quote:
At least not when it's at the cost of flexibility/compatibility, which user friendliness always is.
What flexibility and compatibility would that be? I can run *nix, Cocoa, Carbon, Classic, GNUstep, Windows, Linux... and an endless list of other platform apps.
Oh no! Limited compatibility!
quote:
What about the limitations of the architecture of a mac.
The same limitations as x86 PCs?
quote:
GNU is meant to be an entire free system.
Not only partly...
Who gives a shit? OS X, like the other STEPs before it use BSD code for the UNIX layer. BSD is "open and free" as well.
quote:
(If I had a mac, I whould still run Linux on it.)
And you would receive no benefits of the machine. That would be like buying a Mercedes turbo diesel sedan and then putting a 4cyl engine out of some crappy american rustbucket >COUGHFORDCOUGHFOCUSCOUGH< in it.
quote:
I said extra.
Like a all Sony MP3 players, ...
Who gives a fuck about Sony?
quote:
I understand that OSX has everything a UNIX system has, but then what's the point in using it if that's all you're going to use (which would probably be true in my case)?
It has more. See, you're stuck in the mindset of "good ol' timey UNIX" and can't see past your turned up nose. OS X is a STEP, and therefore is superior in every way, thanks to its heritage.
Just as GenSTEP atop Komodo is a definite forwarding of Linux, so the classic STEPs are the evolution of UNIX. The STEP concept is to implement advanced object-oriented ideas and structures atop an advanced core.
OS X's core and UNIX layer are easily more advanced than the current incarnations of the Linux kernel and uninspired distros that now exist.
Mach and Linux are easily technologically equal, but once you get past the kernel, forget it. OS X makes all but a few Linux distros look like shit.
quote:
as you know the end user is always (or at least usually) going to be using a stock kernel without modifications, so you can give them binary drivers.
God knows you need so many kernels to choose from. If you can't pick between 50 different possibilities, then you're getting shafted.
quote:
they'll always be running one standard version of the Operating System, with a standard windowing environment, etc. And Aqua, or the Windows shell, can be designed so that applications can all integrate with each other and share resources like a clipboard.
Which is good. CONSISTENCY IS RULE ONE.
You stand for a legacy of inconsistent, poor UI design, flakily designed apps, and piss poor implementation. You're defending a legacy which brought us the pop-up menu, focus-follows-mouse, and other such heinous interface crimes.
quote:
Unfortunately that all results in loss of flexibility.
Good. The hallmark of good UI is
flexibility within bounds. I don't see the ability to completely change desktop apps on-the-fly to be a great feature.
quote:
For example, you can choose not to use Aqua, but then you can't use all of the Aqua applications.
Want me to show you a screenshot of OS X running an appearance other than Aqua? It's easy. I think you mean
without Quartz. Good fucking luck. I challenge you to easily stop CoreGraphics from starting... without breaking the entire system.
quote:
If you decide to radically reconfigure your system then all of the user-friendly features that depended on that standardisation won't work anymore.
I wonder... could that mean you
shouldn't fuck around with the OS? Yes, I think it does.
quote:
All of which presumably would defeat the object of using OSX in the first place.
That's right, as the object of running OS X is to glean its benefits, which are
1) Consistency
2) Superior design
3) Superior implementation
4) STEP Heritage
quote:
IMHO the major advantage of Unix is in the cross-platform compatibility i.e. in most cases software written for one Unix type system will compile and run on any Unix system, on any hardware.
I guess now would be a bad time for me to show you some KDE apps running on OS X?
quote:
You can't have this type of compatibility if applications are all released as binary packages,
Who gives a shit? People don't give a fuck about that. They want to be able to run their software easily. It's that elitist mindset that's holding Linux back. It's our forward-minded ideas that drive GenSTEP and Komodo that will do what you never thought Linux could do. Compete.
quote:
and designed to be installed on a single very specific system. Similarly, you can't rely on programs running anywhere if you demand that a particular fancy WM is available.
Sure you can... as long as there's a standard API. Linux needs this. "Freedom of Choice" is hurting adoption because there's chaos for developers and end-users.
quote:
This is why I don't have KDE or GNOME installed. I don't like to tie myself to a specific WM, let alone an OS.
Okay.
quote:
I'm back to coding using a text editor and a command line.
Fortunately, the rest of us choose not to live in the 1970s. For us there is Xcode, and GNUstep's Project Center.
quote:
Also, do you actually claim, OSX is a better(or even just as good) platform for programmers?!
Yes.
1) Cocoa
2) Carbon
3) Objective-C
4) Xcode
5) Standard APIs
quote:
Keep dreaming.
I will. I dream that one day everybody will know the benefits of the STEP way.
quote:
PS: Bashing any OS is always easy.
A perfect OS simply doesn't exist.
Just accept the fact that different people have different needs.
How true!
But, a perfect OS does exist. It is called OPENSTEP.
Bode bode bode bode!
I WIN AGAIN!
As always, I am right.
You will all soon learn the error of your ways, and see the light. GenSTEP and Komodo march ever onward... toward release, and a BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR TOMMORROW!
