Switch to Mac - Ethical Dilemma?

Hello People of Mac Forums,

I need to get a Mac, because I'd like to edit all my videos in FinalCut.
Currently I am a Ubuntu Linux user and I occasionally resort to Windoze 7 for weird file types, hardware, etc.
I support open-source and consider it one of the very few remaining threads of true freedom in this globalized, commercialized and bureaucratic modern world.
Thus paying for digital content is not part of my nature and yet.... I need FCP

1) I am thinking of building a hackintosh, but after watching the 'MacHeads' documentary I might just snag a used iMac from craigslist. (This would be a big deal for me, since I strongly believe in supporting the right cause with your $$). Would you consider this a noble act?

2) Anyone who uses both Mac and Linux out there, have you found enough open-source software to meet your needs for the Mac or do you constantly find yourself needing the most basic utilities (like an NTFS reader) and shelling out $5 here, $10 there?

3) [Just for fun] Mac GUI's intuitiveness is the future, no doubt. How soon do you see the Linux OS catching up to the same level of usability?

That's all folks!

Looking forward to reading your comments

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Never.

1 - I don't know how or why anybody would consider buying a computer to be a noble act. Ideology need have nothing to do with procuring the tools you need in order to complete the purposes you have.

2 - I can't answer because I never specifically sought out open source programs. When I needed a tool, I sought the best tool for the job. Sometimes that was open source, sometimes not. But I've never had problems finding what I needed.

3 - IMHO, Linux is made by geeks for geeks. And as much as geeks like cool stuff, they also tend to have an elitist view of usability. If you don't know how to use something, you're a moron. Ergo, I think its likely that Linux's UI, even if the community could actually unify around a distribution and work together, will never approach the level of refinement we see in OSX.

1. Come on, admit it, you're just a meany

2. Open source doesn't mean "free" - open source needs support and if you aren't prepared to pay a small amount for the convenience of having the program, why bother with computing at all?

3. Never.

Just a word of warning. We do not allow any discussion of Hackintosh here on Mac Forums as it's breaking both OSX's URL and Protection to use it on non Apple Hardware.

The iMac would be a great idea and give you a stable platform to use OSX on. You can also install Linux with Bootcamp and have both on the same machine or Linux in a Virtual Machine and have both running at the same time!

bluelotus said:

1) Would you consider this a noble act?

Click to expand...

This is a mindset that I have no comprehension of, so I probably can't answer the question. But I will say this -- breaking out of a rigid ideology is generally a noble act. Trying to shoehorn something new INTO a rigid ideology generally isn't.

2) Anyone who uses both Mac and Linux out there, have you found enough open-source software to meet your needs for the Mac or do you constantly find yourself needing the most basic utilities (like an NTFS reader) and shelling out $5 here, $10 there?

Click to expand...

Open-source is the most overrated thing since Oasis. Almost *anything* that's out there that's open source (and any good) is available to you on the Mac (and if you add in the Mac's ability to run any version of Windows or Linux or UNIX for that matter, then strike the "almost"). But something being open source does not make it magically better or even right. Some open-source stuff is great. Most is crap. This corresponds more or less identically to everything else in the world.

Paying for something you like or is useful to you is far more of a noble act than just taking and not giving anything back just because nobody's making you. IMO.

3) [Just for fun] Mac GUI's intuitiveness is the future, no doubt. How soon do you see the Linux OS catching up to the same level of usability?

Click to expand...

Never. I think you've missed the point of Linux entirely there.

The point of free and open source software is not "I get something without paying anything for it." The point is that the software's source code is open to you, and you are free to examine and modify it as you wish.

Pirating a closed-source product like Mac OS X does not make it open-source. You don't get access to the source code that way. You're just breaking the license for your own financial advantage.

bluelotus said:

1) I am thinking of building a hackintosh, but after watching the 'MacHeads' documentary I might just snag a used iMac from craigslist. (This would be a big deal for me, since I strongly believe in supporting the right cause with your $$). Would you consider this a noble act?

Click to expand...

Is building the "hackintosh" or buying the iMac supposed to be the "noble act" in this scenario? If the choice is between building a machine that will never work quite right (and be violating multiple laws at the same time) or buying a machine that will meet your requirements I see no "noble act" in either. I simply see a choice between an ill thought out plan and a plan that meets the needs of the task at hand.

For me, computing is not about being noble, it's about being able to do what is best for my requirements. I own a Mac, but I do run windows on in it in a virtual partition to play some games. All the software involved, including windows, is legally owned by me. When I first try software I may use a copy I don't own, but if I decide to keep it I invariably make the purchase so I own what I use. Giving the authors of software or the OS their fair due for the work put into the product is more of a "noble act" than the above mentioned scenario IMO, although I don't generally look at it that way.

Thanks for your replies.

After reading your comments and the "Sage advice for the new Mac switcher" sticky - I see all of the faults in my logic. Thanks

"This is why Mac users sometimes come off smug -- because we understand VALUE versus just PRICE." - I have always followed this adage for all of my equipment and electronics, but have never applied it to software - perhaps it is time...

Also I would like to apologize for sounding ignorant about open-source and the 'free' concept. I donate to a few open-source projects and have helped with many translations and documentations

One question - is bootcamp Mac's equivalent to GRUB? Or would I still be using GRUB on a Mac if I was dual booting it with Linux?

With one post, and with the way you worded your questions, you sound like someone who really backs FOSS. I have been using *nix since the 90's from school through my professional career. I've built my own computers, tried putting Linux on everything that I've owned, and even tried to give back some code in the hopes that people find it useful.

If you are genuinely interested in supporting open source - then money going to Apple is well spent. Like every large software company - there is a lot of open source that Apple uses as well as donates code.
Apple - Open Source
Open Source - Apple Developer

The year of the *nix desktop has already happened. It is called Mac OSX - based on BSD UNIX - specifically Darwin
FreeBSD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
If you know how to administer an Unix box - you can administer your Mac the same way.

Since you know Ubuntu - there are two package managers I like - Fink and Macports. I've been mainly using Macports now - but depending on what you need it may be in one of the two.
The MacPorts Project -- Home
Fink - Home

Lastly - a true Mac is the only machine where I can run Windows, Linux, and Mac all on the same machine. It also seems to be the most well built and stable of hardware. I have run Windows 7 64 bit with no problems, as well as Ubuntu 10.10 within a virtual machine. Windows I have run under bootcamp to get the full power for games.

tl ; dr - Apple is a big supporter of FOSS, and there is plenty of FOSS on the Mac. If you need anything that doesn't run native, run a Virtual Machine.

bluelotus said:

1) I am thinking of building a hackintosh, but after watching the 'MacHeads' documentary I might just snag a used iMac from craigslist. (This would be a big deal for me, since I strongly believe in supporting the right cause with your $$). Would you consider this a noble act?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't define it as noble - I'd define it as legitimate given the EULA for OS X.

bluelotus said:

2) Anyone who uses both Mac and Linux out there, have you found enough open-source software to meet your needs for the Mac or do you constantly find yourself needing the most basic utilities (like an NTFS reader) and shelling out $5 here, $10 there?

Click to expand...

I only have a few paid apps such as Office, Tracks and a few other apps I got through MacHeist. Most of the software I use is free - not necessarily freedom free but beer free.

bluelotus said:

3) [Just for fun] Mac GUI's intuitiveness is the future, no doubt. How soon do you see the Linux OS catching up to the same level of usability?

Click to expand...

Define usability for as I see it, that's a very subjective term. Personally, GNOME 3 looks slick and although I'm not a KDE person, it's very usable. I'm not too sure about Unity but to each their own. I'm also not sure why most people here are so sure of the "never" part - Linux can be very usable if you get one of the popular distributions and don't require the use of some of the more popular commercial apps (such as Office).

bluelotus said:

3) [Just for fun] Mac GUI's intuitiveness is the future, no doubt.

Click to expand...

FYI...the Mac GUI's intuitiveness has been around since 1984 (that's 27 years for the "math challenged")...and has only gotten better. So the future is now!!!

Actually (after 27 years)...the future was yesterday!

- Nick

vansmith said:

I'm also not sure why most people here are so sure of the "never" part - Linux can be very usable if you get one of the popular distributions and don't require the use of some of the more popular commercial apps (such as Office).

Click to expand...

Linux is very usable TO GEEKS. It is nearly UNusable to normal people, which is why it will never be mainstream.

And indeed, I don't think Linux WANTS to be mainstream. Certainly the current community that supports Linux doesn't want that. They want it to be more attractive to new people, yes, but by "new people" they mean "fresh geeks." All they've really done over the past 20 years (in my honest opinion as someone who's kept an eye on it) is make it superficially more Windows-like -- it's still as mainstream-unfriendly as ever. IMO.

vansmith said:

Define usability for as I see it, that's a very subjective term. Personally, GNOME 3 looks slick and although I'm not a KDE person, it's very usable. I'm not too sure about Unity but to each their own. I'm also not sure why most people here are so sure of the "never" part - Linux can be very usable if you get one of the popular distributions and don't require the use of some of the more popular commercial apps (such as Office).

Click to expand...

Yes, it's perfectly usable for those of us that happen to be computer-savvy.

My issue with Linux, and what I think will perpetually keep it from being mainstream, is the lack of standardization in any one facet of the OS. Heck, even the UIs aren't standardized - and what might be true in one distro, its not necessarily true of another. There really is no "one Linux", there are an almost infinite number of varieties.

I can't put something like that in front of say - my Mom - and expect that she'll pick it up and figure it out. And that's what leads to the perception that it isn't particularly usable.

And of course, it doesn't help that the Linux "community" (whatever that is) has absolutely no patience for newbies... look at the Ubuntu forum (a community that caters to a version of Linux that is supposed to be standardized and user friendly). Nearly every time a person encounters a problem, it's solved by some archaic shell commands. No one ever bothers why it solves the problem, they only answer the "how". It's nearly impossible to become truly proficient in Linux without being forced to become fully immersed into it.

OK, that's my rant on Linux. I could go on, but at the end of the day, I much prefer having a *nix core with a slick and standardized GUI grafted to it.

I'm of the belief that if you put three people who were brand new to computers, they'd have just as much trouble using Windows and OS X as they would a good, user-friendly Linux distro. That said, I can't say for sure not knowing how well people can learn each and I am by no means the person to ask being fairly proficient with each. Especially with things like openSUSE's 1-click installs for software packages, software installation (something previously notoriously difficult for newbies) is easy - it's a click, click, next install.

My issue is with the notion of "never." Saying something will never happen, especially in the tech world, is incredibly problematic. Few thought Apple would recover from their terrible condition just before they bought out NeXT and we all know what's happened there. Few thought IE would lose it's top spot and although it still has it, it's been lessened considerably. Few thought OS X would succeed given the buggy nature of 10.0 but OS X has become a slick and very usable OS. I'm sure when IPv4 was developed, it was thought that we'd all have enough IPs forever but APNIC (the Asia and Pacific group responsible for allocating IPs in the region) just announced that they've allocated their last block and are essentially out of IPs (when they allocate the remaining IPs from the last block). What I'm getting at is that it is very problematic, especially in the ever changing tech industry, to say that something will never happen. Do I think that this is the year of desktop Linux? Not a hope. In fact, every year that question comes up, I laugh a little. That said, I don't think it will never happen nor do I really think anything will never happen (especially in the tech industry).

I'm with you on Linux for now. Does it have a long way to go? Sure. Does that mean it will never get there? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but it's possible.

vansmith said:

I'm with you on Linux for now. Does it have a long way to go? Sure.

Click to expand...

The quote above is exactly why I say "never," by which I mean "not in my lifetime." (I expect I've got another 30 years or so).

The Linux community have been working on Linux for decades, literally decades of CONTINUOUS effort. This is far more effort than even Apple or Microsoft have put in, as both have "gone back to the drawing board" at least a couple of times already (Apple more radically than MS, but still it was very much a "starting over").

In all those decades, the total progress on Linux in terms of getting it accepted as a mainstream OS has been really, really minimal. Now, if you want to talk *brand awareness* then I think Linux has made great strides -- but in terms of being a household OS. Nothing much. Wal-Mart (freakin' WALMART!) couldn't make a go of it, and heaven knows they tried! That's a clue right there.

Also, the idea that Linux will ever catch up or surpass OS X presumes that Apple will stop working on it (starting immediately) and then perhaps in another decade or two Linux will catch up. I think you see the problem with that line of thinking.




Does that mean it will never get there? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but it's possible.[/QUOTE]