Oxford says Apple's OS X is a Linux distro 3250

snips

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:08:55 -0700, Snit

I see. So your continued claims of ease of use aren't actually backed by anything which might actually, say, how how OSX is easier to use. So you're just making it all up out of whole cloth, then?

Specificially in regards to your vaunted "ease of use" - which, at this point, Linux is *definitely* winning, since I've already pasted the code which will let you do the job, and it's taken you what, 25 posts since then to provide *no* equivalent. That's a hell of a lot of effort to try to meet a one-liner... and fail. Ease of use at its best, eh?

Not quite. You gave an example of a trivial cosmetic change; I gave an example of a real, day-to-day, important task that needs to be done. If I gave a crap in a hat about the dialogs, guess what? Linux and virtually all bundled Linux apps, are available as source - I can go freakin' *change* the dialog if it matters to me. It doesn't, because it doesn't take me ten minutes to figure out how to print, simply because the print dialog looks a little different.

You do realize what you're doing here, right? You're painting OSX users as complete drooling idiots who are so helpless that a changed dialog will bring their entire workflow to a screeching halt - a level of idiocy which even the *worst* of the Windows users would generally not be accused of.

So, now, explain to me how your system is easier, say by examining a task to perform. I've already given you how to do it on this end. Think you can manage it over there, or are you just going to keep telling us how stupid Mac users are?

The ones you still haven't explained how to use so that they're *easier* than my one-liner.

You said something which made me think they were commercial apps. They're not? Fine. So how does any of that relate to your ease of use argument? Right, it doesn't - you're just avoiding the subject again.

Again, showing yet another way the harder to use system is easier than your ease-of-use system.

SO let's see:

Package management: Linux 1, OSX 0 Backup Processing: Linux 2, OSX 0

Both scores in "ease of use" terms, of course, but your system has this "ease of use" thing and mine doesn't. Let's remember that.

Oh, let's be nice and include your silly print dialog bit:

Consistent print dialogs: Linux 2, OSX 1 Code available to change said dialogs: Linux 3, OSX 1

Even *including* your print dialog bit, it's a 3-1 win for Linux, but your system has this "ease of use" thing, Linux doesn't.

Very good, very compelling argument.

If ease of use isn't about using the computer easily, then it's a meaningless term. I showed an example of how I use the computer, and how easy it is for me to get a task done. You've yet to show that your system is even *capable* of the task - at best you've hinted at a few steps.

BTW, don't forget to explain the login methodology. For example, my approach requires an ssh server on the remote end - but that remote end could be halfway around the planet, on some third-party storage system, using a completely unknown-to-me OS, and my way doesn't care; all it needs is the ip address and, when initially setting up the backup, that I upload a public key to the remote server for secure, authenticated, automated logins. Once the setup has been done, storage contract signed, backup's ready to roll, all I need is the IP address and the local private part of the key.

Your way *is* that easy, right? Oh, and don't forget, I can, of course, should I be really anal about backups, use multiple hosts. Want to guess how much additional work that is? One extra line in the script. Your way *is* that easy, right?

'Course, you ain't bothered showing that you even *can* do the job, let alone bring to it the power, flexibility *and* ease with which I get it done.

Which part, that Windows has inconsistent dialogs? Hardly a state secret. The file open dialog, notably, tends to vary a lot, and historically, MS Office has tended to use one just a *hair* different from everybody else's.

Thing is, when push comes to shove, those differences haven't really made any difference to me. Let me refer you back to the comparison page of the

Before you look, ask yourself this: in the vast majority of cases, what is the actually printing process going to be? Right: a straight print, nothing fancy, to the default printer.

Go look at those dialogs. Every one - EVERY ONE - selects the default printer *and* the button, whether it's "okay" or "print" or "continue", which actually causes the print to happen.

I don't even bother looking. I kick off a print, the dialog comes up, I hammer enter, I walk to the printer. Was the dialog different? No idea, didn't even bother to look.

So explain to me how OSX makes the process *easier* than "don't even bother looking, just hit enter". Also explain why you think the claim that it doesn't slow me down any is something that's such a novel concept, since even *you* could have looked at the dialogs - it was, after all, you who brought them up in the first place - and realized just how simple it really is.

While we're at it, every one of 'em includes the number of copies button, and a selector for the actual printer, should you need to change those, which seem to be the most common things to change. Oh, and the page range. About the only thing missing is portrait-landscape and colour management, and if you really need to change those, you're going to be slowed down a little in any case; if figuring out the difference between "preferences" and "properties", in the cases where you actually need those things, turns out to be *such* a major hardship for you that the fact they're consistent on OSX is, in itself, your entire foundation for arguing the OSX's vaunted "ease of use", then frankly, you shouldn't be at a computer, you're not competent to handle it.

Yes, interface consistency is a good thing, but come on, get real, if this is the best you've got to offer, the fact that in the unusual case, the user might save a second or two with a Mac, over Windows, you're not making much of a case for OSX or your ease of use argument. Especially not when you're faced with an actual job that needs doing, simply, quietly, reliably, and while I've already presented you with my solution - *one line* - you can't even figure out how to do even the basics of it, apparently, using your supposedly easier system.

Yet somehow that's *my* fault.

Umm... wrong. I'm all for a consistent UI. It's just *one* aspect of ease of use, though. A consistent UI that doesn't let you *do* anything isn't much use, is it? Right. So obviously UI consistency is not the end of the story. Nor even the beginning. It's just a part.

And your easy, consistent, wonderful happy GUI, apparently, is *so* easy to use that umpteen posts and several days later, you *still* haven't figured out how to get it to do a job that took me one line. Yes, yes, very easy. You're doing a *marvellous* job of showing your system's ease of use. "But we have consistent print dialogs!"

I've already *shown* how to do the job. You haven't. Hence, your comment above notwithstanding, the CLI by definition *must* be easier than your approach, since I've *done* the job, and all this time and effort later, you haven't. You're the one claiming OSX has better "ease of use". It's your claim, which means you get to support it. I've shown you a task I need to get done and how I do it. It's one line. It's easy to copy, to modify to handle multiple hosts, to deliver to other machines to back them up. It works over an encrypted channel, uses public key authetntication to log itself in, in a manner virtually impossible to fake.

So far you haven't even shown how you'd manage a backup with the encryption, let alone all the rest of it... and forget about it being *easier*; if it were, you'd have done it by now and shown us how much easier your way is.

But your system has "ease of use" and mine doesn't. Remember that. Oh, right, because it has consistent print dialogs.

Using OSX, which has that "ease of use" thing. Hell, it's only one line, my way, how hard can it possibly be, with your tools? If it takes more than a minute, explain to us how your system has this "ease of use" thing, but mine doesn't. Oh, right, your print dialogs are consistent.

-- MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.