In a week or two it is possible to configure a desktop Linux machine to almost-perfection. Not working on it full time, of course, just fixing broken things as they are discovered. But then there's always one tiny nagging thing that doesn't quite work right.
So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there is one tiny nagging bug...
I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how to pair a device.
That's how it seems to be these days. Something is always not working quite right. I got a new Macbook Air a while ago and decided to install Linux. After messing with it for a few hours I realized I didn't have time to hunt down all the bugs and Google the various solutions. So I'm back in OS X.
For my desktops I'm used to Linux. It works perfectly and I'm so used to the way I do things there that doing them on any other operating system or in a different window manager is annoying.
I hear you - I'm an Ubuntu user and I see usability and driver regressions with every release.
I cant disable the touchpad in Karmic (could do do that in Jaunty) - bug marked as wishlist.
DEC Tulip drivers have stopped working from Hardy onwards.
Audio drivers dont work well on Thinkpad R series - its quite a hack to get them to work.
A similar thing happened to me last fall. I wanted to switch to ubuntu, Installed it and found that the audio won't work.
After some google-fu, I found a setting described in ubuntu forums which made it work, but the sound from my laptop speaker kept playing even after plugging in the headphone jack :(.
A LOT of trouble can be saved if the hardware is confirmed to work with the OS. I bought a System76 Starling. Haven't upgraded it to Karmic yet - I figure I'll let more people tread the upgrade path until it is smoother.
really ... I configured my computer to dual boot Ubuntu in a couple of hours. It was faster than it took me to configure my original Windows installation (which came pre-installed, mind you).
And I have no idea what you are complaining about regarding the libraries. I just merely say ok when update manager pops up. Have not had problems thus far.
Well, my upgrade went fine too. But the amount of auto-removable packages was astounding afterwards. Most of them were libsomething.deb :) Which means that for whatever reason the original libraries (or packages) were no longer good enough. Now, how many dependencies need to be checked (and/or get broken subtly) any time a library is rolled into a new package? What about when a library is re-written?
I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for these changes. But they do make life a pain for us users. And the stuff that keeps breaking/changing is the interfaces and packaging. Which means configs have to be tweaked with every major upgrade.
All my recent troubles have been caused by the switch to HAL. First it was X.org (broke my keyboard layout). Now it's Bluetooth. I like the modular design of HAL, but I just can't help but think it's just going to be ripped out and replaced again in a year or two because someone decides they hate XML, or something like that :)
Well, so you are having HAL issues. It is not surprising that switching to HAL may make some devices not work, because HAL takes over all the driving of all devices from Linux, and HAL although a great idea does not seem to be nearly finished.
What is bewildering is why you decide to blame Linux for all of that. You decided to use some cutting edge not really finished utility that is not nearly necessary and you have some issues. Linux is not to blame for that, Linux has perfectly good hardware drivers, you do not need to use HAL.
I mean you may have a point if MS and/or OSX had something like HAL but to the best of my knowledge they don't.
And that's just the nature of Linux -- it gives you freedom. It provides a completely easy and safe route if you choose to take it, but it also allows you to live dangerously, to change everything and to use all kinds of unstable experimental software as part of the OS stack if you choose that. It is your choice and if you choose to live dangerously you should not blame linux but yourself.
I have been running linux for about 5 years now. When i furst started I was all gung ho and compiled my own programs dove headlong into obscure config files, etc. I quickly realized that is not for me and now I only install things with the pachage manager and have not touched a config file in two years. And I am completly happy with my computer.
I've used a 2nd generation Macbook Pro that costs my employer close to $3000 (4GB RAM, 2.4GHz, 160GB HD) for 2 years, during which time the graphic card (Nvidia 9600M GT) died twice (screen suddenly went blank); battery died once (could not hold charge for an hour and would shut everything down without warning); Apple Mail corrupted its IMAP data countless times; much software annoyance: maximize/unmaximize/resize surprise etc.
Before the MBP, I've been using a $1000 amd64 notebook with 1.5GB RAM for 3 years without any issues, running Gentoo (! did need to google to fix multi-monitor support and ndiswrapper/wpa-supplicant for wifi) and it felt snappier than the mac with much faster processor running Leopard (up to 10.5.8).
Now I'm using a $600 laptop (with 4GB RAM and 320GB HD with higher display resolution than the MBP: 1680x945 vs 1440x900) and a 2.5lb $200 netbook running Ubuntu Jaunty. Everything worked out of the box including wifi, webcam and desktop effects. Feels much snappier than the Mac as well. All it took is a little googling _before_ buying the machines :)
It's much easier for Apple to QA limited configurations. Frankly, I'm quite pleased with the progress of Linux desktop.
The laptop is a desktop replacement 18.4" Acer with intel chipset (4500HD graphics etc.) bought from Amazon (free shipping and no tax! Looks like it's not available anymore, probably discontinued) 6 months ago. The netbook is a Dell mini 10v from Dell outlet on one of its 15% off offers.
The Acer has an HDMI output. I connected it to my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung and point and clicked the monitor applet on the gnome panel and viola, dual monitor support at full resolution without having to fiddle xorg.conf! Point and clicked to configure the wifi on both machines without any problems. Man, I was ecstatic, probably due to the low expectation from my Gentoo experience -- I was expecting to vi a few things to make them work :)
To be honest, I did have to add a fixmtrr.sh to gdm PostLogin and a line (MigrationHeuristic greedy) to xorg.conf to fix the intel video performance regression in Jaunty on both machines, when I felt the desktop effect was a bit sluggish. Now the desktop animations are smooth as butter even on the netbook.
I did choose to install 32-bit Ubuntu with server kernel (to get PAE in Jaunty) to take advantage of the full 4GB RAM, instead of 64-bit because flash and a few other things don't work as well as in 32-bit.
I recently got a laptop because I needed mobility in and outside my home. So, I bought a Dell laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed after years of using Windows. I was very excited.
My enthusiasm deteriorated very quickly upon discovering that the wireless did not work out of the box which immediately negated the main reason for my purchase.
I am someone who writes code for a living (and for fun) and I found the experience disappointing and frustrating. Imagine how your average non-technical consumer would feel.
Similar situation here. Try using the latest modwifi drivers , the drivers in the 9.04 distro did not work for me. (sorry I forgot how I did that, but the info was easy to find).
No, it probably won't "work" out of the box, meaning that it requires configuration. With a fresh install, typically the first thing I do is plug in an ethernet cable, download all available updates (including wifi drivers and other software if needed) and then configure the wifi. I did this when I bought a netbook preinstalled with Linux, but I might not have needed to install anything, I probably just didn't find the "switch" at first.
"""if you read through the comments you'll find out that he's not alone in this sentiment."""
I suggest one would have to willfully ignore massive amounts of evidence over the past many, many years if you really thought he was alone with this sentiment and were genuinely surprised to see someone feels this way.
I think it's getting harder to defend the Linux Desktop, since Pulseaudio (which is finally working perfectly on my laptop).
But still I'll stay with my Ubuntu, I just don't like using Windows or OS X, every time I use my mac I miss Gnome Terminal, Banshee, X-Chat, F-Spot, even VIM (since the mac terminal doesn't support 256 colors :(), I miss my wobbly windows, the desktop cube (not that crap you get with OS X)... I would just use the mac if there is no other option.
And don't get me started with Windows and the un-resizable terminal ugh!
I use OS X secondary to Linux. There are just a few things that start to bug me every time. Why can't I change the slide time and have a non-standard shortcut for Spaces? Why can't I auto-hide the menu bar? Why can't I use a different window manager?
But things work. I don't have to worry about any hardware configuration, not even installing restricted drivers. It's a trade off I'm still evaluating.
Linux is great for software development (i.e., stick with terminal windows) and simple web browsing. And I love it because that's what I do. But it sucks for many other tasks. The Unix haters handbook has a great rant about X11 where they say that for many years the only programs that X ran were xterm and clock.
Just yesterday I kicked off an MP3 playback using Rhythmbox on Ubuntu 9.04 and forgot to pause. When I came back a couple of hours later, two cores were pegged at 100% and the song was fast forwarding like crazy with no obvious UI control to slow it down.
And this is after wrestling with Adobe's 64-bit Flash plugin that doesn't play nice with USB audio (not sure if the 32-b version does; I'm not going to reinstall Ubuntu just for that).
Yes, back in the day the Unix desktop was OK for development, compared to alternatives like DOS. But then, the Unix vendors also had almost complete control of the hardware stack.
Seems that Alan Kay is right again: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware".
Wow, Adobe's alpha 64 bit flash plugin doesn't work for you? Alpha software broken? Who would have thought. And certainly if you used OSX or Windows you would get a completely different Adobe 64 bit flash plugin that works seamlessly. Right.
Regarding rhythmbox there is plenty of software on windows and mac that has memory leaks and resource leaks. Of course on windows or mac nobody blames the operating system for faulty software. But on Linux, well Linux is to be blamed for everything.
This could have been written 10 years ago - I recall similar 'almost there' experiences with audio and USB on a dell laptop at the time, though I can't blame the Linux community for lack of access to bespoke drivers. Not to belittle the tremendous advances that have taken place in the interim, but something died after development of Enlightenment stalled.
His complaint is about the entire system, which includes people who refuse to admit closed-source Linux apps aren't the best because they insist that closed-source is bad and should be done away with.
He was much more insightful than that. He acknowledged that Linux itself makes it hard for those vendors to make polished apps by changing and reinventing every damned thing every few years.
Now, I am very aware that the Linux Desktop is SO much better than it was even 5 years ago. We have eye candy up the wahzoo.
That was most definitely not the major issue 5 years ago. The issue 5 years ago was configuring hardware and god help you if you want to do some multimedia work on a stock linux distro.
Things are a ton better today. I don't remember the last time I had to manually edit an xorg.conf. But Linux has neither the standardized hardware of Apple nor the dominant market share of Windows to compel vendors to make their hardware work with linux.
Really the best you can do to get that level of compatibility is to get your Ubuntu laptop through Dell.
Using Ubuntu 9.10 and everything works out of the box. Although, I had a problem with WiFi on my other laptop, but doing some /etc configuration solved the problem. Is it that hard to write a few configuration lines only once?
In fact, most of the configurations are available in UI, but what makes *nix different is, it allows you to make it work the way you want(that's what /etc is for).
On the other hand, I'm not happy with Windows until some registry tweaks are done and some useless services are turned off.
On hardware compatibility, I don't think it's Linux' fault that some vendors don't publish hardware documentation. This should be considered before installing Linux at all.
If you're not a geek, yes. Most non-programmers find the Unix command line a hostile environment and are not that interested in tweaking the operating system as an end in itself. Would you want a TV that required a soldering iron as part of the installation process?
Let me say it this way, if I really ever wanted this TV set then I wouldn't mind. The same is with Linux: if you want free, open-source OS then you should know that there's no Photoshop, IE and all those games you can have on Windows. Also, before installing Linux you should be aware that not every piece of hardware can work in Linux. I agree, these are big disadvantages for normal user - the choice depends on users' priorities.
Agreed. However, a key goal of desktop Linux is to be sufficiently useful and easy that user-facing software will find an audience, and it becomes worth a developer's time to code for that platform.
I think this is a problem with perspective. Linux on the desktop is not a homogeneous collection controlled by a single entity. It is a collection of individual pieces. Software vendors have little incentive to make their software work 100% with those individual pieces on the Linux desktop, unlike they do on platforms where they sell other software and services. You get what you pay for, on the Linux desktop, your payment will be in time and effort to get the (usually substandard) free offerings from these software vendors to work properly.
It does seem that this is one of the problems, though surely not the only problem.
If you're a hardware vendor making a new USB device, you're going to alter your device and your drivers (if you have them) so that the item works well under Windows and maybe OS X. You're probably not going to try to tweak it to make it work with the Linux USB drivers.
Linux is in this odd position of having to try to copy all the functionality and interface of the Windows systems because that's what all the hardware has been written for. It makes for a buggy and error prone process.
I don't agree that you get what you pay for though. At this point it's all about market penetration. If Linux was 90% of the PC market, don't you think those USB webcams would be likely to work the first time? Don't you think that if a company wanted to enable new functionality they'd submit a driver to the kernel? It wouldn't take any more effort from them (less if you consider programming for Linux easier than programming for Windows) and the Linux users would get the benefit.
Let's branch into another universe where everything is exactly the same as this one, except Linux (in the same state it's in now) is 90% of the PC market. But how can such a world exist except by ignoring the reasons that exist in our universe why Linux is not the OS for 90% of the PC market.
It's not a sensible "if". If Linux was forced onto 90% of computers early on, it would have been forced to be a lot more stable, backwards compatible and rigid than it is now. The webcams would work but the OS wouldn't be the Linux you know today.
I've recently come to the same conclusion as the author.
I've long been an advocate of Linux, but a few years go I sort of gradually switched off Linux on the desktop back to Windows. It wasn't premeditated; I built a new box, made it Windows for gaming, and then one day realized I was using it exclusively for desktop stuff.
Well, I say desktop, but I think the real differentiator here is X Window... I use Linux command-line programs for much of my daily desktop productivity stuff -- email (sup+fetchmail), irc/aim (irssi, bitlbee), text editing (emacs), etc.
At work we recently rebuilt our boxes using Ubuntu. I was thrilled for about two weeks, and then all those little X annoyances started creeping back in. Frankly, I was kind of surprised; I had assumed that it would have come a lot farther in the few years since I had last used Linux for desktop.
Actually using X Window programs has become annoying. I can sort of feel that legion of disparate programmers all taking their own stab at desktop GUI programming and all arriving there somewhat differently.
Eventually a few of us broke down and hackintoshed our boxes, and I couldn't be happier.
Geez, simple solution. Keep another box around, a Mac Mini or a cheap Windows box, for the stuff Linux doesn't do. If you try to get by with a single desktop environment, you'll get fed up with any of the choices out there. It isn't worth the pain. You'll get tired of the Mac when you realize that nice interface is the only... environment... you'll... ever... have. Everything that takes three clicks will always take three clicks. You'll never be able to switch to a tiling window manager for the afternoon. I won't bother listing Windows' shortcomings. And under Linux you will always run into things like Skype that are broken and not worth the trouble of fixing, because you aren't in college anymore and you have real work to do.
If I had to do a lot of work on the road, I think I would have to get a Windows or Mac laptop and set up a Linux VM for doing real work. Otherwise I'd go crazy and start carrying two laptops (and forget about ever getting another date.)
I totally sympathize with this kind of issue, it's what keeps me from putting Linux on my parents' computers (though this latest "Alpha Antivirus" thing my dad got is ... pushing my limits).
For myself, I am pleasantly surprised at the experience I've had with Ubuntu since I first installed 8.04 and deciding to give Linux desktop yet-another-go. The improvements between releases are apparent and usually make sense. Hardware device recognition and drivers are getting better. Overall it IS getting better, and seemingly faster, so have hope for it.
In the meantime it's going to be a bumpy ride not just because of stiff competition from existing "just works" platforms, but because it challenges some fundamental commercial assumptions about operating software and THAT is inevitably going to cause opposition through politics, support bias, etc.
Strong supporters are going to shed blood in the hope that future generations won't have to. Isn't that the way it always is?
It's about trade-offs. Yes, there are issues with Linux; there have always been different various issues in any Linux distribution I've used since 1995 which is when I started.
But there are issues with Windows and OS X too. And that's where Linux's advantages kick in again. You'll always miss something from the other side of the fence. You'll have to weigh in, and some people weigh to Linux and some people don't.
I've never got too far with Windows. I ditched OS X after over two years of everyday use. Despite the uncertainty regarding hardware compatibility in Linux, I really like the way it, namely Debian and recently Ubuntu, gets rid of the _other_ problems so irritatingly present in other operating systems.
A Linux system is just too user friendly for users who aren't too system friendly.
Well, I'm in two minds. I've often disliked how Ubuntu, Mint, Gnome, Kde et al have attempted to ape Microsoft's and Apple's desktop experience with only a few new novel features in an attempt to gain mass acceptance, more often than not completely ignoring the fundamental philosophy of Unix, the philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great. Then again, it has made more desktop hardware manufacturers take notice of Linux, due to its increasing mass appeal, which has improved hardware support. At least there's enough diversity in the Unix eco-system for me to completely ignore the aforementioned for more novel systems, even though most of the effort seems to be going into aping Windows and OS X.
The "philosophy that makes Unix-derivatives so great" is completely antithetical to a pleasing desktop experience. Hint: Mac OS X may be Unix underneath, but Cocoa is most emphatically not Unix.
I had a similar experience. I've now been running a new MacBook for three days and I am not going back to linux.
I couldn't believe it when I booted into Snow Leopard and zsh was already installed and configured. I'm sure my jaw actually dropped.
That's just one example. So much stuff on OS X just freaking works. It just works. I literally had my whole machine configured and working within around 2 hours. Most of that time was spent simply installing software, not configuring it.
What things are that broken in OS X? I use it every day, I'm sure I could come up with a list if pressed, but compared to when I used to run earlier versions of Ubuntu on my laptops, it's a dream.
I've used OSX since 10.0 up to 10.5 and classic MacOS before that. I've never upgraded to 10.6 and do not plan to do so (I got Thinkpad and Windows last summer). I remember times when dlopen/dlsym didn't work (later it did); never managed to build some command line utilities and other required porting effort; macports was never functioning properly; Aquamacs ignored my customizations; was there X11.app release that did work at all?; no jdk6 for ppc; etc.
From proprietary side: you could have either Office 2004 for PPC running in emulation and working macros and custom language dictionaries; or intel Office 2008 without these two things. Since switching to OSX, the Adobe suite got worse and has distinct second-class feel compared to windows version.
I had some favourite software, that was originaly developed for classic MacOS (both m68k and ppc) and it does not work on modern Macs. Even software that was updated for OSX does not work, because the installer is for classic and then the updater updates the program to carbon (or whatever) version. With every switch in OSX focus there is software that is getting lost (with switch to intel, we lost some. With switch to 64b, we will lose more due to no Carbon).
In short, in all those years I was using OSX I got fed up and made a full circle (dos/windows -> linux -> mac -> windows).
Because Apple hardware is well-designed, and well put together.
Played with a Dell recently? Thick, heavy clunkers of machines with flimsy plastic flaps all over the place. Even the vaunted Lenovos have mushy keyboards and bits that just should not flex like that when pushed.
I'd gladly pay for Mac hardware and run some other OS on it - just the keyboard alone on the unibody is worth some money.
I see your point about Dell, but have you looked at other companies? Laptops by Asus are quite nice in terms of quality and are much less expensive. My point wasn't that Apple hardware is not well-designed and well put together -- it was that it wasn't really worth the cost difference (especially when you are choosing to not take advantage of a great operating system like OSX). There has got to be some other hardware out there that will make you happy.
I have a very recent vintage T400 - the keyboard is still mushy, and the casing still feels downright cheap and flimsy. There's simply no comparison - on the one hand you're building a machine out of plastic panels wrapped on a metal frame - on the other hand you're building a machine out of a one-piece aluminum construction.
I push on a unibody Mac keyboard - nothing flexes. It's rock solid. I push on a T400's keyboard, or bezel, or any body component that isn't supposed to twist and bend - and it does.
For me, it's this glass trackpad. No more carrying around mice! I picked up my mac primarily for that, but I've ended up doing the same thing the author did. The OS/X side of this computer just works. I need to boot up a VM and run Ubuntu 2-3 times a week, but the mac OS works all he time, and it's a (guilty) pleasure.
I recently bought a HP Envy 15. The design is clearly lifted directly from Apple and feels just as solid but the specs are much better than the equally priced MacBook Pro.
It's not just the keyboard. It's all the hardware. It's the keyboard, the various buttons, the speaker grilles, the indicator light, the camera... everything on the Macbook Pro is gorgeous, and it works all sleeklike.
The way this thread is playing out about hardware is the way this page/this situation/this argument is playing out with OS-X/Linux.
"Just use modwifi 0.9.4.1 I don't see why it's a problem you can find it with Google in a few seconds"
"It's not just the wifi, it's all the software. The audio stack, the BSD underpinnings, the coherent feel over many apps. I'd gladly pay more for things to just work, but it's not even that, things just work /nicely/."
The frustrating thing is that both viewpoints are valid, and there're people on both sides that don't seem to get that, and they're the only reason that people are getting into these arguments to begin with.
I had this question in my head through the whole essay and the top commenter beat me to it.
I've heard thousands of issues with the new Ubuntu release (never bothered trying it myself). I doubt I'll recommend Ubuntu to anyone I know who's interested in Linux for quite a while. I've had great experiences with several of non-Ubuntu distros and will probably recommend them instead.
"Oh, I've been saturated with Unix-peanut-gallery effluvia for so long that it no longer even surprises me when every question -- no matter how simple -- results in someone suggestion that you either A) patch your kernel or B) change distros. It's inevitable and inescapable, like Hitler."
I personally haven't had a problem with the new Ubuntu release. I moved back to Ubuntu after having a lot of problems with Fedora 11. I originally moved to Fedora 10 after having a lot of problems with Ubuntu.
But I guess this is the problem, right? New problems always arise in different distros and different versions. I can't say I've found one distro to commonly recommend because it seems like all of them have had problems at some point, even in newer releases.
For me, I don't care as much about switching distros. I have my .emacs setup and my files, it's easy to move. But for a lot of people, I think they want something that is almost always stable so they don't have to switch distros or put up with bugs.
I agree, Ubuntu can be unwieldy compared with the solidity of other distros. I usually put up with some slowness or instability because Ubuntu automates stupid little tasks like uncompressing files (which I really should learn how to do on the CLI anyway).
Can't say for sure, but it also seems like Firefox behaves differently between distros, as if the code in the repositories differs drastically enough to offer a dramatic performance boost. Granted these are not scientific observations and I'd defer to someone who ran *buntu vs another distro on two boxes with identical specs.
I wish I could understand people who describe inanimate objects as sexy. I have no idea how to relate to people who choose a laptop because of its sex appeal, which would be a big disadvantage if I ever need to sell to them. There probably aren't that many of them, but they seem to have a lot of money.
You don't buy a Mac because of its sex appeal. You buy it because it's a damn good computer. A part of that just happens to be that it's sexy.
There are such things as sexy suits and sexy dresses. They're inanimate, but there are ugly dresses and sexy dresses. Similarly, computers exist that have blinking lights and bulges and edges where they don't need them, and they are perceived to be ugly; when you have a computer that doesn't have a line it doesn't need to have, then it's sexy.
But that's not what you're saying, Matt. We know what you're saying; you've been saying it for years, occasionally with an attempt at subtlety, as now. What you're saying is that you don't like the Mac or Mac users. You and I have had this argument before, only instead of sexy you didn't understand people who were willing to pay two thousand dollars for a computer, or who couldn't tinker with certain settings. But your arguments are shallow every time and it's tiring talking to somebody who won't say what he's actually thinking.
He specifically said he wanted his computer to be sexy. The exact quote is "and while they’re sturdy as heck and are well built and last forever, they’re not really all that sexy. I wanted sexy." He literally said that he was choosing form over function there, and it has nothing to do with operating systems.
Suits and dresses aren't sexy, the person wearing them is. Suits or dresses may make them more or less sexy, but hanging on a rack they're devoid of such ability.
Can a laptop someone is holding do the same? Perhaps that's what I'm missing. If I see a beautiful woman holding a laptop I'm 0% likely to notice what brand it is, or likely that it even exists. My guess is that my wife wouldn't notice whether George Clooney was holding a Macbook Pro or a Lenovo x60 either.
I say exactly what I'm thinking. You read into it and assume I did not say what I meant, I cannot help that. I wasn't commenting on Macs at all, and I came to that thought before the word was ever mentioned in the article, though to be honest, I probably wouldn't have had trouble guessing where it was going. Nobody ever says "Lenovos are great, but they aren't sexy, so I got a Dell."
But regardless there's a much broader point there, as this probably applies to a range of things from clothing, to cars to laptops.
I wouldn't necessarily describe macs as "sexy", but I would describe pretty much every other laptop on the market as "gouge-your-eyes-out ugly", if that helps.
I believe the words that most people are actually looking for when they say sexy is aesthetically pleasing. Unfortunately sexy happens to be shorter and easier to throw around.
Plus, if you say some hardware or device is aesthetically pleasing, you might have to explain what you mean whereas few men will question what you mean if you say something is sexy.
Once again: if you want to run Linux on a notebook, check for compatibility before you buy the notebook.
Don't know about Apple, but in general hardware support tends to be better if the vendor communicates the necessary specs to the open source community. Somehow I doubt that Apple is very supportive to the "Linux on a MacBook" cause.
If you had read the article, you would know that he was comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X. This sort of blame-the-user mentality is what's really holding back Linux on the desktop.
comparing the user experience of Skype in Ubuntu on a Thinkpad to Skype in Mac OS X.
But isn't that an issue with Skype? It's a massive nuisance that Linux still doesn't have the hardware and application support of MasOS/OSX and Windows, but there's not much that can be done about that without the cooperation of proprietary vendors, many of whom still treat Linux as a second class citizen.
No. OS-X, Windows, iPhone and Android are sufficiently different that we can tell the Skype developers are putting a decent amount of effort into cross-platform compatibility.
That there is a Linux client shows they are also trying to do that with Linux.
Could they put more effort in and get a polished shiny Linux client? Maybe. Is it Skype's fault that Linux is bad enough to need this while at the same time not good enough to get a large enough userbase to make this worthwhile? Again, no.
I read until the "turns out refit is not seamless on the MacBook". Sorry I did not read through the whole wall of text just to learn that somebody prefers Os X to Linux.
BooHoo ... skype doesnt work so it must be Linux's fault. Macbook pros are intentionally designed to be difficult to dual boot so it must be Linux's fault.
Hey I have an idea. Why don't you buy a desktop and laptop with linux preinstalled (they are available online) and then try to install OSX on top of it and dual boot. Then you are really in for a nightmare. You will have to do a lot of hacking and in the end you are still pretty much guaranteed to fail. And then you can write a blog post about how you really love OSX but you are so tired of it.
Right, and Linux has no compatibility issues if you use the OS that comes with the hardware.
But then again when people do not use the OS that comes with the hardware there may be some issues. And then bizarrely people inevitably blame Linux. I am pretty sure that installing OSX on a PC is just as hard or probably harder than installing Linux on a Mac. But people always complain about Linux.
So, an upgrade. Everything is shinier, and that one bug is finally fixed. Too bad a lot of the programs and libraries are obsolete now, and the software that did survive in the repos is rewritten to use the new interfaces. Along with their bugs. And after a couple weeks setting everything up just so, there is one tiny nagging bug...
I use a Debian machine exclusively. After I upgraded to testing, my video stopped crashing. That's great. But now bluetooth is broken. It's been replaced with a completely new HAL framework, and I still can't figure out how to pair a device.