Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
KDE 4 is out!
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Looks like a tremendous amount of effort and the KDE team are to be commended for their dedication. Still, it leaves me wondering when we're going to see some actual innovation from the open source community. All I see are feature-for-feature copies of OS X and all our favorite Mac addons like Quicksilver. It all just seems so derivative.
I guess it's free and all, but I'm still happy to pay for innovation and real progress.
I guess it's free and all, but I'm still happy to pay for innovation and real progress.
same old, same old, is it really that necessary? just remove OSS codes from OSX, see what do you have left.
To talk about copy, apple does best.
I've been interested in Linux since 1998. I've played with the first KDE out. Every year we all hoped "just one year from now, and linux on the desktop will beat the pants off the commercial competition". Then the next year would roll around, and the linux desktop would be still way clunky compared to stuff from Apple and even MSFT (ouch!). So we'd say, "OK, next year for sure". And so on, year after year. Finally, by late 2005, I bought my iBook with Tiger, and never looked back. From time to time - like now that KDE 4 is out, I'd check on what's up with the linux desktop, and come away with the same feeling as always... except, I no longer think/hope that "next year for sure" etc. I just don't care very much anymore. Scratch that - I do care, but I've given up hope. I do think it's extremely important to keep a fire under both Apple and MSFT's behinds, otherwise you'll get stagnation (remember when IE had no competition for awhile and how we got stuck with IE 6 for 5 years and no progress???) - and look at how miserable an update Leopard (yes, I said Leopard) and Vista are! So yeah, competition is so, so, so important - I just gave up hope it'll ever come from the linux camp... indeed they seem to play a perpetual catchup game with not much innovation, and they're in a perpetual alpha state. So yeah, we can all dream, but realistically, I gave up on that, and I'm throwing my stuff in with Apple for now. That said, I'll check out KDE once it stabilizes a bit more at 4.1...
actually, Linux is a full-featured desktop 2 years ago. and It sure beats commercial OSes in many ways.
There is no problem to argue personal preferences tho. but linux sure is not "clunky" now. Its small, secure, stable, safe, stylish, cheap, and you can do pretty everything with it.
Only if you're really really forgiving when it comes to "full" or "featured." Your reply is so obviously hyperbole that it's difficult to take seriously. I'll grant you "cheap" and even "small" (by modern standards), but "stylish?" Are you kidding? Let's be realistic here.
Do "pretty [much] everything" with it? Anyone who has used Linux knows you're exaggerating here.
I've been a Linux user since 1994. That's coming up on 14 years of waiting for Linux to catch up with the big boys when it comes to a desktop solution. In the days of OS9 and Win95 it was pretty easy to have that sort of optimism.
But Linux never made it and lately it doesn't even seem to be gaining ground. Like OldCorpse I've pretty much given up on the free unixes ever catching OS X or Windows when it comes to a flexible desktop solution for real users. It's years behind OS X when it comes to fonts, advanced video support, application frameworks, data interoperability, and even basic things like cut and paste or sane application installation. Even the most advanced binary package management on Linux completely falls apart after the machine's been in use for a while. The cleverest and most robust desktop distros can't even approach the depth and flexibility of an OS X "archive and install." It'll be years, if ever, before they reach that sort of maturity.
I've had reasonable success with desktop Linux in locked-down corporate environments where the users didn't have to install their own software or keep their own machines configured. For a finite set of apps that doesn't change it can be a cheap and effective solution. That's a pretty narrow slice of the desktop market, though.
Linux is a decade behind the flexibility and power of a backup solution like Time Machine. You expect users to figure out amanda instead?
Linux will probably never have the application coordination and cooperation necessary to really emulate Spotlight's functionality.
Heck, even on the server side Linux falls short of more focused operating systems like OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Not saddled by the conflicting goals of desktop focus those systems are able to deliver more effective, more secure solutions for the server room in a way Linux simply cannot due to its need to be all things to all people.
I didn't mean to fly off on a Linux-bashing tangent, really. Like I said, I've been using it for 14 years and still use it today (Asterisk servers and Oracle boxes, mostly, with the occasional Ubuntu install for terminals). It has its place, sure. But let's not overpromise, people will just end up being disappointed when they learn that they really can't do "pretty [much] everything" with it without suffering through some pretty significant compromises.
huh? what do you call compiz-fusion? ugly? dumb-looking?
huh again? what are the things you can NOT do under linux? I know at least I can transcode real video to avi under linux, can mac do that?
linux is not OS classic or windows, most distroes updates twice a year. so 14 years old experience might just not fit current situation
advanced video support? what do you mean?
years behind OSX? do you actually know how old OSX's core library files are?
application frame work? detail?
"depth and flexibility of an OSX archive and install"? is that why majority of mac users here recommend people do "clean install of OSX" rather than "archive and install"?
finite set of apps for linux? are you serious? sit down and count OSX apps, how finite are those then?
there is never a problem of flexibility, you can call it "not user friendly", but hardly not powerful
again, what are things you can NOT do with Linux? and what are the things you can NOT do with OSX? you wanna compare, lets sit down and count.
Oh, yes, fonts, I give you that, linux fonts are generally not good. but freetype2.3.5 are a great improvement, check out ubuntu 7.10's font, with slight hinting, I would say it not much behind either OSX or windows vista.
I dunno. It's a good start. Hardly trendsetting.
I dunno, how about run a modern version of Microsoft Office? Even under the commercial Crossover Office you're looking at a dodgy "bronze" experience. Flap your gums all you want about OpenOffice, that's not going to satisfy a lot of users.
I never said it did. I said I've been using Linux FOR 14 years, not that I used it once 14 years ago.
I mean things like CoreVideo or CoreData where the OS is going beyond merely being a VM scheduler and application launcher and actually provides rich and flexible frameworks to application developers so that all the applications for the system can benefit from greater interoperability and depth of function. System-level certificate management, Keychain access, Xcode, all the application hooks exposed via Applescript. Nothing like that exists in Linux and third-party developers make use of those tools every day to deliver software that simply could not exist in Linux because the foundation is weaker.
I'd wager that more people have successfully used "Archive and Install" to upgrade their Macs than there are Linux desktop users.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? That's not what I said at all.
No backup solution exists for Linux which is as useful or powerful as Time Machine. It can't. It's not technically feasible because Linux lacks an equivalent to the FSEvents facility in OS X. The alternative is to periodically compare the backup to the current state on disk which comes with a huge performance penalty.
I don't think you'd really want to start making those lists. You could start by listing all the "Linux" applications you can think of which can't be compiled and run on OS X. It's a pretty short list.
clevin may exaggerate a bit, but I'm more inclined to be on his side here. I find just about nothing I can do on my Mac or a Windows machine that I can't do on Linux. Heavy playing of "Games for Windows," and Final Cut class video editing are about the only major absentees really. Also, I haven't seen any of these major package manager problems you talk about(though I've heard of them in reference to several years ago/the early days of package management).
I'll agree that Linux is not an operating system for everyday users yet, but in all seriousness, I'm not an everyday user, and I never will be again. I think that represents a sizeable portion of current Linux users to say the least. I'm not as interested in spreading Linux to every corner of the earth as in enjoying the free software for myself and anyone I know who's willing to take the time to learn it. I can't and won't try to force it down people's throats, like many seem to want to.
It's a fair point, and certainly I'm as guilty as clevin for adding noise and invective to the thread. But there's more than just "things you can do" at play. There's how you do things and the degree to which the OS assists you in doing the things you want to do.
As often happens, John Siracusa has done a much better job than I ever could at addressing this sort of subtlety and I'd point to his review of Delicious Library from late 2004. Sure, it's three years "out of date" but the points he makes there are still salient today. If you're unfamiliar with the review I highly recommend it. It's worth the read, as all of Siracusa's stuff generally is.
Siracusa said:
Don't be too quick to discount the practical benefits and real impact that sort of OS maturity brings to the table. It's a tangible difference and it is important.
well, modern version of Microsoft office, I guess when I said "do pretty much everything", I didn't exactly mean "run pretty much every windows available apps", if thats the intention, OSX won't do much better.
huh, compiled and run on OSX, now thats a good point, exactly how many OSX users compile their own apps from source? 0.00001%?
whats the list of things that OSX can do but linux can NOT? I have the feeling that list isn't exact longer neither.
Office is hardly an obscure, edge-case application. It's arguably THE Windows app. And it's ported to OS X, by Microsoft no less. OS X does a lot better than Linux on this front.
As many as want to, which is the important thing, right?
Office, Time Machine-caliber backups, Final Cut caliber video editing (as martychang pointed out). That's just off the top of my head.
Then there's all the subtle differences that aren't readily evident without actual use and familiarity. It's all too simple to compare screenshots and presume that because KDE4 looks like OS X that KDE4 works like OS X. But that's an incomplete comparison. An actual user who spends some time with the operating systems will start to notice some pretty glaring differences. Like in OS X how I can drag an image off a web page in my browser and drop it on to the Photoshop application icon on the dock and have Photoshop launch and edit a copy of that image. Or how when the OS X user uses exposé to view all their open windows that the tiny thumbnails of those applications are live and update and reflect display changes of the running applications even while in thumbnail form. That in OS X it was easy to type that "é." Or, hey, the fact that the live as-I-type spellchecker which is present in every OS X application was smart enough to know that exposé is a real word even with the funny é.
It's the millions of tiny details like that where Linux falls short -- almost necessarily so because development is so disjointed and fragmented and because there simply doesn't exist the core OS-level frameworks which allow application developers to leverage the OS foundation instead of having to roll their own solutions to (or ignore) all those usability issues.
well, Im sure there are many commercial apps have no linux versions, M$ office, adobe suite (other than reader), Dragon naturally speaking, dreamweaver, matlab, etc, etc....of course, I don't think OSX is doing that much better in this area. its all about market share. not much about the system.
every thumbnail under Compiz-fusion are redrawn whenever the changes happen, The animation part, or 3D part, I think Linux is doing much better than any other OSes
To be honest, I really don't think drag an pic to photoshop is that imporant, and I doubt many people need that a lot.
however, Im not objecting to the point you made, the "subtle conveniences", yes, I never said Linux is a "convenient system", it is NOT, at least so far. But how important these are? in my case, not so much.
Wow, this thread really has gone off rail. We started talking about the desktop environment KDE.
My issue is that there simply is no focus on the ordinary user - I don't mean geeks who drop to cli to do every single thing, but actually, you know, users who need a GUI and who are not interested in memorizing reams of obscure commands and secret handshakes. I am not going to edit code. I just want sh|t to work. I want the computer to get out of my way so I can get some WORK done, I don't want to battle my tools, I want my tools to help me work.
Linux is in a state of perpetual alpha software. And don't give me crap about stable Debian that's 6 years out of date. When I sit down to my Tiger 10.4.11, it just works, and works with the latest apps out there. There is unity of thought and design, not the patchwork lego-building you find on the linux side (gnome at least tries to adhere to some kind of hig most of the time).
And sorry, but there is just an astonishing lack of real innovation. Where's the equivalent of the impact spotlight or expose made for users? All we get is third rate spotlight, expose etc. imitation 6 months later full of bugs. How about something NEW we have NOT seen out of MSFT or Apple or BeOS etc. before? Something that's HUGE? There isn't. And you know what? In many cases, I don't think it's even the fault of the linux developers - it's simply a built-in limitation in many cases. A LOT of software is totally hardware dependent - and only Apple or MSFT can afford to design new hardware - so how can I expect linux guys to be the FIRST with an interface like the multi-touch technology developed for the iPhone or the MSFT surface table-touch? It simply is a built-in limitation. They CANNOT be first, because they don't develop the hardware. What I blame them for is not innovating on established hardware.
The issue of apps/software available for linux is a totally separate issue. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously compare availability of linux apps and ones for os x or win. It's insane - pure insanity. It's like taking a broken pencil to battle an atomic bomb. Linux software is a joke - 99% of it. There's a ton of poorly implemented, poorly designed half-abandon-ware which is somehow supposed to satisfy your working needs
The linux folks always say "we have an equivalent" - except it is NEVER an equivalent when you sit down and try to actually work with it. For example there are millions of editors for linux and word processing software. Yet, not one which comes close to f.ex. Scrivener on OS X. And - NO - just claiming something's "kinda like it" doesn't cut it. The criterion here is not to try to match it feature for feature - that would be unreasonable. The criterion here is the excellence of the software for the purpose. The same is true for no matter what you want - big stuff like audio apps (Logic, Ableton, Reason etc.), or video editing (FCS, Vegas, AP) or little apps like stuff for GTD (Omnifocus, iGTD, Things). And on and on and on. The "equivalents" on Linux are invariable vastly inferior - it's not even a contest.
My issue is that there simply is no focus on the ordinary user - I don't mean geeks who drop to cli to do every single thing, but actually, you know, users who need a GUI and who are not interested in memorizing reams of obscure commands and secret handshakes. I am not going to edit code. I just want sh|t to work. I want the computer to get out of my way so I can get some WORK done, I don't want to battle my tools, I want my tools to help me work.
Linux is in a state of perpetual alpha software. And don't give me crap about stable Debian that's 6 years out of date. When I sit down to my Tiger 10.4.11, it just works, and works with the latest apps out there. There is unity of thought and design, not the patchwork lego-building you find on the linux side (gnome at least tries to adhere to some kind of hig most of the time).
And sorry, but there is just an astonishing lack of real innovation. Where's the equivalent of the impact spotlight or expose made for users? All we get is third rate spotlight, expose etc. imitation 6 months later full of bugs. How about something NEW we have NOT seen out of MSFT or Apple or BeOS etc. before? Something that's HUGE? There isn't. And you know what? In many cases, I don't think it's even the fault of the linux developers - it's simply a built-in limitation in many cases. A LOT of software is totally hardware dependent - and only Apple or MSFT can afford to design new hardware - so how can I expect linux guys to be the FIRST with an interface like the multi-touch technology developed for the iPhone or the MSFT surface table-touch? It simply is a built-in limitation. They CANNOT be first, because they don't develop the hardware. What I blame them for is not innovating on established hardware.
The issue of apps/software available for linux is a totally separate issue. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously compare availability of linux apps and ones for os x or win. It's insane - pure insanity. It's like taking a broken pencil to battle an atomic bomb. Linux software is a joke - 99% of it. There's a ton of poorly implemented, poorly designed half-abandon-ware which is somehow supposed to satisfy your working needs
The linux folks always say "we have an equivalent" - except it is NEVER an equivalent when you sit down and try to actually work with it. For example there are millions of editors for linux and word processing software. Yet, not one which comes close to f.ex. Scrivener on OS X. And - NO - just claiming something's "kinda like it" doesn't cut it. The criterion here is not to try to match it feature for feature - that would be unreasonable. The criterion here is the excellence of the software for the purpose. The same is true for no matter what you want - big stuff like audio apps (Logic, Ableton, Reason etc.), or video editing (FCS, Vegas, AP) or little apps like stuff for GTD (Omnifocus, iGTD, Things). And on and on and on. The "equivalents" on Linux are invariable vastly inferior - it's not even a contest.
Wow, this thread really has gone off rail. We started talking about the desktop environment KDE.
My issue is that there simply is no focus on the ordinary user - I don't mean geeks who drop to cli to do every single thing, but actually, you know, users who need a GUI and who are not interested in memorizing reams of obscure commands and secret handshakes. I am not going to edit code. I just want sh|t to work. I want the computer to get out of my way so I can get some WORK done, I don't want to battle my tools, I want my tools to help me work.
Linux is in a state of perpetual alpha software. And don't give me crap about stable Debian that's 6 years out of date. When I sit down to my Tiger 10.4.11, it just works, and works with the latest apps out there. There is unity of thought and design, not the patchwork lego-building you find on the linux side (gnome at least tries to adhere to some kind of hig most of the time).
And sorry, but there is just an astonishing lack of real innovation. Where's the equivalent of the impact spotlight or expose made for users? All we get is third rate spotlight, expose etc. imitation 6 months later full of bugs. How about something NEW we have NOT seen out of MSFT or Apple or BeOS etc. before? Something that's HUGE? There isn't. And you know what? In many cases, I don't think it's even the fault of the linux developers - it's simply a built-in limitation in many cases. A LOT of software is totally hardware dependent - and only Apple or MSFT can afford to design new hardware - so how can I expect linux guys to be the FIRST with an interface like the multi-touch technology developed for the iPhone or the MSFT surface table-touch? It simply is a built-in limitation. They CANNOT be first, because they don't develop the hardware. What I blame them for is not innovating on established hardware.
The issue of apps/software available for linux is a totally separate issue. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously compare availability of linux apps and ones for os x or win. It's insane - pure insanity. It's like taking a broken pencil to battle an atomic bomb. Linux software is a joke - 99% of it. There's a ton of poorly implemented, poorly designed half-abandon-ware which is somehow supposed to satisfy your working needs
The linux folks always say "we have an equivalent" - except it is NEVER an equivalent when you sit down and try to actually work with it. For example there are millions of editors for linux and word processing software. Yet, not one which comes close to f.ex. Scrivener on OS X. And - NO - just claiming something's "kinda like it" doesn't cut it. The criterion here is not to try to match it feature for feature - that would be unreasonable. The criterion here is the excellence of the software for the purpose. The same is true for no matter what you want - big stuff like audio apps (Logic, Ableton, Reason etc.), or video editing (FCS, Vegas, AP) or little apps like stuff for GTD (Omnifocus, iGTD, Things). And on and on and on. The "equivalents" on Linux are invariable vastly inferior - it's not even a contest.
Your saying open source doesn't innovate. How do you think Darwin(OS X Core) came to be? Its a mix of bsd code.
Spaces has been on Linux for an eternity. Samba makes windows networking possible. Safari is based of Konquers Html Engine
If BSD/open source software was a joke. Then OS X would be mindless monkey, with a apple logo stuck to its head, in a nice costume, hilariously stumbling around, with everyone pointing and laughing. Buts its not because bsd/open software is one strong foundation, which has been matured for a very very long time.
Every program on OS X is created with open source software. GCC the de facto standard compiler.
So don't say we don't innovate, when the foundations of OS X is open source/BSD.
As a developer for OS X, and various other platforms. The main advantage of open source is the fact that code is good quality. THe fact that your code will read by many programmers around the word, kind of makes sure you keep your code nice and tidy. Then its reviewed by countless amounts of programmers.
While in commercial software, it can lead to be in bad situations where code just gets hacked together because no one will ever get to see it or get reviewed. And no one really cares because all they do programming for is the nice cash flow they get at the end. Even if the program complete trash. And eventually you have scrap that code base and start over.
OS X is good for commercial dev's because people will pay for small niche apps. So it doesn't have to be program like photoshop to make money. But really that can lead temptation to just hack something together and sell it.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about??? I'm talking about Linux specifically, not BSD, or Open Source or whatever. Safari is based on Konq, yes, but frankly, I'm not a Safari fan except for the user interface, which is an Apple design - the engine I can't speak to, for me it is very crashy (though whose fault that is, I don't know, maybe that's Apple). And spaces on Linux? Sorry, but that's not an idea that originated on Linux... yeah, it was implemented on Linux before OS X, but the point was what did Linux innovate as far as the user is concerned, without taking stuff from other OSes?
The point is that even when OS X borrowed stuff from other OSes (and let's face it, every OS has borrowed something from other OSes), OS X has also made their contribution in innovative things which were useful to end users. That doesn't really happen with Linux - and I mean BIG things like spotlight or expose. What Linux has done (outside of the kernel) in desktop userland has been to perpetually try to catch up to OS X, or Windows or BeOS etc., not innovate on the desktop.
The core of Linux (ie, the kernel, supporting files and the like) is actually rather good - its stable, free and its fairly good. However, where Linux fails is in it's front end. Its all well and good writing things like Compiz and the like, but if you think about it, they don't actually help the user. Having a window wobble when you move it is cool, but whats the point? To prove that it can be done? If you ask me, that's not a good enough reason, especially when the devs could be working on much more important things.
Really, Linux fails because of its success. The devs are spread all over the world and there (that I'm aware of) isn't really a 'Linux Developer Connection' or 'Linux Developer Network'. This is bad because it means that there are no standard set of rules for how a Linux app should look like, interact with the desktop environment, etc; ie a Linux HIG (Human Interface Guidelines). Each app makes it own rules, and although some Mac OS X and Windows apps do the same (shoddy 3rd party applications come to mind), there are sets of rules which developers refer to when creating their applications interface.
Really, Linux fails because of its success. The devs are spread all over the world and there (that I'm aware of) isn't really a 'Linux Developer Connection' or 'Linux Developer Network'. This is bad because it means that there are no standard set of rules for how a Linux app should look like, interact with the desktop environment, etc; ie a Linux HIG (Human Interface Guidelines). Each app makes it own rules, and although some Mac OS X and Windows apps do the same (shoddy 3rd party applications come to mind), there are sets of rules which developers refer to when creating their applications interface.
Wobbly windows aren't that important, granted, but Compiz does offer usability if only from one thing: the Scale plugin. It's literally Expose. Yeah, Mac has it, had it first too, but the point is Compiz does do something, a big something for usability, and that alone justifies me having it installed.
As for wobbling windows and transparency and painting fire on the screen, you have to remember that just because everyone(or the vast majority anyway) of people working on Linux are unpaid, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's own counterparts to the people doing stuff on the Mac/Windows like themes and icon replacements and Candybar/dock changers and other "pointless" or "unimportant" things. Since anyone can send changes and additions to open source projects, these types of things make it into mainline programs, such as Compiz, rather than being entirely separate, so the line is blurrier between the "devs" and the hobby coders/artists who just want to make something wacky or cool.
quite snazzy, but i'll stick with xfce. much less overhead.
also, you're all pointing the fingers at the wrong people. "linux" is a kernel! what you have are usability and interface issues with kde and gnome (and basically any window and/or desktop manager running on top of x window). it is not a linux issue. let me repeat: it's not a linux issue! put the blame where it should be placed: the major x window desktop managers (kde and gnome).
now, why do i say it's not a linux issue? because these programs are also used by people who run freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, solaris, etc. to say that it is an issue with linux completely confuses the issue.
also, you're all pointing the fingers at the wrong people. "linux" is a kernel! what you have are usability and interface issues with kde and gnome (and basically any window and/or desktop manager running on top of x window). it is not a linux issue. let me repeat: it's not a linux issue! put the blame where it should be placed: the major x window desktop managers (kde and gnome).
now, why do i say it's not a linux issue? because these programs are also used by people who run freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, solaris, etc. to say that it is an issue with linux completely confuses the issue.
also it IS going to satisfy a lot of users a bunch of users I may venture to guess some 70% just use word to type.
I think the important issue is user friendly. MS & 
charge for their products. MS software runs on any hardware with 99% ease providing you meet the requirements. Apple software is to work apple only hardware. Linux works any hardware, but only to a certain degree. The Linux os is NOT user friendly for the average joe who is getting fed up of windows crashing/ causing problems for some reason. You got to make sure you can use the hardware you already have as drivers are not always accessable or available, & if they are they are home made drivers not always done by the manufacturer. The good thing about how Apple as a company, although they dictate, is that it works on the hadware. You don't have to tweak or overclock to make the system run smoother. You don't have to install a virus check with the problem of it possibly slowing down your system, or process running in the background slowing your machine down? It just works. Take it out of the box turn it on & play. Apple to some degree have a good monoply on the Market; web designers use there products, graphic designers, photographers, CAD designers, artists & business. This is because they're smart, stylish, safe & USER FRIENDLY! iTunes really helped this as it pushed people into apple products... The iPod. Linux is fantastic, but theres no money to be made and as said previously, its made by a large community. I love ubuntu, but I can't use it for what I need. I use iTunes, I don't want to have to use wine to run certain software. I want he correct drivers so my system runs smoothly. Ubuntu has come along way & windows 7 will be a break through on the Windows kernel but apple osx does what it says on the tin. If it crashes, it sorts itself out... I can't wait to get my mac it will be nice not having to restart all the time, not having to use a certing piece of hardware to run an os & not having to upgrade so harshly with hardware to run software.
You really can't compare the os systems as they all serve their purpose to each individual, and whether you like itor not, they all have something in. Common. Bill Gates & unix... Think back to how it all began...
charge for their products. MS software runs on any hardware with 99% ease providing you meet the requirements. Apple software is to work apple only hardware. Linux works any hardware, but only to a certain degree. The Linux os is NOT user friendly for the average joe who is getting fed up of windows crashing/ causing problems for some reason. You got to make sure you can use the hardware you already have as drivers are not always accessable or available, & if they are they are home made drivers not always done by the manufacturer. The good thing about how Apple as a company, although they dictate, is that it works on the hadware. You don't have to tweak or overclock to make the system run smoother. You don't have to install a virus check with the problem of it possibly slowing down your system, or process running in the background slowing your machine down? It just works. Take it out of the box turn it on & play. Apple to some degree have a good monoply on the Market; web designers use there products, graphic designers, photographers, CAD designers, artists & business. This is because they're smart, stylish, safe & USER FRIENDLY! iTunes really helped this as it pushed people into apple products... The iPod. Linux is fantastic, but theres no money to be made and as said previously, its made by a large community. I love ubuntu, but I can't use it for what I need. I use iTunes, I don't want to have to use wine to run certain software. I want he correct drivers so my system runs smoothly. Ubuntu has come along way & windows 7 will be a break through on the Windows kernel but apple osx does what it says on the tin. If it crashes, it sorts itself out... I can't wait to get my mac it will be nice not having to restart all the time, not having to use a certing piece of hardware to run an os & not having to upgrade so harshly with hardware to run software. You really can't compare the os systems as they all serve their purpose to each individual, and whether you like itor not, they all have something in. Common. Bill Gates & unix... Think back to how it all began...