Linus Torvalds disses OS X.
Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux operating system, had a few choice words to say about Windows and OS X the other day.
“I don’t think they’re equally flawed - I think Leopard is a much better system, (but) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary.”
Yowza. Having never really investigated the OS X filesystem, I can’t really say I have an opinion one way or the other. From a user’s standpoint, though, I definitely agree with him that OS X is the superior operating system. Now I don’t want to start any fierce debates here, since my blog is all of two posts old, but I’ve come around to the philosophy that Macs are the ultimate consumer PC, while Windows PCs are the best for enterprises. Linux is on its way up, and is getting more and more user-friendly with every release - but for now it’s still best-suited for tinkerers and more technically savvy users.
But I digress. I haven’t heard too much in the news about Torvalds recently, but man did he catch people’s attention with his statements at the linux.conf.au conference.
via the Sydney Morning Herald.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Wow. Well, Leopard is way cool but I don’t know anything about programming for it. I have had a couple instances where Safari worked on particular web sites until after I upgraded, but they were know bugs that customer service has assured me that were being fixed.
I have to disagree (politely, of course) that PCs are better for enterprises. If all things are equal - such as software availability, which becomes less of an issue as more and more can be run in the internet - than the more stable and user friendly system of a Mac would be better. Companies tend to look at initial hardware cost (often without regard to when those systems will need to be replaced) without considering the manpower needed to keep a fleet of PCs running properly as opposed to those needed for a Mac. My husband’s office is about half and half - designers on Macs, account execs on PCs. He has, somehow, become technical support for both systems despite the fact that he doesn’t know much about PCs specifically. He spends significantly more time correcting random errors caused by a PC that suddenly won’t connect to a server or the internet than any problem with a Mac. He calls in an outside technician specializing in Windows several times a year and usually even that expert cannot explain what happened or why. This just doesn’t happen with the Macs unless someone downloads suspect third-party software (naughty!). Considering the billable rate of my husband’s work, his time would be better spent working than correcting problems with the PCs, but because of software availability they can’t switch to a completely Mac system. Yet.
Nice topic.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Ooh…I guess I should’ve explained a bit further. Due to the current state of software availability, PCs are more appropriate for enterprises. In an ideal world, Macs would be everywhere and all software created would be available for them.
I agree that Macs just work. There are far fewer problems with Macs than PCs, due in no small part to the exclusivity of the hardware that Mac enforces, and the smaller footprint of the codebase. That raises another question, though: if Macs became more popular than PCs, would the proliferation of new hardware and software corrupt the currently very ideal state of the OS? Hmm….
February 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“if Macs became more popular than PCs, would the proliferation of new hardware and software corrupt the currently very ideal state of the OS? Hmm….
Now that, my friend is a very good question…
March 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
i am gonna show this to my friend, brother