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.
Three points.
... ha!) can close the performance gap with commodity x86 hardware, the scientific computing market will stick with the bang for the buck that the beige box world provides.
/never/ be ported to x86. Firstly, Apple has no interest in alienating MORE developers with yet another giant architectural switch-over. They're going to have enough trouble getting people to drop Carbon in favor of Cocoa without having to try and convince ISVs to start their projects over on a whole new hardware platform. And secondly, Apple makes the lion's share of their money from HARDWARE sales. Their position in the industry is unique, and they're not interested in being either Be (a dead OS provider for x86) or Compaq (a soon to be dead assembler of beige boxes).
1. Unless Motorola (ha!) or IBM (more likely, but still
2. Neither Linux (currently technically incapable) or OS X (incompatible hardware) are in a position to challenge MS for the commodity desktop. This situation is not likely to change any time soon.
3. OS X will
Peace,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
Had OS X become Apple's default years ago (presumably in the form of NextStep), perhaps Gnome and KDE wouldn't have gotten off the ground and *Step would've become the single dominant Unix UI. Now there's no holding back Gnome or KDE.
I'm slightly tempted by Macs now that OS X is shipping. I have mixed feelings: I hate MacOS, far more than I hate MSWindows, but I loved NextStep. Apple's hardware prices decide the issue for me at this time: no OS X.
Even if iWhatevers where cheap and I ran OS X, many of the applications I'd want to run would be Unix or Unix/X apps that I could also run under Linux or BSD.
The point is that you are a minority. Most people don't want to go to the trouble of building their own computers. (Have you ever had parts that were DOA?) They also don't want to install the operating system themselves, and then prey that all their hardware works. They are willing to pay extra to make sure it works when it arrives.
Personally, I think Mac OS X is very attractive. My only complaint is that Apple hardware is a tad too expensive. Maybe once I have more money, I will purchase a Mac.
I've got to tell you, KDE kicks Aqua's ass as a GUI. The multiple desktops, configurable hotkeys, tabbed Konsoles (with keystrokes for opening new tabs and switching between them), Konqueror, and KMail (with its ability to use gvim for editing) just stomp on the single-desktop, click-to-focus, barely-keyboardable Aqua for sheer productivity value.
I run OS X mostly to play. The ability to (easily) play DVDs; iTunes (hands down the *best* mp3 management software I've ever seen); Fire.app; and the fun of tinkering with a new OS.
For the past couple of days at work, I've booted the powerbook into OS X, but to actually Get Work Done I've fired up OroborOSX and run Konsole and KMail off of my desktop Slackware machine. It's not the prettiest desktop in the world when I do that, but it gets the job done and I get to toy with OS X when I need a break. I'll probably go back to booting it into Linux when I get back from vacation, though, as it's just so much easier to get around in.
Maybe those "it's the applications!" weenies are right... but OS X still seems to have a GUI that's designed around the idea that you'll probably be doing, at most, two things at a time. For a lot of people this isn't the case, and KDE addresses their (our) needs much better.
Incidentally, if you drop below the GUI, I still generally find Slackware easier to work with... it uses a lot more of the GNU software I know and love, which tends to be more featureful and flexible than its BSD counterparts. OS X also feels a bit like you're not really supposed to be running around down there under the GUI, but maybe that's just because I'm not comfortable in it yet.
I use Mac OS X on my Mac and I love it. I think it is the best Unix-based OS for my needs. I love the slick Aqua interface and the rock solid command line goodness underneath. I also use Linux on my IBM laptop and I must say the two are aimed at vastly different markets. There is nothing wrong with this; each has their strengths and weaknesses and I use (and love) both.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
I am one of the linux -> OS X converts. I dont use MS 1) because I dont trust them, 2) Weak CLI -Cygwin, while nice, still feels like too much of an afertought. OS X really is the best of of both worlds I ran run all the Linux type Apps I want with rootless X Windows, and still have access to all this geat Mac Software both old and new. Links 2002, Tax / finance, etc. And the wife wife can and does use it. The one drawback I see is that the hardware costs twice as much, but for me that hasnt been a show stopper. I dont have a problem giving $ to apple.
I would have to say that it is easier to write the GUI for an OS X application since it doesn't involve writing any code.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
I decided to do my own little research on OS statistics
based on hits to two non-biased (OS-wise) websites: an anime
site I run (www.reimeika.ca), and the Math Department
website at University of Toronto (www.math.utoronto.ca).
The following results are completely unscientific, make
of them what you will:
reimeika:
linux ---> 3.91%
mac ---> 4.46%
win ---> 84.10%
other ---> 7.53%
utoronto:
linux ---> 3.24%
mac ---> 2.75%
win ---> 75.84%
other ---> 18.17%
These stats are for the last 22 days.
I'd like to see the number of Linux users browsing Slashdot. Just to see what a "utopian" Linux future looked like...
-Russ
Me
I'm using OS X right now (along with debian on my vaio). It's very nice, but NOT better than OS 9 as a GUI. Mac OS 9 had cleaner borders and icons. it uses window shade. the mouse is accellerated (well). I don't know why the AQUA interface is so big! I know that we're all suppose to have 20" monitors, but I don't want it to be my fault for not buying a bigger monitor!
There are hacks coming out for customizing the features, but not for all of them. I just bare it and grin. Thank gawd there's a BSD subsystem on this thing.
I stuck X-Windows on here and was happy to see wmaker again. The only problem is that this only helps with X-Window applicaion.
Okay, It is easier to intall than Linux with KDE or GNOME. All you have to do is get a mac and click on some buttons. No fuss, as long as you have that mac. which most of you have right? *cough*.
bah. start over
Windows ISN'T whats packed with every PC though. Apple's PCs come packed with MacOS9 and OSX, and Apple represent 5-10% of sales. Apple are trying to build market share to maybe 10-15%, figuring that nothing succeeds like success, and that's what the Apple Stores are all about. As to MS having shares in OSX (??) well, they do have a stake in Apple Computer (not a very big one though), but I'd be stunned if Apple Computer didn't hold SOME equity in MS stock - it's only professional portfolio management after all. Apple are one of the VERY few companies that compete head-on with MS in several markets, and they deserve respect for being able to maintain a strong business doing that.
That was classic intercourse!
However, the iBook is a different matter. I can see how an engineer would be interested in one of those. Unix on a small, relatively potent laptop with lots of I/O for network use (firewire, ethernet, USB), decent battery life (5 hours or so), and reasonably priced. So I would definitely consider an iBook running OS-X (but with 256mb of RAM.. the 128mb is too puny).
Perhaps my attitude is not that uncommon, given that most reports of "engineers switching in droves" were based on watching engineeers who were away from their office (at trade shows) using laptops. But no one is moving me away from Linux!
I use Linux on my desktop for 99% of my job (and it will be 100% when we get a Citrix box running). I use Linux on a laptop for 100% of my field work. We had a loaner MAC with OS-X on it to look at last summer and we all liked it fine... but no one switched to it. We set up a VNC so I could get a MAC desktop on my KDE desktop... that was kinda cool. But when it came time to return the MAC no one cried... we just packed it up and hauled it away.
My work habits are sloppy enough to need the four desktops KDE gives me (or more if I wish) and I much prefer the KDE desktop to the OS-X version. Maybe when I can justify paying the $800 (and up) for a iMAC versus the $500 for a comparable PC, or when I can give up the clear path to hardware upgrades, or when more of the cool network tools one gets with a Linux distro appear on the MAC I'll switch. But I don't see that happening soon.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
does your 1GHz laptop use Speedstep by any chance? If so, how much faster is it (really) than the 600Mhz iBook. I believe it IS faster, but not much, and not much cheaper either all things considered. Playstations are for games, although there is a small selection of games like Quake 3, Oni, Wolfenstein etc available for OSX. I play those plus X-Plane on my machines (plus all my PS1 , C64 and MAME favourites under emulation...) but my PS2 is always best for gaming on my 28" widescreen TV.
That was classic intercourse!
Microsoft sold it's (non-voting) shares in Apple the first day they could legally do so. At a large profit, at that. Ask Shawn King @ The Mac Show Live, he's got the goods on this.
woof!
"the engineer community is abandoning it left and right for Mac OS X."
I work for a government weapons lab and have seen no great move to OS X. And we are the largest Mac site in the world. What I have seen is people dropping their Macs, Windows boxes, and commercial Unix desktops for Linux in DROVES.
It depends on the area, I suppose. I was at the big Human Genome Project meeting this spring and there were OS X laptops everywhere. (Linux was the only other OS in attendance.) Molecular biology is a Mac-friendly area and there were a lot of Japanese attendees (another big Mac domain) so the jump to OS X for coders and informatics people is smaller than it would be in areas where Macs are unknown.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Linux kernel is ready it's the software that runs on top of the kernel isn't.
OSX is a nice idea. Take a powerful kernel and put a nice happy face on it. It doesn't solve any new problems though. The closed hardware still costs a fortune. The closed software can't be ported. This is comodity software, (the OS, Web browser, email program, word processor.) This is software that should be free. Eventually it will be, it's just a mater of how long it will take.
I use Linux in the server space almost exclusively now. It works great there. It is good at web-browsing and email but it isn't good enough. I'm a Netscape 4.72 user and I won't even switch to the Linux version of Netscape 4.72. It's worse. Outlook+IE users have even more functionality missing if they try to switch over.
But! At this rate that won't last long.
Linux needs a good open source email/calandering client-server application that can interact with Outlook clinets and exchange servers. Then it will be ready to start creaping onto the Desktop for real.
When Linux is ready for the desktop it will go there and there will be no turning back. We are getting to that point and the changover is starting to happen already. I know some programmers and sysadmins who use Linux as their primarry desktop. I predict that next will come the power users/early adopters. Then the desktops will slowly start changing over.
In the middle there will be some failed attempts at selling Linux based computers in BestBuy and CircuitCity type stores for $400-$500. Then some clever company will figure out a really cool package to put together and it will sell like hotcakes. Not because it is Linux but because it is cool. Linux will simply have made it possible.
The changeover to Linux on the desktop will not happen until all the everyday things (reading email, web browsing, calandering, word processing) can be done better than in Windows. People won't switch unless the reasons to do so outweigh the reasons not to.
It's not really about having Linux on the desktop for it's own sake. The kernel doesn't care where it is. It's about having a better desktop. The Linux kernel is just a way to get there.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Bullshit. You aren't even in the top 5, there isn't any government facility in the top 5. The largest Mac facility in the world is Disney Imagineering in Burbank CA. Disney has a contractual obligation with Apple to never reveal the extent of their Apple CPU purchases. I know this because I negotiated that contract, and I was their sales rep. But now I don't work there anymore so fuck the NDA.
Old, obsolete arguement against Macs.
IEEE-1394, USB, IDE, Ethernet, PCI, AGP.
The hardware isn't any more propietary than anything made by a PC vendor like IBM or Dell, and alot less proprietary than boxes from Compaq.
The core of the OS is BSD, it will run all those tools that are there for UNIX and Linux.
Old, tired arguement.
This misses many of the points, and like many Mac users I'll point out the obvious first:
1)The Tibook is 1 inch thick and 5 pounds *WITH* the battery, the dell is 1.6 inches thick and over 6 pounds *WITH OUT* the battery. This is a big difference in size.
2)processor speed is a joke, your HD speed and graphics card make a more noticeable difference in any high end machine, PPC, Intel or AMD. Unless your grinding down massive files humans can't see these differences.
3)Why do people post screen resolutions when they talk about monitors? Color accuracy, now that is important, and can be checked. Screen resolutions are only useful when seenng how any OS chooses to draw the screen.
4)Macs can be more expensive, the dell is a butt ugly black slab, the Tibook is super cool. Yes, sexy costs. A lap dance from a super model will cost you more than a common stripper.
Lastly, The 1 gig of ram thing, how as if you need 1 gig of ram ofr a laptop,
There are very compelling reasons to max out your RAM on a notebook computer:
1. 2.5" notebook drives tend to be slower than 3.5" desktop drives, so the RAM speed vs drive speed is much wider on a notebook than a desktop, meaning that any dependance on drive speed (say for swapping or re-getting something that could otherwise be cached), makes the notebook slower than the desktop. The speed gains of adding RAM are higher for notebooks than for PC's.
2. Those little 2.5" inch drives are expensive and have higher failure rates, they don't generally last as long as a desktop drive. With more RAM, there is less head movement due to caching, which can lead to longer drive life and...
3. less head movement = better battery session life.
I was sold on the i8000 until I saw the G4 TiBook. I am glad the TiBook can support up to 1GB RAM and when I get mine, that will be the first thing I upgrade it to.
and the powerbook doesnt come with 1 gig of ram either.
At least it is capable of supporting 1GB.
I will take more RAM over Mhz any day. I cringe when I see people complaining (at various work sites I attend) that their P3 750MHz Dell notebook is slow (and they demand an upgrade), when it only has 64MB RAM, so they get the latest machine which is only 30% quicker as far as CPU goes, yet has 256MB RAM, and they think the enormous speed gain was due to the quicker CPU. Blah. Of course, being executives, they're not interested in what I said about the cheap RAM upgrade, they want whats on the pretty web site.
the 2.5k dell totally destroys the TiBook in every area, better processor, better monitor, more ram, (Tibook comes with 512 megs of ram)
Destroys? The P3 1GHz is close to the G4 600MHz in the benchmarks I've seen. "Destroys" seems to be a school kid way of saying, "my PC is 15% quicker than yours!". I like the TiBook screen for what it is (wide screen), but I also like the i8000 screen and the TiBook is capable of supporting more RAM. "Destroy" is something a 2GHz Xeon does to a 4MHz 8080.
Prove you arent biased
You were'nt replying to me, though I can tell you, after 12 years with x86 (some of that repairing notebooks for NEC and DEC), am I much more impressed by what Apple is offering. They offer extreme stability and usability thanks to high quality hardware, limiting what hardware they support and their efforts of extending the super workhorse OS, BSD.
It's the package, the hardwareOS+app meld that works so well. After all these years putting up with x86, my next machine will be PPC. I will probably never buy another x86 again (besides SBC's I use for firewalls, etc, although I might look at PPC SBC's for them also).
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
. It's much easier to write a GUI for Linux through X than for other OS's.
If it's so easy to write a gui for X when why the fuck dosn't someone write a good GUI for X?
Huh? Every fucking window manager for linux sucks compared to MS Windows.