That actually describes me. I hate dicking around with drivers and the like (though I've heard Ubuntu got better), so I like the unixy OSX quite a lot.
I've heard that about linux every year for the past 14 years, usually from people who've only been using desktop linux for a year or two. Not exclusively, but usually.
"better" is always subjective, and it's never even been close to my expectations.
I don't think most people who've told me "oh, <foo> has gotten a lot better in the last year" even know what the problems are that keep some people away. I think it's largely PR parroting, and a way to seem marginally 'with it' re: linux. "hey yeah, I know ubuntu had some issues in the past, but you should really try it now - it's a lot better!" - just got 2 emails from people in the last week or so asking why I use OSX.
I was a desktop/laptop linux user from 2000-2008. That's about 9 years of "oh hey - things are so much better this year". And yet... in 2008 I still had issues trying to have multiple apps access audio at the same time. I still had issues plugging in an external monitor on a laptop (or 2 monitors on a desktop). I grew tired of rickety perlgtk scripts that were marginal wrappers around Xorg config files that never quite ever worked the way I could interpret the man page info. I've used desktop ubuntu distros virtualbox and vmware over the past couple years - things don't seem to have gotten that much better, mostly because the majority of the developers in those ecosystems don't see these things as massive problems to be solved in the first place (indeed, with some, it's a badge of honor that things are still hard to configure).
Again, the point is "hey, linux is better on the desktop now", in my experience, comes from people who've never really used it for a long time and had moderate expectations not met. Many people I know that use desktop linux expect it to be subpar for many things, and when it's just 'par' they herald this as a big improvement.
Linux user for 15 years, Debian/Ubuntu exclusively for the past 7 or so. IMO, it's without question that the Desktop experience is better every year, now to a point where it just works 99.9% of the time (in my experience, anyway). Haven't had a any problems with sound or multiple monitors in a while (using both Nvidia and ATI video cards).
Of course people will and should use whatever they want. I have to touch Windows and Macs regularly as well and they're not without problems. Each will have its pros/cons like anything else.
Sounds like you're annoyed with people asking you why you use OSX. I've asked that question myself in the past. I assume people make informed choices, so I'm always curious about the reasons. Personally, I don't mind people asking me why I use Linux.
I will say that the Desktop experience still is the weak point compared with how solid everything else is. Xorg is a pain, but I haven't had to touch it in a few years (defaults have been working fine for me), so that's been fine.
The reason I keep using Linux is not because it's perfect, but because the breadth of amazing and ridiculously easily accessible free software available for the Debian ecosystem is unparalleled (in my experience, anyway).
I can run the same software on servers, desktops, laptops, in the cloud, on crappy old hardware in a way not possible with Windows or Mac. I don't have to ask for permission or deal with licensing issues. I can focus on GSD* instead.
Not annoyed by the question, more bemused. Every few months as I meet new people, I routinely get a linux fan telling me how awesome everything is on desktop linux. It's the same enthusiastic fanboyism that drew me in in 99/2000. When ubuntu came out, the "everything just works" mantra was pushed heavily in the circles I was in, but... everything didn't work. The fact that you had a nice installer - great. My wireless cards still didn't work well. Sound drivers were a problem. Etc. I've posted most of it before.
Sort of like movies I guess - people pushing their favorite actors who were in some remake of something from 20 years ago. The actors are OK, but I'm not becoming a crazed fan over that stuff; life's too short.
As for linux - it's on all the servers I manage, and I can run virtual machines of what I need from linux, mac or windows when required. It's just not my cup of tea for desktop/laptops, and probably won't be for a long time (again). The macbook "just works" far in excess of any hype from the ubuntu crowd (again, thinking back to 8-10 years ago - "it just works!")
"just works!" but not for Mavericks. I wish I didn't download it. I now need to hand over more money to
Microsoft. Something I never thought I would do. Office
2004 doesn't work.
Agree. Desktop Linux do have it problems, it is getting better every year, but it's linux weakest point.
I can lose some time eventually with mundane things. But the ease I have on deploying things, testing things, etc. the things that matter for my work, it's incomparable.
On a side note:
I have some sound problems every once in a while, but I am a hard user of audio libraries, since I perform in music concerts using live coding... In the normal everyday department, it just works.
Linux desktop, CentOS, SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu all have worked fine for me the past 15 years. I have fewer problems than when I have to do something on/with Windows. So either all my machines and all my experiences were really lucky or your post is an elegant troll.
2011 people having problems with multiple apps trying to use audio at the same time. This is one of the things that drove me away from desktop linux in 2008. 3 years later it still isn't a solved problem. My gut tells me that in 2013, it's still not a solved problem.
I've no doubt that some people get it to work for their use cases OK. But the fact that it was, even 2 years ago, enough of a problem that people still encountered it... architecturally, that's a symptom of something really broken.
I'm not really interested in learning the ins and outs of modprobe and kernel driver recompiles to try to get sound working as I expect it to - it works the way I expect it to on my macbook, which leaves me time to do other more important stuff.
My anecdotal evidence using my MacBooks (3 since 2008) carry as much weight as anyone else's linux anecdotes.
And osx is by no means perfect. I just have had far fewer problems related to hardware and drivers than I ever did on Linux.
In 9 years of desktop linux, audio was a constant problem. It's been an extremely rare issue on my MacBooks.
What it demonstrates is that even in 2011, the base issues of how audio should even work hadn't really been sorted out. oss vs alas vs pulseaudio vs whatever aren't issues I want to be concerning myself with - this is just one reason I left for the macbook world.
Also, they are using ALSA instead of PulseAudio. In my experience, the latter deals with multiple sources much better, to the point that I can even route and combine sources for streaming.
We weren't comparing Linux and Windows. I also agree that Linux wins hands-down in that particular matchup (unless you want to game...). The question for me is OSX vs Linux, and for me, OSX is WAY easier, and I get most of the deliciousness of Linux on the command line.
A lot of people do prefer OSX. Between OSX and Windows, I'd choose OSX in a heartbeat because cygwin wasn't so great when I tried it a while back.
I did try OSX for a while, and wanted to like it because I can get it for free at work, but I'm so used to Linux that OSX quirks really annoyed me. Things like package management being an aftermarket hack, pain trying to get functional RAID10, Apple changing core functionality between releases breaking my setup, etc. For me, Linux is WAY easier. :-)
A fair point. Thanks for posting. I never really got good at running Linux on the desktop; I gave up each time I tried, due to a sound driver issue or similar. I suppose if I'd stuck with it, I might feel as you do.
funny thing is that OSX works pretty flawless on my Core2Quad hackintosh (zero issues with standby, audio, wifi, bluetooth) while Ubuntu 13.x on the same machine gave me some headaches and random behavior like standby not working properly from time to time etc.
Ubuntu is alright -- the problem with Linux as an OS 'for the people' is that the people find the command line frightening.
Putting a pretty UX on top of Linux and making it easier to use just moves users further and further away from 'Linux' and closer and closer to an OS X or Windows, only without the games, hardware compatibility, and enterprise software options.
Which is the best way for an average user to interact with the machine, is it not?
The ideal OS would be OS X levels of usable, but built entirely on Free Software. Once such an OS exists, it will draw in users, and the games/hardware-compatibility etc will always follow the users.
