Ex-MSFT Employee: Microsoft Should Run Linux

They have, it's called Mac OS X (10.6.x) Snow Leopard and it is based on BSD.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

http://www.google.com/search?clien [...] 8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.freebsd.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berke [...] stribution
http://www.bsd.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/

http://www.google.com/bsd

http://bsd.slashdot.org/

It just doesn't have the market power that Microsoft Windows or Linux (and it's various extremely similar, but just different enough to break software standardisation distributions) have.

I used to dis' Apple for years, then one day I bought a MacBook Pro, and I haven't really looked back.

Do yourself a favour and read (or refresh your knowledge) of the above.


I mean how many Linux newbies would be better off with just a stock 2.6.x Kernel, and a basic CLI (BASH), and Apache, plus an X windowing system (X.org, X11, etc) with KDE and/or GNOME, plus Firefox and OpenOffice.org (or similar) ?

Sure it'd use a heap less RAM, disk space, and run much faster than these bloated distributions that aren't exactly as ideal for virtualisation as they claim to be (massive overheads).

Besides video drivers, and bizarre chipset drives it's been possible for years - I may just do it, one day, if I get bored of OS X.

To Scott2009...
Come on mate... Don't be silly... OS X is a "nicked" NetBSD Unix... repackaged and marketed as the best OS ever... It's good and stable but... it's not usable to most power users because of its UI limitations... What you call "brilliant" - I call "sucks"... I am afraid... Not to mention that it only is "sooo" stable because it only runs on a small selection of hardware... If MS would do the same - they would be successful too...
Could you expand your thought about this though?
"
I mean how many Linux newbies would be better off with just a stock 2.6.x Kernel, and a basic CLI (BASH), and Apache, plus an X windowing system (X.org, X11, etc) with KDE and/or GNOME, plus Firefox and OpenOffice.org (or similar) ?
"
That's pretty much every distribution available - sure you get more stuff with it... but what's stopping you from:
1. using alternative installation method - some distros have that option.
2. using a minimalistic distro - there is plenty - just google for it
3. Make your own distro - if you are really that experienced - shouldn't be a problem for you - try that with OS X BTW ))
And... as for bloatware - how does OSX differ from other OSs? Fire up your "Finder" and peek around your drive... you will find a lot of "bloatware" there too.

I mean yeah - it's your decision / opinion whatever... But... Could you answer the following:
1. When did you buy your first computer - and what was it?
2. When did you buy your first Mac - and why?
3. What do you do professionally?

Please don't be offended - I just don't like when someone says something like this without backing this up with proper info... There was a discussion about this a couple of days ago on Toms... - look out for Tuan's news article on "Hate Mac - read this"...

And finally... Just a quick google to backup my statements... OS X - is not perfect OS... it's actually far from it...
http://www.appletell.com/apple/com [...] t-windows/
http://www.maclife.com/article/fea [...] ems_solved

Cheers.

to be fair with the above - I will answer the questions my self as well:
re 1: Atari 130XE in 1982.
re 2: never - got few of them for free as gifts... mainly in 2007/2008.
re 3: lamp webdev from around 2000.

OSX may be a nice os, and when/if they ever decided to release it for general use so I could install it easily/legally on my PC then yeah great I would probably go for it myself. But seeing as its a very expensive option for me, then no not really.
IMO until they break the ties with their overpriced, under specced hardware (for the price at least), they will always be in 2nd position.

I just don't like the constrains of the UI to be honest. It's just not comfortable to use for me, not to mention the hardware you need to have to use it. Objectively speaking though - it might "seem" as a nice and clean UI but when you actually want to do stuff quickly - you simply cannot... I've used OS 9, Tiger, Leopard and Leopard Snow... And I am thankful I don't have to anymore... The amount of extra clicks / mouse movements and key presses that you need to do to achieve simple stuff is just annoying. For someone who like to "play" with a computer it might be fun... For someone trying to do the job - it's the right pain in the ass...

My point was that if I got 'bored' with OS X, then I'd just make my own distro.

Based on what you've posted I can safely assume you haven't given OS X the 6 weeks it really takes to 'adjust', all it needs is a two button mouse.

Anyone who loves Linux should be able to pick up OS X pretty quickly, and it is the only *nix / BSD derivative that has MS Office 200x in a supported fashion.

I really shouldn't plug Apple since even I used to 'hate' them.

If Apple released Mac OS X as a virtual appliance (ala: VMware Virtual Machine, or Virtual PC/Server images, etc), then people would get to like it.

As for the more stable comment - meh, they've jumped from Intel chipsets to nVidia for the laptops so I've backed off my interest for awhile - hopefully the 6_1 or 6_1b (?) will swing it back.

Heck they jumped architectures from PowerPC to x86, and you claim they're 'more' stable that Windows on it's 'x86' only architecture (for home users).

Frankly I believe Windows and OS X are about equal stability wise, it's just a moot arguement: Run what meets your needs and be done with it.

The other 10,000,000 employess disagree with Keith!

Fair play - I do, you do - everybody's happy.
OS X "seems" more stable than windows... it's just my personal experience... Although I still prefer windows instability - as at least I can tell that my computer is swapping to RAM, using network or is slower due this or that... on a Mac - you don't get that... And when you see an umbrella... you can just wonder wtf is happening... unless one knows what "top -d1" means...
I did give OS X more than 6 weeks... I have been working on it on a regular basis - twice a week for over 6 months... Mainly for webdevelopment and every time it was a pain... Saving a file as .png just to find out that it's now .png.jpg coz I forgot to click somewhere... Right click is a pain as well... The lack of double click on a taskbar to maximize window is a pain... too small widgets on the left side of a window rather on the right - is a personal thing - but still - annoying to me. I hate the idea of having the menu bar "separated" from the application and having to click it to see its menu... Lack of home / end buttons on the keyboard... file requesters not remembering the last accessed locations (for some apps only though)... And the general theme - hiding the important information from the user... I know it supposed to be simple... but come on - give it a "switch" so power users could use it too... Not to mention lack of ability to customize the windows decorations / behavior at all and yet the default ones being "different" just doesn't justify it for me... I always switch all the special effects off to have all the power for myself... and customize shortcuts and windows behavior to my needs... on a mac - I am simply not allowed... but there is probably an "app for that"... There is a couple of things I like about OS X... but as a "whole package" it just fails to be appealing to me at all... Anyway - so how long do you use OS X and computers in general? Any fancy use of it? Or just desktop usage? Am not a flamer so just want to find out - what's so great about it?
I'd have to pay more, use worse hardware, have to learn how to use it, it's not comfortable, it slows me down, important features are hidden from me, I cannot play games, hardware support is still worse than on windows... what else? Have Apple finally allowed virtualization of OS X? Cannot think of more reasons why I don't like it at the moment...

(1) That .png remark is total ****, Mac's do not have that problem.
(2) Over the life of a machine a Mac laptop ends up costing less than a PC - on average.
(3) When did Apple disallow virtualization ?, all one needs is EFI/GPT. For example: I've even installed Vista Ultimate x64 (God forbid) on this, as it requires EFI/GPT to install (It's a pre all Service Packs kit, the x86 version also installs fine however, despite all MSDN and TechNet doco indicating otherwise).

#1 .png.jpg - is not a problem imposed by the OS - it's the problem imposed by the UI - you have to select it first from a dropdown to actually see the "extension".
#2 - disagree... you imply that PCs break more often hardware-wise. I would say they last more or less the same. Although repairing a mac is more expensive
#3 - I meant - can you actually virtualize OS X on other OS? That refers to your previous post - so not really a problem I would imagine. But correct me if I am wrong - is there a limitation there somewhere - that you can VM OSX server only on OSX Server or was it that you can only VM OSX Desktop on OSX Server?

Touchy subject Scott?

You can (with a few hacks) virtualise OSX on none Apple hardware but its the same as installing it on none Apple hardware as far as I know, ie against the EULA. So really, you have to own a mac to virtualise OSX.

I think essentially, If Apple decided to extend their hardware support so that hardware enthusiasts were easily able to shove in a disk once they have built theiir rig, fire up the OS(X) and load on all ya drivers - no problem.

If they did that, then it would be a level playing field. But as much as windows can infuriate me - I have this luxury (without having to go through some 3rd party program in the hope of getting OS X working on my machine)

No, he just mis-read my first post.

On the upside I'm mentally engaged in something while a backup verifies.

FYI: I used to run Red Hat 5.2, and got it working with a proprietary Panasonic 2x CD-ROM interface off an ISA-16 sound card, on a 486SX-25. At least I think it was RH5.2, I know it was a 2.4.x kernel, I think it was potato (I only remember because it, well it's one of the easier to remember ones)... [sigh].

Why do these always go way off base ?

It took me maybe 3-4 months to learn the Windows 3.1 GUI, and as such I've been using it for over a decade. I'd say it was easier to learn 2K/XP, but all the shortcut keys and everything mostly leverage pre-existing knowledge. (Unlike the transition from Cmd to PowerShell - I'm sure you agree).

OS X only took me 5 weeks to get really used to, and that is bearing in mind I had to 'unlearn' some of my Windows habits. Although Win3.1 had taught me the basics.

DOS took me 6 weeks, and that includes MS-DOS 5.x, 6.x, and IBM's PC-DOS 6.1, 6.3, 7.0, and other DOS variants. Including playing Tetris with UMB's. So by the time "MS-DOS 7" came around [Windows 95] I had it totally down pat. Until optical mouse got under $50 I was really a keyboard junkie.

I've even tried OS/2 2.1, but it was a RAM hungry beat compared to the Win16/Win32 hybrid that was 'Microsoft Windows'.

I don't like Linux for it's competing Window Managers, I like it because it can be like DOS but runs in Protected Mode (or better).

Linux is not going to pull the world out of a global recession, Windows 7 and Mac OS X on the other hand... Although I prefer Apache HTTPD to IIS.

Basically: This is a never ending circle that generates a heap of text on the subject that Google indexes - and at the end of the day, that is all the various parties want us to do.

It's just that OS X does not have the 2GB-1byte '32-bit' process ceiling that Win32 has, and it handles the execution of both 32-bit and 64-bit processes far better than WoW64 does. (Which covers all x64 versions of Windows: XP, Vista, 7, Sever Editions, etc).

It also does not have the problems that WDDM 1.0 has, which was clearly a foolish experiment. Then again I doubt Linux does either. :-P

Well... ))
The short story (and a joke at the same time) is: "because of Apple inc.".
The longer story is - because technology enthusiasts like most of the THG's readers are proper geeks... And therefore, are very argumentative people. Then there is Internet that separates our visual senses from the discussion - so emotions take place easier... Anyway - it's a good topic to talk about over a pint. Fancy one Scott?
))) Where are you from anyway? Your profile says nothing... Actually... How about "THG's Meetup 2009" or sth, somewhere in London?

Why the heck would two strangers over the Internet want to meet ?
I'm not that much of a nerd, not to mention the costs involved.

My spoken English is quite poor as you (would probably) say.

Ok - I admit, my question - "how long did it take you to learn UI" was pointless - obviously - if a person has got a proper background - picking up a new OS is a matter of weeks... Then again - as I said it's just my POV on the OS X and your original post was sort of "ecstatic" about it, then you've just recently registered on THG so I thought - another bloody fanboy... Sorry about that.
Anyway - thanks for a chat Scott - sorry for assuming you were a "fanboy" - let's all get back to work now.

I could be classed as a fan of technology, although that statement isn't always 'accurate'.

Still it's weird that I just finish a Ruski and we magically start getting along.

Maybe 'free beer' was the right choice after all, and wine drinking Linus diverted us to 'free "speach"' - which hasn't exactly worked out all that well for the Internet (as a whole).

If they could get the Internet as it was around 1993 - 2001, and Wikipedia as it is today, Wow, that really would be Web 2.0

"Why the heck would two strangers over the Internet want to meet ?"
))))

No worries - I just enjoy company of people that know their stuff...Think back in 1992 - Amiga Demoscene? How would you explain thousands of people traveling to another country just to meet up other nerds? ))
Anyway - no worries.

Ex-MSFT Employee is a buffoon.

Microsoft have been laying off staff left, right & centre ever since Vista and the GFC.
Heck, they may even own the patents on 'left, right & centre'.

They're not buffoons, 'Microsoft Linux' has been mentioned before.
http://www.mslinux.org/
Google "Microsoft Linux", and check both Web & News, etc

Novell / SUSE are kinda already doing it...

I don't think Microsoft will even think of doing this unless Windows looses enough market share, like drops below 50% or there abouts.
I would love it if they did as it would be better for everyone in the long run, but I also think the BSD kernel is much better than the Linux one, having said that I'm happy with pretty much any form of unix.

its all good if they did, trouble is they are struggling to make a good version of Windows that people are willing to buy and use.

Unlike all the other previous versions of windows, since vista, there's just not enough incentive to upgrade.

With XP it had reached the pinnacle and now it's only downhill from here on! Think of it like this; imagine you can picture a graph and you can see it hitting the peak with XPPRO and since it's only deteriorating with each subsequent editions.

Generally people wanted a solid, stable and mostly compatible version of windows that support the widest-established possible, hardware and software on the market. Instead vista was a junky bloatware that makes everything crawl while consuming all the resources just to display the windows UI. Just sitting there looking pretty, dumb and stupid. Perfect for the typical emailing joe and the youtube/facebook person out there! For the rest of us including the businesses it was a waste of space and cash while being a rubbish excuse for a windows.

Bye. Jon.