Is Linux Really A Better OS Than Windows Or OS X?

The discussion here as it relates to aesthetics reminds of an early chapter of Insanely Great.

When the programmers were trying to squeeze as much as they could into very limited space for primitive shapes for System 1, one (I am sure a name I should know and remember, but it has long since past from my mind) came to Jobs and indicated that he could save a ton of space by eliminating the rounded rectangle, which served little purpose.

According to the story, Jobs took the programmer outside and pointed to cars and other objects in order to prove just how many rounded rectangles surround us in our daily lives. The shape stayed in, despite the trade-off in storage. Look at Windows (before XP, primarily), X11, and such things, and you will find a reliance, for much of the GUI, on what look like true rectangles. They are equally functional, of course, but no as pleasing.

This, then, leads me to something I learned from my boss when I worked in Human Resources: studies show that people are more productive when they can look up from work and see trees. If the sight of trees can increase productivity when glancing away from a computer, what might the effect on productivity be of a more pleasing GUI?

One only has to use one of the Office alternatives to see why Apple is so important. GUIs matter and they are not all the same. It’s important to employ nerds… but someone near the top has to have a sense of aesthetics and design.

Torvald’s rant sounds more like sour grapes than enlightened observation. Meanwhile, Apple steadily improves OS X, including the underlying file system.

I won’t defend Torvalds or his particular approach to commentary, but I will say that the comments about his comments sound a lot like those of Windows people about a decade ago when talking about Mac users’ comments.

What an excellent topic!  Most reasonably computer-literate folks might not understand Mr. Torvalds’ comments—operating systems, computing environments:  what’s the difference?—so this is a wonderful opportunity to explain that difference.  Ditto file systems.  Why do some of us need to defrag while others don’t?  And what’s so good and bad about default file systems in use by the 3 operating systems cited?

Unfortunately, you missed both chances to share something meaningful.

“Yes, Linux may well be a better operating system than what is hidden in Windows Vista or Mac OS X, but it doesn’t matter.”

If you honestly feel that ANY operating system doesn’t matter, why would you go to the trouble to share that opinion with us?  After all, if it doesn’t matter to you, why should it matter to us?

“Linux is a very poor desktop solution, a weak computing environment to handle the personal computing requirements of the great unwashed masses of the developed world.”

Maybe you’re not the right one to explain the differences between operating systems to your readers.  Linux is not a computing environment.  Linux is an operating system.  Gnome and KDE are computing environments that interface with Linux.

So, how about that Free BSD Unix?

... JJ (unwashed)

Editor’s Note: Jack is back, always questioning, seldom comprehending, never contributing. As stated, Linux is considered an operating system, while it can be argued that OS X and Windows are ‘environments.’ Linux does come with an ‘environment,’ too, in the form of Gnome and KDE, both of which, when compared to OS X, are ‘utter crap.’ The point was rather straightforward-- Linux may be a better OS, ‘but for the average Mac or Windows user, it doesn’t matter.’ Those users require more than mere access to an OS. They require a multitude of rich ‘desktop environment’ applications which Linux systems do not provide. Jack failed to grasp that point.

Andrew, why not add the USB-Ethernet dongle or Airport Express? I hate to take my Mac on the road and get stuck using it on a hotel desk because they don’t run WiFi. Airport Express is ultra small, travels well, and gives WiFi to any hotel Ethernet connection.

I was all set to bye 10 Macbook Air laptops until I realised it did not have an ethernet port.  What kind of idiot thought that one up!
I wanted to give one to all my guys that travel a lot.  However most of the decent hotel rooms have cabled ethernet internet access and therefore no WiFi.  So no ethernet no Macbook Air

OK: I’ve had a little longer to think about this, and I’ve seen that I was wrong about the point of this story. Torvalds’ comments about OS X are just noise: “Linux rules and Mac drools! Woof! Woof! Woof!”

The shocking revelation is that he’s living 20 years in the past. DOS was (or should have been) invisible; most of the time your only interaction with DOS was to type the name (or some stupid, impossible to remember abbreviation) of the application you wanted to launch, and it came up. What you saw on the screen was the responsibility of the app in question. If you didn’t like its functionality or “look and feel” you tried some other ones until you found one you liked.

Nowadays, with OS X and Windows all you see is the operating system. Applications work in the background to force your OS to perform a given function. If you don’t like the look and feel, you’ve got one (or counting Linux, two) alternatives. Failing that, you’re SOL. Not only are modern operating systems not “invisible,” arguably nothing else IS visible to the casual user.

Perhaps Mr. Torvalds’ antiquated idea of what an Operating System is like partially explains Linux’s small share of the desktop market. For IT professionals who like to get down and dirty with the nuts and bolts, it may be a real alternative, but for the rest of us, we want to turn on the computer and let OS X or Windows do that voodoo that they do do so well (or badly, as the case may be.)

Linus is right about Linux being invisible.  I’ve never seen Linux on the desktop (of non-geeks.) OS X and Vista might not be “invisible” but that’s because users DON’T WANT THAT.

BTW: When you are doing an install or update, of those 3 operating systems, which are more invisible?  Linux certainly isn’t among them.