Hacker News Reader

> nor do I care to learn how to install a different window manager and thereby spend the time supporting it.

Since you haven't used linux in 5 years I'll be the fanboy that points out Linux, and Ubuntu especially, has grown up a lot since then.

How do you install an application? You open a package manager and hit the install button. Same thing with desktop environments. You want KDE? 'sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop'. Xfce is 'xubuntu-desktop'. Hell, even gnome classic can be installed this way with 'gnome-panel'.

LightDM will automatically notice the new environment. All you have to do is log out, then choose the desktop environment you want and log back in.

Window managers usually take a little more fiddling to install properly but I assume that's not what you meant since you referenced gnome.

I was an ion3 guy back in the day. Installing and configuring those window managers (which I loved!) is why I left linux... I don't want to spend my time futzing around with the computer instead of getting work done.

That makes a lot more sense, as much as I love tiling window managers it's not especially fun to get that far off the beaten path, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.

ion3 is the high water mark for simplicity and actually getting things done.

We are all poorer for Tuomo Valkonen no longer producing this.

Yes, ion3 was by far the best tiling wm in its time, and probably still is (I haven't seen another wm implement the tabbed frames metaphor yet).

I wish someone would port it to OSX (not X11). I'd pay serious money for a license and I imagine quite a few others would, too.

Unfortunately that's not the sort of thing osx is amenable to.

I think it might be doable, although it would take quite some skill and nasty hacks.

The various half-assed "click-to-arrange" utilities (SizeUp et al) demonstrate that windows can be placed, sized, hidden and shown programmatically.

Other utilities demonstrate that mouse-position, clicks etc. can be detected and intercepted, and that you can render raster-overlays on top of the desktop. Window drop shadows can be disabled, the window chrome probably can't - but I wouldn't mind that.

An ion for OSX would probably have to draw its GUI (grid and tabs) as an overlay and then arrange the windows underneath. It would probably also have to intercept all mouse-actions and decide whether to pass them on.

The devil will obviously be in the details, and there will be lots of them. But in principle it doesn't seem impossible to go from something like http://www.tylerwm.com to something that actually works...

I am using ion3 right now. It's pretty cool. Feels a bit limited though, I'm thinking of maybe transitioning to something more ... awesome ;] .

Ubuntu has made remarkable strides, but overall usability is stuck somewhere between Windows 95 and Windows XP. On the whole that's not bad, but compared to systems with more refinement, which would include Windows 7 and OS X, it does look rather rickety.

There's nothing technically in the way of Ubuntu being a first class operating system that way except for someone to spend a lot of time designing it from a holistic standpoint. The inconsistencies and lack of attention to detail are what separate the approximations of good UX to great UX.

If you think `apt-get` is even remotely user friendly, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Ubuntu has an incredible collection of software and with the right interface it would be even easier to use than MacPorts, Homebrew, or any app store out there, but this is going to take time to make happen.

Also be careful what you describe as "fiddling" because for most people that means "beat head against wall until bleeding, then throw computer out window".

Depends on what you mean by "usability" ..

For me, LInux/BSD is much more usable than Windows 7 & Mac OSX for some tasks. Windows wins some as well. I cant think of, at the top of my head, anything OSX does best usability wise for me. But it's also the OS i use the least.

It combines a first-class graphical user environment with a fully UNIX-compliant command-line environment. For a web developer it really is as good as it gets. You get to run your text, image, audio or video editor in the graphical environment and the same server applications as you'd use on your production server.

With Linux you'll have to make compromises on the desktop side, as there's a smaller choice of first-class applications, and on Windows your server selection is extremely limited in comparison.

Linux has an amazing command-line infrastructure, though only slightly better than OS X, and mostly this is just to do with having better package managers.

Windows has an amazing desktop environment, very responsive (on the right hardware) and with deep application support for high-performance 3D. Linux is making strides here, and OS X is often close but limited by the capabilities of OpenGL and the slightly less refined drivers.

Agree on the pros of OSX for web development but for me that is less and less important. Today you can so easily use VMs (eg. vagrant) to really have the same enviroment for dev/qa/production it doesnt really matter what OS you prefer.

The beauty of Apple for me is much more about the exceptional hardware quality thats blends with very good software

It's worth pointing out that "apt-get" is not what the typical user will be using, and hasn't been for many years.

The typical user will open the software centre GUI, or just press Windows and start typing a package name or search term.

1) I don't care about most people. My comment was directed at a developer who wouldn't have any troubles learning if he decides to switch back.

2) I find it hard to imagine an interface that's simpler than opening a terminal and typing 'apt-get install gnome-panel'. Sure, there's a chance you'll have to type 'Y' and confirm that you really wanted to install that many packages, but I think the fact that it asks instead of blindly downloading and applying a ton of packages actually a data point /for/ the 'user friendly apt-get' case.

> The monitor is the biggest issue for me, followed by the mouse.

That's interesting, because the mouse is one of the biggest turnoffs for me when it comes to OS X. I never could get used to the acceleration curve[0], despite installing 3rd party software[1] to modify it.

There's also the issue of not having a pointing stick on Macs, but that's another subject entirely.

0: http://tidbits.com/article/8893

1: http://triq.net/mac/mouse-acceleration-preference-pane-mac-o...

Its not hard to turn it off altogether.

http://osxdaily.com/2010/08/25/mouse-acceleration/

I mentioned the 3rd party software in your link ("Mouse Acceleration Preference Pane") in my initial post as something I'd tried. In any case, it was a work machine and I'm no longer there, so it's not particularly important anymore.

Mouse acceleration is something you get used to pretty quickly, a full day of usage is enough to not even notice it anymore. I use both OSX (trackpad), windows with a 1600dpi mouse, and play games with acceleration disabled. For work I prefer OSX's acceleration, it feels more precise/natural.

I used a Mac for work for months and never got used to it, but obviously YMMV.

I've noticed the curve seems to strangely vary between different Macs and different mice.

On some of my Macs I had to install software to fix it, on some it just felt right from the start. I never kept track to make out a pattern, but it may be worth trying out a different mouse.

I never got used to the OS X mouse curve either. The mouse acceleration on the Mac has always been a bit leaden at low speeds, and too fast at higher speeds, even with Mac OS. It's odd, because the trackpad acceleration is very well done.

The best solution I've found is to buy a Microsoft mouse. As with most Microsoft hardware, they're good value. You can then use the supplied Intellipoint for Mac OS X software, which, along with a bunch of pointless junk, lets you activate a Windows-style acceleration curve. It might sound daft, but this utterly transformed my experience of OS X.

There's also the issue of not having a pointing stick on Macs

Isn't it the case that the Dell ultrabook also does not have a pointing stick? Hopefully someone can chime in and confirm/deny this. I looked on the site, and it appears not to have one.

This drives me crazy on the Mac as well. My solution is to just use the trackpad.

As someone who's been using a Mac since 2008-ish, beginning with a 17" A4, I'm really considering buying this Dell and moving to Ubuntu permanently. I have a few gripes with Apple laptops and I was wondering if you could refute or lend an opinion on why(or why not) the Dell would be an option.

1) I really hate the hardware upsell. With this XPS machine I'm getting a 256gb SSD, 8G RAM, and an 3GHz i7 processor. The comparable hardware for a 13" Retina is $2,200 and it's still not as light or thin. The comparable Air is missing a GHz of processing speed and still costs an extra $150. Also, there isn't a team of OEM Apple developers writing Ubuntu PPA support for either machine, so I'm stuck on OS X again, which I'm pretty disillusioned with.

2) I'm actually still not really clear what the advantage of a retina display is. Maybe it's because I haven't been able to use one for a significant timespan, but I just don't get it. If there was a way to clearly and easily illustrate why a 13" display benefits from retina resolution, I'd really appreciate it.

3) I'm kind've ready for a change from Apple products. I haven't used a high end laptop or PC from any other manufacturer and I feel like I don't know what I'm missing, if I'm missing anything.

If you or the other XPS tester can respond at all, thanks in advance.

1) not really sure what the question is? If the specs are the thing for you, then go for the machine with the best specs. My macbook is plenty fast enough for me.

2) I like the retina display because I can crank my resolution up to 1680x1050 (on a 15") and it looks great. Font rendering on the retina displays is outstanding on apps that support it.

3) I can confirm that the Dell is not an Apple product.

I'd be unhappy if I had to switch from a retina macbook or an Air to the dell, mainly because of the screen. YMMV.

Fair response, the list wanted to be in question form, turned into hem hawing about anti-apple opinion. I'm still on the fence about 13" resolution and I can't seem to find resources to help me make the choice. Thanks for the reply.

>2) I'm actually still not really clear what the advantage of a retina display is. Maybe it's because I haven't been able to use one for a significant timespan, but I just don't get it. If there was a way to clearly and easily illustrate why a 13" display benefits from retina resolution, I'd really appreciate it.

How good is your eyesight? Honest question. The difference is night and day for me and I wonder how I lived with that blurry thing for so long.

Not very good, honestly. From what I've read, switching to a higher resolution wont really give me more work space, just make things more crisp, but I'm not sure how significant that would be for someone who wears corrective lenses already.

Maybe I'll look for some kind of 1:1 13" comparison...

It makes things crisp enough that those higher resolutions are practical. Sure, you can turn your font size down low with a low res screen, but you rapidly get to a point where the characters are harder to distinguish. Not so with the retina screens. Really you just have to see the difference. It's striking.

I wear corrective lenses and I can see precise visual detail still. And my prescription is -8. It's the same difference between a retina iphone and a non-retina iphone. You'll see more details in your photographs. Denser text is more readable and so on.

If your vision is correctable to 20/20, you should be able to appreciate high res screens. If you have other issues (cataracts, macular degeneration, etc) that's a different story.

I have terrible eyesight (somewhere between legally blind and failing a drivers' license vision test) and I find my eyes are usually less tired at the end of a day working on my retina MacBook than they were after a day of using my old 1440x900 13" laptop.

Smaller text is more legible, and larger text is less jagged around the edges so both seem to be less of a strain on my eyes. My thinking is that the sharper the image displayed, the less work my eyes and brain have to do to fill in the gaps.

This could all just be me subconsciously trying to justify the purchase (although I have no regrets about it) and obviously YMMV so I'd suggest going into a store and doing a side-by-side comparison using an application that has been updated for the retina resolutions.

> 2007 maybe? I was 100% linux from 2002-2007, then switched to macs.

> Despite my familiarity with linux, I can't be sure that simple comfort with the Mac OS isn't part of it.

That's probably the reason, honestly - I'm coming at this as a daily Linux user who already knows how everything works, and all I want is that same experience on an Ultrabook.

I can't speak for Dell, but I don't think this laptop could/should really compete for the same audience as the Macbook Air... if you're happy with using OS X on Apple hardware - if it's "good enough" - there's probably not much that could get you to switch.

In my case, Linux is my first choice by far, so the choice between using my Ultrabook and using my work computer always results in me reaching for the ultrabook.

Agree with everything, except:

> I don't think this laptop could/should really compete for the same audience as the Macbook Air

I assume their market for this machine would be towards devs who might otherwise use an Air? I think of this machine as competing directly against the Air, which is why I used it as a comparison.

Why you don't think they're competing?

(This comment is meant in as non-combative a way as possible, I liked your response a lot. I hate the internet?)

> Why you don't think they're competing?

Oh, they very well may be (probably are, in fact). I'm just saying that it's better to think of it as a laptop for Linux users who want something Air-like, as opposed to Air users who want Linux.

That's simply because it's much harder to replace something that's "good enough", even with something that's hands-down better on all fronts (take a look at Plan 9 vs. UNIX[1])

For users like me, a Mac isn't even close to "good enough", so I like some of the additional things this provides versus other solutions (installing Linux manually on another Ultrabook or on a laptop and providing my own support). For users who are already happy with a Macbook Air, this is probably good enough if you couldn't use your Air, but the added convenience may not compensate the friction of changing, even if you've used Linux in the past.

In other words, that friction doesn't exist for existing Linux users.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Impact

That's fair. If you're a linux user who wants something air-like, I imagine this computer would suit you very well.