[NCLUG] Why you should take a Mac user to lunch

[J. Paul Reed]

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Interesting article at
> http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0724.macx.html
>
> I'm available for lunch most days!!!

Interesting, yes, but I don't really buy the argument that I should take
you to lunch.

The article is seeming to simply make the point that now businesses can
feel good about deploying Linux in other places because they can deploy OS
X, which "is Unix" on the desktop, and find that both are cheaper than
paying for similar Microsoft products that lack the quality of their OS
X/Linux counterparts. And this somehow indebts the Linux community to
Apple.

But I take issue with a couple of assertions the article makes: first, I
think the Linux/*BSD/open source OS community can stand fine on its own two
feet.  We started blowing NT away in the web/mid-range Internet server
space when Apple was still betting the farm on Copland. The fact that Apple
is pushing OS X so hard hasn't changed the fact that we still rock in those
spaces. And I would consider deploying OS X as a webserver for about as
long as I would consider deploying an XP box for that task.

The second problem I have with the article is that it parrots the standard
Apple line that OS X is Unix. It's not.

Let me repeat that: OS X IS NOT Unix. Now, people are going to reply and
say "What the hell are you talking about," but if you look at all of
Apple's literature and the article, they all say OS X is a Unix core, but
the operating system itself is more than Unix and has been bastardized
enough to not deserve to be called Unix anymore.  Despite all this
marketing, every hardcore Unix user I've talked to has said that OS X is
nice, but it's not Unix. They've all spent hours banging their heads
against the wall trying to get OS X to do the "normal" Unix stuff.

OS X doesn't come with the default Unix utilities (you need to get their
"Developer CD" for that), and the file system layout confuses most Unix
users when they first look at it. Also, I've heard some grumbling about how
OS X doesn't pay attention to certain /etc files and instead stores system
settings in (*gasp*) a registry-like database...  which would be fine if
Apple actually documented that, along with which settings were in their
uber-registry and which were in /etc.

The point is: if you/companies want Unix, go get a Unix box. If you want a
desktop Macintosh that is capable of running Unix software with as much of
a learning curve and head banging as a Windows user will have moving to
Linux, get OS X.

But don't confuse the two.

Any CIO who thinks Windows is a better value won't be swayed by whatever
Apple's doing and they get what they deserve when their "enterprise" run on
Microsoft's crapware blows itself to pieces.

As an aside, the article also misses the main reason to use OS X:
"standard" office applications and other software, like Word, Excel,
Photoshop, etc. The article makes a big deal about using OpenOffice; but
most companies will say "Well, if I could *use* OpenOffice, I'd just buy a
copy of RedHat 7.3 and leave it at that." But they can't, so they don't.

Maybe we should go to lunch to discuss it further... ;-)

Later,
Paul
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   J. Paul Reed                 preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
   Wait, stop!  We can outsmart those dolphins.  Don't forget: we invented
   computers, leg warmers, bendy straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory
   hole, *and* the pudding cup!  -- Homer Simpson, Tree House of Horror XI