Somehow I missed that this guy has a pretty interesting blog, even if it's a bit difficult for a Linux user to read due to the apparent vitrol he extols with every other word. It's hard to read because so many of his bitches about Linux and FOSS are dead-on and it hurts a bit to have the weaknesses of Linux pulled from under the rock and cooked with a magnifying glass. It's also hard to read because the truths are so insidiously intertwined with utter crap that your mind has to do somersaults to properly separate and digest it.
LinuxHater lives in a world of hypocrisy. Why? Because he simultaneously rips into FOSS and then turns and compares OSX in a positive light. Maybe he should remove all FOSS software from OSX and then tell me how much he likes it: remove Mach, BSD, Safari, Adium, bash, etc and then tell me how great it is. Apple has done a wonderful job of polishing these FOSS turds with their millions of dollars. Quite an amazing feat. Take free software, spend tons of money cleaning it up, and then call it your own. Brilliant, if your name is Montgomery Burns.
Secondly, OSX runs on a very limited amount of hardware. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but I expect running OSX on, say, a cheap Dell laptop would not be a much happier experience than with Linux (in fact, probably worse). Would suspend work? How about the sound card or 3D acceleration? Maybe, but your odds would be probably much better with Linux. He complains that Ubuntu crashes on him frequently. As anyone will tell you, this is almost certainly caused by hardware problems (either broken hardware or poorly-supported hardware). Any computer with unsupported or broken hardware is almost guaranteed to cause serious stability issues regardless of the OS you use. Next time, buy a Linux-certified PC (they do exist!).
Of course, any time I mention Apple's limited hardware selection, I'm forced (by the buildup of bile) to point out that Apple's computers tend to be among the most expensive. Sure, you can argue that the price difference will be made up by time save by not futzing around with cheaper alternatives. We could also just solve the world's energy crisis by insisting everyone buy a new electric vehicle. I know that in our precious sense of self-entitlement we often forget that some people actually have more time than money, but let us take a moment to remind ourselves that not everyone is skinny because they are rich anorexics, or that they buy clothes at second-hand stores simply because they have no sense of fashion. Linux fills a niche for those not rich enough to get on the proprietary-software wagon.
And yes, I know many of you will point to the $1200 wonders that Apple sells as low-end models. $1200 isn't horrible for a laptop, but those particular laptops tend to be end-of-life models that would normally appear on overstock.com or in the vendor's closeout section if they were PC's. I just purchased a Sony Vaio for $620 from overstock.com (core2 duo, 15" widescreen). I decided to check what a similar Mac would cost, but I couldn't. You either pay $1100 for a 13" Mac, or jump straight to $2000 for the Pro series. Inexpensive 14" and 15" Macs are a thing of the past, apparently. I guess sometimes choice is a good thing.
Anyway, back to the main topic.
Windows has the same problem Linux has in regard to hardware (it must support a wide variety of hardware), but it gets around the lion's share of the problem by getting support from hardware vendors. They don't have to write 435,485,308 drivers, just charge vendors to have the driver certified. Frankly, there is no way to force vendors to do this from the Linux world. Linux must rely on good will from vendors (e.g. nVidia, Intel, AMD) and the work of volunteers (many of whom have other jobs that actually pay money). Of course, even this actual advantage has failed to make Windows any more stable. After 5 or 6 years, XP was actually usable (if mind-numbingly boring), but Vista is the most god-awful piece of crap I've ever had to pinch my nose over while downloading a Fedora DVD to replace it. Microsoft has had exactly two successful operating systems (from a non-suck perspective): NT 3.1 and 2000. Neither of them were very interesting but at least didn't remind you every 3.5 seconds that there was an OS there who's primary function was to prevent you from working.
At the end of the day, I can't help but wonder what the hell LinuxHater's problem is. If he hates Linux and has the money to buy a Mac, then fucking do it. No one is forcing him to accept what amounts to a free gift and certainly no one is asking for his whining about it (even if he's right). If he's forced to use it at work, then maybe I can sympathize a bit (I bitch endlessly when forced to use Windows or Mac for more than a few minutes), but I doubt this is the case. It sounds to me like a case of someone with too much time on their hands (and too much disposable income as well). Nothing like being rich and bored to get that endearing sense of entitlement and superiority going. At the end of the day, it sounds like LinuxHater is probably technically capable enough (and certainly loud-mouthed enough) to make splash in the FOSS world and help address some of the issues he finds so annoying, so the fact that he doesn't simply leaves me believing he needs his diaper changed.
Some people seem to believe that he's making a valuable contribution by pointing out the shortcomings in Linux. If you also consider punching someone in the mouth when they buy you socks for Christmas as valid criticism, then I guess you might agree.
LinuxHater: we get the message. Please take your ball and go the fuck home.
