<< We can agree to disagree >>
Agreed.
It looks to me like the Macintosh platform is the best choice for yourself and a mixed environment is the best choice for myself - and perhaps for potential Macintosh switchers, as well. For others, an exclusive Linux environment - or Windows or whatever - may be best.
You can use all sorts of hammers to drive in a nail.
<< For those unhappy at the thought of a Command Line in OS X,
it's really not the way to go. >>
I originally thought the same. Which was why I thought that I might be throwing my $200 away.
'Cause the command line is not really where I want to be.
But, you know - I haven't used the Linux command line in the last three months of running Red Hat 8 on my desktop.
No need.
Didn't need the command line to install Red Hat 8 on my PC - nor do I need the command line to set up or to use the web, do word processing, print, etc.
If you are a command line geek - hey - it is there for you in all it's geekish glory. Great stuff, I am sure. Go for it!
But me, well - I am but a mouse-using refugee from MacOS 8.6.
You know - point and click?
I just like pretty pictures. :-)
I hear that there is a somewhat similar situation with MacOS X: I understand that if you want to use the command line in MacOSX, you have it, but if you do not want to use it, you do not have to.
I do not know MacOSX - but the command line in desktop Linux for me is kind of analogous to ResEdit on a Mac.
Sure, there are ResEdit hacks out there about which I have little clue.
And sure - I am no doubt missing something of the Macintosh experience by not being a ResEdit geek.
And, sure - I have used ResEdit once or twice - but only with some trepidation and with cook-book instructions at my side, feeling very un-Mac-like in the process.
But by and large, you don't really need to use ResEdit much to work your way around a Mac.
And by and large, you don't really need to use the command line much to work your way around a Linux Desktop.
Servers are, no doubt, an entirely different proposition.
I did buy "Linux for Dummies" and read through it carefully in order to be able to learn about this complicated thing called "the command line."
Then I haven't much used it.
I am almost disappointed . . .
To me, the Linux desktop has proven to be just another desktop.
No big deal.
<< I just don't see Linux overtaking/replacing OS X . . .
. . . MO. It's just too Geeky and labor intensive. >>
That is what I thought, too - before I finally tried it.
And I have waited until fairly late in the game to do so.
I figured that what I was saving in money I would be paying for in time - but I had some time to waste, so heck I figured, why not?
But the learning curve has really not been that bad.
And I would have had to undergo a similar learning curve in converting to MacOSX, anyway.
Which is kinda the whole point of using this as a good time to explore Linux instead of MacOSX.
Plus - I would have had to spend a lot bigger bucks going MacOSX.
It's something to consider.
In the balance, there have been a number of time-saving aspects to the Linux conversion, as well.
Overall speed, for one.
Over the years I have watched patiently from the sidelines as Linuxheads were predicting that "next year" would be the year of the Linux desktop - year after year after year - the magic day always being just around the corner, never to arrive.
But with Linux preloaded on compatible hardware overcoming the common hardware compatibility problems - coupled with Red Hat 8's arrival somewhere back around the beginning of the year - I think that the year of Desktop Linux has finally pretty much arrived.
Such has been my experience, anyway.
Red Hat is now up to version 9 - upon which, as I understand it, Yellow Dog Linux 3.x is based.
If you have any interest in Linux - this might just be a good time to take it out for a spin.
If not - do wave as it flies by . . .
Oh - there is one nice thing about Linux that I had not anticipated that I am finding actually makes the Linux box a bit easier to use than a Mac.
Whenever I have made a major upgrade to a newer Macintosh OS, I would be faced with also upgrading DiskWarrior, TechTool Pro, Norton Utilities, Virex, whatever word processor I might be using, possibly specialized disk drivers (FWB) - etc. Sometimes there would be significant delays while different companies got each of their application upgrades together. And earlier software revisions would often have significant glitches - particularly Norton Utilities. Sometimes these glitches were data-fatal.
This would all cause some juggling and some additional monetary outlay and a new learning curve and bulletin board research with every major MacOS upgrade.
With Linux - all the newer utilities are included with each new Linux distribution upgrade - fairly well integrated. Generally, no huge changes in presentation or functionality. The process is much more seamless, resulting in a much easier learning curve.
This has tremendously uncomplicated the whole Linux distribution upgrade process.
And it is all gratis.
For people happy with MacOSX, I see no particular reason to explore Linux.
Probably just a waste of your time.
For MacOS 9'ers (or 8'ers) contemplating the whole new learning curve of MacOSX, however - taking on the whole new learning curve of Linux, instead, may make very good sense.
<< I just don't see it becoming the choice of a lot of average users. >>
I have not found desktop Linux - currently - to be nearly as hard as either Macintosh or Microsoft skeptics might suggest.
About as hard as, say, MacOS 7.5.5 - remember the FinderHeapFix?
Or Mac OS 8.6 - remember Font Update 1.0?
Or all the optimizing we did to speed up web browsers?
I have not really run into such glitches yet in desktop Linux.
I think Linux was for geeks - but things do seem to be changing.
Of course - you and I will likely continue to agree to disagree.
Kelly.
Best Regards,
Epaminondas
________________________________________________________________
Walmart Linux Boxen
