in 1194485 20050401 132717 TravelinMan <[email protected]> wrote
>In article <[email protected]>
> "John Slade" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "TheLetterK" <[email protected]> wrote in messag
>> news:[email protected]..
>> > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:43:23 -0800, John wrote
>>
>> > > Ted wrote
>> > >> I'm giving up on Windows. Should I switch to Max OSX, or Linu
>> Mandrake
>> > >
>> > >> Te
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > No contest. OS X is a dramatically superior solution to that offere
>>
>> Yea. Linux is more popular than OS X even though it's not as polishe
>> yet. Some Macpots seem to think any OS that is more popular than OS X mus
>> be bad. I wonder if they will start to call Linux Torvalds the anti-Chris
>> if Linux becomes more popular
>I'd be interested in your evidence for Linux being more popular than OS
>X - particularly at the desktop
>Ars Technica published their web access statistics and OS X was twice
>the number of hits of Linux
Last figures I saw even OS/2 was higher than OS X
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:53:39 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:39:35 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:
>
>>>Ars Technica published their web access statistics and OS X was twice
>>>the number of hits of Linux.
>>
>> Last figures I saw even OS/2 was higher than OS X
>
> That's because OS-X users go to Ars Technica more often. That's all. Mac
> heads bought their computers for their 'legendery' graphics capabilities
> and Ars Technica focuses on that topic.
Well, I bought mine because it's got the stability of Unix, with the
ease of use of Mac. I didn't buy it because of any legendary graphics anything,
although I must say I'm pleased with those capabilities.
> If you only want to surf to Ars Technica, go with OS-X. It'll get you
> there.
> Besides which ... if you want to go with popular, you need to go with
> whatever Microsoft is shilling this week.
Well, the common cold is popular too, but that's not a good reason to
seek it out.
> Take a look at Mandrake or Fedora Core 3. Odds are you won't bother
> looking any further.
Like anything else, it depends on what you want to do. What do you
want to do?
> Bear in mind that OS-X runs on Mac's and Linux runs on everything else. If
> you have a Mac, OS-X is the way to go. If you don't, grab some flavor of
> Linux and give it a whirl.
Either of these is a more stable and secure option than Windows, yes. And
the "there aren't any applications" hasn't been true for years. Sure, you
can't run (insert windows-specific program name here), but if you can
get over running something that does the same thing, but has a different
title, you'll be fine.
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bear in mind that OS-X runs on Mac's and Linux runs on everything else. If
> > you have a Mac, OS-X is the way to go. If you don't, grab some flavor of
> > Linux and give it a whirl.
>
> Either of these is a more stable and secure option than Windows, yes. And
> the "there aren't any applications" hasn't been true for years. Sure, you
> can't run (insert windows-specific program name here), but if you can
> get over running something that does the same thing, but has a different
> title, you'll be fine.
I've been a Mac addict since '92 starting with OS 7.1 and just last week
replaced my '96 PowerMac with a Mac Mini running OS X. I've never -
repeat, never - run into problems of needing to perform tasks in which
software wasn't available - and that includes running a business in
there for a period. Too, mainstream Mac software is usually very refined
and cross-platform compatible. Was it Avis Rent-a-Car that had a slogan
about having to try harder when they're in second place? Same with Macs
- trend-setting design, compatibility and ease of use are what define
Macs.
Those two Steve's had the right idea.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:39:35 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:
>>Ars Technica published their web access statistics and OS X was twice
>>the number of hits of Linux.
>
> Last figures I saw even OS/2 was higher than OS X
That's because OS-X users go to Ars Technica more often. That's all. Mac
heads bought their computers for their 'legendery' graphics capabilities
and Ars Technica focuses on that topic.
If you only want to surf to Ars Technica, go with OS-X. It'll get you
there.
Besides which ... if you want to go with popular, you need to go with
whatever Microsoft is shilling this week.
Take a look at Mandrake or Fedora Core 3. Odds are you won't bother
looking any further.
Bear in mind that OS-X runs on Mac's and Linux runs on everything else. If
you have a Mac, OS-X is the way to go. If you don't, grab some flavor of
Linux and give it a whirl.
http://linuxiso.org has enough free CD's to download and burn to keep you
busy for a while. If you don't have a burner, surf on over to
http://www.cheapbytes.com for bargain basement CD's full of high-end Linux
& related software.