I don't know if you get the concept of "just works." When Apple says that OS X "just works," what they mean is that you don't have to configure it when you get it, and you don't have to do it later. If you have to change <I>any</i> configuration settings, then it did not "just work." That is according to Apple's definition. Your definition appears to be different. You call Linux "configure once, run forever." Well, that means you had to configure it. With OS X, you just have to plug it in and turn it on. You describe your setup and say that it "just works." Well, how much did you have to configure that to get it to work the first time? Did you have to change a lot of settings when you first installed it, or did it detect all your settings upon installation? That's right, you had to do it yourself. Now, you may have enjoyed that, but it is not an argument proving that Linux "just works." It is an argument proving that Linux just requires a lot more work. There are some things you may be able to do with Linux that you might not be able to do with OS X, but not everyone that Apple is selling it to wants to do that. If someone does, well, Apple provides the tools to write it, or simply to port it from the Linux version. Really, none of your arguments against OS X stands. The only thing you can definitively say is that you don't like it because you use Linux. Great.
Re: Unix, Linux, or GNU?
> Hmm ?? hardware superior? all the macs I
> have worked with (up to the dual
> 1.25Ghz) use old pc hardware. old fsb,
> old processor, slow memory, etc. They
> are actually talking about getting IBM
> or Intel to make the next cpu!
> No the main reason to use Apple is it's
> ease of use and (for video) the magical
> Quicktime layer.
Hmmm, do you even know what you're talking about? No Mac uses "old pc hardware." The FSB might not be brand new and it might not be clocked as fast as those on PC boards, but it performs well. The processors really aren't that old, and blaming them for being old is like saying that old Alpha server that has handled its job so well for so long sucks because it's old. OS X is optimized for the G4 processor, as are many programs written for it. As a result, the programs really do perform very well, even though the processor sounds slower. Bear in mind, of course, that a 1Ghz G4 is comparable to a P4 with a MUCH higher clock rating. Obviously the fastest G4 is slower than the fastest P4, but the G4 runs very well.They never talked to Intel about making the next iteration of their processor, and they would never be interested in something like that. However, it is true that they approached IBM to make it. Further, IBM agreed. Now, you seem to think that this is a failure of Apple in some way, but you don't remember the fact that it is Motorola that builds the G4 and Motorola that shares the G3 with, get this, IBM. In fact, Motorola has too much of the rights to the G3 processor, and it is thanks to them that IBM is not allowed to release G3s that are faster than Motorola's G3s. All the new G3-based systems that you can buy contain an IBM-manufactured processor. It is not surprising that Apple wanted IBM to make the next PowerPC, and it is perhaps less surprising that IBM agreed. That processor looks to be fantastic.I personally think it's hilarious that your knock against Mac OS X is that Macs use "old pc hardware," while the main positive argument for Linux is that it is able to run on commodity pc hardware. Linux runs on old pc hardware, OS X uses no pc hardware, much less old.