OS X vs. desktop Linux

[Tom Metro]

Richard Pieri wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> What type of admin work do you do on your Linux desktop machines  
>> that you find is not necessary on an OS X machine?
> 
> APM is one.
> 
> Another is support for hardware that isn't in the mainline kernel or  
> part of a packaged distribution.  Both WinBooks required ALSA to get  
> sound working and at the time ALSA was not part of any distribution.   
> Whenever I did a kernel upgrade I also had to compile ALSA by hand.
> 
> There really isn't one big thing; it's a lot of little things like  
> these that can be a real PITA with Linux that aren't an issue with OS X.

OK, valid, but these are all issues relating to hardware support, which 
is a well known and understood problem. For every component that goes 
into a PC, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variations. Until 
vendors get on board with Linux, this is going to be an up hill battle. 
(I think when it comes to after market peripherals, Mac users only get 
slightly more respect from the vendors than Linux users.)

The current remedy is to either buy a machine with the OS pre-installed, 
or research and select hardware with a known track record of being 
compatible.

I almost mentioned that a starting assumption should be a pre-installed 
OS that fully supports the supplied hardware, as problems in this area 
are largely initial setup problems, and I'm more interested in 
differences in ongoing capabilities.


>> Does OS X permit you to do things you can't do with Linux? What  
>> operations do you find are either impossible or less efficient with  
>> Linux?
> 
> At the desktop level it is, again, the collection of little things.
> A consistent menu bar.

OK, so largely personal preference matters.


> Applications that act like they belong together. 

I'm not real fond of applications that deviate from the norm, 
particularly when it comes to the behaviors of the UI components and the 
dialogs. (You see this with some Java applications that don't use native 
widgets.) But I haven't noticed much of that, despite using a mix of 
GNOME and KDE applications.


> Selecting network configurations from a simple menu. 

It seems the Ubuntu people spend a lot of time working on the Network 
Manager applet, and it is adequate, but could use some work. (I thought 
it provided a poor UI for dealing with VPNs.)


> The only things I've run into as far as can't/impossible are vendor  
> related. 

Yup, and that won't change until the political and business motivations 
change. Obviously if the Linux desktop market share grows large enough, 
Microsoft will begrudgingly support it, just as they do OS X.


So if you've achieved adequate hardware support with Linux, and you 
don't need any proprietary applications that only run on OS X, and don't 
have a personal preference for the look or UI behavior, then I'm not 
hearing any clear compelling reasons that would suggest OS X would lead 
to a more efficient and productive working environment.

Thanks for your comments.

  -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/