Ubuntu vs. Apple [WAS: Re: Novel and Microsoft]

[Craig White]

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:17 -0700, Mike Garfias wrote:
> Lets see:
> 
> Runs M$ Oriface (yuck, but needed)
----
wrong - OOo makes it unnecessary
----
> Much better UI
----
subjective
----
> Still has X11
----
old, maintained?
----
> Runs all the unix software I need
----
probably
----
> Doesn't hurt my eyes (Fonts rendered in X11 were horrific and caused  
> eye strain [this has been awhile, hopefully its gotten better])
> things just work - i don't spend hours trying to make something go
----
obviously has been a while. Configuration greatly simplified (FC-6 btw
is great) and anti-aliased fonts are the norm now.
----
> 
> With your line of reasoning: If you can get OpenBSD to run, why the  
> hell would you run linux?
----
Perhaps you are confused...Macs are not OpenBSD - Macs use FreeBSD

Assuming that you meant Macintosh and FreeBSD, I believe the reasons
would be...

- support OSS
- don't support proprietary software vendors
- don't have to pony up annualized upgrade fees to company
- don't genuflect for DRM
- no 'mystery code'
- no single point reliance for updates/upgrades/bugfixes/security
updates
- no reliance upon proprietary disk repair/privilege tools
- consistent POSIX attributes throughout file system and all software

Craig