On 10/8/2010 6:14 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >> is on Linux servers, but OS X Just Works(tm), and I don't have to be >> constantly fiddling to get tools working. > > I here that occasionally; since you switched to OS X "shortly after it > came out", which is like 5 years ago now OS X came out in Spring of 2001. > your experience with desktop LINUX is not current. My experience with both platforms *is* current, and I agree with the GP. Yes, Linux has come a long ways since 2001, but so has OS X. I continue to find usability differences between Linux and OS X, and almost always the advantage is to OS X. OS X has broader software compatibility than Linux, simply because of the fact that OS X is UNIX (R). Almost all Linux programs can be built to run on OS X, while the reverse is most definitely not the case. As for hardware compatibility, I'd say Linux can probably talk to more distinct device types, but there are enough choices on the OS X side. The reverse is often not true: I can think of several devices available on the OS X side which not only won't run under Linux, but which have no comparable alternative. You might be tempted to bring up the fact that OS X won't run on generic PC hardware, but I think that's an unfair comparison. If you insist on making it, I have unfair comparisons to throw right back, like Final Cut Studio. See, both sides can build incompatible things. Now let's get back to the rational discussion. :) > I *use* LINUX on my HP Pavilion dv7 (HP DV-3085DX) all day five to six > days a week. It is production and rock-solid. In installed openSUSE > 11.2 w/GNOME and *all* the hardware *just worked*. All the applications > *just worked*. > > OpenOffice, Evolution, Nautilus, Tomboy, Banshee, Monodevelop, > File-Roller, F-Spot, and Firefox is a killer suite of top-notch > applications. I don't find your experience surprising. You're installing on a generic box, and apparently your software needs are completely met by commodity applications. For those whose needs fit into that limited scope, Linux on the desktop can be the right solution. Some of us have needs beyond that, however, which cannot be met on Linux. Photoshop, for example. If you think Gimp is a suitable alternative to Photoshop, you either don't know Photoshop or your needs are simple enough that you shouldn't buy it even if you have the choice. I think you should also ignore Wine and virtual machines for the purpose of this discussion. Both platforms have the same capabilities in this regard, and these technologies are limited cheats besides. You start sliding down that slope, and you end up dual-booting. That's a fine pragmatic solution to some problems, but it tells us nothing about native OS capabilities, and so fails to illuminate.