network, I've neve…
This is why you keep things simple, find hardware that works well with it, and package it together.
Ps- Mac/Apple isn't a fad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right, but as a developer, package management makes a significantly more pleasant experience. I also really hate how every OSX app has it's own way of doing updates. Even if the OSX makes desktop apps not need dependencies, it would be really nice if I only had one 'update' button to push. As it is, 5 different things want to update practically every day.
It's pretty silly to have a serious dev machine without a package manager. What do you do when you migrate to a new machine? I like to copy a list of packages and then run an update/upgrade command. Linux wins by far. Copying a directory of self-contained apps is quick and easy as well... but if you need binaries for a newer arch, say x86-64, you'll have to download a new copy, whereas the package manager solution ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gnome's biggest downside is the same core problem of the Windows interface: having a menu bolted on to each window is incredibly inelegant, redundant and wasteful of screen space.
What are you talking about? OSX's menu bar is useless when you have huge monitors or multiple screens, and the menu bar and other behaviors makes focus-follow-mouse impossible.