And then you'll have a bad copy of a bad copy.

The fit and finish of linux desktops, especially KDE, are nowhere near as good as the Mac, and adding a theme which kind of sort of makes it look like OS X only serves to highlight where it doesn't match up.

As a long time Mac user and now Linux user the only desktop which is vaguely tolerable is Elementary OS as at least someone there with a good eye for detail went through and made sure it all fits together.

> The fit and finish of linux desktops, especially KDE, are nowhere near as good as the Mac

I beg to differ, but only with the "especially KDE" part. KDE is a different beast than most other modern desktop environments, in that it does not try to mimic OS X style in any way.

KDE was started way back when with a goal of replicating a Windows-like UI, with a Start-menu like launcher and a Start-bar like task bar with applets.

It may not be to your tastes, but the fit and finish of KDE3, 4 and now 5 is excellent. Integrated application sets (K[Anything]) with integration into a centralized control/config panel for shortcuts, MIME type handling, ...

The only problem with this is that other popular applications do not bind this tightly to KDE (understandable from application developers - KDE is not the only game in town).

Previously, GTK applications in particular acted and looked like they were from '93 when run outside of GTK-centric desktop environments (XFCE, Gnome). However, Qt has developed a GTK2 and 3 engine that uses Qt and Qt themes under the hood, largely solving that problem when properly configured (try any stable OpenSuse release, for instance).

Macs are nowhere near as usable as Linux systems in any respect, especially at the GUI level. The Mac GUI is just, fundamentally, a mistake Apple made in the 1980s and never moved on from. Even Jobs recognized the Mac's error when he made NeXT, which now lives on in WindowMaker.

Why? Every time KDE (or even GNOME) undergoes major changes, so many tweaks are also broken. One of the reasons the OS X UI/Ux is so consistent and reliable and mature is because its developers aren't saying "f it, start over" every few years.

And there are bugs and annoying aspects to Aqua, it's not perfect, but it is stable.

Try to run Pages, iTunes, XCode or Apple Script on KDE.

Right, where's XCode on KDE or GNOME? MIA of course. Where is the XCode equivalent IDE on GNOME or KDE? MIA, unfortunately.

If you spent ten minutes googling, you'd have found KDevelop.

Which doesn't offer the necessary XCode features for Darwin to be an OS X replacement.

We were talking about KDE and GNOME, not OSX replacement.

"Right, where's XCode on KDE or GNOME? MIA of course. Where is the XCode equivalent IDE on GNOME or KDE? MIA, unfortunately."

I'm curious as to which features you think are missing.

We are on "PureDarwin – An Informal Successor to OpenDarwin" thread.

It is all about having a OS X clone, not yet another GNU/Linux userspace clone.

So I am missing:

- Objective-C 2.1 support

- Swift

- Swift Playground

- Storyboards

- Plist editor

- Instruments

- Core Data

- ...

none of which matter in GNOME or KDE, which is what this thread (great grandparent on) has been about.

So, how is your reply not moving goalposts?

"Without the whole Objective-C/Swift userspace libraries it will just look like OS X, but it won't be OS X."

"I cannot seat a Mac OS X user, or developer in front of it, and they will be able to use it just like Mac OS X."

If anyone is moving goal posts it isn't me.

Try to run Krita, Clementine/Amarok, KDevelop or smalltalk on OS X.

Not because you can't, but because the above are better apps and a nicer experience than the Apple equivalents.

Once you get out of Apple's walled garden (and reality distortion field), you might find you like it better.

I use all major consumer OSes.

The point here is about the missing features OS X on Darwin, not about alternatives that aren't native OS X.

If that were true, you would've known about the apps I mentioned.

I seem to be responding to your anti-Free Software posts everywhere in this thread.

If PureDarwin is supposed to be a Mac OS X clone, it has to be provide Mac OS X userspace apps, not ports of UNIX clones.

I care about usable software and don't mind paying for developers for their work, they have to pay their bills.