you didn't prove macs are gay, you proved that macs are gay tools
a better shot at proving they are gay would go more like this.
Leo Laporte loves Macs
Leo lives in San Francisco
Men in San Francisco are gay
Leo = Man in S.F.
So whatever Leo loves must be gay
Therefore: Macs = Gay
of course, I don't know if he actually lives there. But he was on the Screen Savers when they were there, so that's good enough
_________________ That's right, not even MacGyver could fix it.
I have a simple explanation of why to use a mac or at least why if your work is going to buy you a laptop you should ask for a G4 powerbook.
First you like linux right, so why not get the 600 dollar 10 lb dell, and install linux on it.
Ok so if you get a laptop and want to install Linux that is going to take at least a day or two. That is going to get really annoying to carry around.
So why not and IBM T series, again great machine, lighter and more rugged than that 10 lb dell. But you still have to install linux on it and you are going to fight with binary only drivers. So still its going to take a while.
So you want the perfect machine to install linux on, its going to be good to carry around and is rugged. I mean think about total cost of ownership. A Panasonic toughbook, not to bad you can drop it several times, but they don’t come in huge and light. The smaller laptops start dropping out important things like the optical drive, so like the nice little Toshibas are not so great about that.
Then you look at the mac, every thing that’s good about linux with great hardware, removable keyboard, you can swap the battery with out shutting it down, and great battery life. And You don’t have the to spend two days installing and tweaking.
Ok so whats the g4 powerbook not great for doom3. It plays quake 3, UT 2k4 and other popular lan games just fine, and this is supposed to be for work anyway right.
And every thing good about linux is right their anyway.
Use whatever hardware and software you want. Who cares what others use.
Of course who cares right. NO. If you are in a team of programmers and you have to deal with one of them having BS OS issues all the time then it gets old really fast. I have been to countless meetings were some comp sci has told me that the reason they did not get what ever done was related to a kernel update hardware issue.
That'd be a development issue. Programmers can't always choose what platform they develop for. If it was because their personal workstation fucked up, then that'd be another story.
I guess I did not make my self clear. I am talking about developers having issues with their personal workstations. This happen last wensday to my team. Example. Developer X has a ibm T22 with redhat 9. he upgrades to fedora core something to get something with the onboard wifi to work better, the next day he discovers that his video out does not work correctly, so the guy has now used hours of team time trying to resolve a hardware issue when he should have been working.
If developer X had a mac he would have been working during that time.
Last edited by Mr. Trunks on Sat 09-11-2004 10:51PM, edited 1 time in total.
The solution to that problem isn't give every a mac; it's not to allow the programmers to make drastic changes to their workstation. I realize a number of programmers like to have full control over their systems, but they shouldn't be allowed to make those sorts of changes that could potentially take down their workstation. It should be left upto the IT department to regulate updates, and keep images of each machine configuration to minimize downtime. That way they just need to reimage the machine to get the coder's machine back up and running.
_________________ PI equals four, and I can prove it...
"I'll attract them with my human call.... 'I'm so wasted, I'm so wasted!'" - Dryad, Night Elf, Warcraft III Reign of Chaos
This is assuming: one, that we would have an IT department? Two every employee have the same hardware. I have yet to work anyplace that has identical hardware for the employees. Or that any one in the IT department is more capable of computer administration than the developers are.
So by this logic you are suggesting that a company should pay for workstation management, when it could have been free if they made a different chose on hardware. Like my previous argument goes, it is simply much easier for every one (total cost of ownership) that people that would rather use linux in the workplace use OS X. Making back up images does not help when you have conflicting issues, then you simply pick the lesser of two evils, and you are still wasting time.
I would agree that in a windows environment that you need centralized IT, some one has to manage all those licensees.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum