On 10/8/2010 4:09 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > But OS X can legally only run on Apple (tm$$$) systems, where Linux can > run on *anything* and anybody's inexpensive hardware. Apple hardware is fairly priced when compared on quality. Yes, there are cheap POS PCs that compare favorably on features with Apple hardware at a lower cost. I've used many such. They often break more readily, or fail to satisfy on some other level. There's more to a PC than spec list. If cheap commodity junk solves your problem, great. I, however, want a quality computer, and to get it, I'd pay about the same for one running Linux as for a Mac. Since I'd rather be running OS X on the desktop, my choice is clear. I addressed this same point differently in my previous message. You can point to choice of scads of computer builders on the Linux side, but I can point at scads of different software packages on the Mac side that will never run on Linux. I specifically mentioned Final Cut Studio, and called it an unfair comparison because obviously Apple will resist any effort to make that run somehow on Linux. But a fair comparison would be the Adobe Creative Suite, since Adobe presumably wants their software used everywhere. You can't blame Adobe for not porting it. They've dipped their toe in the water several times, and shied away each time. Most recently, it was with Flash Builder, which they ended up discontinuing for Linux. Farther back, there was a version of Photoshop for Solaris, which never did make it over to Linux, presumably because they couldn't sell enough copies to make it worth their while. I'd rather let my buying choices be dictated by software than hardware. Playing with computers as computers is fun, but in the end, I'm more interested in running software on them. So, I pick the software first, then pick the hardware that will run that software.