[KLUG Members] Linux and MacIntosh

[Adam Williams]

>I think what you are stating is essentially "give the users at work what
>they use at home". My thought process is exactly the opposite. I think
>people want to have at home what they have at work. Time and again,
>people ask me what they should look for in their home computer because
>they want to make it is compatible with work, presumably to be able to
>work on work stuff at home. 

I've seen this go both ways.  Inevitably some people think that the
$1,200 dollars they plunked down at Best Buy gave them the latest and
greatest everything,  and don't understand why they down have exactly
that at the office (until it gets taken over by a virus, etc...)  'Most'
power users work the opposite way,  realizing (since they stretch the
envelope) why multi-user, truly multi-tasking, etc... systems are
superior and want something like that at home,  but with 0
administration required of course.

>So the question that is begging to be asked is what makes the Mac, with
>it's UNIX foundation, so easy to use? 

It isn't unless your familiar with it, same as everything else.  I've
use Win32 variants since Win32 was a "thunking" shell around Win16, and
I've used AIX desktop, CDE, and Linux.  But I ***hate*** having to use a
Mac,  to me the interface represents about the worst possible design
decisions possible.  That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the
Mac interface, just it has an opposite tact than what I'm used to.  The
whole point of this is that any argument that mentions "easy to use" is
utterly spurious and self-referential.    On as side note,  I've
installed Linux/Ximian on the home machines of complete end-user types,
and had them come back later and say they actually though it was
'easier'.  So "easy" arguments don't leave us anywhere.  I'm not certain
what about Linux makes it "hard"?  I've asked that question before and
never got any responses that weren't true on most platforms.

>I mean really, if it's Linux/UNIX-ish under all that, what makes it
>especially easy? 

A cohesive UI that a user is familiar with.  If the user isn't familiar,
it won't be easy.

>Why should KDE or GNOME seem that hard? 

Nothing, other than familiarity.

>Under the hood, the Mac and my Linux box
>are running essentially the same OS. 

I'm not certain this is really true.  The Mac has a UNIX core, yes, but
it does NOT use X11R6.  So same OS yes,  but many other things are done
quite differently. 

>Why is the Mac easier to use? 

Familiarity,  or the use will hate it.  Ask most of my Win32 uses to use
a Mac and watch them start to foam at the mouth.

>I am formulating an answer, but have no conviction yet.

I've been accused of lots of things,  but never convicted. :)  Of
course, that doesn't mean I'm innocent....

>I see that Evolution can run on Mac OS X now with a bit of work. It's
>probably just a matter of time before this is an officially sanctioned
>package from Ximian. At least I hope so. Also, Open Office developer

GNOME will run on Mac, last I heard.

>version for Mac OS X is available, so that is in the works. 

There even a build now,  although I'm not sure the state of it.

>I'm thinking that there are probably some real sharp Mac programmers 
>hacking on these projects originally targeted at Linux.

Yes, there are.

>Could it be that Apple, in their business plan for OS X, is actually
>trying to ride alongside the Linux momentum, rather than the other way
>around? 

Yes, I think that is true.  They have ported PAM and some LDAPy stuff,
that I'm aware of.  Very "core" functionality borrowed straight from the
Open Source UN*X camp.

>>I have been thinking a lot about the talk about the Lindows software
>>and the impact on the computing world (does that sound grand??).  I
>>do not think that Linux will easily start to make significant inroads
>>into the home desktop market.  There is too great a learning curve
>>with a Linux system for most home users.  

I think the same applies to Win32.  Witness the plateau of new PC
sales.  It isn't worth the fuss for most people, thats OK.  The whole
point of things like WebTV, etc.... where Linux is making large inroads.

>>This will relegate Linux to
>>a niche market (although a large one) and make marketing somewhat
>>more difficult.  I think that there is a solution though.

I disagree,  Linux has the most powerful marketing technology ever
crafted my the devious human mind - your next door neighbor.    It is
the entire point of KLUG.

>>The Apple MacIntosh is a very easy computer to use. Now with OS X it
>>has a Unix style backend too.  If Linux developers would start to
>>focus on putting together software for both Linux and Mac (Windows
>>could be added too but always release on Linux and Mac simultaniously
>>or close together) then there could be a marketing in.  Many

'Mpst' Open Source packages are available on multiple platforms. 
Writing multi-platform software is *NOT* hard if you focust on doing
that from the inception.

>>companies want to deploy on the corporate desktop stuff that is also
>>used at home (at least for things like an office suite).  If Linux
>>software developers helped to make the MacIntosh platform more
>>desireable at home because of additional software availability, then

Mac platform is acceptable at work?  Not most places I go.

As for "additional software",  I think there is no shortage of packages
for the Mac currently.

>>more people would be using MacIntosh.  They would be using software
>>that is the same as on Linux.  This would make it easier to get Linux
>>into the corporate environment because the application software would
>>be the same and people would be familiar/comfortable with it.  

When OO arrives for 'real' on the Mac, I agree, this will help.