Why Are Macs the Superior Choice for Computing?

[FulhamFan3]

There is truly no reason not to get a mac as far as I'm concerned. The hardware is great, the software is great and now with the new mac mini the price is great. Besides games anything you want to do on a windows pc you can do on a mac. Even when you talk about games, any game that's worth anything will be on a mac anyway. Viruses rarely infect macs if at all. The counter argument is that 95% of the worlds computers use windows so viruses are made for windows. To me that argument has only some validity. I could argue that if it was MacOS instead of windows there wouldn't be as many viruses simply because it's a more robust OS. I mean seriously, who's bright idea was it to automactically run vbscript in emails. The MacOS is based in UNIX as well so the geeks have something to play with.

Sorry if this seems like I'm some sort of mac salesman but I just want to know what about macs you do not like because it seems like all positives to me. I've never had a mac however my next purchase will definately be one.

 

[FulhamFan3]

I just saw the Thread in the software section that is a similar topic. Sorry if this seems like double posting threads. CLose this thread if you want admin.

 

[graphic7]

The statement, "the hardware is great," is quite an understatement. The G4 & G5's are top of the line processors. I've been doing some FFTs with their SIMD instruction set called, Altivec. All I have to say is that I'm very impressed with the processors, specifically Altivec, itself

OS X is essentially FreeBSD with some Apple goodies. Since, I'm a FreeBSD user, a PowerPC and FreeBSD combined is very nice.

 

[dduardo]

Yes, noticed a lot more people getting macs. I think this is a goog thing. It is going to force Microsoft to get off its butt and start innovating, instead of taking what the apple people do.

 

[Gonzolo]

Sorry if this seems like I'm some sort of mac salesman but I just want to know what about macs you do not like because it seems like all positives to me. I've never had a mac however my next purchase will definately be one.

I use PC's because that's what people around me have, so I can get help easier. I'm also familiar with having 2 mouse buttons, Macs only seem to have one.

As far as internal workings go, all I'm concerned about is that the computer runs the software I need and doesn't crash too often, so I don't waste time or lose data.

My decision between the two is quite stricly limited to these concerns alone.

 

[graphic7]

I'm also familiar with having 2 mouse buttons, Macs only seem to have one.

What makes you think that Apples only have support for their mice only? There's a Logitech three-button mouse hooked up to my Powerbook's USB port at the moment, and it works great.

 

[Gonzolo]

Why only 1 mouse button by default? Microsoft patented the 2-button mouse OS? I've used Windows since it was born, and have grown quite accustomed to right-clicking, it saves time. I suppose one gets used to it.

 

[graphic7]

Why only 1 mouse button by default? Microsoft patented the 2-button mouse OS? I've used Windows since it was born, and have grown quite accustomed to right-clicking, it saves time. I suppose one gets used to it.

Nonsense, you can use all three buttons in OS X. For some reason, Apple just decides to ship a one button mouse.

 

[franznietzsche]

Why only 1 mouse button by default? Microsoft patented the 2-button mouse OS? I've used Windows since it was born, and have grown quite accustomed to right-clicking, it saves time. I suppose one gets used to it.

This is OS fanboy logic graphic7, take note, since you have trouble identifying it.

I can think of enough reasons not to get a mac:

Linux meets all my needs for less,
FreeBSD meets all my needs for less,
Mac fans annoy me, and getting tech help from them would be something i would not enjoy.
And of course: I simply need a stable development platform with an OS that does what i want it to, and then gets out of my way. From all of my experience with macs, that is not a Mac.

 

[graphic7]

This is OS fanboy logic graphic7, take note, since you have trouble identifying it.

Care to explain that statement a bit more?

And of course: I simply need a stable development platform with an OS that does what i want it to, and then gets out of my way. From all of my experience with macs, that is not a Mac.

I've had quite a different experience with Macs as far as software development. Apple now builds OS X with gcc, and gcc is the compiler they ship in the development tools. Java development isn't quite as good, given OS X requires it's own fork from Sun's version. Overall, though, Altivec is very impressive. I had a link to a whitepaper from several organizations detailing how Altivec can be used for FFT, and lots of other Linear Algebra stuff. While I've never done much with MMX/SSE, I have high regards for Altivec.

No, Mac hardware isn't the cheapest. Yes, OS X does cost, but not every propiertary platform/OS is a bad one.

 

[franznietzsche]

Care to explain that statement a bit more?

Don't worry about it. Not really worth explaining.

I've had quite a different experience with Macs as far as software development. Apple now builds OS X with gcc, and gcc is the compiler they ship in the development tools. Java development isn't quite as good, given OS X requires it's own fork from Sun's version. Overall, though, Altivec is very impressive. I had a link to a whitepaper from several organizations detailing how Altivec can be used for FFT, and lots of other Linear Algebra stuff. While I've never done much with MMX/SSE, I have high regards for Altivec.

No, Mac hardware isn't the cheapest. Yes, OS X does cost, but not every propiertary platform/OS is a bad one.

I actually do not have any development experience on a mac, my comment about my experience of it was more in reference for an OS that does what i need, and then gets the heck out of my way, and stays there.

I never said proprietary OSs were inherently bad. But they're also not inherently better. I do most of my work in Perl, and F90, and i see no way, nor have i been told of anyway that a mac would suit my needs better than my linux platform.

Another thing: I'm not real big on IDEs. Again, i want my system to do what i need it to, and then get out of my way, and not waste cpu cycles in the process. All i really need are command line compilers for the languages i use, and a simple text editor, that again, does what i need, and then gets out of my way.

There is no way i could justify the cost of a mac that gives me no benefit for what I'm doing.

I'm not even saying linux is the best for what i need, I've been told by more than a few people that FreeBSD would be better suited for my purposes (and i do intend on trying it out in the next week or so). But neither windows nor a mac are suitable.

 

[dduardo]

From what I've heard the reason the macs ship with one button mice is becuase they don't want software developers to put tons of menus within the mouse menu. They are trying to simplify everything as possible.

 

[FulhamFan3]

This is OS fanboy logic graphic7, take note, since you have trouble identifying it.

I can think of enough reasons not to get a mac:

Linux meets all my needs for less,
FreeBSD meets all my needs for less,
Mac fans annoy me, and getting tech help from them would be something i would not enjoy.
And of course: I simply need a stable development platform with an OS that does what i want it to, and then gets out of my way. From all of my experience with macs, that is not a Mac.

Your arguments seem to be based solely on cost. To me this is only a problem with the powermac and the server. With the top of the line hardware they have it's worth the cost. Plus the server is certified to work with RedHat and Yellow Dog if you really want to run linux. If cost is that much of a problem than I don't see why the mini mac can't fill out your needs.

 

[franznietzsche]

Your arguments seem to be based solely on cost. To me this is only a problem with the powermac and the server. With the top of the line hardware they have it's worth the cost. Plus the server is certified to work with RedHat and Yellow Dog if you really want to run linux. If cost is that much of a problem than I don't see why the mini mac can't fill out your needs.

specs on a mini mac:

1.42GHz PowerPC G4
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB DDR video memory
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo drive
DVI or VGA video output
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth optional

Why that doesn't meet my needs:

I'm curently working on a solar convection model that uses a 2-dimensional rungekutta algorithm with 3 mutually interdependent variables, determined by 3 highly nonlinear differential equations, and solving for these variables at 7.2 million different positions, and their variation over time.

My comp's specs:
1.8 Ghz
768 DDR RAM (two chips, different speeds, too lazy to open the case and look)
Otherstuff, not important, still better than the mac mini specs.

That, as it is too slow. I'm not going to downgrade to inferior hardware.

And I'm not running windows, so the normal spiel about cpu cycles not telling it all doesn't work. Like i said, i need an OS that does what i need, and then gets out of my way and does not waste cpu cycles doing it, because i don't have any to spare.

Now, to be fair, my system did cost more than the mac mini. But that was more because hard drive than anything else (200 GB SATA hard drive). Mind you, this is also my personal use computer.

So, true the mini mac is not more expensive. But it is inferior, especially on memory, which i badly need.

And no, since you don't botyher to read, my argument is not based solely on cost. Its based on what i need, as much mileage out of my system resources as i can possibly get. An OS that does what i need, and then gets out of my way. That is NOT OS X.

 

[graphic7]

That, as it is too slow. I'm not going to downgrade to inferior hardware.

Please tell me that you're not making this determination solely based on the CPU speeds.

So, true the mini mac is not more expensive. But it is inferior, especially on memory, which i badly need.

So, use the difference in costs and buy some more RAM.

 

[franznietzsche]

Please tell me that you're not making this determination solely based on the CPU speeds.

No it was mostly based on losing 512 Mb of RAM, which is more important than that difference in CPU speeds, but every piece on there is lower than my system's.

So, use the difference in costs and buy some more RAM.

Or i could go buy more ram for my current system, and again, still have better hardware.

 

[Sirus]

...any game that's worth anything will be on a mac anyway.

Not true, IMO, but it's a personal preference thing. In general, if you're into gaming at all, it's not recommended that you buy a Mac.

 

[r3dxP]

Not true, IMO, but it's a personal preference thing. In general, if you're into gaming at all, it's not recommended that you buy a Mac.

Why do you say it is not recommended that one should not buy a Mac if one is not into gaming? Just curious..

 

[Sirus]

If you reread my statement, you can see that I said you should not buy a Mac if you're into gaming, not if you're not into gaming. Unless you happen to enjoy only the select games that are made for the Apple platform, you can't play anything on Macs. Not to mention that you can only play multiplayer with other Mac users, and those are obviously much harder to find than PC gamers.

 

[r3dxP]

Oh. My bad, i read your post wrong :)

 

[Anttech]

No reason not to buy a mac

Becuase I don't want to? Good enough reason for me!

Anyway I won't go into another Rant about Mac's and annoy some other posters here ;-)

 

[FulhamFan3]

Becuase I don't want to? Good enough reason for me!

Anyway I won't go into another Rant about Mac's and annoy some other posters here ;-)

You don't want one you don't have to get one. No one's pointing a gun to your head. I'm just saying as far as consumer computers go, getting a Mac instead of a PC is fine.

 

[franznietzsche]

You don't want one you don't have to get one. No one's pointing a gun to your head. I'm just saying as far as consumer computers go, getting a Mac instead of a PC is fine.

No you said there is no reason to not get a mac, which is blatantly untrue.

 

[FulhamFan3]

Which is still true. There is no reason not to get one. Macs can do anything PCs can. I'm not saying if you already have a PC you need to get a Mac right away. I was saying that getting a mac won't limit you as far as computing goes. You can even put linux on a mac if you really want to. Games are the only limiting reason I can come up with.

 

[Norman]

Can you dual boot a Mac with Linux?

 

[faust9]

Can you dual boot a Mac with Linux?

Yes. Yellowdog, Gentoo, and Debian all have current PPC ports. It's hard to repartition OSX(a fresh install of OSX is usually needed) though it can be done.

 

[Zach_C]

I switched from Windows to Linux and about a year ago to OSX. I could not be happier. The programming environment is sensational. I made a web browser in no time merely for the fun of it. The C language is what really shines on the system but I regularly use Java, Python, and LISP (old but still has its purposes to me).

To Franz:
What model of processor do you have? You probably will not be downgrading. Clockspeed is not the only factor. For some reason it is the only factor people look at though. A MacMini would probably not be the best idea for numbercrunching though. For that a cheap Linux cluster would be more cost effective. However, I do various programs and the RISC based PPC chips serve me better than the CISC based x86. Depending on the algorithms being performed one is better than the other. I do a lot of graphics and vector based programming and my dual 1.25 mac serves me better than the 3.x GHz machine I have access to. It all depends on what you have access to. Kind of curious can you delve into your program? What language are you using? I am not trying to sell you. I could care less about the OS as optimization will have more of an influence in my opinion. I'm assuming C but have you dabbled with assembly?

 

[gschjetne]

To me, the gaming disadvantage is not even close to make me even think of considering a PC instead of a Mac. Unfortunatly I have to use PCs at school, and I find them extreamly inconvenient. I have of course been a Mac user since the age of three, but for this post I try to be as objective as possible.

One-button mouse situation:
On a Mac ctrl-click has the same function as right-click (you can of course use a multi-button mouse if you still prefer that). This makes me frequently sit with my right hand in a typing position, inviting me to sit in a more ergonometric/healthy position, and makes time-saving keyboard shortcuts much more inviting. I never get wrist or back problems when using a Mac, in contrast to PCs

Easier development
I'm not a very good programmer, but I can manage most things with the applications that follow with the computer, such as an elaborate IDE (Xcode) and every other tool you need (They should port ResEdit, even though it's somewhat obsolete, but I liked the hex editor). On Windows I have to do with Notepad without spending extra money.

User interface
This is slightly subjective, but I have a hard time believing that people will prefer the boring grey or annoying ill-proportioned sharp blue of XP to the harmonic Aqua interface.
And besides, I have everything I need available in editable toolbars, but on Windows many of the toolbar items are just in the way.

Unix core
Many scientific applications are written for Unix. This makes them work on Mac.
Unix is basically flawless. No security leaks, practically no crashes, exellent server capabilities (I run a http/MySQL server from my home computer without any problems). All this with the easy-to-use interface of Macinosh

Included apps
Mail vs. Outlook: Mail has everything I need when I need it, and it handles spam flawlessly. Outlook is slow, and often my real mail is put in the spam and spam in the inbox.

Safari vs. Explorer: Safari hasen't the toolbar cluttered with things I hardly ever use, which belongs in the menu. Safari has built-in Google search, Explorer has built-in msn search. Safari shrinks printouts to fit the paper, Explorer leaves out mutch. Safari displays everything according to standards, Explorer is non-standard. Safari is faster when it comes to Applets.

iChat vs. MSN: When I use IM I want to talk to people. Not play stupid games, mess with avatars, be signed out all the time. I want to have all my buddies in a very readable list, with no confusion of changing nicknames (however you can have an 'available message' that replaces msn's ever-changing screennames). iChat fulfills all these needs. Too bad so many other ppl uses msn here in Norway...At least you can have both AIM and ICQ buddies.

QuickTime and iTunes vs. Windows Media Player: Quicktime plays back the content without any fuzz, Windows Media is slow and unresponsive, and the Windows version is cluttered with features other than playing back the movie I just double-clicked on or opened from the internet. iTunes is logically arranged with artist/album/genre columns, in WMP you got to be patient. In iTunes you import and burn CDs in a matter of mouse clicks, in WMP in a matter mouse clicks, uncertainty and wait.

Text antialiasing:
What is text with ugly stairstep edges anyway? Oh, I remember, that's the stuff on PCs whithout some expert having some setting enabled somewhere.

Wizards:
I'm not dumb, I know what settings I want to make. Why can't XP respect that?

Support for disabled people:
(note that I don't use any of these features, and therefore has little knowledge of Windows equivalents)
Everything, I repeat, everything is written in clear print, with a non-cluttered background for those with poor eyesight. If that's not enough, a couple of keystrokes zooms in on it. For people who can't manage pressing a bunch of keys at the same time, a feature can be enabled to allow pressing key commands in sequence instead

Edit: I was in a hurry to catch the train, made a couple of rather retarded mistakes...

 

[Anttech]

Why is it that Mac users feel they have to rant about the virtues of using OSX... You wouldn't typically see this from any other breed of geek...

Its funny, I am not dissing honest ;-)

 

[graphic7]

Why is it that Mac users feel they have to rant about the virtues of using OSX... You wouldn't typically see this from any other breed of geek...

Its funny, I am not dissing honest ;-)

It's more than just the Mac community. I can understand someone having the feelings that the OS they use is excellent, and the need to share that. What's irritating is some user who has just jumped off the Windows bandwagon and wants to spew garbage about Linux, OS X, or what not be, and how they "know" it's superior to everything else without giving any field of reference (or what fields the "superiority" applies to).

 

[Zach_C]

Anttech:
UNIX geeks have ranted about their OS for years, rightfully so too. Happy users are a sign of a good OS.

An old UNIX joke:
UNIX is like sex. Without knowing it you could care less. However after one time you are addicted.

 

[The_Professional]

If you're a medium-hardcore gamer and have used PC's for years don't even consider buying a Mac.

If you're planning on making home music videos of your family and doing a lot of digital art then I would consider buying one. The interface looks simple and intuitive enough.

 

[franznietzsche]

To Franz:
What model of processor do you have? You probably will not be downgrading. Clockspeed is not the only factor. For some reason it is the only factor people look at though. A MacMini would probably not be the best idea for numbercrunching though. For that a cheap Linux cluster would be more cost effective. However, I do various programs and the RISC based PPC chips serve me better than the CISC based x86. Depending on the algorithms being performed one is better than the other. I do a lot of graphics and vector based programming and my dual 1.25 mac serves me better than the 3.x GHz machine I have access to. It all depends on what you have access to. Kind of curious can you delve into your program? What language are you using? I am not trying to sell you. I could care less about the OS as optimization will have more of an influence in my opinion. I'm assuming C but have you dabbled with assembly?

Currently I'm working on an AMD 2800+, but this will not be my machine for number crunching. I've been looking into G4 and G5 clusters (mainly because that's what is available) for actually running the simulations, though i still do all my programming work on my personal system.

I'm using F90. C or C++ would be a horrible mistake for running simulations of complex physical systems. F90 is specifically built for that kind of application, is capable of object oriented programming, is easier to optimize for parallel processing, and will almost alway run faster than an equivalent C or C++ code(again, for numerical simulations, not necessarily true of application programming, which i have very little experience with).

I have not worked with assembly.

For the curious, on my system the simulation I'm running takes about 16 minutes of real time for 1 second of simulation time.

Easier development
I'm not a very good programmer, but I can manage most things with the applications that follow with the computer, such as an elaborate IDE (Xcode) and every other tool you need (They should port ResEdit, even though it's somewhat obsolete, but I liked the hex editor). On Windows I have to do with Notepad without spending extra money.

Again, i see linux as being superior here. Everything you need for non-industrial projects come standard on most linux distros. And personally, i think IDEs are overrated. Useful to an extent, but i don't use them that often. (of course, i don't use C++ very often anymore, if i did i might feel differently, C++ on a command line text editor seems less friendly than F90).

Unix core
Many scientific applications are written for Unix. This makes them work on Mac.
Unix is basically flawless. No security leaks, practically no crashes, exellent server capabilities (I run a http/MySQL server from my home computer without any problems). All this with the easy-to-use interface of Macinosh

FreeBSD has one too. Linux is essentially a rewrite of UNIX (a clone). UNIX is not basically flawless by any means, though it is superior to windows, without a doubt. Mind you, i like UNIX. But its not perfect. And again, nothing that linux doesn't offer, and didn't offer long before OS X (and let's face it earlier Macs were...well...no where near as good. OS X is certainly not bad, but again, i'd argue that linux is preferable).

Included apps
Mail vs. Outlook: Mail has everything I need when I need it, and it handles spam flawlessly. Outlook is slow, and often my real mail is put in the spam and spam in the inbox.

Safari vs. Explorer: Safari hasen't the toolbar cluttered with things I hardly ever use, which belongs in the menu. Safari has built-in Google search, Explorer has built-in msn search. Safari shrinks printouts to fit the paper, Explorer leaves out mutch. Safari displays everything according to standards, Explorer is non-standard. Safari is faster when it comes to Applets.

iChat vs. MSN: When I use IM I want to talk to people. Not play stupid games, mess with avatars, be signed out all the time. I want to have all my buddies in a very readable list, with no confusion of changing nicknames (however you can have an 'available message' that replaces msn's ever-changing screennames). iChat fulfills all these needs. Too bad so many other ppl uses msn here in Norway...At least you can have both AIM and ICQ buddies.

QuickTime and iTunes vs. Windows Media Player: Quicktime plays back the content without any fuzz, Windows Media is slow and unresponsive, and the Windows version is cluttered with features other than playing back the movie I just double-clicked on or opened from the internet. iTunes is logically arranged with artist/album/genre columns, in WMP you got to be patient. In iTunes you import and burn CDs in a matter of mouse clicks, in WMP in a matter mouse clicks, uncertainty and wait.

On this part i think Linux is vastly superior. I get my choice of multiple open source office suites, an IDE, compilers for more than ten programming languages, Gaim AIM client (also an ICQ client), software for running a web or mail server, all right off of the install CDs. Firefox web browser ( or at the very least, Mozilla). Thunderbird mail client. All in the base install.

Anttech:
UNIX geeks have ranted about their OS for years, rightfully so too. Happy users are a sign of a good OS.

An old UNIX joke:
UNIX is like sex. Without knowing it you could care less. However after one time you are addicted.

This is true.

I never used linux before i used UNIX. I had considered switching, mainly due to being fed up with the crap that is windows. I was tired of calling microsoft everytime i made a hardware change and dealing with them(a fairly frequent occurence for me at one point when i was assembling and swapping hard drives between 3 different PCs.)

I first used UNIX a few months ago in a comp sci class here at the uni. It was like a dream come true for me. Simplicity. Everything i needed, and nothing i didn't. Within two weeks i had added linux to my machine. I'm currently running two linux distros and FreeBSD, and windows XP (i still like to play some games now and then) on multiple hard drives.

Contrary to whatever garbage graphic feels like spewing, i have seen plenty of use(and misuse) of both linux and windows. Windows is simply an inferior product, driven by an absolutely superb marketing department. Windows XP isn't too bad really, not compared to some other versions of windows. But its still inferior to linux, UNIX, and OS X. My last reason for using windows has been for games, but with Cedega, that reason is completely gone.

Wizards:
I'm not dumb, I know what settings I want to make. Why can't XP respect that?

Then use slackware. We'll see how long you stick to that statement.

Granted XP certainly does more than i would like it to, but for the average user who wants his computer to be a black box, where he points and clicks and it obeys, wizards are a good thing.

I don't like them either, but serve a perfectly fine purpose. Of course, i use Slackware as one of my linux distros, so i don't ahve to deal with them if i don't want to.

 

[graphic7]

FreeBSD has one too. Linux is essentially a rewrite of UNIX (a clone). UNIX is not basically flawless by any means, though it is superior to windows, without a doubt. Mind you, i like UNIX. But its not perfect. And again, nothing that linux doesn't offer, and didn't offer long before OS X (and let's face it earlier Macs were...well...no where near as good. OS X is certainly not bad, but again, i'd argue that linux is preferable).

If you're finished giving your `UNIX history lecture,' I'll offer some criticism. Do you know why FreeBSD has a web server? Mac OS X is FreeBSD, essentially. Apache runs on both of them fine, however, through your inexperience you neglected to mention that.

UNIX not perfect? Because of your inexperience, I'll have to assume that you are referring to commerical-grade Unices. Can Linux create a logical volume, replicate an important filesystem, say /usr, move that important filesystem to the new logical volume, unmount the old one, and mount the new one, while making this whole process invisible to a user currently on the system? To clarrify, I mean not booting the system into single user mode, or not stopping any daemons (that may have locks on files in the /usr filesystem), or kicking the user off. If you're unaware of the answer, I'll spoil it - no, Linux cannot do this, and it takes all of using smit for 5 minutes to complete the procedure (minus the actual time it takes to move the volume). AIX, being a commerical-grade UNIX, can.

What I find funny, and yet ridiculous, is the fact that you are badmouthing OS X and holding FreeBSD (complimenting, also) right beside it. You're acting as if they're two completely different entities. To some extent they are, but why if I told you that OS X uses a FreeBSD kernel, uses FreeBSD userland utilities, uses the same version of GCC as does the equivalent FreeBSD release, and uses the same man pages. If you'd like to see for yourself, do a `man ipfw,' scroll to the bottom and open your mouth in awe because of the very, very visible, 'FreeBSD' at the bottom.

 

[franznietzsche]

If you're finished giving your `UNIX history lecture,' I'll offer some criticism. Do you know why FreeBSD has a web server? Mac OS X is FreeBSD, essentially. Apache runs on both of them fine, however, through your inexperience you neglected to mention that.

Are you capable of speaking without trying to insult people? I mean honestly, are you even capable of being civil, or are you just automatically a ****ing *******? **** off.

Further that was hardly a 'UNIX history lecture', nor was it an attempt at one, but we all know you're too much of a dick to make a post without trying to insult someone. So its ok, I forgive you.

UNIX not perfect? Because of your inexperience, I'll have to assume that you are referring to commerical-grade Unices.

My direct experience with UNIX (not FreeBSD or Linux, but UNIX) is the HP UNIX cluster on campus, and from what I've seen, and been shown of it, it is not perfect. Its certainly good, and i like using it, but its not perfect (unless you're definition of eprfection is less trenous than mine).

Can Linux create a logical volume, replicate an important filesystem, say /usr, move that important filesystem to the new logical volume, unmount the old one, and mount the new one, while making this whole process invisible to a user currently on the system? To clarrify, I mean not booting the system into single user mode, or not stopping any daemons (that may have locks on files in the /usr filesystem), or kicking the user off. If you're unaware of the answer, I'll spoil it - no, Linux cannot do this, and it takes all of using smit for 5 minutes to complete the procedure (minus the actual time it takes to move the volume). AIX, being a commerical-grade UNIX, can.

Ok. And this has what relevance? I never said linux was superior to UNIX, and i didn't mean to imply that.

What I find funny, and yet ridiculous, is the fact that you are badmouthing OS X and holding FreeBSD (complimenting, also) right beside it. You're acting as if they're two completely different entities.

I wasn't badmouthing OS X. At least, i did not mean to, though its not uncommon for me to miscommunicate what i actually mean.

What i was pointing out is that linux offers more. That all. I have nothing particular against OS X, though i don't care for Macs in general.

To some extent they are, but why if I told you that OS X uses a FreeBSD kernel, uses FreeBSD userland utilities, uses the same version of GCC as does the equivalent FreeBSD release, and uses the same man pages. If you'd like to see for yourself, do a `man ipfw,' scroll to the bottom and open your mouth in awe because of the very, very visible, 'FreeBSD' at the bottom.

I know it uses the FreeBSD kernel. In fact, if you were intelligent enough to not take the statement out of context, you might realize that's what i just said. I didn't know it had gcc with it, or the man pages.