Why has Apple been able to make a user friendly pretty OS with a unix core and the linux community still lags behind?

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Do they just have better programmers? Have more time/resources to dedicate to the project?

It seems like the move to OSX started from a core unix distribution and they just went from there. What's holding the Linux community back?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
IMO OS X is terrible, there's some nice features but overall the UI is big slow and ugly and Anand just had an article proving that their "unix core" is a lot slower than Linux.
 

BigToque

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,700
0
76
Originally posted by: Nothinman
IMO OS X is terrible, there's some nice features but overall the UI is big slow and ugly and Anand just had an article proving that their "unix core" is a lot slower than Linux.

Is it on the front page? I must have missed it...
 

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
The itch just hasn't been bad enough to scratch that hard...
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Because programmers in general make lousy UI's. Generally to get a good UI you need to pay people to do it because it's a lot harder than writing the program. The more financial backing Linux gets the more programmers can be hired to do things like make it pretty. KDE is pretty sharp actually and so is gnome for that matter, you just have to realize that your opinion isn't objective because you have been trained on MS software.
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: Stefan
Do they just have better programmers? Have more time/resources to dedicate to the project?

It seems like the move to OSX started from a core unix distribution and they just went from there. What's holding the Linux community back?

1. A HAL
2. Nobody's motivated to write "System Administration for Those Not RTFM or Using Google" yet.
3. Better cooperation from hardware companies.

#1 is being implemented by freedesktop.org projects HAL and D-BUS. They seem to be making progress, but it looks like they could use more devs. #2, well, we'll save that one for last. And #3 is kinda out of our control. We badger, they ignore, we reverse-engineer, etc...

I think the important UI is there. It's just that people don't want to have to open up text files to get things to reasonable defaults.
 

phisrow

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2004
1,399
0
0
The pressures are largely different. Apple has, for years, been a company that survives largely by doing things with style. One may or may not like theirs; but one has to admit that they know that they depend on it and certainly work hard at maintaining it. Having a decent size pool of talent that is really, really touchy about style and feel is somewhat unusual in the business. And, in the end, they get, more or less, what their pressures demand. Like them or loath them, macs are tightly integrated and distinctive.

Linux, on the other hand, is moved primarily by a mixture of geeks and corporations that stand to gain if Microsoft and/or Intel lose. The both the geeks and the companies like powerful features, great stability, and low price. As one notes, Linux has all these things. The geeks generally don't much care about cute interfaces(note, they quite like elegant interfaces, like good package managers, and interfaces that can do cool things, like all the network transparent protocols for practically everything) and stuff, either actively in the "GUI is for l0sers" sense or in the passive "I'd rather be hacking the kernel or the Gibson than writing some silly eye-candy" sense. The corporations, generally, want some level of interface; but are more looking to be good enough with respect to Windows than to be style kings. As a result, Linux is decent but not hugely exciting in this area.

Also a factor is hardware control. Apple knows precisely what it is going to be running, and can plan accordingly. MS has the advantage that most manufacturers write drivers to its specifications, and it is able to sign various restrictive contracts in order to distribute drivers. Linux has neither advantage(except in specific instances e.g. an IBM Linux-on-Power or something of that sort is going to have its drivers in order). It runs surprisingly well on all kinds of wacky stuff; but most manufacturers don't bother to include linux drivers or even make documentation available, and only some stuff can be reverse engineered. Drivers are perhaps the thing that makes Linux installs most difficult.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
I don't think that Linux has anything much to gain from intel loosing.

Most hardware is supported perfectly well with Linux. The only realy sore spots are wifi and video nowadays. Wifi is slowly being fixed and if you avoid conextent or broadcom based hardware then you'd usually be fine.

configuration is still confusing to people. But thats about it.
 

phisrow

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2004
1,399
0
0
I agree that Linux, and the individuals who use it, have no particular reason to oppose Intel(unless they really start getting uppity about hardware DRM, and it would be nice if they would open their wireless firmware properly); but some companies that support Linux do. Pretty much anyone peddling some cute core running a weird instruction set has a lot to gain from people switching to an open Source OS. If you want Microsoft to support your platform, you have an uphill battle ahead of you(look at AMD's 64 bit extentions, or Itanium). Getting a new platform supported under Linux is comparitively easy, which lowers the barriers to entry for competing architectures(Cell, for example, is said to be running Linux already, albeit in a somewhat rough state, and it hasn't even hit release yet).
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Cell itself hasn't even been released yet... Hopefully Sony will have something similar to the dev kit for PS3 as they did with PS2.

Sure hardware manufacturers have lots to gain using linux if they manage it correctly. That's why Intel/SGI/AMD/HP/IBM/etc all contribute code and hire developers (more or less) to work on Linux. It's good stuff.

 

thesix

Member
Jan 23, 2001
133
0
0
Excellent question.

Apple, like Microsoft, has years of experience with UI.
When they swtiched to BSD core, they didn't "just went from there", all the UI experience carried over, because the design principle -- what APIs should be available and how they should implemented efficiently (not how they coded) are the same regardless which kernel it's using.

It is NOT that Linux ( or any *nix for that matter ) users don't care about UI, which is the favorite excuse any *nix vendors/fans will use when they're asked about lack of it, it is that they don't have the same level of expertise that Apple and Microsoft have.

If tomorrow Aqua becomes available tomorrow on Linux, I bet 99% of the users will be dancing on road and calling other *nix suchers :)

Having a good GUI doesn't mean you can't do CLI when it's necessary and more efficient, but just because you can do everything in CLI is NOT an excuse for a bad GUI.

T
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
It is NOT that Linux ( or any *nix for that matter ) users don't care about UI, which is the favorite excuse any *nix vendors/fans will use when they're asked about lack of it, it is that they don't have the same level of expertise that Apple and Microsoft have.

MS has expertise? They redo their GUI every 5 years, if they knew what they were doing wouldn't they have gotten it right and stopped at some point? As for Apple, they do some things right and some very wrong. The shared menu bar for one is very, very wrong.

If tomorrow Aqua becomes available tomorrow on Linux, I bet 99% of the users will be dancing on road and calling other *nix suchers :)

I would be willing to bet everything I own that it would be nowhere near 99%. Maybe 50% and that's guessing high. I know I for one wouldn't and I don't think anyone I know would either.
 

thesix

Member
Jan 23, 2001
133
0
0
MS has expertise? They redo their GUI every 5 years, if they knew what they were doing wouldn't they have gotten it right and stopped at some point? As for Apple, they do some things right and some very wrong. The shared menu bar for one is very, very wrong.

Thank you for reminding me:

Stefan, to your orignial question, another big reason is some of their users have a very different taste/view of what is good or bad in a GUI.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that it would be nowhere near 99%. Maybe 50% and that's guessing high. I know I for one wouldn't and I don't think anyone I know would either.

I must have made a bad joke.

T.
 

bersl2

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2004
1,617
0
0
Originally posted by: thesix
MS has expertise? They redo their GUI every 5 years, if they knew what they were doing wouldn't they have gotten it right and stopped at some point? As for Apple, they do some things right and some very wrong. The shared menu bar for one is very, very wrong.

Thank you for reminding me:

Stefan, to your orignial question, another big reason is some of their users have a very different taste/view of what is good or bad in a GUI.

Of course, the best part about our GUI is that you can use a myriad of GUIs, everything from Ratpoison ("Window manager? What window manager?") to Enlightenment (do a GIS for 'enlightenment screenshot OR screenshots' and tell me if any desktop has the same theme (of the images that actually are Enlightenment, that is, or come from the same site)).