PC vs Mac (Why are Linux and Windows in the same PC boat?)

[JoeBlack]

As the title is asking... Why are Linux and Windows in the same PC boat (as i generally see around the inter-webs), and that PC is always pitted against Mac(intosh)?

Is it that Linux is so small that Windows is synonymous with PC anyway? Or is it suggesting that a Mac is NOT a personal computer in some way? Does the T&C/licence say "You do not own this Mac, you're only licensed to us it. It's not your personal computer!" or something? What is a "Personal Computer" anyway?

If so, I'm actually surprised it's not Linux (Actual PC) vs (Mac/Win). To most of us using Linux, it may already be that case.

 

[KGIII]

First, you're arguing in bad faith. Neither MS nor Apple say you don't own your computer. They do say that you don't own the software on your computer, and that you license it for use. It's your computer in the sense of ownership. You can set it on fire and neither MS or Apple are gonna give a crap. You don't own the software. With Linux, you have rights to the software that you don't get with the big operating systems.

Now, the question of Mac VS PC is largely due to advertising. Mac ads pitted themselves against the "PC" which was taken to be Windows. In reality, there were all sorts of other operating systems back then and computer systems at the time. PC eventually came to mean "IBM compatible", which was MSDOS and eventually Windows. That's why a Mac isn't a "PC". It's just the definition of the word, and it's rather archaic at this point.

The reality is that almost about 91% of desktops are Windows - and just 5% are Macs. The remaining 4% is 'other' in which we include Linux. The number of Linux desktop users is small if you look at it like that, but numerically that puts it somewhere between 38 and 44 *million* users (depending on whose math you use).

And, no... No, that number isn't changing. No, there's not going to be a giant influx of users because of Windows changes. The folks who claim it is are the same ones who said the same thing about it every other time Microsoft made major changes. They'll move the goal posts when they find their predictions didn't come true, or say, "Well, I was just guessing!" (Stuff like that... It happens over and over again.)

The people pitting them against each other are either marketers or zealots. The vast majority of the population either doesn't care or cares only enough to know they're using the most recent release. The zealots on the Linux side are the ones that sit there and argue with you about which OS is superior, which text editor is best, which FOSS licenses is the one true license, and stuff like that.

On this same subject... No, it's not the Year of Linux on the Desktop!® Use the OS that best lets you accomplish your computational goals. If that's Linux, then so be it. If it's Windows, that's fine too.

If I could wish for one thing to be different, it would be that people made more informed choices. They should not just research the hardware they're going to use, they should research the OS they want to use. They should know more about the choices they have. That'd possibly lead to a slight uptick in Linux desktop users, but in a generation the concept of a desktop may be completely different. Tech moves fast, after all.

 

[gvisoc]

The problem is also that "PC" was the name of a product by IBM, and later trademark by IBM --although just for a couple of years in the mid-1990s. That made all other manufacturers to call their products either PC compatible as @KGIII said, or even worse in some countries. In Spain we used to call them "clónicos", with the idea that they were cloning the architecture but those were not real PC. And the fact was that, for computers compatible with the IBM PC to appear, someone had to reverse engineer the BIOS: while the architecture was open, the BIOS was not.

I just wanted to say, also, that Linux was always in the boat of the Mac, too. Only hindered by the weird and non-standard security chips, stupid choices like the touchbar, and some artificial complications of the hardware choices by Apple, Linux has always been a great OS to run in a Mac. I had spent several months with Ubuntu and Elementary on a Macbook Pro 2014, and aside from a very little compilation for the webcam, it was a breeze.

It is also notheworthy and little known that Apple has made many contributions to free and open source software, being the most notable (for me) those around the CUPS printing system we all use. It is initially developed by Michael Sweet, but little after adopting it for Mac OS X, Apple hired Michael Seweet, purchased the project, and kept maintaining it and under a free software license (GPL until 2012, Apache License 2.0 from 2012)

 

[KGIII]

I just wanted to say, also, that Linux was always in the boat of the Mac, too.

I'm not sure how true it is currently, but to add to this, I know a guy who deliberately buys Mac hardware with the intent of running Linux on it. He likes their hardware that much.

Which ties back to:

"You do not own this Mac, you're only licensed to us it. It's not your personal computer!"

This isn't true. You certainly can - with a Mac. You can't with their other devices, like iPhones and iPods - I don't think, but maybe someone has found a way to open 'em up and get something else installed on them.

 

[JoeBlack]

Does the T&C/licence say "You do not own this Mac, you're only licensed to us it. It's not your personal computer!"

First, you're arguing in bad faith.

This isn't true. You certainly can - with a Mac.

- Just clarifying what I said: I was making guesses and asking a question rather than making an argument. I wasn't sure of the terms at the time.

But since then, I've found out that Mac prohibits the installation of MacOS on any other hardware except it's own Apple Macintosh hardware.

So you're not legally allowed to make a "Hackintosh". According to their EULA, you are licensed to use the MacOS but not own it to install it where-ever you want. But you can install Windows/Linux on an Apple Computer. Coz with hardware that expensive, it certain covers the cost of developing the OS right?

I mean... $1699 for a monitor stand (without the monitor) https://www.apple.com/au/shop/product/MWUG2ZA/A/pro-stand

 

[KGIII]

That is correct, you can't install Mac OS (legally) on anything else. You *never* own the software - you only license it. The computer, however, is yours to do whatever you darned well please with - which includes installing Linux or any other OS you want/that works.

Inasmuch as I know (recall, really), this has always been the way - in that you don't own the software, you only license it. That doesn't mean that's how it should be, nor does it mean that's how it will always be, but software has been licensed as a general rule since the earliest days of software distribution.

On a personal level, I don't care if software is proprietary. Some FOSS users would disagree with that standpoint. To me, it's a matter of liberty. They have the liberty of making proprietary software and I have the liberty of not using it.

 

[joshmark]

The issue is also that "PC" was the name of an IBM product and later a trademark —albeit only for a few years in the mid-1990s.
As @KGIII mentioned, this forced all other manufacturers to label their products as PC compatible, or even worse in some countries.
We used to call them "clónicos" in Spain, implying that they cloned the architecture but were not genuine PCs.
And the fact was that someone had to reverse engineer the BIOS in order for computers compatible with the IBM PC to appear: while the architecture was open, the BIOS was not.


I just wanted to add that Linux was always in the Mac's boat as well.
Only the odd and non-standard security chips, stupid choices like the touchbar, and some artificial complications of Apple's hardware choices have kept Linux from being a great operating system.

 

[JoeBlack]

On a personal level, I don't care if software is proprietary. Some FOSS users would disagree with that standpoint. To me, it's a matter of liberty. They have the liberty of making proprietary software and I have the liberty of not using it.

Yeah, as I've mentioned in other posts, there's actually a piece of software that's proprietary that I like and use and wish it was on Linux. Adobe were getting too comfortable and Affinity produced something more innovative and superior at its core IMHO. Adobe was just adding more tools to an already ridiculously full multi-tool. Affinity removed unnecessary tools and made its tools sharper and more effective. Adobe probably realised there's no more tools (bloat-ware) worth adding to the toolset to warrant anyone paying them extra for the next version.

But I was amazed at some of the FOSS options when I was first introduced to them (in Mac). Some FOSS is really good. Some are garbage and not worth using even if its free.

The problem is also that "PC" was the name of a product by IBM, and later trademark by IBM

But back to the main point... thanks for this. I still remember there were kids mentioning "IBM Compatible" on the playground... I had no idea what they meant at the time

stupid choices like the touchbar

O... F the TB and the BFK! But what's even more unprecedented is how Apple are kind of listening to their consumers for once? (i.e. touchbar & keyboard?) Or was it a hardware/repair-cost nightmare for them? lol

 

[gvisoc]

O... F the TB and the BFK! But what's even more unprecedented is how Apple are kind of listening to their consumers for once? (i.e. touchbar & keyboard?) Or was it a hardware/repair-cost nightmare for them? lol

Many think all the last few mistakes around keyboards and cooling were coming from Johnny Ive’s extreme obsession with making the devices thinner. And I agree.

To be fair, I think the touchbar was a nice try, but not useful for my workflows. What I think was stupid was to tie the high end machines with it. You couldn’t get a decent i7 without the touchbar, and that was a no-no —I ended up getting a beefed-up ThinkPad to replace a MBP, and I am in love with it.

 

[wizardfromoz]

@joshmark , you have only quoted what was said by @gvisoc

Did you actually have anything to say of your own input?

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz

 

[JoeBlack]

@joshmark , you have only quoted what was said by @gvisoc

Did you actually have anything to say of your own input?

Chris Turner
wizardfromoz

In a game of spot the difference (and there may be more) I noticed the difference was:

gvisoc:
hardware choices by Apple, Linux has always been a great OS to run in a Mac.
Only hindered by the weird and non-standard security chips,

joshmark:
Apple's hardware choices have kept Linux from being a great operating system.
Only the odd and non-standard security chips, stupid choices

 

[JoeBlack]

Many think all the last few mistakes around keyboards and cooling were coming from Johnny Ive’s extreme obsession with making the devices thinner. And I agree.

To be fair, I think the touchbar was a nice try, but not useful for my workflows. What I think was stupid was to tie the high end machines with it. You couldn’t get a decent i7 without the touchbar, and that was a no-no —I ended up getting a beefed-up ThinkPad to replace a MBP, and I am in love with it.

I thought I was a power user, but after seeing the Linux community, they have "POWER USERS" - It seems more apparent that a fast efficient and amazing work flow revolves around keyboard commands, shortcuts... ya know... THE KEYBOARD... rather than touch-whatever. I saw a side by side video of 2 users doing the same thing (simple things, moving files around) on an iPad and Desktop, and the Desktop wins. I find the touch bar slows me down when I have to look down and move things around, rather than a quick tap.

Imagine....
Linux: Hi I'm a Linux.
Mac: I'm a Mac. - Hey look at the thing I made. Isn't it Pretty?
Linux: That's cool. How'd you do it?
Mac: I drag this here. Then move that there. Then use this cool multi touch gesture. Don't the UI animations look so nice and intuitive? And check out this awesome touch bar... isn't it neat?
Linux: Let me try that...
Mac: Didn't know there was a button for that? How'd you get it done so fast? I could barely see what you did!
Linux: It's called a keyboard shortcut. I can do things really fast. And I turned off the animations. It was kind of unnecessary for me. I like things fast and snappy.
Mac: I don't have the freedom to turn off my animations but hey, I have shortcuts too... wait... why isn't the keyboard working properly? Hangon, just gotta hit just the J key harder. And the CMD key... wait... I got this....

 

[gvisoc]

I don’t really agree with that. macOS keyboard shortcuts are absolutely amazing. It’s probably the most ergonomic experience I had and the closest to a keyboard-only workflow. I tend to customise the shortcuts in gnome for them to be similar.

 

[KGIII]

LOL You're not much of a Mac user, are you?

Mac is a Unix OS and can handle all that stuff while having POSIX (and SUS?) compliance.

 

[JoeBlack]

I don’t really agree with that. macOS keyboard shortcuts are absolutely amazing. It’s probably the most ergonomic experience I had and the closest to a keyboard-only workflow. I tend to customise the shortcuts in gnome for them to be similar.

"Mac:... I have shortcuts too..."
Yes, Macs have shortcuts too... but keys on their butterfly keyboard Laptops stop working from time to time and it drives me %#*&()@%& bananas. What's the point of awesome shortcuts if the keys don't work?
I have to use a blue-tooth keyboard to get keys & shortcuts working reliably. But yes, I do rely a lot on shortcuts ON A MAC.

But my satire was more towards Apple's advertising, or how they position themselves to consumers. They champion their touch features. Touch bar. Gestures etc and how the iPad can be used as a desktop computer. And them adding the touch bar as some sort of productivity boost. Like you said:

You couldn’t get a decent i7 without the touchbar, and that was a no-no

To get the Mac (with Touch Bar), to lower it's volume, you have to:
1. wake up the touch bar
2. Then make sure it's on the right screen.
3. Then touch and hold the volume icon
4. Then drag it left/right.
vs
1. tap the volume key down. OR Fn Volume-down.

Apple's argument is versatility. Its like they found this multi-touch technology for smartphone Then started applying it to everything... tablets, watches, mp3 players, laptop Function Row. I bet they think touch screen control would be awesome for a car - navigating through a menu while driving. (but we'll see).

I take it that the power users don't need to be "advertised to". They're not the bulk of the market. They find their way.