Re: Linux v/s Mac OS X?

[Sandip Bhattacharya <sandipb@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 07:04:53PM +0530, Raju Mathur merrily said:
> IAC it'd be nice if you gave some reasoning why this putative ``X
> Windows'' is the shit/DOA you claim it to be.


Saying X Windows system to be sh** would be really unfair. The client server
concept  of this windowing system is without peer, and the novelty of
the concept would be understood only by people who get to use it day
after day. 

I still remember one of the projects of our clients which
involved both an remote NT server and the Linux server. While the
folks using the NT server had to be in constant touch because the only
way they could work on the online server was using thingies like
Symantec AnyWhere and only one person in the world can work on it at
a time(not even the person physically present in front of the
console). While all of us linux guys were simultaneously using emacs
and (sometimes) netscape on the online server. 

That said, the X windowing system still feels flaky as compared to
(shudder) windoze. In fact most of the folks using linux that I have
spoken to remark that while the (GNU?)/Linux system has been very
stable, the flaky part of their system has been X.

1. I still haven't figured out why a newbie has to sit down with his
   Monitor and Graphics card manuals with a scratch-pad for the refresh
   rates, while a Windows system does most of the work by itself! 

2. I have a triple boot system at home - Windows98/RedHat
   Linux/FreeBSD. Even with 128MB of RAM, X (windows system) takes
   such a agonising time to load and is such a goddam memory
   hog. Strangely enough, X was faster in FreeBSD than Linux even if
   it was the same code! So while X with KDE 1 in manageable in
   FreeBSD, I still have to stick to X with icewm in linux.

3. Quality of visual experience on Linux is much poorer than
   Windoze. This is a really subjective opinion. I feel that Windows
   folks have placed a lot of emphasis on visual experience - the
   fonts are better, antialiasing is better. A part of the reason of
   this opinion is because of the multitude of toolkits and window
   managers in Linux makes the whole system look very
   inconsistent. This can't(rather shouldn't) be helped as the more
   options the better. But even after xfs/Xfstt,
   font-deuglification-howtos and what not, fonts on X still have a
   long way to go. And everybody is aware of the font issues in
   netscape. 

  I am aware that most of the folks on this list will jump at my
  throat saying that X apps and more stable on Linux than window
  apps. While I agree to that to a large extent, we are talking of
  end-user experience out here, and Visual Experience is AS IMPORTANT
  as the code quality and strangely very less work on this field is
  being done in Linux.

  With regards to the original thread, as Raj said it hardly stands a
  chance (at least in India) as long as it is (paradoxically) Mac. As
  long as users in India have an option to buy a good computer at
  Rs. 30,000 very helpfully loaded with Windoze and all other required
  pirated stuff by the grey market vendor, why will they go in for
  such as expensive contraption like Mac? Especially when Windoze very
  conveniently plays catch on with Mac (w.r.t. GUI) on a regular
  basis.

  - Sandip


-- 
-------------------------------------
Sandip Bhattacharya 
sandipb @ bigfoot.com
http://www.sandipb.net
-------------------------------------