Linux has better hardware support than OS X
devblog.avdi.org
devblog.avdi.org
The installation tutorial was comprehensive, the out of the box experience was great, and upgrades have gone smoothly.
The only thing to note was that I was able to manually update the WiFi drivers for (supposedly) better performance if I wanted. Power consumption seems marginally higher, but I don't run the same profile of programs in OSX.
Having a fixed target is really good for Linux to show how it can shine - and I hope that Dell and Ubuntu continue to make perfectly matched hardware and software.
It was a surprisingly pleasant experience.
I tried ubuntu 12.04, and 12.10 on a 2011 macbook air 4,2. I followed the information here, some of the tweaks weren't needed on 12.10:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBookAir4-2
But the fans were spinning almost constantly. This was with just firefox and vim usage.
OS X seems to do a better job of running Apple hardware at a sensible temperature.
You also don't really want a reference plaform for linux, because as soon as you specify one, you might start making decisions which only benefit that platform. This is bad for the current eco-system, as it could impact linux's ability to run everywhere.
PS. Not to mention that Macs ship with broadcom wireless cards these days, which don't have very good linux support.
You're saying that OS X has better hardware support than Linux? :-)
That's completely your opinion. I have had much better luck with Thinkpads. Many of the Unibody Macbooks have severe wifi connectivity and overheating issues.
As far as broad adoption goes, it may be more broad than the adoption of Thinkpads, but I wouldn't call it "broad" by any stretch. Mac market share is still quite low - less than 10%.
There are a few pointers here: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/How_to_configure_the_TrackPoin...
The 'flavor of Linux' should be irrelevant.
Running on a 13 inch MacBook Air.
There's a guide at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MacBookAir4-2
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=289711
https://github.com/ah-/gmux-scripts
http://www.linuxine.com/story/how-do-i-use-integrated-intel-...
http://askubuntu.com/questions/126862/how-to-use-integrated-...
I make no warranty that the linked recipes, scripts, or suggestions work, but your "you wish" warrants refutation.
Adding RAM to your MBP should be fairly straightforward (and cheap) if necessary.
For most of my work, I need a terminal, a text editor and a web browser. Ocassionally some light vector graphics work and a simple sound editor. I can do all this on any Unix-like system. It mostly even works on Windows.
The only technical reason I have to use Linux over OSX is performance. OSX can be a memory hog and it is very much limited by hard drive performance. I more or less solved this with more RAM and an SSD, but having more resources available would be nice.
Thus, it really defeats my purpose to use Linux in a VM. But thank you for suggesting it!
Besides, what's the ideological difference between Dell, Apple, Lenovo and Asus as hardware manufacturers? You know, not in terms of price, but freedom.
I haven't ordered yet because I'm in the UK and I have to find out about VAT and tariffs (last time I ordered straight from the US I was charged them and a fine on top, and extortionate "processing charges"). Otherwise I'd be ordering straight away even with a 20% VAT on top.
For example, because I use OS X, I can go to any store, purchase my choice of Lexmark printer, and be on my merry way with a minimal amount of checking. The fact that I have to know that there's a "reference platform" is the problem. I don't want to have to think about that crap. I don't have to with my Mac. I want to save my mental cycles for important things, not struggling with which printer to purchase.
Or I can put it in simpler terms. There's a concrete social cost to using Linux on the Desktop. Let's say I want a printer for Christmas. If I'm running the amount of information I need to give my family in order for them to buy me one that works is orders of magnitude smaller than if I'm running Linux.
In fact, I'd sound like some sort of bizarro printer snob when I make my request. "If you're looking at Lexmark printers, these models work, these ones don't. HP is good, but not models like X, Y, and Z."
Now, like I said, it's been several years since I regularly used Linux on the desktop. I'm sure it's better. But the problem is not that there aren't known-good Linux configurations. It's that (1) those configurations are essentially arbitrary and therefore not obvious and (2) they require time and energy to learn (memorize, really).
If it's changed, that's great, but that's also part of the problem. Now I not only have to keep a set of known-good configurations in my head but a rolling changelog, too, to make sure my knowledge is up-to-date.
I switched from Linux to OS X precisely because I decided my mental energy was better spent on other things than remembering, "Oh yeah, the Dell Lenovo X876123 mark 10 is a known-good Linux laptop."
I'll add that I'm sure in aggregate Linux supports a much wider range of hardware than OS X. That's great! That's why Linux is kicking ass in all sorts of non-desktop markets like mobile devices, embedded systems, servers, etc. But there is an inherent tension in an OS that's optimizing for that vs. constraining itself to the desktop and the desktop only.
Since I switched to linux on my laptop 100%, around 2003 somewhere, I always tried to pick hardware which is professional grade, not home/consumer end. Although a bit more pricey to start with but most of the things have lasted since then as well.
My setup won't be my setup forever. Maybe some new hardware comes out and I want to experiment with it. Will it work with Linux? Will the person making that hardware have Linux in mind when they're building it? If my current hardware breaks, will it be easy for me to find suitable replacement quickly? As in same-day quickly?
Is memorizing the list of "professional-grade" hardware that works with Linux -- or perhaps just the list of exceptions if that's the smaller list -- worth my time as a professional?
For you, the answer to all these questions might be "yes" or even "yes, given how much I care about using Linux for other reasons." That's great.
However, the mere fact that one has to consider these questions increases the cost of adoption. It shouldn't therefore be a surprise that fewer people use the platform as a result or that people point out this frustrates them. Maybe they even use tricky phrases like "hardware support" which can mean many things to many people to describe their frustration.
If you want to think about it algorithmically, maybe try this picture. You have two points A and B on a map with varied terrain and a path-finding algorithm. You have N seconds to get from A to B, including the amount of time it takes to find a path.
You won't be able to take fastest path if it takes longer than N seconds to find that path -- by that point you'll be out of time. Instead, the naïve solution would be to take the first path P where the time searching for P plus the time to traverse P is <= N, assuming you can find one. Maybe you modify this meta-algorithm slightly so that once you find a P, if the time spent so far plus the time to traverse P is M < N you spend another N - M seconds looking for a second, possibly-shorter path.
Those "N - M" seconds are really important in consumer psychology. If you've found multiple options and weighed them you'll feel much more comfortable in your decision. That comfort translates into confidence in the underlying platform.
On Linux the "time searching for P" is much larger than OS X, but the original article is pretending as if it's only the existence of a fast-enough path that matters. It's not, especially if the time to find the right path dwarfs the amount of time you have to spend on the problem or it results in you being able to weigh as many options as you would on another platform.
For me, personally, as someone who values his own attention very, very highly, my threshold for "time spent searching for P" is incredibly low.
> Is memorizing the list of "professional-grade"
> hardware that works with Linux -- or perhaps just
> the list of exceptions if that's the smaller list
> -- worth my time as a professional?
My dealings with hardware + Linux has not been like that at all. Instead, what works and what doesn't is essentially arbitrary. Some brands are generally more compatible, but there are always some make/model combinations you want to avoid. And even if it "mostly works" there's a good chance some of the less common features will work poorly, at best. When I say "memorize" I mean internalizing this essentially arbitrary list. The HP 450C is ok, but don't get the HP 451C! That sort of thing.
To top it off, if I go to the store and ask questions about Linux compatibility -- perhaps there's some information I couldn't find online, say -- I'm not at all confident I'll be able to find someone to answer my questions. And even if they didn't, I'd wonder if what they knew was up-to-date or not.
However, your specific example (printers) is outdated. Both Linux and OSX use CUPS, which was acquired by Apple in 2007. Linux printer support is pretty spectacular these days.
I'm pretty familiar with CUPS, too. I helped build a school-wide printing system at my university based off CUPS as part of my job at the time. It had to interface with our internal authentication system, debit student printing credits, and interface with dozens of types of printers across campus.
Good for Linux if it has also reached that point, but don't call OSX worse when it isn't.
My experience is that for the last 5 years OS X and Windows are in roughly the same ballpark in terms of how much I have to think about non-software issues, although Windows is better in that dimension, as you say. Linux is not really in the same ballpark, or at best it's way out in the nosebleed section.
How about sth. just as preposterous an example: I salvaged a +20 years old 9 needle printer (Star NL-10) from a stash of hard rubbish two months ago. I got it to work w/o problems on Linux (trivia: I used turpentine on the ribbon cassette to get the ink 'flowing' again). I still can't get the thing to do anything sensible when I attach it to my Retina MacBook Pro running the latest and greatest OS X. :P
Either way, I've never had any issues with any printers I've thrown at Linux. There are issues with more obscure devices, but equally in the world of SoCs and generic mass storage/input devices that we live in I have far fewer expansion cards and peripherals than ever before, and those that I have use pretty standard protocols for communication.
This was a stupid article. "Gee, water is wet and sand is dry! (usually)"
When people talk about OSX hardware support they tend to talk about depth, Windows or OSX is more breadth.
Though the depth of OSX's hardware support is debatable as well, GPU support has historically been fairly dismal.
Lots of stuff have Win/Mac only drivers.
Most stuff in my field of multimedia, from top notch quality items available for other platforms (Apogee stuff, UAD Apollo, Black Magic Cinema camera) to prosumer products, including many consumer stuff which only have some community drivers that don't let you use all the functionality.
I think you might be misunderstanding the claim that is being made.
That's barebones basic stuff. Of course that should work out of the box...
It's all the other stuff driver-wise that matters...
I don't think anybody has ever claimed that linux has good support for specialist multi-media hardware.
The parallel to your argument is that people should blame Apple for random third-party hardware not working out of the box with OSX.
No they shouldn't blame Apple.
But they should give minus points to OS X for "compatibility" when "random third-party hardware does not work out of the box" with it.
And similarly: they should not "blame" Linux for "random third-party hardware not working out of the box" with it, but they should give minus points to Linux in the compatibility department.
Support for third party stuff is what makes for "great driver support".
Or back when I was in neurology, there was EEG hardware for Win and Lin, but no mac.
I mean, you're responding to "Use lenovo as a reference model" with "looking at a bunch of other suppliers from a niche industry, it doesn't match up". It's not just apples and oranges, it's not even the same ballpark.
Agreed. Linux and Windows, as operating systems, are solving a much different and more difficult problem than OS X is. You can get them to run on a wide variety of hardware relatively easily. By that metric, both Windows and Linux have "better hardware support" than OS X.
The problem is this metric is completely useless to me. When I turn on my machine, I do it in order to get work done. This means I need to be able to go online for project management and responding to emails, I need to be able to call my clients using their preferred VoIP service, I need to run text editors, IDEs, and various virtual machines, interpreters, compilers, and servers, I need to be able to hook into an iPhone or Android phone and load software onto it, I need to be able to quickly and painlessly install libraries, software, and developer tools, I need to be able to edit video and audio, and I need to have the confidence that if I had to learn a new skill or assumed a new responsibility, I'll spend most of my time learning rather than setting my system up.
I care about my system's hardware support as far as it allows me to do these things quickly and painlessly. I've had Linux and Windows machines before and I've done all I've needed to do on them, but I've never accomplished my work as effortlessly as on a Mac. I think that's what geeks mean when they say "better hardware support". They mean "fewer unforeseen setup-related problems". That's a metric I care deeply about.
Now, how they go about solving that same problem is radically different. Windows and Linux tries to support as much hardware as possible and be general. OS X tries to limit scope to own MacBook hardware only, and benefit from the advantages of that approach as much as it can (clearly, it has some disadvantages it suffers from too).
I'm not sure it's easy to say which approach is more difficult overall. Linux and Windows approach is clearly much more difficult on the software side. However, OS X has to have is own hardware made by the same company. If Apple falls behind in hardware, OS X is screwed. So there's a lot more importance and difficulty in making sure the hardware is great (if a Dell makes bad hardware, Linux and Windows can be okay as long as any other hardware company makes something good).
check
2) call my clients using their preferred VoIP service
Skype, GoogleTalk maybe? Go2Meeting crashed like a bi-atch on OSX for me.
3) run text editors, IDEs, and various virtual machines, interpreters, compilers, and servers
complete nonsense if you're insinuating that OSX has better support for the above than Linux (you guys just got a non-archaic JDK for example, curious which compilers you're using, the Ruby "compiler" ;-))
4) hook into an iPhone or Android phone and load software onto it
Can certainly do that with Android; OSX VM for iPhone
5) quickly and painlessly install libraries, software, and developer tools
yum, apt, and so on
6) edit video and audio
Macs are great for artists and musicians; case in point, my dad's had a Mac since the early 90s, he does video editing and audio editing (producer and drummer)
7) if I had to learn a new skill or assumed a new responsibility, I'll spend most of my time learning rather than setting my system up.
I mentioned passive non-learning in regard to the OSX experience in another comment. I'd argue that, on the contrary, Linux users, having an understanding of their system beyond the GUI, are actually better suited toward learning new skills, assuming that skill is systems-based of course; if it involves click-click-clicking things, that's another "skill"
E.g. want to switch DPI in your new shiny Logitech mouse? Or customize behavior of it's buttons? Nope, sorry, not supported.
I, for one, do not consider this a supported hardware, even if basic functionality is there.
At the moment there's lots of anecdote - "This worked under one OS, but not the other" - but a comprehensive review of hardware support in modern OSs would be handy.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Versio...
But the point is exactly that individuals will have varying experiences - I have a printer that just works in one OS but is terrible in another; a gadget that works as expected in one OS, but has better independently developed drivers in a different OS and doesn't work at all on a third OS; etc.
I don't offer my experience as an example of Windows 7 having worse hardware support than OS X or Linux.
Switching DPI of a shiny logitech mice and customizing the behaviour of its buttons is of course supported in linux.
Got draglock and better scrolling (horizontal and vertical), plus you can combine button clicks and key bindings to do whatever you like, something you can't do on Windoze or McMacs ;-)
It's a fallacy that things don't work on Linux. It's also a fallacy that life is better on the other side of the fence since the user is subjected to an environment of passive non-learning -- which rears it's head when the provided GUI comes up short (oh no, now what do I do?)
Maybe the Dell XPS 13 highlighted in the article works well (no discreet video) but for that price I can buy a MacBook with equal specs that will natively run Adobe products.
I'd prefer to run Linux on hardware with smaller margins but until there is a reference system (or at least one that works flawlessly) I'll stick with Apple.
Works better and consumes less power and therefore has longer battery life than Linux on bare metal.
My 2010 MacBook Pro caught fire, so I can't vouch for Apple's reliability.
It's better because even with powertop optimisations, Linux leaks energy out of the window everywhere. If you let Windows handle it with the Lenovo power manager, it's an order of magnitude better.
Windows 7 x64 with reserved power scheme. 8h42m Debian 6.0 with powertop optimisation. 5h12m.
Regarding virtual machines, Linux's virtualbox drivers are better than native ones for the hardware in the actual machine.
Everything worked out of the box, the only minor issue is that bluetooth audio connection with my jambox is sometimes lost, but i could never even get it to work with a Mac.
Definitely not happening in a multi-monitor setup without Bumblebee or other workaround.
That wasn't my experience with mine, so apparently at least one ran fine.
Never had a need to run adobe products either, but I am entertained how often and for how many years things like photoshop have been used as a prop to crow about how inadequate linux is.
When I first switched to OSX, it was because there was finally a UNIX system that would "just work" with a printer, or whatever, just like the author describes. Even more importantly, there was a UNIX system with a web browser that "just worked" - no more days of hacking to get a PDF to show up properly, or a flash animation, etc.
Now, in 2013, I am willing to stipulate that the author is correct, and hardware support is no longer an issue with Linux, etc. So why am I staying with OSX ?
Because of the virtualization licensing.
No matter what platform I choose to run myself (and I would prefer a free OS) I absolutely need to virtualize OSX. And OSX is the only system I can do that on.[1]
So that's that. As odd as it seems, it is the OS licensing of an OS I don't even care to run that forces me to run it.
[1] Yes, I know all about it. No, I do not have time to hack around the restrictions and trick vmware, etc. I wish I did. I don't.
Check it out: VMware Converter
Can clone Windows and Linux just fine; in fact I have a dual boot system (need bootable Windows for BIOS/Firmware upgrades/(Nvidia)mods) with 2003 server (that's my laptop OS from 2005 sill kicking), Win 7, and OSX VMs.
There is no hacking around things; it's only with OSX where virtualizing it is a bi-atch (as of 2 years ago at any rate)
As much as people talk about how AMAZING hardware support on linux is, if you want a "just works" experience, the lowest common denominator is usually Intel CPU, Intel Wireless, Intel Graphics.
And that exotic keyboard layout with function keys? Hope you like configuring xbindkeys.
Yes, it would be nice to have slicker support for things like big.little, but... it doesn't really address the current problems with laptop support.
I think some of the most recent NVIDIA drivers have some support, but my T410 thankfully doesn't have that.
Obviously if you want to use binary drivers, you can, but one would hardly call that reference, inofficial or not.
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150743&p=16 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32025
I installed 64-bit Ubuntu 13.04. Supposedly all of the special tweaks Dell makes to the version of Ubuntu 12.04 they install on the developer edition are included in 13.04. At first, I was unable to boot the installer; I had to switch the boot mode to Legacy from UEFI. Graphics don't work at the login screen; you have to switch to another virtual console and restart LightDM or just enable automatic login. Adjusting the display brightness doesn't work. If I connect it to my TV, X locks up until I disconnect it. Some of Unity's multitouch gestures work, but some don't. I haven't found any way to configure the touchpad; I'd really like to be able to middle-click.
Today I hooked up my Nexus 4. Rhythmbox, Ubuntu's default media player, sees it as an MTP device but locks up and crashes if you try to transfer any music to it. I switched my Nexus 4 from MTP to PTP mode and fired up Shotwell, Ubuntu's default photo manager. It saw the Nexus 4 as a camera but reported an error and failed when I tried to import my photos from it. At least I can transfer files to and from it using the file manager, but if I try to open any files without copying them to my computer first, it fails.
When you buy a MacBook, OS X is already installed and working. I don't know a whole lot about the Dells, but isn't the same true otherwise?
Dell could offer support for 13.04, or maybe Canonical could work to better support one of the few laptops out there with ubuntu on it out of the box.
Anyway, the blog post I was responding to doesn't make this distinction. It argued that there are certain laptop models that you can purchase and expect to be as well supported by a Linux distribution as Apple hardware is by OS X. Other people have pointed out that this isn't true for many Thinkpads. I wanted to let people know that even the Dell hardware he mentioned has problems.
Additionally, I wanted to point out that it isn't just a question of compatibility with the computer itself. There are many peripheral devices, like smartphones, that matter.
"If you use Linux and like to advocate for its use, it’s time to stop telling people they should try it and it’ll Just Work. Because it won’t. It’ll probably Mostly Work. And the remaining 5% of not-workiness will cause yet another person to start propagating the “Linux has bad hardware support” meme."
I'm sorry, but if 5% of devices don't just work, then you have no place writing this article, and you've just discovered exactly why that "Linux has no hardware support" meme exists.
"But make sure they know that for best experience, they will have to research and choose a known-good configuration. Just like they did when picking out their shiny Mac."
In other words, you have to do more work to get it to work. In other words, it does not "just work." In other words, Linux does not have better hardware support than OSX, OSX just has better hardware.
Don't you get it? That's exactly why people buy Macs: so they don't have to think about that. Start a company that makes preconfigured Linux desktops that "just work" if you want, but don't go decrying a whole platform for having it all figured out. If you're saying it's better "if only people would just do their research" then you really don't get it.
Last I checked, making a Hackintosh was a lot of work (when it's even possible). And that's what happens when installing OS X on 95% of hardware.
You could say we're comparing Apples and Oranges here. It's not even worth the comparison. Mac is a better experience because it's integrated, but it will never have generic hardware support. Linux has open, generic support for a lot of hardware, but it will never "just work." Pick one.
But then again, OS X has good hardware support because it only supports the kind of hardware that Apple sells. They can afford to do the work to fully support each piece of hardware they add, rather than the full breadth of the computer spectrum.
That said, there are some great, modern tools that people have made for OS X that won't work on Linux (brew, pow, rbenv, etc. - ok rbenv works on linux but its spotty) that I miss from when I switch to Linux at home. And while I know Linux has equivalents of the three examples I listed I think the interface of those tools, and many others on OS X, are just nicer and easier to use in general. It would be nice to see a focus on better tooling for Linux users and less OS X only tooling in the future.
Hence projects like Vagrant too.
And not only on Mac: it's better to use a VM for development if you're deploying to Linux even if you run Linux on your desktop too.
Why would you clutter your desktop install with a deployment environment stuff that could even be incompatible between your different projects?
(And of course it makes even more sense if you work on Windows but deploy to Linux).
Also what problems did you have with rbenv on Linux? It seemed to work just fine the last time I used it ...
In regards to rbenv, the "core" part of rbenv(switching between versions of Ruby) works fine. It's the other tools like ruby-build and rbenv-install that didn't work for me. I don't mind manually compiling my rubies though.
Basically, wave of the future. :p
Linux is my development environment of choice and the beauty of it is I don't need 'better tooling' in order to get my job done quickly and efficiently; everything 'just works'.
http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/desktop/make/Dell/?categ...
Things are becoming much easier these days though since everything is moving to the cloud and steam has arrived.
But yeah, the 'which app do I choose?' problem is very real.
In fact most non-core Windows and OSX apps are absolutely criminal.
Sure the cloud and Steam are more convenient, but this form of convenience will be the fall of us all and convert us into consumption targets ready to be milked regularly.
Then there is printer support. I cringe when I think of trying to scan or print something in Windows, my last experiences being so terrible. Nowdays, though, in Linux this is something that really has "just worked" for a while now.
So, is it really that much more rosy in the application choice of other platforms? Or is it just more visible in the company you keep?
Also, people don't organise photos with additional software now. Windows Explorer itself is pretty damn good at it to be honest and does what 99% of people will need. If they need anything else they'll probably use what came with their digital camera. I use ViewNX2 which came with my camera.
Printing just works - plug in and go. Although to be honest I have a 8 year old Brother laser printer and send anything else away to be printed elsewhere.
It's all fine everywhere. The ages of "it just works" are pretty much here.
It's not the XP days any more :)
Linux however does like to poke me in the eye with power management and hibernation issues. That's not been resolved ever, even though I've got a 7 year old machine!
I don't think I could handle Explorer to support my workflow for managing photos. And it is a simple workflow. (First, copy everything over, then go through "flagging" all pictures I like, then go through flagged items and trim duplicates or ones that just aren't as good, finally basic color correction and upload somewhere for family.) I confess the shotwell program is not the best. Though I can not say what it is I don't care for on it.
Glad to hear the printer situation has improved. I just remember having more success with my Linux machines on just getting something printed. To the point that it was highly frustrating that it would not just print in Windows.
Sorry to hear you have power management issues. I don't think I have hit those. Though... I also do not make regular use of hibernating a computer. What is the main advantage of that?
Now, I have realized massive increases in battery life by choosing to not live life at full brightness. I have to confess I felt silly the first time I finally lowered the brightness and saw how much of a difference that made on battery life.
Meh: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Printing#Troubleshootin...
I'm still having issues with my Samsumg laser printer, and I specifically tried to acquire a printer that had good linux compatability
I've worked for a couple of printing outfits and Windows has by far been the most reliable bar some big ass Xerox machines with PostScript processing and a Sun workstation tied to it. Fuck, the most unreliable so far has been the PDF rendering engine inside OSX which sometimes just whacks the CPU at 100% and you have to kill the process. And don't give me the shitcrock of Ghostscript or CUPS as a better solution.
Word and Excel have NEVER crashed on me and I've been using them since the '97 versions. Granted I don't upgrade straight away and leave it for an SP or two but you should do that if you want stability. I deal with 200+ page complex documents on a daily basis, some of which hit 100-200Mb. You can't open those in LibreOffice without it falling over.
The only problems I've had with Office documents is where people don't know what they are doing, particularly when it comes to format-prats who don't know what styles and headings are for.
Reimaging - rubbish. System restore is used these days. I've had to reinstall Windows 7 twice since 2009. Once was due to a disk failure and the other time was due to some shit code I wrote trashing system32. I do a sideline of decrapifying people's laptops as well and I haven't had to reinstall a thing. I just don't think you know what you are doing.
Windows 8. Bar Metro which is a POS, everything just works.
You sound like a rabid Linux fanboy.
Note: I use both all the time. I've used Windows since 1993 and UNIX since about 1988.
I can't stand fanboys spouting crap. If I had some karma I'd downvote this.
You sound like a rabid Windows fanboy.
> I can't stand fanboys spouting crap. If I had some karma I'd downvote this.
Ditto. Downvoted.
Each have flaws but the OP spouts pure shite.
That said, I don't have massive experience with crashes in Office. I do prefer plain text source files, though. To the point that I have begun using R for basic data analysis instead of excel. (Though, I make no claims that I can more quickly get a chart created than someone just clicking the chart button any any office application. I can more reliably reproduce my results, though.)
My anecdata has seen a bunch of crashes, at least in Word (I was never a heavy Excel user) and mostly in the earlier versions. If we steer away from application crash to merely screwing up the document, then you can probably double it.
I, too, have been running win7 since 2009 without requiring a reboot, but despite having a 64GB SSD boot drive, it has somehow filled it (\programfiles is on d:) and every now and then I need to go in and clear crap out. 64GB! I can account for perhaps 20GB in user data (\users is 16, \progfiles is 6). Crazy.
My one and only experience with Win8 was helping a neighbour install some older software that worked fine on XP and Vista, which pretty much defines my whole experience with it as doesn't 'just work'. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but when metro decides that I REALLY WANT the troubleshooting pdf to be fullscreen instead of having it side-by-side with the issue I'm dealing with, then screw being fair to it.
That crap on your disk is probably system restore, swap file and hibernation file. You can delete the system restore checkpoints easily. The rest you have to live with.
Windows 8: install start8. Problem solved.
How does start8 stop pdfs from fullscreening or older software from failing to install? Isn't it just a start menu replacement? I didn't have a problem with that. I had a problem with opening a pdf from the desktop, then win8 forcing me into fullscreen view - I couldn't fix the installation problem side-by-side with the tech notes.
Install adobe reader on the machine and it will open pdfs on the desktop only as well even if they are launched from metro.
Right click something that doesn't work or install on windows 8, go to properties, compatibility and select windows 7. Then run it again. It will work as before, unlike every other vendor out there.
Hell it'll even run 32-bit stuff I compiled for NT4 on Visual C++ 4.2 with dynamic linking in 1997 without a problem! Cant really fault that since the same era Linux binaries or Solaris binaries won't work from back then.
As for linux binaries, I have a sysadmin friend that boasts that some stuff he wrote in '95 works without a hitch on modern linux, so it's not a cut-and-dried affair there either.
It's great to hear that you've had better luck, really. You would hate to see how many things I've seen gone wrong!
I also don't know what you mean by "unusual graphics animations" in terms of window managers. Window Maker has no such thing.
Actually I am. Despite the fact you can get hardware (motherboards, RAM, drives, etc.) from many different manufacturers the "core" hardware pretty much follows a set of strict standards. Ever since Apple moved to Intel CPU based hardware they also made OS X compatible with those same standards (AHCI, ACPI, etc.). Sure, you might have the odd issue with certain configurations but in general modern Intel based desktop PCs are fairly straightforward to run OS X on.
The same applies for the Linux Kernel, except it supports far more standards and architectures then OS X.
But anyway I suppose my point is that the OS will pretty much run in most cases. However, your non-standard additional hardware (wireless adapters, your funky magic PCIe card, etc.) that requires drivers is not really because Linux, Windows or OS X does not support that hardware but rather the manufacturer of said devices choice not to support that OS. Don't complain that Linux or whatever does not support your hardware but rather complain that the manufacturer chose not to support Linux or use some kind of common standard.
Sure, common hardware or hardware that follows a standard might have a driver written by Microsoft or the linux kernel devs but most of the time the driver is written by those who created the hardware. For example it would be silly to blame Microsoft saying Windows does not support a Nvidia graphics card if Nvidia never released Windows drivers for that card. Likewise it would be silly to blame Apple if I bought some TV tuner, or similar PCI(e) card, and found it did not work in my Mac Pro.
The quality of those drivers are far, far worse than the OSX drivers.
Also, how is it surprising that OSX has few drivers, when OSX is meant for very specific Apple-designed hardware?
Anyway. I'm running Ubuntu on a new Macbook Air (5,1), and both the touchpad and the Wifi drivers are an absolute atrocity on Linux.
A few things just doesn't work, like the keyboard backlight.
The LCD backlight is also broken, half the time you have to unplug and replug the power to get the backlight to light up after automatic dimming, for some reason.
As for wifi, I quote, live, from my syslog: Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.034285] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.035618] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 Jun 16 22:27:45 laptop kernel: [28768.036427] brcmsmac bcma0:0: brcms_c_ampdu_dotxstatus_complete: Pkt tx suppressed, illegal channel possibly 48 ... etc ...
Constant disconnects, poor speed. Switch to the proprietary driver and bandwidth is 2-3x better and the disconnects disappear, though.
The trackpad issues seem unfixable, even though there are lots of options to fiddle with. The quality is just poor or the driver is not designed to work with the type of touchpad that the Mac has. Tapping causes the cursor to move to a new position before doing a click, left-clicking causes the cursor to zoom to the bottom left of the screen, etc. etc. etc. If the precision of the Mac touchpad driver is index 100, I would give the Linux driver a score of 5.
No issues with hardware support at all. But there is very steep learning curve - I think that is the main thing the community must focus on. Just introduce new users to the system gently. I have few requests recently about migrating to linux after the NSA stuff blew up. And sadly have to tell the people not yet unless you like to get your hands dirty.
$ConsumerDistro of your choice on recentish laptop (not Optimus) should require less knowledge.
$ConsumerDistro = [Mint|Ubuntu LTS|Lubuntu] != [Arch|Slackware]
CentOS, Stella, Debian stock and FedoraRecent almost make it to consumer level but not quite in my opinion.
That's a list of Thinkpad issues, they're not all linux-on-thinkpad issues. You could make one for every brand - Macbook pros would have "sometimes catch fire", from a story in this thread.
I have Ubuntu 12.04 on my Lenovo W500 and it works flawlessly. Everything worked out of the box — including graphics, wifi and ethernet, touchpad, ACPI keys and power saving options and sleep / hibernation. Conclusion : YMMV.
This isn't a design flaw so much as a circumstantial necessity. I agree with the article's point, but is this really a common refrain?
As an interesting aside, I wrote this comment from Ubuntu running on a ThinkPad. Touche.
It's the same with hardware, not long after the Surface Pro was released someone installed ubuntu and said that linux ran perfectly on it. The touchscreen, Pen, Sound, Wifi, and Bluetooth didn't work but it was "good enough" for what he wanted to do (hold down a stack of papers?). Yes this is one random persons anecdote but I feel like the majority of the Linux community has this attitude and that's what ultimately puts Mac (and even Windows in some cases) ahead of Linux in hardware support.
In my case (and I suspect the case for a lot of folks based on conversations within the place I work at), the sweet spot for OSX is that the hardware is amazing , and the OS is just good enough. I work at a place full of Unix heads, and we all deploy to Linux, but use OSX on our MBP laptops. Software is just one part of the equation, but how your laptop feels when you pick it up and take it to a free working space matters. I guess the Thinkpad does hold up in this regard, but MBP-equivalent Thinkpads are typically more expensive.
I wonder if Avdi has tried using the Dell XPS that he mentions in the article. One of my fellow devs got it a few weeks ago and I tried it. The keyboard on that thing is plasticky and feels weak to the touch, unlike the solid aluminum of the Macbook Pro. I would never get it over an MBP.
Now if Apple changes the core functionality of OSX in a way that hurts dev tools that most people use, they will migrate away. I already see this in my workplace where people are still sticking with Snow Leopard till Apple forces them to upgrade. Why? Because it is good enough.
More expensive than what? MBP with 2.8Ghz, 16GB runs at least $3K.
With the exception of the screen, hardware-wise Thinkpads and Dell Precisions are far superior to MBPs. Max 16GB RAM and can't even stick an i7 extreme CPU in MBPs.
Whoops, 17" MBP, sorry, that's been discontinued -- as a Mac user you have NO choice; the hardware and software offerings are fixed in stone.
I believe the X1, which Avdi referenced, maxed at 8GB? (same as Air) The W series of course can have crazy hardware in it, but it's quite the anomaly in the industry.
My Dell Precision lives on laptop stand, use mechanical KB and trackball mouse -- detest trackpads ;-)
W530 is beast-able, but prefer Precision series, dual fans are big plus with quad core and Nvidia chips.
The multi-display support is also broken (the smaller display takes on same dimensions as the larger, with hidden areas of the desktop), but that's another matter.
Not really. It's the field Linux choose to play.
But let's constrain it if you like.
Does Linux have "better hardware support" than OS X for even a single, specific, hardware product from a specified vendor?
At least for my multimedia work, the answer is a resounding no.
Had some hiccups with previous Sony Z-series laptop, but one nice thing about switching machines with Linux is that X11 config settings for your peripherals (trackball, wireless KB, etc.) all apply to the new machine.
The biggest headache has been Nvidia, forcing max power consumption (and heat generation) with multi-monitor setups (of course, IIRC that affects all laptop makes, Macs included).
Fortunately Dell Precisions have 2X fans (CPU & GPU) so cool & quiet overall, just not a big fan of Nvidia, would have a near passively cooled machine were it not for the multi-monitor max power issue.
the keyboard and the dongles worked out of the box, but both were missing some of the functionality they have on other os'.
Specifically, the usb dongles couldn't work on their 5ghz band. The driver that was compatible with their chipsets needed to be manually updated because the hw ids weren't in the headers for the driver. The keyboard has additional keys that were unrecognized by Linux that had to be made available.
support is likewise troublesome. You can use these things-just not be fully as on OSX.
the thing is people buy products. Apple offers a product with a beautiful aluminium body, great battery life and a great OS that just works. Linux fails to offer that, and will continue to fail at offering that, just because that's not their focus.
In my opinion, we're comparing apples with oranges.
Not so sure.
Developers for all kind of stuff use OS X. Any conference, from Google IO to Oracle or Apache (Java) stuff, to RoR have tons of developers, the majority actually, running OS X. Even Rob Pike uses OS X. Even Linus Torvalds (although he just uses the Mac, not the OS, of course).
And most of them do not deploy anything to iOS.
The use OS X because it's a fine UNIX and it has all the commercial stuff they want to use (Adobe, Office, etc) and all the multimedia stuff they want to use too. And it has nice hardware to boot (not CPU or price wise: overall quality wise, from sturdiness to weight, and from display quality to driver support).
For OS X, the answer to this is yes. For Linux, the answer is "Maybe, with some tinkering".
/s