Is OS X ready for the desktop?

               

Is OS X ready for the desktop?

In this article, I examine the reasons people give for not using Linux desktops, and ask myself: If Linux isn't "ready for the desktop", then is Mac OS X?

1. Linux doesn't come with all the codecs installed for industry-standard video formats like Windows Media Video!

Neither does OS X; it comes with support for its own proprietry standard, and Linux comes with support for an open standard. Maybe Windows and OS X are the ones which are "not ready for the desktop", as they don't come with support for Vorbis and Theora?

2. Parts of my computer hardware don't work with Linux! It should get better hardware compatibility, like Windows!

OS X doesn't run on ANY part of your computer. Funnily enough, people who want to switch to OS X seem to have no problems with buying a whole new computer (at a premium, too!). And you're so averse to the suggestion that you buy a new wireless card?

3. Most of my existing programs/games don't run on Linux!

None would on OS X. Zero, zip, nada. Some will run on Linux though, through Wine.

4. Nobody except super-nerds will want to use a command-line, even occasionally! That's why people will always use Windows.

Hmm, funny. Windows 3.1 and 95 relied on the command-line, especially for installing software, and yet more people used it than the GUI-only Mac OS. In fact, more people used DOS than used Mac OS.

5. Some programs don't automatically add themselves to the menu!

OS X doesn't even have a menu for programs to add themselves to, and you always have to manually add them to the dock.

6. It takes too much time for me to figure out the new operating system. The interface should be just like Windows, so I don't have to retrain myself.

I'm sure OS X users say the same thing about Windows. At least with Linux, unlike OS X, you can run KDE and install a Windows-lookalike theme. Heck, you could even download a picture of a BSOD and put it in your Cron tab, to give you that special homely feeling :-)

7. A Linux desktop is a mess of programs whose interfaces have completely different looks! [they are talking about Qt and GTK programs co-existing]  

On the Mac OS, there are also two officially-sanctioned look-and-feels; Aqua, and Brushed Metal. Oh wait - now there's a titanium look that Apple must've licensed from LG. Plus, if you're running programs in Apple's X11 server, they will have their own looks and feels too. And Windows programs run through virtualisation will look different again!

Most of the programs you will use on Linux are either Qt or GTK, so that's only two sets of looks, and GTK programs will look like native Qt if you're running KDE. Even if you're running Gnome, you can choose a theme that is available for GTK and Qt (I am using BlueCurve for QT and GTK at this very moment).

So really, Linux can easily have one consistant interface look, unlike Mac OS X.

And what do the aesthetics of the interface have to do with desktop readiness anyway?

8. When I tried to run Linux in Microsoft Virtual PC, [the sound stuttered / the colours looked grainy]!

Well duh. Linux is one of Microsoft's competitors. Virtual PC wouldn't be the first piece of Microsoft software that purposely tries to stop a competitor's technology from working. But try this: Install Mac OS X into MS Virtual PC. It won't even install, much less have stuttery sound or grainy graphics. Does that mean that OS X isn't ready for desktop use, because you can't try it out in a Microsoft virtualiser before committing to it?

If you want to try Linux in a virtual machine, use Virtualbox - it's free and works fine with Linux. Or bite the bullet and do a dual-boot - you'll get faster operation and the ability to try out some Linux games. Isn't that worthwhile?