Slashdot Mirror
OS X Vs. Linux On The Desktop
saintlupus writes: "There's an interesting article about the recent web browsing stats of Linux by Charles Moore, a fairly well-known web journalist in the Mac community. He asks whether OS X is the deathblow to Linux in the desktop and scientific computing markets. He also touches on the perennial "I'll run it on my Athlon or not at all" mindset of current Lintel hardware owners. Definitely worth a read." The article that Charles uses as his jumping point is the recent stats on Linux on the desktop. That article cites .24%, but Charles article has some pieces on why that number could be wrong.
It is my opinion that while OS X has a better interface, Linux will only continue to progress because of its lower cost, and the Open Source nature of it.
That said, Aqua is smooooth!
Mandrake is pretty good for desktop users, and SuSE is pretty good for Windows "Power Users" and above.
I think there's a place for both OS X and Linux. Macintosh has a very loyal following, and so does Linux, so I don't see either team dying out any time soon. Personally, I'd rather have source code than fluff.
A solution to the problem with music today
The only way you can really fairly make a comparison here is by comparing OS X vs. Linux on Macintosh hardware, because most people and businesses, no matter how good OS X is, will not simply move their desktops to OS X because it requires the purchase of Macintosh hardware.
:) (and there probably won't be any time soon either)
I think OS X vs. Linux on PPC hardware is easily won by OS X. PPC Linux does not give you the ability to seamlessly run Windows software and games in an environment such as Wine like x86 Linux does. Sure, there is MacOnLinux, but Mac OS X's classic environment outclasses MOL's feature set and speed in nearly every aspect.
You also must consider the target of each OS. OS X is truly designed to be a desktop OS, with server use as a secondary function. They even offer a higher priced server version of OS X that would be more of a comparison for Linux on the server market.
I think with Macintosh hardware, OS X clearly wins over Linux. With x86 hardware, Linux obviously wins, because there is no OS X for x86 hardware
Its all in the hardware platform.. not the OS.
Everybody seems to have already jumped on "Well, OSX isn't universal".
The thing though is that this article isn't looking from the geek or computer programmer perspective...
It's looking from a World Market perspective, which is what companies willing to fund the development of a Linux GUI will be looking at. Linux isn't going to gain popularity on the sole basis that the public has no reason to like it. They have OSX for the Mac (which the educated public looking for something user-friendly will opt for) and WinXP for the PC (which everybody else looking for something user-friendly will go for).
Linux remains the domain of those who want to be able to tweak and toggle with the OS itself and want to play around with their friends' computers relatively easily. So the apocalyptic Linux-is-going-down attitude is harshly erroneous.
That being said, the point the article is _making_ is that Linux in a user-friendly form most likely isn't going to be made, because on the most part, Linux users can probably be quite happy with a hack-and-slash GUI and still can make quite the use of command-level prompts.
There is no market interest in doing a stable GUI for Linux... at least not to the extent that there is in having a clean and user-friendly GUI or WinXP or OSX. OSX is looked upon as the "ultimate alternative" because it's unix-based.
In reality, the only way Linux would gain worldwide popularity would be if Microsoft devoted its efforts to making Windows a Linux-based GUI shell.
But, with M$'s attitude towards Linux and the general geekdom attitude towards M$, it would be both inplausible [sic?] and most likely regarded by the geeks as a Bad Thing.
Karma: Non-Heinous
The data research firm says that Microsoft's Windows and Apple?s Macintosh operating systems, hold a combined global Web usage share of more than 98 percent
And how much exactly is Apple's specific share of that 98%? 8%? 10%? Assuming it's 10%, that makes it 10 times more than linux's 1%. But that leaves Windows with ~90%, which is 9 times more than OSX!
So, not only should Linux users jump ship for OSX, but, based on the numbers, OSX users should jump ship to windows! Does tha sound right Mr. Moore, since popularity seems to be your major gauge?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
To quote "Sean Connery" on SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy ''My time has come, Trebek!''
I've been ranting about this for a few weeks now, ever since purchasing my first Mac to use, and my rather surprisingly pleasant introduction to OSX.
Linux has always had two major things going for it. Free as in beer and speech, and the open source development model for the kernel. But at the same time, what it's had going against it were a difficult install (not difficult for me, difficult for grandma) and the clunky, quirky system that is X11. (clunky compared to what it -could- be, not necessarily the current competition)
Linux isn't ready for prime time just yet. It could be, but it's not ready yet. Say what you will about Mandrake, but grandma can't use it.
Now, OSX has the advantage of a pretty decent Mach/BSD core, and an incredibly impressive and functional GUI. Aqua, for being as young and closed as it is, does a damn good job at innovating in the 2D paradigm. Transparencies, dialog boxes that attach to the affected window, an actually useful style of windowshading. And all this with the environment of *nix beneath. With OSX, more than half the work Linux needs to do to make it on the desktop has already been accomplished. People may call for Apple to open the GUI, or they'll whine and complain that it's not open enough. So be it. If you want it that badly, make your own that's better. Open source doesn't have to simply follow other ideas, it can innovate too.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Ok, first off... 0.24% is not bad. I personally don't care, because that number can still go higher. I know Linus isn't aiming for world domination, nor is Redhat, Debian, or anyone else really (maybe RMS, but that's Ok.) The point is, it's there, it's usable, and people can move to it if they choose.
.24% or more or less, but it will still be there. So I personally don't care about what this article is talking about. I felt screwed by apple, and I'm never going back, no matter how nice their stuff is. There's a reason people push free as in speech, and it's because you will not get screwed over when some company like apple decides you're not worth the effort because you don't use photoshop.
As for OSX, yeah it's a fantastic product. The best OS in the world for desktop in my opinion. But that doesn't mean it'll stay that way.
Anyone remember 1984? Apple was the best desktop OS then too. They were really something to cheer for then. It wasn't just a new pretty and slick interface, it was a whole new way of working with computers. Sure, it was clunky in some ways, but Apple had the best system on the market for years.
So what happened? Well, most people know about this, but they got greedy and lazy. They overcharged. They stopped building the coolest stuff. They let the OS wither and die as we salivated over the ill-fated Copland. 3rd party developers abandoned us and unless you were willing to fork out hundreds of dollars for dev tools and docs, there was no way you were going to help the problem. They still had their strengths, but they were a shell of the vibrant company that they once were.
So here we are now. Apple's fixed things. They've got the best system on the planet. They've got slick hardware. They give the dev tools and docs for free again, AppleII style. People gush about the system left and right, and they should! It's really nice.
But who's to say that it'll be that way in two years? Apple could get lazy again. They could get greedy again. They could fire all their talent or let them leave again. And then everyone with macs will be back where they were five years ago, fretting over whether or not to move to windows.
And you know what? Linux will still be there,
I love Linux because it frees me, not just to work and learn, but to work and learn with confidence that my skills will be worthwhile, and that I will never be a commodity because I can contribute. I'm proud to be part of that 0.24% because that 0.24% isn't just something to be treated like pennies that someone is afraid to lose. It's 0.24% people who care, who can and do contribute. Linux is that 0.24%: it's people not stock options.
So you can keep your flashy system. I'm staying right here where I'm not just revenue on a balance sheet.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
I have an OSX box and a Linux box. My iMac run OSX, my Tosh laptop runs Mandrake.
Comparing the two is silly. Their objectives aren't the same. Their 'customer' targets aren't.
1) The pseudo 'common' part is barely common at all, most of the BSD-ish tools on OSX are several years sometime behind what is available on linux.
For example, 'm4' is barely usable on OSX, it lacks all the FNU extensions that makes it usable nowadays.
Apple also has decided that the GPL was dangerous, and systematicaly removed everything that was GPLed. Bash went first in the DP series, while wget went rather recently out of OSX 10.0
2) On the other hand, OSX *does* have applications and development tools that are, as far as human interface is concerned, way ahead of what is available on linux.
The reason is simple: There are no Xlib vs GNOME vs KDE vs whatever dilution. Development is focused on one target, even is there are two way to reach the target (Carbon & Cocoa)
And, bless them, there are still people at apple who aren't geeks and try to focus on the end users, instead of on being 'customizable' or 'skinable'
That said, OSX sucks speedwise compared to a linux box. Just generally sucks I mean. Play an mp3 on iTunes, it eats *30%* of your CPU while on a slower laptop xmms will eat barely 1%. That might look like a cliche, but it's verifiable on many other 'serious' tasks. I have applications running on both.
So, well, 'desktop' is probably OSX major plus, and will stay that way. While 'OS/server' is probably where linux is better, and will stay better for a long time
Cost and openness are the key. Linux will completely dominate the non-US markets over the next 5 years. Desktops and servers alike. This squabble between OS X and Linux is laughable US-centered viewpoint. Neither OS X (nor M$ for that matter) will ever see the non-US growth that Linux will see. Cheap software on cheap hardware will win in the long run. Third world nations aren't interested in paying Apple for its hardware or M$ for its software. Nor are they able. Yet that's where ALL the people are.
"This may sound like flamebait, but it's more of a rebuttal ;)"
... OS 9.
Actually, it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
1. The rumored G5 is a joke. No, bear with me. The numbers bandied about for the (illusory) G5 at 1.6 ghz are preposterous (1342 SpecInt2000 and 1364 SpecFP2000 -- ha!), more realistic numbers are well under the current performance of high-end x86, and Moto's semi division is in even more trouble than Carly Fiorina.
2. Yes, Linux and OS X are niche markets; different niches. Linux is squeezing Solaris, and OS X is squeezing
3. We're in total agreement.
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
No, it isn't. Learn to recognise the difference between satire and truth, though it can be close, I grant you.
I suppose if all you do is view email and browse the web, then that isn't the case, but more advanced computer usage yields many cases where command line tools (not just a command line, it's actually the tools that one has access to that's important, like a base linux system) are many times faster.
YES! I absolutely agree, it is nice to see some people have sense and cling on to the old ways.
MS wants you to buy new machines cause of OEM contracts.
Apple wants you to buy new machines because they are a hardware company.
GNU wants you to be productive with your software no matter what you run or how old it is.
Maybe in 10 years Apple will be gone and MS will rule the world or maybe the other way around. Either way GNU and Linux or HURD will still be there pottering round with a couple of % user base, one of which will be me.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
It's not about performance or commodity hardware. Since when do professionals or researchers care whether or not their personal machines are made from bargain-basement components? These are the same peole that are springing for $10-20k workstations out of their budget...
It's about having a computer that:
I'm not just saying this as a rabid Mac advocate. As an EE grad student I look around my department and I see a sizeable chunk of profs and students using Macs - myself included (though I still have a PC at home). My supervisor - a hardcore Mac user - has just switched to OS X exclusively. We don't all use Macs because we are a bunch of Luddites... we use them because, all things considered, we'd rather just get our work done: easily and effectively.
I won't even touch the x86 argument except to point out that re-compiling an app for a different hardware platform is done thousands of times a day by Linux developers - what makes you think it would be any harder for Apple developers to do? Though I agree we might be long accustomed to airborne swine before Apple publishes OS X for x86. =)
oh how i wish we could meet two years from now and we could see how gnone + kde will != the mac os ease of use....
So Apple should become more like Be and try to sell a better OS for the Intel platform?
Apple comes up with a business plan to compete, on a small scale, with M$ and Linux users around the world complain about expensive hardware? They are *competing* with Microsoft (yes, you are complaining about hardware costs, and I am commenting on software competition - but, for the most part, with Apple you need to combine the two together - Apple is in the hardware and software market, and each computer sold is a unit of both).
No, BeOS demonstrated that it is going to be very difficult to design, write, sell, and support an alternative OS for the Intel market. Even Redhat and others are having problems, and they do not do the vast majority of R&D and writing on the Linux kernel.
Also look at it this way: Apple's hardware is well designed, and relatively fast. People who comment on Apple losing the "bang for the buck" competition never think that design is a desireable feature worth paying for.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
But more specifically, it's no secret that Apple is the leading computer supplier for educational institutions. Soon, schools are going to transition from MacOS 9 to MacOS X. In the longterm, this has huge benefits for everyone. What better place to learn open source than at school? OS X is a pretty snazzy OS to learn it, too. It's got, of course, darwin, and a really slick GUI to fall back on. The kids, the ones who know they want to go into a tech, they'd probably stay after school just to learn the ins and outs of darwin. The skills learned from that are transferrable to Linux. And Linux is used in the real world. Yes, I know. Real world experience in SCHOOL. It's a first. But anyway, of course there are some major differences between the two. For example, I don't think installing MacOS X is anything like installing Linux. But nevertheless, OS X is a great starting point for kids, to expose them to the power of open source.
As for why Apple needs Linux, lets see what Linux has that Apple didn't have before OS X. The whole slew of technologies that *nix utilizes. Preemptive multitasking, protected memory, SMP. All of which are VERY important. A command line, which allows for unprecidented control of an Apple OS. A million and one Linux apps which are easily portable to darwin. And most importantly, the open source model that Linux shares with OS X. This will hopefully ensure that OS X doesn't fall behind in speed(slowness is in Aqua, not open source), stability, security, etc.
But where they both miserably fail is product recognition. Apple's trying to correct that with their retail stores, and hopefully they will succeed. Because a win for Apple is a win for open source. Well, only a win if the consumer knows that MacOS X's core is opensource, but that sort of goes with product recognition.
Hi,
If anyone wants to know why Engineers might want a powerbook, look at the specs of the Titanium Powerbook - 1 gig ram - and the fact there is a clean Nix underneath.
A few months ago I did an experiment with OSX 10.1 -- basically I got my company's entire tree built just fine in 2 days. No code changed, just a few softlinks needed to be set up (Perl for example was in usr/bin instead of usr/local/bin. This tree is normally only run on Linux or Solaris's box.My next laptop wil be a TiBook -- especially now they have the CDRW/DVD combo drive.
I have been evaluating getting a PC laptop -- I can't find anything close to the TiBook -- try finding a slim design, with a 15" display and 1 gig Ram -- Sony slim Vaios max out at 512 or 384. Toshiba at 256mb. Please will someone point me at an x86 with those kind of specs, and I might go with Linux instead. I'd be totally convinced if it came with the cinema-scope style screen (2 emacs sessions side by side).
Now, for Desktops a whole different story -- we just got a rack mounted box for $4k -- twice the power of a E420, at 10% of the cost (and a 1/4 of the footprint and weight). I just couldn't fit it in my rucksack (close though, maybe in my 70 litre one)
Winton
p.s. This isn't a troll. I want a laptop with a gig of RAM (we're doing some hard memory intensive work)
Remember when some users got together and tried to make a theme creation app for the Mac?
They were threatened with a lawsuit from Apple.
Remember when Apple didn't want to let their users upgrade their machine?
They were sent a firmware update that "accidentally" blocked upgrades.
Remember when some people made Apple parody sites?
They were threatend with lawsuits.
What happens if you want to upgrade your video card?
Ask Apple. They're trying to make all video card production in-house. $250 for a Geeforce 2 MX. Yeah....whatever.
What did Apple do when iMac analog video boards started to fail en masse?
Nothing.
Apple has some nice products, just don't for a moment think you're saying goodbye to having your computing experience dictated from some corprate office on the West Coast.
"do not underestimate the power of Office. A platform can not hope to succeed in the commercial desktop space without Office"
This is exactly the reason OS X will never have more than a minority share of the desktop market and will never be ported to x86 (aside from the nice hardware profits). Apple is hostage to Microsoft. If they ever pull the plug on MS Office for MacOS, Apple is dead in the business market. If there was ever a backroom deal where MS threatened this if Apple ported to x86, that would have been an antitrust violation, proposal to divide markets.
If anything OS X will finally bring the Mac back to a level to compete with Windows at every level. This, and the growing strength of Linux (and FreeBSD, etc) will help convince hardware developers that they need to make sure their hardware works with more than just Windows and software developers that their software needs to be designed around portability.
OS X will pull both current Mac users and Windows users into the Unix world and as any Unix geek knows once you learn it on one OS most of it translates pretty easily to any other Unix OS. After all these people learn Unix enough to accomplish their daily tasks they'll be much more likely to consider the free (as in beer and freedom) alternatives they keep hearing about.
Software ported to OS X should be easy to port to FreeBSD, Linux, and any Unix OS so this should mean a lot more commercial apps and games available for these Unix platforms and more programmers remembering the things that make Unix great.
Both Gnome and KDE are very strong platforms these days. They don't have the polish of the Mac GUI but it's my experience that they are more flexible and lighter in general. They are improving rapidly. Much more so than I would have expected possible a couple years ago.
Almost every basic home or business app that could be desired now exists for Linux, mostly as opensource, including games. With the extra pull Mac OS gives us we can seriously expect to start seeing the Windows empire crack even in their desktop stronghold.
I don't think Windows or Mac OS is going anywhere any time soon but if anything Mac OS and Linux will work together to end Microsoft's monopoly. A solution to fit every need.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
As another post has pointed out on here, OS X has essentially one for the moment. The GUI goodness of Aqua alone mops the floor with Linux.
Wait! Before you mod me down as a troll, let me explain.
First, I love Linux. I've used it for 5 years, and for the last 2 or 3, I've used it exclusively on my computer here at home. However, and I say this in a parent-who-loves-their-kid-but-has-to-punish-them- anyway kind of way... Linux's desktop GUIs suck.
Don't get me wrong - KDE is a good looking and extremely functional desktop. It's really slick, and I like a lot of the KDE apps. The same goes for GNOME, although it still doesn't feel quite as polished to me. The problem is, these desktops are all clones of Windows. One of the reasons I left Windows in the first place was the annoying GUI, and these "desktop environments" do little more than mimic it.
I want a Mac simply so I can play around with Aqua, because it's such a neat GUI, and I know from others that it is as efficient as it is beautiful. I want something like that on Linux, and unfortunately no existing project really gives that to me. Most window managers are, to some extent, Windows clones. As long as that's all there is, Linux will not penetrate the desktop market much further.
Major open source projects have gotten to the point where we're playing catch-up. Clone Office, clone IE, clone the desktop, and so forth. We need to innovate if Linux is to keep momentum. Simply playing copy-cat with everything that looks neat is not good enough. Don't copy Aqua - improve on it. Winning users over from Windows isn't happening at a very rapid pace anyway, so instead of worrying about alienating them with a frightening interface and copying the one they're comfy with, why not create something new? Something so cool, so pretty, and so functional that everybody will want it? That's a big chunk of what MacOS X has going for it, and Linux should have that too.
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
(why would you want to do it at the CLI when you they bundle such excellent DevTools?)
I don't know. Easy scripting? Familiarity? Simplicity? Not wanting to have to take one's hands off the keyboard to use the mouse all the time?
Its a matter of personal preference, and (AFAIK), OSX provides both options.
See my request earlier for a TiBook Equivalent x86 box. The closest I could get from DELL (thanks to a follow on post), came out at this price.
$3,795.00 (combo/drive, internal wireless, 1gig RAM). Maybe if I didnt have to pay the dumb Windows fee it might be cheaper.
However, this is with a 12.1 inch screen...
Apple, I can get the same for $3,948.00 -- and this is with the 15" cinema scope...
$200 bucks difference ? I have an Educational discount which wil bring this down to the same price (3700).
Winton
So grandma can't install Linux, well she can't install windows either.
Show me a group of people who can sucessfully install windows and all of the necessary drivers, and I'll show you a group of people who can also install Linux. Technical ignorance plagues the Windows world just as much as it does the Linux world, just ask anyone who does tech support. If systems didn't come with windows pre-installed the barrier to entry for it would be just as high as for Linux.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
According to the Google Zeitgeist for August, Linux accounted for 1.8% of it's hits. Macintosh's had 4.18%, and Windows 98 held 54.34%.
I think Google is a better indicator than the Hitbox stats.
August Zeitgeist
--------
I can feel my sanity, beyond my reach and slipping...
"As an aside, I like to tinker with hardware and upgrade my PC frequently, but I'm getting tired of the assumption that a personal computer is obsolete and must be upgraded every few years. I think most folks have better ways to spend their money."
Agreed.
Right now my main computer, an Alpha 21164A, is about five years old. It does everything I need it to do. I know it's not a speed demon anymore but to be honest, even the GHz+ computers can look just as slow because XP takes so much power to look pretty.
I think the computer industry is forgetting that actual people need to USE their machines and that people often end up feeling used when software bugfixes mean having to get new hardware. I've known a lot of people that have the idea that Big Hardware and Big Software are colluding, which is why the term "Wintel Duopoly" came about - new software required new hardware to work, and new hardware invariably required new software to work, and that support old software and old hardware is ignored. It's practically as if people using products even three years old have to go to flea markets to get stuff that works with what they have.
Heck, I tried getting Norton AntiVirus for my Dad, it turns out that the 2002 version _barely_ supports Windows 98B (~two or three years old now), only by means of including NAV 2001 on the CD for those users.
As for Macs, they look fine, seem to work fine for a lot of things, but some things are a real hassle.
The thing that I do like about Linux is that it's the users that decide obsolescence, not the companies. As long as there are available users they'll make their own determinations about what is obsolete. If it works fine for a person on a 386 then so be it.
Though I'd love OS X on an x86, it's not going to happen.
That aside, he's almost dead on with the idea that the days of Linux as a desktop entity are numbered.
They never began.
KDE is trying to copy the Microsoft desktop. This is fine and well, and seems a noble goal - until you realize the fact that there's plenty of MS users who *don't* *like* the Microsoft desktop.
Enter Gnome, E!, and others.
Usability is somewhere far beyond for them.
Yet the problem itself isn't really with the windowmanagers/desktops themselves (Though I think we'd all like a 'better X than XFree86'..)..
It's with other software.
Where's the video software? Most knowledgeable MS users I know won't go near RealPlayer, and rightly so. So where's the rest? The little that's availible isn't enough.
Where's the browser? IE blows the living crap out of Netscape, and its alternatives, I'm sorry to say.
Where's the office suite? "Coming along." Coming along doesn't cut it.
Sound, I think, is done in terms of seperate utilities. Even mixing so I can have my ICQ client make a little 'ding' while I listen to an mp3 is here.
Same with graphics - we've got the gimp. And don't give me that 'It's not Photoshop!' crap - the average user doesn't utilize more than half the options availible in Photoshop. For the average user, the gimp is possibly *too* much.
Oh, I'm well aware of the fact that the majority of open source/Linux projects are done by people in their spare time. And, frankly, I'm content with Linux. Quite content, even if I have to boot into Windows to view a video now and then, or visit a certain site.
However, Linux can't dare to oppose anything in terms of the desktop.
Face it, people, Linux isn't going to 'rule the world'. Hell, it's never been about ruling the world.