He already does. The only difference in the perceived quality is the learning curve. Learn the *nix way and you will be enlightened. Learn the Apple way and you will remain ignorant (but have lots of time for shopping, cos math is so boring, right?).
That's like saying that Android preaches the nix way because it runs a Linux kernel. This is obviously false since the interface presented to the user pushes a completely different way of working and thinking. Using any of the listed software requires knowing what you're doing. It's the same situation on Linux and Windows, you can install PHP or Python all the same and need the equivalent amount of knowledge to do so. If you seriously can't see the 'Apple way' then take another look at their whole business model, which is making things simple enough for people with little training to use. The nix way consists of understanding how the system works, which is in direct opposition to the Apple way.
I love the Apple way. Gave me lots of extra time to pursue other interests. Remember, you rely on a lot of people who aren't good at computers but have other skills.
>Gave me lots of extra time to pursue other interests.
Honestly, I don't get this argument. I set a Linux installation up once, configure it how I like it, which takes a day or two in total, then I'm set for a few years. The administration on my system consists of running "pacman -Syu" every month or so then rebooting the system. So that's what, ~40 hours (high estimate at 1 hour per update to account for Murphy's Law + two 8 hour days) worth of work for having a streamlined workflow for 3 years. By making the system more efficient and tailored to my needs, I save much more time by not having to do repetitive things. It's that whole deal about working smarter, not harder; or thinking about the long, not short term.
I suppose that the argument makes sense from the perspective of the initial time investment to get over the learning curve, which, admittedly, is huge, but then there are real benefits to understanding the system that come with it. The learning curves of English and Math are even bigger but we don't complain about those since they let us perform essential tasks - just like computers do. Why the difference in approach?
Going off on a tangent - personally, I think that it's important to understand any system that one works with, whether it's a computer, one's own body and mind, a bicycle, society, family or a particle accelerator. I certainly don't fault anyone for not wanting to do the same but the benefits to truly understanding the world around us are huge.
You raise a good point about other subjects. I think it is more about on going costs. Not initial costs. I don't think there is any platform that isn't a pain to setup. Mac OS is probably worse for setup since there is no apt-get and doesn't ship with as complete a set of standard software.
Eg.
Ubuntu 10.10 to 11.04 required me to answer questions about some config files that I know nothing about. So you have to baby sit the installation. Leopard to Lion, click OK, go do something else come back to a Lion login prompt.
Mac OSX has Time Machine and APIs for in built autosave and versioning. It's not perfect but any sort of backup is good, as is making sure you do not lose your work. And the ability to restore accounts from Time Machine is pretty nice. Linux has ???
Mac OSX has Spotlight. I can type in something like "Canon" and get all the pictures I took on my Canon cameras. Linux has ???
That why I stuck with Macs. They are not perfect. But they really do try to make those little things work. My first Mac was the last generation iBook. I was completely amazed that it could go into and out of sleep mode correctly all the time. Saved me hours and hours of rebooting right there.
>Mac OSX has Time Machine and APIs for in built autosave and versioning. It's not perfect but any sort of backup is good, as is making sure you do not lose your work. And the ability to restore accounts from Time Machine is pretty nice. Linux has ???
I think that, feature-wise, Macs, Linux and Windows boxes are on about the same page. They all tend to steal ideas from each other and anything missing in the OS will be provided by a third party. I agree that Macs tend to 'just work' but this comes at the expense of only being able to work in a particular way. It's the efficiency vs robustness/flexibility tradeoff.
I've heard horror stories about laptop power management on Linux, it could definitely do with some work.
> I've heard horror stories about laptop power management on Linux, it could definitely do with some work.
It's not that bad, but it's highly driver-dependent. That's nothing new, though - driver issues are at the root of most complaints about Linux nowadays, I find.
Go on Richard, I dare you to.