Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

(When) Will Linux Pass Apple On The Desktop?

Posted by timothy on from the my-little-3-percenters dept.

EisPick writes "A column posted today on Slate ponders projections that Linux PCs will pass Apple in desktop market share next year. Will Linux do to OS X what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris and emerge as the only viable competitor to Windows on the desktop?"

19 of 1,316 comments (clear)

  1. Will Linux do to OS X what it already has... by OwnerOfWhinyCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris and emerge as the only viable competitor to Windows on the desktop?

    Of course not. Two reasons:

    1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers.

    2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac.

    No worries.

    1. Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has... by glenebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, maybe it will happen. The *only* reason I don't have a copy of OSX is because I don't want to mess with another hardware platform, and a more expensive one at that. If OSX ran on x86, I'd at least have tried it. I suspect I'm not alone here.

    2. Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has... by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm in the same position that you are but the reality is that we are in a very small demographic. The simple fact that we consider "trying" other OS's, or running multiple OS's underscores the fact. When the average consumer, and maybe even the average "prosumer" looks to buy a computer, they look at the entire package. There are few linux packages out there, and none that are nearly as compelling as the PC and Apple offerings (unless your budget is $300).

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  2. Doubtful by BoomerSooner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe when it has Photoshop, Shake, Final Cut, Illustrator, Quark, Acrobat, etc...

    Until then OS X has nothing to fear on the desktop.

    Server side is completely different though. I run almost all Linux servers (one windows server and one sun server) but OS X kicks the shit out of Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment/etc... It's consistant, reliable and fast. Not to mention the coolest laptops around.

    1. Re:Doubtful by macwhiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the problem is that, indeed, Linux folks try to get "someone" to "hack together" a user interface.

      Mac OS X's interface (rough edges and all) is the result of:

      • A team of programmers who are paid to do nothing but write the GUI code, rather than work on it in their spare time as they feel like it
      • Underlying graphics hardware that is predictable (Macs that can run OS X are either going to have ATi or Nvidia cards, not some oddball OEM card dug out of a dusty closet)
      • Years of research into human/computer interaction, psychology, and ease-of-use
      • Almost two decades of experience refining the interface
      • The foresight to write a "bible" that details how various user interface elements work
      • An API that defines user interface elements, instead of various packages of "widgets" that are mixed and matched
      • A philosophy that it's better to have one design that is reasonably good for everyone, so that you can sit down at any Mac and use any program and feel comfortable, rather than skins and themes and mods up the wazoo

      In short, perhaps the reason that open-source software hasn't duplicated the Mac's ease of use and consistency is that it just ain't that easy to pull off!

      From a technical standpoint, a lot of the neat "small touches" of Mac OS X are a feature of basing the GUI on PDF and OpenGL. Duplicating those features with X11 would be difficult at best. Example: When an iChat AV window pops up because someone IM'd you, it's mostly transparent. It truly shows what's underneath the window--even a playing movie. Most X11 programs I've seen that have "transparency" are poor imitations using workarounds.

      As for "blinded by its NeXT heritage," well... the Dock. ;)

    2. Re:Doubtful by Graff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      WHY is that? WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not? Is there any (technical) reason someone could not hack together a smooth Mac OS X work-a-like on top of Linux?

      I'll give you at least 3 very big reasons why Apple has been so successful with making its UI "feel" more complete.

      First of all, Apple has a ton of design and user-interface engineers. These are people whose only job is to sit with their feet up on the desk and think of better ways for users to interact with their systems. With Linux you are dealing with mostly programmers and system engineers. They are great at "hacking together" work-a-likes but they aren't so good at getting all of the pieces to "feel" smooth.

      Secondly, Apple makes the whole widget from start to finish. They design the computer, they design the software, they design the keyboards and mice. They have pretty much full control of all aspects of the computer system and can ensure that all parts work smoothly with as few glitches and inconsistencies as possible. With Linux you are not only dealing with many different versions of the kernel but also with different ways the kernel can be configured, different userlands, and different hardware setups.

      Lastly, Apple has laid down the law and convinced its developers to follow Apple's User Interface Guidelines as closely as possible. Pretty much every program on MacOS has a very similar interface to every other program, making it very easy to learn the basics of working a program and even easier to apply your knowledge to new programs. This sort of user interface consistency is a key factor in making the UI work "smoothly". With Linux you have a hard enough time convincing people to use the same UI skin not to mention the same UI program or the same placement of menus and options from window to window. Programming and UI design on Linux are pretty much left up to each developer and there are so many groups and personalities that it is almost impossible to get them to even agree what end an egg should be broken on.

      Although Linux is a fine operating system, it lacks this kind of fit-and-finish that Apple has managed to pull off. Linux has come a long way with the various UI that are available for it, but it is just much harder for a truly "smooth" UI to come about for Linux. Even simply copying the look of MacOS won't make the Linux UI feel "smooth", there is a lot of behind the scenes factors that affect the feel of an operating system. The overall quality of the programming makes Linux an excellent server platform and the overall UI quality on makes a Macintosh and excellent desktop platform. The two systems should work together instead of fighting against each other, we will all be better off for it.
      --
      Sapere aude!
  3. Comparing penguins to apples by Martin+Kallisti · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to whine or anything, but presently Linux has a niche and Mac OS also has a niche. Some parts of these may touch each other, but there are Mac users who wouldn't touch Linux with a ten foot pole, and vice versa. Right now, Mac OS supports far more commercial productivity software in many areas than Linux, something which many other of the "outmaneuvered" systems have not done. Considering Apples release of the G5 and the continuing improvement of both Linux and OS X, I wouldn't be surprised if Linux and Apple primarily eat Microsoft's market shares, not each others'.

  4. The question should be, "Who cares?" by CliffH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love Linux. I breathe Linux. I make a business out of migrating people from Windows to Linux. My question is though, why should we even worry about whether or not Linux will surpass OS X in desktop usage or sales. If it's for acceptance in the marketplace for newer applications being ported, great. If it's for bragging rights, bad. Remember, it's about the best tool(s) to get the job done, not market dominance. We're not looking to eliminate competition (well, maybe SCO but that's another story for later on in the day), we're trying to add choices and solutions. We shouldn't be striving for all out dominance, we should be striving for the best tools for the job and let the people who need it decide.

    Ok, I'm done with my rant. Mod this as you see fit. This isn't meant to be flamebait or a troll but I can definately see how it can be taken as one...

    CliffH

    --
    sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
  5. Linux on Desktop versus Apple by sloth+jr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Linux' chance to supplant Apple is going to happen at the corporation, not in the home. Companies have a large investment of ix86 that they will be loathe to throw away. If Linux does overcome Apple's market share (this seems possible), it will happen in business.

    From a technical viewpoint, Linux doesn't offer much to the home user:

    Aqua's a nicer interface (of course this is subjective), and X servers are still freely available for it

    Most (but not all) software for Linux can port easily to MacOS X

    Apple's got better game support than Linux. Barely.

    Peripheral support is superb under MacOS X - plug-and-play actually works.

    sloth jr

  6. furthermore... by sacrilicious · · Score: 5, Insightful
    reason I don't have a copy of OSX is because I don't want to mess with another hardware platform

    To say nothing of it costing $120 each time Apple upgrades the OS. I paid for 10.1 just in time to watch 10.2 get released. I thought I'd simply do without the luxury of 10.2, but began encountering an increasing number of pieces of software that required 10.2 - not 10.1 - to work. The Apple OS is slick and beautiful, but may not be worth the extra $100+ every N months.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  7. Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz by coupland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will Linux do to OS X what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris and emerge as the only viable competitor to Windows on the desktop?

    <sarcasm>
    Of course it will! And it's the wealth of commercial-quality software packages that will get it there! Rumba, Photoshop, PageMaker, Framemaker, Flash 6, AutoCAD, MS-Office, Lotus Notes, Cisco VPN client, Acrobat full, Kazaa... These are all cool pieces of software that run better under Linux than Mac. NOT!
    </sarcasm>

    Seriously, Linux is great and all but to compare it to Mac is the height of arrogance. Look at Freshmeat some time. There are six times more projects under Software Development Tools than under Office / Business. There are more damn desktop environments than office projects! 435 text editors and only 66 pieces under Artistic Software. Mplayer is great and all but it still doesn't compare to Media Player. And it's the best there is!

    Choice is great and if someone wants to write YATE (Yet Another Text Editor) then go wild. But to suggest Linux will surpass Mac on the desktop within the year? I've never owned a Mac and think that's ludicrous!

  8. Troll Article. by Vladimus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Seems a bit counter productive to pit Linux against Apple. These communities are far more similar, especially now, than they are different. It's best to stay united and keep technologies as compatible as possible.

    Case in point: I installed Mandrake on a PC. I connected the PC to a printer which we found incompatible with Mac OS X. Once I set up the printer using CUPS on Mandrake, ZeroConf (i.e. Rendezvous) automatically shared the printer on the network, effectively making it compatible with OS X!

    This kind of compatibility strengthens both sides, and validates each. Each operating system going it alone will not take either out of niche status.

    --

    A rolling stone is worth two in the bush!

  9. On who's desktop? by Global-Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is about to redefine the UNIX workstation market that will leave everyone, including Linux, in it's dust.

    Why?
    1. At $3K, the 2x2.0 is more than half the cost of any other 64bit UNIX workstation, and brings comparable, if not better, performance. Prepare to see a crapflood of cheap SUN ultra's, SGI Octanes, RS6000, and HPUX workstations on EBAY.

    2. OS X has one thing that no other UNIX based operating system can claim: Microsoft Office. Look under most UNIX user's desks in the workplace, and more often then not you'll see a windows box for documentation/presentations/outlook stuff. From a PHB's perspective, that means a single $3K box can replace a $9K+ UNIX workstation plus a $1500 PC. Not to mention the associated savings in power, maintenance, real estate, KVM switches, cabling, administration...

    3. The quality experience. This is the point hardest to grasp by the typical L1nux d00d. I'm using UNIX for WORK. If something goes wrong, I don't have the time, patience, or desire to recompile my kernel, figure out the config, or test a driver. I want to pickup a phone and pay someone to do if for me. NOW. As Apple sells the "complete widget", I expect them to quickly figure out what's wrong with the box. (The same applies to most other commercial UNIX which is why SUN and SGI are still in business)

    4. The codebase. Scratch OS X and it bleeds BSD. Porting most opensource apps isn't too complicated. Add the growing library of OS X cocoa/carbon apps. Windows on VirtualPC should render decent performance on the new hardware (Please MS, don't kill it!). Finish off with Java. You have a computer that may run every modern piece of software written.

    5. The interface. While this is subjective, OS X brings a lot of quality that Gnome/KDE/etc can't match, and don't get me started on how it compares against Windows... It just 'works'

    Expect to see Apple make a strong play for the workplace. Then see users want to use the same at home. If IBM can supply the faster chips, then prepare to see Apple start to grow in the business and home markets.

  10. Re:No by BitGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Apple hardware is Cheap!

    Go try to price a dual Xeon system to compare to the Dual G5 systems from a company like Dell. You can pay a thousand bucks more for a slower system from Dell, but I don't see why you would want to!

    Not flaming you at all, just pointing this out as the myth that apples computers are expensive is really old and really annoying. They aren't.

    Apple doesn't sell the bottom of the line machines for $500, for which you'd be better off getting an XBOX anyway, but in tehir price ranges they have much higher performance than the competition.

    Thus, Linux on Mac is no problem-- Apple's even putting Linux APIs (I don't know which) into Panther to make porting easier.

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  11. The reverse I would think by mwillems · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You say "Linux is for when you're young, poor, and in need of serious computing horsepower. OS X is for when you've got money in the bank and you don't want to have to deal with the Linux hassle."

    For me it is the reverse. I am neither young nor poor, and am not really in need of serious power, except for serious flexibility.

    I love my Linux desktop because *I*, not Steve J or Bill G, am in charge. I can do what I want, I can combine, shells are not hidden, and I have a choice of apps greater than one (vs MS Office for Apple and not much more for the Mac).

    You say Windows is open? Not to me it isn't. All the really useful Windows knowledge I have is in the form of "secrets". THAT is why I have a Linux desktop.

    Michael

    --

    ---
    BDOS ERR ON A:>
    1. Re:The reverse I would think by sheldon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love my Linux desktop because *I*, not Steve J or Bill G, am in charge.

      The power of the computer is not in the desktop, but in the applications. The desktop is a means to an end.

      That is the secret of the Mac/Windows world.

    2. Re:The reverse I would think by yack0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Yes, the power is in the applications, if they
      > are the applications Steve or Bill wants you to run.

      Hrm, let's see:

      [ruth:~] john% apt-cache search xchat
      xchat-ssl - Graphical IRC client
      xchat - Graphical IRC client

      Am I on my debian server? No.

      Let's see:

      [ruth:~] john% uname -a
      Darwin ruth.local. 6.6 Darwin Kernel Version 6.6: Thu May 1 21:48:54 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-344.34.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

      Looks like I'm on my iBook. Where I can install any number of thousands of applications that might normally be reserved for Linux but have been ported out to run on OS X.

      I could also, if I learned to program, write my own apps. AFAIAC, OS X is the way both Windows And Linux Desktop [1] are supposed to work.

      [1] Linux Desktop - i.e. a machine to have as a GUI workstation, not linux servers.

      j

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
  12. Re:Yellowdog Linux by 13Echo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For starters, comparing a more advanced distribution like Debian to OSX is rediculous. Perhaps you should compare it to Lindows or Lycoris. Neither of those require a whole lot of effort to install. Lycoris even autodetects and sets up your hardware automatically.

    Second, you need *no* libraries to get DVD movie playback to work with MPlayer. It comes with a modified version of libsdvdcss that is *enabled* by default. Many users install it with just a click or two, if they use an RPM based system. And 99% of video cards run on Linux with XV overlay support these days, so no configuration is really needed. It's funny that you have a DVD problem though, because I just installed Slackware 9 on my buddies P3 700 notebook with an s3 video chip. He gets full speed DVD with MPlayer with less than 30% CPU load. Are you another one of those framebuffer trolls?

    I've never experienced your signal 11 problem with XMMS. I'm sorry to hear about that though. I listen to XMMS on all of my boxes and have yet to have a single crash in three years of use.

    You have a point that Linux isn't for everybody, but neither is OSX. For some reason though, I don't think that was the point that the parent threads (or the article) was trying to make.

    Honestly, though... I know *many* more Linux users than Mac users... Come to think of it, I only know a single Mac user. Maybe that article isn't so far-fetched. Perhaps that means that Linux really does cater to more users than Apple does? (I won't sympathize with those that actually take this comment seriously)

  13. Laptop market by mke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An area that seems to have been glossed over in this thread is the laptop market. The reality is that running linux on your laptop is tough. The hardware isn't really upgradable anyway, so why not go mac?

    I've seen a real increase in the number of powerbooks and ibooks that people are carrying around with them, especially in technical circles. It's unix without the hassle, in a spiffier piece of plastic/titantium/aluminum.