(When) Will Linux Pass Apple On The Desktop?

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?"

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:No

[pVoid]

agreed.

After today's releases, I was actually asking myself if OS X could actually start threatening Windows.

I've always been a PC user (because of flexibility, price, and just openess of the whole thing), and I do use Windows, and for the first time ever today (looking at the G5 specs and the MacOS stuff) I was actually tempted.

Sorry wishful thinkers... linux ain't gonna do nothin' to OS X. In any case, it'll have much less effect on OS X than it could have on Windows.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing here is, Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales... buying a Mac to run Linux would still make them very happy keep them in business. I don't see Linux as being the threat to Apple that this (MSN biased?) article seems to make us believe.

Re:No

[dbrutus]

Linux is more likely to be a positive than a negative for Apple. Without Linux, would KDE be where it is today? Would KDE even exist? But without KDE, Apple wouldn't have been able to take KHTML and make Safari. But it's not one-sided as the KHTML group benefited by getting a great many feature and stability improvements to their library contributed back to their project from Apple.

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.

Will Linux eventually get its usability act together and challenged OS X on its own turf? Maybe, but on its way there, Linux would much more quickly gut Windows dominance and that's a result I can live with.

Re:No

[michrech]

Except that it's more a port of one of the BSD's than linux.. =]

And all of you "port to x86, you bastards!" people; Get over it. MacOS/OSX will never be on any x86 hardware.

As a side note, it's not *that* hard to get a $20-$70+ (depending on taste) mouse for your MAC that has more than one button and even a scroll wheel (or two!)... Shesh!

Yea, yea.. It should come with a better mouse. It doesn't. Get over it.. =]

Thus hath spoketh, an avid PC user.

Re:No

[Temporal]

Actually, it's a little-known fact that OSX already supports three-button mice! It's sort of tricky to enable, though. If you want to use a three-button mouse (complete with right-click context menus like you'd expect), you'll need to follow the following steps:

(1) Plug in a 3-button USB mouse.

I know this procedure may be a little confusing compared to the simple config file edits and driver installations you might be used to in other OS's, but if you follow the steps carefully, you should be able to figure it out. Have fun!

Re:No

[saden1]

Apple hardware is pretty pricey so I'm sure they are maying a nice profit from it. I imagine most /.ers are bargain hunters like me. The only real advantage of Windows is Games. Both OS X and Linux lack the support of game developers. The two OS's are stuck in a viscous cycle of developers not wanting to produce games for them because of low market shares, and the OS's not being able to gain enough user base to demand games on the platforms.

I dual boot not because I want to, but because I am addicted to games. Give me games and I'll toss my Windows Disk out of the window.

Re:No

[SunPin]

It's not enough to make you throw out windows but it is a step in the right direction... try Mutant Storm. Beautiful game and incredibly addictive.

Re:No

[BitGeek]

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.

Re:No

[BitGeek]

Yeah, why port to x86? Slower hardware that costs more.

PowerPC is, and always will be more price/performance competitive than the x86.

Re:No

[petong]

The two OS's are stuck in a viscous cycle of developers

I for one would hate to be caught in a viscous cycle!

$ dict viscous
2 definitions found

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Viscous \Vis"cous\, a. [L. viscosus. See {Viscid}.]
Adhesive or sticky, and having a ropy or glutinous
consistency; viscid; glutinous; clammy; tenacious; as, a
viscous juice. -- {Vis"cous*ness}, n.

Note: There is no well-defined distinction in meaning between
viscous and viscid.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

viscous
adj 1: having a relatively high resistance to flow [syn: {syrupy}]
2: having the properties of glue [syn: {gluey}, {glutinous}, {gummy},
{mucilaginous}, {pasty}, {sticky}, {viscid}]

Re:No

[GNU_Suit]

I just bought my girlfriend a new G4 Mac and at $2500 for the box (granted, it's a good one) there's no way Mac will overtake MSFT with the $500 boxes pushed by the likes of Dell.

Re:No

[ldspartan]

....

64-bitness aside, I purchased a dual-capable 2.0Ghz xeon machine from Dell a while ago for $700, and it came with 2x 73.4GB U320 SCSI disks, which retail for about $300 a piece. Add another proc and RAM, and you have a comparable machine (based on old technology I might ad) for $1500.

I think. ...

--
Phil

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot some steps:

(1) Buy a $1500 computer from apple.com
(2) Buy a $30 mouse that doesn't ship with said $1500 computer
(3) Unplug useless 1 button mouse from $1500 computer.
(4) Plug in a 3-button USB mouse

Re:No

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Nice troll. It's one I happen to agree with to an extent. People are not stupid. It IS nice to allow you to do about 90 percent of what you need to do with the left mouse button, but after you've mastered that, power users should be able to do what they want and with Mac OSX they are. So, include a nice matching 3 button mouse as a option to the one button mouse. Scroll Mice are also supported and handy. One thing where I differ with you is where in god's name do you find a mouse for 30 bucks? I can find acceptable mice for around 15. Granted, I do like cadillac mice too. My fav is a intellimouse pro. Microsoft may not make the best software, but there mice are excellent. One hting that Apple needs to do more is concentrate a bit mroe on their power users. They do fine with the low end and they need to push the hugh end more. Hence the G5.

Re:No

[Temporal]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem. The concept of "left-click" and "right-click" seems intuitive to us... but some people really can't grasp it. So, Apple makes their OS able to cater to these people, while at the same time supporting multiple-button mice for power users. They include a single-button mouse in the box because the people who need it aren't going to be able to buy their own mouse. You, on the other hand, no doubt would have no trouble buying a mouse with as many buttons as you want.

This probably all sounds absurd to you. It sounds pretty silly to me, too... I mean, how dumb would one have to be to not understand a two-button mouse? However, Apple is the one who has spent millions of dollars researching it, so I think I'll trust their judgement.

If you have the money for a Mac, you can probably afford any mouse you want to go with it. Personally, I've been using my trusty IntelliMouse Explorer for something like five years now, and I don't intend to give it up until someone pries it out of my cold, dead hands!

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

> Apple hardware is Cheap! Go try to price a dual Xeon system to compare to the Dual G5 systems from a company like Dell.

But I don't need a dual Xeon system. I just need something to be productive on, as do most people.

Re:No

[zurab]

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.

Will Linux eventually get its usability act together and challenged OS X on its own turf? Maybe, but on its way there, Linux would much more quickly gut Windows dominance and that's a result I can live with.

I'm surprised just how many posts to this story are discussing OS X vs. Linux benefits, differences, etc. I didn't think it was relevant at all. A simple prediction that Linux will pass OS X market share in the near future has nothing to do with OS flamewars. In fact, Linux and OS X are coming from totally different ends of the spectrum and they are not likely to meet soon.

This is not about KDE or Linux eating Apple market share but rather acquiring new markets or taking some away from Windows. I see it as a natural progression and I expect it. Unless Apple does someting drastic with their product (and everything else being relatively the same), e.g. offer it on x86, open-source much of it, etc. I don't see how Apple's market share changing significantly. Linux, on the other hand, is waiting for an explosion. In the near future, it is very likely that many if not most systems in the developing countries will be running Linux. This is bound to have an effect on developed countries also. Linux has many more significant inroads to make (even as it is), as opposed to Apple. So, I it's likely, IMO, that Linux desktop market share will overtake Apple's. Again, this doesn't mean Linux will beat OS X in UI, or functionality, or slickness, or "being cool", etc.

Finally, I'd like to mention that the guy, Alex Salkever, who predicted this in a linked Business Week article, calls Safari "Apple's homegrown" browser and reiterates that it was built completely from scratch in-house. Dude, you are wrong! Get your facts straight before shelling out with your "expert" predictions.

Re:No

[LordNightwalker]

In fact, pal, I sure hope Linux won't ever become so popular that it pushes MacOS, or any OS for that matter, out of the market.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a linux guy myself, but I love diversity. Linux is cool, mac is cool, so many other OSses are cool, so why can't we just coexist? I'm a bit tired of this whole "will Linux ever push <insert OS> out of the market" talk. It's not constructive.

Re:No

[Jagasian]

What is "the Linux" hassle? Redhat 9 is easy to install, use, and maintain.

If Apple was the monopoly, which they really want to be, it would be far worse than the current Microsoft monopoly. Not only would we have closed software... we would have close hardware too.

Linux is the turtle. It is always making progress. It will win the race.

Re:No

[RetiredMidn]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem.

Short version, in response to the complaint that the Mac has no right mouse button: the Mac has no wrong mouse button.

Re:No

[EnVisiCrypt]

I call shenanigans.

A bottom line (and I mean BOTTOM. radeon VE, onboard sound, 256 mb ram, 40gb hard drive) Xeon capable Dell, *starts* at $1,048. If you got yours refurb, it's not a fair comparison. Look at the Apple refurbs if you're going to do that.

A truly comparable, new Dell runs $2,509, which is much less reasonable, especially given that the Xeon is a 32-bit processor.

Re:No

[rbullo]

I would have switched to Apple computers running GNU/Linux long ago had they decided to allow third party manufacturers to produce their hardware. I HATE pretty much anything proprietary, be it software, hardware, or recipies. If Apple opened up their hardware, then IMO, there should be a huge jump in their market share because of people like me buying their computers to avoid Palladium or for the reasons you stated (or just for the hell of it :)).

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Maintain? Really?

Imagine giving your mom a computer. Or, if you're a 20-something with a 40-something mom, imagine giving your grandmother - or great grandmother, if she's not past 70 - a Redhat box.

Now expect them to maintain it. Keep in mind, this person isn't going to want to edit a text file or muck through RPM interdependencies. They will want to plug in a camera, scanner, and other external devices now and again. On their own. Without calling you. Without you coming over to do it for them.

Now realize that this is, by and large, the average desktop user.

Linux has a long frickin' way to go in this respect, and the sooner Linux fans realize this fact, the sooner you'll be able to work to fix it.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, it just makes you look like a zealot - and a far worse one, in my opinion, than Mac zealots. At least that system could be maintained and expanded by the userbase in question.

Re:No

[reallocate]

In addition, not all computer users are twenty-something. Older folks with arthritis and other maladies have less precise control of the motion of their hands than younger people. If your hand isn't terribly steady or if it is painful to manipulate a mouse, a simple mouse with one big button is a boon. (Stay tuned. It will happen to all of us.)

In any case, computers ought to be as easy to use as possible, and discussion shouldn't focus on bogus claims that ease-of-use reduces functionality or is only necessary in inverse proportion to the intelligence of the user. I've known a lot of very intelligent people who use computers to get their work done, but are othewise completely uninterested in them. There's no difference in functionality in OS X between a one-button and a three-button mouse. Using one or the other is a matter of personal convenience, not an indicator of intelligence.

Re:No

[athlon02]

Actually it doesn't sound silly to me, it sounds irritating. I mean it's like changing oil in a car... I'm far from being a mechanic, but it only takes like 1-2 times of seeing it done to get the idea down.

It seems my parents and grandparents have a hard time with it because they didn't have it growing up and perhaps there's some truth to that. But I also think people try to make it too hard. They hear all these stories and get all the ideas engrained in their heads that Windows crashes, computers are hard to fix, etc, etc. So they won't even ATTEMPT to try something for themselves too afraid the thing will literally explode or something.

I may have grown up with computers, but when I was in elementary school and junior high I didn't magically know what to do I had to learn like everyone else. On the day of my 13th b-day I put a power on password on the family 386 and apparently typed it in wrong and didn't know how to unlock it. Fortunately my dad's co-worker knew enough to take the CMOS battery out and that did the trick. But since then I've learned worlds of stuff, much of it by trial and error.

I honestly think most people would be better off if they'd just take a basic computer course or at least have the guts to tinker with the machine til they learn how it all works. (That is provided they at least learn how to backup data and use a factory restore CD).

Re:No

[JudgeFurious]

Well put. How many people do you know who spend time on their computer in the Wintel world that are still using the mouse their box came with? At least those people who bought a factory job and not a clone they put together themselves?

I can't think of a single one I know. The mouse is one of the first things that gets pitched back into the box and replaced with something better. So why the hell is it an issue on the Mac?

Get over it, call Logitech, Microsoft, McAnally, or whoever and get on with life people.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple opened up their hardware, then IMO, there should be a huge jump in their market share because of people like me buying their computers

Except they wouldn't, since there really aren't that many of you.

Why does everyone think that they constitute some giant demographic?

Re:No

[Hinokagutsuchi]

"I may have grown up with computers, but when I was in elementary school and junior high I didn't magically know what to do I had to learn like everyone else. On the day of my 13th b-day I put a power on password on the family 386 and apparently typed it in wrong and didn't know how to unlock it. Fortunately my dad's co-worker knew enough to take the CMOS battery out and that did the trick. But since then I've learned worlds of stuff, much of it by trial and error."

I agree. That's the way that I've learned everything that I know about computers. The thing is, if something messes up once, and you fix it yourself [by following what someone has told you, or if you looked it up], you remember it. Then you can adapt and apply it to other instances.

Trial and error is a good way to learn. It provides hands-on experience instead of having someone lecture to you.

Re:No

[MidnightBrewer]

Er...you want an Apple computer manafuctured by a third party, running GNU/Linux? Then it wouldn't be an Apple computer, would it?

Third-party manufacturers *do* produce their hardware; they just don't sell it. For example, IBM makes the chips, ATI and nVidia make the video cards, and Sony makes the SuperDrive.

The only thing unique to Apple's computers are the motherboard ROMs. Everything else is standardized hardware (SDRAM, PCI, AGP, etc.)

Re:No

[Professor D]

Just as a side note, the Mac understood *5* button mice back in the ADB days.

Of course you needed extensions to make the other four buttons meaningful.

It still boggles my mind that even now, X windows can't get multi-buttoned mice done correctly (If you claim otherwise, you're wrong - ever try to use a mouse left handed under X11 only to be stymied by that one app that wants the buttons defined as left,middle,right and not 1,2,3?)

Re:No

[MarkCollette]

I got my Dad a second-hand Mac, which came with a two button mouse. He had never had his own computer before, but had read a little of a book on using Win98 , to help get a better job.

Anyways, I don't know how many weeks it took for him to sort out the differences between left-clicking, right-clicking, single-clicking and double-clicking. I think we should not underestimate how important to the huge uptake of the Internet comes from Web browsers only needing the user to single-left-click to do just about everything.

I agree that PowerMacs should come with three button mice, but I fully 100% agree with iMacs coming with single button mice.

Re:No

[Tony]

Microsoft may not make the best software, but there mice are excellent.

They only steal the best.

Re:No

[rbullo]

I apologize. I didn't bother to check Apple's hardware specs. But does this mean I can use hardware meant for the PC in a Mac? (Expected awnser == No)

Re:No

[slantyyz]

Why does everyone think that they constitute some giant demographic?

I hope that umbrella statement is also targeted at the Mac users and their 2% market share who think that it's a no brainer that everyone and his cousin will switch from 'doze, Linux, Solaris and any other OS with today's G5 announcement.

Re:No

[BollocksToThis]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem.

And how many of these computer illiterates are buying state-of-the-art G5 desktop machines?

Come ON. It's a power user's machine. Sell the bloody iMac with a one button mouse, but have a bit of respect for your other (non-imbecile) customers.

Re:No

[MentosPimp]

Depends on what hardware you speak of.

I dont even own a Mac, but I know that they use the Same RAM, HardDrives, and VideoCards that PCs do.

And I dont imagine there is necessarily a dearth of peripherials either (scanners, printers, cameras, etc).

Re:No

[EelBait]

It depends on the hardware. Memory, Video cards, hard drives, optical drives, PCI cards. All are "standard". In fact, the Mac probably will work will any kind of hardware you throw at it better than a BIOS-based PC.

If you mean case and/or motherboard then forget it. At the current speeds you need to engineer the whole widget or it won't work as well.

Re:No

[EelBait]

Heh. Yeah. That would about as dumb as saying, "I want a Dell made by someone other than Dell." Or, a Playstation made by someone other than Sony.

Re:No

[adamfranco]

Unless Apple does someting drastic with their product (and everything else being relatively the same), e.g. offer it on x86, open-source much of it, etc. I don't see how Apple's market share changing significantly.

Quite a good point. Apple's blessing and curse is that its profits are tied to hardware. This is a blessing as they have an incredibly beautiful OS that causes windows and *nix users to go out and buy one. I have an ex-windows-now-Linux/BSD PC at home and code on a G3 with 3 monitors at work (3840x1024 pixels (-: ). I must say that I vastly prefer OSX. Almost everything I have running on my Linux box I can run on OS X. Everything else, I install on the linux box, then pipe X through ssh to X11 on OSX. The apps run off of the powerful x86 box, but apear on my Mac. Wonderful!

Their tie to their beautiful-if-slow hardware is also Apple's Achilles' heel. Since most people can't afford $2,000 for a new computer (or see it as a waste of money), OS X will never have the market share nessisary to get application developers to code natively for the OS. Luckily, with OS X you can run most any *nix app with the CLI or X11, so this is less of a problem, but it is still the thing that is holding back Apple the most. For instance, check out RedVsBlue's Apple Switch parody -- quite funny and true. The total, utter void of wicked-cool 3D games for the Mac is really crap. However, unless they get --or have the potential for-- significant market share no one is going to waste time writing apps for them.

Hopefully, OS X's ability to run most *nix apps and X11 will enable it to ride along on the wave created by Linux and keep its niche market without too much loss. While many of Apple's practices are not all that friendly (their monitor and speaker plugs, for instance), homoganization of computing is definately a bad thing and Apple does have a place. Horay for a less-Micro$haft future!

Re:No

[EelBait]

Except that someone who makes the whole widget is not an illegal monopoly. An illegal monopoly is someone who makes the part of the widget that the other parts rely on and and controls the other part vendors' access to consumers. MS controls Dell's and Gateway's access to consumers by making the componet that completes the system. If MS made the whole widget, they would not have been found guilty of being an abusive monopoly. But, since they stand at the crossroads between OEMs and consumers, and charge a toll in both directions, they are illegal.

Re:No

[jmorris42]

Fair enough. but since most of the real excitement in Mac land is in laptops, where is a TiBook with a three button pointer? And how about a trackpoint instead of a glidepoint? Sorry, but Steve's "my way or the highway" isn't for me.

Re:No

[Xabraxas]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem

Proof again that not everyone should use a computer. I hate to sound elitist but why should everyone else have to suffer because someone couldn't figure out how to use more than one mouse button? I wish they would make efficient computers for efficient people, rather than dumb computers for dumb people.

Re:No

[ksheff]

Did you get it from Dell's refurb site or someone in Round Rock who has been sneaking machines out the door? The lowest price SMP capable machine that I've priced out from Dell is a Precision 450n with the minimum amount of RAM, IDE hard drives, cheapest video card, linux, etc. and it came out to be a little over $1300. To get the DVD burner & something equivalent to the low end G5, one had to get XP (DVD burners are supported under linux, ???), and it was about $1740 ... not much cheaper than the Apple machine.

Re:No

[tejarz]

unfair, you're telling the truth. remember, this is slashdot. things like that cant be told.

Re:No

[saden1]

Tell me about it, we buy dual Xeon Systems at my work to do heavy image and processing and that sucker costs about 5 grand. That is to be expected when you have two SCSI 146 Gig hard drives and 2 Gig in memory.

Besides, I build my own system. I can build a screaming system for a little less than $800. Last time I check you can get a scrawny little eMac. Have nothing against the eMac but for $800? Can you say ripp-off?

Re:No

[jbicman]

My opinion is Linux doesn't have a chance in the desktop market. Gnome and Kde just aren't as pleasing to look at or as easy to use as Windows Xp or OS X. I think OS X is the best over OS, but its so damn slow. Maybe the new G5 will fix that problem, who knows.

Re:No

[Retarded Penguin]

Power PC's tend to be very good with floating point and not as good with everyday stuff. Thats why people complain aobut them being sluggish. The Athlon, Centrino and Hammer all seem to have good FPU and good everyday performance. P4's are at the opposite end of the spectrum and tend to be rather gutless. Bottom line, in the stuff that we do from day to day they dont seem as fast as pc's. I think the G5 should do Apple good, although I want to see them switch to the Hammer myself.

Re:No

[WiggyWack]

I had to teach my 75-year-old grandfather how to use a computer. Yes, trying to explain the difference between "left-click" and "right-click" can be VERY confusing. Trust me. :)

Re:No

[Vaughn Anderson]

Unfortunately, it's not a "3 button" mouse. It's a _one_ button mouse with a couple of extra _keys_ on it. I need my 8 button mouse... poor macs... they are still in the mouse dark ages...

MAC USER 1: Remember the good ole' days when Mac shipped a one button mouse with every computer... oh wait.

MAC USER 2: [convert from Linux] The mouse is for pixel pushers anyways...

Re:NO

[biostatman]

Maybe even 6 months ago I would agree on most of these points, but using Mandrake, it seems like many of these issues are addressed.

1) The X font management sucks...
Adding fonts under Mandrake is quite easy, and it takes some doing, but the fonts look fine (GNOME 2.2) to me.
2) DLL hell...
urpmi solves most of this; I can't speak to whether or not it causes more bloat than OSX. I must say that on my wife's iMac (600 MhZ) OSX is certainly no speed demon, though.
3) Commercial software...
Crossover covers the major one (Office). Can't speak from personal experience about how well it runs photoshop. Also, the latest OpenOffice is getting quite good. There are great scientific tools, and the UNIX philosophy is soooo much nicer than commercial software in some cases (XEmacs + Latex + DVIPS + gv + shell scripts). The one piece of commercial software that I use regularly (SAS) runs like a champ. This is getting better quickly.
4) Hardware Support...
Given that there is so much more HW choice on x86 and that Linux does a pretty darned good job (and modern distros like Mandrake make it pretty easy) I would hardly call this a slam dunk for Apple...
5) Better Integration...
OS X definitely kicks butt here
6) Appearance...
Maybe I just have simpler needs, but after using OS X for a while, the eye candy eventually got a little bit boring. Linux (GNOME) provides me with a pleasant enough looking desktop that is ergonomic, easy enough to configure and allows me to work very efficiently.

I don't know if it is simply the anti-establishment coolness + BSD under-the-hood thing that OS X has going for it, but when Windows was "prettier" than linux, on /. it was all about CLIs, and xterms, etc... Pragmatically, I really just haven't found much in OS X that gives it a usability quantam leap. I think that some of the discussion about some extremely subtle UI elements ("proper" use of transparency, etc...) is a bit pedantic. It is eye candy. No doubt it looks cool / modern / snazzy whatever, but in my mind it is truly just eye candy.

Re:No

[drsmithy]

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.

They are.

And, up until about twelve hours ago, they were expensive and much slower than the competition.

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.

No, in *some* price ranges, they have *somewhat* higher performance than the competition. In other price ranges (like, say, where normal home users shop) their price/performance is not good, assuming they have a comparable product at all.

Even then, it should only take a couple of weeks for the PC prices points to adjust themselves down. By the time the first PM G5s are reaching their buyers, you'll almost certainly be able to buy a cheaper, faster Dell machine.

Does anyone else find MacZealot revisionist history as amusing as I do ? Macs have been competitive on price/power for all of about half a day and suddenly it's like the last four years of overpriced, underpowered machines never existed.

Re:No

[Spock the Baptist]

"Besides, I build my own system. I can build a screaming system for a little less than $800. Last time I check you can get a scrawny little eMac. Have nothing against the eMac but for $800? Can you say ripp-off?"

The five most important words in the above quote are '...I can build my own system.'

Given that my Grandfather was a Master Carpenter, and a contractor, and I worked for him every summer of my teens; I'll bet that I can build a house a for a *lot* less than you can buy one.

Re:No

[tyrione]

No offense, but Yes Safari would exist. The Engineers just chose not to use Gecko and also not to develop their own, in-house trying to add to a project that already invented the wheel.

So if KHTML did not exist trust me they would have most likely fixed Gecko to suit their needs or write their own.

Re:NO

[prockcore]

1) The X font management sucks. I write a lot of essays and need access to fonts for some papers.

Ximian Deskop: I double click on My Computer, I then click on Fonts, boom, I have a window which shows all the fonts I have installed (with little previews of the font as icons), I drag my true type fonts into that directory, and they're immediately available everywhere.. all nice and hinted and antialiased.

Your comment about recompiling the kernel shows you as the fudmeister you are.. I haven't recompiled a kernel in years. I have a lot of usb2.0 hardware, including cdburner and thumbdrive and SDCard reader. I didn't even have to reboot or install any drivers or anything. I'm even using an Apple Pro Keyboard.. works just peachy... including the Volume keys above the number pad.

Re:No

[saden1]

I'd like to hire you to build me a house.

Re:No

[styopa]

11 of Logitech's mice are $30 or more. When I bought my new computer about 6 months ago I threw away my MS Intellimouse and plugged in my 5 year old Logitech Mouseman 4. I may have to finally get a new mouse though, about a month ago one of the pads on the bottom lost its stick and fell of, but since I haven't seen any lose of movement I can probably hold off that purchase until something actually breaks.

Everyone I know who has owned a Logitech product has loved it. The first MS mouse I owned was always requiring cleaning and just sucked, I threw it away after 6 months. In fact, at least a quarter of the people I know who own MS mice have had problems with theirs within the first year of ownership. Funny, the University I go to also replaces all of their broken MS mice with old Logitech mice that are more than 5 years old.

Oh, and I think Apple is targetting their market perfectly. The power users will come slowly, but why compete with your ally Linux for them on the desktop when you are in better position to rip away the low end users from MS. I think people are missing the point when they think that Apple will lose market share to Linux, they have two completely different user basis.

Re:No

[cybpunks3]

Before everyone swears up and down that 2 or 3-button mice are the "standard" let's put this in perspective.

Apple has been shipping computers with 1-button mice when the PC was shipped WITHOUT a mouse--because back then all you had was DOS.

Now, I may like more than one mouse button, but Apple's got their reasons for sticking to the traditional 1-button mouse that they've had for 20 years.

Re:No

[Bobke]

Hmm, Gentoo will port their portage to Mac OSX, in that aspect they might well merge together... Imagine just typing "emerge kde" in X, hmm. I no longer care about PC if that happens...

Re:No

[martingunnarsson]

The eMac sounds good for you, starting at $799.

Re:No

[Halo1]

That's not entirely true, the motherboard/system controller is proprietary as well. So you still need a motherboard manufacturer. There is at least one company doing this, but they're not exactly producing leading edge technology.

Re:No

[zerocool^]

My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance.

In the house where I live, there's a 2.4Ghz Pentium four.

It can encode a DVD in Divx 5.05 in realtime. Using two pass. Seriously. If you rip a DVD to the hard drive, then put it in a DVD player, by the time the movie is done, you'll have a 2 pass encoded divx rip sitting on the hard drive.

Basically it comes down to this: There are very few flame wars that I'm willing to participate in. But mac users who claim their hardware is cheaper than a comparable speed PC or faster than a comparable priced PC are so full of crap they've got living spaces in their septic tanks.

I will concede the following things:
1.) mac hardware is stable
2.) mac hardware is fast
3.) mac hardware is (some) 64 bit
4.) mac looks good
4.) at a given clock speed, mac hardware will be faster than the windows counterpart

BUT. I hate the megahertz mith of the P-4 as much as anyone, but the fact remains that the p4 is damn fast, and all the clock speed DOES make up for the poor engineering. PERIOD.

When mac fanatics claimed that their hardware was faster, it might have been true at the time when mac hardware was 333 mhz and PC was 450 Mhz. But, it took mac a year to go from 333 to 500. In that time, PC hit 933 and 1.0 Ghz. Sorry fanboys, your 1 Ghz PowerPC doesn't hold a candle to a 3.2 Ghz P-4. Show me a mac that can do 240 fps in quake 3. Please.

Real world numbers on price:
MAC - $1800
Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 Proc
256 MB DDR333
80 GB ATA HDD
DVD / CD-RW
GeForce 4 Ti 128 MB
Sound card (not specified)
No Monitor

Dell - $1677
2.8 Ghz Hyper Threaded P-4 800 Mhz bus
512 MB DDR400 dual channel ram
120 GB 7200 RPM hard drive
ATI radeon 9800 pro 128MB
DVD / CD-RW combo drive
Sound Blaster live! 5.1

Let's examine:
Mac has essentially 2 processors totalling 2.5 Ghz. PC has one processor that acts as two because of hyper threading, totalling 2.8 Ghz
Mac has 256 MB of DDR333. PC has twice that and faster ram at DDR400 Dual channel.
Mac has 80 GB hard drive (RPM not specified). PC has 120 GB hard drive (50% bigger) and specified at 7200 RPM.
Mac has DVD-CDRW combo drive. PC has DVD-CDRW Combo drive.
Mac has unspecified level of Geforce 4 Ti, w/ 128 MB of video ram. PC has radeon 9800 pro, with 128 MB of ram. Radeon 9800 beats any Geforce 4, even Ti 4600, by significant margin.
Mac has sound card. PC has creative soundblaster live 5.1.

Mac costs $1,799. PC costs $1,677. PC is better in every measurable context, price and performance included. Well, mabey it doesn't beat it out in the "cool case with shades of grey and handles" department.

Macs are not for everyone. They are for people who want pretty computers that work well without hassle and that look good. Mac is all that. Mac is NOT, however, the faster type of computer, nor is it the cheaper type of computer.

~Wx

Re:No

[TheCrazyFinn]

Yes and no.

Video Cards: usually no, but some cards can be flashed with a video bios that works (Radeon 7000 PCI, Voodoo3 2000). This isn't an Apple issue, but a combination of Endian-ness and Open Firmware support in Bios. If the chipset has drivers, Sun PCI video cards will work in Macs, and vice-versa (Generally only true for ATI Rage Pro/Mach 64 based cards, due to wonky support from Sun).

NIC's, yes if Drivers exist (Using a Belkin RTL8139 $10 special in my Beige G3 right now)

SCSI Cards, yes, non-bootable for most Adaptec cards. Bootable requires OpenFirmware compliant BIOS, usually not flashable.

ATA Cards: No, BIOS issue, not flashable.

PC-Cards:Yes, given driver support.

USB and Firewire devices: Usually. exception is wierd USB devices (TV tuners, some webcams, nifty gadgets, USB NIC's[no USB NIC drivers in Mac OS]). Any USB Mouse, Keyboard, or storage is supported, anything firewire usually has Mac support (But not always PC). Scanners and printers depend on drivers, support for which are getting better.

ATA Devices: Yes, but check for support for -R/RW drives (iTunes and Finder support most, but not all drives out there, aftermarket DVD-R's require 3rd party software, iDVD only works with Apple-ROM Superdrives due to Evil Licensing issues[not Apple's fault, they're the victim of the license])
any harddrive will work.

RAM: yes, if good, full-spec RAM (Mac's are notoriously picky about RAM following the full spec. Any top-name Ram will work, if right kind).

Soundcards: NO. Unless it's a pro-level card. USB sound devices may work.

Re:No

[GlassHeart]

And how many of these computer illiterates are buying state-of-the-art G5 desktop machines? Come ON. It's a power user's machine.

You are very, very confused.

You are equating people who need a lot of computing horsepower ("power user") with those who know a lot (or even want to know a lot) about computers. A graphic artist or video editor might drive the high end demand for CPU power, yet not want to deal with many of the intricacies that you would consider commonplace.

have a bit of respect for your other (non-imbecile) customers.

Do they have to design and sell every bit of equipment to have this respect? Exactly what is wrong with just buying another mouse from another vendor? Or are you just worried that the color won't go well together?

Re:No

[Ace Rimmer]

I don't want to be nitpicking but developers do support Linux. Some of my friends are full-time game developers and every single game they made (and those are 20$ B-rated games...) runs just fine on Linux (some of them even develop it in Linux).

Irony is that every such game will be solely for Windows on the _Market_.

There is no marketshare so why should a salesman give out a Linux version? Sure, he can just bundle it to Win version or put it on a website - but why? People will only call on support lines (even if there was a big "NO SUPPORT" stick, he said)...

Re:No

[RoLi]

Apple hardware is Cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)

*Cough*, cough.

While I think that the new G5s are really great computers and especially the dual-CPU system is not overpriced, Apple lacks a cheap product line.

Sorry, but I wont buy a computer for 2000$ if all I do is surf the web and check email. Sorry, but I wont use a 2000$ computer as a router in my household. Apple's G5 offerings are great, but only for a small segment of the market.

The sad fact is that a 300$ computer from Walmart can do most of computing tasks fast enough. I really think Apple needs a cheap product line *with* PCI slots.

Re:No

[k-zed]

Well, i've been burning DVDs under linux since a while. Admittedly, it wasn't exactly trivial to set up, but you can get it to work by using a program called cdrecord-prodvd (a fork of cdrecord with dvd support built in). You can download it from here: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ProDVD/

Re:No

[irexe]

Apple hardware is Cheap! Go try to price a dual Xeon system to compare to the Dual G5 systems from a company like Dell.

Well, I was on your (and Apple's) side for a while until I needed to buy a laptop. I write code for real time audio processing which I use for live performance and I decided to conduct a little test before I bought a G4 powerbook..

I wrote a small, heavily CPU intensive program which performed many typical DSP calculations, compiled it with gcc and ran it on a desktop athlon-xp 1700. Without optimizations, this test routine took eight seconds to complete, with optimizations it took four. Then, I compiled and ran it on an 867 Mhz G4 (same compiler): the typical routine took 30 seconds to complete without optimizations and 8 seconds with optimizations. Of course, you can't really make any scientific conclusions here, but it is suspicious at least.

Why is comparing an xp 1700 to a 867mhz G4 fair? Well, because at the time (earlier this year!) you had to pay 2400 euro for the G4 Powerbook with a 15.2 inch screen and 1800 euro for a Vaio with an xp 1700 and a 15.2 inch screen. Mind you, both machines have roughly the same overall configuration and extras.

So, to get back to your point: it depends on how you define 'cheap'. If you look at Powerbooks by themselves, they may seem more affordable than they used to, but if you look at power-per-euro, they are relatively expensive, bottom line.

Re:No

[nametaken]

Maybe faster... but not necessarily more reliable or useful.

Re:No

[melatonin]

And how many of these computer illiterates are buying state-of-the-art G5 desktop machines?

Much, much more than you think.

When I was working at a failing .com, I remember my manager saying "once we turn this around I'm going to get the most gorgeous PowerBook I can get" (he hated his Dell). Someone else, who shall remain nameless, bought a G4 Tower with a 17" studio display because he saw how gorgeous my 17" was (the 17" iMac wasn't out yet, and you need a tower to run the 17" ASDs). This person uses the (very expensive) G4 to check email at work (he says it's good for impressing clients). This person freaked out when I replaced Chimera with Safari, because it looked too different. He didn't know how to use it!

Chances are your boss has a more expensive box than you do. It's probably a portable, but it's probably... nice.

People with money can afford the prettier, nicer things in life, but that doesn't mean that they know why they're any good. How many old people do you see driving high-end Mercedes sports cars? A LOT! They're the only ones who can afford them! How many women do you see driving 'cute' yet powerful sports cars (such as low-end Mercedes or Z3s)? A LOT! No other kind of car can be as 'cute' as a small sports car. How many women do you see driving SUVs? A LOT! How many of them bought them because they were four wheel drive? Certainly the woman in the SUV behind me during the nightly traffic jam "drive" home didn't. Why is Porsche making an SUV? it's going to sell a hell of a lot better than their two-seater sports cars! And again, if you're in the market for a 'luxurious,' enviable computer, which brands are you going to turn to?

This is a reason why geeks can't understand WTF Apple is doing sometimes. Apple's target demographic is much larger (they have to satisfy the Mathematica geeks and the SUV drivers). And you ALWAYS make more money targetting a demographic that has money than targeting markets that don't; which is a large reason why Apple didn't suffer anywhere near as much as the PC makers did during this downturn.

And, back on topic, OS X is far more sophisticated than most Linux developers realize. Apple succeeded bringing Unix to the desktop; they didn't do it by making users learn how Unix works. I remember a TidBits article ranting about poor Unix user experience, talking about things like invisible dot-files in your home directory for app preferences (he was worried about how Unix-y Mac OS X was going to be). Forcing your users to think they way you do is the wrong approach.

Which is why Apple ships Macs with one button mice. If you want a good mouse you can buy the best damn mouse you want- with or without a scroll wheel, as many buttons as you want, etc. Myself, I use a graphics tablet! For me, mice suck in comparison, so why should Apple try an appease my 'sophisticated' tastes? Instead, I plug in my fav. tablet and the OS gives me hand writing recognition and fractional pixel resolution (that is, the OS gives apps the fraction of a pixel I'm on; event coords are not integers, but floats). If I use a mouse with a scroll wheel, it supports the scroll wheel too. If I use a mouse with a second button (or the second button on my tablet's stylus), the OS supports that. The mouse Apple provides is the lowest common denominator that everyone can use, and it's a pretty damn good mouse, being optical and all. For the times when I need a mouse it's great. It's free. I had to teach that person who bought the 17" how to double-click (many years ago); he kept moving the pointer all over the place while doing it. All right, he's my Dad.

Let the user do what they want to do, and support whatever they want to do. Don't make them fit into your definition of 'correct.' Kind of like sites who say "you must use IE 6" or "you must have JavaScript enabled" or "you must register to read content at the NY Times." Your reaction: screw you buddy; I'll spend my time elsewhere.

Re:No

[melatonin]

Oh, and to add to that,

Come ON. It's a power user's machine. Sell the bloody iMac with a one button mouse, but have a bit of respect for your other (non-imbecile) customers.

How many soon-to-be G5 owners have $1000 graphics tablets? A LOT!

Re:No

[GreatDrok]

You said "My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about x86 performance."

Ummm, lots actually. Even my PIII 1Ghz laptop can encode MPEG4 in realtime, OK so we're talking 25 frames per second PAL video here but still. That is using mencoder with libdivx and variable bit rate.

These days MPEG4 encoding is not that tough.

Re:No

[MoreDruid]

...it is very likely that many if not most systems in the developing countries will be running Linux. This is bound to have an effect on developed countries also.

So in the future I can buy a preconfigured SPAM-server from Nigeria?

Re:No

[Okonomiyaki]

While I don't dispute that some users may have trouble with two or more buttons initially, I think there may be more to Apple's decision to stick with one button. The defining characteristic of the Macintosh from its inception has been the intuitiveness of its interface. The primary function of a second mouse button is to bring up an otherwise hidden menu. If a two button mouse was standard on every mac, it would be a little too easy for developers to get lazy and start putting commands in that menu that didn't appear in any more obvious place. Sticking with one button discourages this kind of bad UI design.

Re:No

[skurken]

Very good, wish I had said that. ;)

Linux is excellent as a research OS, for when you need a tool for a completely new environment but don't want to start over. In this segment, Linux will prevail, I am sure, only to be matched by perhaps other free/open kernels.

I don't believe this to be true for the desktop.

You can learn any tool, provided it is not crafted by an idiot. The MacOS Desktop is an excellently crafted tool and no matter of choice or configurability can match the quality of the GUI design, unless you have as much GUI design experience as the professionals at Apple. Unless the open desktops (GNOME, KDE etc) gains an equally strong (and competent) guiding force in the GUI dept, it will never measure up to neither Windows nor MacOS.

After the merging of MacOS and UN*X, I just can't say much in favour of other OSs. Unfortunately, I'm poor and as such, I'll have to stay with my free desktop until I get a job.

Re:No

[ldspartan]

You've got me on the OS, my machine came with nothing which I neglected to remember.

The machine is a PowerEdge 1600SC, which is quite clearly not a desktop class machine, and I got it at a considerable discount though Dell's small business site. I bought it directly from the web page, no special connections within the company for me. The optical drive, and lack of AGP bus are not comparable to the Mac in question. My only real goal was to point out that you could get a dual processor x86 machine for a lot less than $3k.

Also, if I had spec'd the machine at Dell's site to be comparable to the Mac, I'm sure it would come in at the same price point, particularly because Dell charges a gigantic premium for RAM and additional CPUs. I was thinking more about one's ability to add a second CPU and a gig of ram 'aftermarket.'

Anyway, enough of this.

--
lds

Re:No

[MikeFM]

I could see MacOS X as more of a threat to Windows than to Linux. I think the KDE/Gnome projects are mostly lost (to much trying to be like Windows and MacOS) but when Linux finally does get it's head straight for what it really wants on the desktop then I think it'll surpass everything. Of course since it's not really a Linux desktop.. it's an open desktop.. so it might very well run on OSX, Windows, *BSD, etc too.

Eventually the open development model will outstrip anything possible by a single company. I do think it'll be a while though before Apple needs to worry. We have to wait for the opensource programmers to stop trying to play copycat.

Re:No

[gunnk]

No, you wouldn't pay $2000 to "surf the web and check email". If you wanted an Apple you'd spend $800 and get the entry-level eMac (which is what I just bought for my father-in-law). 17" CRT, CD-ROM, 128MB RAM, 800MHz G4 processor. Oh, and if you can get an educational discount it'll cost you even less!

The best part of his new Mac is that his 24/7 tech support person (me) can Secure Shell into his Unix-based system to fix the creative mistakes he makes -- no housecall required!

Re:No

[theLOUDroom]

Apple hardware is Cheap!

B.S. Apple hardware is expensive, and always will be. It simple economics. Apple has a monopoly on Apple hardware. If you compare a market without competition, to one with competition, guess which one is going to have better prices.

You can try and B.S. about how the Apple is cheaper because you can buy a more expensive PC, but the reality is quite a different story. You can claim a dual xeon costs $5,000 but it doesn't. Not even from Dell. And you're also ignoring AMD.

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.

Wrong, and wrong. An Xbox is not a good deal for a desktop workstation, and Apple hardware does not have better performance than other, similarly-priced hardware.

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

That makes it easier to run Linux apps on MacOS. It does not help with running actual Linux on a Mac.

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

It's not a myth, it's reality. It can be explained with simple economics (high quantity produced => lower price per unit, monopoly price, etc), or benchmarks (spec.org). Either way is going to prove my argument.

Cognative disonance at its best: "I paid more for it so it must be better"


Disclaimer: I'm not saying Apple hardware is crap, I'm saying it's more expensive price/performance wise. In 2002, a Pontiac Trans Am was the fastest (straight-line) car under $30,000. If you would rather have a slower BMW/Honda/Subaru/Whatever, fine, there are reasons you might want to do that. The reality will still be that the Trans Am is faster.

Re:No

[saden1]

You missed that it was a joke.

Re:No

[theLOUDroom]

And that procedure also has another interesting side effect:

It turns you laptop into a desktop.

Yeah, MacOS support 3-button mice. It's just a one button mouse with two of the buttons on the keyboard. Silly IMO. And who needs a scroll-wheel anyways? It's not like they're amazingly useful, even to the most inexperienced of computer users.

Apple made a bad decision keeping the 1 button mouse. The problem is bigger than just plugging in a new mouse. It shows a problem with their philosophy. Plugging in a new mouse won't change that.

Re:No

[RoLi]

No, you wouldn't pay $2000 to "surf the web and check email". If you wanted an Apple you'd spend $800 and get the entry-level eMac (which is what I just bought for my father-in-law). 17" CRT, CD-ROM, 128MB RAM, 800MHz G4 processor. Oh, and if you can get an educational discount it'll cost you even less!

I will never buy a CRT again, I will never buy a computer without PCI(or whatever will replace them) slots and I will never buy a computer with a non-detachable monitor.

And most people have a similiar opinion, sorry. Nobody wants to throw away the whole computer when they want to upgrade to a bigger screen and vice versa. Actually I am currently using my 7-year old PC as a household server-router, which would not be possible with an iMac or eMac (no second ethernet card possible and the useless monitor is just in the way) which illustrates the uselessness of such throwaway products.

Hey, Apple: Remove that useless CRT and put PCI slots and a VGA-port into it. The thing would cost less to manufacture and be worth more. And pease don't tell me what "the average user" wants. There have been tens of all-integrated models in the x86-world and none have been successful, simply because everybody wants the flexibility and upgradeability of a real computer.

Re:No

[May Kasahara]

I've bought two MS Intellimice (one for the Mac at work, and the other for the Mac at home) and they both work great (I've had the work mouse for about a year now). The current line of Logitech optical mice are too expensive-- you get the same functionality out of them as you do with a less-expensive Microsoft optical mouse.

Re:No

[Sj0]

I'm afraid you're the one thinking wishfully. "Better" never meant "more popular", as the deaths of many, many, many nice desktop operating systems for the PC shows. Hell, OSX could come out for the PC tomorrow, and it would probably spell the end of Apple. Such is the uncompetitive market we live in. The only reason they've made it this far is because they control their own hardware platform, thus shutting their main competitor out of their market to some degree. Linux has a similar advantage, where the viral nature of Open Source Software(not in the sense that SCO wants you to believe, but every time a person uses linux or it's kin, there's a chance either that that person will do some work on it, evangelize it, or just give copies to his frends.)

Re:No

[luzrek]

The five most important words in the above quote are '...I can build my own system.'

You can buy a functional PC for $300(Walmart/northgate.com etc.). A good one for $600(cyberpowerinc.com,accubyte.com etc.). You typically pay more if you build your own since you are buying premium parts. The other major difference between PC's (esspecially build your own) and Macs is that you can make really weird casses for PCs. Check out micro-itx.com for some examples. In the recent past, almost all computers have been "fast enough" for office/email/webbrowsing/home music/video playback. I've had a lot of fun building a low power consuption PC (fanless) for my home entertainment center. Because Apple requires that you buy their hardware, you end up with restricted applications, just as when you use their (or Microsoft's) operating system(s) you have restricted control/choice over your environment. That is enough for some of us to stay away from their products.

Re:No

[firewort]

ATA Cards: YES.

the ultraTEK/*TEK etc. do work. You install it, you install the bios for it found at macsales.com, and it works. Takes all of one minute. Works in OS 9 and OS X.

Re:No

[oldmanmtn]

Hyperthreading will _not_ give you 2x the speed.

If you look at the whitepapers put out by Intel, their systems experts and compiler experts were unable to come up with any single benchmark where they got more than 20-30% speedup.

Hyperthreading doesn't give you two CPUs. It lets two threads share the resources of a single CPU. If those threads are trying to use the same resources, you're going to have exactly the same limits as a single-threaded CPU (actually a bit worse). Hyperthreading is only a win if the two threads are using different types of resources.

The only time you're going to see anything even approaching 2x is if you have one application (or thread) that hits memory on almost every instruction running on the same CPU as an application that runs entirely out of cache.

Re:No

[gilesjuk]

Just games? Sure there's lots of them, but Windows has more software overall and more hardware drivers.

Re:No

[jtilak]

its not a myth. apple is cheap on the high end but try to get a new mac for $600. you can get a new pc for $600 easy. if you assemble it yourself you can save even more money. if i want a new mac today i have to spend at least $799 and thats for an emac with specs like this:

800MHz PowerPC G4
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-ROM drive

$799 on a pc will get me a much more powerful system. therefore macs are more expensive.

Re:No

[EnVisiCrypt]

Did you even read the parent? Parent said

"I purchased a dual-capable 2.0Ghz xeon machine from Dell a while ago for $700"

I was refuting that point. The kind of system that he's talking about is closer to $2,500 than $700.

I will never claim that Apple's are cheaper up-front than an equivalent PC, because they aren't. TCO is another issue for another time.

Re:No

[ksheff]

Not to mention that to get to the $700 ballpark, you have to get the absolute minimum in everything. Which means no 73G hard drives. Unfortunately, aftermarket processors and memory have been known to do nasty things to warranties, so it would be probably better to just build it yourself. But that's not what most buyers do. They point & click at the vendor's website to add the options they want or just go to a store and lug home a box. At any rate, it should be interesting to see what the G5 versions of the Xserve machines come in at since they would be the real competition to the PowerEdge machines.

Re:No

[ksheff]

I figured that dvd burning was supported since there was something about it on the cdrecord webpage. I was just wondering why Dell wasn't including it as an option for their linux machine.

Re:No

[Zeriel]

>MORE FOR LESS, when you could get a faster, more
> reliable, more useful Mac instead.

Faster? Maybe. Close enough to parity that 95% of computer users couldn't tell you the difference.

More reliable? Not compared to my linux box, methinks. Or my Win2k box.

More useful? Ah, here's the rub. Define useful:

1. If I'm a gamer, Win2k is most useful period.
   
2. E-mail/web user? Any will do.
   
3. Light word processing/spreadsheets? Any will do (at least with new machines, OO.o is a bit sluggish on anything below 1Ghz.)
   
4. Heavy document layout? Mac or (if you're a masochist) Linux.
   
5. Multimedia production? Mac.
   
6. Programming? Linux.
   
7. Math/FP operations? Linux or Mac.
   

So for MY dollar, my dual boot Linux/Win2k machine is "most useful". YOUR mileage may vary.

Christ, why do we have to keep having these holy wars?

Re:No

[Spock the Baptist]

I'll respond to both Abreu & luzrek's replays with this post.

"Unfair comparison. Building a house requires a lot more knowledge and a lot more work than assembling a computer."

I was not make a comparison, I was making an analogy. Youâ(TM)re trying to overextend the analogy.

âoeYou can buy a functional PC for $300(Walmart/northgate.com etc.).â

You can also buy a nice dog house for $300. ;D

Re:No

[mal3]

Kinda like a GameCube made by Panasonic?

Re:No

[eoin1]

I think that a future in which GNU/Linux is a dominant desktop OS should suit Apple just fine. If the next version of Quark (for example) only comes out for Linux and Windows, then the Linux version will be either a KDE or Gnome app. Since I can download KDE and Gnome onto my iMac through Fink, there shouldn't be a problem, right? This way Apple can continue to be a profitable niche luxery computer maker, and still be able to run all of the important applications. I am not a programmer, so I may be missing something here, but I would think that Apple could end up riding GNU/Linux's coattails all the way to the bank.

Re:No

[Zeriel]

No, you doof, he's complaining about not being able to buy a desktop PC with a G3/G4/G5 processor from anyone but Apple.

Re:No

[ldspartan]

Just for clarification, the $700 tag included the two stupidly high end disks.

Don't ask me... Dell had a weird deal going that week...

Re:No

[SeanAhern]

(5) Profit!

*WHAP!* Hey, what was that f...oh. Sorry!

Re:No

[SeanAhern]

They include a single-button mouse in the box because the people who need it aren't going to be able to buy their own mouse.

I understand both arguments. I'm willing to trust Apple's research as well.

What I fail to understand is why they don't have a build-to-order option at the Apple store for a multi-button mouse. By default, they should ship with one-button mice. But people who know what they're doing should have the option to buy a multi-button mouse along with their new computer.

Last time I bought a mac, I almost immediately gave the Apple Mouse to my toddler to play with as a toy, while I hooked up an MS Wireless Intellimouse Explorer for my real mouse.

(sigh)

Re:No

[Explo]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem. The concept of "left-click" and "right-click" seems intuitive to us... but some people really can't grasp it.

I just hope that none of those persons is driving near me. After all, cars have several pedals, steering wheel, possibly gear stick and many other things and if a person has problems with two mouse buttons, N controllers and such person sound like a catastrophe. ;)

(well, to be honest I know one person with occasional problems with two-button mouse.)

Re:No

[BollocksToThis]

You are equating people who need a lot of computing horsepower ("power user") with those who know a lot (or even want to know a lot) about computers.

Having/wanting a three button mouse does not equate to knowing a lot about computers. Power users require a lot of functionality from their computer, and more mouse buttons facilitates that in a way that's incredibly easy to come to grips with. No computer knowledge required, just an easy way to perform multiple functions. Your average public moron has no trouble differentiating different buttons on his TV and VCR, I don't see why buttons on a mouse would be any different. I'd be willing to bet only around 20-40% of the population would have any trouble with more than one button, and those
Exactly what is wrong with just buying another mouse from another vendor?

I don't know if you've noticed this, but Macs are pretty goddamn expensive. It's a slap in the face to someone willing to overspend so much to be forced into finding and purchasing a replacement for the toy mouse that came with an otherwise powerful system.

Re:No

[BollocksToThis]

Doh, I missed an <...

You are equating people who need a lot of computing horsepower ("power user") with those who know a lot (or even want to know a lot) about computers.

Having/wanting a three button mouse does not equate to knowing a lot about computers. Power users require a lot of functionality from their computer, and more mouse buttons facilitates that in a way that's incredibly easy to come to grips with. No computer knowledge required, just an easy way to perform multiple functions. Your average public moron has no trouble differentiating different buttons on his TV and VCR, I don't see why buttons on a mouse would be any different. I'd be willing to bet only around 20-40% of the population would have any trouble with more than one button, and those <40% aren't going to be paying megabucks for the newest G5.

Exactly what is wrong with just buying another mouse from another vendor?

I don't know if you've noticed this, but Macs are pretty goddamn expensive. It's a slap in the face to someone willing to overspend so much to be forced into finding and purchasing a replacement for the toy mouse that came with an otherwise powerful system.

Re:No

[GoatEnigma]

Absolutely 100% agree with you there. I actually bought a PowerComputing mac clone back in the day - and I have to say it was frickin' fast, and cheap. Mac OS was very stable on it and I even installed PPC Linux and had some fun with that. I had previously owned macs (mac plus and then the IIvi) and I found out when I went to buy my next computer that PowerComputing had been bought up by Apple and if I wanted to get a new macintosh, it would be $3000.

That's when I switched to PC - I got a practically top of the line Pentium 233 MMX for $800, minus monitor. Been on PC ever since. If Apple had had a cheaper offering back then (read: third party manufacturer), I would probably still be with them.

Re:No

[zerocool^]

Agreed, and I didn't double the speed in the estimate, because i'm really not sure if hyperthreading is bullshit or not, and I think it might be.

But, at any rate, the clock speed is 2.8 Ghz, and then it also has HT enabled. I'm not claiming that it's 5.6 ghz, or even 3. I'm just saying it's 2.8.

Regardless, without hyperthreading, it's still 300 mhz faster. And how many apps that people use on desktop are really multithreaded? Photoshop, mabey, and photoshop has been mac's fanboy claim to fame for years and years.

Re:No

[shaitand]

umm... last I checked something to the tune of 96.8% of desktop computer users say your wrong. The high-end server market switching to linux as soon as there was an option that allowed them to leave proprietary hardware proves your wrong.

Have you ever considered that perhaps it's you who is wrong to think it's a tiny demographic? Or is all your thinking based on assumptions that the statics for the market are wrong?

Re:No

[shaitand]

Viral is not the correct term then, a virus leeches off it's host to it's hosts detriment, not just spreads to other hosts.

Contagious Nature perhaps?

Re:No

[shaitand]

ummm no your wrong, as a power user I've already purchased a mouse, that one button mouse in the box. There is no such thing as "included" included means I just paid for it whether I wanted to or not. Why should I have to buy who mice? I just bought a $2000 computer that barely moves compared to that $600 pc next to it for all the things the average computer user does...

Re:No

[BitGeek]

Divx, or whatever flakey varient of it you claim to be encoding to is not MPEG-4 video.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is Macs are cheaper than PCs for comperable performance.

The reason you guys refuse to see it is you're PC zeolots and you liek to twist numbers.

But eventually people will realize that MHz is not the same as speed.

Oh, but thanks for posting yet another bogus comparison using old pricing (please, al least use the current apple pricing.)

Every time I compare, and I do every year or so, you get faster hardware for less money from Apple.

And that's not even including the fact that Macs last longer than PCs-- I've yet ot see a PC (in all the jobs I worked at) last more than 2 years--- usually they die when teh warranty runs out-- and theres a correspondence between how cheap they are and when they die.

Sube $1K PCs last a year or less, as the powersupplies have to be pathetically cheap.

You get what you pay for, and some peopel would rather pay every three months to keep their PC running, than buy a machine once (for less initial money!) and keep it for 6 years.

Re:No

[BitGeek]

When are you idiots going to learn that MHz is not a measure of performance? ITs a measure of clock rate-- and often its not even the CPUs actual clock rate!

Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[OwnerOfWhinyCat]

...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.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[glenebob]

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.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[90XDoubleSide]

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.

Indeed, two of the bullet points for Panther were that it would bundle common Linux utilities and the final release of Apple's X11.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that the experience of OS X on the desktop kicks ass on KDE or GNOME. I love Linux as a server OS, but I moved to Mac for the desktop. In my mind, there's not much incentive to go the other way.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[wukie]

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

GOD BLESS THEM ALL!

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[tshak]

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).

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[jedidiah]

The population of people that aren't Apple zealots is much larger than the population that is. This leaves Linux with a very large pool of potential converts and new users. Meanwhile, it really doesn't take that many more users to surpass Apple's userbase.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[jedidiah]

This leaves Apple with a static stagnant userbase.

Even if Apple keeps all of it's current customers, it could still end up 3rd behind Linux.

The real kicker is expecting people to jump to a completely other hardware platform just to indulge in OS 10 niftiness.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[jedidiah]

If your mother is that lame, she probably wouldn't be able to figure out WinDOS video editing software either.

BTW, the Mandrake 9.0 and 9.1 kernels worked just fine with Firewire cameras right out of the box.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[neuroklinik]

Could you prove to me that the Macintosh platform is more expensive? Because from what I've seen, it certainly seems like quite the opposite. During the WWDC Keynote, Jobs presented a head-to-head between the new G5 and a top-of-the-line Dell. The Mac was $1000 less!

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[pVoid]

You forget about the hardware niftiness...

While AMD and Intel have been picking their asses, coming up with 500 different CPU types, families and versions, 80 different types of memory and speed, Mac has stuck to G3-4-5... And the G5 KICKS ass.

I've never really liked mac hardware, but they've finally outdone themselves here. So much so that I would actually now consider using a mac.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Master Bait]

I feel the opposite, and am jumping for joy over Trolltech's release of QT/Free for the Mac. Out goes Finder to be replaced with Konqueror. Byebye Mail.app, hello Kmail. I already can't stand Dreamweaver, so it would be nice to run Quanta locally instead of over the net on X11 on the Mac.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[glenebob]

Actually, I don't care much about the cost in that respect. I prefer to build my own machines from scratch. I've never owned an off-the-shelf computer. As far as I know, it's next to impossible to build macs that way.

But if I could do it that way, it would be more expensive, because I play the hand-me-down game with computer parts, which wouldn't work too well with a mixed-hardware setup.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[robson]

...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.

You're missing the point. The Mac users don't need to switch to Linux for Linux to overtake Macs as the second-most-used desktop system. All that's needed is for Windows users to swtich over to Linux.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[clifyt]

Almost EVERYONE I know that loves linux uses it for the most part on the server -- or as a secondary desktop.

I work with a large number of geeks...most of them can claim to have a desktop linux box...most of these are cast aside Wind'rs boxes that they upgraded from so they can play the latest greatest games.

How about comparing how many folks actually buy a box solely for Linux on the Desktop. I think that would be a better telling number. How about getting a spec on folks that use Linux on the Desktop as their primary desktop. If your work requires you to use Windows all day long, you aren't a primary Linux on the Desktop person. In my case, I use my iBook as much as I do my Windows XP box at my job and then come home to my 2 G4s and my single PC Desktops (mainly for playing games).

Stats can be used to tell any lie. Lets come up with a spec thats fair for all of us...we aren't in it for the marketting are we? Or should we start counting every Mac that was ever produced the way we compare every Linux box that stayed Linux as a single boot for more than a month (before the parents forced ya to reinstall windows because they couldn't figure out how to get TurbTax or Sims to work...note: talking about PARENTS getting them to work, not us :-)

Personally I don't see the number of Linux users on the desktop actually being anywhere near the Mac users. I'd have to see stats and statistical methods...of which I think its just another propoganda piece to give the writter a little more ink on an otherwise slow week.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[geekee]

Flaws in your arguement.: "1) Apple's followers are nothing less than fanatical; you will pry their Macs from their cold dead fingers."

even if Apple loses no customers, that doesn't mean linux can pass Apple in user base purely by taking customers away from Windows.

"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."

Even if Linux and MacOS run the exact same software base, the lower cost of hardware and software makes Linux on PC much cheaper than MacOS on a Mac.

Apple will always have a niche market, but I expect Linux use to grow proportionally to the available commercial titles that support linux and proportional to the ease of use of linux.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[gladbach]

I have been a long time pc user, windows desktop (usually) and used linux extensively as servers etc. I have it as a desktop (gentoo/fluxbox) on some machines, but dont use them all that much.

I recieved a powerbook laptop (pre titanium) and it had OSX on it. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it! Once I had installed the dev tools, fink, and some other key, but free software, I had one heck of a powerfull laptop. I even dual booted it w/ gentoo linux for fun.

I think OSX is a great OS, and is only getting better. The only thing that keeps me from going OSX hardcore is the price of the hardware, and of course that I cant play all games that I would want to on osx. well, that, and I just dont like the one button mouse thing all that much... (yes, I know you can use multiple button mice)

But, if I were to buy a laptop any time soon, I would surely buy an apple (I wouldnt be using a laptop to be playing hard core fps games etc regardless)

Right now, imho, laptops are where its at w/ apple. Still, the new g5 dual workstations are lookin pretty phat.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Zork the Almighty]

In almost any major metropolitan area, there is a plethora of small PC shops who will build PCs, even high end ones, much cheaper than Dell.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's actuall $799, for the eMac.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Bearpaw]

The real kicker is expecting people to jump to a completely other hardware platform just to indulge in OS 10 niftiness.

Well, maybe I'm just a twisted, freakish excuse for a human being, but that's exactly what I did. And I know a couple of other people who did, too. (Before the Switch campaign started.)

Sure, it didn't hurt that Apple makes good-quality hardware, but "OS X niftiness" was the deciding factor.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[jerkychew]

Sorry, but you're missing one very important factor: price.

Apple has dropped the ball on the low-end market, a segment they briefly owned with the debut of the first-gen iMac.

I can buy a good system from Dell for $699. Or, I can build one myself for even less. What's a low-level PoweMac cost now? Something like $1100, right? I don't want an integrated screen, so don't suggest the xMac to me, either.

Before you flame me for using the same old argument, let me make my point: Perhaps the the word viable in the poster's statement was too strong a word, but the word realistic is not. I can purchase a Windows system for the aforementioned price, and install Linux on it at no aditional cost. And even better, if I can't handle using a Linux system, I'll have the included copy of Windows to fall back on. And I'll have another 500 bucks to purchase some nice
peripherals for my new x86 system.

Face it. Apple may be a great machine for its target market, but it is not an everyman machine anymore. It is just too expensive. If Linux can be as good on the desktop as the article suggests, then there really is no reason to consider an Apple machine - it's just cost prohibitive.

While Apple may have 'embraced' Open Source, it is still a closed system, and to this unemployed poster, not worth the $500+ premium.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[dbrutus]

If Linux PPC was the more powerful solution than Linux x86, would you run it? I believe that in similar production runs, PPC has long been cheaper to produce than x86. Given that, and the impressive PPC 970 (and soon the 980 based on the Power 5) it could happen that Intel seriously loses the power war, even in Mhz terms (Itanium 2 caps out at 1Ghz, PPC 970 at 2Ghz).

I think that it's a fairly optimistic projection, but with IBM putting out PPC 970 blade servers, Apple may be able to make their 799 machines price attractive compared to the Compaq, IBM, and Dell machines they are directly competing with. They won't ever beat out white boxes but then again, nobody does.

When the G4s start hitting ebay at $600, you might want to experiment with it, just to see if you like the UI.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[alienw]

I like KDE much more than OS X. I don't think you've ever used KDE 3.1. Unless you hate customizability or love candy-coating and $129 minor revisions, KDE is a much more solid environment. Apple's main problem is that it has a small cult following (a few percent), but the rest of the crowd wants something completely different.

Besides, no OS can ever have much penetration if it's not used in the workplace. Most people will use the same OS at home as they do at work. Apple currently has practically zero enterprise penetration, and that number will not increase unless they change their strategy completely. Even then, I cannot see Apple competing with the likes of Dell. Linux, on the other hand, may become quite popular in that domain simply due to its free nature if it gains enough features and applications.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[zapfie]

the G5 doesn't exist yet (ie, I can't purchase it).

Gosh, that's funny, because I can.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[falsified]

This is a question that I want answered. I don't want to get modded up/down for it. So if one of you lovely mods know the answer, please let me know.

Is there currently a project out there to port OSX (or something open source and remarkably, illegally similar to OSX) to x86? If so, is there anything an 18-year old International Relations major with no programming ability (I can do HTML!) can do to help?

And no, I don't know what the hell I'm doing on slashdot either.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Igmuth]

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

While that may be true of Apple users, It can also easily be applied to users of other OS's as well...

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Metrol]

The Mac was $1000 less!

Does the Mac crowd simply have no memory at all? Haven't you seen this line before, over and over again?

Sorry, this is the exact same tune with every big Mac release. "Look how cheap our top of the line is to theirs" routine. They do this EVERY SINGLE TIME!

So then what happens?? The PC market drops, as usual, at a far faster rate then what Apple can keep pace with. 3-6 months later that cost difference you're talking about today vanishes. Shortly after that, Apple is looking damn expensive again.

I've probably just removed several of the devout from their happy place. Just how many times can the same group of people be spoon fed the exact same line of marketing? I guess the totals have yet to be tallied.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[dbrutus]

Out of the three 64 bit growth pathways Intel is most braindead, everybody says that AMD's solution is just a stopgap and only Apple/IBM/Motorola's PPC map makes perfect sense. With a near perfect ability to run 32 bit code on a 64 bit chip and a clear roadmap going ahead from the 970 (based on Power 4) to the 980 (based on Power 5) there's a lot of hardware reasons to go PPC. Now the most compelling PPC solution out there is the RS/6000 but if you have that kind of money, the most expensive mac is a minor expense.

Apple has a lot of neat hardware and they seem to not only put out good equipment but innovative equipment too. When did Mac users ever have to deal with IRQ conflicts? Wintel still won't let go of that braindead BIOS standard.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[falsified]

Did you just call someone's mom lame?

Shame on you.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[dbrutus]

You might not be able to get it delivered today but you certainly can order it. It may ship in August but you can't really say it doesn't exist when they wheel it out onto the stage, it has a SKU number and they're taking orders for August delivery.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[1lus10n]

yeah but (coming from someone who sold mac's and pc's during the .com boom.) hardly anyone spends more than $1500 on a computer these days. and the vast majority of people look at two things when they buy computers

Name
Mhz/Ghz or "speed"

mac's are purrty and shiny, but apple's name recognition is not what it once was, and their "speed" is not as nice as Intels or as market based as AMD.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[tolan-b]

no.

unfortunately.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[dbrutus]

Sure, you could run it in a linux image using VPC

B)

Now imagine a mac fast enough to make that make sense.

B)B)B)

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[SugoiMonkey]

The truth is you can buy whatever speed of Mac you desire without all the extra HD space, ram, and super-dooper gfx card (all which Apple marks up heavily) and install those by yourself, picking and choosing from good deals on the net. This is because most, if not all, of these products will work for a mac just like they would for a PC. While it is not the same as making your own computer it definitely saves you a few bucks in the end, and makes it seem more like your own creation.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Uart]

I have used Linux as my primary desktop, and as far as getting any sort of popular support to a degree > than Apple... Linux has a long way to go....

Disclaimer: I own two Macs, and I love them like children.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[dbrutus]

With Apple's move into certain targeted markets looking like its working, I think that this will end up being a long term strategy for them. For most server solutions, Apple's actually a middle ground cost player because Windows CALs actually make their solution *more* expensive than Apple.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Metrol]

most of them can claim to have a desktop linux box

Running an all FreeBSD desktop here myself.

most of these are cast aside Wind'rs boxes

I've got 2 PCs at home. One runs Windows, and is only turned on for occasional gaming. The other is FreeBSD, and I have to admit it's my fall back desktop when my laptop is at the shop. Both are running pretty much the same hardware, just the Windows box has a slightly better video card for gaming.

How about comparing how many folks actually buy a box solely for Linux on the Desktop.

As I stated, my laptop is usually my primary machine I use. I purchased it specifically to run FreeBSD. Windows lasted exactly one day, and could not be ordered without it.

Just did the same for a friend. He purchased a laptop and had me wipe Windows to install FreeBSD. He is definitely not a Unix geek. This Thinkpad R40 came with XP, and he had the option of leaving it on there or running KDE with the variety of Unix apps.

How about getting a spec on folks that use Linux on the Desktop as their primary desktop.

Two I can personally account for. More on the way!

Stats can be used to tell any lie.

That's why what you and I see personally hardly matters. Neither of us are capable of seeing the larger picture of what is going on in the market place. One of the reasons that studies such as this are interesting.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[tcopeland]

> how many folks actually buy a box
> solely for Linux on the Desktop

I did. It runs Evolution, Mozilla, Open Office, IDEAJ, etc. Works great.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[st4rbux]

I thought this was less about mac users converting to linux than linux getting part of the ~90% of desktops that are Windows (~90% pulled out of nowhere, just sounds about right).

Nobody said linux was going to win over mac zealots -- even $129/year doesn't seem to convince them to go Free. If 5% of desktops switched from Window to GNU/Linux, than would take second place pretty handily (I think, I don't pay too much attention to damn-lie^H^H^H^H statistics).

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[BattyMan]

Is there currently a project out there to port OSX (or something open source and remarkably, illegally similar to OSX) to x86?....
And no, I don't know what the hell I'm doing on slashdot either.

Your ability to understand, and take an interest in, such a project and the underlying issue demonstrates what you're doing here.

Your need to ask that question demonstrates that you haven't been here very long.

Welcome.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[asteinberg]

Even if Apple keeps all of it's current customers, it could still end up 3rd behind Linux.

Exactly. I can't believe how few people here seem to be getting this point. The issue is not if Linux will steal users from OS X, nor is it if Linux is better or easier or more friendly than OS X. All that is being questioned is (when) will Linux have more users than OS X. I think it's probably safe to assume that most people who are already using Linux or Mac will stick with either Linux or Mac (perhaps a few Linux users will convert to Mac). Still, Linux gets most of its users from people sick of Windows. As long as Microsoft keeps making shit and people keep buying PC's, there will always be plenty of potential new Linux users - it's just a question of convincing someone to download a free copy.

Contrast that with Mac, where all those Windows users would have to throw out their old machines and plunk down a couple thousand in order to start using it. Even if OS X is superior, Linux has a larger base of supported hardware already in the marketplace, so it is a lot easier for people to try it out.

As far as I know, there are no accurate statistics on the desktop breakdown - all attempts to count this are heavily flawed (if counting based on computer sales, for example, then you are neglecting the longer shelf-life of the Mac and the large number of people who buy computers with Windows only to later install Linux). I'm pretty sure, though, that Linux has seen faster growth than Mac OS, so it seems reasonable to guess that Linux will eventually get bigger.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[nomadic]

Depends. At $999 the ibook is far superior to comparably priced desktops.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Dixie_Flatline]

""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."

Even if Linux and MacOS run the exact same software base, the lower cost of hardware and software makes Linux on PC much cheaper than MacOS on a Mac."

You're making the mistake of taking his statement as an equivalence. If something cool comes out under Linux, you'll be able to find it on the Mac. If something cool comes out on the Mac, there's no way that you'll ever see it under Linux, except as a hack that doesn't work as well as the original. I used to use Linux myself, but I just can't do it anymore. I spent too much of my life administering boxes at home and at work. I'm willing to pay Apple the extra money to effectively be my sysadmin and do things right the first time, so I don't have to.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[sleeper0]

i think the best way to gauge the real split for desktop OS's is browser impressions for each platform. This way it realistically measures desktops in use and not shipped units or servers. It also catches people who use multiple desktop OS's and should accurately track the split between them.

Google Zeitgeist is a great way to take a look at those figures over time at a pretty universal location.

For may '03 google lists linux at 1% and mac at 3%. Linux zealots may look at that and say well 2% is miniscule with the rate of growth that won't take long, etc. But go back and look at june 2001 zeitgeist and you'll see similar numbers. Linux with 1% and Mac with 4%

The conclusion i draw from those numbers is that linux desktop use isnt growing at any significant rate at all, and the only danger Apple has in getting passed on the desktop is if they lose a dramatic amount of market share to windows.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Golias]

(coming from someone who sold mac's and pc's during the .com boom.) hardly anyone spends more than $1500 on a computer these days

You must not be much of a salesman.

Joe Consumer prefers $600 HP boxen from Circuit City, which will have critical failures on at least some of the parts two or three times in the first year.

Joe Geek builds his PC out of parts from his favorite budget component vendor (either local or mail-order)

But there are many, many more people who don't want a shoddy budget PC, and dont want a '1337 beer-cooled hobbyist-built system. They want something that allows them to easilly manage digital video, pictures and audio files while doing all the usual mundane tasks (e-mail with spam protection, web browsing with pop-up blocking), and they don't want to fuck around with driver, config, and library files every damn time they try to do something new. For a computer that makes all that possible, they don't mind spending a little more money. These are the people that Apple is selling to, and it's working. IIRC, Apple has made a profit in all but two quarters all the way through the .com bust of the past three years, something which no other personal computer maker can claim. If I told you 5 years ago that Apple would still be chugging along in 2003, while Compaq would be bought out and liquidated over the same period, you probably would not have believed me, but here they are, still selling computers that are "too expensive" by the truckloads, to consumers who obviously perceive that they have more value than their Windows-based counterparts.

P.S. Yes, the "beer-cooled" thing was a Megatokyo reference. If you didn't get it, quit bothering with /. threads and go read the MT archives... you will get a lot more laughs out of that than anything here.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[damiam]

The Darwin kernel, which forms the core of OS X, is already available for x86. The rest of OS X (Quartz, Aqua, the Finder, iLife, etc. - everything that makes it OS X) is closed source and cannot be ported except by Apple. That said, it is pretty widely assumed that Apple does maintain an x86 port of OS X internally, just in case they ever need it. Releasing such a thing would kill their hardware sales, so they never will unless they really have to.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[kalidasa]

The real kicker is people who don't realize that Apple sells computers, not operating systems. The $129 for OS X is just an annual tax on bleeding edgedness (and unlike Microsoft's business licenses, it's not a FORCED upgrade; it's not like you're told "we're going to stop support OS X.2 on Monday, and your license requires you to upgrade to X.3 by then"). The key to Apple's business always has been selling hardware. If they switch to Intel, they're doomed to compete with Sony for the high end, or Dell for the low end. If you want something cheap, just buy your Wintel commodity hardware and slap Linux or FreeBSD and a nice little window manager on.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Have Blue]

Actually, I expect this is an *advantage* for OS X. If you install Linux on your Windows box, you lose the use of Windows - you can only boot into one of them at a time. If you buy a Mac and put it next to the PC (possibly even sharing your monitor with a KVM switch), you can use both the new Mac and the familiar Windows at the same time.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[1lus10n]

firstly i wasnt a great salesman. but for the average user what the hell do they gain from a 2 or 3G system that they dont get on a $1500 system ?

they can "easilly manage digital video, pictures and audio files while doing all the usual mundane tasks (e-mail with spam protection, web browsing with pop-up blocking)" with a standard windows or linux PC. as far as "they don't want to fuck around with driver, config, and library files every damn time they try to do something new" .... that kinda goes hand in hand with doing something new. but the average computer USER doesnt do much new. hence why the almost always run whatever OS is on the system til they get a new one ......

making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that. what the point the article was trying to make is simple "how long til more people use linux than mac OSX on a desktop". the answer is soon since linux runs on most hardware old and new and mac doesnt.

remember mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has.

BTW ..... Dell
how is that a shoddy budget PC ? add on the in home service for another $300 and your still under my aforementioned $1500 price.

and on what planet do you not have to fuck with drivers ?

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[unoengborg]

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

They might not want to be caught dead with their hands on a PC running windows, but Unix/Linux is something quite different. That's what movies are made with. And the new MacOS-X is unix as well so it could be a quite simple switch.

"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."

That's true, especially now when Trolltech plans a GPLed non X11 QT-port for Apple. But having the same software running on both MacOS and Linux isn't going to help Apple. It just simplyfies the switch to less expensive hardware. Just look how Openoffice makes it possible for many users to switch from Windows to Linux, the same thing will happen to Apple.

Even if many Mac users are insensitive to the price of their platform as they may have chosen it for its superior design, and not the price. But Linux too possesses such higher values. I'm thinking of freedom. Apple have already given their users a small taste of that in Darwin. The risk is that they want to experience that freedom to the full extent.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[clifyt]

You know -- I can deal with those stats. THOUGH Geeks have known about Google for a bit longer than most others :-) That could even be argued in the 1% Linux gets...just fucking with ya lest a rabid slashdotter with a UID with a few extra decimal places thinks I'm pissing on his favorite OS :-)

I love Linux...and every chance I get I install the latest OS. I run a copy with on my PC and Macs with VPC...it is also my server of choice. I run several Linux servers...but desktop??? I can't use it. Even compared to XP it is primative at most. They are slowly getting prettier pictures to go along with the UI, but folks STILL haven't gotten it through their heads that Apple's UIs are better NOT because of the slicker than slick graphics, but because of how intuitive the OS is in addition to the whole slickness of it.

Its getting better...but when you have a department that deals only with UI issues compared to a hundred geeks that all think they know UI because of personal experience and no statistical evidance, you will always loose.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Webz]

Apple will always have a niche market, but I expect Linux use to grow proportionally to the available commercial titles that support linux and proportional to the ease of use of linux.

As another poster mentioned, what niche market? Their OS appeals to everyone, geeks, power-users, and Joe Average alike. And yes, I agree with you, that Linux will grow in proportion to its ease of use. But that's the problem, it isn't easy to use. Therefore, it won't grow any time soon.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[sleeper0]

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I love linux too and for servers it's by far my first choice.

I think you hit the nail on the head about linux with a truly exceptional GUI. The free development process simply doesn't encourage an environment that can build a world class user interface.

I am using kde3.1 exclusively on my laptop now, and I admit linux as a desktop os has come a very very long way, I am impressed. But I would trade my thinkpad for a an apple laptop in a heartbeat, OS/X is by far a nicer environment to me. I plan on buying a tiBook as soon as i can justify an upgrade.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Cecil]

and on what planet do you not have to fuck with drivers ?

Clearly you have never used Mac OS X.

Although Apple does have an advantage in that the majority of the hardware they've got to support is hardware designed and manufactured by Apple, it still doesn't change the fact that you simply *don't* have to fuck with drivers in OS X.

At least, I never have. (OS X 10.2 / PowerBook G4 12")

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Cecil]

While I agree that is what we should be discussing, that is certainly not what the article implied.

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? /me applies (-1, Flamebait) to the article.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[mikemcc]

As a Linux geek who has moved to OS X, I would be perfectly happy if Apple's market share stayed the same and Linux's increased.

I don't think that Linux will cannibalize Mac OS X sales. The two platforms have different strengths.

I do expect Linux to start making inroads in vertical industries which really just need a dumb terminal which can surf the web. Linux is extremely well situated to acquire a lot of that business, and in fact has already begun to do so.

I don't see Linux establishing a significant desktop presence in industries where Macs are predominant, at least not until people like Quark or Adobe begin making Linux native versions of their software. I don't see that happening any time soon.

My two cents,

MCM

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[1lus10n]

in most laptops that is true, and it is also true that apple has the advantage of having mostly their own hardware to worry about ..... but if you switch to a newer video card (or switch to another brand?) in a standard mac box you still have to download and install the driver, same as any other OS.

unless it is using a generic, crippled driver. such as the "ati" driver for linux.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[MidnightBrewer]

once you've bought into their hardware your computer becomes pretty much useless as anything but running OS X (unless you pick up Linux)

Last time I checked, the only other thing I could run on my Intel box besides Windows was - well, Linux. :)

In contrast to Windows, OSX is compatible with my favorite Linux applications. I see no problem here.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[reallocate]

making a profit is not a big deal, redhat does that...

Making a profit is the only deal that counts for a business. No profit, no business. (And RedHat's profits are barely there._ ...mac's market share has not grown in the past year. linux's has...

That tells me Linux is taking market share from someone other than Apple.

Re: drivers -- I've been running an OS X machine for a year. I've added and removed hardware and software. Needing to think about drivers isn;t part of the process. Sure, the hardware needs drivers, but Apple's tight control of the platform ensures that finding and installing drivers is something that never gets in the way of users.

If, perhaps, you lack experience using OS X, don't be so quick to join all the other party faithful in asserting that the Mac is just an over-priced pretty display. If you want to use computers, rather than learning about computers, buy a Mac.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[f0rt0r]

Whoa there doggy, OpenOffice is nice, but there are a multitude of other options out there ( StarOffice, for one ),

Financial - Moneydance, GNUCash, and there are a few others.
GIMP - I can't speak to that, not being one who does graphical work.

I switched to Linux after running it in a VMWare virtual machine for a few months. I still have my
workstation dual-boot with Windows XP just in case I need it. But then I haven't booted into Windows in a month and a half, and that was only while I was installing it ( for the 'just in case' scenario ).

Anyhow, geek inside of me is what brought me to try out Linux. The stability,freedom, and choice of Linux are what made me stay. Just remember how long it took you to learn Windows, and then give Linux at least that much time before you toss it aside.

For comparisons sake, I used Windows first back in 1990, and got very good with it by 1994. I have almost used Linux for a year and I already feel comforable with it.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Erore]

Microsoft does not have a FORCED upgrade. You're not the only person I see writing that they do. Microsoft introduced Software Assurance which entitles the licensee to the latest versions during the length of the contract. Entitles. Read that? Entitles. Not force, entitles. You are allowed to upgrade to the latest version.

Microsoft is just now stopping support on Windows NT 4.0. That OS is about 7 years old. To use your comparison you are saying Microsoft will release Windows XP Version 3 and tell you that they won't support Version 2 anymore. That is wrong, and you know it. Version 2 will be supported until its end of life which is at least 5 years after it was first released. Yes, I'm aware that there really isn't any version 2 or 3 of XP, I'm using your own versioning numbers as an example.

The main point is that Microsoft does not FORCE you to upgrade. As a matter of fact, the business licensees have the right to downgrade if they want.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[sould]

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.

Thought for you - what if apple end up being a vendor of essentially an X-replacement for unix with an x-windows compatability layer?

Sounds like they're going the right way about it -testing making linux apps run through Aqua on a BSD kernel!

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[prockcore]

Re: drivers -- I've been running an OS X machine for a year. I've added and removed hardware and software. Needing to think about drivers isn;t part of the process. Sure, the hardware needs drivers, but Apple's tight control of the platform ensures that finding and installing drivers is something that never gets in the way of users.

I've got to comment with this.. sure if you only install hardware you bought from Apple this is true, but my coworker just spent over an hour today trying to get a usb camera to work with the new iChat (he still hadn't gotten it to work when I left for the day) He installed the drivers (which he had to scour the net for) and still iChatAV claims there is no camera hooked up.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Chump1422]

Your argument is silly. All you are saying is that PCs are sometimes better than macs. Why does tham make macs suck? Why can't it mean that PCs suck, since they get blown out the water every few years, and then play catch up?

Macs are better in $/performance now. In 12 months, all they'll have is superior OS. move along.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[1lus10n]

which is exactly the point.

mod parent up.

some people just dont understand ..... adding and removing the same hardware or at least the same type of hardware shouldnt cause a problem. but adding newer hardware will be. with any OS.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[derF024]

and on what planet do you not have to fuck with drivers ?

Clearly you have never used Mac OS X.

Or linux. I haven't "fucked with drivers" in years on my linux machine and I add new hardware all the time. Plug in a new PCMCIA WiFI card and it's up and running, with an IP, in under a second. Plug in a random USB harddrive enclosure and a new icon appears on the desktop allowing me to mount it and browse it right away. Want some new software? I don't have to go to the store or poke around on download.com. I type "apt-get install" followed by the name of the software at a prompt and it's on my machine in a minute or two, all set up, with sane defaults for everything.

Years ago, I'll admit, Linux was a pain to use. Modprobing drivers and looking up X configs on the internet wasted quite a bit of time. But recently, I hear all these OS-X people oohing and aahing over the fact that they no longer have to fight their OS (since OS9 and below was more of a mess than linux ever was) and I just think "good for you. Welcome to where linux has been for over a year"

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[IamTheRealMike]

Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac.

Ignoring iD games, virtually all popular open source apps have Win32 ports and Mac ports now anyway. Not a big deal. Linux is still growing rapidly.

Yes, Linux will eat everything for lunch, simply because of the way it scales. Nobody, not Microsoft, not Apple, can compete with the rest of the world combined, which is essentially what they're up against here.

It's only a matter of time in fact before somebody takes Linux and does an Apple on it - producing quality laptops etc that run a highly polished and integrated form of Linux out of the box. When you have access to all the source, there's almost no limit to the things you can do. Even if the first company to try this screws up, there will always be others.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[CavemanKiwi]

Yeah,the only way i could see Apple doing anythign like that is 2 realease an Apple x86 system. If there were to do this and it ran windows I would be paid a slightly higher price to it to run bot windos and OSX. Plus I know all the hardware would be of a high quaility and th case would be a nice style :)

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[T40 Dude]

Macs having dual 2mhz CPUs

Am I the only one who found this funny ???

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Delphiki]

Xfree isn't required, it's just there for those who want to use X11 apps. So far it doesn't even come installed.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[theLOUDroom]

Not to mention the fact that the experience of OS X on the desktop kicks ass on KDE or GNOME. I love Linux as a server OS, but I moved to Mac for the desktop. In my mind, there's not much incentive to go the other way.

Have you ever used KDE?

It kicks the crap out of ever other desktop I've ever used. Period. Not everone wants the dumbed-down user experience that MacOS offers.

And it's free.

In my mind, there's not much incentive to go the other way.

When I sit down at a Linux system, my ability to do things is limited only by my hardware, and my own abilities. It don't need any permission from MS or Apple to do things, and I don't have to send them any money.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[theLOUDroom]

I think the best way to gauge the real split for desktop OS's is browser impressions for each platform. This way it realistically measures desktops in use and not shipped units or servers. It also catches people who use multiple desktop OS's and should accurately track the split between themm

Acutally this method is extremely inaccurate. Many alernative OS users have their browser set to lie about what browser/OS combination they're useing so the can access certain sites. There are even versions of Opera that lie about their user agent by default. It is also important to note that you're limiting yourself to (for the most part) english speakers. Part or Linux's huge success has been in other countries, especially in those where MS has no plans to produced a localised version of their OS.

Linux zealots may look at that and say well 2% is miniscule with the rate of growth that won't take long, etc.

Lame, flamebait. Linux is the fastest growing desktop OS. Any person with a firm grasp on reality can understand that this implies Linux with surpass Apple's market share.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[TotallyUseless]

Maybe thats because iChat AV requires a *firewire* camera from everything I have read. He can download drivers all week for his USB camera, but it isnt going to do him any good. If he had a firewire camera, more than likely it would have 'just worked.'

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Merk]

You mean the version of iChat that was introduced yesterday? Having to worry about drivers with OS X is a huge anomaly, but it is to be expected when you're using software on the very day it's introduced.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[geekoid]

" As a Linux geek who has moved to OS X, I would be perfectly happy if Apple's market share stayed the same and Linux's increased."

you don't see anything wrong with the sentence?

If Linux geeks move to OSX how, exactly, will Linux increase and apple stay the same?

BTW, you need to USE linux to be a Linux geek.

It's OK, cause now all the people who hate MS for the sake of hating MS will move on to there shiney new toy.

Re:Will Linux do to OS X what it already has...

[Reservoir Penguin]

Why not release an unsupported x86 version so people can play with it before moving on to the real thing? Sort of like Solaris for x86? If you remember both Beos5PE and QNX both scored over a million downloads so there is definetly an auince for this kind of thing.

I would say

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCO licensing fees should prove a healthy deterrent to future adoption of Linux. Windows, as the only desktop operating system untainted by the whole Unix mess, is the only secure bet for the future.

Re:I would say

[Lord_Slepnir]

Until someone leaks the code for their network stack

#include
//Heh heh heh, stupid open source monkeys. I've been posting to slashdot 10 hours a day and I still got my stack written.
Windows_Network_Stack( IN_PACKET ){
If(IN_PACKET.port = 22)BSD_INPACKET(IN_PACKET, No_Authentication_Necessary)
else BSD_INPACKET(IN_PACKET, Randomly_drop(odds = 1:10);
}

Re:I would say

[codefungus]

Of course, your future will be what Microsoft says it will be, and nothing more. But hey, some people feel more secure that way.

As far as SCO goes, everyone is pretty much ignoring it. What people fail to realize is that if there was no Linux, there would be something else. It pretty much has nothing to do with Linux. People like to write code. They write code for personal need, for community, for lot's of reasons. And people want to share code. Don't you? And you can't stop that. You can't stop people wanting to share code.

Except for you. Since you rely on Microsoft, you should know that by using some Microsoft products, you can't share code with others. Why? Because Microsoft has said you can't...it's in the EULA.

Have a nice, secure future!

Re:I would say

[mrmdls]

I wanna smoke whatever your're smokin, or is that the kool-aid that you're drinkin???

Re:I would say

[TheRaven64]

Actually, Solaris is the only OS that SCO have stated is 'clean', and I can't see anyone willingly switching to Solaris...

Re:I would say

[yomegaman]

First of all, you better get a tune-up on your humor detector, it seems to be on the fritz.

Having said that, are you really claiming that Microsoft's EULA says I can't write software on a Windows machine and distribute it under a Free or Open Source license? I think your fear of Microsoft is causing you to hallucinate.

Re:I would say

[codefungus]

Dood...I'm telling you. I had to go find it...I think it was the EULA for the WinXP embedded IDE...not exactly sure what it is. Trust me though man. This is aint to religious spouting off. I used to be a VB programmer...was all about Microsoft. But once you cross the line...once you spend time programming with non-microsoft tools, it's super hard going back.

Re:I would say

[codefungus]

And what do you mean about the humor??? You were just kidding? I need tags for this kinda thing man. TAGS!

No Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the author checks out the keynote given today by old Stevie boy. I think the future for the Mac looks brighter than ever after today. FP!

Answer:

[ruiner13]

When penguins fly.

Or when Linus gets the commercial and media attention Steve Jovs gets. Or when Linus developes a reality distortion field of his own.

Re:Answer:

[ruiner13]

I have a job, thanks. Don't drink and type though...

Re:Answer:

[Distinguished Hero]

Or when Linus gets the commercial and media attention Steve Jovs gets.

Well, I can't imagine this Jovs guy gets a lot of commercial and media attention, seeing as I've never heard of him...

Re:Answer:

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

reality distortion field?

Always though it was lysergic acid diethylamide

Re:Answer:

[Bearpaw]

Or when Linus gets the commercial and media attention Steve Jovs gets. Or when Linus developes a reality distortion field of his own.

Linus doesn't need one of his own. The Linux RDF exists as a distributed system.

(And the Microsoft RDF is generated by the flow of cash through their marketing department.)

Re:Answer:

[Error27]

Linus has a reality field around him.

Everyone else goes overboard about stuff like SCO, Microsoft or Linux on the desktop. Linus keeps it real.

pffft

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you Linux guys are all excited about the penguin and the RMS and the hey hey hey, but seriously.

Seriously.

Re:pffft

[Oldskooldave]

root mean squared? what do penguins have to do with physics?!?!

(rms foundation blah blah)

Doubtful

[BoomerSooner]

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.

Re:Doubtful

[LazerRed]

Keyword "server". I don't usually run a "desktop" on my Sun Servers... Sigh. I hate it when people compare apples to oranges.

Re:Doubtful

[questamor]

OS X kicks the shit out of Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment/etc... It's consistant, reliable and fast

This was one of those things I never wanted to believe I had to rely on, the "easy to use desktop". I geek a lot, I hack hardware, and I mess with the innards of my machines a LOT, both software and hardware wise.

When it comes to my linux desktops, there's always something wrong, something not quite working just as it should. Not until I actually used both fairly equally did I feel a lack of guilt in agreeing with a comment like yours. But that's how it is

OSX soundly thrashes anything on Linux for plain easy get-things-done ease of use. period.

Won't stop me trying with linux, however. Too addicted :)

Re:Doubtful

[Dynedain]

ummm....Shake was written for Linux before it was ported to OSX.

Re:Doubtful

[anthonyrcalgary]

Getting anything non-trivial working on my Linux box takes at least an afternoon (If you can do better, that's fine. I can't.), and I just don't have to time to do that with everything I need on my primary computer.

Linux is great for all the back end stuff, on computers built from scrap or really powerful servers, but for desktop stuff, that's where you spend all your time, it's worth a few extra dollars for a really slick, low maintenance environment. There's basically only 2 environments where you can do almost anything in 5 minutes, and unless you want to use Windows, MacOS is the only alternative.

Re:Doubtful

[primus_sucks]

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

How many people actually need this stuff versus how many people could use Linux on the desktop - i.e. programmers and millions of businesses and schools that don't need these applications. IMO, Linux crushes Mac (and Windows) on price vs. performance if you can live without some applications. Personally I like GIMP over Photoshop anyway.

Re:Doubtful

[Zork the Almighty]

And apples, promoted by a fanatical man named Steve Jovs, are also more expensive.

Re:Doubtful

[cpeterso]

I agree, but 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? Maybe Linux/GNOME users are just blinded by their Unix heritage. But then why isn't Mac OS X blinded by its NEXT heritage?

Re:Doubtful

[lostchicken]

Right on.

I love hacking my machine probably more than the average /.er. I run Linux on my server, and do a fair bit of programming for some of the software it runs. But when it comes time to write an English paper, dammit, I want my computer to just work. I want to launch Word, and use it. I want to press print, and have it print. I want to plug in my USB keyfob thingy and have it pop up as a drive. I want to launch Mathematica, and have it just work. I want Premiere and combustion to do my video work, and not have to worry about codecs.

I love Linux for just screwing around, and it's great fun. I can do things in it that would not be possible under Win32. But it doesn't "just work" for the simple stuff. I can make it work without any problem, but that's the thing. I don't want to have to "make it work".

Re:Doubtful

[norweigiantroll]

When I read the parent's parent's post, about something not working right in Linux, I was reminded of my sound recording troubles with Linux. Well Apple has all the knowledge and documentation of the hardware so they can easily make things work right. Plus there's only limited hardware to support.

Re:Doubtful

[__past__]

I don't usually run a "desktop" on my Sun Servers...

Come on, admit it, that's only because CDE sucks...

Re:Doubtful

[Quixotic137]

Is there any (technical) reason someone could not hack together a smooth Mac OS X work-a-like on top of Linux? (emphasis mine)

Your choice of words is excellent. Linux desktops tend to feel "hacked together", whereas OSX has a consistent feel. My opinion as to why that is is that the developers on Linux tend to get close enough and then get tired or bored and move on. Not that I blame them (and not that I'm any different with the software I've worked on) -- they're working for free, and if it's not fun, why would they keep going? The real question is why some company can't pay people to make an OSX work-a-like on Linux.

Re:Doubtful

[renderhead]

I don't see where anyone is comparing Sun Servers to OSX anyway. Reread the parent post.

Re:Doubtful

[eap]

But it doesn't "just work" for the simple stuff. I can make it work without any problem, but that's the thing. I don't want to have to "make it work".

I agree, and that's one of the things Linux and Linux application developers must work on.

An example: the other day I wanted to copy something from from Mozilla into Star Writer. It would not let me highlight the text, CTRL C, and CTRL P. Neither would selecting "Copy" from the edit window in Mozilla and "Paste" in Star Writer work. It is this sort of basic operation (which Windows has had universally in all major applications) that should work out of the box.

I ended up using the middle mouse button to paste into a vi window and then opened the file in the word processor.

I have been a dedicated Linux user for over five years, and I'm not about to switch, but these things should be addressed by now.

Also, it would not kill you application developers to have a non-technical person spell and grammar check your user interface text. You will get a nicely polished application and an English major will get to eat a meal.

Re:Doubtful

[dbrutus]

Nobody on the OS X side will mind if you dual boot into Yellow Dog Linux.

Re:Doubtful

[macwhiz]

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. ;)

Re:Doubtful

[Graff]

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.

Re:Doubtful

[nomadic]

WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

Maybe they're just better coders.

Re:Doubtful

[wugmump]

because linux doesn't have a pushy megalomaniacal madman like steve jobs to steer it in a coherent direction. it's steve's madness that keeps OS X a great experience.

Re:Doubtful

[garote]

"WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?"

A steady paycheck.

Re:Doubtful

[amanpatelhotmail.com]

"WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?"

Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm)

Re:Doubtful

[rmohr02]

I don't know about the others, but you can get Acrobat for Linux, and there's always xpdf.

Re:Doubtful

[OnsightFlash]

WHY? because Apple does not ignore the esthetics of the computing experience. Linux ignores this and
Windows simply fakes it altogether.

Re:Doubtful

[b1t r0t]

WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

Just a guess, but could it be... a regular salary?

Re:Doubtful

[cshotton]

Is there any (technical) reason someone could not hack together a smooth Mac OS X work-a-like on top of Linux? (emphasis mine)

Your choice of words is excellent. Linux desktops tend to feel "hacked together", whereas OSX has a consistent feel. My opinion as to why that is is that the developers on Linux tend to get close enough and then get tired or bored and move on.

I think the real reason goes back further than that. Linux apps are developed to a wide range of GUI and other API standards. Each project is free to come at the Linux O/S from whatever angle seems best because there is a huge variety of ways to tackle any given GUI or OS issue.

On the other hand, most Mac developers that have been around for a while started with volumes 1-3 of "Inside Macintosh". That was it. All you got. You either conformed to those APIs, those GUI standards, and made you app work like everyone elses', or your app didn't work (or got soundly thrashed in the market as some un-Mac-like monstrosity.)

I think that discipline has simply carried forward into OS X. The value of a consistent look and feel, coupled with standard rules of behavior for apps, all implemented to a consistent set of APIs is something Linux will never achieve until there is some significant consolidation of all the competing GUI standards, APIs, etc.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but until Linux replicates the Apple developer experience, it's likely to always feel "hacked together." Because in reality, it is.

Re:Doubtful

[tuxtomas]

They develop for a certain set of hardware. Then they refine based upon feedback from controlled groups(markets). It's a business model, rather than just throwing it to the wild...

When I see apt for mac, I will spend my way to heaven. Finally, my not so geeky friends will think I have something cool because it'll always be multimedia friendly out of the box. Meanwhile, I'll have all my little command line goodies.

There is a dual mac in my future. I can feel it.

Re:Doubtful

[schwanerhill]

As others have said, it largely comes down to the incredible amount of time and resources Apple has thrown into honest-to-God human interface research, and then implemented the GUI using that research in a cohesive organization with strong leadership. Linux, in contrast, largely uses a bunch of very good programmers who implement improvements to the GUI that each individual thinks are needed. (Of course, it's not nearly that simple, but oversimplifications are easier to explain.)

Apple's open source policies show how well Apple understands what open source collaboration is outstanding for: technical things like the basic operating system, networking code, an HTML rendering engine, etc.; areas where it's relatively easy to identify a bug or a missing feature and quantify speed--the challenge is fixing those bugs, which individuals can do on their own. A corporation like Apple is best suited to applying a cohesive finish to the open source building blocks. That is the difference between a good--but not quite right for day-to-day use--interface like KDE, GNOME, et al. and the OS X interface. I don't know if any open projects will ever produce an interface that's as good as what OS X has; they may, but it's a big hurdle that I'm not sure they're in a good position to overcome.

(I should probably throw in the caveat that I have relatively limited experience with anything besides Macs and Solaris (CDE/Openwin--bleh--not my own machines).)

Now, you'd think that Microsoft could do better, but that's a different story.

Re:Doubtful

[iabervon]

I think you've picked the right applications there. The Mac has a loyal following of graphic designers who won't switch to anything else, and form a core user group that no other system has touched. Until Linux has applications for these purposes which are as well established, the Mac has nothing to fear.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Linux won't pass OS X in market share. The bulk of the market share each of these gets on the desktop comes from Windows. If Linux supports the office desktop business people are accustomed to and makes the admins happier, Linux will suddenly get a huge increase in market share (which would be a slight drop for Windows).

On the other hand, it seems like a substantial portion of OS X users are converts from Linux. So OS X could see a substantial gain in user base from Linux taking market share from Windows. Having Linux gain popularity to become #2 on the desktop means people deciding what system to run, and that means more people for everything that's not Windows.

The Mac's been around long enough that everyone who might switch to it from Windows already has. But people might switch from Windows to Linux (no new hardware needed), and then switch to the Mac (much of the same software available).

Re:Doubtful

[MonkeyDluffy]

Maybe they're just better coders.

Then explain the Mac OS versions prior to X.

-MDL

Re:Doubtful

[OzRoy]

I would of thought that was fairly obvious why OSX has a better desktop.

It has a Desktop Standard. Everything for OSX has to conform to ONE set of rules. There is only one interface. Interoperability is built in from the ground up, and all the OSX developers use the one set of tools to ensure their applications have that as well.

But on the linux destop you have dozens of different interfaces. KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, Blackbox etc. Each one has it's own way of doing things. They have their own toolkits.

There is virtually no communication between the different parts of the linux system. One developer decides to write a really cool email client using GTK, another writes a really cool web browser using QT, and as a result they don't play nicely together.

The reason why OSX is better because it has standards. Linux lacks a desktop standard. If it were possible to tell everyone "Sorry but Everyone must now use this desktop, and all programmers Must use this toolkit" then the linux desktop would be just as good as Windows and OSX.

Re:Doubtful

[Macdude]

WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

You've just answered your own question, Apple has programmers and designers, Linux just has programmers.

Is there any (technical) reason someone could not hack together a smooth Mac OS X work-a-like on top of Linux?

You can't hack together a Mac OS X work-a-like because OS X isn't hacked together. Just like you can't hack together a Golden Gate Bridge or a Hoover Dam.

Heck, even Microsoft (the Kings of the "hack it together") can't get it right, take dialog boxes for example. Yes/No are the two worst buttons you can put in a dialog box because you have to carefully read and parse the dialog box's text to know which button to pick. "Save/Discard" (i.e. verbs) are much better. If I close an unsaved document and the dialog box has Save and Discard buttons I don't even have to read the text to know what button to hit. If the buttons are Yes and No I have to parse "Do you want to close the window without saving your work" or "Do you want to save your work before closing the Window" to figure out whether Yes will delete my file or not.

Maybe Linux/GNOME users are just blinded by their Unix heritage.

This is one factor, but it's more a factor of the way their minds work. For example a (Unix) programmer understands that a and A are different (ASCII) characters so see nothing wrong (and in fact prefer) case sensitive file systems. "Average" users don't like case sensitive file systems because to them "Cat" and "cat" are the same word.

But then why isn't Mac OS X blinded by its NEXT heritage?

Because the programmers aren't doing the design work (for the most part).

Programmers are to designers as engineers are to architects. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Now granted there are some people who can do both roles, but in Linux the designers (who are most likely also programmers) are designing the OS to suit their needs, the problem is they have different needs than average users.

Ask yourself how many unpaid "I'm doing this as a hobby" Linux programmers are going to willingly be constrained by a design team they don't agree with?

Re:Doubtful

[Jack Auf]

WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

Um...jobs?

C'mon, it's funny. Laugh.

Re:Doubtful

[WiggyWack]

WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

A paycheck?

Re:Doubtful

[YE]

Is there any (technical) reason

This maybe a hard concept for most geeks, but there's more to life than technical reasons.

Re:Doubtful

[Onan]

Have you not seen fink? Or is there some way in which you find it to not be apt-enough?

Re:Doubtful

[cybin]

What do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not? How about a nice paycheck and benefits, to start?

There's a difference between a labor of love and being able to make your car payments. The true samurai balances both.

Re:Doubtful

[IamTheRealMike]

I agree, but WHY is that? WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?

Numbers. Plain and simple. Me and Paul were chatting the other day, and I did some maths.

Best case scenario, full time Linux desktop hackers are outnumbered by full time Apple desktop hackers approximately 70:1

This comes from totalling up all the people that I know hack on mostly desktop related stuff at Red Hat, SuSE, Ximian, CrossOver, Sun, TrollTech etc and the number of people that apparently work on MacOS.

Obviously, volunteer time makes that a bit ratio slightly less harsh. But a lot of volunteer time is spent writing and perfecting the applications which Linux needs, but are then ported to other platforms as well. So, really the number of people hacking on the desktop itself is really quite low. High for an open source project, but low compared to Windows or the Mac.

People tend to forget the sizes were talking about here. Linux has been broke since day 1. Apple and Microsoft have several billion dollars. That makes a big difference.

Re:Doubtful

[znaps]

I would guess that the ONLY thing the OSX team and the GNOME team have in common is their coding skills.

Re:Doubtful

[Lord Kholdan]

This hypotetical example should clear up the things a bit.

Joe User is a Mac OS X user and has a problem with a program he uses. He writes:
"Hi, I'm a Mac G4 user and the program X don't work. It's way too hard. It doesn't do what I want it to do no matter how many buttons I click. Some people said I should read the manual but it's too full of big words I dont understand. Make it simpler."

His brother Jack User is a Linux user and he writes.
"I'm using Linux 9.1 and the program doesn't work no matter what buttons I click. Some people told me to RTFM but it's boring. Other people told me to check man-pages but I'm not gay. Make your program simpler!"

Now, think about the programmers of those apps. One will post a bug report and next version might very well ship with larger and more descriptive icons. Another programmer will laugh his ass off and then post the email into the mailing list so everyone can laugh and then forget it.

I can't really blame Linux programmers not for designing programs for users who have IQ 50 and no interest to RTFM because OSS is mostly scrathing your own itch, but, that means Apple will cater to the needs of non-programmers faster then the OSS community.

Re:Doubtful

[bkr1_2k]

A salary, and a huge budget.

bkr

Re:Doubtful

[overunderunderdone]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but until Linux replicates the Apple developer experience, it's likely to always feel "hacked together." Because in reality, it is.

And I think that probably is a GOOD thing. This "hacked" quality that is Linux's weakness on the desktop and will ensure that it will never be as easy to use as the Mac is also Linux's strength. The fact that all those developers are free to do as they damn well please (and to hell with UI consistency) is part of what they LIKE about it.

I see Linux and Apple as complimentary. And when it comes to growing marketshare I think they may make a good tag-team against windows. Linux has all it's advantages against windows and Apple will end up being one end of the "linux" market (yes, I know BSD) with an easy-to-use slick user experience for those that need or want it. They can only get that slick experience because they have a sometimes benevolent dictator weilding his proprietary hardware and software (and cherry-picking the best open-source stuff to integrate in to the mix)

It doesn't really matter who has a larger piece of the marketshare pie at any given point, they are both taking it from windows and I think it is good for either of them when the other does well.

Re:Doubtful

[peterpi]

"WHAT do Apple's programmers and designers have the Linux/GNOME programmers do not?"

Perhaps one thing is a PHB who has the power to force them to use a particular widget set, layout, etc, no matter how much they prefer Qt/Gtk/Tk/.....

Re:Doubtful

[tuxtomas]

Thanks, Hoss! Steve Jobs will get back to you as well.

Comparing penguins to apples

[Martin Kallisti]

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'.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[tshak]

and Mac OS also has a niche

Ya, the "making slick computers that just work and are userfriendly for the average and power users" niche.

Just because Apple has a small marketshare doesn't mean that it has a niche. They appeal to the vast majority of Windows' market.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Realistic_Dragon]

The feeling is mutual dude! I wouldn't touch OS X with a 50 foot pole (although Linux on a G5 might be nice) unless the only alternative was running a box with Windows on it.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Martin Kallisti]

Which part of the wording commercial productivity software did you not understand?

The majority of computer users want brand name software. People want interfaces and commands they recognize, they want tech support and they want to buy everything in a colourful box. You may call that stupid if you want to, citing all the marvellous Linux software (largely consisting of clones of commercial software) out there, but that will not change their behaviour.

Ah well, I believe I am feeding the trolls here.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Martin Kallisti]

By pricing their computers as they do, the low end box costing roughly two thousand dollars, Apple are most definitely nicheing themselves.

Apple computers may appeal to many people, but so do expensive (and niched) cars. That does not mean that people will necessarily buy them, only those who believe that the price/performance+style+usability ratio is high enough.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[tshak]

By pricing their computers as they do, the low end box costing roughly two thousand dollars, Apple are most definitely nicheing themselves.

No, this means that Apple does not cator to the super-lowend niche. Apple offers a $799 desktop, and a $999 laptop.

Apple is not like the expensive niched cars. Bently's and Ferrari's have a niche market. BMW and Audi's do not - even though they have higher-end products. Apple is more accurately compared to the latter.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Master Bait]

I agree. Linux makes more headway in the office, government and schools, while Mac is in the studio and the home. The only place I think OSX loses to Linux is in the school.

I think surveys of the number of Linux Desktops in use are bulls**t. Nobody knows. Nobody takes a realtime census of desktop useage. All they can go on are number of preinstalls, and unscientific surveys of browser hits on a small number of websites. Utter, spindoctor bulls**t.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[the uNF cola]

It's about 1500 for a basic G4 tower. About 1000 for an ibook. Now granted, you can get more for the money in PC hardware, I'd say, it's roughly 1500 for a mac, not 2000. :)

500 is a lot of money for beer.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[outsider007]

1) linux is for people who don't ever want to spend money on anything no matter how much it hurts.
2) windows is for people who are willing to pay a little to avoid the pain of linux. but not a fortune (also pirates)
3) mac is for people who want to spend as much as possible for some reason.

if the economy suffers, or there's a crackdown on piracy expect more linux users.if there's an economic boon expect more mac users. otherwise expect things to stay the same.

that's my opinion and I stand by it.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Scudsucker]

The only place I think OSX loses to Linux is in the school.

You're talking about servers, right? Because in the school desktop market, Apple is usually in the lead or neck and neck with Dell. And for the n00b administator types that Microsoft targeted with Windows NT would probably be better served with OS X than either Linux or NT/2k/XP.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Master Bait]

Oh no. I'm talking about Linux desktop k-12, not only in the US, but worldwide.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[macwhiz]

Try looking at it this way:

1. Linux is for people who want to spend as little as possible, and put the value of their own time at zero.
2. Windows is for people who are willing to spend some money to improve their ease-of-use, and who put the value of their own time near zero.
3. Mac OS is for people who understand the difference between "frugal" and "cheap," and value their own time, and thus understand buying a bargain basement computer may be a decision that bites them in the ass.

If you buy an el cheapo PC and a bargain basement monitor with it, how long will it last? How quickly will you need to get rid of it, or spend big bucks on upgrades, to run new software or OS upgrades? How long before parts die because they're made cheap? Will you get eyestrain because that cheap monitor has a dot pitch that was mediocre in 1989?

Macs last longer. They're built better. (Compare customer satisfaction of the iMac and eMac vs. the bargain-basement PCs.) Apple rarely requires you to go out and buy lots of new hardware to run OS upgrades. I've got a Power Mac G4 that runs OS X just fine. The Compaq Presario I bought about the same time cost half as much, but already it's painful to use WinXP on it, especially to play games. For example, Civ III isn't a terribly demanding game, but it crawls on the Compaq. It flies on the Mac.

But even ignoring all that, what's your time worth? How often do you need to figure out why OpenOffice barfed on a Word document before you feel you've wasted your time? How many reboots before Windows seems less of a bargain?

The "Macs are more expensive" argument only works when you use a cut-rate machine of dubious quality, and assume that your time is worthless. I think that's a poor assumption for most consumers.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[dbrutus]

The low end box for Apple is $799. The low end professional line just got introduced at $1999. Like it's lower end cousin, the iMac, the low end power mac is within a few hundred of Dell's offering (compare them to the precisions, not the dimensions). Dell beats them out on price but it can't match their power curve and memory capacity. To a great extent, real world performance is RAM bound, not processor bound. 4 or 8 GB beats 2 all day long.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[sheldon]

"They appeal to the vast majority of Windows' market."

It's funny. My parents talked about buying a new computer, and I actually suggested maybe they should buy a Mac since all they tend to do is web browsing and a bit of word processing.

My mom said, "No, I want a computer that just works. Like that Windows 2000 one we already have."

This appeal that you think exists is illusionary.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[briancnorton]

perhaps the statement "Making slick computers that work because the manufacturer controls the implementation of EVERY SINGLE piece of hardware to ensure quality, and have pretty icons that allow the basic tasks that any computer should be able to do and has a few major applications that die-hard fans demand for productive uses niche.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Scudsucker]

Where do you live? Stallmanville? :) I don't see that as happening very soon, as Linux generally takes more effort and training to set up and maintain than Windows or OS X. My university is pretty big on computer science and engeneering, and we only have one Red Hat cluster for students compared to 30 or so clusters with Macs and PC's. Server side is a different story however; I can think of only two servers that don't run Linux: an NT server for EMS, and the Mac server for the Mac clusters. Everything else runs on Red Hat AFAIK: email, web, file and printing, etc.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[HuguesT]

Well the killing statistic is the Google access rank. Only 1% of requests to Google come from Linux, see Zeitgeist.

From that one statistic it would appear that the number of Linux desktops is in fact overestimated, which is very depressing. Unless you have a good explanation of why people would install Linux on their desktop but then choose to browse from a Windows box.

From that same site the number of Apple-based request is 3 times that of Linux. Linux is not likely to pass over Apple as a whole anytime soon.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Tokerat]

Unless you have a good explanation of why people would install Linux on their desktop but then choose to browse from a Windows box.

Fake USER_AGENT headers to allow "IE only" pages to load anyway.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[jroller]

Ugh. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to reset back to Opera last time I came across one of these sites.

Though, looking at my logs, opera "Identify as MSIE" comes through with a valid OS:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Linux 2.4.18-rc3 i686) Opera 7.11 [en]

If Google can't get that right, who can?

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Tokerat]

My mom said, "No, I want a computer that just works. Like that Windows 2000 one we already have."

Funny, my Mac just works. In all fairness though, I see your mom's point, Windows 2000 is very stable indeed, probably the most stable version of Windows, IMHO.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[Merk]

My version:

• Linux is for people who know computers really well and are not intimidated by having to take the time to learn something different, and are willing to put up with all its quirks. Linux is also for people who believe in the ideology of Open Source / Free Software.
• OS X is for professional artists (sound, video, graphics, etc) or for people who aren't on a tight budget and who don't use their computers for gaming.
• Windows is for everybody else, in particular people who have always used a version of windows and haven't yet found a really good reason to change; people who like playing games on computers rather than on consoles and for people who are on really tight budgets who get a cheap computer and a pirated OS.

I run all three on occasion. I play games in Windows, work all day in Linux and have an iBook running OS X which I use most of the rest of the time. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, OS X has amazing UI with a great Unix foundation. Linux has a wealth of free applications and a pretty good interface when you get used to it. Windows... well... most computer games I want to play only work on Windows, and it has good support for hardware.

I don't know if in the end there will be more OS X users or Linux users. I just know that there is a huge number of people out there who don't have a very good reason to use Windows and would be much happier using either OS X or Linux. I imagine that there will be a point when the combined market share of Linux and OS X is say 10% to 20% when Windows users will really start abandoning it. Once that happens, there will be no reason to use Windows. Gamers will be able to play on other platforms because it will no longer be cost-effective for manufacturers to develop only for Windows PCs. Hardware makers will start releasing drivers for other platforms because not doing so will cost them sales.

There's no chance in hell that Windows can stand on its own merits as an OS. The only thing it has going for it is directly related to its inertia. Once that goes, buhbye MS! I for one can't wait till that day. If in the end OS X has 80% market share, and Linux and others have the remaining 20% I'll cheer. If Linux has 80% and OS X and others share the remaining 20% I'll cheer. In the end, I'm convinced that the better products will beat the inferior one, and that's a great thing, no matter which one happens to come out on top.

Re:Comparing penguins to apples

[HuguesT]

There aren't that many of them (IE-only pages) to be annoying, and I doubt the vast majority Linux users know how to do that .

Do you really think...

[TedTschopp]

That Steve Jobs will give up? I mean come on. He is the leader of a company whose brand loyality is through the roof. They are making money. And are pushing the boundries... all the time.

As long as Jobs continues to raise up religious zealots to the cause, Apple will never really be dead.

Also of note, who says that Jobs can't encorporate all the advantages Linux has into his OS.

Re:Do you really think...

[incom]

One advantage that he would have considerable trouble incorporating from linux into apple is the price.

Re:Do you really think...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Raise zealots? I was under the impression that Mac users weren't exactly growing. It's just the same people who have always used them. Sure, there have been a few people who define their personality by what they purchase and display to others (trucker hats, iMacs, new VW bug, etc) but the average user really could care less.

Re:Do you really think...

[dattaway]

Mac users are seeing the light.

Re:Do you really think...

[d3faultus3r]

Apple has always been at its best when it's actually creating new things not ripping off BSD and linux like lately. Whenever Apple tries to copy off its competitors it fails miserably, look at the Mac clones and Apples forays into consoles and PDAs. To be sure Apple has its market, but it just can't compete with Linux on the larger scale.

Re:Do you really think...

[PhoenixK7]

"Apple has always been at its best when it's actually creating new things not ripping off BSD and linux like lately.

Huh? iPod, iMac, PowerMac G4/G5, PowerBook G4 Ti/Al, Music Store, Apple Store (online and offline), iApps, iSight, Aqua/QuartzExtreme (which may run on top of BSD, but could technically run on another kernel and toolset), FinalCut Pro, Rendezvous.. the list goes on.

Some of these things are extremely recent, and the others that have been around longer have seen recent innovations

Whenever Apple tries to copy off its competitors it fails miserably, look at the Mac clones and Apples forays into consoles and PDAs. To be sure Apple has its market, but it just can't compete with Linux on the larger scale.

Apple hasn't touched PDAs (Newton), Consoles (Pippin), or Clones (Power Computing, UMAX, DayStar Digital, Motorola, etc) for years now.

In the long run, maybe it can't compete with linux, but for now the desktop software is better on the Mac. You don't see the same types of seamless intregration accross many apps, the same number of solid commercial desktop apps available, the same level of hardware vendor support (ie vendors providing drivers rather than an independent party putting something together by reverse engineering or getting a look at some of the specs). It _could_ get there, if either more corporations step in to guide the desktop environments for general users or if some developers have the same wants/needs in mind.

Right now, I'll take my Photoshop, Flash MX, solid iPod (and AAC) support, and nice set of working gui tools apple has provided (ie, easy VPN built into the OS) and I'll keep using a mac until someone provides something that has the same level of finesse, power, and stability.

I'm not going to see it from microsoft, because part of the power I expect is either having the GNU or BSD console-based tools, but GNOME or KDE could grow to fill this role.

Or did I misinterpret your words?

Re:Do you really think...

[wirelessbuzzers]

As long as Jobs continues to raise up religious zealots to the cause, Apple will never really be dead. ... but rather undead?

Re:Do you really think...

[teklob]

Can he incorporate the price of $0000.00 into his OS? Can he make it run on x86?

Re:Do you really think...

[follower-fillet]

> who says that Jobs can't encorporate all the advantages Linux has into his OS.
As has been said elsewhere, it seems unlikely he'll be including freedom as in libre, which is a prime Linux advantage.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to pragmatism versus philosphy. Is ease of use now, more important than freedom of access later?

To be honest I think freedom as in libre is important, but Mac OS X is certainly compelling in the "but it just works" department.

But what happens when Apple stops doing what you (or I) thinks is good? Where do we go then?

Re:Do you really think...

[rhavyn]

I'm sorry but none of the things you listed are "new and innovative". We've got a hardware mp3 player, an all in one pc, a normal pc, a high end laptop, an online music store, an online store, some misc apps, movie editing software and an implementation of zeroconf. Apple's versions may be better than others, but they were hardly the ones who "innovated" them. Not unless you accept Microsoft's version of the word innovate. I would argue that, by and large, most of them aren't even significantly better than the competitors. I personally have nothing against Apple (I own an iBook), but it is true, Apple hasn't really done anything "insanely great" for a while now.

Re:Do you really think...

[PhoenixK7]

OK, if you boil it down to that level, Apple hasn't done anything truly revolutionary. BUT.. Each of the things mentioned above has either marginally or significantly raised the bar as far design goes and other hardware/software makers tend to follow Apple's lead, rather than the other way around.

The iPod has lead other manufacturers to come up with smaller more elegant MP3 players, in some cases similar enough that Apple's legal department had issues with it. The iMac (original) lead some PC manufacturers to imitate the design and non-standard color scheme. iMovie lead Microsoft to respond with Windows Movie Maker.

They aren't the first to the plate with a 64-bit chip but they're the first to make available such a chip for desktop use. AMD, though it announced it much earlier hasn't released the desktop version of its chip.

Apple IS innovating, its just that lately its only showed in the details. The scroll wheel on the ipod, the neck on the newer iMacs, etc..

Linux will not pass Apple, until...

[Anonymous Coward]

The configuration files stop changing location from release to release.

I am constantly asked by people how to do things with Linux, my response is always the same, which version do you have?

Face it, the desktop market is not self supporting. Until support is easier with Linux, the alternatives are worth the money.

yea only if you ....

[stonebeat.org]

yea only if you beam all the mac fanatics to a different planet. otherwise i dont see any mac fanatic switching to any other OS :)

Re:yea only if you ....

[axxackall]

You don't have to convert Mac fanatics. They are just 5% (or about) of the desktop userbase. In order to passOSx Linux should just convert more 5% (or about) of corporate IT-supported users and *THAT* is not a big problem as corporate IT-supported users don't decide anything - if IT department will decide (after calculating cost savings) to go from Windows to Linux then it will be so! And believe me, the amount of corporate IT-supported users is much more than 5% (I believe it's more than 50%).

Re:yea only if you ....

[nomadic]

The only thing is "mac fanatics" are a small subset of "mac owners". I own a mac and a PC. I use the PC for a lot of what I do, but switch over to the mac whenever I do anything involving multimedia. I have no need to become fanatical over either, as I can use both with no problem.

Nobody can defeat Apple

[Davak]

Apple will never go away. Apple has built a loyal fan base that will stick with it through thick and thin.

I am not an apple fan... but I appreciate what apple brings to the table.

That apple fan base is going to remain constant. Apple is safe and it works--easily.

Linux and windows systems CAN be built to work and to work well... however, they also allow a lot of tweakage. A large portion of the users feel they have a muscle car, and they want to tweak, overclock, and customize that bastard of all of its worth.

A world with linux, apple, and microsoft--having the three of them is much better than having any two. New ideas, new flow, new users.

Davak

Re:Nobody can defeat Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The muscle car thing is dead-on. I own a old Dodge, and the things I put up with to keep it running are pretty stupid in comparison to a new car. No normal sane person would put up with this, only someone who is into old cars and *likes* being able to 'twiddle' with everything, or squeeze out another little bit of performance.

But if I needed a car to get to work, you bet your sweet bunny that I would garage the Dodge and buy a used Honda!

I use Linux & Windows, but am leaning heavily toward OS X now that I've gotten to try it out. I have been fighting for *months* to get something to install (Radiance, an open-source rendering software) on my Linux box and work right. This very same task took no time at all on OS X. Unlike my car, I just want my computer to work, to turn the key and go, and to instead spend my time going somewhere rather than 'turning wrenches'. As soon as the main application I use gets ported to OS X from Windows (AutoDesk are ya listening! Port Revit already!), I'm dumping my computer on Ebay and selling my soul to get a new Mac.

Re:Nobody can defeat Apple

[node 3]

A world with linux, apple, and microsoft--having the three of them is much better than having any two. New ideas, new flow, new users.

I dunno, a world with only Apple and Linux would be much better than a world with all three (ie: any with Microsoft).

The only truly useful thing from MS is their office suite. That's more than offset by the incompatibilities, SCO lawsuits, screwed up Windows configs, IIS worms, e-mail viruses... Heck, it's more than offset by all the time wasted waiting for my PC to reboot...

I do realize the problem with knowing what the world would be like without MS. Would Linux have been created? Would computers be as cheap and plentiful as they are now? But if MS were to fade away into oblivion, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear, unless perhaps they faded away in some really funny fashion which would make me laugh so hard tears would flow. Something like the pie-in-the-face times the crashing Windows 98 demo times the developers/monkey dance. That would be fun.

Re:Nobody can defeat Apple

[haikvr]

if there was a world without microsoft - then apple would have been microsoft, bsd would have been apple and linux would have been well..linux once again :) imagine slashdotters saying how much OS X GUI sucks and how buggy it is - and how this bsd command line thing rocks - they would say you know how cool it is not to use a mouse - well the one button thing at all !! alright let me get on with my work on my ibook - enough of wheeling

Re:Nobody can defeat Apple

[LucidityZero]

A world with linux, apple, and microsoft--having the three of them is much better than having any two. New ideas, new flow, new users.

On one hand, this may sound like selfless self-promotion... but on the other hand, I think this is really honestly relevant.

In response to what you had to say, read my practical for my GSEC. I covers some of the same points: Opensource, Closesource, or the competition that exists because of the two?

Too Hard

[Zarxos]

That's cool that Linux is getting a bigger market share, but I still feel that it's too hard to use for the average computer user. I can use it just fine, but I don't know if someone like my mom or grandparents could. That's pretty much the main place Apple pulls ahead right now. That may change in the future, and I don't want to start a big argument, but that's just how I feel things stand right now.

Re:Too Hard

[Aadain2001]

I would have to agree with you there. Right now, Linux is not ready for joe six pack. But look at the rate at which Linux has been progressing. Just compare Redhat 7.3 to Redhat 9.0 (not that long of period between the two) and you'll see what I mean. I think Linux will overtake both OS X and Windows very soon if it keeps progressing this fast.

Re:Too Hard

[MalleusEBHC]

I'm sure you will get a bunch of people coming in here to flame you for that, but I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly. Of the non-Linux users out there, I would consider myself in the top 1% or .1% of people who would feel comfortable using Linux. I'm a Comp Sci student and have had exposure to many different *nix environments. I'm a Mac guy living in a Windows world, so I'm used to having to adapt to new computing environments if need be. I've been using computers about as long as I've been able to ride a bike.

Despite all this, whenever I've tried Linux it has never felt like I could make my computer truly mine. On a few occasions, either due to curiosity, boredom, or a spare HD, I've tried to install and experiment with a flavor of Linux. With any of my Macs, I feel at home on my computer. But with a Linux machine, there is always something little going wrong that makes things a pain in the ass for me. It may be that X11 is throwing a little fit over drivers. It may be dependency-hell. It may be that KDE or GNOME don't feel right from an ease of use standpoint. Whatever the case, while I get most of the stuff done that I wanted, it just caused too many headaches in the process to be worth it.

The other major problem in my opinion is the install. Admittedly, I haven't tried Red Hat/Yellow Dog which is supposed to have the most newbie friendly installer, but I've done Mandrake which I've heard is pretty close. I've also tried Debian and mkLinux. The Mandrake install was nice until something went wrong. I couldn't get X working without some hacking, not exactly the setup I would expect your average user to work through. They just want to be able to click a few boxes and have it work. Debian is actually a pretty nice installer once you get used to it, but the first time can be intimidating.

While this may come across as bashing on Linux, that's not my point. Linux definitely has its strong points, but ease of installation, setup, and use is not one of them. If Linux people really want to see it take over the desktop, this is the area to focus on.

Re:Too Hard

[cscx]

And it's a good think they don't, cause then they'd all be super-villains too, bwhaha!

Re:Too Hard

[bigmase521]

Despite all this, whenever I've tried Linux it has never felt like I could make my computer truly mine

I would consider myself in the top 1% or .1% of people who would feel comfortable using Linux

Well if you consider yourself comfortable enough with Linux, then you should be able to make it feel "at home" relatively quickly.

Most of the newest distros have installers that have come so far, I might even go as far as to say that they rival Windows installers (Mandrake 9.1 installer is beautiful).

If your complaint is about X11 drivers, then you should of course know that most distros can't bundle certain graphics drivers due to licensing issues i.e. Nvidia, Ati. A quick install of the driver, and a quick mod to XF86Config-4 usually does the trick (at least from my experience w/ Nvidia cards)

Dependency Hell?? Well I use Mandrake 9.1, a quick 2 min. URPMI from the PLF to add contrib, sources, main, and of course Texstar's repository, and dependency hell is pretty much taken care of, as grpmi also gets the deps. this is for an rpm-based distro, however apt-get is equally as powerful.

It may be that KDE or GNOME don't feel right from an ease of use standpoint

hmmmm.... this one baffles me a bit. I use KDE as my desktop, a quick trip to Kde-look.org and my desktop will look and feel exactly how I want it to. I know what you're probably thinking, and no I'm not a KDE-only zealot... Gnome is very good, I just like KDE better...Plus there are many other window managers out there, it's up to you to use whatever makes you feel "at home". Linux has come a long way in the last few years, and I'm proud to tell people I use Linux, and will always explain it to them what it is when they ask, "what's that?"

What it really comes down to is choice and options. You have choice, and you have lots of options. You can choose to run Windows be locked in, and have everything forced upon you. You can choose Mac OS and have a closed (but becoming more open minded) OS but one that def. beats Windows in ease of use, but can't quite tinker with it as much as the normal geek would like. OR you can choose Linux. If you can't make your linux box feel as if you were "at home", I'd re-think your statement about being "comfortable enough" to use Linux. Customization is just one of the many perks of Linux.

"I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end.. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin"..... "Where we go from here, is a choice I leave up to you"

Maybe...but $$$

[siskbc]

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.

As a linux geek who likes Mac OS, the big difference comes when I can make a decent linux box for between a half and a third of the cost for a decent Mac OS X box. You're right in that Mac users will always be Mac users, and I don't know that all that many people are going to flock to linux desktop, but for geeks it's not so likely to crossover to Mac for desktop use.

Consider also that linux gets most converts from people who decide to dual boot for a while, end up liking it, and tanks MS. The cost to try linux is as low as free - trying Mac OS X is a significant financial undertaking. So they're not going to get the casual switcher like linux can. Hey, that's how I switched.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[siskbc]

I don't know a single person who only boots Linux. Most so-called Linux advocates want to be l33t and bash Microsoft, but it's not price that keeps them on x86, it's Windows. They want their security blanket, and they're afraid to give it up.

I don't give a shit about l33t you candyass AC, I'm just stating facts. And for what it's worth I haven't booted into the windows partition on my work computer for well over a year. So fuck off.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument seems to support the theory that linux could someday significantly surpass Apple in market share, but still not affect Apple. If all the switchers come from Windows because of the low barrier to entry, then the decreased market share will come almost completely at the expense of Windows, and not Macintosh.

As it's easier to port from linux to Mac than from Windows to Mac, moving lots of Windows users to linux may even help Apple's market viability. Another possibility is linux being a stepping-stone to Macintosh, once they're pried away from Windows and want to look around at the possibilities.

In any case, I don't see any of this as a bad thing for Apple or the Macintosh.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[Zork the Almighty]

I've switched over just now. I've tried a few Linux distributions over the course of 8 months or so, while my wife dual booted to Windows 98. Now that I've "polished" things up - selecting programs for everything, etc - I removed the Win98 option from the boot menu. If all goes well, in a month or so I'll format that partition and reclaim a little extra space. So now you know one person anyway.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[Requiem]

SuSE 8.0 for the last year, except for work, where my main development machine runs NetBSD 1.6_RC2.

But then, you're just an AC.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[easyfrag]

Maybe we're not looking far enough ahead. If its true that people will migrate to Linux from Windows, what do you think will happen when they discover a platform that can run all their Linux apps and do it with a first class user-friendly environment that is even better than Windows?

Of course price will be a huge factor but lets face it, the Linux desktops, while steadily progressing, are nowhere near as slick and consistent as that of OS X. Sure, true geeks won't really care but I'm willing to bet that "Average Joe" or his boss would pay more for the increased usability.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[Hatta]

That's hardly fair (but it is a troll isn't it). You can't fault linux for the fact that most games exist only for windows. I've considered myself a linux only person for about 2 years. I have kept a windows partition on my drive for a few games. I barely touch it. At this point I find myself comfortable enough in linux that it's easier to just do it in linux then to figure out how to do it in windows. (intuitive? hah!) I've probably spent more time trying to get my sound card to play nice with my network card under win98 than I actually have using the damn thing. In linux it's easy, `modprobe es1370 tulip`. My security blanket is cygwin.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[spirality]

I stopped using Linux at home when I bought my OS X box almost 2 years ago. I'll never go back to Linux.

Everything on OS X just works. No fucking with X, no wondering why Evolution can't play nice with Mozilla. There is a well-integrated set of Applications. You can drag and drop from anything to anything. It just works.

GNOME and KDE have gotten better. I use Redhat 9.0 at work and it's definitely the best Linux box I've ever had, and I've had alot. Starting with Slackware 3, I've used Debian, Mandrake and Redhat.

None of them even touch OS X in terms of usability.

Plus no one has anything like iTunes.

Combine all of that with Fink and the Developer Tools and what more could you possibly ask for? Ahh yes, more games. It'll happen, albiet probably slowly.

If Apple can stay competitive in terms of hardware speeds I don't see why OS X can't become the leading OS. It is certainly better than any other OS around right now.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[BattyMan]

.......So now you know one person anyway.

And another.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[michrech]

If Apple can stay competitive in terms of hardware speeds I don't see why OS X can't become the leading OS. It is certainly better than any other OS around right now.

Apple doesn't have the resources, in my opinion, to become the leading OS simply because I don't believe they can get enough boxes built in a short amount of time. I think Apple should have turned themselv's into the MS of the Apple world (although not as evil as MS) and allowed other people to make clones of the boxes. There's more money in software than there is in hardware anyway (as evidenced by the $129 'upgrades' to their OS. See? They are already acting like MS!)

Just my two cents.. Now I'm 128.98 away from an OS/X upgrade!

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[a_p_irwin]

Apple is and will always be more expensive than roll your own boxes, but so are all the big name manufacturers. I think Apple have also been far behind in price/perfomance since the introduction of the Pentium 4, but the G5 is a good turn around for them.

A dual G5 is *cheaper* than Dell's dual Xeon machine, and if you believe the Apple tripe, it's a good deal faster. If you are a bit skeptical like me, I think you could say that for most tasks it will match the performance of a dual Xeon. Xeons are not cheap, and if you want a high end work station class machine you will need to pay a high end workstation price. That's the market they go for with the Power Mac's.

The G5 Mac's have huge improvements over the G4's which were serverely limited by their bus and memory speeds. The new G5's use fast ram, a fast (I assume hyper-transport) bus and fast serial ATA hdd's. Most intel boxes have fast ATA but dont use it, does anyone remember what it took for pc's to start using usb? Would USB 2.0 exist without Firewire kicking USB's but?

I am pretty confident that with good performance, which is comparable to Intel machines, Apple will be able claw back a bit of market share and I am sure we will see improvements trickle down into the cheaper 'home' machines in the coming weeks and months.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[CoughDropAddict]

Combine all of that with Fink and the Developer Tools and what more could you possibly ask for?

The source.

The freedom:

• Gratis means that once I've figured out the solution to a general computing problem, it is available to me on any machine instantly; even if money is no object, nothing beats the convenience of everything being a download away. PuTTY is a prime example. No matter where I am, if I need to SSH to my computer, I can have PuTTY downloaded and running in under a minute.
• Libre means that I will never have to curse at my computer for obeying the wishes of my vendor over the wishes of me, the end user. It also means that I can peek inside applications to see how they work, which has huge educational benefits.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[13Echo]

I've been running only Slackware Linux on my home machine for a year and a half now. I've also been running it on my work PC for a long time as well. I've got no intentions of running anything else, aside from maybe some form of BSD on another home machine.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[MonkeyDluffy]

I've been using Linux as my sole desktop OS since .... It's been so long, I can't remember which version of slack it was, but I had to download it to floppies. Maybe 96 or 97? I later upgraded to RH 5.1, etc.

But you're still paying Microsoft when you buy x86 motherboards and CPUs.

Huh? I build my own. Including my beowulf cluster.

-MDL

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[drgroove]

I want to agree with you, but the issue with your argument (at least in the mind of the author @ the slate who wrote the article) is that the competition between Apple, Microsoft and Linux for the desktop is a zero-sum game. Essentially, the only available customers must be taken from a competitor's pool of clientele, hence 'zero-sum': nothing is really added or removed, just shifted around a bit (much like e=mc^2, but as applies to the marketplace).

In this argument (which, again, is the one proposed by the slate article) Apple stands the most to lose. As customers decide to abandon the Windows platform, Apple is hoping that they'll choose Macintosh as the replacement - hence the glitz-&-blitz behind their 'switchers' campaign (which is basically towing the 'zero-sum' line in a glossy way).

If people *aren't* choosing Apple when they leave Microsoft, then by default they're choosing Linux for their desktop (and server, and devices, et al). In this manner, Microsoft does _lose_ clients, but at the same time, Apple doesn't _gain_ any additional ones.

From Microsoft's perspective, with a 95% stranglehold on desktop OSes, losing 10, 15, 20 percent isn't endgame. It would reduce marketshare, and hence profitability, of one of their key product lines - but, keep in mind that MS has been working hard to re-work their business model around software, services, web services, etc etc. Losing ground on Windows is a *reality* for Microsoft - they've been preparing for that reality since 1999, or possibly 1998, when .NET starting taking root w/in the company.

Apple, on the other hand, with a less than 2.5% desktop marketshare, has bet the farm on taking MS' customers. You might argue that Apple also provides services - .Mac, iTunes, iPod, etc - but, I would counter that these efforts focus primarily (at least at the moment) on one target customer base - Macintosh owners. While Apple will likely extend their non-desktop efforts - services, servers, software, et al - their core business begins in their hardware, and extends outward from there - which means, if people aren't buying Apple computers, then Apple is not making much money. If that bet against MS' clientele ultimately doesn't pay off, and Linux ends up taking more of MS' clientele than Apple, I think the future would suddenly become very uncertain for Jobs @ Co.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[mvdw]

I'm with you, except I don't play games so I don't have a Windows partition.

Cygwin is my saviour at work. I frequently start a sentence with "I wrote a script to...", which is something of a running gag here lately...

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[CoughDropAddict]

What was it that you wanted, again? The source to the entire OS X operating system?

Yep.

Too bad, you don't get it.

Ok...NEXT! I mean you had a nice performance and all, but you're just not what we're looking for.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[spirality]

What your saying is valid if having the source means so much to you.

I don't think it matters to much though. I would rather not have the hassles of needing the source code.

My time is more valuable in that respect. Meaning, I have better things to do with my time than hack another ssh client for example. I would rather compose some music than write the music software, and yeah I'll pay someone for the convenince and I don't care if they keep the source as long as the product works, and if it doesn't I won't buy the new version.

I used to think like you though, so I know where your coming from. It's gratifying to think you could change the source code, but in practice I've only done that a few times. I'm very thankful for Linux and the OSS movement. There is potential to learn a lot by reading the code. Someday it may even "win", but its a dowside of the "bazaar" method that there is no one up above saying, "look all of this needs to work together seamlessly". Apple can do that and it's really a blessing for the user.

Take Drag and Drop. I have a pdf document on my desktop. I open mail, drag it in, it attaches. I drag web addresses to the desktop, the link is made. I drag the web address to my bookmark bar, the bookmark is made. You get the idea. OS X is not just a collection of applications its a coherent evironment and that can not be downplayed. It creates an experience for you that you want to keep reliving and that your happy about. So many times I've been like it would be cool if I could do "X" and I try it and it works! This does not happen under Redhat, or if it does, rarely.

The OSS movement has no coherence. You have a lot of duplicate efforts. It's why there are 5 different web browsers and only one of them (Mozilla/Firebird) is worth using and it can't even do Flash 90% of the time. It's why there are as many mail clients and all of them are lacking and can't interoperate with even the Web Browsers much less the mp3 player or the photo programs. It's the reason there are 4 half-assed word processors instead of one really good one.

Another thing about OSS is that it is so hell bent on copying Windoze that it rarely innovates. I've seen very little non-clone applications come out of the OSS movement. I dare you to name any desktop applications that are innovative. Certainly I can name quite a few server ones, but we are not talking about serving apps here. OSS has no "killer" desktop apps, just mediocre clones.

I don't think OSS will ever produce a Final Cut Pro or any such high-end software. Even copying MS Word is a tall order. However, at the end of the day it is the lack of coherence between apps that makes Linux such a pain in the ass to work with.

That's my rant. ;)

-Craig.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[WiggyWack]

As a linux geek who likes Mac OS, the big difference comes when I can make a decent linux box for between a half and a third of the cost for a decent Mac OS X box.

Don't true geeks buy two of every new gadget that comes out on the market so they can use one and take the other one apart? Aren't geek jobs some of the most highest paid professions in the country? Isn't a geek required by geek law to buy at least one piece of hardware of some sort per month in order to remain a true geek?

And you're worried about saving a couple hundred bucks on a COMPUTER? Hang your head in shame! You are no geek.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[Nevyn]

Take Drag and Drop. I have a pdf document on my desktop. I open mail, drag it in, it attaches. I drag web addresses to the desktop, the link is made. I drag the web address to my bookmark bar, the bookmark is made.

Yeh, I do this all the time ... under Red Hat. There are still problems, but it's not quite that bad.

Another thing about OSS is that it is so hell bent on copying Windoze that it rarely innovates. I've seen very little non-clone applications come out of the OSS movement. I dare you to name any desktop applications that are innovative. Certainly I can name quite a few server ones, but we are not talking about serving apps here. OSS has no "killer" desktop apps, just mediocre clones.

Well I'm assuming you are removing mozilla, emacs, ctwm (one of the first to have virtual desktops ... or maybe it was tvwm ... to long ago) etc. from the list.

Then there's also the small things, for instance after using galeon then I hate using almost any browser due to the way you can filter images (it says "block images from X", which is often only a "small" difference of displaying the host ... but that small thing changes the usability immensly -- and this is where OS X has the edge, a noticable amount of "small" things thoughout the UI).

However this is also a case of there being a lot of work to do to applications to get features that people know they want, so that leaves little time to experiment. Also there isn't anything you can really point to as "innovation" in Window XP ... sure it's prettier, and there are probably a bunch of small things that make life easier ... but nothing huge you can say hey look at that.

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[AnyoneEB]

Windows has had drag-and-drop since at least Windows 98, but I admit I didn't know about it until one of my Mac-using friends asked "can't you just drag-and-drop it?".

Re:Maybe...but $$$

[spirality]

well I'm assuming you are removing mozilla, emacs, ctwm

I'll give you mozilla. Emacs is a developer tool, and I thank god for it everyday, but my girlfriend or mom would give a shit about it. Virtual desktops are nice. So, yes, there is some innovation. :)

Windows isn't terribly innovative, but I never said they were. However, there are many games on XP where you could say "look at that". Never the less I think that OSS has really moved to copy windows when maybe it should copy Apple. :) I'll repeat what I said about coherence. No one has it like Apple has it, and coherence makes for a wonderful user experience.

Cohesiveness

[mister_tim]

For an end-user, particularly someone unfamiliar with computers, the big advantage of Macs is that they are easy to use. The hardware is all pre-configured and the operating system is fairly intuitive. You can tweak it if you like, but it's not necessary for many people. It's possible that Linux might one day be able to compete with that, but unlilkey.

It'll be a close match...

[Klimaxor]

Apple users are just that, Apple users. They love them, trust them, and some may do things that i can't mention. They love the simplicity, and the pretty screens. Professionals, more specifically digital photography (even more specifically digital typesetting, the field of work i'm in) also love Mac's. Linux on the other hand, in the professional aspect, is still sort of a new player. In the server aspect, linux is still a front runner for professionals, but in the desktop environment, it's still..shady to them. They have system's they know how to use, and aren't willing to make dramatic changes. With the Mac OS now using unix-based underlayers, professionals are even more likely to stay with Apple because "hey, we still have an Operating System we're used to, with the dependability of Li/Unix in the background, Why change?"

Cost

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

If the Mac hardware wasn't so freaking expensive or the OS ran on x86 I think OSX would have lots more market share. Heck, I know I would at least give it a try.

Re:Cost

[Quixotic137]

This has been covered many times in the past, but...

Apple hardware is comparable to PC hardware on price vs. performance; however, you can't buy a sub-$650 mac.

OSX would have greater market share on x86, but Apple would lose income on hardware sales.

And you're surprised because?

[|>>?]

This is all really big news,

1. Apple software runs on Apples.
2. Linux software runs on Apples, Intel, Toasters and Watches.

I'm not sure why this is a big surprise... I'm more interested to know when Linux will overtake Windows on the desktop.

Re:And you're surprised because?

[Klimaxor]

and gameboys, the xbox, probably the playstation 2, computerized machinary, etc. etc. etc.

Re:And you're surprised because?

[banky]

What's "Linux Software"?

X11 runs on OS X. GNOME and KDE both run on OS X. So does Evolution, and the GIMP, and tons and tons of other things. Very little "Linux software" refuses to compile on OS X.

Linux definately wins on the "watches and toasters" front, though.

Re:And you're surprised because?

[|>>?]

You have got to be kidding...

If the nomenclature for software that runs on Windows is "Windows Software", then software that runs on Linux would have to be "Linux Software"

Is this a really grey line? Sure, that's the whole point. Linux runs on many different (hardware) platforms, software that runs on top of Linux on that platform is "Linux Software"

Your point about X11, Gnome and KDE as well as other stuff running on OSX just serves to highlight my point. No-one said that the platforms that Linux runs on are limited to Hardware, thus you can run Linux on a Windows machine as well as a MacOS X machine, you're still running (some part of) Linux to make it actually work.

Re:And you're surprised because?

[lxs]

you're still running (some part of) Linux to make it actually work.

No, you're not. To run linux you need the linux kernel. No kernel,no linux. X11 is not part of linux, and yet with only an X11 server, I can run Gnome, KDE Gimp and most other programs available for linux on my iBook (I am running Open Office right now as a matter of fact, neatly minimised in the dock :-) with no linux kernel on the entire machine.

Its all in the numbers

[Billly Gates]

Where do you get the exact amount of linux users?

Linux users upgrade their distro's more then Mac or Windows users. Are they counting users twice or even three of four times?

What about those who purchased it to play with it on an older box while using Windows as their main workstation?

Also do Linux users count as Windows users because they paid for an os each time they upgrade?

Since 97 I purchased 9 different distro's or versions of distro's. Redhat 5.1, 6.0, 7.0,7.8.0, Caldera lite ( shudder ) 1.1, 1.3, Suse 7.0, 8.0, Mandrake 6.2,7.1. I use WIndows most of the time now and use FreeBSD on an older box which is out of order at the moment.

I only purchased 2 versions of Windows during the same time period.

Does that mean their are 10 extra Linux users at there?

Re:Its all in the numbers

[ankit]

You are looking at only one side of the story. What about people who NEVER buy a copy of linux, and still use it? I guess a VAST majority of people using linux fall in this category. They either download a CD iso, or get it from a friend, or get it with a magazine or book. I have been using linux for about ten years now, am currently running linux on about three machines at home, and have never purchased a licensed copy. Does that mean I would be counted as a non-linux uder?

Re:Its all in the numbers

[asdfx]

I think it's far more likely that these are the result of random population surveys.

However, RH, Mandrake, Lindows and probably others have respective subscription services that would make it possible to provide accurate numbers.

Plus, these are 'predictions' from an MSN sight, so I would suspect some FUD.

Re:Its all in the numbers

[intermodal]

in the same sense, is this counting him as 10 windows users?

Let's not get into this semantics arguement. I think most linux users download one ISO image and install it many times, I've downloaded one distro and installed it on as many as a dozen and a half boxes. I've downloaded a distro and installed it once and deleted it (red flag linux...i don't speak chinese unfortunately). Also, privacy zealots tend to lean towards linux and sure don't do anything if they can help it to be "counted".

So in essence, odds are there are more Linux users out there than there are OSX. We just are impossible to count.

wait a minute

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Better in so many areas? Care to elaborate, or am I just supposed to tell my boss "well, it's better...but only in vague, hard to articulate ways"?

The "new mac os" isn't a GUI for Unix. It may have BSD underpinnings, but that has fuckall to do with Unix, unless you happen to be posting from 1985.

It's not just a kernel and a gui in a box, either. It's a system. Like FreeBSD, sort of. A collection of software more than just an OS.

Re:wait a minute

[axxackall]

Excellent!

Each time someone tells: "Unix is better than MacOS" then immidiately OSX zealots answer: "OSX is BSD with a cool GUI on a top of it!".

But if yout tell them the same they asnwer: "it isn't just a GUI, it's a system and much better than BSD".

Very logical!

what is it now?

[minus_273]

linux 1% apple 2-5 %? i dont see apple losing much.

Re:what is it now?

[Billly Gates]

My guess is %50 of all new mac users come from the Linux community.

If anything we are binding with them. Apple gains while Linux gains.

Re:what is it now?

[cperciva]

According to Google, linux is at 1% and apple is at 3%.

Re:what is it now?

[JDWTopGuy]

I was a Windows 95 (and sometimes OS/2 3) user until I discovered Linux. That was back around the time of Slackware 4/7. I had my desktop system running Slackware almost exclusively, until Freei (which was easily used w/o ad banner, so I could use it on linux) kicked the bit-bucket, and then I started using Windows again (so I could use NetZero - YUCK!), on a laptop.

And then I got the 667Mhz PowerBook G4 I have now (see my user bio for full specs), and it's great. I intend to upgrade when the PPC 970 laptops come out, although I don't know how I'll get the money to do so. But I just spent $160, with about $40 left to go (RAM), on the parts to build an Athlon XP 1600+ system to use Linux on.

Why? Because I want to maintain my Linux skills, and have a cheap PC box to modify/upgrade at will, and Virtual PC is much too slow. I also would like to get involved in free (open source) software development, and specifically I would like to work on a Pentium-optimized version of Slackware Linux. (I have been working on it, but I've had to compile the packages in VPC, which is slow and no fun at all.)

The question should be, "Who cares?"

[CliffH]

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

Re:The question should be, "Who cares?"

[Arandir]

My question is though, why should we even worry about whether or not Linux will surpass OS X in desktop usage or sales.

Well, if the average Linux advocate can't sleep at night knowing that someone somewhere is using a different distro than they are, then of course they're going to be all hot and bothered that someone is using a completely different OS. After all, the motto of Linux is "world domination"...

omfg

[someonehasmyname]

That's the funniest shit I've read on /. in a long time.

Keep it up Tim.

Linux on Desktop versus Apple

[sloth jr]

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

Re:Linux on Desktop versus Apple

[ocelotbob]

Don't discount Linux's hardware advantages. Linux runs on pretty much everything. Leveraged correctly, this can mean that you'll be able to run the same exact environment on all your computing hardware, from your PDA to your desktop at home, and workstation at the office. Operating environments such as KDE on the Desktop end, and its portable counterpart, OPIE, are pretty similar from a user interface perspective, which offers great usability advantages, even factoring in the UI inconsistencies in KDE. Jobs' ego rush to kill the newton is going to come back to bite him on the ass, as Linux's capabilities as a digital hub are used to their fullest potential.

I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[tgd]

Ran a little Win95 back in the day, and I'm stuck using Windows at work... but suffice it to say, I've got a LOT of Linux experience.

I can say, its not ever going to happen. Every single person I've ever talked to about it who believed otherwise hasn't used OSX.

I bought a mac, and haven't touched my Linux desktop since then. I run some programs off it via X once in a while, but there's no way in a matter of a year, or even likely five years Linux can catch up to the quality of a desktop OS produced by a company that actually hires UI experts.

Linux will always run my servers, but I'd be shocked if it ever runs one of my real desktops again. (Its happily running on my webplayers, though)

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[Roofus]

I agree with you 100%. I got my first Mac on Friday - a 12" Powerbook. After only 3 days of using it, I can without a doubt say that OS X is the nicest OS I have ever used. I've got a good amount of experience with Windows, Linux, and every flavor of BSD. None of them compare to the experience that OS X gives.

Add that to the fact that this powerbook is the most elegant piece of hardware I've ever used, and you've got a winning combination.

I just installed nmap last night on my Powerbook with one command: apt-get install nmap. In 3 days I've become a Mac convert, and I'm quickly on my way to becoming a fanatic. Right now, I've got no plans to ever go back to Windows or Linux.

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[Knife_Edge]

A debian style packaging system for OS X? Who makes this?

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[hank_pym]

Fink is the name of the system -- It's on sourceforge

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[Anonymous Coward]

I got one of those about a week and half ago.. haven't booted up my pc since i transfered all my mp3's off of it.

I haven't had this much fun with a computer in a few years. I'm in the process of setting up sendmail right now and I must admit i'm in the fanatic stage already

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank Linux for your 'apt-get install nmap' traitor.

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[isorox]

I think he was using Fink.

Ya FINK???

*groan*

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[jmv]

I can say, its not ever going to happen. Every single person I've ever talked to about it who believed otherwise hasn't used OSX.

Well, that's the thing. They haven't used OS X because they have a PC. Switching from Windows to Linux only requires a bunch of CD's. Switching from Windows to OS X requires buying a new computer! That's a hell of an advantage for Linux (that and the fact you can dual-boot with Windows).

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[IamTheRealMike]

I can say, its not ever going to happen. Every single person I've ever talked to about it who believed otherwise hasn't used OSX.

Hi. I've used OS X quite a bit, and I believe that Linux is going to totally blow it away in ease of use, consistancy, looks, compatability and speed.

I know this, because I'm deep into the developer community now. I can see a few years ahead, can divine roughly where things are heading. I can see some of the cool stuff that's being worked on right now.

And the fact is, that you can't beat exponential scalability in developer resources.

Yes, consistancy. In some respects Linux is already more consistant than MacOS. Almost all apps in the latest versions of Red Hat are consistantly themed, with OpenOffice being the only real exception. Contrast that with MacOS, in which applications have two entirely different themes, applied at random for no good reason. Hell, Apple have violated their own HIG twice now simply to make things look shiny.

What kind of message does that send to developers?

In contrast, developers all over Linux land are busy learning about and getting the usability religion. When a developer or team doesn't co-operate, fork! It's happened several times already.

Oh and FWIW there are indeed UI experts working on Linux (well, gnome at any rate). So, I think you're being overly pessimistic.

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[SubtleNuance]

Wow, you know -- I had *exactly* the opposite experience!

I bought a G4, installed OSX on it.. and ran it like that until -- lo-and-behold -- I got a chance to see a friend's Debian box. All tricked out w/ latest KDE, the apt-get pleasure of just about everything i need... I instantly trashed the OSX and put Debian on it for good.

Im not looking back, I cant even imagine how Apple is keeping up! Im looking forward to the next KDE release!

Re:I've used Linux almost exclusively since '93...

[Eythian]

OK, allow me to disagree then. I use OSX extensivly (I am writing this on it now), and the more I use it, the more frustrated I get. I like configurability and customisation, and it is something of a relief when I get home and sit down to my Linux box running KDE. I'm much more productive in that, as I don't have the user interface getting in my way because it isn't tuned to how I work.

OSX does look pretty, and programs generally have a nice, consistent interface, but that interface doesn't mesh with me, and I can't change it

I couldn't see myself buying a Mac, unless I was planning to erase OSX and put Linux on it

(Things are made even more difficult by me not having administrator rights on the OSX machine I use. In Linux, virtually everything can be done without root in the saftey of your own ~, but the same isn't true for OSX. Even making it play OGG or DIVX can be something of an exercise in frustration compared to using MPlayer or xmms, where things Just Work).

It might not...

[TWX]

Apple is transforming itself. Yes, they're still proprietary, but their OS isn't entirely so anymore. They're also supplying some kick ass hardware now, so there's a chance that even your average Linux user might find an OSX machine well enough built to be worth buying.

For myself, I want 64 bit. x86 offerings aren't really completely available to me as I have been able to find, but I could spend a couple thousand to have a very well built computer with a version of UNIX (abeit, a rather interestingly tweaked version) already prepared for the exact hardware, including the multimedia aspects. That's pretty damn slick.

Linux is awesome for anything I want to load it on to, but if I an buying the high-end hardware, I'd probably run OSX just for the fit.

Re:It might not...

[sniggly]

True - linux people might buy the new G5 and dual boot that osx/linux but why ditch osx when it will soon support X11 natively and so pretty much all linux apps (QT, KDE already is running on OSX) will be trivial to port.

It might just be that OSX will compete with KDE and Gnome, not with linux...

I run KDE 3.1 on a 400 mhz G4 powerbook and it is very speedy and extremely good. I cant imagine what a 64 bit linux will do on a dual 2.0ghz ibm apple other than blow everyone away!

Re:Market Share?

[El]

So, by your definition, Internet Explorer has a market share of 0%? Wait 'till M$ hears this!

More Work

[WatertonMan]

While Linux is making strides (check out Ximian) it still has a long way to go. It really depends upon how it is to be used. But realistically the "regular folk" will not be using Linux for several reasons.

1. Much missing software. (Office, Photoshop, etc). Some of these have Linux equivalents but they really aren't the same. i.e. no graphics professional would use Gimp instead of Photoshop. There isn't an equivalent of Illustrator or Freehand. OpenOffice is still very limited in opening up Excel and Word files. (And is clunkier in my opinion)
2. Too much configuration. It is hard for Slashdot folks to realize, but keeping Linux up to date and configuring it is a royal pain in the ass. I consider myself computer savvy and I still have problems with Linux all too often!

Compare this to the Mac. Everything works the way you expect it. Plus you do get nearly everything that Linux provides. So it really is the best of both worlds. The only downside is that the hardware ends up being a couple hundred more than an equivalent PC system. And if you roll your own box (which most can't) then the price difference is even higher. That's a big deal to many people.

Re:More Work

[DynamiteNeon]

I agree with you.

Right now, I think the only way Linux could ever overtake Mac in marketshare is if those two things change plus something more fundamental.

The mindset of the Linux community still seems to favor the shell interface over gui interfaces. While I agree a command line can be more useful in many cases, I still think that a gui can be a good thing most of the time. Until somebody really sits down, rethinks things, and makes gui tools that are easy for anyone to use to configure the system, Linux will remain the "alternative."

Re:More Work

[alienw]

I am not sure why the hell everyone always cites "photoshop" as the main problem to Linux adoption. Sure, you might have a nice pirated version, as might some of your friends. If you are a graphics designer, you might give a shit. However, how many graphics professionals are out there? Not that many. Most computers out there are used for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and custom applications. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, QuarkXPress, and other stuff is used by very few people in a typical organization.

Everything works the way you expect it.

I strongly disagree with this. Stuff works as you expect only if you are a diehard Mac user. For example, it took me (someone who is very proficient with Linux and Windows) about an hour to find the printing panel in OS X 10.1 (maybe even 10.2, I don't remember). Unlike the other config stuff, it's a separate application that is found in some obscure location on the hard drive. That's certainly not how I expect it. Also, I don't expect a floppy to eject when I drag it into the trashcan. I do not expect a window to close when I click on a red water drop in the corner. Those things are not any more intuitive than they are on any other OS.

Re:More Work

[peretzpup]

You know, if you'd actually ever used OS X, you might have noticed that when you start dragging a disk, the trash can becomes an eject symbol...

Re:More Work

[Christianfreak]

I'll second what alienw said and go a step further.

Why does everyone complain about OpenOffice? I've used Star/Open Office for years now and I haven't come across a Word or Excel doc that it couldn't open. The only problem I ever had was with PowerPoint but it still opened it just didn't have some of the same clip art.

Contrast that to Word that half the time mangles documents produced with older versions of itself. I've had Word 2000 and XP both completely trash a Word 95 document.

Configuration? How is editing a (usually) documented text file harder than trying to hack the registry? Besides most of the newer distros come with a configuration program built right into your favorite GUI, as well as update tools which IMHO work far better than break your network connections, own your computer type program otherwise known as Windows Update.

Re:More Work

[justsomebody]

OpenOffice is still very limited

Question is, will M$ continue to develop MSOffice for Mac. If not you're on the same horse.

no graphics professional would use Gimp instead of Photoshop

I do, at least the portion that needs hand drawn images. Trouble is, Photoshop is usable for high end and printing, I don't do that, except if hand drawn image in RGB is considered high end.

There isn't an equivalent of Illustrator or Freehand

It is, question is again what is your final destination. In fact I preffer sodipodi as strange as it sounds, simple and usable but I must admit it's not quite there yet, still a lot missing (and I mean A LOT). But what I most like by Gimp or Sodipodi is UI (I know people are screaming for MDI, but I like just that). But then again, if you look at me I own two G4's with Adobe Collection, but that just isn't it. Maybe Adobe Software is just too clumsy and too much of everything.

Compare this to the Mac. Everything works the way you expect it

Yeah right, like I don't own two of them.

Now my bashing. OSX hasn't got any suitable e-mail software. Browser is incomplete (IE no more, Mozilla is crashing too much, at least that what I tryed, and I'm avoiding Apple as I can)

Re:More Work

[alienw]

True, but you still have to know what to do. Otherwise, you wouldn't start dragging the disk. Being a PC user, I would expect to find this in a context menu. So my point still holds...

Re:More Work

[alienw]

Finally, someone who has a clue. It's funny that none of my comments got moderated down yet... Usually, the Mac owners get quite upset and mod down everyone who dares criticize their platform (even if the criticism is perfectly valid).

Re:More Work

[chippcom]

1. Much missing software.

While some professional software is available for the Mac, much of it is released on Windows first so the Mac version is always catching up. (See Maya, Lightwave...even Photoshop) -- Also, anyone can walk into your local CompUSA and see only limited software is available for Mac.

So, I'm thinking this point isn't one of your strongest;-)

Re:More Work

[vorpal22]

First off, let me say that I completely agree with you on the Print Centre in Mac OS X... It should be located in the System Preferences. I don't know why they didn't do this.

I do not expect a window to close when I click on a red water drop in the corner.

I don't think most computer newbies expect a window to close when they click a red X in the corner, either. It's a lesson you learn once, through experience, and after that, you don't forget it.

Re:More Work

[peretzpup]

And guess what, if you tried to find it in a context menu, you would!

Re:More Work

[Onan]

There is an "Eject" item in the contextual menu.

And there is an eject item in the Finder's File menu which is available when exclusively removable volumes are selected.

And there is a reliable and obvious key equivalent for that menu item (command-E).

And, in addition to these, there is the additional shortcut of dragging the volume to the trash.

Re:More Work

[WatertonMan]

Actually I've tried to go Linux several times - typically after Linux users have said, "no, this is the distro that will do it." Unfortunately all too ofter there isn't a GUI for doing things. You end up doing endless searching on the internet or buying an O'Reilly book.

I tried to go Linux for my PC box. But I wanted it to be a NAT server for my Mac. After spending an afternoon trying to get it to work I simply installed XP and had it working in 10 minutes.

I've tried OpenOffice, Abiword and others as well. But it just doesn't do what I want. And yes, I've found many documents it doesn't open right.

Gimp has a crappy UI in my opinion. (And yeah I have it on my system - but I prefer GraphicsConverter or Photoshop for my Graphics) For vector graphics I simply haven't found anything that is that good. On the Mac for simple stuff OmniGraffle is simply amazing. Illustrator is there for when I need it.

Mail.app works great for me for mail. The only complaint I have is that it doesn't support full HTML mail but that is apparently changing. I have Entourage as well but liked Mail better. I tried the mail app that came with Gnome but simply didn't like it. Your milage may vary.

Re:More Work

[TheGreek]

How much are you going to charge me for service and support?

Re:More Work

[May Kasahara]

(See Maya, Lightwave...even Photoshop)

Actually, Adobe releases new versions of all their graphics software (Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects, etc.) for the Mac and PC simultaneously. Imagine the uproar it would cause in the graphics and animation communities if they had to wait an extra six months for the Mac version of an Adobe product :P

Re:More Work

[May Kasahara]

Good point. Dell's service and support is unbeatable-- and I hear Apple's is just as good. That's part of what you pay for when you buy either a Dell or a Mac.

Re:More Work

[schotty]

In regards to the second topic -- you are way off base. I have used SuSE, Red Hat and just got my hands on LindowsOS and must say that it is just as simple as WindowsXP/98 SE was. Its click on a button, it checks for updated rpms/debs and it asks which ones you want. Then it downloads and installs them. How does it get easier to update?

Windows User

[mwolff]

I have been a windows user for a long time and now am switching to Linux. Everyday I become more and more attracted to Linux.

At the same time my attraction for Linux grows, I find myself more and more repulsed by windows. The repulsion, interestingly, makes me want to use Apple computers more too.

Perhaps Linux will just show people there are other options than windows and as a result make Apple's popularity rise?

Maybe Linux will help increase Apple's market share?
Linux, HUH! What is it good for? Absolutely Everything!

Re:Windows User

[anthonyrcalgary]

"Perhaps Linux will just show people there are other options than windows and as a result make Apple's popularity rise?"

Yes. I went to OS X via Linux. I need OpenBSD or Linux for some of my stuff, but they're not worth the effort as a desktop system. SSHing to them is just as good.

Re:Windows User

[mwolff]

You are right about the SSHing. That is actually how I access my linux machine 99% of the time. So I guess I am not really using it as a desktop machine at all.

Re:Windows User

[anthonyrcalgary]

Getting everything I needed working on my Linux computer proved too time consuming (things like dual monitors... and sound), so I gave up and just set it up as a server. It's perfect, works flawlessly month after month. No Apple computer (with any OS) could possibly compete, because the new ones are bigtime overkill, and the used ones still cost too much.

On the other hand, as a desktop or laptop OS, Linux couldn't compete. I don't fancy spending another weekend trying to get dual monitors and sound to work, and that's not even getting into the crap that I need to connect to with my iBook. I lose a little power with MacOS, but it's nothing I can't get back by SSHing to my Linux box, and I gain plug and playability and a nicer GUI.

So, each has it's place, so I use both. As it should be. I'm a fan of Apple, but only because they can supplement my abilities. They can't do everything I want and even if they could they couldn't do it on my budget, so they're not the complete solution. :)

"viable" ?

[happystink]

Okay, so uhh.. if Apple isn't a viable competitor to Windows right now, then what is? And if linux surpasses it in installed base terms, does that make Apple any less viable? The word viable here is really problematic basically.

But I will say this: The number of people likely to get rid of OS X in favor of Linux are about the same amount of people that ever ran Tru64 on the desktop.

Soon I would imagine

[Captain Morgan]

Linux runs on all hardware EVEN Apple's. Apple, proprietary hardware that can only be bought from Apple. It's crazy to think that Apple could come back from their 5% market share. They aren't hungry enough for market share to cut prices enough to make their hardware competitive with x86.

Chris

Probably not...

[Realistic_Dragon]

Linux has mostly replaced conventional UNIX boxes because it can do (roughly) the same stuff for less money. It's never (I hope) going to be quite as idiot proof as OS X (because that way the idiots will start using it) - so it's not really going to attack there in the same way.

If anything Windows is going to get more and more squeezed between the two decent desktop UNIXish systems - at one end by the simple OS X, at the other end by the cheap Linux.

It's not a battle between OS X and Linux - they compliment each other and Apple even seem to be playing reasonably nice with the OSS community. The battle is for the middle ground, currently occupied by Windows.

Re:Probably not...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Mostly replaced commercial unix?? Only used single-processor linux PCs, huh?

Come on down to the Malaysian telephone exchange at Brickfields some day, and I'll show you some real Unix power.

I don't know that it's completely different...

[SweetAndSourJesus]

I run FreeBSD servers for personal stuff, but I've had excellent results with Apple's XServe in business environments.

Given that OS X can run pretty much anything Linux/*BSD can, why would you say it's worse for the sever room than Linux?

Re:I don't know that it's completely different...

[LazerRed]

Thought we were talking about desktops? Most serious servers run headless. Kinda takes the "desktop" outta the equation. That's what I was refering to.

Re:Not any more!

[foonf]

What you have to understand is that after Jobs came in, Apple permanently gave up the idea of unseating Wintel dominance, or even gaining market share. Everything they do now is focused on extracting maximum profits on sales to their current fanatical user base, and keeping them locked into the platform for as long as possible. Even through the last few years of "success" their sales have been relatively stagnant and the overall market share has dropped. They are making money, more or less, though, so no one is too concerned. But there is nothing of the sense of manifest destiny and that empowers the Linux/open source community, nor the ability to run on practically any computer hardware, so in the long run I don't see how they could hope to stay on top of Linux (as long as the usability of desktop Linux distributions improves and continues to approach parity with Windows and Mac OS).

Yes

[Ciderx]

Why? Simply because in organisations, on the desktop there gets to be a natural limit about how much support you can give. I have personally seen it in a number of large companies, Universities and the like, Linux is becoming "the alternative", as in "We support Windows and the alternative". Especially in Universities, I expect to see the rot of Apple continue and anything that happened today (apart from Panther's supposed better integration with Active Directory) wont change that

What did it do???

[evilviper]

Will Linux do to OS X what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris

Would anyone mind telling me exactly what Linux "already has done" to the above OS?

Tru64 and HP/UX were both doomed as soon as the Compaq/HP merger happened, and I don't think things would be much different even if Linux wasn't around.

How about SGI? It doesn't seem to be an example of where Linux beat Irix, it seems to be an example of where ia32 systems beat out propritary systems in price/performance.

As for AIX, IBM may be doing a lot of talking about how Linux will eventually replace AIX, but it isn't happening now (nor do I suspect it will ever happen) so I don't think that's much of an example.

I'm not sure why Solaris is on this list... Sun is still going strong, and Solaris is doing just fine.

Re:What did it do???

[nojomofo]

If anybody beat Tru64, Irix, HP/UX and AIX, then it was Solaris. This article is a nice example of revisionist history, though.

Re:What did it do???

[SubtleNuance]

Sun is still going strong, and Solaris is doing just fine

Huh? Have you had a look at Sun's health lately? Have a look at look here, Im not talking about their stock price -- im talking about its general health. Proprietary unix is dead... and Sun has *alot* to loose.

Their revenue has seriously fallen, GNU/Linux killed SCO totally, Im betting Sun is next.

Mar 30, 2003 - Dec 29, 2002 - Sep 29, 2002 Jun 30, 2002
Total Revenue $2,790,000,000 - $2,915,000,000 - $2,747,000,000 - $3,420,000,000.

My bet is the next result will be 2.2-2.3

Re:What did it do???

[oldmanmtn]

I'm not sure why Solaris is on this list... Sun is still going strong, and Solaris is doing just fine.

No no no. Everybody hates Solaris and Sun is going to be dead in 6 months.

People have been saying that for 10 years now, so it must be true.

Re:What did it do???

[evilviper]

Maybe I'm just confused, but the numbers don't indicate a problem at all:

Mar 30, 2003 $2,790,000,000
Dec 29, 2002 $2,915,000,000
Sep 29, 2002 $2,747,000,000
Jun 30, 2002 $3,420,000,000

Yes, as of Mar 30th 2003, their revenue fell from the previous month, but it's still higher than it was one more month prior (Sep).

As for the drop after Jun 30th, 2002, that isn't an indication of anything in particular. We all know the economy has slowed quite a bit.

Your "bet" is based on an asumption that minor numerical fluctuations (which aren't even consistent from one month to the next) are a sign of a pattern... If I was to guess, I'd say it's most likely they will be at 2.9-3.0 next month.

You need something over a much longer time frame to even indicate that their might possibly be a pattern. The progression in that chart is practically random.

i duno?

[foo(foo(foo(bar)))]

Will this happen in general? maybe.

But will Linux ever overthrow Mac in it's niche markets. Probably not.
Personally, I won't give up my mac. I use it for a wide range of tasks from Music, to Video Editing, document preperation, and development in several languages (c, obj-c, java, perl, python, php, etc). I do have several linux boxes as well though. I use them for certain tasks (web server, CVS server, NFS), but they haven't replaced my main desktop.
I just don't know how I feel about this, there's now doubt that Mac is better on the desktop (and the laptop for sure), but linux has it's place.

Will linux pass mac on the desktop? maybe. Will us Mac users care? ...nope.

Re:Time...

[Oldskooldave]

Im betting our friend Bill is hoping that the pengiun chokes and dies on that apple

No way

[MarcoAtWork]

I like linux quite a bit (it's been my primary OS since the 1.2 kernel days, and have been dabbling with it for quite a bit before then) but there's no way that you can honestly compare the user experience of linux and macs.

Linux: still needs sysadmin-level tinkering every now and then (RH9 is nice, but if I wasn't as experienced as I am I'd have had some problems with it), has very few, if any, 'pro' applications available, interoperability with Office is still not very good (yeah, I can open Office docs, but they don't look right most of the time unless they're totally trivial) etc. etc.

Mac: extremely user friendly (too much so, IMHO, re: single button mouse) all the pro apps you can want (office, photoshop, cubase, ...) etc. etc.

The only thing against macs is price at this point, and for a lot of users the 'apple user experience' is definitely worth paying for.

Someday it might...

[extrarice]

[quote]
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?
[/quote]

Linux may one day pass Apple by on the Desktop arena. But that day will come only when Linux can be used by those without intimate knowledge of their PC.

Think about it this way:
When the average person is driving his car, he's not thinking about the intricacies of the engine that powers his car. The only things he thinks about are (1) steering wheel, (2) pedals, (3) signals, (4) gear shifter. In other words, he's only thinking about the "interface" to the engine, and not the engine itself.

The average person wants his computer to be this way. Turn it on and do what needs to be done, and not have to figure out what why package so-and-so says "failed depencendy" during an install, or figure out all the work arounds needed in order to view, say, a Microsoft Word document.

Currently, Linux is no match for the ease of use that Apple and Microsoft (compared to Linux) offer in the desktop market. If the Linux community really wants their favorite OS to be accepted by the average Joe, the presentation (i.e. interface, documentation, simplicity of design) needs a lot of work. KDE is getting there, but it still can't match Apple or Microsoft. Try again when my grandmother can look at Linux, and with a short time (say, 30 minutes) of on-screen tutorials and simple instructions, she can send Email.

Re:Someday it might...

[mcrbids]

Try again when my grandmother can look at Linux, and with a short time (say, 30 minutes) of on-screen tutorials and simple instructions, she can send Email.

Linux is closer to this than you think. My wife, who is definitely *not* a computer freak, prefers KMail to either Outlook Express or Eudora.

Linux makes the most sense in a corporate environment, where the issues of maintaining the desktop packages can be scales across many desktops.

Windows scales small, Linux scales big. Once the packages are setup, Linux easily rivals Windows for ease of use and low cost of administration, since a single command can upgrade/maintain many thousands of workstations.

Re:Someday it might...

[The_DOD_player]

Perhaps not compared to Mac, but Linux has plenty of "ease of use". To a newbie with no special need besides web, mail and office, KDE is a much better choice than windows.

KDE is better integrated, and features a cleaner, better and simpler UI than Windows. Especially Kmail is both lighter and more powerful than Outlook Express.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

When has Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris ever been a viable alternative to windows on the "desktop"?

From the 'article'

[BigBadBri]

"IBM, DEC, SCO, and finally Sun have lost the non-Windows portion of the server market to Linux..."

So some of the lower-end boxes, that can be easily load-balanced, are being set up using Linux rather than Solaris / AIX / HP-UX.

What precisely is the 'Windows portion' of the server market, anyway?

Certainly not big-assed application servers that are the meat and drink of the big Unix vendors - in fact the 'Windows portion' of the server market looks tailor made for Linux replacement.

IBM probably isn't too bothered - the ability to run multiple Linux images on their big iron is a major selling point.

Bah - Slate is a M$ owned site, anyway.

Re:From the 'article'

[buddha42]

What precisely is the 'Windows portion' of the server market, anyway?

Exchange, Active Directory, and SQL Server.

Ximian, Samba, and Postgres just can't quite compete.

Plus the annoying thing is, once one or two of those guys are in, the third + IIS + etc become pretty easy to just plug in.

Yes...

[kitzilla]

...there will be more Linux boxes in the field than OS X machines. Duh: they're cheaper.

This being said, no: Linux won't make Mac go away. Mac is solvent, well marketed, and--after today--on the cutting edge. People will still be willing to step up for a high-end Mac, particularly in Apple's traditional markets.

As an aside, I think a lot of Linux folks will wanna try PPC distributions on Apple's blazing new hardware.

When it targets Education and Science Better

[rump_carrot]

For me, Linux already has surpassed MacOSX, since I avoid Apple like the plague. (Why trade proprietary software dependence for proprietary software/hardware dependence?) Unfortunately, the other 9 Biochemistry profs here are Apple Addicts. What is needed for a full conversion for researchers/scientists? Absolutely must have Microsoft Word and Powerpoint compatability (CodeWeavers is close to solving this). However, EndNote (for writing papers/grants) and SigmaPlot (for graphing data) are still not covered. One thing that would finish the deal for scientists/educators is a good Apple emulator that runs on Linux - there is plenty of good/old Mac specific Molecular Biology Software that people are loath to give up. Anyway, I don't think Linux ascendency is as far fetched as some of you Mac people do. We'll see. Running the underdog operating system since Tandy CoCo.

Going through this right now...

[Dr. Zowie]

Apple's stuff is very slick, and if MacOs X had come out just a couple of years earlier I might stick with it -- but now I'm pretty entrenched in an Athlon/Pentium world, and don't see a lot of reason to switch. Sure, if I were starting from scratch I might be tempted by the really slick Apple interface -- after all, I was one of the diehards who stuck around for an effing decade waiting for the true memory-protected, pre-emptive multitasking. (OS 9 is where I ditched Apple -- after OS 8 turned out to be a rehash of OS 7 -- which was supposed to be the pre-emptive system way back when we all ran OS 6. And wasn't pre-emption one of the goals for OS 6? I seem to remember that, 'way back in the early MultiFinder days of OS 5, people were already talking about the need for real multitasking...)

But now I'm not about to learn an entirely new filesystem layout, when Red Hat is working just fine. Once, I could complain that not all the tools are in Linux -- but with the recent spate of video drivers, audio editing tools, and cool CAD and drawing software, there's no ``killer app'' that draws me irresistibly back to the Apples.

Maybe in the very short-term...

[MalleusEBHC]

...but I just don't see this happening in the long-term. Up until now, Apple has been reeling from Motorola's catastrophes and leftover problems from the Stone Age (aka pre Jobs' return). On the other hand, Linux is getting great press and has made great strides, both in terms of acceptance and the actual product. Given the abundance of hardware out there that Linux runs on (namely x86 for purposes of this discussion) and being free as in beer, many people have tried and liked Linux. It is also important to note that in the past few years when Linux has gained the most on the desktop have also been coupled with a recession where people haven't been as willing to buy new computers. It comes as no surprise to me that Linux might pass Apple next year.

On the other hand, I see a very bright future for Apple. This article couldn't be more timely as today we Apple loyalists heard some of the best news since OS X came out: the shackles of Motorola have been cast off for pure IBM goodness. With the G5 and OS X, I think Apple is unstoppable. Apple already sports the nicest laptops, and now the desktop offerings are equally awe inspiring. One of the biggest complaints about Apple has been that the are overpriced and underpowered. With the G5 fixing the power problem, I think the economy and IBM will help with the price. IBM reportedly can produce the 970 much cheaper than Motorola could produce the G4, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple tried to pass on these savings in the process of trying to carve out more than their traditional niche. Also, if/when the economy gets back into swing, more people will have the money and be willing to go for a pricier Mac if they believe it to be a superior machine.

I wish Linux luck...

[Tokerat]

...but being based on BSD and such, it's pretty easy to port Linux software to OS X. Apple's stuff it more expensive, so for existing installations (i.e. business desktops) Linux has a huge advantage of working on existing hardware and being free. However, i see Mac OS X as a complement to systems like Linux and BSD. For home use, I'm not sure Linux will surpass OS X, simply because most people still are not familiar with it.

If Apple's prices where lower ($1999 for an entry level G5? I love Macs, but Jesus tapdancing Christ...) they'd beat everyone in a heartbeat.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[AtaruMoroboshi]

"$1999 for an entry level G5?"

there is nothing entry level about any of the G5's. If there was, they'd be in a new iMac, not Power Mac.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[alienw]

Excuse me, but a 1.6GHz processor is extremely entry-level. The iMacs are OBSOLETE, not entry-level. Entry-level in the x86 world is 2GHz. Why are Macs different all of a sudden?

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[AtaruMoroboshi]

well, if you knew anything about the PPC 970 chip design, you'd understand.

even at 1.6 ghz, it's very, very fast.

On a per clock cycle basis, PPC has been faster than x86 forever, so this is in no way all of a sudden. It's just significantly more pronounced because the 970 chip can take advantage of high bus speeds while the G4 couldn't.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[tinrobot]

Computers hit a point a year or two ago where even the LOWEST end processor is more than sufficient for just about anything but high-end photo/video/3d stuff.

Absolutely right. We're running lots of Maya (and some After Effects/photoshop/etc) on a bunch of Dual Pentium III's at my studio. They work like a charm. Have no need (or desire) to upgrade.

I'm sure a 1.6Ghz G5 would be MORE than sufficient for most high-end apps. Besides, it's got 32 more bits!

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[wilko11]

($1999 for an entry level G5? I love Macs, but Jesus tapdancing Christ...)

I know. And can you believe Porsche want $47000 for an entry level Boxster. I love Porsche, but really. I can get a Geo for much less.

Seriously, I will admit that Apple has a price premium compared to your average clone, but the article compares an entry level clone (ie. Shared Ram video etc) with an entry level high-performance workstation. Yes, they are both entry-level but entry to different markets.

A fairer comparison would be against the eMac at $799. You still pay more but it is up to the consumer to decide whether the ease of use & support is worth the money.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[dbrutus]

Wouldn't the relevant measure be the 2-6GB more RAM athe G5 Macs can hold? Imagine running an 8 hour Maya or Photoshop session and not having to use your swap files. That's the real goodness for graphics shops.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[dbrutus]

I just looked at Dell's equivalent workstation. It runs about $300 cheaper (2.8Ghz, 256MB RAM). I'd be interested in speed comparisons though.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[overbom]

$1999 for an entry level G5? I love Macs, but Jesus tapdancing Christ...

$1999 for an entry-level high powered unix workstation that would otherwise cost twice as much for roughly the same performance? Jesus tapdancing christ, what does it take to please some people?

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[tinrobot]

Extra RAM is always nice, but we do just fine with 1-2GB per machine. If your geometry load is that heavy, your graphics card & interactivity will bog down long before the RAM gives up. Rendering might take more memory, but only for hires HDTV/Film stuff with *lots* of textures.

Re:I wish Linux luck...

[dbrutus]

Yes, yes, and who will ever need more than 640k of RAM?

The truth is that if your competitor is turning out his renders 2 hours faster than you on a regular basis, he's going to incrementally increase his ability to compete and gain marketshare on the firm that thinks that what they have is 'good enough'.

My humble opinions

[Hackie_Chan]

Why is he trying to talk down at the Mac? Doesn't he realize that we are on the same side? Everything good for Linux is good for Apple in my opinion. We both are fighting the fiercless war against big brother Microsoft!

But let's come to the most important part: What do I think the future behold? All of my G5 upgraded crystal balls tell me that Microsoft will start to fabricate their own computers (they're already doing it with HP, right?) to the point where they can start to cripple people that run Windows on other machines than those who are branded with the Microsoft-logo. In other words Microsoft will sooner or later turn in to Apple because they are Apple-wannabes... While on the sidelines Linux will grow and grow for some reason -- can't really tell because all of my balls are cloudy on that issue...

Re:My humble opinions

[ignatus]

Doesn't he realize that we are on the same side?
I do not agree.
Without Microsoft, Macintosh would have got the monopoly. And that won't be a better situation. Computers would cost more, and Macintosh would not only controll the softwaremarket, but the hardwaremarked too.

Re:My humble opinions

[dbrutus]

Currently, Apple has carefully put itself in the position that if they try to create true vendor lock-in with incompatibilities, a large portion of their userbase will have the ability to just jump ship and shift to FreeBSD. Open Directory 2 can be replaced by OpenLDAP, Rendezvous wth ZeroConf, etc.

Apple might have had the potential to become MS at one point but their current positioning means that they have to walk the straight and narrow even if they do become dominant.

Re:No.

[El]

To be succesful on the desktop, for the average user, you have to have a system that's very consistent and 'just works'.

How then do you explain the success of Windows?

furthermore...

[sacrilicious]

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.

Re:furthermore...

[MalleusEBHC]

If you paid for Puma (10.1) "just in time" to see Jaguar (10.2) released, then you are a fool. The release date of Jaguar was announced at MWNY more than a month ahead of the actual release in late August. Unless you had some dire need that made it worth paying $129 for a month's use of Puma, you should have waited. Don't blame Apple for your failure to budget your money well.

Re:furthermore...

[miu]

To say nothing of it costing $120 each time Apple upgrades the OS.

Could not agree more. I love my Mac, but the knowledge of a forced upgrade to 10.3 in a few months pisses me off. If they don't start giving a discount to upgrades this will be my last Mac.

Re:furthermore...

[dbrutus]

If you don't buy a 970 based Mac, 10.2 is much more likely to be a decent experience to tide you over to 10.4's release. Since I *do* plan on getting a G5, it's not a concern for me.

Re:furthermore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. Listen, I'm one to enjoy a great bitch-fest, but here's the deal:

10.3 is an odd-numbered release.

Odd numbered releases are available to members who purchased the previous even-numbered release for a low cost, sometimes free.

Up until 10 you could get a +.1 release for any OS, going back to 7.5 (when they first started charging for OSes), for free - unless you wanted it on CD, in which case you had to pay S&H. 7.6 is free for 7.5 owners - 8.1 is free for 8.0 owners, etc.

With 10, that model changed slightly, since they're not in any hurry to slap XI on all their packaging. And since the size is astronomical, major OS X updates are not available for download.

When 10.1 came out, owners of 10.0 could get it for free (by showing up at an Apple Store) or by paying S&H for an update CD direct from Apple.

What's new is that both these deals came with a time limit attached. If you didn't show up at an Apple Store within a couple days of it's release, no CD for you. If you didn't order online within a few weeks, no CD for you.

In other words, the people who complain about upgrading to 10.1 are little more than procrastinators who sat on their fat ass and did nothing. In fact, I think a lot of them prefer it that way - it gave them the ability to whine to hell and back about having to pay. Nevermind that they could've gotten it for free, if only they'd have shown the minimum amount of ambition to get it.

While few details have been released about 10.3's upgrade path, it's unlikely that Apple will break from a tradition they've been holding to for at least the better part of a decade.

And, come on - having to buy every other release isn't going to break the bank. Stop being a fscking cheapskate.

Re:furthermore...

[weave]

I just got into OS X last April. I've never had the same excitement over stuff on the wintel side as I do with this stuff. Each time there is a Job's keynote, he announces really neat stuff and then I get all worked up and can't wait to get my hands on it.

Now, it may be mainly hype, but it works.

For example, ho hum, I saw a preview release of MSN messenger 6 out today. Downloaded it, has neat features like a/v that apple is making a big deal of, plus also allows you to play games through it. But did I get excited? Nope... Yawn...

So, maybe I have some irrational fever or something, but I like it.

What the hell does microsoft have? Ballmer dancing around like an idiot? When Billy Gates comes out and announces something, everyone falls asleep. It's just doesn't have the juice...

Re:furthermore...

[fitten]

Either that or his version of "just in time" is 1 day longer than the MWNY announcment.

Re:furthermore...

[MasonMcD]

Those increasing apps that need Jag was due to Apple finally pinning down the APIs for a number of things.

As for future versions, if $129 gets you the API for teleportation apps, and you don't want to spends the benjamins, qwitcherbitchin when dozens of apps like "Teleport to France," "Teleport to Spain," "Teleport to One Infinite Loop," etc. come out.

Re:furthermore...

[SlackMaster64]

Don't forget your software costs, you'll need some software. Photoshop, Word, Acrobat, and what ever else runs on Mac, that'll cost you some more money.

Don't get me wrong I would love a Mac, I've wanted one for years, but damn they're expensive.

With Linux you can just steal everything you need, like say Blender!

Re:furthermore...

[schwanerhill]

Ah, what the heck, I'll blow away my moderation points and actually try to say something...

Uh, I hate to say it, but Jobs said at the keynote today that 10.3 will cost $129. (See MacCentral's coverage, among others.)

As you alluded to, Apple would probably have called Jaguar 10.5 and Panther 11.0 if it weren't for the marketing pain of OS XI--they want to put OS 11 off as long as they can. However, both 10.2 and 10.3 are major upgrades that Apple felt were worth charging the upgrade price for. Apple didn't charge for 10.1 because, by their own admission, 10.0 wasn't really ready for prime time (although I have been using OS X full time since the public beta), so Apple thought it fair not to charge early adopters to get the first ready-for-prime-time release of OS X.*

I happen to think that both 10.2 and 10.3 are worth the upgrade fee and think that it is perfectly fair for Apple to charge for them, but that point is definitely open to debate. That said, I am a student, so it will (most likely) only cost me $70. :)

*Fair is, of course, a relative term--one could look at it this way: Apple presumably thought that a lot of their customers would think it unfair if they charged for 10.1, so they thought the long term costs of charging more than a $20 distribution cost would be more harmful than the lost revenue would be helpful.

Re:furthermore...

[laredo]

Ok apparently folks are just not getting this. "Model Changed Slightly"
It has he's right, but odd or even has nothing to do with it.

Hang with me here ok....... System 7.5, Pay, 8.0, Pay, 8.5 Pay, 9.0,
Pay 10.0 Pay 10.1 free, just because 10.0 sucked so bad. Now Since
Apple has a couple of dollars invested in the whole "X" theme, they
cant go to 10.5 then 11.0 , they are going to go all the way to 11.0
thru the point.x system, so you cant think of OS 10.3 just as a "Point"
upgrade, its like going to 9 from 8 or 8.5, a pay for upgrade.

So for the next few years it will be like this.

10.2 pay, 10.3, pay, 10.4 Pay, 10.5 Pay, ETC, ETC, ETC

Re:furthermore...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the apps that are availiable for Linux for free are also available for Mac OS X for free. Certainly the biggies such as OpenOffice, a web browser built on the same base as Konqueror (Safari) (or Mozilla if that's your cuppa tea), The Gimp, apache, and so on. Some of them even come with the standard install, or are availiable on the (free, downloadable) developers package, such as gcc and tools. Now that the three big free software OS X porting groups have agreed to work more closely together, we will see the already impressive collection (of which I have named only the smallest portion) grow. I really doubt that there will be much software available for Linux which can't be had, even in an easily installable binary form, for OS X.

Erik

Re:furthermore...

[lewp]

But the caffeine is the only thing keeping my ADHD in check!

Re:furthermore...

[Xyde]

Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe Apple doesn't do this anymore, but doesn't Apple ship like 3 up-to-date coupons with every retail copy of Mac OS so you can uprade for like $30? And as long as you keep upgrading, it keeps costing you $30...

Re:furthermore...

[MrGHemp]

costing $120 each time Apple upgrades the OS... extra $100+ every N months.

I think your math problem is missing a key variable... X time configuring/trouble shooting/etc.

I can't stress enough how easy the Mac OS is to use on a daily basis. Unless your trying to hack the kernel or something funky like that, the OS X is, point blank, very stable and easy to use.

I've seen several people instal Redhat, Slackware and etc on to PCs and they spent hours... if not quiting for the night and resuming the next evening... while I've never had an OS X install require anything more than clicking next, next, next. Oh, and when I bought my new digital camera (first of that model to come to RadioShack) I just pluged it in to my Mac and iPhoto automaticly poped up and asked if I wanted to import the pictures... not additional anything... it just worked (ouch did I use the "it just works line", I know it's over stated, but trust me there's a reason why... because even the most seasoned Mac user gets suprised from time to time by how smoothly thing work)

So back to math... I would do it something like this... lets assume you have to spend $120 every year to upgrade your OS. Then let's estimate you save 3 hours during the upgrade process over the "free" OS. Then lets say every year you upgrade 3 pieces of hardware, and save an hour each using a Mac over the "free" OS. Then lets say you also install 6 pieces of software (from games to utitlties) and this saves you 1 hr per item over the "free" OS. Well that is a 12 hour time difference (not to mention ease of doing day to day tasks).

That 12 hours can be divided into $120 dollars for a grand total of $10 and hour. If you make more than $10 an hour at your current job... you're selling yourself short - if you are telling yourself your saving money on the OS by not using a Mac, you are fooling yourself.

or so it seems to me...

Re:furthermore...

[tres]

If you own 10.2, 10.3 is a $29.00 upgrade.

Re:furthermore...

[spinkham]

Heck, I can solve the "OS XI" problem...
Call it "OS X++" :o)

Re:furthermore...

[sacrilicious]

Nice foamy rant Malleus, but what happened was that I bought it just before the announcement. Not that I'd count on every customer to be aware of Apple's announcement patterns, but I happened to be and got the short end anyway. As for my being a fool, if it helps you to think of me that way you're more than welcome to. :)

Re:furthermore...

[Merk]

This either deserves a +5 informative or -1 "untrue". Do you have a URL reference?

Re:furthermore...

[TotallyUseless]

I hope you aren't talking about the upgrade coupons they include with stuff... the only thing those seem to be good for is kindling. Have a link referencing the $30 price?

I think the opposite

[LordBodak]

I think the opposite will actually happen. If I had never run Linux (i.e., stayed with Windows), I would have zero interest in OS X. It's the Unix core with the legendary Mac polish that makes OS X worth looking at, and the desktop user who wants a machine that "just works" is still a long way away from being ready for Linux.

Maybe not in America...

[cesarcardoso]

...but outside the Empire, Linux desktop usage is gaining an incredible momentum. Not only in Germany, France and all over Europe, but - and that's really interesting - in Asia and Latin America. No wonder the article tells about a next year turn; all those Linux deployments in India, China, Germany and Brazil will start to appear in 2004-5.

Re:Maybe not in America...

[dmaxwell]

What? You mean Gates and Ballmer racked up all those frequent flyer miles for nothing? Oh wait a minute.....I guess they could turn some of them in and get this really neat dual-proc 64 bit Apple machine.......

Re:Maybe not in America...

[cesarcardoso]

What? You mean Gates and Ballmer racked up all those frequent flyer miles for nothing? Oh wait a minute.....I guess they could turn some of them in and get this really neat dual-proc 64 bit Apple machine.......

Hm... maybe their frequent flyer miles allow them to get a cluster of PPC 970 Macs :-)

Linux vs. Apple

[ignatus]

Well, Linux will certainly not push apple aside. Macintosh has a great product. But the price is what most people keep from buying one.
Linux (and opensource in particular) can become a true competitor to microsoft. Unlike Microsoft and Macintosh, it is less independent to the global economy. Large compagnies allready consider switching to linux, because of the cost of licences and support.
If linux can be developed to a powerfull yet usefull OS, Microsoft can truely fear it's progress.

To move beyond OS X.

[McDoobie]

This is what Linux needs to do.

As far as a graphical desktop...
I figured getting a mature E17 (not E16) Enlightenment(www.enlightenment.org) environment with Scalable Vector Graphics would go a long way towards this goal.

Of course the packaging systems still have a lot of evolving to do.

Of course there are plenty of other rough edges that need to be honed out, but in relation to Apple, these are the first two issues that come to mind.

McDoobie

Parents from Windows to Linux

[spector30]

Having recently converted my parents from Windows users to Linux users I can certainly see how Linux could quickly replace OSX as the number two desktop OS. They have taken to Linux rather well. Of course it's been like a twelve step program for them. Ween them off a little at a time. Show them a little more every day.

I have even managed to get them to keep diaries so when they have questions they are at least well thought out. If more people took the time to do this Linux could soon overtake Windows in the home market.

Re:Parents from Windows to Linux

[nonameisgood]

Yeah, we'll see how long that can last after you high-tail it to whatever is next. I use all three OS's...Mac is by far the best for the end user, but then again, most of them don't ever notice a problem with Windows. Linux will not compete on the desktop until it works right every time, on all applicable hardware, with out *.tgz updates and the like. Even RHN is too flaky for end users - they may not (all) be stupid, but their computer is for getting things done, not for tinkering (as it for many of us.)

Re:Parents from Windows to Linux

[Strudelkugel]

I tell the Windows haters I know to get a Lindows box. I also tell them to keep their Windows PC for all the esoteric programs they have. I would never tell someone to convert their PC to Linux, since I know they will be SOL when they can't find equivalent s/w or get some piece of hardware to work with it. (My parents are fine w/windows and a Mac, no need to mess with success. If I thought it mattered, I would help them make a conversion.)

I'm more interested in seeing what happens with the dual-user population - the people who want to switch because they are supposed to hate M$. Will they learn to love Linux, or at least not hate it? Knowing this population, I would guess challenging them with multiple desktops, among other things, will lead them to hate Linux more than M$, so I tell them to go with the pre-packaged solution.

Pun time

[Oldskooldave]

yeah but bills got his eye on penguin "source"

it was bad ... i know ... i formally apologise

Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[coupland]

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!

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[Aliencow]

I'm not saying I prefer Linux to OS X, cause I don't like flamewars too much, but I *WAY* prefer mplayer to microsoft media player. Matter of preference I'd say.

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[mcrbids]

But to suggest Linux will surpass Mac on the desktop within the year? I've never owned a Mac and think that's ludicrous!

We're talking about market share. And it seems that very soon, Linux will, in fact, surpass Apple in desktop market share.

More webpages browsed, more email downloaded, more Flash pages viewed (yes, Flash 6 is supported on Linux!) and in general, more eyeballs staring at a Linux system than a Macintosh system.

And, most of the software you mention runs under WINE or crossover...

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[WatertonMan]

Try VLC as it is even better than MPlayer. (Although I've found a few files only MPlayer will play - mainly captures of commercials or funny clips)

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Yeah, at least mplayer will play xvid and divx "out of the box", while media player will attempt to contact its mystrious (sic) codec server and THEN refuse to play the file.

graspee

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[May Kasahara]

more Flash pages viewed (yes, Flash 6 is supported on Linux!)

I think the parent post was referring to the program Flash, not the Flash Player.

Incidentally, most of the software I use is graphics and animation apps like Flash, Photoshop, After Effects, etc.-- which is why I stick to Mac OS and Windows. Sure, these apps can be run in Linux via emulation programs, but why would the average desktop user want to go through all that trouble?

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[babyrat]

Seriously Mac's are great but to compare them to a solution that costs 1/10th the price for a machine that will perform email/web browsing and simple digital photo manipulation is just silly.

Considering what most people use their PC's for, I think it's totally feasible - especially considering the economic situation in burgeoning markets like south america and asia.

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[coupland]

Yes even though I picked on mplayer I like it too, some things about it that are better than Media Player:

1. Can FF and RW .ASF files (isn't this a M$ format???)
2. Can step through all AVI files, Media Player can only do some
3. No OS integration

So yes as the original poster I grant you it's nice. But bad things about mplayer:

1. Setup. I am relatively techie and couldn't even get skins working.
2. No generic CODECs, either it's hard-coded or it doesn't work.
3. It's the only thing even remotely usable under Linux! (Okay so this is a benefit of mplayer but a complaint about Linux)

I'm not slagging great free software like mplayer, I'm just saying that the quality and complexity aren't there. Even if mplayer was perfect it's still just a little media player app.

And no flamewar intended, I don't like them either...

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[LucidityZero]

This is not a troll. Honestly please listen to me. You listed a ton of apps above. You have also been moded +5. You are also wrong about many of these apps:

- I have been using the Linux Cisco VPN client from 3.51 untill the most recent 4.0.2. It's been easier to use than the Windows client.
- MS-Office: I don't care what people say: If OpenOffice.Org doens't do it, Abiword and Gnumerics do it.
- Who in God's name still uses Lotus Notes?
- Full Acrobat is available for Linux. I've never had a crash or a problem.
- Photoshop is argueable vs. Gimp, depending on exactly what we are talking about. If we are talking about "desktop" use (as the article is supposed to be about) Gimp is MORE than sufficient enough.
- Who the HELL do you know that uses PageMaker or FrameMaker? If so, they have much bigger problems than not having Linux versions available...

Seriously... Have you done ANY research as to what large, major corporations have been supporting Linux for years?

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[vorpal22]

The GIMP may be powerful, but it suffers from the same problem that a number of Linux applications suffer from: there's no usability engineering done on it.

There have been many times, back when I was a diehard Linux zealot (before OS X), where there was something extremely simple I needed to do to a photo or picture. I'd load it up in GIMP, and after fifteen minutes of frustration and not being able to find out how to do it, I'd give up, boot into Windows, and do it in the default Windows photo editor in a matter of seconds. And when I got my Mac with OS X and Photoshop, my experiences with Photoshop were that the common tasks that novices would want to perform were immediately available and intuitively located. No sifting through submenus of a popup menu, no obtuse names, etc...

The fact of the matter is, is that you shouldn't have to be an expert with a particular OS or piece of software in order to accomplish certain tasks. With Linux, I don't think you could avoid this given the complexity of the OS itself and many of the pieces of software. I mean, seriously, while KDE is pretty damn cool, the control panel is a nightmare of panes with obscure options that 99% of users will never use (much less understand), and you have to dig through the complexity to accomplish the simple. It took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to turn off the absolutely nightmarish sound scheme (I still have nightmares about it, I swear) that came turned on by default for KDE 3 with my installation of Mandrake Linux 9.

Indeed, the only way I see Linux passing MS on the desktop is if MS continues to make ridiculous blunders in the way they treat end users. Until then, I won't hold my breath. I got involved in Linux in '99, and back then, everyone was all a-buzz about how Linux was going to be the next best thing and take over the desktop. Four years later, I haven't seen any significant progress except with KDE and GNOME, and even both of them are lacking.

Seriously... I think Linux's biggest shortcoming is its fragmentation. Too many distros, too many desktop environments / window managers, too many GUIs, etc... You'll be hard pressed to get industries who are willing to commercially back Linux on a desktop setting if things continue as they are. Part of the reason I left Linux was because it was too frustrating to have 18 CD players installed by default, all at version 0.052, and all of them doing one or two things very well but not meeting the functionality of a CD player on Windows.

I still love Linux despite my frustrations, but I had days where it became easier for me to just save my home directory and reinstall than try to fix problems that arose from installing RPMs that killed other libs, etc... Linux is great, but I don't think it'll ever be suitable for anyone who's not a computer expert or doesn't have a helpful computer expert friend.

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[Jeff Kelly]

Who in God's name still uses Lotus Notes

According to IBM quite a few actually. Well it may suck but it is still better than the Alternatives (Exchange/Groupwise)

Full Acrobat is available for Linux. I've never had a crash or a problem.

Acrobat is only available for Windows and Mac. Acrobat Reader(!) is available for Unix.

Who the HELL do you know that uses PageMaker or FrameMaker? If so, they have much bigger problems than not having Linux versions available...

We use Framemaker exclusively for all our Technical Documentation our Books, Master Thesises etc. IMHO Word does suck big for such documents. With word you will never get a document which adheres even the basic typografic principles and it is therefore unusable for anything but the simplest tasks.

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[oldmanmtn]

One small correction: there is a Cisco VPN client for Linux. I'm using it right now.

There is no client for BSD, which is the main reason I'm still using Linux. (at least until the FedEx guy shows up with my shiny new Powerbook :).

Re:Who needs apps, my Gnome desktop r0x0rz

[xchino]

"Mplayer is great and all but it still doesn't compare to Media Player. And it's the best there is!"

What the hell have you been smoking? Mplayer kicks the living crap out of EVERY other media player in existance, and out of every media player in existance Media Player is the worst. Mplayer has way more features, plays more AV formats out of the box, uses WAY less system resources, and is several times faster. Media Player's playback control is horrible. Finding a spot in a large video or movie is next to impossible, hope 5 minutes is close enough for you.

Even Media Player's GUI now lacks comparitively to the new and still developing gmplayer.

My point is, mplayer is a perfect example of OSS done right. No other video player for any platform I have come across offers anything coming anywhere near close to what mplayer already has to offer.

MSN

[agentofchange]

Hmmm I wonder how much conflict of interest there is with this appearing on the MSN?

An equivalent argument...

[greygent]

When will the Amiga surpass Mac OS X?

This story is almost flamebait, and heavy on the ridiculous.

Re:An equivalent argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the Amiga surpass Mac OS X?

Actually you can buy an Amiga One with a G3 or G4 now, and run Mac on Linux.

Of course, now we need a G5 model.

Re:An equivalent argument...

[greygent]

But does it have an ice cube's chance in Hell of overtaking the Mac on the desktop? No.

Not So Doubtful

[El Cubano]

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

How about GIMP, CinePaint, Blender, the various LaTeX environments, GhostScript, OpenOffice.org, etc.

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

Looks like it's time to get worried.

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.

The various window managers are very quickly gaining in consistency, but otherwise I agree with you there

Re:Not So Doubtful

[cscx]

How about GIMP, CinePaint, Blender, the various LaTeX environments, GhostScript, OpenOffice.org, etc.

How about "no," "no," "no," "no," "no," and "no?"

Re:Not So Doubtful

[Planesdragon]

How about GIMP, CinePaint, Blender, the various LaTeX environments, GhostScript, OpenOffice.org, etc.

How about seeing the boundary of the cursor, working with the OS standard UI, not pretending that my Win32 box is a UNIX box, bookmarked PDFs, easy-to-create PDF forms, a proper word count, a grammar checker, etc., etc.

There are replacements, but side by side they're not wining any converts--which means that the established market-leaders have SOMETHING worth hundreds of dollars for.

Ignoring these facts will not a majority OS make.

Re:Not So Doubtful

[Ryan Amos]

This is a rather obvious troll, but I'll bite (if it's not, it just shows your ignorance.) For shit home use, yeah, you really can't tell the difference between most of these programs. Linux's printing support is horrible, output things to lpr? No thanks. Drivers don't exist for a lot of the hardware professionals use (high end scanners, cameras, printers, etc) and don't even get me started on Linux's piss poor pro audio support. Sure, you might be able to use these programs to do the same thing as their commercial counterparts, but it will take you twice as long and the results will probably not be as good.

Other things like file format compatability (gotta be able to trade files with your customers, and file formats change so having compatability in GIMP now doesn't mean it will work with the next version of Photoshop,) color calibration (you don't calibrate color yourself, you pay someone $125 to make SURE it's right, because if it's wrong it can cost you a lot of money having to do a second print run out of pocket, and these guys don't do Linux,) and interoperability with other programs (cut/paste from illustrator to photoshop to quark, etc) are ALL important, and using a disjointed collection of programs that work "well enough" just won't cut it. OS X is a more viable candidate of a desktop OS than Linux. Not that it matters, they're fighting for a distant second place anyway. As long as I still have my mac, I don't really care.

Re:Not So Doubtful

[dbrutus]

GhostScript is a cheapo knockoff of Postscript. Apple has the original. GIMP is in development for Mac OS X (see macgimp), Cinepaint runs on OS X, Blender is available on OS X, OpenOffice just went to GM, and LaTex runs on OS X.

So you have two platforms, one of which (OS X) runs all the relevant software from the other platform plus it has many titles that the other one does not have. I think that Mac OS X has nothing to worry about there.

Re:Not So Doubtful

[vorpal22]

Yes, because we all know that LaTeX is so intuitive to use and ready for Grandma, right? *rolls eyes*

I like LaTeX. As a masters student in math, I use LaTeX all the time, and I find it great. But if I was a home user who wanted to do something simple, there's absolutely no way that I'd be able to accomplish it with LaTeX short of reading 30 pages of material. It's totally ridiculous to even suggest such a thing as a viable alternative to the aforementioned programs.

And besides, since LaTeX, gcc, xfig, emacs, etc... are all available on OS X, I have no reason to use my Linux box anymore.

Re:Not So Doubtful

[nathanh]

GhostScript is a cheapo knockoff of Postscript.

It is *not* a cheapo knockoff. For starters, Postscript is a specification and Ghostscript is an implementation of that specification. It is by all accounts a very well written and *compliant* implementation of the specification. I have heard rumours that Ghostscript is licensed for use in several high-end printers.

Good drugs, bad drugs

[swordgeek]

"Will Linux do to OS X what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris..."

heh.

Hee, hee! Ho ho hooo ha ha!!!!!

Damn! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

Re:Good drugs, bad drugs

[TheRaven64]

I think what Linux has done to those OSes is to copy most of the features that look cool to J. Random Kernel Hacker, even if they don't fit well with any overall view of what the system should be (is it BSD? Is it SysV?). I'm not sure what advantage doing this to OS X will have really...

It's simple really

[JudgeFurious]

Speaking as a Mac user who started out and spent better than ten years on Windows before switching my desktop machine to a Mac and as an administrator who takes care of Windows and Linux boxen at work I'm saying it makes no difference to me if Linux passes Macintosh in market share on the desktop.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The percentage points Linux makes in desktop marketshare won't be coming from Mac users. They'll be coming from Windows users.

That's the "it's all good" about this situation. There's a ton of Windows market share out there to eat up so there's enough to grow a healthy Mac and Linux following. The two will play together far better than Windows ever played with anyone and the computing world will be the better for it receeding.

Macs, Penguins, doesn't matter. Better computing for everyone if this bastard (Windows) goes down.

Market Different

[pbjones]

99% of Linux is on x86 platform, it is a threat to Windows, which is on the same hardware, not a threat to Mac, which is on different hardware. People buy a Mac for different reasons to those who use Linux. Most Linux users buy a distro and put it on the hardware of their choice, Mac users buy a package of software and hardware, getting a UN*X based OS in not the prime consideration for a Mac User.

Two totally different markets...

[MadAnthony02]

I think the appeal of Linux and OSX are totally different. I think people run Linux on the desktop because it's cheap/free and or because they are "geeks" who like the technical aspect of fooling around with it. While Linux is getting better, using linux still generally requires extra work and extra effort

The appeal of Apple is the opposite. It's known as easier, but is generally more expensive to run because of the hardware lockdown that Apple has. It appeals to people who DON'T want to have to fiddle under the hood alot, as well as to certain markets that have a hardcore base of Apple users - education and graphic artists come to mind. It also appeals to people who want hardware that just looks so much cooler and has had much more design attention than most desktop systems.

I think the two can coexist and that there is minimal overlap in the two markets.

Apple has an advantage, actually

[-dsr-]

If Apple does this properly, they have an advantage over Linux for the desktop (besides the advantage of focussing their efforts on one desktop system instead of n): open source software.
Any software which will run on Linux can be easily ported to Mac OS X. Any software which can't be ported easily can be replicated without fear of a look-and-feel lawsuit. So, if Apple does the smart thing and continues to fund their core programmers and continue to make their API available und so weiter, Apple should be able to stay at least on a technological par with Linux for the foreseeable future.
Now, as for price/performance... if you've bought the expensive Apple hardware, you already have the OS. If you aren't going to buy the Apple hardware, for whatever reason, then you are much more likely to become a Linux convert. My prediction: if Adobe decides that releasing Photoshop for Linux is a good idea, then Linux will be in the process of wiping out Apple's raison d'etre.

Well Said !

[wukie]

I also purchased about 6 Linux distros, and downloaded countless others, but am currently only using one, so you can chop off another 5 users!

I mainly use Win2k on a server spec'd computer (Dual Athlon MP, Corsair memory with ECC enabled, Tyan mobo, Antec Power Supply, etc.) and have very few problems with Windows.

I'm neither a fan of Intel, AMD, Microsoft or Apple, but I have to admit the new Apple computers are jaw dropping.

I also like appliances that WORK 24/7. I turned on my DSC alarm system 4 years ago and it hasn't missed a beat. I put Sun and IBM mainframes in the same reliable category as my alarm, but these are servers. The new Apples might get there aswell for a few hundred thousand dollars less.

Hell, I don't like it...

[SharpFang]

I'm a Linux zealot, I love Linux and all such, but I DON'T want Linux to hurt Apple or replace it or push it away from the market or...

Doh, especially that OS X is based on BSD which is a Good Thing (as opposed to many I'm BSD-friendly) and it would be sad to see it gone...

Typical mac complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

I go PC for one primary reason. Standard ATX motherboards. I do linux for a number of reasons, but linux under the PC for one reason, standard ATX motherboards.

I would *consider* Os X only IF it ran on my present hardware. I don't see this happening any time soon. I would *consider* going with an apple only IF I could buy a standard ATX motherboard and pluging it into my existing case and power supplly. I'm talking new ones here, no e-bay scratch and dent sale. I don't see this happening any time soon either.

I'm not here to flame the mac, far from it. Only making a simple statement osx vs linux just doesn't apply to me yet.

People I know are shocked when I say lately i'd *consider* a mac, but my only complaints have been

1. No command line interface [no longer valid]
2. requires mac cards and mac approved hardware [no longer valid]
3. requires mac form factor cases and apple wired power supply [somewhat valid]
4. Purchace of a mac motherboard not possible on the new front [still valid near as I can tell].

I can say these things without it being a flame because they are true and affect my choice is purchace. While there are users of Frankentoshes, I would prefer geting my hardware from mainstreem channels.

Should Apple see in their wisdom to actually take that next step... they would very likely have another customer. My respect for Apple has grown greatly over the past 3 years and feel that their innovations have served increase our computing standards.

Re:Typical mac complaint

[GiMP]

You can buy powerpc motherboards now, but they just aren't economical. They won't directly run MacOS; however, but you can run MOL on them which is good enough.

Apple is a system

[mAIsE]

Apple provides an experience to the end user.

Apple studies the user experience from the on switch to the way the windowing system reacts to different types of input. Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems.

Linux is not a lowest common denominator solution and wont be for some time. Linux is free and uncontrollable, which makes it alot more inconsistent requiring more maintenance etc, etc...

in this sense linux is on the other end of the spectrum from the Macintosh with windows somewhere in between.

just my $0.02

Re:Apple is a system

[larry bagina]

linux is a jeep (not the fancy kind) Or maybe a used station wagon.

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

remember one thing when making that assesment.

Ferrari = way over priced.

Linux on the desktop requires next to no maitnence. once you have things installed you are set to roll. i have been running RH 7.3 on my workstation (at work) for a year and a half without issue. and i can run dvd's, mp3's, vcd's, avi's, .mov's, wmv's .... you get the idea.

Linux on the server requires maitnence sure .... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS? on the server

Re:Apple is a system

[nomadic]

and i can run dvd's, mp3's, vcd's, avi's, .mov's, wmv's .... you get the idea.

Too bad you can't run games.

Re:Apple is a system

[nosferatu-man]

Linux on the server requires maitnence sure .... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS

Such as ... ?

'jfb

Re:Apple is a system

[CoolVibe]

No, Linux is a tank.

Re:Apple is a system

[Golias]

Linux on the server requires maitnence sure .... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS? on the server

Such as?

Seriously, name one server task you can perform with Linux which you can't with OS X. Now that X11 is becoming an integrated part of the OS, I would insist that OS X servers now do "a crapload more stuff" than a Linux server, because they can do pretty much all the UNIX-alike chores that a Linux box can do, plus some other stuff that requires OS X.

Re:Apple is a system

[UserGoogol]

You can run NES/SNES emulators. It's not entirely legal in any way, but they're the only games which really matter.

Re:Apple is a system

[ocelotbob]

To continue the auto analogy, I'd say that Linux is actually closer to Chrysler's K-chassis. Not the absolute end-all, but at the same time, it's extremely flexible to whatever problem you throw at it, and works for a good percentage of the population. Just like Chrysler used the k chassis in everything from small sedans, to minivans, to even limosines, Linux works in everything from PDAs, to desktops, to mainframes. Of course, even using your analogy, Linux may be like the used station wagon in that it lacks grace, but it makes up for it in spades with what it's capable of doing.

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

well considering i only have a 16mb vid card in that box im not to conserned with it but since you brought it up .....

we play quake 1 2 and 3 , bzflag, parsec etc ... just fine. but your right we dont play all those fancy pants new games that run $40 on our computers.

thats why i own a playstation 2.

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

where do you want me to start ?



im not linking these since im lazy ;-)

http://macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/producti nfo/features_by_edition/
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml? cid=61836&parentId=80712
http://veritas.com/
http://oracle.com --developer only. >beta

i think your getting the point yea ?

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

okay , i would first point you to my reply to another post in this thread since it has a list of things linux does/has available such as ....
oracle, ASP, veritas, coldfusion etc ....

secondly what in the hell does X11 have to do with a server side env. ? most servers run headless and very few of them run remote X stuff due to the bandwidth and resource requirements.

but since you insist what exactly can a Xserve do that a Linux server cannot ?

Re:Apple is a system

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Too bad you can't run games.

Eh? Guess I must have imagined playing Tribes 2, UT2003, RTCW, Q3, Deus Ex, Max Payne, GTA3, Icewind Dale, ect on my SuSE box.

Re:Apple is a system

[The Phantom Buffalo]

No, it would only come with a brake pedal, Two or three pedals might confuse the user.

Re:Apple is a system

[adamfranco]

1. Run a Beowulf Cluster.

2. Run a MOSIX Cluster.

You can run IRAF on OS X as of this spring. Actually, I am thinking of setting up an openMOSIX cluster (with ClusterKnoppix) for an astronomer friend to run IRAF on. She has several image processing scripts (assembling surveys of the Small and Large Magellenic Clouds) that take 2-5 days each to run. As modern computers seem to always be more than powerful enough for every task, its cool to find an application where they are still quite hampered. I figured it would be fun to try tossing 10-20 1.8GHz Athelon machines together and seeing if they could reduce the computing time. This is something that I can't do in OS X, though I'd probably be SSHing to it from OS X to monitor the load balancing. It is kind of a moot point though, as who has 10-20 1.5+GHz Macs laying about? Anyway, the spurt in PC performace has really made PCs viable as low-end servers.

Re:Apple is a system

[prockcore]

Seriously, name one server task you can perform with Linux which you can't with OS X.

Run on a mainframe.

Re:Apple is a system

[lpret]

Yeah, I've always said Apple is the ferrari, Microsoft is a Prowler (kinda cool looking, but suck at actual performance) and Linux is the Honda civic with random kanzi to make it go fast.

Please don't hurt my karma that bad...I drive a civic...;)

Re:Apple is a system

[nosferatu-man]

Of the things you listed, Oracle 9i is available on OS X; I'll give you Coldfusion; and Veritas isn't a network service, it's a freaking filesystem. I might as well point out that there's not a Linux box out there that can integrate into a netinfo domain -- while technically true, it doesn't matter in even the tiniest bit for network service provision.

'jfb

Re:Apple is a system

[Golias]

Encrypted swapfiles: You might have got me there. It's nothing I've ever needed, so I don't know if a solution for it is available for OS X or not.

Interface "natively" with SGI and IBM disks: Huh. I thought OS X could do that.

Seamless clustering: No problem. OS X has solutions for clustering either via Ethernet or Firewire, your choice, and they are pretty darn easy to get running.

Run on more than one platform: x86 Linux can't run on PPC. PPCLinux can't run on x86. Even if you recompile from source to avoid the endian problem, you still won't have much luck. Yes, Linux has versions for more platforms than OS X, but weren't we talking about tasks that you would run on a specific server? Moving the OS to another platform is not something you are likely to attempt.

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

actually veritas is the leading backup and recovery utility on anything enterprise class.

oracle 9i is only availible in a development edition. hence it does not come with a license and is not *legally* supposed to be used in a production enviroment. and is not supported by them since its still in beta.

" I'll give you Coldfusion; " -- point ? give me time and i'll give you whatever you want on a linux system. but you cannot purchase it to run on a Xserver/macosX enviroment. and that is the point. i never said "would never in a million years be available" i said it IS NOT available.

netinfo for linux you say ?

http://www.linux.org/apps/AppId_6570.html ?

come AGAIN ?

Re:Apple is a system

[nosferatu-man]

I know what Veritas is. It still doesn't mean squat to the consumer of network services. Oracle 9i on Linux is every bit as amatuer hour as Oracle on OS X -- that the license says otherwise is meaningless. I challenge you to make with a straight face the case for running a Linux box as an Oracle database server.

And that there's a (typically) half-assed port of the Netinfo libraries for Linux in no way means that Linux could use the NI directories for, say, host name resolution, or service discovery, or centralized network configuration, or for anything except yet another unfinished and laughably documented pile of mashed potatoes atop the rotting foundations of POSIX.

Linux can make a fine server -- I use it in that capacity every day, at work. But the software available for network services on Linux is a strict subset of the software available on OS X. And that's not even to get into the desktop/client software market, where even the most bugeyed of Linuxites knows to keep their advocacy-holes shut.

'jfb

Re:Apple is a system

[1lus10n]

okay so lemme get this straight.

A) most people dont like/use solid supported backup solutions for severs. let alone PRODUCTION servers.

B) oracle 9i for mac osx is a "half assed port" to mac osX yet somehow that doesnt matter but netinfo (something that is severly outdated.) being a "half assed port" to Linux does matter ???

C) Linux's stuff is a subset of mac os X ?

are you on medication ? or are you just some flag flyin moron ? seriously i wanna know.

i have a Linux box running oracle 9i at work. works fine. not as fast as the mysql and postgresql servers we run, but oracle is an ENTERPRISE class database, meant to run on ENTERPRISE hardware with ENTERPRISE support. no Xserve shitbox is "ENTERPRISE" in any fucking way imaginable by any admin/developer not coming from vb land.

next off exactly how are Linux's network sevices a strict "subset" of mac osX's ? half the shit on OSX was originally developed by Linux users FOR LINUX !

now if you "know what veritas is" why in the fuck did you say "and Veritas isn't a network service, it's a freaking filesystem" ??? i would consider a backup and recovery utility a network service since it is administered and executed over a network. and it is not a filesystem.

perhaps you should go back to microsoft land. your idiocy might be tolerated their. I'm glad you think POSIX's foundation is rotting, would lead me to ask why most systems (including mac OSX) are built on or conform to it ?

you need to stop watching elen on the switch commercial, pull your head out of your ass and pay attention.

oh and another thing. oracle on Linux is not amatuer hour, especially since it is supported. and on OSX its still just somebodies wet dream

so AGAIN i challange you or one of your to show me something useful from an Xserve system that a Linux system cannot due. (we are talking server side here. and not "my personal webpage" cruft either.)

Re:Apple is a system

[Jonner]

Shows how much you know. I play games all the time on my GNU/Linux system. For instance, all the Half-Life based games run great under Wine. I've also got the native version of Myth II. Yes, I know they're old, but my machine isn't cutting edge and newer != better. Nethack and interactive fiction never go out of style.

There are the machine emulators as someone else has mentioned. With the combination of Wine and other emulators, there may be more popular games playable on x86 GNU/Linux than on Mac.

Re:Apple is a system

[ConsumedByTV]

Run on more than one platform: x86 Linux can't run on PPC. PPCLinux can't run on x86. Even if you recompile from source to avoid the endian problem, you still won't have much luck.

What the fuck are you talking about?
The kernel is written in C.
There are certian patches that Ben H has for the PowerPC platform that don't apply to x86 and vice versa (ie device drivers, etc) but you can compile a copy of any modern kernel on a mac and boot it with zero problems.

And what are you talking about endian problems for? That's not a problem unless you rip a PCM audio stream and then copy it to another platform before encoding it.

Seriously. Where do you get this stuff?

Yes, Linux has versions for more platforms than OS X, but weren't we talking about tasks that you would run on a specific server? Moving the OS to another platform is not something you are likely to attempt.

First off, linux doesn't have versions for more platforms. The kernel supports different platforms. It's just a feature of the kernel.

If I had a mac, I would switch to linux in a second. It's not as hardened as linux is, it's not as beaten on. It's got an upgrade cycle that's going nuts with binary compatibility. It's insanity.

Re:Apple is a system

[gavbaa]

1 out of 4. I know for a fact that ColdFusion does not run on OS X, since I work for a CF shop that we've been trying to get it working for a while. End result from Macromedia: We're getting to it.

Re:Apple is a system

[SubtleNuance]

Apple provides an experience to the end user.


earth to "maise" earth to "maise". Products are not an 'experience' in spite of what the marketroid's pro-consumption propaganada tells you.

Linux is free and uncontrollable, which makes it alot more inconsistent requiring more maintenance etc, etc...


Should read: Linux is free (as in Libre) and 100 % controllable by everyone, which makes it alot more flexable...

What 'spectrum' is this you speak of? Proprietary/Closed and Expensive on one end, and Libre/Open on the other?

Re:Apple is a system

[PygmySurfer]

now if you "know what veritas is" why in the fuck did you say "and Veritas isn't a network service, it's a freaking filesystem" ??? i would consider a backup and recovery utility a network service since it is administered and executed over a network. and it is not a filesystem.

Which Veritas product are you two arguing over? NetBackup is Veritas' backup solution. Veritas Volume Manager is just that, a volume manager, for configuring disk arrays and whatnot (Think EMC array - they're often configured with Veritas Volume Manager). It appears as though you two are each referring to the products as Veritas, and as a result, think the other doesn't even know that the product actually is.

Re:Apple is a system

[shaitand]

ummm I sure hope your not intending to use that statement to defend macs since there isn't shit in terms of 3D games available for the mac either? And if we are talking about 2d, you'll find there are tons for linux and they tend to be better.

Re:Apple is a system

[shaitand]

Last I checked IBM was top dog of the ultra db wars, not oracle. But for use in a production environment you would take a version of the same program that the company is only willing to call beta quality, would be illegal to actually use in a production environment, and is not supported even if it were legal. Over a final release, full production, fully supported program? ESPECIALLY when your putting the money into it that you'll put into an Oracle database.

I don't know about the other poster, but I have trouble making a straight face for oracle in too many situations over mysql and postgresql. And the few I can think of really require something a bit more serious than oracle...

You sound like one of those "technicians" who doesn't snicker when he watches managment pay for another support contract so you can call idiots who know less than you if something is really broken. These are the same idiots who automatically believe the top commercial solution is more solid than the top free one without actually putting it to the test. Or worse, who considers himself to have tested it after setting it up once and he couldn't get it to everything he wanted (i.e. it must not be flexible because I don't know what the fuck I'm doing). Or don't want a new technology to make it because all their experience and knowhow is with something else (most windows admins fit this class).

And you do know that basically every network technology available for OSX that isn't a complete joke (like appletalk is) came from BSD or linux (or at least was developed for BSD and/or Linux since apps developed for these platforms tend to be OPEN and ported). You know that don't you?

Yeah your right, posix compliant OS like MacOSX really do suck.

Re:Apple is a system

[cactopus]

Yeah, I've always said Apple is the ferrari, Microsoft is a Prowler (kinda cool looking, but suck at actual performance) and Linux is the Honda civic with random kanzi to make it go fast.

Apple isn't really a Ferrari... it's A. Not overpriced that way B. Not that fragile (see Fix it again Tony)

Apple is sort of like a nice Porsche... strong German engineering... not the priciest of sports cars... good all around performance

Windows is kind of a Cadillac Escalade... Big, Bloated, got some bling... but really goofy looking and totally unnecessary

Linux is any number of vehicles depending on configuration... from extremely simple and useful to bloated and falling apart...

It's not Linux vs. MacOS

[Soong]

If Linux gains market share, it's not taking from the MacOS user base, it's taking from windows.

Or maybe that's just my rose colored classes that say windows will die and we'll have a MacOS+Linux Nice-user-machine+cheap-server computing utopia.

hi, please distort my statements

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Thank you.

You're too funny.

Re:Not any more!

[b-baggins]

I guess all those switch ads were just surrealist art, then.

But about the user interface ...

[charvolant]

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?

Not until Linux (and Unix in general) becomes truely fanatical about a quality user interface. This includes such things as consistently protecting the user against dumb accidents (no more unrecoverable 'rm * .o' errors) a really consistent interface (no more Athena/KDE/GTK/... toolkits as the whim takes the programmer) and, generally, not just papering over the cracks but ensuring that the UI is really seamless.

But I'm not sure that this is even possible in open-source land. The natural inclination is to do things your way, rather than the way laid down by the Great Committee. This is great in the sense that it has made amateur programming fun again. "Amateur" in the sense of for fun, rather than for profit; no implications on the quality of the software are intended. But it's not so great in that the user has to come to terms with the myriad incoherent ways of doing things that make up each work of art that is an open-source program.

Linux (at the moment) is wonderful for the community of Morlocks (of which I am a member). But Apple, if it wasn't so expensive, is still the only company serious about being "the computer for everybody else".

Linux is better than Solaris?

[Lothar]

Just had to comment on this. Please tell me if I'm wrong here... ;-)

Quote from the article:
"Linux is basically a better version of their Unix products, for free"

We all know linux is free, but better? What consitutes better? I mean surely it runs on far more plattform and is highly customizable but Linux still has some catching up to do when it comes to being as stable and scalable on highend plattforms. Linux still suffers from several drawbacks in these areas. How good is linux when it comes to NFS implementation? What about large memory support?

As for the user interface. Anyone can run KDE or Gnome on Solaris so that part of usability can't be an issue.

Re:Linux is better than Solaris?

[Dr Reducto]

As my grandfather always says:

Better is the enemy of good.

Not likely

[Danger Fan]

I'm a linux guy, but I have to say, Apple has done a great job with OS X. I always disliked OS 9 (it was so damn ugly! comon, you agree!), but OS X made me think twice. My opinion is slowly moving in favor of Apple because of the great things they've done recently. While I'll never get rid of a standard linux desktop, I think my next computer purchase will be a Mac. I'm not the only one either. A good majority of my friends also feel the same way. I don't think linux is gonna overtake Apple. Both will become competators for Microsoft, because both are making excellent progress in there respective fields. It will be fun to see how things play out in the next 5 years....

I hope not

[Kadmium]

Personally, I hope not. Linux has a lot to learn from OS X and the junky spiel you get from everyone about Linux being "hard to use" has some truth in its madness. You can't ask a typical idiot to go to a shell and ./configure, make and make install - it's all too overwhelming. And what about uninstall? Most of my friends haven't figured that out yet... what you can ask them to do is drag stuff into the trash can, because that makes sense.

On a side note, speaking as a music producer, I can't see much of the mucho expensive music software taking off on a free operating system... I mean, the price of Cubase SX, in comparison to the cost of Windows, is pretty outrageous to begin with, but when you consider that the whole rest of your applications, including your office suite, were free, you'll be even more apprehensive.

Re:I hope not

[ocelotbob]

Your first point ignores the fact that most of the packaging systems now have a pretty decent front-end wrapper that'll let you everything that you just talked about. Hell, there are things possible with the Linux packaging system that are pretty close to impossible in the mac or PC world if software vendors properly used the tools available to them. Both apt and urpmi allow for one to choose the sources of updates; imagine the user using one of the gui-based frontends to either program to automatically pull updates, and browse add-on packages. Compiling from source is rarely needed, unless you like staying on the bleeding edge, and gentoo seems to be working on that end pretty decently.

Of course, even that being said, software package makers need to be more willing to package their products for more than one format, and be able to gracefully handle dependency problems. That's probably the most daunting task, one that doesn't provide an easy answer; many of the easiest solutions, such as including copies of needed libraries, also eat up disk space. Though drives are cheap, they're still not free.

I think the cost of Linux is less of an issue than you make it out to be, especially in the high-end media creation market. The movie industry has already moved a lot of backend software to Linux, and seems to be showing no signs of turning back. Rendering programs that cost thousands of dollars per seat are available, and the users don't balk at paying it. They see Linux as a pretty good platform, and would probably use it even if it were commercial software.

The one thing I hate about OSX..

[brunes69]

is Aqua. or more to the point, the INABILITY to GET RID OF IT. I firggin HATE the Aqua style, and the idea of not being able to change your WM and Widget style just seems so foolish. Every window manager under the sun has this ability, even Windows XP lets you. But not OSX.

Until I can get rid of the horrible Aqua I will stay away from Apple. Seeing how that is my only problem with it, I hope some Apple engineer sees this and fixes it pronto :P

Re:The one thing I hate about OSX..

[Mister Black]

Don't like Aqua? You should try here: http://www.resexcellence.com/themes/

Re:The one thing I hate about OSX..

[brunes69]

This is just skins. It doesn't let me move the goddamned window buttons from the HORRIBLE left to the right. When 95% of people are right handed, who is the moron at Apple who thinks they WANT to move 2x the distance to close a window? Its retarded!

The real question is....

[agent dero]

when will Windows pass Apple on the Desktop, with all those billions of $$$, why can't they get something new up. Longhorn, maybe in 2005, or later. How will Linux do this without a good finaincial base?

Matters to Microsoft

[msimm]

Having a competitor who gives their software away, has tens of thousands of independant developers and uses a fairly different business model has got to scare the sh©t out of them.

If Linux eclipses OSX you can expect to see some wierd marketing tricks from Microsoft. The question is will they continue selling their OS or give it away to compete and focus on applications.

Why?

[five_dollars]

Why does someone always publish an anti-macish article right before they release something big? Last time it was an article about how much better PCs are at DTP. Now this.

Re:Why?

[dbrutus]

You missed some of it. Intel issued a new chip announcement today and MS had an announcement on Pocket PCs. They knew that something good was coming so they tried to give people an excuse not to cover it. It's standard corporate ankle biting.

There are a few other things to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

3) Apple does not make much money from OS X, rather from OS X *AND* their hardware platform. There is something to be said for tight hardware/software integration and good industrial design.

4) Most people are installing Linux on existing (mostly older) PCs, MS is still losing because someone is using a PC without upgrading to the latest Windows license.

5) There is nothing preventing someone from installing Linux on a Mac, but are they likely to buy a Mac just to run Linux on it? If the hardware is compelling it could happen and that would push Apple hardware which sort of takes us back to item 1.

6) OS X *is* a kind of UNIX and porting from Linux to it isn't all that difficult, especially now that they include X11. I don't see it losing out because there wasn't any software available for the platform (unlike, say Mac OS 9).

7) Mac OS X is relatively new and people are still moving to the platform. It could be a while before the numbers start to show.

8) In my personal experience, I have seen a lot of Windows and Linux users buy used Macs just for OS X. This would not be reflected in the marketshare studies.

9) Is it surprising that MSN would be publishing something like this?

Re:There are a few other things to consider...

[gladbach]

I've seen quite a few people buy the mac laptops to put linux on them... Haven't heard about anyone doing the same for workstations though, to be honest. imho, laptops are where its at w/ apple. ATM, id most likely buy an apple laptop before a pc one, if I were to go out and purchace one tomorrow. Certainly once the G5 laptops come out... mmmmmm.

Re:Who cares?

[JudgeFurious]

You know what you have when you're sporting market share like Windows has? You've got a big target on your back. In other words the guy in first place has the largest number of people breathing up his ass.

Microsoft knows this and I don't think they are nearly as confident as you seem to be about it. Right now they've got a couple of people coming for "their"market share. One of them is making better products than most of what their software runs on and the other is making software that can mostly be had for free. Both of them are getting closer every month that goes by. It's only a matter of time.

Re:Not any more!

[Gizzmonic]

You can get tittles on Mac OS X? Someone please post a link!

Re:Not gonna happen...

[cscx]

but which one is on top today?

The one that was easier to use, supported more mainstream commercial software, and had good marketing.

Which in this case, Apple vs. Linux, would be.... DING DING DING!

Alternate theory

[jgalun]

It's interesting to wonder whether Linux will beat Apple. But I have to wonder if it's not more likely that Linux will beat Windows, with Apple remaining in second place.

Let me explain. I am a former Amiga and Mac user. I now use a Windows PC. When I bought my new computer, the most important factors in my decision were that it was cheaper than a Mac but easier to use (since I know Windows already) than Linux.

But imagine if Lindows computers expanded up the food chain a bit, and Linux expanded its desktop share some more. Now we have a world where you can get a pre-installed Linux PC that has good vendor support for less than a Windows PC costs, because you're not paying the Microsoft tax.

Would I then buy a Linux box? Very possibly. After all, at least in concept I much prefer using free software than being tied into a monopolist's offerings.

And I believe there are a lot of Windows users who use Windows because it's cheap and everywhere. But if Linux is cheaper and everywhere, and it's pre-installed on a wide range of PCs, then they might go Linux.

But in that scenario, Apple remains as is (because Mac users are willing to pay a premium for the overall Mac experience). In fact, to my mind, Apple's position is strengthed.

What's Apple's great advantage? That it controls both the hardware and software, and under Jobs' iron fist makes sure that everything works really, really well together. There are never any hassles, because the MacOS only has to support a very limited range of hardware and meet the exact range of user demands Jobs decides to meet, rather than being everything to everyone.

Now, if the great downside of Windows PCs now is that, because there are so many varieties of hardware/software, it's hard to get them to work flawlessly (so many conflicts/confusing issues), how much greater is that problem when, instead of a couple versions of Windows to deal with, there are the dozens of different Linux versions to work with?

Relatively, Apple's position is strengthened. Won't it be worth it for many people at that point to pay a premium to have Apple create a software/hardware package that spares them all those annoying incongruities of a Lintel PC?

Just a thought, explained poorly...hopefully you'll get the idea.

Eh?

[Amorpheus_MMS]

That surprises me a little; I know plenty of Linux users personally, but not a single Apple dude/dudette...

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[gladbach]

naw. OSX, once you have installed fink/dev tools, is everything you could want for the most part. Besides, if I were to put linux on a ppc machine, it would surely be gentoo ; )

Not blody likely

[curtlewis]

Linux is about as far from ease of use as you can get. I think Linux has a good 5 years to go before it's remotely viable for everyday users (ie non-geeks).

Whereas Apple has harnessed the power of unix and wrapped it in an easy to use system and Mom's and Pops are already using it, unlike Linux.

Someday Linux might bang heads with Apple, but I don't see that coming any time soon. Not when a standard install (install all) of RedHat 9.0 fails to allow you to even login (due to NIS and yp issues).

Um...apples to oranges(pardon the pun)

[SuperBanana]

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?

First off, Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris were never even MINOR players in the "desktop" market- at best, they only had the workstation market. Irix probably topped that market, followed by Solaris, I'm guessing.

Second, most stats put MacOS between 3 and 5 percent of the market, and growing. Linux has around a half a percent, and growing. Trends will continue- people will buy Macintoshes before they install Linux.

The difference between MacOS and Linux is that with Linux, the "I can't buy any software for it" argument is actually RIGHT. First- reality. Very few commercial applications run on Linux, and people don't want open-source counterparts; they want the real honest to god Microsoft Office or Quicken. Also, quite frankly, much of the stuff that ships with the various distros and pose as useful applications are, quite simply, feature-poor, unreliable garbage. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, even comes close to holding a candle to software like Illustrator and inDesign/Quark. Gnumeric SUCKS compared to Excel(and I say that having just having made a chart in Gnumeric from some very simple data, then trying to set options for tic spacing, background color, ranges, etc.)

Then, there's perception. I tried to 'sell' someone on OpenOffice for his new iMac, and he just wasn't interested. "I need the real thing" were his exact words. Before anyone preaches to me about how wrong he is- you have to understand that PERCEPTION and REALITY are two entirely different things- and one drives the commercial world, the other doesn't :-)

I gave the Linux desktop a shot for 3 years...

[Agent Deepshit]

Which Linux?

I gave up on the Linux desktop a few months ago. Actually, there's no Linux on my HD anymore and there's a few reasons for that which I won't delve into (The distros I had interest in either didn't work or wouldn't dual boot with XP, and I NEEDED XP.)

I began using Redhat in 98. It became my primary OS by version 7. I even used it as my primary OS at home while I worked MS XP tech support. I always dual booted with XP, and used XP for gaming and OS research, testing, etc...

I stayed with RedHat until version 9. Actually, I used 7.3 up until version 9. I made the mistake of formatting 7.3 and installing v9. I quickly formatted that, then tried some other distros which I couldn't get working right with XP dual boot (XP makes it difficult, but I could do it fine in RH7 with GRUB) or my video card wouldn't work with their X11, etc. And I wasn't about to go through the bullshit of grabbing src and compiling it to find out it may not work, downloading and compiling in drivers, etc. etc.

Before totally messing with my Linux-based OS installs I had been using XP a lot more frequently. I had purchased a new 9700 Pro video card and started playing a lot more games. I gained nothing from this card in Redhat.

XP works fine for me. I can do perl programming with ActiveState's perl interpreter. If I need a Unix command-line I use VMWARE to run FreeBSD 5. I use VisStudio 2002 and .Net for development. I (*gasp*) began using and learning the Office products after realizing no one used the 'free' office software packages in buisness enviroments around here. When I want to pirate some music I fire up Kazaa Lite and begin downloading. I do my gfx editing in Paint Shop Pro 7, although GIMP has served useful.

You can post a list of alternatives to these products but I've tried them or care not to switch from the Windows counterpart.

I hope someone does make a decent Linux based desktop someday, there may be some out there now but I don't see any allowing me to be as productive as I am now.

If Apple would take OS X to the PC I would love to give that a whirl.

Re:I gave the Linux desktop a shot for 3 years...

[Agent Deepshit]

You're a cunt.

Troll doesn't sound so bad now does it?

Re:I gave the Linux desktop a shot for 3 years...

[tolan-b]

short sighted twat :/

Not quite..

[msimm]

Maybe in 5 years but I think its likely that Linux will continue to gain steam and end up picking up published versions of the originals anyway.

I mean Gimp is powerful, but its only geek friendly and unless OSS developers start codeveloping commercial branches of these projects I have my doubts about the commercial viability of most of them (of course Openoffice aside, though I've got some big gripes about that one too).

Re:Not quite..

[dmaxwell]

Apart from well known missing functionality (color pre-press and the like) the only real problem GIMP has is that it isn't Photoshop. Where functionality bullet points do match up (and many of them do) GIMP can get the job done in a reasonable amount user time.

I run into this with stickynote computer users all the time. The application learned in a given category becomes the "One True Way" to do whatever. I have AppleWorks users who hate Office and vice versa. I've seen Gimp processed work that looks just as "high end" and "ultraprofessional" and "magazine quality" as Photoshop. I've messed with both and I hate to break this to you but Photoshop is not simple. A user of either has to be decent artist and at least a competent computer user. Geek friendly? Put my Mom (who can paint) in front of Photoshop and her head would explode.

Photoshop is Photoshop-Geek friendly.

Re:Not quite..

[EnVisiCrypt]

GiMP may match feature for feature, but it's interface is no good for too many people. It may work for some, but for most, it just doesn't work. I know it doesn't for me.

Re:Not quite..

[overunderunderdone]

Apart from well known missing functionality (color pre-press and the like) the only real problem GIMP has....

Isn't this sort of like saying "aside from lacking an engine this is a perfectly good car & even has a nicer radio"? What do you think Photoshop is for? Pretty pictures on your computer are fine things but the *point* of a computer is to be a tool. In the case of a professional user it is to get a pretty picture not on the computer but into a magazine, poster, book jacket etc. Without minor functionality bullet points such as "color pre-press and the like" GIMP is not even competing with Photoshop but with the various crippled versions like Photoshop LE or Photoshop elements (or whatever they are calling it these days) which also lack professional functionality.

Re:Not quite..

[EnVisiCrypt]

That's not the point though. Cry all you want about how good GiMP is, but Photoshop users are not willing to switch, and a large part of that is the interface, regardless of whether it is more logical. The fact that Photoshop users are not compelled to switch is particularly telling as GiMP is about $609 cheaper

Flaimbait

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anyway to mod this article to +5 Flamebait?

Troll Article.

[Vladimus]

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.

Re:Troll Article.

[babyrat]

The article wasn't really pitting Linux against Apple. It merely reported what analysts are saying, and indicated an opinion that basically states that linux may gain more of the desktop market because of the price, even though he'd rather have a spanking new G5 to work on.

It wasn't about what is or isn't with each OS, just stating that a bunch of people who pay attention to such things are saying that within a year there will be more Linux desktops than Mac desktops.

Re:Troll Article.

[dbrutus]

Analysts have been predicting Apple's bankruptcy for going on two decades now. Their predictions of Apple's marketshare should be taken with a smidgen of salt.

Re:Troll Article.

[dusanv]

It has nothing to do with zeroconf (that is not to say that zeroconf has nothing to do with printing). CUPS has its own way of finding other CUPS servers on a LAN (using UDP broadcasts port 631). Your shiny OS X 10.2 is running just plain old CUPS (10.1 didn't though) which is finding the Linux box and presto. It works as well in between two Linux boxes with CUPS. On a side note I think Apple did a good job chosing CUPS over their previous system. CUPS works well.

Linux Desktop can win big for business

[pjack76]

Hm, I just finished installing RedHat 9.0 on my home desktop, and even my Mac friends had to admit that BlueCurve is rather nice-looking. In fact fresh from an install, I could show BlueCurve to my organization's management as proof that Linux offers what Windows does...it's intuitive enough, in other words, to impress a suit, which is I think the critical threshold.

I haven't used Photoshop for seven years, but GIMP really impressed me with its feature set. It's probably not as intuitive as the Mac counterpart, but I do think that it's intuitive enough, especially for the only person in our organization who'd ever use it -- the Webmaster.

Open Office, on the other hand, seems completely featured to me, though I agree with the general sentiment that more Microsoft Office compatibility would hasten its adoption. But for internal use its power and UI seem just right.

I think many organizations would settle for a less whiz-bang user experience due to cost concerns.

Linux will never kill or marginalize OSX

[autopr0n]

There are far to many apple zealots out there. I mean seriously, these people ran the original Mac OS! About one of the crappiest OSs in the late 90s. I mean, no preemptive multitasking, no unthreading, barely any memory protection (guard pages only, and only in the very latest versions). I mean, good god

Plus, Linux has a long way to go before there is a consistent UI that comes anywhere near the quality of OSX (sorry to say :P). Sure, it looks nice these days, even pretty cool looking. But Aqua is just smooth like that.

Even if the hoard of Command line loving geeks is larger then the installed base of Mac users, I don't think Apple has much to worry about. The windows installed base was much larger then the apple and even when the OS was far crappier (since win-95 until OSX) and even when the hardware was slower and more expensive they stuck by their platform.

They are brainwashed. Nothing is going to change that :P

Re:Linux will never kill or marginalize OSX

[dougnaka]

I disagree with most of your points.
First, I agree that Macintosh enjoys an active zealot community. But that zealot community isn't growing. Linux also enjoys a zealot community, which is growing very rapidly.

I also disagree that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. However, if your basis for "ready for the desktop" is a "consistent" UI then please, leave me out. I want consistancy like I want the clap.

Linux's many UI's could easily be described as overwhelming, and are definely inconsistant with each other. But I consider at least 3 UI's superior to OS X's Aqua. They are (in order or superiority); Enlightenment, gnome, and kde.

I would also like to discuss, not to flame, the claim that OS X is "smooth". I have used OS X. I have a G4 running 10.2 on my desk as I type this. I respect the OS and the steps Apple has taken to solidify it's OS offering. I would say OS X is a usable operating system, and that it's options and use are definetly simple. Not intuitive, but simple. I would next say that the interface is attractive. However, XP was attractive for the first month I had it. Now it's old, boring, bland. At least in XP I can change the color of my windows (blah). How can I do this in OS X? Can it even be done? I've seen at least 50 different OS X users, many of whom are "zealots" for Apple. None of these OS X desktops have looked any different, except for the backgrounds and the order of the icons. Oh, and the hard drive icon, thrill.

In summary, OS X is slick and beautiful, but I need variety. My desktop now is enlightenment, and with a middle click and a selection of a menu item, looks exactly like the OS X desktop. I'm sick of it. I want a new one. I am completely blown away that no graphics designer wants to overhaul his desktop's look and feel. I'm good friends with several graphic artists all of whom are mac zealots. None of them have the foggiest idea how to change my desktop. None of them have anything to constructive to say about the useability of the OS X desktop.

Linux will absorb OS X users on the desktop. But, and more importantly, Linux will take over the desktop from Microsoft. It will take a few years. But Redmond knows it, and they're scared, and they're showing it.

Re:Linux will never kill or marginalize OSX

[autopr0n]

Linux's many UI's could easily be described as overwhelming, and are definely inconsistent with each other. But I consider at least 3 UI's superior to OS X's Aqua. They are (in order or superiority); Enlightenment, gnome, and kde.

Of course you do. Some people just love screwing around with computers and this is just one more avenue. But some people just want their computers to work. And for these people Linux is never going to their first choice. OSX, however may very well be.

OSX and Linux target different niches. The reason that Linux killed those other unixes is because Linux could do the same thing that they did for free. (and lets not forget that it killed them in the office, where bottom line calculations are a lot more merciless)

Re:Linux will never kill or marginalize OSX

[dougnaka]

Hmm, I agree that linux can not "just work" But it also can... Have you ever booted It "just worked" amazingly well. Probably not well in every way, but Linux is moving forward to working easily and well very rapidly.

I agree on the love to tinker, and the thing I'm amazed about is that people don't want to do the same in their own field..

Also, another poster brought this up, but if consistency and 'just working' are large goals for a desktop OS, why is Microsoft winning in the desktop market?

Really I don't think that Linux displaces Macintosh user base, I think more the opposite. I see more people who liked linux but grew tired of endless tinkering, going to OS X for sanctuary. I think it's both vs. Windows. But, number wise, I think it's inevitable that Linux will outpace Mac on the desktop...

In the end, I suspect it will be gaming that does it...

The sound of chickens hatching

[twohorse]

You think Linux overtaking Apple on the desktop won't make a difference?

One of the biggest problems with Linux on the desktop has always been the lack of commercial software support. Apple has managed to do very well in that regard despite coming in a distant second place to MS. Linux might not immedietly get that level of support from the likes of Adobe et al but just how long can they *afford* to ignore Linux if it really does become the second most popular desktop o/s? How long before the user interface issues are dramatically improved with so many users giving feedback? At what stage will companies other than Walmart decide that theres money to be made selling desktop systems?

The only thing that can stop Linux eventually becoming a major competitor with Windows on the desktop now is lawsuits.

that x11 needs aborted in a bad way!

[maudite]

My machine is an WinXP one. I have not had a single global crash for over a year. My son uses OSX and I find myself playing with it and enjoying it. I find it very slick indeed. I love to play cutting edge games and my XP box is the shit. I am a big fan of Linux and I always explore the new Knoppix distro when it is released. I have bought both Redhat and Mandrake off the shelf at staples. The Mandrake purchase was immediately pitched in the trashcan right outside the door. I was not going to use it but I will support it! If all the distros would work together and get rid of that fugly, outdated, slow X11 interface and strive for something like BEOS had going on, Linux could rival both M$ and Apple. Right now there is no direction and X11 needs to be aborted.

Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought an iBook two years ago, with the intent of running Linux on it. Set up Mac OS X and Linux partitions.

Two weeks later, I was running Mac OS X pretty much all the time. Two months later, and I reinstalled the laptop to reclaim the disused space on the Linux partition.

Mac OS X is what Linux should be aiming to be: robust, easy to configure, easy to use, and with the power under the hood that you can still get to if you need it. Right now, I'm saving the pennies for the day that the G5 is released in Australia; when that happens, I'm going to be paying a visit to the nearest Apple store.

The only reason I'm using Linux at the moment is because my desktop is a PC. If the powers that be were prepared to buy me a Mac, I could do everything I need to do as a Unix sysadmin. Including handling those pesky Office files that they insist on sending me every so often. (Yes, OpenOffice does the trick... but Office for OS X is an absolute dream. Credit where credit's due, folks.)

Linux overtaking OS X? There's a lot of work to be done before it happens.

configuration files?!

[hobbs]

I would rephrase that to say that Linux won't pass Apple on the desktop until "configuration files" is something the average Linux desktop user won't need to see / understand / fiddle with.

There are some good utilities that provide a UI over some conf stuff, but it has a ways to go.

Linux will surpass Apple when...

[A55M0NKEY]

LInux is and I think probably always will be used primarily by geeks. Geeks want the power that only comes by being a corkless fork. That is - because linux is not meant to be retard proof, it can expose what it needs to to be tinker-with-able. Being tinkerable is a killer app for the geek crowd.

Linux, being free software, appeals to the people who write free software and always will be tinkerable. This is because people who write software are geeks and will write software they want to use. If someone is paying them to do it then well, they will also write software to be retard proof.

Apple's market share has been decreasing more and more over the years. Any recent gains notwithstanding ( I don't keep up with Apple since I replaced my Centris 610 years ago with an Intel box. I grew up on Macs and was a Machead once. ) - any recent gains notwithstanding, Linux will not surpass Apple, Apple will fall behind Linux when enough Mac users switch to Windows that the remaining die hard Macheads amount to less than the total geek population.

There are 2 other possibilities:

• More people will become geeky and use linux Then linux desktop market share will increase
• Maybe OSX is really 'All that' - I haven't used it. Then more people will have some exposure to unix and Apple will get rich - and people will still use free software written for linux because it will probably compile on OSX. If Apple gets too greedy and starts acting like microsoft though people will switch to linux to be free of Apple. Apple still insists on hardware price gouging.

Real geeks will still use linux unless Apple can offer them something they don't already have which they can't.

I don't think free software will get much more retard proof. It will never be as polished as non-free software. I think that is because polish means closing up stuff which hinders tinkerability. Open software tends to leave frayed edges exposed. This is not a sign of poor quality - it is just that you need those edges loose to weave it in to something else or to add to it.

Re:Not gonna happen...

[Joey7F]

Have you seen Blue Curve on Red Hat 9? That desktop looks better than anyone I have seen ever. Now if only it would be KDE instead of a mutant hybrid.

--Joey

Comparisons

[Revvy]

Comparable.....GNU/Linux.......Apple
Hardware.......Almost Any......Apple Only
Compat.........Custom drivers..Plug and Play
Installation...Troublesome.....Infantile
Updates........Troublesome.....Infantile
Support........Many people.....AppleCare
Applications...Many............Many More
Cost...........Free (uh-huh)...$129
Man in Charge..Nobody..........Steve

Where that leaves me is with a definite win on the desktop for Apple. Highly simplified, but that's the point, isn't it?
Troll: If you want to fsck with your computer, get Linux. If you want to use your computer, get a Mac.

Re:Comparisons

[getoblstr]

Comparable.....GNU/Linux.......Apple >>Applications...Many............Many More uh...what?

Re:Comparisons

[dema]

If you call "Many people" support for Linux you must mean the people who love linux, and have experience in it. You can't just rule out the same people for Apple, so that one matches up about the same. As for hardware, you can use almost any if you can find ways to get it working with GNU/Linux (not a simple task). And it's not Steve Jobs is some god-like man who makes EVERY decsion for Apple all by himself, he may be in charge, but that doesn't give him control over every aspect. None the less you overall troll does make sense (:

Re:Comparisons

[leomekenkamp]

Lets see; I'm running mandrake 9.1.

Compat.........Custom drivers
Yup, I had to go to NVidia's website, download this .run file, and run it. Wasn't exactly difficult. And I'm sure if nvidia would be a bit more relaxed about redistribution of the driver it would be simply integrated in the install. Also, plugged in a sweex usb 2.0 pci card after that, and it just worked.

Installation...Troublesome
Installed without problems on 3 machines. Insert CD, boot, click 'OK' couple of times. No problem.

Updates........Troublesome
What's so difficult on starting Mandrake Control Center, enter the root password, click s/w management, click the update utility?

Man in Charge..Nobody
Due to the nature of the GPL, this should be 'everybody'.

Re:Wintel?

[foonf]

Actually I wasn't trying to imply that anyone is going to switch from Mac to Linux (aside maybe from some Mac users dual-booting), I agree that main growth will be from Windows users. If anyone is using a Mac right now, it is because they believe fervently that it is a superior platform. And unless new Macintosh development ceases I think those people will continue to believe that, and Macintosh usage will stay at its current level.

Where are the #'s?

[smack.addict]

I would love to know what backs up his assertion that Linux will surpass Apple. The article he references in BusinessWeek simply states that as a fact with nothing to back it up. It sounds like an example of one person says something and other people start parroting it as if it were science.

In my experience, Apple is picking up users right and left. People I would never have imagined as Apple users. I have not met one person who as adopted Linux as their desktop. I honestly do not see why anyone would.

On the price issue, people need to stop bitching about that. Apple always will be higher priced. That is the cost of innovation. They will also always be second, because you do not corner the market by being the most expensive.

Both Soon and Never

[Michael.Forman]

I'm a Linux user. No I'm really a Linux user. I currently have four machines. I'm running it at as my primary desktop at work and as a server, primary (gaming) workstation, and diskless PVR at home. I've modded my series-one TiVo. I installed slackware in the days when one had to wrangle 13 floppies.

With that in mind, I recently I purchased a maxed out 17" Powerbook on my research funds at work and have been amazed at the quality of MacOS hardware and software. I get the true Unix experience with terminals, perl, X11, ssh, vim, and the rest along with an exceptional GUI. The best part about MacOS is that it just works. I've got a Sun Blade 2000 on my desk that's a pain. I've been trying to install KDE on it for the better part of a month and I paid $3k for a graphics card that's slower than my nVidia GeForce 3. I upgraded SuSE on my home Linux workstation and once again I have to recompile the kernel to stop my mystery lockups. (One of these days I should write down my sound-card settings.) MacOS provides the best user experience of any Unix OS.

Will I get rid of Linux? No. There's a quality-cost trade off that will always guarantee the presence of both. The ratio is a function of the environment and thus the evolutionary stable strategy that the competing systems reach. When will Linux pass MacOS? Both soon and never. Linux, due to its low-cost software and hardware, will outnumber MacOS soon but Linux will never pass MacOS in quality. Ever.

Linux : MacOS :: VW : Mercedes
Michael.

Re:Both Soon and Never

[merkac]

How does a "diskless PVR" work?

Just where does it record to?

Re:Both Soon and Never

[Michael.Forman]

The diskless Linux PVR boots over the network and NFS mounts its root file system from a Linux server. The PVR then records to an NFS-mounted partition on the server.

I export the server's PVR partition to other clients in my home so I can watch the recorded/recording video where ever I want.

Michael.

shared user base

[cybin]

who cares about OS X vs. linux? all we should care about is everybody else vs. microsoft. we should all have a nice beige linux box and a nice grey sleek mac on our desks.

if there's one thing the mac world and the linux world share it's fanatical users. we need a marvel comics team-up to start converting the unwashed masses!

Re: No Worries... But your wrong...

[L1ttl3p1gg3]

The column isnt about whiping MAC off the desktop, it is about surpassing MAC on the desktop... I have no idea what ther percentages are, but all LInux has to do is take away from the dominant giant (anyone, anyone?) enough to beet out the MAC. Example (1) M$ = 90% Linux = 2% MAC = 5% ------- Example (2) MAC=5% Linux=6% M$=86% Reasons... 1) Users dont have to change hardware, only software 2) Linux is easy to obtain... Linux has taken the market away from Gates, and at the same time beeting out MAC... Apple will probably never loose there market share, probably only grom at a slow and steady pace... What would be cool - is to have Apple and the OSS comunitee team up to take back the market shares together!

Open Source

[axxackall]

Open Source is another serious advantage of Linux. In corporate IT departments they feel more compfortable in terms of IT security to use the system with applications, which sources are (1) available for debugging by themselves, (2) being debugged much faster by OSS community.

Our small company (15 developers) is fixing some bugs in various OSS packages every month as it's faster then waiting when someone else will fix it. But even waiting is faster for OSS then you would wait for such fixes from commercial vendors.

Re:Open Source

[SlamMan]

But there just as many IT departments that don't have time to develop or debug thier own apps. We want it to work, or to be able to bitch out somebody til they get it to work as advertized. Its a world of difference mucking through config files to make something work versus mucking through source code to hope to make something work.

Let's hope so.

[Dan Crash]

It's obvious that Linux is going to surpass OS X in the long term. But this isn't going to hurt Apple a bit.

Apple is a luxury computing brand. They're not competing for marketshare. Their goal is to ensure that a Mac is the computer you choose once you've got enough money to abandon your cheap Windows/Linux box and are ready to move to a more integrated, customized user experience.

Unless Palladium catches on with consumers, Windows' days as a dominant OS are numbered. Soon Linux will approach Windows for ease-of-use, and then it will pass OS X in terms of raw marketshare. But both Unices will exist comfortably together, Linux in the cheap $238 Wal-Mart computer market, Apple in the high end.

In the years afterward, Linux will continue eating away at Microsoft's marketshare. And what will Microsoft do about it? They won't be able to compete on price, so they'll have to compete on features. Palladium and DRM seems to be the major ways Microsoft has chosen to develop their OS, but I think this will prove to be a dead end. I believe consumers will ultimately reject computers that don't do what they want them to do. Microsoft will see its marketshare dwindle until Linux becomes the dominant OS and Microsoft just another player in the industry.

And when Linux becomes the dominant OS? It will still never have the hardware integration to be able to offer the rich user experience that Apple does. Apple will continue developing new products, new software, and new ideas, secure in its niche as a luxury computing brand for the forseeable future.

Of course it will

[d3faultus3r]

Apple computers are generally used by a very small market: graphic designers, artists, photographers...etc. Linux on the other hand has something for everyone, it comes with a nice suite of software installed and has excellent multiuser capabilities. A business is more likely to consider linux than the Mac as an alternative for Windows. Have you ever seen a large network comprised of Macs? And home users tend to consider what their business is using when they buy computers.

Apple has begun using oss too late for it to matter. Linux is engrained in peoples' minds as the open source Unix derivative. No matter what, Apple just isn't going to change peoples' minds.

Then there's the cost. Apple products are outrageously expensive for the home user or business. No one wants to pay $1000 for a low end computer. Linux can be put on any computer and can be gotten for free. the Mac OS doesn't work on anything other than Apple's own computers.

Macs are never going to be more than a niche market because of Apple's past policies.

Re:Of course it will

[gerardrj]

#1. "Linux" can't be put on "any" computer. On x86, is is generally limited to Pentium based machines an newer.
#2. MacOS can run on very old hardware also. Versions of MacOS from 8.(something) and back are free from Apple's web site. So if you have some older Mac hardware lying around you can still run it as a file/print server, web server or the like.
#3. "Linux" doesn't really work well on anything but 32bit x86 CPUs. I know the KERNEL will run on a lot of other platforms, but quite a LOT of the software out there is poorly written and will not compile, or compiles and runs incorrectly on other platforms. I know I've run RedHat on Dec Alphas for years, and it's a chore to get even the included apps/utils to work properly. Under RH7 the "top" command would contunually dump core, and several 3rd party apps didn't correctly buffer things because they assumed the length of an "int" instead of asking the platdorm what it used.
#4. Windows doesn't run on anything but the Microsoft specified computers (namely x86 systems), and it seems to have dominated fairly well, so hardware variety doen't seem to be a factor in acceptance of an OS. It seems consumers and business alike are more interested in something else: ease of use, support, reliably updates, integration; something.
#5. From Apple, you don't get a "low-end computer" for $1000. You get a very well appointed, nicely styled system with excellent fit and finish. You get a system that's ready to use out of the box with most all the apps a normal home user would require. Just plug in, turn on and get to work.

Frankly, even if Apple is a niche player for the rest of eternety, I'd be happy. The company has no debt, over $4B in the bank. They can live right along the other niche players in the world like Rolex, Rolls Royce, Gulf Stream, etc. All of these companies maintain a very small percentage of their market sales, yet they stay in business decade after decade.

I'd like to see them help each other

[SuperKendall]

I don't think this needs to be a fight between Linux and Apple at all.

I think they should help each other out. Apple has done quite a lot of things that can help Linux use - including X11, bundling software like Apache.

From the Linux side it would be great to see support for things like Rendezvous, based on ZeroConf - so I could have a linux box basically sharing via Rendezvous the same kinds of things a Mac would be sharing.

In short, I'd like to see Yet Another Distro, only this one built to work as kindly as possible alongside groups of macs in a house. It would make using Linux as a home server a great choice, so that you could afford one nice Mac and then a Linux workhorse stuck somewhere in a closet handling heavy lifting of storage and network management. Then perhaps some uber-cheap linux boxes stuck around as simple terminals, like an LCD with a simple linux desktop built right in so all you need to do is plug it in the wall and go.

Time to open OSX to the Wintel platform

[xutopia]

If they'd sell their OS to any platform Apple would be capable of really competing. I'd buy it.

Re:Time to open OSX to the Wintel platform

[levin]

It seems that one of the biggest reasons OSX works is that they have such a tight-fisted control over the hardware it runs on. If they go around supporting x86 hardware, they're development costs are going to skyrocket. Hell, if I remember correctly, Darwin x86 won't so much as boot on my Via chipset based mobo . . .

The Linus Field

[dmaxwell]

Or when Linus gets the commercial and media attention Steve Jovs gets. Or when Linus developes a reality distortion field of his own.

I don't see how that can happen. Linus doesn't possess a reality distortion field; he projects a reality assertion field. Check him out here on SCO:

(fucking lameness filter bitching about this as a link....)

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1134098,00. as p

He's understated as ever.

Youre forgetting one thing.

[Dr Reducto]

People are forgetting: Who just announced G5 processors and a new Powermac design today?

Re:Who cares?

[axxackall]

Not so long. Windows is loosing the market of corporate IT-supported desktops. Not to OSX, of course - fanatics and zealots are not working in big corporations.

apple is it's own worst enemy

[cdecroes]

one thing linux has over mac is price. I bit the bullet and bought some mac hardware. I thought it was worth it the initial investment to have the cool hardware and stable software. Since then apple has nickle and dimed me to death!!! I had to pay for a .mac account and now I have to pay $129 every time Steve farts. It's been twice now that they are requiring payment for OS upgrades. If you look at the cost of the OS, apple probably costs more than win32. There is a win32 release every couple of years and it's around $100 or less, apple has one a year and wants big money.

Re:apple is it's own worst enemy

[KH2002]

Why did you "have to" pay for a .mac account?

Re:apple is it's own worst enemy

[kalidasa]

Let's see, my OS upgrades on this Machine:

OS X 10.0.4 came with machine.
OS X 10.1.0 payed $20
10.1.1-10.1.5 or so: free
10.2 payed $129
10.2.1-10.2.6 free
10.3 will pay $129
10.3.1-10.3.x probably free.

As for the Win32 price, you're comparing OS X to Win Home. OS X is more comparable to Win Pro, at a $199 pricetag. And the fact is that the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 is going to be as significant as that between 2K and XP.

And then there's the family license for OS X: $199. Comparable license cost for Windows XP Pro: $994 or so.

Re:apple is it's own worst enemy

[myyrk]

Because he's a mac user and not a linux user! Ha!

Re:apple is it's own worst enemy

[KH2002]

Excellent points. OS X is definitely more comparable to XP Pro

And even 10.1.0 was free if you picked it up at a dealer- in a nice folder with two disks and an instruction pamphlet.

Re:apple is it's own worst enemy

[AnyoneEB]

And the fact is that the difference between 10.2 and 10.3 is going to be as significant as that between 2K and XP.

So 10.3 is going to add a buch of useless eye candy and be a bit less stable than 10.2?

(NOTE: I use Windows XP as my desktop.)

Linux and OSX *together* attack Windows

[OMG]

It's all about choice.
Linux will pick up more market share on the desktop as soon as the hardware vendors will test their stuff on linux as well and supply drivers if needed. Chicken and egg problem here. Also Linux needs a better mechanism to integrate those drivers.

OSX is more for the "I just want it working" people for now. So once the public realizes that there is more than one bootscreen (who the heck knows what an Operating System is ?) they will look at Linux AND OSX.

Choice is a good thing. And the generations knowing what an OS is and that you can select from multiple are coming ;-)

Cheers,
OhMy

Re:Linux and OSX *together* attack Windows

[jimmy_dean]

Amen to that...choice and diversity is always a good thing. Letting the masses choose is what it's all about. And watching Linux on the desktop get better each day along with OS X is nothing short of amazing. To the death shall we fight Windows! :)

Forced Upgrades

[Wyatt Earp]

It's not a forced upgrade.

I've got boxes running 10.1 Server around here because no one "forced" me to run 10.2 Server.

Likewise I know my mother's 233 iMac and another 333 iMac I support are running plainjane 10.1 and it runs well.

I'll get 10.3 for my machines, but not becuase Steve Jobs is pointing a CD to my head screaming "Forced Upgrade biaaatchhhh! Now shell for Panther!" but because I want the features.

Re:Forced Upgrades

[miu]

I've got boxes running 10.1 Server around here because no one "forced" me to run 10.2 Server.

It's a bit different for a desktop though. Want the newest games? Upgrade. Newest office app? Upgrade. Sure it is not a forced upgrade, but you get left out on the newest apps if you don't upgrade.

If it is true that they only charge for the even numbered releases (as another response mentioned) then I'm okay with it and will remain a happy customer. ~$45/year is fine (as long as the OS keeps getting better), ~$90/year is not okay.

Re:Forced Upgrades

[Wyatt Earp]

"Want the newest games? Upgrade. Newest office app? Upgrade."

I've got Office X and a newish version of Appleworks running on 10.1 boxes.

missing the point

[ProfDumb]

I think most of the discussion is missing the main points of the article. One point is that linux only has to get to 3 or 4% of the market to surpass Apple -- and to do that, it doesn't have to be better than Apple at what Apple does best.

The second point is that you can't get an Apple PC for $300. Yeah, I know that *you* and all the current Apple fanatics are willing to pay for the Apple experience, but if only 4% of the total market disagrees, then Linux "pulls ahead".

Who will that market be? Tech-savy cheapshakes. Extremely poor folks who only want e-mail on Netscape. Engineers working at home. A (few) corporations with simple and standard software requirements that just happen, in their case, to run on Linux.

Now, do these folks add up to 4% of the market? I don't know, but arguments like "current Apple users won't switch" or "my grandma won't switch" don't have much to do with it.

Re:missing the point

[wideBlueSkies]

>>Now, do these folks add up to 4% of the market?

It depends on how you count. Would the counting be per person, or per machine?

I have 5 machines here at home. 3 are all LINUX all the time functioning as servers / workstations. 2 are dual boot windows/linux machines with Win as the primary OS. 1 of these dual boots is a laptop.

So am I 1 guy running LINUX? Or am I contributing 5 LINUX machines to the 'count'?

Disconnect

[SuperKendall]

Do you like how OS X works? Would you like it to keep getting better?

Then why do you mind paying $129 every year and a half or so for truly innovative R&D?

Think of it another way - by charging separately for major OS upgrades, you are also encouraging Apple the company to build machines that last longer instead of machines that need to be upgraded every two years to pay for R&D costs. It's pretty easy to show investors how much money OS releases make and help justify large R&D budgets, whereas if you wrap that up in the cost of a machine it's harder to quantify.

I tend to think though that the need to upgrade might lessen over time... I'm not really sure, but I think I might have been able to not upgrade to Jaguar and wait for the next upgrade. I'll probably never know though, as I'm a sucker for upgrades (at least ones that are worthwhile).

Re:Disconnect

[dipipanone]

Do you like how OS X works?

Yes.

Would you like it to keep getting better?

Yes.

Then why do you mind paying $129 every year and a half or so for truly innovative R&D?

Because I've already paid that premium when I bought the hardware in the first place. I resent having to pay it over and over again, in order to make the most of that hardware.

Don't get me wrong, I love Macs. I've owned at least one since my IIci back in 1988. I've currently got a TiBook, and I'll definitely buy a new G5. But I always feel as though Steve Jobs is buttfucking me over the price, and in charging for OS point upgrades, it feels like he's stopped bothering to even apply lube before he anally rapes me again.

Re:Disconnect

[ksheff]

What's the difference when MS comes out with the next version of Windows? The MS geeks will line up and fork over $100+ for shiny new boxes of Redmondware to they can be the first on their block to have it running on their computer.

Re:It's not just Firewire cameras

[gladbach]

errr, call me crazy, but why would you even *want* to use glide on linux? are there even any linux 3d accelerated apps (games, what ever) that use glide? I'd be suprised. link please.

I've switched between vid cards before in linux. wasnt anything besides changing the driver etc in xf86config... ;/

I'm not saying linux is for everyone yet, but... oh well.

its all about mouse!

[imsirovic5]

For Linux to be sucesfull on apple it needs a lot more Linux people to like Apple.. And that might happen when Apple starts shipping its computers with a 2 (or more) button mouse out of box ;o)

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[axxackall]

I've just gave an example of pre-installed Linux packages. Personally I've abandoned botyh RH and YDL almost a year ago to install Gentoo instead of both, and it's with me since then.

Mac Freaks Don't Work

[jodo]

I know several heavy mac worshippers.They live and breathe the religion. But they don't do a damn thing on their boxes. No coding. No creating. They just like the cool factor.
I know this is just a segment of users. But how large a segment is it?
And yea, I know the mac is a great system and works extremely well and many artists and creatives use it to their advantage. But still most of the mac people I know are wannabe geeks.

because

[waspleg]

the competition provided linux by osx's seamless unix integration into a stylish and functional os will help to drive it and make it better

the two feed off of eachother like one of those little algae and shrimp globes; they both benefit

the only one who stands to lose is M$, i say that they (osx/linux) should compete with eachother because with each user using either one they take one away from M$ (apple contributes to opensource projects/they take what they sow and the people doing the coding for free get professional backing and legitimacy by someone who has been around, apple)

this is win-win-lose

my $.02

God I hope not.

[crivens]

God I hope not. Apple's desktops are much nicer than those of Linux. Linux desktops and applications lack cohesion; even a pure KDE desktop is a pain to use. For example, I tried to download a zipped trailor movie for a game. I double clicked the ZIP file in Konqueror file manager and double clicked the movie file inside. When MPlayer tried to load the file it couldn't because it didn't exist; Ark didn't extract it to a temporary file.

It's basic (staple) things like this that Linux fails so badly on. I know I'm going to start a flame war and get lots of hateful messages but one of the reasons that Linux fails in this area is because there are so many desktop environments and so many applications that don't work together.

Re:God I hope not.

[crivens]

I don't care; I got modded to +3, so for once someone somewhere must like what I said.

You can't hate what you don't know, so move on.

Does anybody?

[Haloows]

Does anybody else see the irony of the title "Linux's new popularity may hurt Apple more than Microsoft" being posted on a microsoft site? Also on the G5 page Apple compares its G5 to a Dell...I mean wtf? Apple comon now...thats way to easy, I mean its an "advanced" mini tower!

"Aim low, so low that nobody will care if you suceed, if you want some butter its under my face."-Marge Simpson

The Figures

[heli0]

Slate ponders projections that Linux PCs will pass Apple in desktop market share next year.

That's what the article is about. Not which is better. Not which has better software.

How about some figures.

Wednesday 30th April 2003
"Apple's worldwide market share is about a paltry 2 percent, according to IDC."

Friday, September 06, 2002
"According to Gartner Dataquest, Apple's worldwide market share was 2.5 percent last year[2001]"

Is it difficult to believe that Linux will achieve >2% penetration into the worldwide desktop market by next year?

Considering that Wal-Mart is selling Linux PC's for $199 and it is the OS of choice in developing countries trying to run a modern desktop OS on legacy hardware it does not seem to be that much of a stretch.

Eventually? Of course!

[harlows_monkeys]

First thing to realize is that it is all about look and feel. Down at the kernel and utility level, Linux is as good or better than OS X or Windows right now. Their advantage is in what they put on top of the kernel and base system.

Take an arbitrary commercial OS maker. Could be MS. Could be Apple. Could be Sun.

Suppose they do some particular thing better than Linux, and better than the other commercial OS makers. If that thing is good enough...it can kill the competing commercial OS makers.

However, it cannot kill Linux. Linux is good enough, and has attracted enough developer attention, that it will continue, even if Windows or OS X or Solaris or something else is better by some measure, simply based on price (we talk about "free as in speech, not free as in beer", but a lot of people want that free beer, too!).

So, Linux will always be out there, perhaps playing catchup as the Gnome or KDE (or other) people snarf up good ideas from OS X or Windows and clone them...but eventually it will catch up. Sure, Windows and OS X will have moved forward by then...but the improvements are getting smaller and smaller as time goes by. Eventually, the Linux GUIs will be close enough that having a nicer GUI will not be a factor for Windows or OS X, at least as far as the functionality and objective qualities of the GUI go.

The proprietary companies like Apple and MS can put more money into aesthetics than Linux developers can, so they will have nicer looking interfaces, but eventually that is where all of their advantage will be: they will have prettier icons or nicer animation.

At that point, Linux wins big...because people will put up with averageness of looks to save money.

It will never pass it.

[mnemonic_]

OS X is just too good. Linux still is hard to use and has a long way to go. OS X is a mature desktop OS.

Re:No - What a misleading article intro

[taxman457f]

The article links to absolutely no hard facts that linux is even growing on the desktop much less overtaking MacOsX.

I'm not saying desktop perfection is even what linux should aim towards, but come on. This just proves that the editors don't even read the articles. The article *says* it links to an article regarding linux overtaking OSX, but it doesn't.

Sorry Charlies, but linux is nowhere even in the ballpark of as polished on the desktop as OSX

That does not mean that it can't be a viable desktop either for a geek or after it has been heavily tweeked to act like it should and work correctly, but that is not what it will take to be widespread on the desktop. I mean seriously, when is the last time you sat down to an untweaked linux GUI and everything just worked? Now how about flawlessly, and cohesively like OSX?.

It doesn't yet and linux will not overtake OSX on the desktop because of it.

Now I'll get modded to oblivion because I've spoken against the pharisees, but seriously, one more severely misleading topic description down, many more to come.

Re:WHAT do Apple's coders have over Linux's coders

[Anonymous Coward]

salaries

IMHO - Linux needs a few more years

[L0J46K]

Each OS has its niche users. As I walked through, a company which I will not name, in midtown Manhattan I see a slew of IMac's. Why are these people torturing themselves with this inferior machine, I think to myself. It hits me: the only reason these boxes are there is because they have a sleek and sharp look. A cosmetics company such as this one must keep all appearances high. I go back to my plant of operations and take a look around. There definitely aren't any MAC's..ugh. There are about 15 different styles of x86 based PC's running some variant of Windows XP/2000/NT. I am the only one running a Linux desktop with a Linux server and several BSD servers and the good ol' ancient NT PDC. As far as other UNIX based variants, why pay a pretty penny when I can get the whole thing for free with Linux. I am not a fan of apple, and haven't been since they stopped making the II-C and II-E, but I understand why people stick to them. They are hyped up as a great graphics computer, and always keep a fresh look. Dollars to cents - MAC is a horrible buy. I'm not a fan of a platform that is hardware/software locked. I've had my share of MAC troubleshooting and to me they are just boring and SLOW to boot. Props go out to Tru64 though, too damn bad Alpha chips are fading away. Enough rambling... What I believe it comes down to is the end-user preference. Most people are going to stick to MAC or Winblows because its easy and known. I believe Linux is on the threshold of a breakthrough in desktop technology. The UI is nice, but the office and home apps just aren't quite there yet. If it were up to me the world would be UNIX. Just a thought.

Re:IMHO - Linux needs a few more years

[gerardrj]

Quote: "...a platform that is hardware/software locked..."

What exactly do you mean by this? Macs are not "locked" to any software or hardware any more than any X86 system is.

Disk drives:
Mac: IDE,SCSI,FiCal,Serial ATA
x86: IDE,SCSI,FiCal,Serial ATA

Displays:
Mac: ADC, DVI, 15pin VGA
x86: DVI, 15pin VGA

Internal expansion
Mac: PCI, PCI-X, AGP (4x,8x)
x86: PCI, PCI-X, AGP (4x, 84)

External expansion:
Mac: USB 2.0, FireWire
x86: USB 2.0, FireWire, Serial, Parallel (though I don't know many people who use the legay ports any more)

Removable storage:
Mac: CDRW, DVD-RW
x86 CDRW, DVD(-/+)RW, Floppy

Memory:
Mac: PC XXXX
x86: PC XXXX

Networking:
Mac: 10/100/1000bT RJ45, WiFi, BlueTooth
x86: 10/100/1000bT RJ45, WiFi, BlueTooth

Input devices:
Mac: mouse, keyboard, trackball, graphics tablet
x86: mouse, keyboard, trackball, graphics tablet

Operating System:
Mac: MacOS, Linux, BSD ( a few other obscure systems)
x86: Windows, Linux, BSD (a few other obscure systems)

Software:
Too many to list. Most any major app on the x86/windows systems has a port or viable/better alternative on the Mac.

So do tell; where is this proprietary "locked" environment of which you write about regarding the Mac.

Re:IMHO - Linux needs a few more years

[L0J46K]

I guess what I meant to say is: Why would you run anything else besides MAC OS on a MAC? From a pricepoint they are slower for the money. The fact that they do not run windows does not bother me in the least. I'm not saying they are a bad box, just not practical for other applications besides MAC OS.

Re:IMHO - Linux needs a few more years

[gerardrj]

That is a good point. The "why would you run anything else" (OS wise) is an even better point when you find out that Panther will include many of the "popular" APIs from Linux. Of course, with the ability to more directly port Linux software, the ability to almost directly port BSD software, the ability to emulate Windows software and older (pre-)Mac OS, and a fully functional X server included, oh yea, and the ability to run fully 64bit apps natively in Mac OS, the question becomes even more poinient: Why would you run a different OS on these machines?

There aren't any details yet, but I'm guessing these APIs will be dummy code that simply translate and redirect the Linux calls to the native OSX/BSD routines. This is the very form of OS emulation that I described several times on /. where you don't emulate the hardware, you emulate the software by redirecting all system calls to the native versions.

It's possible...

[travail_jgd]

... if something happens in the Microsoft world to alienate a large number of companies and/or users. Something along the lines of a major worm or bug appearing, with M$ refusing to offer a fix for the 9X line (and maybe Win2K).

Given the choice between upgrading to Windows Palladium (now with extra DRM!) and the latest version of MS Office for a large chunk of change, or switching to (mostly) Linux on the desktop for cheap, I think the latter is very likely for home users and small companies. Large companies don't do well with major changes, and have the resources to pay for the new licenses.

On who's desktop?

[Global-Lightning]

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.

Re:On who's desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I seriously doubt this. Why? 2 compelling reasons:

1. Reliance on Microsoft

MS isn't going to keep the applications coming for OS X forever. They've already dumped Internet Explorer. Expect to see Virtual PC and Office follow suit. Once this is gone, Apple's dead in the water. MS apps are the lifeblood of the Macintosh platform, but that isn't going to last forever. Microsoft has a long history of dumping their former partners' corpses in the swamp. I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon. Linux exists without a reliance on Microsoft, and continues to grow daily. That gives Linux a longevity advantage over MacOS X.

2. Minority hardware platform

There aren't nearly as many Macintosh systems as there are PCs, and there never will be. Linux can run on all of those PCs, and on most of those Macintosh systems as well. If Apple opens up OS X to the PC platform, they will directly compete with Microsoft. That's when MS decides to play dirty. Remember, unlike Linux, there is one company to go after with MacOS X.

Those are two hurdles that Apple will never overcome. They're a fringe player, and will always remain so. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful platform. The hardware does have some advantages over the PC, especially when it comes to interrupt handling as was mentioned here. It's just that Apple hasn't a chance in the long run.

Re:On who's desktop?

[chippcom]

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

Everytime Apple announces a new box, the Mac faithful start screaming about how Apple is going to 'take over.' Hmmm...last I checked they're still around 5 points marketshare. I expect they'll be at 5 points next year just as they were last year. But, Apple fans...keep routing!

Re:On who's desktop?

[Mr. Hankey]

I'll call a spade a spade. Without office, they'll be back to where they were before the Quicktime settlement.

Re:On who's desktop?

[valisk]

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.

At $1800 2x AMD Opteron 64bit CPUs is almost half the cost of the comprable Apple hardware and brings comprable if not better performance, prepare to see Apple sadly not reach the heights you predict.

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...

The AMD Opteron system is compatible with MS windows in 32 bit mode and could easily be dual booted to run Windows for those MS Office needs, if you can't be bothered getting into that whole OOo thing.

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)

It seems that one of the hardest thing to point out to Linux detractors is that commercial distributions offer this already.
Redhat, SuSE et al all do similar things for their customers at similar prices.

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.

Scratch Linux and you find Linux! No need to port many opensource apps as they are native to the platform, add the increasing support of big players like Oracle, Sap, IBM, Novell, Sun etc. Wine give decent performance on many Windows aps, or I could boot into my Windows partition. Finish off with Java and I have a computer than does run almost every 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'

I agree, it is subjective, some people prefer Windows to OSX (god knows why) other like me find KDE is not only stable but pleasing to use, but based on my counter argument I can't see why Corporate buyers would be persuaded to spend the extra on the Apple box so their users can experience the marvel that is OS X desktop. Sure Finder was nicer than Windows from the get go, but it didn't prevent the x86 setup from dominating business except in limited areas like graphic design as Apple was seen as being limited in 3rd party apps, designed for home users and largely a toy system for people with bags of cash.

You're right, now it is a capable beast, it compares very well vs older Sun and SGI tech, but just as Apples offerings have matured so has x86 Linux and combined with the newer 64bit x86 compatible CPUs I can't see Apple succeeding in the way you suggest as it doesn't have any real advantages over cheaper commodity 64bit boxes running a commercial Linux distro, and given the speed at which opensource stuff has been developed in the past few years, it wont be long before the current near parity between opensource and proprietary apps and OSes has given way to a rampant opensource lead where Linux is the defacto standard

Re:On who's desktop?

[King Babar]

Somehow I don't think Linux will be left in the dust.

1. There's nothing preventing Linux from running on the new G5 hardware. With Linux, AMD's x86-64 will also be an option.

More to the point, IBM is almost certainly going to release low-price Linux stations using what Apple calls the G5 but whan IBM (it's maker and master) calls the 970.

What I think is actually more important here in the long-run is that *Wintel* will have some problems since the current windows OS is planned to be static until 2005, while Intel faces the challenges you mention. I think the very safest prediction you can make about desktop market shares and relative market shares is that Wintel's will be going down. How much, how fast, and how this affects Apple are additional questions.

Re:On who's desktop?

[geekoid]

1) Apple needs to have a under 1000 dollar model befroe many people will considerit, slick interface or not. It must do all the expected multimedia. They also have to be ably to use it with new apps for year. If I buy a mac, and a 18months later I have to by a new OS just to play a new game, or run a new application, I
d be pissed. I still use 98 to play the latest games.

2) Is the number of UNIX workstation even slightly signifigant against the windows machines? doubtfull.

3) It has been my experience that when a UNIX system has a problem, it has to do with what was being developed going awry. Apple can not help you there. You can by support for some distro's. I don't know when the last problem I had with a PC that I dind't get a solution via the web in short order.

4) as we all know, BSD is dying. haha. Very good point, however, do you really think MS wouldn't kill anything for OSX if it considered it a threat to dominance?

5)The interface is nice, but that doesn't mean KDE/GNOME won't have something as nice in the future. As for now though, yes OSX interface is nice, but is it 1000+ dollars nicer?

If apple meets point 1, then I can see this happening. However, I think tme has told us the home market is a tough egg to crack is you do not run popular games.

NO

[failedlogic]

I'm a university student. I'm looking to replace Windows and I like that OSX is 'Nix based. I'm seriosly considering buying a MAC now (I was waiting for the announcement before making a descision). I don't think Linux will replace the desktop for:

1) The X font management sucks. I write a lot of essays and need access to fonts for some papers.

2) DLL hell. I use Gnome and KDE sometimes. Mostly I try to use a few of the programs from each. GNU cash, KWORD .... which requires a lot of libraries == unnessary bloat, slowness and confusion when source compiling.

3) Commercial software. Say what you will of Open Source software. There are times when I want/need access to commercial software. Photoshop, Word, etc are all available for the OSX not for Linux. It will be a long time before this happens.

4) Hardware support. Mac have - albeit - limited hardware choice compared to Windows. But, getting hardware to work w/ Linux or FreeBSD means recompiling, getting newer kernels. I don't mind doing it but see it as a waste of time.

5) Better integration. GUI apps are much better integrated in OSX than in X.

6) Appearance. OS X just looks good. Gnome, KDE make me want to puke. Toolbars, message prompts, etc, are all different to name a few.

Will Linux/BSD rival OSX in a year? NO. Will it be widely adopted? No. Will the MAC be widely adopted? Probably a bit more.

Re:Not any more!

[dbrutus]

Apple's been hamstrung by Motorola's lackluster perfomrance as their high end chip supplier. With that problem now solved come August, I expect that a great deal of marketshare improvement will start showing up in the next year or two.

1.8 Ghz Macs were supposed to be at parity with the 3.2 Ghz Pentiums that were just released. Well, surprise, we have 2.0 Ghz Macs and the possibility that when it's IBM v. Intel in a chip improvement race, IBM might beat out Intel. For people with serious computing needs that might mean PPC hardware (IBM or Apple label) and a continued lowering of PPC chip costs vis a vis Intel.

Simple, no..

[msimm]

I think you've missed my point. I said it was geek friendly, because it is powerful, but its a powerful application that suffers from the typical under development of the user interface. Gimp is the only graphics application I use and I can do just about anything my Photoshop using friends can, but they couldn't or more importantly wouldn't because they've got a well designed application already.

Cloning popular interfaces is one way to create consistency, but good UI design will always stand on its own. People like things that work nicely.

Is this just for Windows?

[The Analog Kid]

Yes but in terms of portablity Linux wins hands down so infact it could win on the desktop in marketshare. Since Apple runs on one platform and only one platform PPC.

Re:Is this just for Windows?

[pastafazou]

Since Apple runs on one platform and only one platform PPC.

I guess you were unaware that Darwin (being the foundation of OS X) is currently running on x86 hardware. http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6. 0/release.html The only thing that runs on one platform is the GUI known as Aqua, and I'm sure Apple has an x86 version of this as an emergency backup plan.

Re:Is this just for Windows?

[ncc74656]

I guess you were unaware that Darwin (being the foundation of OS X) is currently running on x86 hardware.

Last time I checked, Darwin-x86 runs on an extremely limited subset of x86 hardware:

(http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6 .0/install.x86.txt)

IDE: Only the PIIX4 IDE controllers have been found to work. Attached devices must be UDMA/33 compatible or better.
Ethernet: Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controllers are supported.
Video: You must have a VESA 2.0 compliant video card. Almost all modern graphics cards are VESA 2.0 compliant. However, emulators such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards.
Successfully tested hardware: All 440BX motherboards tested have worked with their internal IDE controllers. IBM ThinkPad A21m (with onboard Intel ethernet)
Known to not be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems.

That rules out nearly every system I have at home and work, except for maybe the dual P!!! that runs alfter.us...and the 3Com NICs and SCSI hard drives in it would need to be swapped out. Most of my systems run on AMD processors...everything from dual Athlon MPs down to K6-2s.

(I do have a beige G3 (266 MHz) that I'm using to punch in this message...it's a bit on the slow side even with 256 megs of RAM, but at $40, it was a cheap way to get something on which to try out Mac OS X. Mozilla looks much nicer on it than it does on the x86 boxen under Win2K/WinXP, though...must be Apple's mad antialiasing skillz at work, or something like that.)

Re:Is this just for Windows?

[poot_rootbeer]

Portability is a non-issue in the desktop market.

Outside of Unix and Unix-like systems, desktop application software is almost always distributed in a binary-only format. Commercial vendors can't just market a copy of WidgetMaker for Linux -- they need to have WidgetMaker for Linux/386 (which would probably be named "WidgetMaker for RedHat" or whatever the leading x86 distro is at the time), WidgetMaker for Linux/PPC, and so forth.

Given that maybe 95% of the desktop market runs on x86-compatible processors anyway, I really don't think the extra ~1% share Linux could enjoy from also being able to run on PPC, Alpha, Dreamcast, etc. has any significance.

Re:Is this just for Windows?

[shaitand]

I would argue it makes a big difference... but not for a reason that invalidates your argument.

Embeded linux is becoming more and more popular, because linux is so easy to port to new hardware it will be in a better position to utilize features in these embedded devices. Sure right now there aren't many that aren't stand alone in most such devices, but a growing linux market share has a snowball effect, often times it will require little changes to make use of the libraries you already developed for use in your embedded device on those desktop systems.

Linux is the modern computing home's wet dream, it talks to EVERYTHING, it talks to mac, pc, can use damn near every protocol known to man and it uses ALL OF THEM either as efficiently and effectively or nearly so as the original platform for which those protocols were intended to be used!

Imagine,

You come home from a hard day at work, you touch your fingertip to a pad, it reads small sampling of your dna and quickly sends it via a quantum wireless link to your linux box, your linux box sends back a positive ident and tells the deadbolt to unlock. It crossreferences your playlist with the others in the room and finds a compatible option (although it's overridable of course), it starts up coffee if you like some after work. Adjusts the rooms temperature to be most compliant with the preferences in the room (handled with various preference load-balancing algorithms built into the kernel).

As you walk in and get your cup of coffee you turn on the tv, this is also done by touching a pad and brings up your custom configured playlist and channel preferences, there is the ability for parental control overrides to be built in of course and prebuilt blocklists downloadedable from the linuxnet. The internet of course was renamed in 2005 when desktop users realized that other OS's (yes their discovery of linux meant finally understanding there could be different operating systems) had a very insignificant presence there and this was caused by the fact they had little to offer rather than being an evil corporate giant with malicious intent.

Nothing good on (hey linux isn't gonna help convince the cable company since it won't give them your marketing data without your permission).
You tell the air you'd like to take a bath. You sit down and eat a sandwich and then go upstairs, there is already a bath or shower running, with water at exactly the temperature you like it, if it's a bath your bubble or no bubble and how much bubble preference has been considered, as well as scent and brand preferences.

ok, you get the idea.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[Large Green Mallard]

Bring me back to reality? Yes, I just *LOVE* setting up a Linux box to do everything my mac can do out of the box.

Web browsing.. so I've installed a nice linux system with Debian, and added what I think is enough packages to get X11 and Gnome up and going.. whaaa.. where's the web browser? Oh right, I need to install that too, should I use Phoenix, Galeon, Netscape, Mozilla, or Joe-tcltk-webrowser.. I think I'll go Mozilla. Everyone seems to be using that now. Hang on, why do the fonts look screwed up? Oops, it looks like I needed to install fonts as well.. I'm sure it comes with some good ones.. there we go. Anti-aliasing? Oh, easy.. xft.. wait, it doesn't see the fonts now.. need to rebuild the fonts.dir file. Screw it..

Playing DVDs, yep, Linux can do that.. all I need is mplayer or vlc or xiph.. and then I just need to install the dvd libraries and it plays! VIDEO_01.TS .. where is my damn menu?!@#.. umm, but then I need sound. So then I just need to choose between ALSA and OSS. And then find a sound card which works with those libraries. Oh, and then pass a funky kernel parameter to grub, editing a config file, so it can do duplex sound, and hey presto, I have DVDs playing, with sound... but I'm only getting 10fps on my Athlon2ghz.. oh, oops, I'm not using the nvidia kernel and xfree86 extensions for hardware acceleration! Silly me, how could I forget!

Ahh, I think I'll just listen to my MP3s with xmms.. hang on, why is it dying with signal 11 every few minutes? ooh, oops, I used the version of it that came on my OS install CDs, and that had an off-by-one bug somewhere.. ahh well, just need to download it again and install.

On second thoughts, I think I'll just get around to putting a new larger HDD in my 1999 vintage G3. *screw screw screw fiddle fiddle* ok, done.. power up, put in OSX install CD, click thru right buttons, wait 30 minutes, swap CDs, wait 10 minutes, reboot... ahh the MacOSX background. *press button to open DVD drive*, I think I'll put the DVD in this.. *whirring noise* oh look, the DVD menu *click play* ahh.

Rant mode off.

Yes, you can do many similar things with Linux to OSX, it's just an absolute pain in the ass to get it up and running initially. Your average user doesn't really want to do shit like that just so they can use their computer.

soon?

[Stonent1]

I was under the suspicion that this had already happened years ago, but then OSX came out and reclaimed the lead.

I don't think that building the price into hardwar

[SuperKendall]

Although I agree it is a bit annoying to pay, I don't think that building the price into hardware is a good idea for the company or the consumer - really the hardware should be helping to pay for research already done, otherwise it seems like a ponzi scheme where you have to keep selling new hardware to pay for R&D to improve older machines. The way Apple is doing it I think adds a lot of value to older computers by making more upgrades available to us as well... thus enhancing the usable life of our machines.

The price point is really weird though. I wonder how they come by $130? Considering how well-thought out Apple products are generally, it seems like they would try to work a more harmonious price... then again, perhaps it's exactly the point where people are willing to pay but not get too worked up about it. I was in line at an Apple store for the release of Jaguar and there really was not a lot of grumbling going around at all!

KDE wasn't necessary

[metalhed77]

Safari Would have happened with Gecko had it needed it

Re:KDE wasn't necessary

[dbrutus]

The point is that there's a symbiotic relationship. Whether that would be with Gecko or KHTML is a detail.

It already has...

[glenrm]

Linux trys to run on a variety of motherboards, with serveral different CPUs, it is real-time, embedded, it is a real OS. A real OS should try to have drivers for as much hardware as possible. Some may say we are only talking desktop here, well my desktop is hooked up to a dance, dance, revolution game pad, a Rio 500 MP3 player, a joystick, an epson printer, a n50 nostromo speed pad. I run Windows, which I consider a real OS, because it like Linux tries to have drivers for all available hardware and has an open PC architecture. When OS X runs on a variety of platforms and has a better variety of drivers I will check it out...

Yes and No.

[mellon]

In one sense, Linux and Apple are both the same product - Unix, with a GUI. In another sense, though, they are different - Linux' strength is that it's open source, and Linux' two most Apple-like GUIs are both strongly slanted toward being a replacement for Windows.

Having recently switched from OS X to Linux, I can tell you that the switch would be maddening for the average Apple user. Nothing is where you expect it to be. You have to hit the control key to get stuff that ought to be on the command key, and there's no option key. Preferences are in the wrong place. The dock doesn't work. These aren't intended as criticisms - I'm just trying to show you how an Apple->Linux switcher would see things.

KDE has an "apple mode", but its resemblance to the Apple UI is very limited. Basically, they add a menu bar, which is clever, but just swap control and meta, which is not. It was easier for me to use the default KDE setup than the "apple-like" setup, even though I'd been using OS X for a year and a half prior to switching to Linux. I wound up switching to Gnome anyway, because it's prettier, and after a year and a half with Apple, I'm used to pretty and it's hard on my eyes when something isn't.

However, having just set up a couple of WinXP computers for some friends who weren't quite ready for Linux yet (they *were* interested, but it just isn't time for them yet), I can attest that the WinXP UI and the Linux UI are much more compatible - I can easily imagine someone switching from Windows to Linux. I think at this point they'd still be a little frustrated, but it's *very* close now. If you're a Windows user who's not a geek, but you have a friend who's a wizard to set up your Linux system, I think you can really use it at this point. I wouldn't have said that last year.

So I think that realistically, Linux is going to do two things: get new people who can't afford an expensive computer with 'doze and 'office, but can afford a cheap computer with Linux and OpenOffice. And it's going to cannibalize 'doze sales where people are just tired of paying all the stupid license fees and agreeing to all the stupid licenses. As the Linux GUIs get better and better, it's going to become a realistic platform for more and more non-geeks.

Having said that, I miss my Mac, and I don't think I'll hold out using Gnome much longer. GNOME and KDE both have a long way to go before they approach the ease-of-use of the Mac, even though they are both really very good.

Sigh.

Re:Not any more!

[WatertonMan]

The chip problems Apple had really were hamstringing them. So for the last year and a half Apple hasn't been able to increase market share. Now they can start to go after the high end more (better profits) as well as hitting the low end to increase marketshare.

Re:Time...

[TheRaven64]

It was only a matter of time until the penguin would swallow the apple :P

Hah. Not a chance. You see, that Apple has a daemon inside it, and that pitchfork looks sharp.

neXt

[simpl3x]

osx is absolutely blinded by nextstep, which is why it is successful. rapid application development tools, bsd underpinnings, windowing system, quartz... as they say, next engineered a takeover of apple. but, what they have is fanatical leadership with a vision of what the product should be. any company producing a product successfully is similar. not simply forward vision, but "brand" vision. what should using your product be like?

look at emacs. you may not like the vision, or find it productive, but those who do use it are fanatical. perhaps apple has the correct point at which to add the value... the user interface. additionally, the developer tools are getting very good. i think symbian is becoming equivalent in a product sense. good, open tools. a nice user interface. useful applications, and usability...

It Already Has Caught Up

[thelizman]

...or have the lot of your forgotten? OS X is based on the BSD kernel, and most of the core concepts in OS X (i.e., Darwin) are based on Apples work in the 90's on the Mach Microkernel, which formed the basis for MkLinux, the first and only Linux ever sanctioned by Apple.

I walked everywhere when I was poor

[hayne]

The Apple OS is slick and beautiful, but may not be worth the extra $100+ every N months.

Yeah, when I was poor, I "preferred" to walk everywhere. Now I can afford a bus pass - and a car! And the $129 for Panther will be money well spent.

Games Games Games

[Repugnant_Shit]

While I'm sure OS X is great for a lot of things (I'd love to try it out, but I'm too poor ;) ), it lacks games. I can play Half-Life/CS, GTA:Vice City, and I hear that Morrowind is working now. Can a Mac user play CS? You might get a CS'er to try Linux, but forget about another hardware platform.

Incidentally, my definition of an operating system is "a system that lets me play Half-Life." Once WineX worked with Half-Life, I stopped dual booting and went 100% linux :)

Re:Market Share?

[David Rolfe]

It's kinda true... as MSIE continues to be more and more absorbed back into the "OS" it's not really accurate to call it "market share". I mean unless you are are talking about the market share of the Windows brand.

We may misuse the term market share to talk about it when we are comparing it to say Mozilla or Safari or what not, but nor are those 'markets'. Who still sells browser software?

Maybe we need a new term like 'browser share', or 'client share', you could even use the extant 'mind share'.

It would need to pass windows first.

[OrangeTide]

MacOS X is probably a far more multimedia oriented and certainly a technologicaly superior desktop OS than Windows is. If we can assume that MacOS X is also more user friendly, and also assume that Linux is less user friendly than either Windows or MacOS X then it follows that Linux would first have to surpass Windows before it could surpass MacOS X.

But this is strictly a comparison based on the attributes of each system. If you want "real numbers", aka a gross quantative analysis. Then sure Windows is the most popular as of this moment.

Comparing the attributes of each might lead us to where Windows, MacOS X and Linux will be in the future. Evidence I've seen points to MacOS X gaining shares from both the Linux and Windows world. Linux's popularity seems to be, according to other sources, falling.

PS- Where does FreeBSD fit into this picture. :)

The reverse I would think

[mwillems]

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

Re:The reverse I would think

[sheldon]

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.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Wolfier]

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

Say, if 3 years from now, movie ripping applicatons would only be available on one OS. Which one do you think it would be?

That's why I run Linux.

Re:The reverse I would think

[yack0]

> 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

Re:The reverse I would think

[MidnightBrewer]

On my Mac, I run OSX and Yellow Dog Linux. Within OSX itself, I can compile and run pretty much every desktop environment available for Linux, not to mention thousands of open-source programs. I can run these seamlessly, side-by-side with my OSX applications. Steve does not block me from doing what I want with my system, and even allows me to boot directly into a CLI right from the login screen. I also have complete shell access within OSX itself, completely customizable to my preference (bash, tcsh, csh, etc.)

I guess it all comes down to how well you really know computers, doesn't it?

Re:The reverse I would think

[Llywelyn]

>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).

I can run GNome on a Mac via X11. I can also run OpenOffice and I've heard reports of people getting AbiWord up in running.

That being said, if you can't do something in Linux, what is your response? If you say that you can "write it yourself" that is certainly true, but no different than for the Mac. Yes, you can theoretically tweak anything in the OS, but knowing the calls and where to do that are not necessarily trivial things!

Just because it can be done doesn't mean that you can personally do it.

Re:The reverse I would think

[dbrutus]

Since you can run pretty much everything on Mac OS X that you can on Linux, I don't see this as being a very realistic scenario. OTOH, you can't run everything on Linux that Mac OS X has so which alternative OS has a wider variety of apps?

Re:The reverse I would think

[Neural Assassin]

"...I love my Linux desktop because *I*, not Steve J or Bill G, am in charge" ROTFLMAO!!!! You're dreaming. Torvalds and Stallman have the final word. As Linus himself is quoted as saying: "...my contract says that I have final word on the kernel, and the copyright remains with me personally" Wanna make some kernel changes...you MUST release them to the world. Real men use FreeBSD. Period.

Re:The reverse I would think

[MalleusEBHC]

... and I've heard reports of people getting AbiWord up in running.

fink install abiword

The guys at fink make life so easy.

*This assumes having fink installed, but I can't imagine running X11 apps in OS X without having fink or darwinports.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Jayzz]

I agree that customizability(?) is the big reason why a lot of linux (or *BSD) users use it. But the problem is that there are things you just can't do (or not as efficient) with linux. If you like what MacOS X offers, or what Windows offers and you can't find that in linux, flexibility is useless. Flexibility only matters when it has all the features you need.

I don't know what you mean shells are not hidden. You can use any shell you want in MacOS X. And MacOS can run pretty much any program Linux can. If you didn't know that, it might be worth to look at it a little closer.

Re:The reverse I would think

[nathanm]

This assumes having fink installed, but I can't imagine running X11 apps in OS X without having fink or darwinports.

This is the case right now, but Panther has native X11. You can even use your choice of window manager instead of Aqua.

Re:The reverse I would think

[nathanm]

Wanna make some kernel changes...you MUST release them to the world.

Wrong! Source changes only need to be released if you distribute the binaries. If you only use it personally, or within an organization without a public release, there is no need to publicly release the modified source.

Besides, the original post was about a Linux desktop. Very few desktop users ever need to modify kernel code, probably less than 1 out of 10,000.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Elwood P Dowd]

Care to back that up with a link? Not because I doubt, but because I'm interested.

Re:The reverse I would think

[MalleusEBHC]

http://www.apple.com/macosx/panther/

At the bottom right corner of the page, it says a little about the *nix side of OS X. One thing is that the X11 client will be built into Panther. I don't know about being able to use other WMs though.

To kinda respond to the grandparent post, I still don't think many novices will venture into X11 apps without some sort of package manager.

Re:The reverse I would think

[karlm]

FYI, it's the X11 server that would need to be distributed w/ Panther. Each X11-using program is an X11 client.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Elwood P Dowd]

Oh. Jaguar already has an X11 server. The only thing that seemed controversial to me was that you could use whatever window manager you like.

But that's because I misunderstood. I thought he was implying that you could use alternative WMs for the whole OS. He wasn't, necessarily, and you can definitely use whatever WM you like inside the X11 server already.

Re:The reverse I would think

[scorp888]

Whilst the applications are part of it, Drivers are another big part.

Although the sitation is getting better, how many of the nice lastest toys have a linux equivalent?

Windows Apple Linux
Creative Zen - Ipod - no 5gb+ mp3 players
Web cam go - Web cam go - no drivers
Bluetooth - VG Bluetooth support - ??

It would be nice if RH/Debian/IBM someone would sign the NDA's with Creative/Adobe/Whoever to get the drivers out for linux as well.

It would also be nice to have a collective
" I would have bought your device but it doesn't come with drivers for my OS"

or a
"I bought your deivce because you have linux support"

Re:The reverse I would think

[NeoOokami]

Yet you forget the true benefit of open source software. If it's open, anyone else can get access to it and port it to whatever OS they desire. Open source software is a test in freedom in that pretty much anything can happen, give or take a few things depending on which license of many you're under. So looking at the current open source ripping tools.. I'd say any OS.

Re:The reverse I would think

[rkoot]

The power of the computer is not in the desktop, but in the applications.

Wrong. The power is only seen *if* the one between the keyboard and the chair knows how to use the computer's potential. It has nothing to do w/ the desktop nor the applications, and certainly not the computer. a computer is a dull and dumb thing and the only power needed is AC.
it's like screwdrivers. whether you use a flathead, a philips or a posidrive, it won't matter if the person holding the screwdriver hasn't got a clue what the thing is used for anyway.
how many people have actually full exploited the possibilities of , say a Commodore64 ?
The guy/girl using the computer and its applications can unlock the systems power. not the other way around. a nice desktop doesn't change a (l)user into a poweruser.

r.

Re:The reverse I would think

[theLOUDroom]

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

You can say that about the applications as well. They are just a "means to an end". Or the whole compter. It's just a mean for getting work done. Why should it even matter?

In reality, your OS, windowing system, WM, shell, apps, drivers, etc are all an important part of getting your work done.

You have to admit the grandparent is right. Under Linux, he has control of his desktop, and that is an advantage. OSX is still a proprietary system, and Apple is suing anyone who even makes their stuff look like aqua.

Re:The reverse I would think

[EvilAlien]

But the power of the operating system is in the mind and capabilities of the user... that is the secret of the UNIX world.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Vladimus]

Novices probably won't use a package manager, either. Fink accomplishes pretty much the same thing, but there's no way I'm going to try and teach my Mom how to use it.

The best way to install any kind of OS X program is with a graphical installer running in Carbon/Cocoa. Otherwise, for 95% of all users out there, it's just too complicated.

Re:The reverse I would think

[sheldon]

Under Linux, he has control of his desktop, and that is an advantage.

Only if you care about such things.

My point was that most Windows/Mac users are perfectly content to leave the desktop with the default color scheme because we just want to run apps.

I used to think all of the options I found in X11 windows managers were cool too, but then I grew out of it.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Robert The Coward]

I will give you bluetooth as I have no Idea but I have a webcam works fine. I have an MP3 Player works fine. I have a PDA works fine. I have lots of gadgets that work fine in linux. More and more without speacial support being required right out of the box.

Re:The reverse I would think

[theLOUDroom]

Only if you care about such things. My point was that most Windows/Mac users are perfectly content to leave the desktop with the default color scheme because we just want to run apps.

Even if you don't use it, it's an advantage. Better braking on a car is a good example of this. Yeah, you may never need it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to have.

As for "growing out of" window manager configurability, I would say it's much more likely that you just got used to the status quo, rather than decided "being able to make the computer do more things == bad". Growing out of implies moving on to something better, but you haven't. You might get used to driving a Geo Metro eventually, after owning a Corvette, but that doesn't make them equally good.

Re:The reverse I would think

[scorp888]

Some of them.

Does your web cam work as a digi cam too?

If so, which one?

Your MP3 player, it will hold more than 5GB of mp3s?

If so, which one?

Does your pda use USB? Is it less than 3 months old?

If so, which one?

Re:The reverse I would think

[sheldon]

Better braking on a car is a good example of this. Yeah, you may never need it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to have.

Except we're not talking about better braking. We're talking about a spoiler on the trunk, chrome trim around the doors and blue led lights under the rocker panels. i.e. non-useful decoration.

I would say it's much more likely that you just got used to the status quo, rather than decided "being able to make the computer do more things == bad".

No, I simply realized that having eyes follow my mouse around the screen wasn't really all that useful.

You might get used to driving a Geo Metro eventually, after owning a Corvette, but that doesn't make them equally good.

I'll keep my BMW. Thanks anyway!

Re:The reverse I would think

[theLOUDroom]

Like I was really touting the benefits of Xeyes?

Please.

I'm referring to all the neat things you can do in something like KDE, that actually let you work better, not just have a prettier desktop.

Re:The reverse I would think

[sheldon]

I'm referring to all the neat things you can do in something like KDE, that actually let you work better, not just have a prettier desktop.

Well don't keep them all to yourself. Tell us about these wonderful innovations?

Animated backgrounds? Themes? Dancing happy smiley faces?

Linux is to the desktop what rice boys are to race cars.

Re:The reverse I would think

[mmol_6453]

I can see the title for a new book: A Rich Kid Lives on Slashdot.

Re:The reverse I would think

[shaitand]

yes that must be nice for you, having a platform which steals anything it has that is worth a damn. It's only able to do so of course because there is a system out there that actually is OPEN *cough, linux , *cough*, BSD, *cough*).

But I assure you, it's certainly not Apple. Apple is taking advantage of everyone elses sweat and blood so they don't have to do any serious work on software... they are doing the same more and more with hardware as well. Actually it seems to me that anymore apple uses technology developed by everyone else, ties it together and adds just enouh pieces of it's own, along with slapped on eyecandy, to appease you mac users and STILL not give one damn thing back to thw world they took it all from!

This is why I won't contribute to a BSD project. I don't give things away, I want a return, I just want it in the form of code rather than cash.

Re:The reverse I would think

[shaitand]

Ahh but this is what linux design fights. Some people would change it (mac especially and some windows users) so that applications are dumbed down. I don't believe interfaces should be overly complex, but I certainly don't believe there should be any options hidden or any needed option not there! ALL the options should be there just layed out the simplest and mot elegant manner in which you can present every option you can come up with to the user.

There is no need for someone to be able to sit down and *figure out* how to intall a webserver, or to be able to do so simply from reading the docs for the webserver. They SHOULD be able to sit down and figure out how to setup and configure a webserver by reading the docs IF they already know how webservers work.

Windows tries to make everything a series of next's without the user understanding the consequences of those clicks, apple tries to make it a single click without a user even having the opportunity to know if they wanted to. Linux hands you a very straightforward text file that could be optimally configured in 5mins or less if you are willing to bother learning about what you are doing BEFORE doing it.

Re:The reverse I would think

[scorp888]

Rich, poor, middle income, you still miss the point. Congratulations, you're a class free idiot.

Re:The reverse I would think

[Robert The Coward]

Does your web cam work as a digi cam too?

No just a cheap webcam doesn't apear to be labeled.

Your MP3 player, it will hold more than 5GB of mp3s?

Yes 6 GB, althought the company also makes 20's as well. It is the archos Jukebox 6000

Does your pda use USB? Is it less than 3 months old?

Uses USB. More then 3 Months old. It is a handspring platum and that wasn't as easy as pluging it in. I had to configure pim software for that.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[13Echo]

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)

Re:MSN!

[dbrutus]

Even better, it's written for Slate. One MS property promoting another MS property's product. Isn't cross-subsidizing what got them in trouble with the DOJ in the first place? ;-)

I agree

[SuperKendall]

I think your theory holds a lot of water.

One thing I would add, is that it would be very exciting to see Lindows release a machine that supported Rendezvous so that a household with powerbooks could use the Lindows computer easily across the network. That's something I think Microsoft would be uncomfortable doing, releasing a machine and saying "Now Mac Compatible!"

Re:I agree

[shaitand]

"(and giving back too)."

okay apple has contributed code... are there any instances where apple has contributed code back that they didn't have to?

I don't know of any time apple voluntarily gave back code but I don't know everything so I'm ready to be enlightened. As far as I know apple hasn't actually open sourced anything at all and uses BSD code to avoid having to give back absolutely anywhere they can....

Dyslexia rules, KO?

[leonbrooks]

Try http://www.pompom.org.uk/ instead. And yes, it does look really cool, and does run on Linux, MS-Windows and Mac OS X, and yes there is a free demo. (-:

Re:Dyslexia rules, KO?

[SunPin]

:) Yeah, I fscked that up. All apologies. Thank you for publishing the correct link.

Pay attention!

[ralphclark]

There's no way this could happen.

Now, I am a committed Linux user - I won't let anything else into the house - but Linux desktop software is, let's be honest, still very buggy and unreliable. Particularly big programs like object frameworks, web browsers and integrated office suites.

It will ever be thus, because a team of teen-plus OSS GUI programmers basically just doing what ever floats their particular boat are never going to be as committed to stamping out bugs vs. adding k3w1 new bloat as would, say, anyone associated with *BSD, or any other team of hairy 1970s renegades working on big important infrastructure software like sendmail or apache.

So OSS desktop software bugs may move around, but I don't see them going away any time soon. Mac software developers on the other hand seem to aspire to clean design, stability and trouble-free operation. You might say it's their animus.

The result is that where Mac software might lack some variety, what is available is very high quality indeed, and it runs on a rock solid platform. With a desktop that is just breathtakingly elegant. So I don't think Linux is going to beat Mac OSX in the desktop marketplace, at least not on the grounds of desktop desirability.

Also bear in mind that Apple has chosen to be a niche player. They have had ten years to compete with Microsoft, and they had a head start as well, but they have never tried to own the mass desktop market. They have always left that to Microsoft, and concentrated on winning a dedicated minority of discriminating users, compensating with high profit margins.

However, If they actually had ambitions to become a mass market desktop player I have no doubt they could do so most effectively. If it gets around that the Mac is so painless to use, and Apple then gets the idea that there is a genuine sustainable market for cheaper Macs beyond the traditional arty-farty sector, they may be emboldened finally to grab a larger slice of the pie. And that sort of groundswell can easily reach critical mass. Just look what happened to Linux.

Then Microsoft really would have something to worry about - a world run on Macs connected to Linux servers.

For these reasons it's only in Microsoft's interest to suppress public interest in the Mac platform. In my opinion MSNBC, Slate etc. have always managed to keep their journalism more unbiased than their ownership might lead one to expect, but there must be some influence from time to time even if it is of the most subtle kind. So it's not too surprising to see an article like this in a Microsoft-owned publcation.

Re:Pay attention!

[NullProg]

Not to start an argument

but Linux desktop software is, let's be honest, still very buggy and unreliable. Particularly big programs like object frameworks, web browsers and integrated office suites.
Can you be specific? I have had the opposite experience with my Linux destop.

Mac software developers on the other hand seem to aspire to clean design, stability and trouble-free operation. You might say it's their animus.
I have been developing Mac Software since 1986. I now develop Linux based software. What kind of comment is this? I'm certainly not the best coder in the world, but I haven't heard any serious complaints about my Mac or Linux applications (minor bug fixes at best).

They have had ten years to compete with Microsoft, and they had a head start as well, but they have never tried to own the mass desktop market. They have always left that to Microsoft, and concentrated on winning a dedicated minority of discriminating users, compensating with high profit margins.
The Apple ][ owned the market in its day. With the Mac, Apple has never strived to own the desktop market, just empower the user. You either like this fact and pay extra for a Mac, or don't. Microsoft has always looked upon any x86 competitor as a threat, and therefore has tried to kill it.

Please comment, and enjoy.

Re:Pay attention!

[ralphclark]

On my workstation I run SuSE 8.1, kernel 2.4.20, XFree 4.3.0, KDE 3.1.2, Mozilla 1.3. I have 256MB RAM and about 400MB swap. The graphics card is an original ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder.

* Sometimes when hitting a URL in mozilla the whole UI freezes until the web page either finally loads or fails to load. The whole desktop UI shouldn't freeze like that just because there is pending I/O.

* The same thing happens to konqueror which may or may not permanently freeze the whole desktop. If the former it means bouncing the whole X environment (init 3) immediately; if the latter you'll still have to log out of kdm.

* The whole system frequently runs out of memory and then responses times degrade progressively until the whole UI locks up. The culprit is usually mozilla; the only way out of the situation is to get to a console by ssh from another system and "killall -9 mozilla-bin".

* Some desktop applications in the distribution just plain refuse to load at all.

* Kspread (from the koffice suite) is buggy as heck. Text attributes such as bold or colour don't work at all; values entered into some cells remain invisible until you close the spreadsheet and reload it; cell dimensions get buggered then can't be fixed (so you have one cell in the row with the wrong height).

* Most of the games can't be persuaded to run in full screen mode, as my Dell P1110 monitor cuts out - it seems not to agree with X about what it's refresh rate should be in the selected mode.

* Attempts to select certain fonts in the KDE font dialogue (eg in Konqueror browser settings) crash the browser.

* Some fonts just can't be rendered in KDE at all, not even in the font selection list.

* Konqeror still can't render theregister.com with visible text at all.

All the above is just what heppened to spring to mind at the moment.

Microsoft has always looked upon any x86 competitor as a threat, and therefore has tried to kill it.

I guess what you're saying is the reason Apple didn't take on Microsoft in the mass market is that they thought MS would crush them altogether.

Re:Pay attention!

[NullProg]

WoW!

On my workstation I run SuSE 8.1, kernel 2.4.20, XFree 4.3.0, KDE 3.1.2, Mozilla 1.3. I have 256MB RAM and about 400MB swap. The graphics card is an original ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder.

I thought maybe I could help you, but I don't run KDE (just certain KDE apps). Have you tried surfing www.justlinux.com? You might find some more detailed help. Also, SuSE support via email might be worth a try.

As far as Mozilla goes, certain web sites do the same with mine, it all boils down to bad javascript.

I guess what you're saying is the reason Apple didn't take on Microsoft in the mass market is that they thought MS would crush them altogether.
I didn't say that at all. I said that Apple never intended to take on anyone, just empower the user (Steve Jobs visionary quest and all).

Enjoy,

Re:Pay attention!

[ralphclark]

Ah, I wasn't fishing for help. I don't think there is any to be had, there are just too many symptoms and google doesn't help much when you're searching for common terms like "mozilla (lock-up freeze-up)".

When I do find a similar problem detailed somewhere, invariably the only answer is a shrug - it's usually too much work for the code maintainers to root out the cause, and most users (myself included) can afford even less the hours of patient debugging since it would need to be accompanied by the steep learning curve of a major code base such as mozilla or KDE.

See this earlier post of mine about a proposed solution.

Re:Pay attention!

[NullProg]

Ah, I wasn't fishing for help. I don't think there is any to be had, there are just too many symptoms and google doesn't help much when you're searching for common terms like "mozilla (lock-up freeze-up)".

There is plenty of help to be had. And your problems may not be Mozilla related. Is it a certain web-site that locks up Mozilla? If so, provide the link, I can debug. If not, I would say you need look at your KDE/SuSE setup. Have you got the latest patches?

It annoys me that new Linux users complain about the RTFM response (not you). I help new users whenever possible. My immediate suggestion would be to install GNOME from your SuSE CD's and try it out (KDM allows you to select the window environment on login). Does GNOME have the same sluggish/buggy response?

Enjoy,

Reality distortion field

[Admiral Burrito]

Or when Linus developes a reality distortion field of his own.

Little known fact: Linus already developed a reality distortion field. However, it was done using IP misappropriated from SCO, so Linus opted to do the honorable thing and give the field generator to SCO. Considering SCO's recent usage of the device, I'm sure Linus regrets that decision.

What I want to know is...

[May Kasahara]

How does this affect Mac OS' actual market share... numbers-wise, not ranking-wise? Will this cut into their 5% (or whatever), or will it cut into Windows'? If it's the latter, I don't think Apple has much to worry about...

Yes - Linux will pass Apple, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes - Linux will pass Apple, but at the expense of Microsoft's market share, not Apple's. The number of current Apple customers who will switch to Linux is near zero. The number of dissatisfied Microsoft customers willing to dump Windows is growing. The few Windows defectors who want Macs and have the financial means to purchase them will go Apple. Those who want *nix and are unable or unwilling to swich architectures or pay the hefty prices for Macs will sacrifice the gooyness of OS X for KDE/Gnome and Linux.

So, will Apple be No. 3 next year? Most Likely. Will Linux surpasing Apple hurt them? No way - it will help them. There is much more synergy between Mac OS X and Linux than there ever will be between Mac OS X (or any other OS) and Windows.

Microsoft may be at the top of the mountain now, but it is cold and icy up there. If Microsoft loses their grip and starts to fall - it will be a fast and long fall, and it will hurt when they hit the rocks below...

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[dtfinch]

It gets easier after the first couple years. Although most of what you mentioned is set up automatically in many linux distributions.

LindowsOS (the expensive Linux) supposedly tries to fix all of those problems, and is near its 4th release.

Re:*snicker*

[justsomebody]

You can still try PalmOS:)

Fully Agree

[clump]

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.

Your comment is great, and really needs to be shown for how wise it really is. I also love Linux. It fufills all of my computing needs. So you must know how annoying it gets to see constant articles and laments about "if Linux had a [insert pundit ramble] it would succeed on the desktop/server/embedded world/etc".

I can run Linux as a desktop, as a server, on SPARC, on x86 CPUs, on a PPC CPU, and even a PDA. It just so happens I actually do all of the above.

Your comment is 100% correct in that to some of us Linux succeeded years ago. Other OS users will get my support and respect. I have no need to compete with them.

Double Negative

[hendridm]

> linux ain't gonna do nothin' to OS X.

Agreed.

Re: Give into Temptation!

[wavedeform]

Remember Bill Gates still owns a major chunk of Apple - they are not the bitter rivals people make them out to be!

That hasn't been true for years. Microsoft invested $150 Mil in non-voting stock, more or less when Jobs returned to the fold, and they sold it a couple of years later at a profit.

When will Linux Pass Apple on the desktop

[soward]

When Elephants roost in trees. Or Mkrozft writes a copy of Office for it. (Elephants or Linux)

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[someonehasmyname]

"OS-X/Unix introduces timing problems for MIDI musicians. Better stick with an older version of the software."

I hate replying to AC trolls, but this had to be corrected. I use OS X in my recording studio, and have never been happier. No MIDI timing issues, no latency, no problems at all. I had all sorts of timing issues and latency on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 2 GB ram running W2k.

Don't even try suggesting that Linux would fix the latency because there aren't any quality pro audio apps for Linux.

BIGGEST TROLL EVER

[NSupremo]

Is this guy on PCP?

It's all about who you know.

[klasikahl]

Think back to the days when Microsoft was starting with Win3.1. At the same time, Novell was after the same market share. Novell's marketing strategy was to meet with all of the CTOs and low-level IT guys and get them sold on Novell. This worked. Microsoft then had to come up with a way of getting those corporations to use Win3.1, instead. Microsoft, instead of talking to the IT guys, went straight to the CFOs and CEOs. Microsoft was able to sell them, and Win3.1 became the work force's de facto. People generally want to keep things simple with their computer, so obviously the people who knew nothing of computers would want Microsoft Windows on their home computers, too. Thus began the Microsoft Empire.

I hope this helps your over-rated comments.

linux replaced solaris????

[the-build-chicken]

Linux has replace Solaris? Haven't enough /.ers already commented on the drawbacks of smoking pot before submitting stories?

$500 machine...?

[leonbrooks]

Here in remote Perth, Western Australia (the most isolated city in the world) you can buy a complete Athlon 2000 system (256MB, 40GB, 17" CRT) for AUD$862+GST, which (including GST) works out at USD$629. If you can get by with a Cyrix, 15" and and 128MB, knock about USD$150 off that. On special, getting a new "real" (ie processor speed etc not far off bleeding edge) system for under USD$500 (AUD$753 inc GST) is not hard.

Re:$500 machine...?

[2nd Post!]

So, with this $629 machine, can you effortlessly make DV movies, then DVDs from them, often in the same day?

Or linen bound photo books from your easily organized photo library?

Or seamlessly exchange information from your addressbook, AIM application, and mail application?

Or effortlessly organize your library of music, and then export it at will to CD, DVD, MP3-CD, MP3-DVD, iPod, etc?

Can you effortless back up and restore your system by copying your ~Home directory to another running machine?

How much does it cost you to do all of the above?

For me, it costs a Mac. I've been using PCs for years, since DOS, and I've never been able to do all of the above all at once and all very simply. With a Mac, it is. So that's what I'm paying for.

Yes, it cost me $1499, so I paid $870 more than you have, but I've already sold $600 worth of DVDs with 3 days of work, and expect to sell another $1,000 by the end of the year, because of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements.

Re:$500 machine...?

[chasingporsches]

i'd like to repeat the specs of the powermac G5 for $2999:

Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5

1GHz frontside bus

512K L2 cache/processor

512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM

Expandable to 8GB SDRAM

160GB Serial ATA

SuperDrive

Three PCI-X Slots

ATI Radeon 9600 Pro

64MB DDR video memory

56K internal modem

so how does that $630 athlon box compare? give me a break. sure, you save $3000 (if you get an apple 17"LCD with that G5). but a single athlon compared to a dual G5? let alone the other features like serial ata, pci-x, airport extreme, superdrive, etc.

Re:$500 machine...?

[saden1]

Head on over to AlienWare. They'll be glad to accept your cash and build you a system like that.

Or

You could just wire transfer them money to my bank account and I'll build you such a system.

Re:$500 machine...?

[Abreu]

For me, it costs Linux.

The only part that I havent done (from your list) is editing DV movies, and that only because I dont have a DV camera, but Im sure it can be done.

Maybe its less pretty, but I also dont drive a cadillac to work when my trusty Hyundai will do.

Re:$500 machine...?

[Abreu]

You need support for a x86 machine?

What are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:$500 machine...?

[Mold]

Yes.

Not sure. Never tried.

You don't need to. Under Windows, they're all the same program.

Yes. Windows Media Player does all that.

Yes.

Any PC running at least Win2k or higher. Not sure on Win9x machines.

Switch

[winmutt]

I made the switch last year. It wasn't from Windows to Macintosh, but Mac to Linux. The reasons were purely economic. All of Apple's software and hardware are quite impressive. What is more amazing to me is how far Linux has come since the first time I experienced it in '98. I've found suitable replacements for everything I used before. BBEdit was replaced with Kate. Finder with KDE. Office with KOffice and Open Office.

Re:Switch

[JoeCommodore]

Me too I am working on "switching" from Mac. Why? because from what I've seen the new OSX is for the most part Unix anyway, by going to Linux I don't have to pay the $$$$ for shiny hardware and forced upgrades, Sure there is a steep learning curve and there are bugs to be worked out, but if you look at OSX it hasn't been a bed of roses either. (yeah, you can say they are fixing the problems - at $129 a year)

With an x86 box I get more interfacing then apple ever offered (that lack of parallel port sure makes making your own projects tough) even moreso now that serial is gone too.

I really liked the former MacOS it was a very well designed system low hardware needs, logical (everything was contined in one meta file, all the libraries, images, sounds, etc.) had a great core graphics library and internal data format (could even copy and paste object art between two different apps!). But apple deemed it's dead and we move on - ok, but I think I'll move somewhere where companies don't tell me what I should do, or what I don't need anymore.

Thanks to OSX Mac users are now seeing what Windows users have had to deal with for all these years, files files files, text screens of death, cryptic promt commands to fix even more cryptic bugs, more bitmaps and less draw objects. (here's a tip: want to make money on OSX? make an uninstaller!) The only reason OSX is getting such a boost is because of all the porting over of the GNU/Linux programs like Open Office, my/postgreSQL, etc. Sure it has a spiffy front end, but when it all comes down to it you are still running *nix stuff.

That's enough ranting for now. I feel much better. :-)

Nonsense article.

[guacamole]

OS X will do to Linux what Linux has done to Solaris, IRIX, and others on the desktop. Why? Because OS X from ground up has been designed as a desktop OS and it shows. The Linux desktop will never become a viable mainstream desktop OS for a number of reasons. I think people who have followed the evolution of the multiple incompatible and quickly changing Linux distributions and their desktop environments for the last five years should have realized that by now. Average consumers don't want to deal with that. Apple and MS have an advantage here because they're in full control of their respective desktop environments and their APIs and their goal is to produce a useful system to the users and not say something that's architecturally elegant but hard to use or develop for.

Re:Nonsense article.

[guacamole]

But, as usual, you get what you pay for.

The developing world

[danny]

Apple has a tiny share of the market in countries like India and China, which are probably the fastest growing markets for computers. It's what is happening in those countries, along with the big corporate/government deployments, which will push the Linux desktop share past the Mac one.

Danny.

Re:It's not just Firewire cameras

[Radical Rad]

There were several games from Loki that used Glide. I seem to remember Rune, Soldier of Fortune, and Heretic II using either Glide or OpenGL.

As for why you would want to use it, being able to do OpenGL on V2, V3 and Banshee cards is a pretty good reason. It was also Open Sourceed by 3dfx before they went under.

Diversity Breeds Diversity

[dduke]

Just a credible threat to Microsoft will help bust open the rest of the corporate and private network installations to Apple. Why? Because, Microsoft has bred intolerance to diversity into it's very core so that everyone believes that sameness in the OS is a "good thing". Of course, all that's really needed are compatible data types. Linux will help force that data-level compliance and I would bet that Microsoft will resist complying longer than Apple. Bad for Microsoft, good for alternative platforms.

At least it's not Lamborghini...

[leonbrooks]

...which I have been told require you to ship the motor back to Italy for refurbishing after circa 90,000km.

So plug in a 3 button mouse

[leonbrooks]

OS X will understand it, Temporal's sarcasm aside. (-: Dang Mac zealots, only thing worse'n a BSD zealot... oh... :-)

The answer

[BoysDontCry]

We'll never know, because there's no way to accurately measure it. Besides. Who cares?

Licensing bonus for OS X

[v1]

It's worth noting that while OS X is not /free/, it is CHEAP. Consider this... most people don't know, but if you read the fine print, an OS X license is good for FIVE MACHINES. This means you can buy one copy and install it on up to five puters at your house, and stay legal. That works out to $26 each. It's not free, but they are certainly trying to help you out here. And most people that would make that complaint are linux users, (since Windows doesn't offer that deal!) and I have yet to meet a linux user that owns fewer than 3 computers. Deal!

Re:Licensing bonus for OS X

[follower-fillet]

> but if you read the fine print, an OS X license is good for FIVE MACHINES

I am aware that Apple has previously offered a "family pack" (with five licenses) for OS X, but at around $US199 rather than $US129. Has that changed?

Re:Licensing bonus for OS X

[slantyyz]

That works out to $26 each.

In that case, I'd rather just pay $26 for the OS. Especially if I only have one Mac.

My Wife

[Bilbo]

My wife, who is no dummy, still has a hard time figuring out the difference between a "single-click" and a "double-click" on the mouse. She uses a computer only when she needs to (mostly word processing and email), and the stuff you and I have hard wired into our brains regarding basic GUI patterns simply haven't been used enough times to sink in. She learns a very narrow path to what she wants to accomplish, and never deviates from that path.

(Of course, if the simplest thing goes wrong, such as a floppy left in the A: drive so the computer won't reboot, she has to call me to fix it, but that just makes me feel needed... ;-)

Untweaked Linux GUI

[leonbrooks]

I sat down to a fresh Mandrake 9.1 installation yesterday, and everything that they are allowed to ship "just worked".

I typed one line at a shell prompt to bring an unofficial repository of Mandrake RPMs to the system's attention, started a package manager, selected all, and a whole lot of things which Mandrake can't safely ship (video CoDecs etc) came on line as well. This could have been done with a single click in the web browser, but for some reason Mandrake are a bit thingy about letting random websites have open slather on their systems. Note that it's possible to have that work OOTB as well (by defining a KParts handler for it and having that prompt for superuser rights).

Funny that the above paragraph describes the kind of stuff that Lindows want to charge you $99 a year for access to. And Lindows isn't shy about running stuff as root (how you say, disaster in the offing?).

Re: No Worries... But your wrong...

[Golias]

This assumes two things:

1. Linux market share will grow.

2. Apple market share will not.

Based on what I saw from the Stevenote today, and also based on my most recent miserable experiences with trying to download Red Hat images off one of the official mirrors via my DSL line (for all the talk of Linux being free-as-in-beer, it's a pain in the ass to get the latest distro any way other than by buying a cardboard box full of disks from your local retailer for about $50... sometimes more), I'm not so sure either assumption will turn out to be true over the long haul.

If Linux Wins, Who Loses?

[X-wes]

The thing that you must realise is that GNU/Linux is not trying to cut market share out from under Apple. Apple, if anything, has been friendly towards Free Software in general (or at least not showing a passionate hatred as Microsoft does). Linux will bloom, but so will Apple, for their respective reasons. Linux is powerful and robust. Apple is simple and elegant. Microsoft is, to be impartial, moving towards all of these goals, and they're not doing badly if users want a few advantages from each world. Unfortunately, for most people, this is slowly becoming insufficient, and it is from Microsoft's inflated market share that both the competing technologies will draw their user base.

Despite this, I believe that GNU/Linux will slowly surpass Apple. Linux simply has too much momentum behind it, and its development is moving swiftly and strongly. Apple will continue to grow, however, so don't write its obituary quiiiite yet.

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[Jeremi]

Hey Mister Anonymous Coward, notice how most of your points use the word "was", not "is"? While I totally agree that pre OS/X, Macs mostly sucked, the fact is that the Macs on sale now are just about the coolest personal computers you can buy. So yes, Apple is currently the Ferrari of personal computers.

Jeremy (not connected to Apple in any way -- I just recognize a good system when I see one)

Tru64 on the desktop

[leonbrooks]

ASCI Q runs Tru64, and I'd like that for a desktop (provided someone else pays the power bill).

It's interesting to note that the #3 supercomputer is Linux based, #2 is about twice as powerful as it, and #1 is about six times as powerful - but had ASCI Q arrived last year it would have been undisputed king of the hill.

Exactly

[BoomerSooner]

OS X can run 99% of Linux apps.
Linux can run 0% of OS X apps (unless you're running mac on linux which is the same thing as running mac on mac so I don't see the point).

X-11 Built in, BSD/UNIX core. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. Linux is a big reason I am where I am today (software developer, manager, sysadmin, etc). However, even though it has come a long damn way since the 0.98 Kernel and programming my own dot clocks for my graphics card/monitor, it still seems like there is no *professionally* done distro.

My grandma can install OS X, get her scanner, camera, printer, sound, internet, email working. The day she (or my mom) can do the same thing with a Linux distro I'll be very happy. Until then it's no contest.

I use Solaris 7-9, Windows 98-XP, Linux (2.2-2.4 based), Mac OS 9.2, Mac OS X (10.2), DOS 6.22/7.0 (MS/IBM) and WinCE/PocketPC 2000/2002 for my companies (I have 4 jobs right now). OS really doesn't mean much to me other than it's a new toy to learn. I like and hate things about all of them. Linux could be the biggest threat to OS X (not much to threaten) and Windows (believe me this does scare the shit out of Redmond). The only problem is a well done distro. If IBM would just get some nuts and drop AIX and focus all their attention on Linux, making a distro that *Just Works* like OS X. They could own the desktop once again. Now is the best opportunity in the next 20-30 years for this as most platforms are moving to 64bit and Intel dropped the ball (Itanic). I'm not sure it would necessarily be a good thing to have IBM as the defacto Monopoly but maybe they'd be better than the first time around (doubtful).

Oh well I guess the point is:
Linux Good
Mac OS Great

Linux and Mac OS are birds of a different feather

[fiftyvolts]

I've read a lot of comments and I am surprised at how few people touched this. I consider Linux and Mac OS X to be on about the same level as far as they functionally work. What is different is the philosophy each grows by.

Mac OS is driven by what I like to look at is a unified force. Apple puts together the hardware, makes the OS, and writes many of the basic computer apps people use on their machines. Developers who write Mac OS applications usually choose to follow the guidelines set by Apple (interface or otherwise). The result of this is that using a Mac is some what of an integrated package. The stereotypical person considering Mac is considering the benefits of the Hardware, software, and design.

Linux on the other hand is driven by driven by a divergent force. Sure there are leaders, like Linus, who set a general direction for the OS, but there are many different people with many different goals working on it. This leads to Linux having a sort of piece meal user experience. No two linux systems are a like. Linux is incredibly flexible and powerful, but it is also complex. The stereotypical person considering linux has some sort of goal in mind for the system. Weather it be for development, web servering, or simply to save money and be free of licenses.

I approximate that the switchers for linux to Mac os an vice versa will pretty much cancel out. The question is which way will the Windows users lean? Assuming they jump ship (fairly likely) will they choose Integration or Flexibility?

I'm putting my money on the former...

Got news for ya there, pardner...

[DesScorp]

Most of the switchers to OSX that I see aren't coming from Windows. They're coming from Linux.

The old Mac zealots are staying with Apple despite their dislike of it's Unix core (a typical comment is "I got a Mac to get AWAY from things like Unix and command lines". OSX is good enough that they're staying anyway).

That leaves the new crowd of Apple fans, attracted by it's Unix core. And there's a lot of them from what I've seen. I go to lug meetings around my state, and more and more Ibooks/Powerbooks are popping up, sometimes outnumbering X86 laptops running Linux. This is at LUG meetings, my friend. My own lug's vice president uses a Powerbook now. He only touches Linux now for his servers. Despite the advances of GUIs and window managers for Linux, what I typically see is if that a Linux guy can afford a Mac, he gets one. If he can't, he runs Linux with a shiny KDE or Gnome desktop and talks about how it's "just as good" as a Mac; usually he's looking at the Mac with utter lust as he says this.

I personally think this is one reason that Apple hasn't released a port of Quicktime for Linux. They're busy wooing Linux users, and doing it very successfully.

Re:Got news for ya there, pardner...

[robson]

Huh. Interesting point. I guess it's sort of like that quote I saw in someone's sig, "People who hate Windows switch to Linux; people who love Unix switch to BSD."

Re:Got news for ya there, pardner...

[prockcore]

what I typically see is if that a Linux guy can afford a Mac, he gets one. If he can't, he runs Linux with a shiny KDE or Gnome desktop and talks about how it's "just as good" as a Mac; usually he's looking at the Mac with utter lust as he says this

I'm a linux guy, I use RH9, I'm not a commandline freak, and I really hate OSX. I hate the fact that all the features that made OS9 good are gone. No more window blinds (unless you want to spend $30 for a shareware package). I think the Dock is the worst way to organize your apps, I can't tell the difference between a running app and an app that I haven't run yet.

I watch my coworkers fumble around their desktops, they spend several seconds mousing back and forth over the dock looking for Transmit or something, I watch them accidentally close the wrong window, over and over again because they can't tell which window is open. I watch them click and hold for 5 seconds for their Applications menu to open up (what good is a menu if it doesn't pop open immediately?)

I watch him save a file, and then wonder where it went, because it won't show up on the desktop until he clicks on the desktop.

My only conclusion is that OSX users are delusional.

Me, I'm happy with my Ximian Gnome desktop, it just works (hey, I thought that was Apple's line).

Re:Got news for ya there, pardner...

[IamTheRealMike]

I personally think this is one reason that Apple hasn't released a port of Quicktime for Linux. They're busy wooing Linux users, and doing it very successfully.

I think it's more to do with the fact that Linux media players have been able to play QuickTime movies for a long time now, and there's no real market for compressing stuff into a proprietary format that requires extra plugins to play.

Re:Got news for ya there, pardner...

[hmccabe]

I think the Dock is the worst way to organize your apps, I can't tell the difference between a running app and an app that I haven't run yet.

Assuming your Dock is on the bottom of the screen, there is a black arrow underneath the applications that are currently running. As it is the GUI, there is always an arrow under Finder.

I watch them click and hold for 5 seconds for their Applications menu to open up (what good is a menu if it doesn't pop open immediately?)

The idea of the pop up application menus doesn't really fit in OS X. Part of the transition to OS X is that most applications are bundles, so the Applications folder is an uncluttered listing of available programs. Most of the applications I need are on the Dock, but when I need to start up, lets say iMovie, I click on a shortcut to the Applications folder on the Dock and double click the icon for the program. My system has a total of 27 alphabetically organized applications (not including the Utilities folder) and I have no problem launching the program. If you still want a text based pull-down application menu, there is a shareware utility called fruit menu that gives you just that.

Re:Got news for ya there, pardner...

[Merk]

So because you've never used OS X you don't like it? That's enlightened. Hint: if there's a little black triangle next to the dock icon that means the program associated with it is running.

So you're basing your "OSX users are delusional" comment on the fact that when you're acting as a "backseat mouser" with your cow-orkers that things take too long? It's pretty obvious that whoever you're watching isn't much of an expert with the OS. If he/she was they'd be using a multi-button mouse, or at the very least control / option clicking on things to bring up menus instantly.

If you have the chance, try using OS X for a week. If you still don't understand it and don't like it, fine. But don't judge based on watching someone else misuse it. That's like saying that a Ferrari is an awful car because your grandma has trouble with it.

Ain't gonna happen, but if it did...

[RetiredMidn]

...it would be a good thing for OS X.

On the first point, suffice it to say I agree with those who point out that Apple (and even Windoze) will retain the bulk of their customers because of the relative ease of setup and configuration.

As to the second point, if Linux racks up numbers that good, much of it will be at the expense of Windoze market share. If Linux helps (re)establish a heterogeneous desktop computing market, especially if it does so by increasing popularity of *nix, it erodes one of the biggest objections to inclusion of Macs in the workplace.

Yes, but...

[jope]

Where are these mentally slow people getting the money to pony up for Apple hardware?

Oh wait. Hollywood. Nevermind.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[J. T. MacLeod]

S3 cards don't have spectacular drivers. I'd be hesitant to say you could get full speed DVD playback on anything with them. (not that it's much better on Windows...)

It's hard to debug without full hardware/software lineups, though...

no chance on convertng mac users

[dh003i]

As they are fanatical in their loyalty, just like my GNU/Linux and *BSD users, who are often fanatical in their loyalty to a particular distribution.

If GNU/Linux is to make inroads against Apple -- and, indeed, against Microsoft -- it will be through new users. There are many OEMs now that are offering GNU/Linux (usually RedHat) on their computers as an option, and online there are even ones that will install your GNU/Linux distro of choice (CraigWeb offers to install Gentoo, for example).

The important thing is to get OEMs to install GNU/Linux distributions -- preferrably, a spread of them -- by default. The significant cost-savings will alone create interest.

Before you go off ranting about how $100 isn't really a big deal, yes it is, to many people. Especially college students and those just entering the job-market.

When?

[briancnorton]

I'm sorry, but when exactly did linux become a viable desktop system?

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[SensitiveMale]

It gets easier after the first couple years.

Exactly.

But only because tens of thousands of programmers work for those couple of years to make it easier.

And if someone dedicates hours per day to learn and master linux for those couple years.

Not very many people want to do that.

The average Joe or Jane can be productive and self-supported with OS X in a few days if not sooner.

That is what will always hold linux back. Programmers who think "linux is easy. Just sacrifice your free time for a few years and then linux is very user-friendly."

I wouldn't say it's worse.

[BoomerSooner]

Just it's less cost effective (maybe not for long).

I run Apache/Tomcat, qmail, mysql on my personal server at my house. When I booted up I forgot to put the extra ram I had lying around into it. Since I'm a typical lazy computer person I figured I'd be due for a reboot once I found something was messed up from my install. The funny thing is that it's been 6 months and the 2 extra 128mb sticks are setting on top of my server and it's running off 128mb with 8mb free. Granted it doesn't take a big load but I have 8 people using it as a mail server, it's my personal webserver and I do test mysql/jsp development on it. It's a pentium III 450 (the first one to come out in '99? slot 1) and it is a champ. So I took my server and didn't reinstall it as a server, it became my personal machine (It's a Dual Pentium III 933 with 1024MB RAM, RAID 0 (I backup frequently & mirror) 80GB of HD space). I really don't see the need to upgrade because my Business (read: mistake) Class DSL chokes on anything (1.5MB down 128Kb (notice the little b) upstream) and my pathetic computer is faster!

I guess the $500 price tag for OS X Server on top of the hardware cost is prohibitive to a very small shop like I have (lol, my company just got a huge contract so this won't be for long). I'm going to mirror on hostway and use them until a redundant T-1 is reasonable for my companies income.

The real question is...

[Infonaut]

will the "Will Linux Pass Apple on the Desktop?" question become the standard geek flamebait, replacing the antiquated, "Will Apple survive?" and "Linux is a hobbyist's OS, isn't it?"

Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[poopie]

... is a Macintosh user.

Seriously, this is something that I believe hurts the cause of anyone who supports a choice in OSes.

Users should use what makes them productive.

If Apple really wanted to vie for a major place on the desktop, they'd release an X86 distribution, and then all of the MAC addicts would buy up copies of it for their significant others and extended families. I mean, the MAC fanatics I know would be giving everyone they know a copy of OS-X86 for Christmas!

Heck, Apple could probably even strongarm the software companies into supporting osx on multiple architectures.

But herein lies the problem - Apple still tries to be a Hardware&Software company and own their whole show. They need to port and license their OS. If they would have done this in the 80's, all of my Gateways and Dells would be running some variant of an Apple OS

As long as OSX doesn't run on commodity hardware (and Apple has done a good job ensuring that other vendors' PPC systems don't/won't challenge their hardware monopoly), it will remain a niche OS.

Linux has a major upper hand here -- find me a CPU, a bus, some storage device, a display device, and a gcc cross compiler and I can get linux running with a huge base of applications quickly.

What many people may not have noticed is that Linux is eating DOS's lunch in the embedded market since it runs on *ANYTHING* and has no licensing cost.

Re:Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[EelBait]

But herein lies the problem - Apple still tries to be a Hardware&Software company and own their whole show. They need to port and license their OS. If they would have done this in the 80's, all of my Gateways and Dells would be running some variant of an Apple OS

As long as OSX doesn't run on commodity hardware (and Apple has done a good job ensuring that other vendors' PPC systems don't/won't challenge their hardware monopoly), it will remain a niche OS.

Kind of like Sun's monopoly of Solaris/Sparc systems, and HP's monopoly of PA-RISC/HP/UX systems, and IBM's monopoly of POWER/AIX system? Or Sony's Playstation monopoly? etc. Do you even know what a monopoly is?

The name of the company is Apple Computer, Inc. Not AppleSoft. They make computers. That is their business.

They tried the OS license game. Those hardware vendors did nothing to expand the market but instead just canabilized Apple's hardware sales. It was a financial/business failure. Get over it.

Re:Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[boots@work]

Only thing more fanatical than a linux user... is a Macintosh user.


That's so true. I just happened to leaf through a Mac magazine (forget the name) and the degree of persecution/delusion expressed just took my breath away. I had trouble believing it wasn't a spoof. Just about every page had one or more of these:

* "Mac is so much better."
* "Even though we're slower in MHz and benchmarks it's really much faster"
* "Everyone (or Microsoft) is out to get us."
* "Only dumb people like other systems."
* "Why won't hardware vendors support us? We should all write and complain."
* "Steve is infallible"
* "Steve is ruining Apple"

It reminded me so vividly of Amiga or OS/2 users a few years ago. But the Amiga users had a better sense of humour.

It made Slashdot look like a paragon of selfconfidence and maturity. I'm sure not every Apple user (or publication) is like this, but some of them are pretty loopy.

Re:Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[poopie]

Kind of like Sun's monopoly of Solaris/Sparc systems, and HP's monopoly of PA-RISC/HP/UX systems, and IBM's monopoly of POWER/AIX system?

When did Apple "discover" the rackmount server market? 2003?

Solaris runs on many vendors' hardware and Sun is now pushing Linux and Solaris on X86, HP is moving their hardware and OS and customers to IA64, and IBM is a HUGE supporter of Linux on X86 and every other platform they make and have stated that they will replace AIX when Linux contains all of the required functionality

The name of the company is Apple Computer, Inc. Not AppleSoft. They make computers. That is their business.

Of course... AppleSoft is floating point basic for the Apple ][, everyone knows that ;)

They tried the OS license game. Those hardware vendors did nothing to expand the market but instead just canabilized Apple's hardware sales.

Exactly - everyone was able to make a cheaper PPC box than Apple, and Apple *HARDWARE* revenue dropped. That tells me Apple hardware isn't/wasn't competetive. If this has changed, the notion still exists in many people's minds that Apple hardware is overpriced.

When I can go to Fry's and build a system that runs OSX, I probably will -- betcha there's lots of Slashdotters who fall into the same category - user who would be quick to piece together a generic PPC system for $500 and pay Apple $120 for an OS, but wouldn't buy the entire sytstem from Apple.

Re:Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[Rand Race]

Wether Solaris runs on potato chips is not the point, they do have a "monopoly" on solaris/sparc.

Exactly - everyone was able to make a cheaper PPC box than Apple, and Apple *HARDWARE* revenue dropped.

And worse than that, Apple's reputation dropped because of the absolutely shitty build quality of most of the clones. I've got SE/30s and IICIs that still run like champs here a decade and a half after they wre built, but of the dozen or so PowerComputing clones we once had half a dozen years back, not a single one is left.

Re:Only thing more fanatical than a linux user...

[May Kasahara]

Lots of Mac users are artists! There's your loopiness factor right there ;)

Market share numbers

[LazyBoy]

Is it really reasonable to include multiple Linux distros when determining "Linux" marketshare?

Don't forget to lump the other BSD's in with OS X.

Linux on the desktop?

[Geminus]

Hmmm... I'm thinking wine and the amazing work of codeweaver's crossover. The percentage of Windows or MAC on my network? Zero...

Okay

[BoomerSooner]

Then build me a form programmable pdf that does spell checking and has embedded javascript to check date entry fields.

Oh wait you mean it has Acrobat Reader? I meant Acrobat Professional. The reason Acrobat PDF Format is so popular is because you can read it on any platform. Creating them is a different story (See Windows, Mac OS).

Re:Okay

[rmohr02]

Point taken. However, pdf is an open format, so it shouldn't be too long until a good editor comes.

Huh?

[Hobobo]

"what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris"

What on earth are those? Doesn't seem very impressive that Linux beat Tru64 operating system...

Already Has

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's new, expensive proprietary hardware is their only hold on their customers.

The only thing that will save Apple is an X86 version of their OS. The Mac hardware, while cool, is overpriced compaired to comparably performing Intel iron.

Or they could make the PPC into commidity hardware. I'd buy the new Apple box and OS X for $500.

Otherwise, they will be sticking with the failed market model of Tandy, Amiga, and TI. You remember them?

Apple's Catch 22

[alwynschoeman]

Apple makes money selling specialized hardware. Only problem is that their cpu's are slowly drifting and drifting out of competition with Intel and AMD.

If this gap becomes too big then no flashy gui is going to save you.

So now Steve has to this really hard problem. Say I put an AMD chip into my Apple hardware, won't that mean that I'm only selling a GUI now as my GUI doesn't force me to buy Apple hardware anymore?

Re:Apple's Catch 22

[AJacque]

Apple did release the G5's today, those are more on par with Intels and AMD stuff than any Apple hardware so far. Maybe your refering to the G4 when you say, "Only problem is that their cpu's are slowly drifting and drifting out of competition with Intel and AMD."

Apple and Linux

[smallpaul]

I find it odd that so many people react violently to the idea that Linux could beat Apple on the desktop. Of course, Linux will not wipe out Apple on the desktop. But I see no reason to doubt that Linux could surpass Apple on the desktop for some of the same reasons that new versions of Windows do: a little cheaper, a little bit better economies of scale on the hardware side, easier migration path for pre-existing hardware, dual-boot opportunities, etc. Do you really think the price issue is irrelevant to an IT manager figuring out how to fit a thousand desktops with a Word-compatible word processor? He's not going to look to Apple to save money. He's going to look to Linux and he's not going to deploy Linux on the desktop unless he can get such huge volume to make the transition worth the effort. That's what happened in Munich? When is the last time Apple had a win like that? And more important: does it matter? Can't Apple and Linux both succeed?

I mean even if the article portrays the situation as "success for Linux means failure for Apple", we should be smart enough to realize that that isn't true. Success for Linux means more portable software like Mozilla and OpenOffice. Success for Linux means that products start to be judged on their ability to work on multiple platforms again (that's almost totally fallen away these days). Success for Linux means that grunts can have cheap Unix boxes running free office software and managers and hotshots can have lickable ones also running Unix.

I don't think that the Macintosh has in recent memory cracked 10% of the market and today I think that even 5% would be progress. It would be sad to think that people out there have such low expectations for Linux that they say "no way will Linux ever beat Apple." Guess what: price matters more than quality and IT managers today see either Linux or Mac on the desktop as more expensive because of the support costs. But Linux can gradually eat away at those support costs. The Macintosh is forever stuck with the license and hardware costs. But that's okay. I don't care if a secretary in Munich uses a Mac. I use one and that's good enough for me. If she can save some money using Linux then I'm happy for her too!

Linux will take over all the..

[sakusha]

old piece of shit Wintel machines, as corporations retire old underpowered CPUs from desktops. The only good use for old Wintel hardware is light-duty file or web servers running Linux, corporations don't run old OSes in new mass deployments. But corporations tend not to run flaky old hardware in mission critical server deployments either. On the other hand, I just upgraded my ancient Mac G3/400 server to MacOS X Server 10.26, it runs great. Try that with an old PeeCee box of equivalent age.
On the other other hand, corporations will always be buying new state-of-the-art machines and software. The battle is for the NEWLY deployed machines. Linux hasn't got a chance.

what about "it just works"

[johnpaul191]

I guess it's that Apple thing where "it just works". The computer is a tool to HELP YOU work and play, as opposed to the computer BEING your work and play.

time is money.......

As is Linux

[BoomerSooner]

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

Web geeks and artists only make up a tiny portion of the desktop market. The VAST majority of desktop users have never even heard of most of those apps. Their availability on Linux is utterly irrelevant for 98% of the computing public.

How about Word, Excel, Changing Resolutions, Installing a Printer, Copying pictures off a camera, ... I guess normal users don't use those features either, just us web geeks/artist types.

Linux won't....

[callipygian-showsyst]

...but FreeBSD might.

The problem with Linux is there's no standard distribution.

And since OS X is more bsd-like, BSD is more "compatible" with it.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[reallocate]

Your post is right on target (he says with a Linux machine sitting on his desk next to an iMac). ONe of the structural advantages that a single vendor -- like Apple-- has over a disparate community like the Linux community is that it is able to ensure that "stuff just works" before putting the price tag on. In the bargain, fewer applications are likely to be available for any given purpose, but there's also much less demand or need for an abundance of similar apps.

Linux distributions can, if they wish, follow a similar path. That's part of what RedHat has been doing with their last two releases, and a big part of what Ximian does with its Desktop.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[Dixie_Flatline]

"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)"

You don't have a random sample of the population. I bet you know a lot more people that know what /. is than don't too. That must mean that /. is the most popular site around, right?

The demographic that is in contact with you is in no way representative of the normal population. You can run Linux, and so can the people that you know, so I can probably guess that you're probably generally better off than most people, have post secondary education of some sort, and probably like movies like 'The Matrix'. The people that walk into Walmart or Best Buy to buy a computer are NOT necessarily the same people that you know. In fact, it's likely that they bear no resemblance to you and your group.

Incidentally, I agree with this guy. I sold my PC last year, and I'm planning on buying a G5 this fall because I'm tired of system administration stuff like he was talking about. I used Slackware for years, and I'm a fairly reasonable administrator, but I don't want to do MORE work when I get home. In essence, I'm willing to pay Apple to be my sysadmin. That kind of convenience is worth my money, because the actual work isn't worth my TIME.

Nit Pick

[Tony]

2) DLL hell. I use Gnome and KDE sometimes. Mostly I try to use a few of the programs from each. GNU cash, KWORD .... which requires a lot of libraries == unnessary bloat, slowness and confusion when source compiling.

Okay, I agree with most of what you said, but this is just silly.

First, "DLL Hell" is reserved for DLL conflict, in which different programs require different versions of a library but the system can't cope; not "requires a lot of libraries."

Second, the fact they require a lot of libraries is *good*. The goal of Object Oriented Programming is code-reuse; this is considered a Good Thing. Now, libraries aren't necessarily OO in nature, but the fact that all these apps use a core set of functionality is really A Good Thing. This *doesn't* lead to bloat; it leads to faster development with less bugs, as the library becomes well-tested and well-debugged.

Slowness? Yes, since Linux seems to be a bit slow in dynamic binding. Troube compiling? Possibly, if you download the source and compile yourself. But, desktop users shouldn't be doing this! They should be doing "apt-get install gnumeric gnucash kword" or whatever. Or clicking friendly checkboxes and a button that says, "Download and Install."

Or whatever.

The rest of your points are valid. Not debilitating, I think, but valid. Unfortunately, because of the way politics works (and the computer industry is driven more by ad-hoc business politics than by worth and value, that's for fucking god-damned sure), I think OS-X doesn't stand much of a chance against MS-Windows.

But then again, Linux doesn't stand much of a chance, either.

Yet.

Re:Nit Pick

[sql*kitten]

Second, the fact they require a lot of libraries is *good*. The goal of Object Oriented Programming is code-reuse; this is considered a Good Thing. Now, libraries aren't necessarily OO in nature, but the fact that all these apps use a core set of functionality is really A Good Thing.

In practice, that's not what happens, tho'. Different developers prefer different libraries, so rather than have one library for each piece of common functionality, it actually works out that you have one complete set of libraries for each application - even if that app only uses a tiny fraction of the APIs in library that it insists is present.

Example: back in the day on commercial Unix, X applictions used the Motif libraries, and that was that. Nowadays on Linux with open source apps, you need to have Lesstif, GTK+, GNOME, etc etc, all doing the same thing in different ways.

Re:Nit Pick

[leandrod]

> with open source apps, you need to have Lesstif, GTK+, GNOME

No you don't. I use here only Gnome apps -- and Emacs. No Qt, no KDE, no Motif, no Lesstif. Obviously I need Gtk+, because Gnome uses Gtk+ itself, which is a good thing and not redundant. Ah, and XForms for LyX until the Gnome frontend gets ready. I don't miss no functionality, sirra.

That'd be a shame.

[Montreal Geek]

While I don't particulary enjoy Apple's hold-your-hand approach to human interface (I would tend to feel it is a tie-your-hands-behind-your-back-blindfold-and-gag- you approach) there is a wide market for easily digestible interfaces.

J. Random Secretary neither needs nor cares about flexibility, power, or cutomizability. Pointy haired bosses couldn't care less about command line interfaces, or wide availability of development tools. For them, the MacOS dumbed down interface is ideal-- it allows them to get their simple tasks done without giving them too many opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot.

There will always be a market for Mac-like systems, and dumbing down Linux user interface to that level would be disastrous for those who have technological work to do.

Plus, Apple has seen the light and actually has a real OS buried beneath the chrome-- giving the opportunity for real Open Source development and genuine stability and security.

I am a Linux zealot by all means, but I don't see Macs as competition. They are a required, and orthogonal part of the market. If Apple folds, we would all loose a quality product.

Let's pray Apple holds on dearly to its clue, and never lets go.

-- MG

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[reallocate]

>> ... a more advanced distribution like Debian

Depends on what you mean by "advanced", I guess.

Behind the screen, OS X, Linux and the BSD's are all peas in the Unix pod.

Because the OS isn't flawed.

[Llywelyn]

>So why the fuck don't they include one then? Sell you an
>overpriced machine, and then make you spend another
>$30 on a real mouse? WTF?

Simple. The OS is not so fatally flawed as to require two (or three) buttons to use effectively and, for the vast majority of users, a single mouse button is all they ever need for anything that they do on the computer.

Professional/power users, who need 3 button mice (or 2 button, or 12 button, whatever), can buy the one that they want--since whatever version Apple choose it would not work for many users who even want a multi-button mouse would need (I want a 3 button mouse, with the third button under my thumb, built for a right-hand! I want the same, but a lefty design! I want a flat, 3 button optical mouse! etc.)

So instead they provide an elegant one-button optical mouse with a clickable surface (rather than buttons) that will work for virtually all of their non-power users and even their power users until they find the right replacement.

It also simplifies tech support if everyone has one, but that's another matter.

Re:Because the OS isn't flawed.

[shaitand]

ummm since when do you have to be a "power user" to take advantage of right click. Last I checked you need to know a HELL of alot more than how to properly operate all the buttons on the mouse before you qualify as power user.

A power user isn't the grandkid who comes over and intalls software and clicked the right button one time and figure out if opens a menu with simple options. A power user is a programmer, computer technician, network technician, at the very least someone who builds their own computers. The competency level to properly operate a mouse is far below this.

Apple caters to the lowest common denominator above all else. This is bad, they should raise the bar a little bit and make people meet it, the world would be a better place for it.

To be fair.....

[Dark Nexus]

How many geeks do you know that buy from Dell?

I, for one, either get my machine custom-order from a local comp shop, or buy it piecemeal and build it myself (more the latter).

Which, if you know what you're doing, you can get the computer cheaper than you could at Dell (or others), as well as minimizing wasteage (IE: ATA133 drive with only ATA100 controller, PC-133 RAM running on a 100MHz bus, etc).

It's REALLY hard for Apple match the value of a well-built homebrew PC. Also, you're probably hard pressed to find a new Mac to put Linux on where you aren't already paying for OSX, giving another reason why Apple has a hard time competing on hardware prices alone for people who plan on using Linux.

Re:To be fair.....

[Dark Nexus]

I've been using the same homebrew "piece of crap" for over 3 years now. I've added..... let's see...... hard drives. Also, a video card to replace the one I kept from my last machine, which was already 3 years old at the time (still works fine, I might add). The video card and 1 of 4 hard drives happen to be the only pieces of the entire computer that are under 2 years old. Everything else is 2 (CPU, RAM, motherboard) to 6(NIC) years old.

See, that's what happens you don't use the lowest priced parts (everything is mid to high end), and actually THINK about what goes into it. You get a PC that isn't a piece of crap that stops working after a year or two, and you DON'T have to sink $500 into it every year to keep it running. Of course, for that, you need to have some concept of what you're doing when building a computer. But then, I said that the first time around.

Re:To be fair.....

[EvanED]

Same deal here. The computer we built when the Athlon 500 was near top-of-the-line is still the family computer, and it works just peachy. What's been replaced:

-a 40 gig hard drive was added, then removed for my personal computer
-an internal CD-RW after swapping the printer and parallel-part based CD-RW we had* cracked the solder connecting the part to the mobo and it conked out
-a USB to parallel port adaptor for the printer, also to fix the above problem
-processor fans

To the best of my knowledge, that's it. Most of the components were bought new, but the sound card (AWE64) came from the previous computer, which got it when I bought it off a friend.

*Yes, I had a parallel port CD-RW. Such is the price of early adoption; I remember when $1 for a CD-R was a good price, so when a pack of 10 was $30 with a $20 rebate, we got 3 boxes.

Re:To be fair.....

[2short]

"How many geeks do you know that buy from Dell?"

Lots. Well, personally, the machines I've liked have come from Dell, but my employer bought them. From this geeks perspective, hardware is, or rather should be, boring. Software is where it's at. Dell hardware is blandly competent, exactly as it should be. My home computer I shopped around to find the hot processor (~4 years ago) I wanted, figuring I could tweak the rest; wound up with Compaq, leading to 2Short's rule of computer shopping number 2: Never Buy a Compaq. ~4 Years later the hot Athlon 500 is sh*t over the next one down, and ~4 years of Compaq proprietary cr*p isn't worth it. Still, it's fine for remote-desktoping over to the hot (this year) Dell at work.

Sometime soon I'll replace my lame Compaq. Still undecided between the mid range at the used PC store, or a low end Dell.

Re:To be fair.....

[jdictionary]

"From a geeks perspective, hardware is, or rather should be, boring. Software is where it's at."

What?! You must not hang out with the same geeks that I do. Piecing toghether your own system with carefully selected components is very geeky. Buying a standard Compaq is not. I agree that software is just as important but the hardware makes all the difference in the world. Just take a look at games, which are about as cutting edge as it gets when it comes to software. Try playing Battlefield 1942 or Warcraft III, etc. on a Compaq and then go play it on your home brew system that you have built specifically for games and you tell me which one you get the most enjoyment of the software out of. Hardware is just as important, if not more so, then software.

Re:To be fair.....

[bninja_penguin]

Yep, you trolled me, as I feel the need to reply..... Let's see, $500.00 in upgrades every year, well, I've a K-6III 400Mhz that I've not spent a dime on in three years, and I keep "upgrading" my Linux distro every few months for....NO dollars!! Wow, try that running MacOS... They want a yearly fee for your "my mac" email, or homepage or whatever the hell it is.. and to keep your MacOSX up, you have to buy the upgrades?? Oh, and then comes along the OS upgrades that you want for your mac, and they won't run unless you buy a new machine. Hmmmm, I can install my Mandrake 9.1 distro on a machine 8 to 10 years old, can you do that with your MacOS?? I can actually use that same 8 to 10 year old machine for damn near anything I might want to.

And yeah, PC users shop by initial price only, just as Mac users shop by color matching their pullover sweaters to their Machines only.

Re:To be fair.....

[dadragon]

They want a yearly fee for your "my mac" email, or homepage or whatever the hell it is..

It's also a backup service, internet based storage, virus scanning, calendar and address book syncing.

and to keep your MacOSX up, you have to buy the upgrades??

Yeah, you know, like buying commercial software? Wow, that's shocking. I want Frozen Throne for free!!! It's just an upgrade!!! Why do I have to pay for the game twice???

Oh, and then comes along the OS upgrades that you want for your mac, and they won't run unless you buy a new machine

Okay, that's just FUD. Sorry pal, I've run 3 different verrsions of Mac OS on my computer, never had to buy a new one.

Hmmmm, I can install my Mandrake 9.1 distro on a machine 8 to 10 years old, can you do that with your MacOS??

I can install Mac OS 9 on any PowerPC based macintosh up till very recently. I can install Mac OS X on any G3+ Mac. I can install Mandrake 9.1 on my Mac, but I don't want to. Mac OS X has a better interface. I could also install Mandrake on any PCI based Macintosh.

I can actually use that same 8 to 10 year old machine for damn near anything I might want to.

That's super. It really isn't special, so I don't see what your point is. A friend of mine has a Powerbook Duo which he uses every day, that's 10 years old BTW.

And yeah, PC users shop by initial price only, just as Mac users shop by color matching their pullover sweaters to their Machines only.

You mean that all Mac users have snow white or metallic pullover sweaters? Let's not compare Macs of 5 years ago to PCs of today.

Re:To be fair.....

[Boltronics]

I decided on the specifications for a server to be used by my company. Every single detail was thought out. Then some other guy talked to management after me and said 'just get a Dell' stating rubbish like 'custom built machines just can't cut it for a server' and other nonsense FUD.

When we needed a new SCSI disk, I again had suggested a certain brand and model. I knew that the specifications and quality of this particular disk was excellent for the price.

Instead, the company decided on a Dell again. They paid $200 more then they would have if they had listened to me. I asked them what brand and model they choose. They didn't know.

So they rang up and asked what they had ordered. Dell said that they won't know what they are going to send. Great. Let me just say, that for what they charge, when they are this vague (eg. SCSI 60GB HD), they would want to have bloody good support.

Re:To be fair.....

[TheCrazyFinn]

As compared to my almost 5 year old G3/333.

I've bought 1 OS upgrade for it (OS X). and 256MB of ram. Runs like a charm, way faster than any K6 (feels just like a similar-spec Duron 600 running Win2K)

Oh, and Mandrake will not run on a 10 year old system (When did the Pentium come out? less than 10 years ago, Mandrake will not run on less than a pentium). Oh, and OS X will run on an 8 year old system (Unsupported, just like Mandrake on a P133-era system would be, and kinda slow, but it does run, and with a G4 CPU card, RAM and decent PCI video card, it'll run acceptably on a x500 PCI Powermac).

Re:To be fair.....

[2short]

You misquoted me:
"From a geeks perspective"

I said:
"From this geeks perspective"

The reason I don't find hardware compelling is that you can spend a lot of time and money carefully piecing together your home brew system that's hot stuff for the latest games, and I can wait a year and buy something better off the shelf for the same money.

"Piecing toghether your own system with carefully selected components is very geeky. Buying a standard Compaq is not."
I agree, but just because I'm a geek doesn't mean I have to be geeky in all respects. Still, I prefer not to be stupid. Buying the Compaq was stupid. Next time I'll go with something less proprietary, but I'll still let someone else put it together.

"I agree that software is just as important but the hardware makes all the difference in the world"
A very short time in the future, the difference between your hardware and mine will look trivial.

I do actually like playing with hardware, but I like to do it with a soldering iron in hand. Otherwise I'm just sticking together someone elses prefab, stock components. What's the fun in that? Dealing with compatibility hassles? No thanks. I'm not about to solder together a PC, or even any significant component of one, so at that point, why not let some one else stick the cards in the slots? Sure, if you want to get that last few percent closer to the cutting edge. But that looks to me like a losing game, the edge will leave you behind faster than I at least can pay to keep up.

Re:To be fair.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's REALLY hard for Apple match the value of a well-built homebrew PC."

IF you value your labor at $0.

Re:To be fair.....

[Zeriel]

Yeesh, the anecdotal evidence. Fine, I counter with my workplace: two dozen linux boxes, most homebuilt, some as old as 1994, maybe six hardware failures total since 1994. =P

Now that we've established a pair of meaningless data points at either end of the spectrum, real evidence please?

Re:To be fair.....

[Zeriel]

My labor on computers is valued in negative dollars, because I enjoy hardware hacking enough that it counts as entertainment.

I'd say that most homebuilders feel similarly.

Re:To be fair.....

[bninja_penguin]

Actually, If I recall right, the first Pentium chips hit in 1993, which would make it 10 years ago. And, yes, it would run real slow.
Yeah, you're right, a G3/333 does run OSX faster than any K-6 *smile*.
When you say "Mandrake will not run on less than a pentium" I hope you are meaning the latest versions, as I do have Mandrake 6.x somewhere, and it will run a a 386. *again, smile*.

Re:To be fair.....

[Dark Nexus]

I spent about 1 afternoon picking up parts, and maybe an hour at most putting the PC together. Burned MAYBE 2 hours pricing, most of which was done by looking at ads for local stores while I looked through a local computer mag.

As for knowing what to get, I read hardware reviews anyway.

Even at $50 an hour for my labour, I still saved a lot of money. Include the cost of gas for getting around, and the story is still the same.

And really, can you really factor in the cost of your own labour if you weren't going to be doing anything else anyway? If you were just going to sit there and watch TV? Surf the net? Troll on Slashdot? Charging for labour assumes that the time it took is valuable.

Re:To be fair.....

[TheCrazyFinn]

Pentium would be early 94 actually.

And a G3/333 running Jaguar is about as fast as a similar spec Duron 600 running Win2K (Which is what I said), it's significantly faster than a similar spec K6/400 if both are running Mandrake.

Oh, and Mandrake's selling point since 5.x is that it was compiled for Pentium and higher processors. Mandrake 5.2 (First version I used) was all i586 packages.

Infighting

[Tony]

This article seems to be a case of an MS-Windows geek pitting the two most-likely challangers against themselves.

Fuck that. "United we stand, divided we fall."

OSX is good. Linux is good. Who cares who has the biggest market share? We don't need to whip it out and do a size comparison.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[MidnightBrewer]

Ever actually install Yellow Dog Linux?

I downloaded it for free. Burned the CDs. Rebooted. Ran the installer. Except for some grief from my monitor (which even OSX is having some trouble with - I think I picked the wrong monitor), everything was set up automagically, no sweat. Sound, web, video, everything.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[13Echo]

True about that population thing. It may very well be that I just live in an area with very few Mac users.

Eh? I hate the Matrix, but that's beyond the point. ;) I can afford a Mac, but I don't think I'd enjoy it as much. Maybe some day, I'll tire of being able to do some tinkering with Linux, but I doubt it. It takes me only a short period of time to get a Slackware system up and running very nicely. I get all of my work done just fine, without any real degree of needing to tweak my OS.

It sounds like you did what is right for you though. I don't do system administration, nor would I want to (no offense). But when I have to be able to do things on a computer that require lots of flexibility, I look forward to Linux. Sure, OSX has configurability too, but it's very different in many ways.

In reality though, how many people really use computers for work? Some do, like you, but for the rest, it's just an expensive toy. Some, like Macs, are more expensive toys that others. Inthe end, they all amount to one thing; We all just jerk around and read Slashdot all day.

Actually...

[ZxCv]

Consider this... most people don't know, but if you read the fine print, an OS X license is good for FIVE MACHINES. This means you can buy one copy and install it on up to five puters at your house, and stay legal. That works out to $26 each.

The regular license that comes with the $129 10.2 is good for ONE computer. However, Apple also sells a 10.2 box for $199 that is good for FIVE computers. Even at that price ($40 each), it is not a bad deal, but how many people have 5 macs at home capable of running 10.2?

Probable but not impossible

[klupo]

I am a hardcore linux/bsd guy, when I ran from M$ about 6 years ago, I ran as far as I could go, I've ran every distro of linux under the sun( RedHat,Mandrake,Debian, Slack, even LFS ) and any "free" version of unix I could get my hands on ( Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD) ,by the way I didn't mention Gentoo because it is in a class all it's own, and then a friend let me borrow his powerbook, needless to say I'm writing this on my own ibook.
In the end we will always have wars of "Who has the biggest and badest OS around" and in the end it doesn't really matter as long as it's not Microsoft. Sorry BIGHEAD no soup for you.

MacOS X threatening Windows

[daviddennis]

I don't see the Mac as threatening Windows, since Apple does not make a $550 computer. Windows vendors make tons of them, and they sell tons of them. Linux is now in the $199 WalMart computer possible, and quite honestly, more power to it, and even to WalMart.

Linux IS going to pass Apple's market share, because Apple doesn't even compete in the low end of the market. What I protest about the Slashdot posting is the idea that Apple is going to be harmed by this.

I think Apple is going to increase its share in the high end of computing, which is its natural habitat. If you considered market share of computers costing $2,999 or more, I think you'd find Apple has an excellent chunk of that market, probably around 1/3.

Apple has laid the groundwork for this by buying up high-end applications like crackerjacks. Want Shake? Final Cut Pro? Logic? Mac time!

The main thing holding Apple back in this space was wimpy processors and high prices. But now that they have a processor that competes with $4,000 Xeon systems for performance, and all the software a digital art fanatic could ever want, I see them ready to make dramatic inroads in this space. If they're 30% now, they'll be 55% in six months.

There's little point in Linux trying to compete in this space; in the mainstream, Linux is about saving money, and you're not going to save people money selling a $4,000 Linux box when a $3,000 Mac's a better experience.

So Linux is going to do fine, and so is MacOS X. I wish I could say they'd all unite and destroy Windows, but Microsoft has enough loyalists that I don't think that's possible. But I do think we're heading towards a world with a lot more viable options, and quite honestly that's the best outcome for everyone involved.

D

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[pVoid]

I wish I could say they'd all unite and destroy Windows, but Microsoft has enough loyalists that I don't think that's possible

You're on to something here man...

Just breath deeply, and get rid of the hatred of windows... I personally think the desktop market miraculously being split 3 ways between OSX, Linux and Windows would be the best thing we've *ever* had. *EVER*

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[aliens]

Man just think of the cluster $3000 could get you. Let me just flesh out my dream systems.

1 head node:
2.4C P4 overclocked to 3.3 $175
1gig PC3200 Corsair RAM $300
Some insanely large HDD $100
Abit Springdale mobo $100
Case & Antec Powersupply $120
Nvidia 5600 Ultra(would like ATI but not for linux) $215
DVD-Rom $40

Other nodes:
3 Athlon 2500+ Barton ~$300
3 Nforce2 mobos ~$300
6 256MB Sticks of PC2700 RAM $240
3 cases & PS ~$250
3 Smaller HDD ~$300
1 Cheapo vid card for installs on each $30
3 CD-Rom $60

Linux on each: $0
Total: $2490

Okay, so it's not quite $3000, but I bet you can have plenty of fun with that setup. I forgot a switch, add that. All mobos come with built in NIC's. I think that's a good deal.

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[molarmass192]

Those nForce mobos are a f*ing pain under Linux. I have one and that box in constantly acting squirrelly. The most stable kernel I've found is the original 2.4.21-RC3 that added initial support for the nForce chipset. I'd be hard pressed to recommend it for running Linux ... yet. Also, those NICs only work with a binary -only driver at least until somebody reverse engineers that NIC chipset (I think it's based on the RTL hardware, not sure). Anyhow, I'm hoping it stabilizes in the 2.4.22 series because if they worked stably, they would be great values.

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[daviddennis]

I will defer to the other chap who replied about the nature of the motherboards, which really isn't that important anyway; you could always get different ones, and the point of three fast systems for the price of one very fast system is certainly valid. Even Steve, when demonstrating the new compiler features, is using distributed computing to make compiling faster, which is very good.

That being said, I think most of the buyers for the PowerMac want a packaged solution that works. Your system is going to require hours of enjoyable tinkering or wretched pain, depending on your attitude and how dependent you are on the system being up and running. And then it still won't run Final Cut Pro or even iPhoto.

These markets are so different that I wouldn't even consider one system competition against the other; the person buying your cluster doesn't want a PowerMac, and the person buying the PowerMac wouldn't want your cluster.

D

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[daviddennis]

It's easy to hate Windows, primarily because Microsoft has been so aggressive in marketing it that it's all but impossible to prevent it from touching your life, even if you do your darndest to actively avoid it.

However, in realistic terms, you are absolutely right :-). Windows has its place, thanks to the huge hardware and software variety it offers. But as you say, at least now we have alternatives, and can use the best tool for the task. And that's an enormous improvement over how the world was looking a few years back.

D

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[Pfhreak]

I agree with you that it'll be the best thing we've ever had. Just in terms of innovation: if one of the three stumbles, at least one of the other two will pick up the slack. With only two, if one stumbles, the other won't bother picking up the slack because there's no competetive reason to.

However, given the amount of cross-porting between Mac OS X and Linux lately, you could say that a tenuous alliance against Windows is already in place. ;-)

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[pVoid]

You could say the same is happening between Mac and Windows (MS Office suite, Photoshop -- the heavy weight apps of business computing)... remember, it's not about portability anymore, it's about interoperability...

An office can have Macs and PCs, so long as they can interoperate... at my previous company, the media department was Macs, the programmers were NT... it worked just fine.

Re:MacOS X threatening Windows

[shaitand]

And what about the day when windows DOESN'T have an advantage in commercial software available and drivers, and doesn't have an advantage in terms of games available?

Will it have a place then? I honestly can't think of any honest to god true advantage to using windows over linux that isn't about market share.

Apple Loves IBM, IBM Loves Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think its much more likely that Linux and OS X are synergistic (look it up). Here is why:

1. IBM will be providing the 970 processor which is the new CPU for all the new Macs.
2. IBM is currently the largest single investor in private Linux R&D.
3. IBM is concerned mainly with the server side and Apple with the client side (apple servers aside ;-).
4. I'm thinking that products like clusterKnoppix with an OS X client side would work very nicely with each other. Same for IBMs virtual Linux machines in 3090 boxen.

In any case, its more likely that many creative engineers, scientists, artists and musicians will embrace OS X on the client as well as Linux on the server. At least those with $$.

Also, within certain limits price be damned. I love OS X. I've programmed/used computers since 1975 and everytime I boot up my Mac it feels like a comfy old pair of shoes. Like my favorite pair of jeans. I know that is very subjective, but so is any user experience.

This from someone who only uses windows for CounterStrike. I've configured Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/X etc ad nauseum. I've owned TRS80s, Atari 800s, Amigas, PCs and now my PowerMac.

Only real thing I would fix on the Mac is to:

1. Make a three button wireless mouse the default.
2. Make a more ergonomic key feel on the keyboard.

Honestly everything else on the machine feels very professional, but that damn keyboard looks like it costs $300, but feels like it cost $5 from CompUSA.

Maybe

[Okin]

Apple has an edge in the desktop market due to three primary advantages ove Linux.

1) It is standardized 2) It is very asthetically pleasing to the lamen 3) Super user friendly

Linux can dominate only if a standard can be met for a GUI that low end users can relate too over a series of computers. (i.e. a friends, neighbors or family members desktop) You can go from one OSX to the next and not get lost. Where as with Linux One person can run KDE, another Gnome and another Blackbox and the lamen will be like wha-da-fuh?

By asthetically pleasing I mean damn it is purty. If you have dealt with it you know the anti-aliased fonts aren't always bugged. They work. You know the task bar won't fall under some weird glitch and fail to work now and again. You know what it will do at any given moment if you perform the same command or function to it you always do and it does it in such a way that it is gorgeous to watch over and over.

I shouldn't have to comment on the user-friendly portion here. Lamen shouldn't have to know how to configure any files to make it boot X properly or how to blaze through a driver file to activate the proper driver that has been commented out. You should install it, it should work with out effort. This is for the lamen of course. For those who are technically inclined, (who enjoy the how and the why) that is cool yo. But for that individual who doesn't know what an email filter is, they should have to be hasseled by trivial little things they will never comprehend.

It is like electricity. The lamen plugs it in and it works. They should have to know that the device is operating at 60hz. Or that the plug is alternating current. All they should have to know is that they can do something over and over and it will work everytime.

If the linux community can achieve this then they can take Apple. But seriously... if it doesn't look pretty then the lamen isn't gonna be impressed. Just like EQ. I don't care if your leather armor has 45ac. I have a damn fine looking plate setup here with only 20ac. I may take more damage but damn I look good doing it.

What if Adobe and Macromedia ported to linux?

[huphtur]

A big reason for Mac's popularity is because a lot of designers use the Mac for thier work. It is almost standard in the print design industry to use Mac's. Plus a lot of webdesigners use the Mac.

I'm a designer that has done a lot of print work and now do a lot of web stuff. I personally prefer the PC.

What if Adobe and Macromedia ported all their apps to Linux? I would switch in a heartbeat from my PC to Linux. Would Mac users switch? No.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[threephaseboy]

For starters, comparing a more advanced distribution like Debian to OSX is rediculous.

It's not stupid! It's advanced!

Extinguishing Candles

[buckhead_buddy]

"Extinguishing someone else's candle doesn't make your own shine brighter"

If Unix takes over the desktop, Macs & Linux machines will both greatly increase in market share but from opposite customer markets. Linux from the soldering, compiling, experimenting & tinkering crowds. Mac OS from the simple, hands-off, no-fuss & no-muss crowd. When that day comes Linux will rule in terms of numbers of computers, but Macs may rule in terms of profit margins. That's a symbiotic relationship that will make a lot of people happy.

But to get there, the key is reducing the reliance on Windows. If you're corporate department is considering a large purchase of desktop machines and you're a Linux geek, make the argument for Mac OS X today. If you're a Mac geek whose department is replacing PC's with newer models, convince the PHB's to recycle the older hardware with Linux and turn them into file servers, print servers, backup stations, and simple desktop machines.

If the world moves toward Unix and away from Microsoft, it will help both Mac OS X and Linux.

Re:Maybe...but iTunes has clones

[nick58b]

Plus no one has anything like iTunes.

Rhythmbox
JuK
liteamp


Put on your sunglasses before visiting JuK's website.

Market Share will change hands

[TitanBL]

It will be intersting to see this one play out. I installed RH 9 on a machine I use as a LAN server and I have to say that I am pretty impressed. Gnome/KDE blow windows out of the water IMO. I think that you will see a large shift in market share as the common man becomes more computer literate.

One example - I went to visit my family a few months ago - was talking to my 15 year old sister and noticed that her desktop looked odd. Took a closer look and realized she was running KDE. She explained that she was sick of her system getting virri and being generally unstalbe, always having to reboot - so she googled for an alternative to Windows and ended up installing Suse herself. My sister is not knowledable about computers - she just uses her machine for email, webbrowsing, mp3s, and IM.

This made an impression on me - I think that the days of the 'computer impared' are numberd. Her generation is not going to put up with Palladium - ha.

I think Palladium will cause a good amout of market share to change hands. Will it go to apple or linux? I think it will be about even when it comes to the home user - but if linux starts eating into apple's share I am certain they will just release OS X for X86.

Laptop market

[mke]

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.

Re:Laptop market

[BigDish]

I'm just barely past Linux Newbit and had no problem getting Debian to work on my Dell Inspiron 4150. Accelerated video, Wifi, Ethernet, Sound, DVD Playback, etc. The only things that didn't work, were the modem, and possibly the TV out (Never tried it). Same on my Dell Inspiron 4000. And my HP Pavilion N5125. I've never had any major issues getting Linux running on a notebook. Any issue I've had with linux, I've just as much of a problem with Windows at some point. As to why not a Mac, I've got 3 reasons. Price, expandability, and propritary. First off, I hate everything propritary, so that alone hurts the mac's case bigtime with me. I do not like being at one vendor's mercy, which is why I'm switching my desktop to Linux. Second price. You can get a cheap PC from Dell for $250. The cheapest mac you can get from Apple is like $800. I toyed with the idea of a 12.1" ibook (it's the only mac notebook I don't find ugly) but it has no PCMCIA slots, so I have no futher interest in it. Apple takes things like the Airport connectors, which are PCMCIA and makes them slightly propritary, just because they are apple. This is why I am not interested in a mac. Show me a current apple motherboard and CPU bundle for about $200 I can drop in a ATX case and I'll get one to play with, but I'm not dropping $800 on a low end mac when I can build a very respectable PC for the same amount.

Re:No - What a misleading article intro

[mla_anderson]

Linux does not need heavy tweeking to become a polished desktop. Install RedHat 8+ and you'll see a very polished desktop that just works.

I'm running RedHat 7.2 on my wife's machine. The only tweaking I've done is to install the Ximian desktop (that takes one command line). The machine runs well and has been doing so ever since 7.2 came out.

Bass ackwards

[leonbrooks]

Spend USD$3k on a commodity PC (or buy four little PCs, some networking gear and IO cards) and be amazed. I'm pretty sure I could squeeze four Athlons and a few GB of RAM into the box for USD$3000.

But have they tasted the Apple?

[wukie]

One bite and the other 97% will become Apple zealots themselves, but you virtually have to "bring them" the Apple, the rest is instinct!

Re:But have they tasted the Apple?

[jedidiah]

This is a pleasant fantasy.

However, Apple couldn't even attract users away from PC's when all they ran was MS-DOS.

More Buttons on your Mouse then Brains in you

[Tseran]

Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons

They're absolutely correct. I know several people on WebTV (aka MSNTV) that look at a multiple button mouse (heck, even a single button mouse for some) with a mixture of fear and terror. They know that their boxes are already obsolete, and that within a couple years, MS will stop supporting them entirely and they will need to move to a computer or loose the internet, and it terrifies them. Some are old folks who think a computer is too much for them. Others are like my ex girlfriend who is just a technophobe and hates learning new things. I have seen some of the pictures which say "keep your damn mouse, I want my WebTV" and know that while us computer users look down on AOL folks for their lack of internet savvy, most of us don't even see the WebTV folks, as they don't make that big of a noise at all. The eerie thing is, there are still a LOT of them, just ask the old Talk City management...their customers were half Webbies.

If you have the money for a Mac, you can probably afford any mouse you want to go with it. Personally, I've been using my trusty IntelliMouse Explorer for something like five years now, and I don't intend to give it up until someone pries it out of my cold, dead hands!

I say the same about my mac, and yes, I do use an IntelliMouse, which is pretty much the only Microsoft product connected to my machine next to IE, which I am slowly phasing out.

This story is getting old

[Xabraxas]

I've heard this bunch of garbage for too long. I installed Red Hat 9 on a laptop with a scanner, a printer, a pcmcia ethernet card, and an external usb hard drive all without a hitch. The OS detected everything and I didn't have to touch a thing other than installing a driver for the scanner. It was as easy, if not easier, than installing windows on the same machine, which I have done quite a few times before.

It's time to stop spreading the FUD. Anyone who can setup and use Windows can setup a Mandrake or Red Hat box. It is only difficult for some people stuck in a Windows world who couldn't imagine anything else. The completely clueless will learn either just as easily. Admittedly even former MS zealots (myself included) can find it not too difficult to setup a Linux box.

Re:This story is getting old

[Jagasian]

Exactly. If people that spread this myth would just try the user-friendly distros like Mandrake, Redhat, SuSe, or even Knoppix... they might realize that they are wrong. Redhat in particular made a big jump in usability with the release of Redhat 8.

Also, as I said, Linux keeps improving, and since it is easy to obtain and install... your computer can improve with it. OSX might improve, but you have to pay big bucks to get new versions.

Re:This story is getting old

[Slack3r78]

I've personally used both MDK9.1 and RH9 for a few months each, and while I had no problems finding my way around either, I wouldn't by any means consider myself the "average" user. I've got a couple of years playing with linux on and off under my belt, and there are still times I have to go digging to figure out what the hell needs to be done to get component XYZ working. And as my grandparent poster stated, until pretty much EVERY major setting can be easily changed without having to fire up VIM(or an equivalent) Linux isn't really ready for the general user.

Re:This story is getting old

[nametaken]

I'd have to say that, though I don't personally like or use them, I think I could hand over a >=RH8 or Mandrake box to my mother. She'd need the same help configuring an email client and getting her connected to our network that she would with a Windows machine. The only thing she wouldn't like is the occasional, but inevitable, inconsistancy generated by her Windows using friends when they send things like slide shows made as ".scr"s. We know better, all she knows is that it doesn't work until she calls me.

Re:This story is getting old

[Xabraxas]

What are you doing wrong that is causing you to reinstall.

Using it. I switched to Linux because I was tired or freezing, rebooting, and reinstalling. I had been interested in Linux for a few years but only had this laptop to play with and I needed Windows for school. No more freezing, no more rebooting, and no more reinstalling. The only way to avoid a reinstall is to never touch anything, otherwise it just gets too fragmented, which is another reason I switched, because my HD was so fragmented (and yes I defragged it) that it got thrashed and I had to buy a new one. I decided to freshly install Linux on the new HD and not waste my time with Windows again.

If you can't set up a Windows box properly, what makes you think that you can set up a Mandrake box properly?

Um who said I couldn't set up a Windows box? I think I mentioned before that I have several times before. ME just has to be reinstalled because it sucks so much it just wants to explode on you. Windows 2000 was the stopgap replacemnet that I had to install before I switched to Linux. Besides you don't even have to know how to setup a Windows machine to set up Mandrake. Just click the appropiate boxes. It doesn't get much easier than that.

On a side note, I know what you're trying to do. Somehow you want to blame all of Windows' inadequacies on me. I know how to use a computer. I have 4 computers in my house that all ran Windows at one time. I have a network setup for all of them. I switched all of them to Linux. Because of this and previous learning experiences I know all about networking with both Linux and Windows. I also know perl and a little c and c++. I use gentoo now on my laptop so I don't need hand holding if that's what you're implying. I taught everything and anything I know about computers to myself. I'm not claiming to be a guru of anything but I do know how to work a computer.

Market Share != yummy GUI + bad ass HW

[rjethmal]

"A column posted today on Slate ponders projections that Linux PCs will pass Apple in desktop market share next year." Market Share != yummy GUI + bad ass HW Linux's market share is increasing at a faster rate than Apple's; todays announcements are great! I've been drewling over the g5 all day. Thing is REAL market share is not about how slick and integrated things are, it's about how cost effective a solution is. Compared to a Linux box an Apple box doesn't really win that argument on the desktop (at least for me) for the common joe...

Never

[jvalenzu]

When you decide you want to stop fooling yourselfs, click the link.

Flaws in your arguement

[wukie]

Linux use to grow proportionally to the available commercial titles that support linux and proportional to the ease of use of linux.

Apple and MacOS will do the same, it's just that they are so far ahead now on everything but price as you say. How many non-geek people in your street would consider Linux over MacOSX if they were the only two to chose from?

If Linux wasn't free it wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Re:Flaws in your arguement

[rakbladet]

If Linux wasn't free it wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Of course not, we wouldn't even know about it. Its development has depended on that very fact for over a decade.
Seems to be a great way to produce good software. And will continue being so.

Correction:

[Tokerat]

The lowest priced G5 is $1999. Expensive, and remember, just like with any OS, the power users adopt first. I don't want no stinkin' eMac, that's for sure.

Source Credit

[benntop]

Slate should have had to say in this article that they are essentially a subsidiary of Microsoft. Does anyone else sniff the air when an article like this comes out the day of the G5 unveiling?

Re:Who cares?

[Telastyn]

Sorry, my comment was unclear... I'm not confidant windows is going to keep kicking ass, but until OSX and/or linux gain enough market share to become indespensable it won't matter. In other words software developers will continue to largely ignore the minority platforms for things outside their 'niche'. Once that critical mass is reached there will be *much* more software for the minority platforms, and desktop software will run on each one [give or take a few months and features].

Re:Maybe...but iTunes has clones

[spirality]

Yeah I'll second that thing about JuK's website. Ouch!

Rhythmbox actually looks like the best one of the bunch, but damn it's a clone and is much less pretty than its inspiration. JuK looked pretty clunky and liteamp is alpha like hell. You didn't mention XMMS.... interesting.

It's good people are doing what the like to do, but like I said in a different post on this thread, the programs are mediocre clones and they exist in a vacuum. I would bet that none of these programs can interoperate with OSS Photo programs like iTunes does with iPhoto.

Re:literacy

[pVoid]

where do you come from? a cellar at harvard (grammar nazi), or a bayou in louisiana (xenophobe/racist)?

It's called humour, and it's quite sad to see you can't take it...

Yes, mostly

[Magic5Ball]

Most stuff (memory, drives, standard interface cards, USB devices and many video cards) is swappable between PC and Mac. Apple stuff (motherboard/CPU) and Win(Modems/Printers) are not. Bootstrapping ROMS on PCI cards don't work on the other platform, but the other functions of the cards generally work if there's a driver for it.

Cooling fans and power supplies were the same as on a PC a couple years ago, but not quite standard now, and the standoffs for mounting the motherboard are different. Also, Xserve drive modules are pain.

Re:Yes, mostly

[MidnightBrewer]

What do you mean by, "Win(Modems/Printers) are not?" Not swappable? I just bought a new Epson printer that is cross-platform compatible; it uses USB and requires only platform-specific drivers (which were available.) Same goes for modems.

Re:Yes, mostly

[TheCrazyFinn]

GDI-based printers(WinPrinters) and WinModems are not cross-platform, since they actually do all the real work in software on the PC, rather than hardware in the modem/printer. Most decent printers render in hardware, so they'll work with driver support.

Apple rules (again)

[thedoktor]

I watched Steve Jobs address at WWDC today, and I have to say, I was almost drooling when I saw the Xcode's "flowers/petal" demo. With X integrated into Panther and safari and Xcode (for free!) and add VPN into the sweet deal, who gives a damn about Linux? I have Linux/Windows as well as OSX, and since I got my baby (an iBook) about 6 months back, I am a lifelong convert. I for one wont mind paying 120 bucks for Panther. Linux is for people who want to spend time on the computer. OSX is for people who want to spend time on their mac's.

nice try, buster

[dh003i]

But you don't get to compare hard-core distributions like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Stampede, and so one and so-forth -- that were intended for power users who really know what they're doing -- to Apple's OS', which are intended for users who are still looking for the any key.

If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare to a distribution like Lindows, which is intended for someone who's still looking for the any key.

Once you make that fair comparison, Linux has a huge advantage, because you can get it for less than $300 and still have reasonable performance for any common daily activities (you won't get good FPS on such a comp, but it will be fine for picture editing, word processing, spreadsheets, databases, internet browsing, and e-mail checking). Now, find me an Apple for $300 with a modern OS on it, and that performs well, and doesn't require you to wait several seconds for every app to open.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[nathanh]

Your experiences simply don't match mine. Not anymore.

Web browsing.. so I've installed a nice linux system with Debian, and added what I think is enough packages to get X11 and Gnome up and going.. whaaa.. where's the web browser? Oh right, I need to install that too, should I use Phoenix, Galeon, Netscape, Mozilla, or Joe-tcltk-webrowser.. I think I'll go Mozilla. Everyone seems to be using that now. Hang on, why do the fonts look screwed up? Oops, it looks like I needed to install fonts as well.. I'm sure it comes with some good ones.. there we go. Anti-aliasing? Oh, easy.. xft.. wait, it doesn't see the fonts now.. need to rebuild the fonts.dir file. Screw it..

I typed "apt-get install mozilla". Clicked the mozilla icon in the foot menu. Anti-aliased fonts worked first go.

Playing DVDs, yep, Linux can do that.. all I need is mplayer or vlc or xiph.. and then I just need to install the dvd libraries and it plays! VIDEO_01.TS .. where is my damn menu?!@#.. umm, but then I need sound. So then I just need to choose between ALSA and OSS. And then find a sound card which works with those libraries. Oh, and then pass a funky kernel parameter to grub, editing a config file, so it can do duplex sound, and hey presto, I have DVDs playing, with sound... but I'm only getting 10fps on my Athlon2ghz.. oh, oops, I'm not using the nvidia kernel and xfree86 extensions for hardware acceleration! Silly me, how could I forget!

I typed "apt-get install xine". Clicked the xine icon in the foot menu. Clicked the DVD button in xine. Worked first go. Fullscreen, too.

Ahh, I think I'll just listen to my MP3s with xmms.. hang on, why is it dying with signal 11 every few minutes? ooh, oops, I used the version of it that came on my OS install CDs, and that had an off-by-one bug somewhere.. ahh well, just need to download it again and install.

I just clicked the MP3 icon in the file browser. Worked first go.

Now if you want to hear about my latest experience with Windows that required installing 3in1 drivers, Detonator drivers, PowerDVD software, service packs, Audigy drivers, and after about 6 CDs and 15 reboots I had a system that could finally play a DVD... well do I *really* need to explain my frustration here?

About your sig...

[rpete]

> My little iMac can encode MPEG4 video in realtime. > Show me an x86 that can do that. Or, shut up about > x86 performance.

1GHz athlon can easily do this, 720x480 video divx5 encoding at 10000 kbps in real time. Perhaps it's time to updage your sig, since my machine isn't exactly the bleeding edge these days.

Re:About your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should go read the MPEG4 specification. DivX;-) (3.11a, 4, 5, XVid, whatever) are all implementations of MPEG4.

Yes.

[leonbrooks]

Not as easily or seamlessly as on a USD$1500 Mac, to be sure, but the tools are there to do all of the above and can (have, in the case of my sister-in-law) been used by non-technical people to do just those things. She doesn't have a DV camera, but others do.

Cinelarra and friends aren't as easy to use as iMovie, but Mandrake does give you access to $zero film tools like CinePaint (many of which, it must be said, will also run under OS X with an X server). How much did you spend on software on top of your USD$1499?

BTW, given a choice between OS X in stable Apple hardware or MS-Windows on commodity PC hardware for anything like comparable pricing, I would be hard pressed to not choose the Mac. But given a choice between a good Mac at AUD$3k or a good PC running Linux at AUD$2k, I'd need some justification for that extra AUD$1k.

Re:Yes.

[2nd Post!]

I spent $69 on AppleWorks and $89 on Photoshop Elements 1, and $69 on Photoshop Elements 2. I've spent $11 on AthenaIRC/Minerva, $129 for OS X Jaguar, and $49 for iLife.

I do think that's it. Why do you ask?

As per Mac vs Linux, if at the time I had bought my Mac in August of 2002, if there was a Linux distro and a PC for significantly less than $1499 that could burn DVDs and make movies, etc, etc, etc, I would have seriously considered it. I found nothing.

Today you can get a 1.25GHz G4 DVD making workstation for $1499; I bought a 933MHz G4, but the point is the same. Can you, today, buy a Windows PC or Linux PC to do all that? Cause I'll have to look into those Linux tools (they do, I think, run under OS X!)

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[MrGHemp]

" I know *many* more Linux users than Mac users"

That's funny because I know very few Linux users and lots and lots of Mac users... so, I'm thinking it's that whole birds of a feather thing.

or maybe that's what happens when you spend too much time in coffee shops

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[trouser]

hmmm...interesting.

So you chose a distribution which expects you to do a lot of work configuring the system rather than just installing a default suite of pre-configured apps and now you're upset that it did exactly that.

I have YDL installed on my iBook. I wanted to use the machine as a general workstation so I selected 'general workstation', or something like that, from the install options and that's what I got. Everything works, haven't had to change anything.

Not that there's anything wrong with Debian, it's just intended for people who want a lot of flexibility/options.

Monster PC

[john_smith_45678]

Sounds like an episode from the upcoming Discovery show "Monster PC".

Who says they haven't?

[RiffRafff]

I mean, seriously. Apple knows exactly how many copies of its OS have been installed. Linux companies, eh, not so much. Even if they keep track of sales AND the number of downloads, how can they possibly know how many times a distro has been passed around? And the Mac OS pretty much has to run on a Mac. Not so Linux. My personal experience says, there's a lot more machines out there running Linux than you think.

Re:No.

[zinzarin]

Bill Gates: Total market dominance, I want it all.

Lucifer: I can't do that, humanity would never buy it. How about I squeek you in between 90 and 95% of the market share, and make sure that no other company can ever touch you?

BG: Yeah, I guess that will work - I'll still be, like, way bigger than Steve, right?

L: Oh yes - Steve's deal had nothing to do with market share, that will work fine.

BG: Great, count me in!

L: Okay, your finger...

BG: Ouch!

L: Only hurts for a second, now just sign here and we're all done... good, welcome to the club, Bill!

Well said!

[detritus.]

You have described my exact frustrations with the Linux desktop to such an accurate degree it's scary.

For now, I will stick to the console (like I have for the past 6 years) and patiently wait for a usable linux desktop (that works from the get-go).

GNU/Linux is inevitable

[Chad E Dirks]

"Sorry wishful thinkers... linux ain't gonna do nothin' to OS X. In any case, it'll have much less effect on OS X than it could have on Windows."

Maybe not on its installed base, but what we are discussing is market share. If Apple is content with the number of users they presently have, then that's wonderful, but it isn't much to brag about either.

GNU/Linux is inevitable.

Look at the OpenOffice.org suite. While it is not now as feature rich or as polished (no, it isn't) as Office XP, it seems inevitable that it will in the near future come sufficiently close to being so in enough respects that for majority of users it can be considered its equal or better.

Surely there is a point in the near future, if it has not already passed, when the the increase of features in Microsoft Office which are beneficial to to used by more than a small minority of users, will come to be quite insignificant. There are only so many different useful ways one might want to create a document. Visual polish and enchancements to clarity and ease of use, which are already not far behind, will surely come soon.

If this is the case, I can not help but believe it to be inevitable that within the next several years OpenOffice.org will for the majority of users be the equal of MS Office, or its better, and be free of cost (at least to license).

Further, for email, scheduling, and coordination, Ximian Evolution is already there, is it not?

Mozilla Browser already appears to be superior or equal to Microsoft IE in nearly every important feature, except perhaps for certain proprietary plugins, but how much of a concern is that?

While it may be a long time before Linux has as much support from hardware vendors as does Windows, for the corporate client it does not matter whether or not a user can plug in and use brand X digital camera, brand Y scanner, or brand Z printer, as it might for the home desktop user.

Re:GNU/Linux is inevitable

[shaitand]

Don't forget, as that user base grows, the ability to plug in brand x digital camera and brand y scanner will improve as well.

Confirmation for 'No'

[mao che minh]

Linux passed AIX, HP-UX, etc in market share because it can do everything that companies require of AIX, HP-UX, etc very well (scaling, intensive app serving, massive storage and high speed retrieval, databasing. etc). Furthermore, development in these key areas of the operating system has been and will continue to be very strong. And in the end, of course, IBM kicked in and started marketing Linux heavily in these key areas.

As it stands, Linux can not outperform Macintosh in any area key to desktop use (as it relates to Mac users). Linux can do the same in many respects (like offer a decent web browser and MP3 playback), but overall user interface and major application support from key vendors is lacking and or far behind (Aqua, Photoshop, PageMaker, DreamWeaver, printer support, etc). Until these key desktop areas are addressed, the vast majority of Apple users won't mind paying the extra $$$ for convienence and famailarity.

Despite how much I love Linux, despite the fact that I contributed over $500 dollars to various Linux companies last year out of my very small pocket, and despite the fact that I use Redhat as my desktop operating system, I know that it ain't ready.

Re:I don't buy it.

[vorpal22]

No detailed studies, but it's fairly clear from reading slashdot posts since the inception of OS X. Previously, the Linux crowd seemed to laugh at Mac OS. Now, every time Macs are mentioned (which was virtually never before OS X), throngs of people post about how they've switched from PCs to Macs.

I'm one of those switchers myself, and I'll never look back. Linux has been supposedly becoming "the next big thing" since, what, 1996? It's seven years later, industry has lost interest in Linux as a desktop solution (they've recognized Linux's strengths as a server solution and embraced them, however), and it looks to me like Linux is going nowhere fast on the desktop.

(When) Will Linux+OSX Pass Windows On The Desktop?

[eLoco]

Maybe it's just me, but I see Linux and OS X competing for the title of Next Killer OS, while simultaneously complementing each other -- both are Unix, but they differ/compete on price, ease-of-use, available applications, etc. (Apple's stylish and now superior-performance hardware is also a big carrot for going with Mac). Anyway, I don't see how this competition can be a bad thing for either, but it could spell trouble for Microsoft:

1. Existing Mac users will not switch. Ever. (This has already been pointed out ad nauseum.) So, no decrease in market share for Apple.
2. This leaves primarily Windows users to switch. Those who are budget-conscious and/or ubergeeks will choose Linux, those who can afford to spend more and/or want a stylish, easy-to-use, "just works" system will be drawn to Mac.

Of the Windows user who will switch it seems likely that more will choose Linux than Mac, especially as KDE and GNOME become friendlier, but some will choose Mac, so it really seems that Apple and Linux only gain.

Eventually, it is inevitable.

[Ogerman]

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?

Apple has made enormous strides forward since OSX, but the fact remains that they cannot, in the long term, compete with completely Free / Open Source desktop environments. It's true that OSX currently has a big eye-candy advantage over XFree86+KDE/Gnome, but that will not last forever. Work is already being done to modernize XF86 and integrate OpenGL acceleration, ala. Quartz. It's really a shame that Apple did not contribute to existing windowing projects instead of doing their own proprietary thing. The half-open/half-closed approach will buy them some time of whiz-bang product uniqueness, but between MS's Longhorn and the work of open projects, it won't last. When will that happen? Who knows. 2 years? 5? 10? But it will happen. The Open Source movement has hardly even taken off yet. But, not to be too down on Apple, I imagine they'll continue to be forward thinking and adopt more Open Source technology in the future. And maybe someday if they move enough volume their hardware prices will be more reasonable too. :-P

And, as a sidenote, I don't believe the "X11 is outdated" nonsense. From what I've seen/heard, XF86+KDE far outperforms OSX on lower end machines in terms of interface responsiveness. Once OpenGL acceleration and translucency is built-in, there will be nothing to complain about. Just my $0.02

Re:Eventually, it is inevitable.

[surgeonsmate]

Neither article provides any reliable source for the prediction that Linux will pass Apple in the desktop market. It's speculation. If you check Google Zeitgeist http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html you'll see that in the percentage of operating systems used to access Google, Linux has remained steady on 1% since Google began keeping records. Desktop users use search engines - servers don't, so that's an excellent way of spotting desktop trends. Likewise if you check out Usenet volumes through Google, you'll see that posting volumes on Linux-specific newsgroups have declined. I can't see any evidence for increased Linux desktop share in the real world. What I *can* see is the same tired old predictions by Linux boosters that we saw for Mac boosters as to future success. It's not happening.

please fix linux

[Vaughn Anderson]

I want to switch, but I am too busy to monkey around with my computer anymore... win2k works, (NT didn't) and I'd like to have a reason to never upgrade again, but I can't be tweaking settings and hunting for drivers...

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[steve_bryan]

You could hardly be more dim-witted and uninformed. Congratulations, at least you've achieved some distinction. Now crawl back under your rock, troll (and an AC to boot).

That's OK, plenty of idiots here, too. (-:

[leonbrooks]

Wish I could afford to move there. Too many idiots here.

There's some beaut scenery. Perth is a nice city but not a patch on some of the amazing stuff in the outback. But you'll find idiots everywhere. The ones in the country tend to be a more interesting quality of idiot, because if they were ordinary boring idiots, they'd have moved back to Perth (or Sydeny or Melbourne) long ago. (-:

Confession of a Bill fan

[2short]

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

I can see that, and respect it. But personally, 99% of the details about my desktop I don't want to be in charge of; I don't care and I don't want to be bothered so long as they're handled even reasonably intelligently. Both Bill and Steve handle them reasonably intelligently (your opinion may vary, and given that this is slashdot, almost certainly does. Keep in mind, I may have a different level considered "reasonable", and I definetly seem to exceed most peoples ability to not care about things I consider, well, not worth caring about)

Sometimes I'd rather Steve were in charge, because I think he more frequently exceeds "reasonably inteligent" and reaches for brilliant . But Steve is awfully insistent that he's right, even when I think he's wrong. Bill still does ok most of the time and when he is wrong, he's easier to outwit and work around than Steve (possibly I'm just more used to it). He doesn't really try for "brilliant" so he has a better hit rate on reasonable.

"You say Windows is open? Not to me it isn't."
The sense in which he says it is open is , I suspect, the very thing that tips me firmly from Steve to Bill: hardware. Steve want's to be in charge of my hardware. Bill dosen't. (Or if you prefer, Steve is picky about what hardware he's in charge of, Bill wants to be in charge of all the hardware...)

So there you go, Bill G is in charge of my desktop, and like it that way. Show of hands please: Would you like to proceed straight to the lynching, or tar-and-feather first?

Re:Confession of a Bill fan

[Rysc]

I can see that, and respect it. But personally, 99% of the details about my desktop I don't want to be in charge of; I don't care and I don't want to be bothered so long as they're handled even reasonably intelligently.

I agree. But I'd never use Windows (again) or Mac OS X (at all) because... they don't let me change things IF I want to. Under Linux, with a decent distro, things come preconfigured. I don;'t HAVE to tweak anything, and I hardly NEED to tweak anything. But when it takes my fancy, I CAN. Under the other two I simply can't. I use Linux because I have more choices, even the choice not to make choices. Under Windows and OS X you cannot choose not to choose, it has already been decided you don't want to choose. If OS X were infinitely customizable, but just set up one way by default, then that'd be fine, but it isn't, so I don't use it.

Not everybody likes desktop icons. Not everybody likes a single titlebar. Not everybody likes their icons all on one side.

Re:Not any more!

[Have Blue]

Apple has been in "stay alive" mode while they weathered the storm of the underperforming G4. Now that they have come back to parity with PC hardware, they are going on the offensive. Just look at all the MS jokes in today's keynote, if that's not a declaration of platform war I don't know what is.

Re:For personal use? Apple is way more expensive

[Onan]

Unless that motherboard has a lot more than I'd guess, you've left out gigabit ethernet, firewire 400 and 800, optical audio in and out, and amplified analog audio out.

Perhaps more importantly, that system would be about half the speed of the mac to which you're comparing it.

Don't need GigE, optical audio, and all that speed? Then you should be comparing to an imac, which is still cheaper than what you've listed.

Certainly more importantly, you haven't accounted for your time spent selecting, purchasing, and assembling the parts. What's your consulting rate? Several hours work at a few hundred an hour dwarfs the cost of the hardware entirely.

Important but Overlooked point?

[TheInternet]

I don't have time to read through 860 comments to see if this is redundant, but there seems to be a rather obvious omission in the article. It seems as if the author doesn't realize that many Linux desktop installations are dual boot with Windows. Many Linux desktops users switch back to Windows for various things.

With a Mac, you're almost certainly running Mac OS X (or OS 9) exclusively. Sure there's Virtual PC and Linux for PowerPC, but these situations are in the vast minority. In most cases, a Mac is dedicated to running some version of Mac OS. That's why you have to write Mac software to reach Mac hardware owners. You don't have to write Linux software to reach people that have Linux hardware.

So the suggestion the Linux desktop marketshare will somehow surpass Mac OS X on the desktop doesn't hold much weight for me. Perhaps what will surprass Mac OS X eventually are the segement of Windows machines that also have Linux installed. I don't see how any of this would make professional developers reconsider selling Mac OS X software (as the article suggests). How many Linux users even buy software?

Although with Apple now selling at 64-bit dual processor workstation (with 8GB ram capacity and half a terrabyte of storage capacity) with a beautiful Unix OS for $3000 -- well I'm not so sure anybody can reasonably predict where this will go.

- Scott

Re:Eventually? Of course!

[gerardrj]

Linux will have a hard time simply because of what you hinted at an didn't say outright: Linux (and GNU and KDE) don't innovate, they continually take existing ideas and attempt to mimic/emulate them.

When you are continually playing catchup, and can't provide any reasonably reliable timeline for feature releases or updates, it's very hard for a company to take you seriously. There are entire too many projects in the free software model that are totally dependent upon the dedication of one person. It that one poerson gets bored, gets a job, dies, whatever, the project dies.

Sure you can be noble and say that "well someone else will just pick up where they left off", but time after time we've seen that it doesn't happen. A company like Apple,Microsoft, Sun and the like allow projects to survive the loss of even multiple project authors. The company can hire replacements to continue the project since cash is a mighty incentive.

Article Wrong in So Many Ways...

[ablair]

If Slate wanted to generate as much reaction as possible for an article, Boutin couldn't have chosen a better way to sensationalize some pretty tame analyst conjecture. This story isn't new, and heck - I even suspect that regurgitated analyst conjecture has been wrong in the past. But even if it isn't wrong this time, who cares? Boutin presents an eclipse of MacOS by Linux as another death knell for Apple, when in fact it presents the greatest opportunity Apple Computer has seen in decades. This is for 3 fundamental reasons:

1. Linux will not be replacing Macs, they'll be replacing current & future Windows boxes. They will be the new systems of price-conscious IT managers or consumers or who would have otherwise used cheap Windows systems anyways. Where Linux is making desktop inroads (with the corporate & enterprise set) Apple has never has had, and probably never will have, any significant acceptance. And nobody can credibly say that Apple's core users - people who work with graphics & music, publishers, etc - will dump their platform and be using Gimp et al instead of Photoshop & MSOffice this decade. Neither will the grandmas of the world anyday soon be getting Linux boxes instead of dead-simple iMacs from their adult children so they can chat with the grandkids. Boutin is right that Linux is growing, but Linux is not eating into Apple's market share to any significant extent.

2. Linux acceptance means more willingness to look at all alternatives to Windows. If we, as consumers or enterprise managers or whomever, are considering going with something other than what we're used to, all options are suddenly open for discussion. The hard part is stepping away from the psychologically safe, familiar zone of Windows to start with; after that, most people don't care what they run so long as they can do what they need to with minimum hassle. The more people use Linux, the more they will consider a Mac, and vice versa.

3. More Linux adoption directly results in more Mac software. Porting is easy, and how many app developers wouldn't spend a few days (nearly a worst-case scenario) to make MacOS X-compatible versions of their software for minimal cost, opening up a market of millions? Furthermore, the more people using Linux, the more users out there will be familiar with the *nix conventions and tools that are also permeate MacOS X, so switching from one to the other will be increasginly like going from KDE to Gnome rather than to/from something foreign.

Boutin is wrong to imply that growing market share for Linux will eat away at Apple's customers. Analogies to Sun & SGI are misleading, since these companies are competing with Linux in the same market spaces that Linux has strength in, and may not show enough beneficial differentiation from Linux to be considered a better solution for the same needs. Apple, however, is very significantly differentiated in the minds of most people from Linux - how many people would confuse the two? - and presents real & imagined specialized benefits that are not seen to be available elsewhere, certainly not with Linux. I won't even comment on his analogies to the XBox vs. Playstation & Gamecube, it's so irrelevant. Wost of all, Boutin pits Linux vs. Apple, predicting Apple will be another "friendly fire" casualty. The two communities have so much to gain from one another by an increased acceptance of either, that one should really consider a success for one to be a success for the other (and the *BSDs as well). A nice try at inflammatory writing, though.

Re:Article Wrong in So Many Ways...

[crusher-1]

Agreed! I came to many of the same conclusions. One thing to consider is the hardware. Windows cannot install and operate on the Mac architecture and vice verse. However Linux will run on both. If one is thinking of leaving the M$ haven of familiarity and conventions then the question could be asked - do I want to buy a whole new set of boxes (e.g. Mac boxes) or do I want to use a different OS on what I've already got or can cheaply build.

Let's face it. OEM's and IHV's must have two sets of hardware devices, at least for things such as video cards, soundcards, etc. (harddrives withstanding). Bioses and chipsets need to be specific for IBM vs Mac requirements. However, Linux runs on IBM compat hardware so this is essentially a non-issue except in the case of drivers and ancillary programs that might accompany the hardware (bundled software).

My wife is an artist and, yep you guessed it, uses a Mac. I have a couple of computers that I built myself. They have/had fairly current state of the art hardware and it was relatively inexpensive to build compared to buying a ready made - pre-installed Windows box from an OEM. So, in corporate sector the question is begged - do I need to buy new hardware and change OSes or just change the OSes?

What is the cost of buying Windows, with or without new hardware/pre-installed verses buy a Linux OS (eg. SuSE, RH, etc) and then getting the support package?

We've all seen the numbers and heard the arguments regarding the cost of M$ wares - the OS with per-seat-licenses, the support packages, the ancillary software needed such as Office, Exchange, etc. But if one already has Office and the licenses, and the cross-over plugins provide a functional use of these programs then why would I want to pay all those extra $$$ in the form of an quasi M$ tax? If my budget is tight (and these days most are) then it's a safe bet that I wouldn't want to spend more than I absolutely have to.

So, I agree! It's not the Mac that is so much threatened by Linux on the Desktop - IT'S M$ WINDOWS ON THE x86 THAT IS!! And I'll bet the author is all too aware of this.

What this article represents to me is the latest in a series of subtle and subversive FUD publications and articles. An attempt to shape perceptions. Why? Because in the market place and Wall Street - Perception is reality.

Yes, nice attempt at inflammatory and subversive writing indeed.

Keepin things moving...

[Fatmiko1]

I'm a Mac friggin addict and i've only owned a mac for about 3 months now. The more I use this machine(17" Powerbook), the more I fall in love with it. I'm not going to say what everyone else has said 5 times already, but the one thing i've noticed since i've been a mac user is how Apple literally PUSHES the industry along. Not just with the big stuff like the new badass G5 but just little stuff like the Quartz graphics and OpenGL. WHO ELSE thought to make regular desktop video processing be done on the VIDEO PROCESSOR?!? It's brilliant. And rendezvous is awesome as well. But anyhow... Apple doesnt just sit with their feet on the desk and think of how to make things pretty. They sit around and think of how to make the obvious details work much more effieciently. They make the user(consumer, grandma, hardcore unix programmer, audio, video, graphics professionals, etc) the first and foremost on their list. In a nut shell, they cater to everyone. They make things simple enough to use so anyone can use it (iMovie, iDVD) and they make shit that takes Months to figure out(Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro). They've got something for everyone AND every price range. What more could you ask for?

Licenses, Open Source, and the Will of the People

[banal avenger]

A problem that I think will hinder LINUX in the end is the argument over licenses, open-source vs. closed source, and the general hate of proprietary code and hardware. It's hard for closed-source software to survive on LINUX. Free, open-source alternatives will be continue to be common and will make an impact on the industry, but it's a well known fact that it's hard to make money off of something that's free.

IF LINUX won and stayed with the current licenses, it might mean an end to proprietary software. If there was no more closed source software, that would of course mean that it would be tough for Adobe to make money. They might make Photoshop open source to be compatible with the GPL. They'd do that right about when Microsoft distributes MS-LINUX. An end to propriety software would also mean that most developers of open source software would be out of a day job â" a tough proposition. The battle would be won, but switching to a 100% open-source development model would be a tough transition. As long as money exists in the world, the open source developer needs a way to make some, and donations don't pay much more than the server bills. In the end, it all costs money.

Thus, the Apples are needed in the LINUX/UNIX/Windows/Mac OS X/Amiga wars. Open source is great for closed source companies because it saves on development time. It results in cheaper software, and as long as the two spheres coexistent peacefully, it's the only way to win. Apple, for example, contributes some changes back to the community, but they also reserve the code they hold near and dear to their hearts for themselves. It's OK that LINUX is entirely open, and it's OK that Apple is mostly open. Working together, it's still better than everything being closed, and it's more balance than everything being open.

There is a reason that the industry grew up on closed source software, and the quality of software will suffer if there was no such paid job title as "Computer Programmer. The software industry is huge. And the software industry is important. A balance is what is needed, and a balance is what will happen.

Finally, when it comes down to it, most users just want to get their work done, curse the machine because they don't understand it, and have someone else fix the problems. They want to work 9-5, and leave early on Fridays to go up to the lake to go fishing. For the majority of computer users, there is no liberation: they just don't care, and it won't impact their life. They will use LINUX if their job tells them to use LINUX. They will use Windows if their job tells them to use Windows. And they will use Mac OS X if their job tells them to use Mac OS X. And no choice will make much of a difference in productivity, because few people use an OS to it's full potential, and anyone who does is doing pretty darn good on any OS. It may be just like the classic 1984 ad, but no OS is going to change that.

MacOS and other Unices

[maide]

MacOS X is definitely not comparable with let's say Irix, or HP/UX. It's not a piece of patchwork "art" like most other Unices. In fact, it's quite consistent within itself.

Application development is more or less simple (have you ever written a Motif application?). Low level programming is not as tricky as on other OSes, since the interfaces to the kernel are pretty well designed.

The GUI technology is powerful and fast when compared to X11 and even to Windows. Graphical applications integrate with each other as well as they do on Windows. And yes, at Apple they do seem to consult designers when making GUIs.

In other words, there is some thought behind MacOS X, as opposed to the organic growth that's behind other Unices. Technically it's no more than another GUI on top of Unix, but it feels like a GUI-only OS which happens to come with a terminal application that no ordinary user will ever have to use or even know of. Sorry guys, but that's what most users want.

So, to answer the question. Is Linux going to have an easy win over MacOS X? While I'd really like to see that happen it's certainly not going to be right now.

Best wishes
Madeleine Freudenberg :)

What's your application set?

[Aron S-T]

First a bit of history. When I started an interactive agency in 1984, we were a Mac shop. But a year after Apple made the move to the Power Macs, I forced my graphic designers to move to Windows. Apple's platform was so unreliable and so slow that the price premium was absurd.

Very early on we used Linux as our file server platform, since we could serve both Windows and Mac files. Over time the advantages of open source became more apparent to me, and about 4 years ago I switched to a Linux desktop. I started with Gnome before it hit 1.0, but I have been using KDE now for about 2 years.

I'm a marketing/manager type. My key tools are these: word processing, browsing, addressbook, email and IM. One thing I have learned to love about the open source world is that it allows me to own my own information. Proprietary formats mean I have no control and I will be forced to pay ransom in the future just to keep accessing my own files!

So now my key working application set includes: Lyx, Abiword, OpenOffice (for those pesky word files I have to open and edit on occassion that Abiword still barfs on), Jpilot, Mozilla, GAIM and Acrobat Reader. Sometimes I also use Quanta for fixing up our website or Gimp for touching up a graphics file. I also use Konqueror as an ftp client for our Zope backend. All these applications give me everything I need, work quite well, and store my files in formats which are open standards which I know will be around for as long as I need to access them. Windows is not an option, and never again be for me.

In fact, the Linux desktop has reached a stage where I would recommend any business user like myself to use it. Certainly, I would strongly urge businesses to use the applications listed, instead of their proprietary equivalents. Most of these apps are available on Windows as well. And I haven't even begun to talk about the thousands of dollars saved in licensing fees and the superior feature set and useability of these apps over the proprietary equivalents.

Recently I had to decide about a new computer for a web designer. The software set this person uses - Photoshop, Freehand, Dreamweaver - just isn't available for Linux and may never be. So looking at Windows XP versus Apple, guess what: I chose the eMac. Despite the small premium in price, the stability of Mac OS X made the switch seem worthwhile. It had been a number of years since I had played around with an Apple machine, and I was extremely impressed by the speed and the ease of use of the OS X platform., and how great these apps ran on the Mac.

But there is also me as the home user. Yes, I also like to listen to music and rip cds. My son likes to do that too, and he also wants a P2P client and he just got a video camera and he would like to do some editing, and play around with midi and his piano keyboard. Here's where things get fuzzy. Sure you can do all this stuff on Linux, but it's such a pain to set up, and if you upgrade something, something else breaks.

Now in the past I would say, the Apple premium isn't worth it. But having played with that eMac I'm starting to think differently. For the home user who wants multimedia capabilities, Linux is just too big a pain. Apple just works out of the box (except I would add the Ogg Vorbis plugin to iTunes since I don't want to use proprietary MP3s). So probably the next home computer I get will be a Mac (and that's certainly what I'm going to get for my son going to college).

So the key in choosing a platform is your application set. For designers Apple (once again) rules and the price premium is worth it. For business people, Linux is the way to go. For home users with a rock bottom budget or who aren't multimedia fanatics, Linux is a great entry system. If you have some extra cash, the Mac is worth it.

And here's another thought: maybe down the line if business is good I might get a Mac as my business machine as well. With Fink and other projects bringing my favorite Linux open source applications to the Mac, I can hav

OOo is a gift

[yerricde]

let's not forget that it Star/Open Office is a "gift" from Sun, another top notch proprietory manufacturer of hardware with their own OS

OpenOffice.org software is under the GNU Lesser General Public License, one of the same licenses Mozilla uses. Why do you use scare-quotes around "gift"?

"Modern piece of software"?

[yerricde]

You have a computer that may run every modern piece of software written.

It still can't run DC, PS2, GCN, or Xbox game discs. I don't think it can run Alpha or Itanium binaries at an acceptable speed either.

speaking of anecdotal evidence...

[Onan]

Last year, my attempt to follow the several pages of instructions for installing Mathematica on linux failed. I eventually spent several unpleasant hours hacking through 50K of interdependent awk scripts, reworking some of them and manually handling some of the things they were failing to do. I got it working eventually, but it wasn't fun. And I certainly can't remember what all I did, so if I had to install it again tomorrow, I'd have to repeat the whole painful process.

Imagine how happy I was when I installed it the following day on macosx, and found that instructions consisted of "Drag the Mathematica icon to the Applications folder."

short answer

[MegaFur]

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?"

No.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[groomed]

You forgot the printing. The printing under Linux. 's Fun. Printing.

Re:Market Share?

[yerricde]

I mean unless you are are talking about the market share of the Windows brand.

Tiddly-day. The IE license is a "supplemental EULA" that requires a Windows EULA: "If you do not have a validly licensed copy of a qualifying Microsoft Windows operating system, you agree not to use this software."

Who still sells browser software?

The Big O?

Humans got to the moon this way...

[greenhills]

Competition is a really funny thing... a whole bunch of clans on Slashdot have their little competitions everyday about "SPECint" this and "open source" that.... all the while seemingly oblivious to the fact that competition is driving this technology.

Apple use Open source because it is a unique competition paradigm for software technology... OS X and Linux are both part of the competition but each team is fueling the other. The great thing is that although its very tough competition (i.e. lots of new releases, lots of development, lots of new code), each team benefits from the others improvements. Im talking big picture here... not the symantics associated with open source licenses etc. It is why open source is all about competition... it is a new paradigm of competition... it is a paradigm of competition that is similar to athletes who train and compete together.

The space race was a great non-violent spin-off of the cold war. A technological competition between two enormous developers. Now they didn't have an opensource model... they were too paranoid for that... but they did have leaks and spys and defectors and other means of sharing their core developments. I think the opensource model makes a whole bunch more sense.

I think that this new opensource paradigm is the reason why OS X is so good and why it has foundations which are standards based. I also know OS X's limitations but this is early days for apple in this new developer environment.

Imagine if Microsoft joined this paradigm. The landscape of computing would change dramatically. Unfortunately they wont engage in competition with the likes of Apple or the Opensource world...... "but they ARE in competition!!" you say... no they are not. They are the bully's on the playground who do not want to play with the other kids... all the time looking at what everyone is doing and playing catchup, or making there own version. Ofcourse their games aren't as much fun, because they make up their own rules and change the rules as they go. Time to finish the playground analogy... it could go on forever, it is very apt in describing Microsofts behavior.

It is very frustating to me that there is a culture and a philosophy at microsoft that is threatened by this new paradigm of competition... unfortunately they think it impacts on their bottom line. They are short-sighted and under-resourced to play the bully in this technology landscape. I'm not any kind of Opensource evangilist but I'll tell you now Microsoft do not have enough money in the bank to take on the shift in computing that is taking place now.

This isn't off topic... Apple had enough money in the bank (thanks to their first iMac sales) to join this new paradigm... it also suits their original style which is one of advanced technology and innovation. This is why they have got a product like OS X and why they are creating new hardware initiatives with companies like IBM, who are part of the Opensource competition.

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[AtariKee]

"Apple appeals to superficial ("my pink hair defines me") artsy-fartsy on-the-fringe kind of people, and it is lucky that enough of those people exist to keep them in business. If Apple were "mainstream", those people would migrate to some other non-mainstream product to define their "individuality" and satisfy their fragile egos."

I love these kind of people. The type that thinks if you aren't somehow tied to everyhting mainstream, that you're some kind of elitist contrarian.

In the end, my friend, we all eat, shit, and dress the same. None of this crap matters, because we will all die. And who gives a flying fuck about what "name" you can leave behind. Just enjoy shit while you're here and fuck the herd metallity bullshit.

Soon, Apple will indeed be able to offer x86 "OS X

[Corpus_Callosum]

Consider, if you will, what Apple is doing, right now, with their hardware; The price/performance has, with the new G5s, been brought SIGNIFICANTLY lower than x86 based systems.

The reason Apple could not release x86 "OS X" before was that it would kill their hardware business (Faster and Cheaper on DELL?? Makes no sense).

But with the new G5 systems combined with the greatest damned laptops ever constructed, there is little reason to fear a loss in hardware sales now.

It is no secret that Steve would love to give Bill a taste of his own medicine, served straight from "The Art of War".

I can imagine no better way to do that than a Christmas release of x86 "OS X" and a fabulous Apple style marketing blitz...

People would convert in hordes using existing hardware and launch straight into an apple hardware upgrade path.

Could it happen? What do you all think? Only problem I see is a need for a runtime dynamic compiler (ppc->x86) or a nasty lack of apps in the first few quarters of availability...

I doubt MS Office will be sticking around

[angle_mark]

Not on Mac OS. Not after this.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[nathanh]

Type?

Jim-Bob doesn't type.

He clicks.

Can't click? Jim-Bob can't do it.

I don't give a flying fuck whether Jim-Bob uses Linux or not.

Pauline Kael

[kylef]

Honestly, though... I know *many* more Linux users than Mac users... Come to think of it, I only know a single Mac user.

When Richard Nixon won easy re-election in 1972, New Yorker columnist Pauline Kael illustrated precisely the same lack of perspective when she exclaimed, "I can't believe it! I don't know a single person who voted for him!"

The moral of the story is that we all need to get out more and interact with other communities in order to follow the trends in rest of the computer world. It is far too easy to be lulled into a false sense of world homogeneity when those who surround us all share the same viewpoints and choice of operating system... :-P

Integration defines the Linux, MacOS debate

[iLukeBeans]

In my opinion, Linux marketshare will probably overtake MacOS marketshare, and will do so soon. However (and far more importantly), the MacOS's continued ability to thrive holds profound consequences for the long-term financial viability of Linux in particular, and open-source platforms in general.

We should all remember vividly that people have predicted the demise of the MacOS since time immemorial. Both Windows 3.0 and OS/2 2.0 were supposed to be the death-knell of the MacOS, as were both Windows 95, and Apple's inability, until as late as 2001, to deliver a pre-emptive multitasking, crash-protected operating system. Yet the MacOS survived, and although Apple's relative marketshare declined, the number of MacOS installations has never dropped (to my knowledge) below some 25 million. The reason, from my experience, is Apple's appreciation of the computing process as a holistic, integrated endeavour.

Many posters on this topic seem to lament the fact that the MacOS is a closed, proprietary system, but, in my mind, this is the system's chief strength. Apple makes the whole Widget, software and hardware. Apple delivers a single, integrated, computational experience. Both software and hardware are designed, by a hierarchy of engineers, from the top down, to function together in a logically coherent, easy-to-use manner. This fact, in itself, gives the MacOS a value that far exceeds, in the minds of those who can appreciate it, anything else available in the open-source or Windows worlds.

Yes, you will pay more for a Mac. Perhaps you will pay considerably more. Perhaps it won't be as powerful, in terms of raw SPECmarks. Perhaps the selection of software won't be as plentiful. But for business users, you get a single, unified vendor of both software and hardware. You have one person to call. You have a meticulously crafted OS that is the end product of coherent, top-down design by a team of engineers united by a single corporate culture. Everything works together, and it works in predictable ways. If you can use iTunes, you can use Keynote, or iMovie, or iDVD.

The bottom line, for business users, it seems to me, is that with MacOS the whole system costs less to own. Training costs are lower, maintenance costs are lower, and users are more productive. Furthermore, there is one vendor with which to maintain a relationship, for both software and hardware.

By constrast, open-source systems, though free, aren't nearly so monolithic, and are surely more costly. Open-source operating systems are not the product of a top-down design process by engineers operating in the atmosphere of a unified corporate culture. No, by stark constrast, open-source operating systems aren't really even designed. They seem to evolve, as if "grown", the end product of the contributions of thousands of distributed programmers. Now, I'm assuming we all understand the value of distributed, pseudo-organic systems for solving many types of problems, but it doesn't seem to me that software design is one of them. Let's face it, KDE and GNOME apps don't even share the same user interface guidelines, and OpenOffice has interface guidelines all its own. When apps from the KDE and GNOME worlds run together on the same desktop, there is little integration, and the entire environment appears jumbled and incoherent. Gesture ergonomics and keystroke combinations are not portable from application to application, and inter-application data exchange is clumsy. We end up with an incoherent system that is difficult to support, maintain, and train users to understand.

An example from my own experience is useful here, so I'll interject it. I am among the founding partners of a software studio that produces custom applications in visual simulation and immersive environments. In 2000, we took the decision to get rid of our SGI IRIX-based workstations, and replace them with commodity Dell PCs running RedHat. This seemed like a brilliant plan, considering that we were paying some $21,000 (US) per SGI workstation plus an annual

Linux will Surpass, But This Will Help Mac OS X

[SilentMajority]

As Linux gains more momentum on desktops, so will the popularity of certain Linux applications (most likely--but not all--open source ones).

And as a result of improved support for X Windows on Mac, better source-level compatibility or ports between Linux and Mac OS X, the number of popular applications available on Mac OS X will also increase as Linux becomes more popular.

To simplify things further, future package managers will probably support FreeBSD, Linux and Mac OS X. Perhaps they will be based on MetaPKG or something similar.

I think the ONLY remaining reason not to purchase a Mac this coming Christmas will be the lack of support for specific apps or games. Apple addressed the OS by ditching OS 9, now the CPU and more reasonably comparable price/performance. This leaves lack of support for specific apps or games to be the biggest remaining barrier. WILL SONY AND APPLE EVER SIGN A DEAL TO ENABLE MACS TO RUN PS2/PS3 GAMES?!?!?

I could be totally mistaken but I'm under the impression that porting Windows apps to Mac OS X is more difficult than porting Linux apps to Max OS X. So there you have it. More Linux desktops = more popularity of Linux apps = more "popular" apps available on Mac OS X. Just a guess. Nothing more.

CONSISTENCY!!! Was: Re:No

[smashwolf]

PC hardware is not consistent. Many distros of Linux are not consistent. (Save for maube Debian,
with some real package management.)

I define consistency related to computers as "A supportable method of reproducability."

Case in point. A year ago, we bought a small cluster of 12 linux machines. They were all iedentical, and managing all of them was easy. Now, a year later, the cheap commodity hardware is failing, and I cannot find the "old" hardware anymore. I now have a cluster of 12 machines that are of different configurations with hardware from different vendors. Every machine has something different, and different software configurations are producing different results, either by performance , or reliability, or both.

On our 10 year old cluster of SGI IRIX machines, all the hardware has been consistently the same. When something does break, SGI replaces it with the same part! it works the same way, nothing changes , and my life is much easier. I manage hundreds of machines. I don't need 12 linux machines taking up all my time because the commodity parts, and the OS can't be coordinated, or worse yet, dependency trees, and OS packages don't get managed well at all.

As with the SGI machines, Apple has done a good job of product consistency. In the PC arena, you have to go to the high end IBM, Dell, or HP servers to get any semblance of consistency,and then the price you pay for that "pc server hardware" completely negates any savings you might realize from going with a PC platform. You might as well buy something cheaper that is still consistent, like Apple, or go for the gusto, and get SGI, or Sun machines, while you are spending the money, and at least enjot some consistency,and supportability.

Won't happen this year for sure

[Davidge]

The usability of a Linux desktop just isn't anywhere near the level of a Mac from a Joe Bloggs perspective.

The inroads linux has made against commerical Unices are in the server environment and on the odd midrange desktop. This is not the market Macs live in (except the xServe).

When Linux is easy and intuitive enough for the average Joe, when it has a consistent look and feel across applications, then it might make moves into the Mac desktop arena.

No, but not because of your reasons.

[Jon Howard]

I don't want to sound like I'm accusing you of stupidity, but I do believe you are ignorant of a few things which could resolve all of your qualms with Linux. I'll go at this point by point, following your precedent:

1) The X font management sucks. I write a lot of essays and need access to fonts for some papers.
The TrueType-extended X font server 'xfs-xtt' is a damn fine font manager. I don't know what specific needs you place on your font manager that could be addressed, but it will take font files and serve them up to X apps for rendering, so that should do the trick.

2) DLL hell. I use Gnome and KDE sometimes. Mostly I try to use a few of the programs from each. GNU cash, KWORD .... which requires a lot of libraries == unnessary bloat, slowness and confusion when source compiling.
Good Lord man! Are you writing GUI apps for both KDE and Gnome? If not, use a package management system - Debian's apt/dpkg and Redhat's RPM are handy, and they can resolve any kind of library conflicts for you automatically (and damn easily if you're using apt-get). If you're using software which isn't available in a distributor's package format, it's likely to be pretty new/experimental, and therefore rough around the edges anyway. If you're just compiling for the extra optimization for your specific environment, you're asking for trouble. Windows/Mac software isn't compiled optimally for any one environment, so it's a rather unfair comparison.

3) Commercial software. Say what you will of Open Source software. There are times when I want/need access to commercial software. Photoshop, Word, etc are all available for the OSX not for Linux. It will be a long time before this happens.
Save yourself some money and use a commercial WINE-based solution like Crossover Office... it's less than a license for the OS, though I'll admit it's not 100% perfect. Then again, if you've got the money (~$800) for the software you listed above, you probably won't have trouble affording a copy of Windows or MacOS. While you're at it, give The GIMP and OpenOffice a try.

4) Hardware support. Mac have - albeit - limited hardware choice compared to Windows. But, getting hardware to work w/ Linux or FreeBSD means recompiling, getting newer kernels. I don't mind doing it but see it as a waste of time.
That really depends on how your system was setup in the first place, and how new your hardware is. First of all, I'll admit that some hardware just won't work with Linux. Blame the manufacturer. Second, if you're using any modern linux distro, you're pretty damn likely to have the necessary drivers built as modules with your stock kernel. All it takes is loading the module (which is generally a lot more straightforward than installing drivers under Win32). If not, a quick upgrade of your kernel package might magically include the right driver. If the driver you need is not part of the kernel, but it is available, it only requires the compilation of a couple tiny files (just the driver module) - certainly not the whole kernel.

5) Better integration. GUI apps are much better integrated in OSX than in X.
KDE and Gnome are both attempts at creating integrated desktop environments. There's so much software to choose from that much of it isn't designed to fit into either of these IDE's - that's not to say that they couldn't be made to if the developers were convinced that it would be a good idea, nor that there aren't already tons of apps which do integrate solidly. I don't quite understand your point unless you plan on using every possible app you can get your hands on rather than just the 10-20 most people use on a daily basis. If folks just run KDE apps under KDE, they'll never know the difference (most of the General Public Users probably stick to what's in the menu).

6) Appearance. OS X just looks good. Gnome, KDE make me want to puke. Toolbars, message prompts, etc, are all different to name a few.
Back t

Re:No.

[Overly Critical Guy]

Those precise two reasons. Think about it; Windows works very well for the most part.

That end phrase being the operative wording here. Whenever Slashbots complain about Windows, it's usually due to some arcane task they're trying to accomplish that is above the spectrum of Windows, so it doesn't work quite right or not at all.

Linux will usually take care of that task because Linux was written by people who perform those sorts of tasks.

On the flipside, Windows covers the essential basics incredibly well, but Linux does not because it concentrates on the complex things. Broad versus specialization. It doesn't seem to be changing very much for Linux, despite Linux elitists' claims to the contrary, though Microsoft is showing signs of really improving their technologies, particularly with Windows Server 2003 and Longhorn.

doubt it

[oohp]

I seriously doubt it. Apple always comes up with something new, great innovation etc. and Mac users are mostly fanatics :). They wonldn't change their beloved computer/OS for any other. Hey, most of us want an TiBook or an iBook, I know for one I do.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[ledestin]

I agree, Windows install is a nightmare. You basically have to roll out your own distro. I have a 1.5Gb folder with program distributives for Windows I might need (cygwin included).

When my w2k work machine install became feeble-minded after IE update I just cloned my home Linux machine, and, voila, it booted and I had a working machine. Had to configure NIC and compile an LKM for vortex soundcard.

Though, I really had to work to make Debian work in the first place. No anti-aliasing in X, ugly fonts in Mozilla, troubles (dependencies) when installing mplayer and a lot of other things.

Linux will grow... but so will Apple.

[Domini]

I do not think Linux will steal market share from Apple.

I think Linux will steal it someplace else.

For me Apple is just another GNU distro.

It does cost a bit more than Linux, but at least it's not windows and I have Openoffice X11 boa-constructor GNU python fileutils plus all the awsome out-of-the-boxness of the great Apple apps.

It's a pointless comparrison. Linux may overtake Apple, yes, but Apple will also increase it's share.

I really don't care... I just use what works for me.

Me.

No brainer

[fr0dicus]

I love OS X, but it's clear that with an absolute maximum 5% of computers able to run it it doesn't stand a chance in this particular headcount.

However I don't think OS X will lose any market share to Linux, for exactly this same reason. Only zealots will run Linux on PPC machines, and even then Apple still make money from the hardware to further develop OS X. Sorry guys but Apple really does have the best apps, and while they pour money into innovation, they always will. Until Linux stuff is designed by designers instead of engineers, it will always be the cheap mass produced alternative to OS X's luxury, and that won't come for free, designers make a living from their designs, not service/support.

Good point ...

[Clansman]

A compelling arguement ... but

How about the numbers that are using Win98 - thats the 'upgrade' zone - with win95 that make 35% of the users who are up for a change of computer sometime in the next few years.

If linux desktops can capture a big share of this then they can define that as success - if not, if when we come back here in 2005/6 and the win98 boxes are all gone, but linux etc is still at 1% - then its bad :-)

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[nathanh]

Though, I really had to work to make Debian work in the first place. No anti-aliasing in X, ugly fonts in Mozilla, troubles (dependencies) when installing mplayer and a lot of other things.

I agree Linux can be bad if you try and stay bleeding edge. But if you wait, it's easy as pie.

For example, I tried to get anti-aliased fonts in Mozilla on my home machine as soon as I heard it was possible. It took an afternoon and had me tearing my hair out.

At work I just waited until the packages were in apt. It Just Worked. Took 6 months longer than my home machine but required no effort.

I've been with Linux since 1992 (possibly '91 but my memory isn't perfect). I remember writing my own modelines for XFree86. I remember writing menu entries into FVWM config files. I remember compiling a kernel to get my netcard to work. I found it difficult back then and I came from a UNIX background! I'd used Microport, Interactive and 386BSD before I started with Linux. DOS and Windows didn't make much noise in my house.

These days that stuff Just Works out of the box. I haven't seen a window manager config file in years. Modern XFree86 doesn't need modelines (it's all DDC). And netcards are all modularised and configured with GUIs. It's soooo much easier today than it ever was before. All the problems you're having with today's distros will be fixed by the next release. Of this, I am very sure.

Re:I don't think that building the price into hard

[dipipanone]

But I'd contend that the costs of R&D is for improvements to future machines, and by granting those spin-offs for free to existing customers, they build customer satisfaction with their brand and their product, and as a consequence, build customer loyalty.

The reason that I feel as though I'm always getting the shaft from Steve Jobs is because I feel as though he knows he has that customer loyalty and exploits it to the hilt.

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[hype7]

Thanks for your "insight", Apple employee.

Thanks for your insight, anonymous coward.

- Apple introduced preemptive multitasking much later than Micro$oft.

Apple had a GUI well before MS.

- Apple insists on the "one-mouse" button, which the inventor of the mouse, Doug Engelbart, calls an "arrogant" decision. For engineenering purposes, mice should have two to three buttons, not one. Apple breaks this rule by having the user's other hand use the butterly CONTROL key on the keyboard as the 2nd and 3rd buttons. This is more inconvenient to users. (So much for the "end user experience.")

Doug Englebart's entitled to an opinion. It is Apple's opinion that having many mouse buttons can be confusing to new users. However, they have support for three mouse buttons built into the OS.

- The "Cube" was a failure because its crystal clear acrylic case would crack during shipping, and hence was discontinued.

No, the cube was a failure because it was released just as the economy tanked. People weren't willing to pay a premium for aesthetics.

- Jean Louis Gassee's idea of "networking" the Mac was by using a modem over a serial port! (Read Jim Carlton's "Apple: the Inside Story").

Apple was leading the charge with both the introduction of 100bt and gigabit networking. They also have pioneered 802.11b and 802.11g while the rest of the PC world fumbled.

- Steven Levy, author of "Insanely Great" (a book on the history of the Macintosh) admits in the preface that his Apple Mac crashed on him several times whilst he was writing the book! (So much for the "end user experience.")

Bill Gates got up at a Comdex once and, in front of thousands of Windows devotees, it crashed on him.
OS X does not crash either, btw.

- The first Macintosh did not have a hard drive because Jobs didn't want the noise of the hard drive to detract from the aesthetic appeal of the machine. Thus, not many Macintoshes were sold to businesses, which absoluately required the extra storage space. (So much for the "end user experience.")

You need to get a dictionary and look up the difference between user experience and user requirements.

- The Newton was a failure.

The Newton pioneered the handheld market, but like with so many things Apple produced it was ahead of its time. Every handheld you see today is based on the principles that the Newton introduced.

- Pippen was a failure.
- Taligent was a failure.

My god, a product released by a tech firm that doesn't hit the top of the charts? Apple must be doomed!

- OS-X/Unix introduces timing problems for MIDI musicians. Better stick with an older version of the software.

OS X has such a low audio latency that it, even under load, remains many times in front of Linux and Windows. A key number of audio apps are now optimised for OS X, thanks to some recent strategic acquisitions.
It doesn't surprise me that the only thing you can find to pick on was one midi timing bug with the OS, though. It's very good.

- Apple is not known for its servers.

Sony wasn't known for it's game consoles a few years ago, either. Your point?

- Apple is not widely used in scientific computing.

You know nothing, Anonymous Troll. Take a look on Apple's PowerMac G5 pages and look at Performance sub page. Two scientific applications - genome and DNA sequencing. It's not uncommon to walk into any scientific lab and see macs everywhere.

- Apple is not widely used in business for email, inventory control, financial analysis, etc.

KDE is your friend....

[oliverthered]

Web browsing:
KHTML, Apple used KHTML for it's browser and the changes have been merged into KDE.

Playing DVDs:
Well I use xine and gentoo, no real problems except you have to pick the correct DVD/CSS/Menu plugin out of a choice of two.

I think I'll just listen to my MP3s with xmms:
The next relese of KDE comes with KJukeBox, kde can already play MP3's etc... and Video files.

damn shame about the amiga

[thaWhat]

it was (is?) still the best desktop environment. between arexx and a unified file system (form files) the amiga provided something that we all wanted go on flame me...

Compete with big brother, not each other.

[Chroneos]

That wasn't meant to rhyme, but anyway...

Honestly, why are there people fixated on Mac OS and Linux in competition? They each have their applications and a number of the replies to this post make those points clear, but Linux and Apple should be focused on outdoing and ultimately succeeding Microsoft not trying to eliminate one another, that will only weaken the non- (or anti-, as the case may be) microsoft movement.

your so wrong.

[oliverthered]

Linux on the desktop isn't about home users and geeks, it's about thousands of workplace desktops that are switching to linux, becaused of:
Price,
Stability,
Ability to turn all the crap off so that you get some work done by your employees.
etc....
Fast pretty twinkley frilly bits don't cut it in the business world.

Re:your so wrong.

[oliverthered]

without much imagination....
Spain has put 80,000 Linux computers in schools

The Wrong Choice: After picking NT, Trampoline firm leaps to Linux

Definitely

[jopet]

In many areas (university institutes, certain companies) at least in Europe, Linux desktops are already more frequent than Apple desktops for some time. Most of the university institutes I worked for do not use Apple - if there is an Apple computer, it gathers dust in some corner. Secretaries work with Windows, nearly all other people use Linux on their desktop.

An offtopic answer to you

[hummassa]

My personal case is: I work as a developer in the State House, and my wife is a district attorney. I have the following work and personal friends/acquaintances demographics:

200 Computer Science people
20 IT-management people
20 programmers
10 engineers (not software engineers)
50 journalists
20 lawyers
30 district attorneys
30 law clerks and paralegals
30 other

Of all those, I know for sure 5 know what /. is; only one reads it eventually. I read it everyday and post eventually. I would not be fooled into suspect this is the most popular site around (altough it is the coolest).

On the other side, of all those mentioned, only one is a Mac user; some 20 use Solaris workstations at work; some 5 use Linux servers at work; I am the only one I know (last time I checked) that uses Linux in my personal workstation at home (no dual-boot) and at work.

Hope I added some useful, on-topic information.

Re:An offtopic answer to you

[Dixie_Flatline]

Well, not really. You're still not a random sampling of the population. Your office may have a lot of diversity in it, but you're all generally well educated, you're making a fair amount of money (one suspects), etc.

Randomly sampling a population is hard work. Statisticians have a sort of bum rap, 'cause what they do isn't easy. You need people of all income levels, of all education levels, of all geographical ranges...your office is actually a really poor sample of what's around.

Now, it's not really fair to mention what people use at work as a response to the kind of machine that they WANT to use, or have at home. I use a Windows box at work. I don't plan to ever have one at home again, if I can help it.

But thanks. :)

Keyboard

[GoofyBoy]

>Studies show that computer-illiterate people are easily confused by multiple buttons. You'd be surprised, but it really is a problem.

So when is Apple going to come out with the 1 key keyboard and make it standard?

I wish they would hurry up, just thinking about using this complex input is giving me a head ache.

Re:DLL Hell

[dvNull]

I havent had a library issue in a long time. Can you suggest a distro where i can find this really interesting feature ?

Maybe i should install red Hat 9, download rpms for Suse 6 and then complain about library issues

dvnull

Mac Zealots totally miss the point.

[msevior]

Very few Mac users will ever switch to Linux. Very few Home users of Windows will switch to Linux. Big companies are in the process of *Forcing* their drones to use cheap linux platforms.

Linux use will also skyrocket where there are no Windows machines (2nd and 3rd World).

About half the Ximian guys use OS X to develop on but there is zero corporate interest in OS X. It's expensive, it needs expesnive hardware, it doesn't have the remote management tools of the Linux desktops and you're just locked into another proprietry OS. Where is the win there?

On the other hand Open Source platform developers will definately not be resting our Laurels and OS X will have to steadily improved to remain ahead of Gnome and KDE.

But that is good. That is progress.

Martin

what version of gcc?

[leinhos]

I wrote a small, heavily CPU intensive program which performed many typical DSP calculations, compiled it with gcc and ran it on a desktop athlon-xp 1700. Without optimizations, this test routine took eight seconds to complete, with optimizations it took four. Then, I compiled and ran it on an 867 Mhz G4 (same compiler): the typical routine took 30 seconds to complete without optimizations and 8 seconds with optimizations. Of course, you can't really make any scientific conclusions here, but it is suspicious at least.

Only the more recent versions of gcc (or patched versions) have AltiVec support out of the box, and only through use of the special vector routines (just turning on optimization won't help). Otherwise, you might as well compare performance to a PPC 750 (aka G3)

Wait a minute...

[Baloo Ursidae]

Didn't this already happen last winter?

Flamebait

[Hellraisr]

It's flamebait when you say Windows will crush OS X or Linux, but when you say that Linux will crush OS X, you post it as a story?

Ohhhhh....ported!

[FatSean]

So you gotta wait until some clue'd person touches up the autoconf, eh? Heh. Yeah. Ok, whatever, all those Linux apps appear to only be usable by those who are proficient Linux users. Or those who mooch off of those Linux users. Don't believe the hype.

This will never happen...

[erat]

Linux distros have had YEARS to become viable desktops. Barring the lack of missing apps like Photoshop and Illustrator, the desktop experience itself could use some improvement on Linux.

To be fair, I place a good chunk of the blame on the renegade nature of PC hardware. OS-X doesn't have to support the entire fickle world of PCs so its easier to make it do what it needs to do.

A few examples of issues that still plague the Linux desktop experience:

- Printer setup. CUPS has potential, but I've fought with it enough times on both the client end and the server end to suspect that CUPS integration in Linux is spooky magic that nobody to date has mastered.

- Techie terminology. I know Linux/UNIX terminology and you know Linux/UNIX terminology. A whole helluva lot of good that's going to do for the executive admin who thinks a computer is a "Windows" and a hard drive is "memory" or "C drive".

- Driver support. No, this is not the same as hardware support. By driver support, I am refering to a scheme by which drivers can EASILLY be installed without patching, compiling, etc. I'm sure some distros have done work in this area.

This is one area where Macs have always excelled above and beyond any other system (OS + hardware) that I've used. Here's a recent example:

A few months ago I purchased an ancient, beaten up Epson Stylus Color 740 printer ($20). It didn't come with any driver disks. I brought it home, plugged it in (USB), turned it on, and tried to print a web page with the expectation that I'd be prompted for a driver. Needless to say I was surprised when the Print dialog appeared, and after clicking "Continue" (no extra configuration steps taken) the web page printed in full photo-quality color. I can't begin to imagine how much I would have had to do to get that far on a different OS, even Windows. I spent probably 20 seconds of time between turning it on and printing, most of which was spent waiting for the printer to stop initializing. ESC printer owners will know what I'm talking about...

Am I complaining? Nope, so don't say "you dislike this stuff so much? The source code is there, fix it!" I'm merely comparing different desktop experiences. Linux will always be a viable desktop offering IMHO, but sorry, I don't see it EVER equalling a Mac desktop experience, especially for a UNIX-based OS. The UNIX-ish stuff is hidden so well, I can use a Mac and never know or care that a flavor of BSD is running behind the scenes (I still spend a lot of time playing around in xterms, though, just because that's how I was raised). Linux desktops have their place, though.

so?

[micq]

Apple only needs the 5% it has to sustain operations, so who cares if Linux usage increases as far as companies sticking around is concerned.

The 90% (or whatever) of computers users that have PC's try to sustain some upteen-billion PC component manufacturers, I'd fear more for them than a company that has 5% of a market share all to itself, speaking on the hardware side of things. On the software side, well, Apple is a hardware company, so it doesn't matter...

Apples vs. Oranges

[Abreu]

Unfair comparison. Building a house requires a lot more knowledge and a lot more work than assembling a computer.

Nowadays theres lego kits that are harder to assemble than a computer with a modern motherboard.

Assembly labor is definetely not the cause of steep apple prices

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[Delphiki]

And soon we will be able to combine Gentoo and OSX. Excellent..

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[IamTheRealMike]

Your time is money, but you use Slackware?!?

You want easy to administer, but Red Hat isn't cool enough right?

Whatever. I use Red Hat for that exact same reason, I like Linux but don't want to spend ages pissing about with config files. And you know what? I nearly never do. P

Re:Linux already has...

[j0ebaker]

This was my understanding as well. When I go around to schools out in the country who are still stuck with macintosh computers they are wanting to ditch them in favor of PCs, but they can't afford the upgrade. This is a big opportunity to bring in Linux servers, install X-Windows on the Macs to act as thin clients and they can then run some windows apps under WINE!

-Joe Baker

Dual CPU isn't the issue

[klubar]

The real issue is that you need a dual CPU on the Mac to be comparable to the single CPU on the PC. When comparing prices, look for machines that can do equivalent amount of "useful" work (whatever is relevant in your business/pleasure). I think that you'll find for most users (business, home, academic) that the PCs price out at 20 to 30% cheaper (after adding software). Of course, for some applications the Macs will be cheaper and for others perhaps an XBOX or homebrew is appropriate. Remember, many other companies quote prices that include monitors (apple doesn't, except for the built-in e/iMacs.) Also, if you need it, Office is much prier on a Mac than as a included item from a PC manufacturer. (Also, I don't think there is a boxed cheap version of home/academic Office for the Mac.) Don't forget to add a couple of bucks for an adaptor if you don't want to be a pricy (but gorgeous) Apple monitor.

I agree

[overunderunderdone]

Linux is more likely to be a positive than a negative for Apple.

I agree but I think linux helps Apple in many more ways. First, as you pointed out Apple is exploiting open-source projects for their own products (and giving back too).

Second Linux has kept Windows from dominating the low-end server market which helps keep Mac's as viable client machines.

Even more importantly to Apple linux has promoted/preserved open standards which are as important to Apple as they are to linux as niche players competing against a monopoly.

Finally, Apple will do better in a heterogeneos computing environment. If linux starts gaining serious desktop market-share all the above effects will increase. Also Apple's selling-points would be even more compelling. An "open-source(ish)" unix that's broadly compatible with linux but with a very slick consumer oriented user environment and wealth of comercial consumer software, brain-dead easy to use interface & tight hardware/software integration would be an easy sell in a linux world. Even if linux starts becoming "user-friendly" it will be a long time before the perception that it isn't change and it's unlikely that it will ever become as "user-friendly" as MacOS because it's developers and users value power, flexibility, configurability at the expense of ease-of-use rather than vise-versa as Apple does. For this reason I think Apple and Linux are largely carving their niches out of Windows from opposite ends (though that has changed somewhat with OS X).

An interesting question is if either (or both collectively) gains a critical mass of market-share what will windows selling point be? That it's easier to use than linux? Get a Mac! That it's more "open" with more hardware vendors than Apple? Get a linux machine!

Re:CONSISTENCY!!! Was: Re:No

[Methiphisto]

This is a great insight that I hope more people will read and take note of. Just because the initial expense is significantly less does not mean that the solution as a whole is a better solution. It's good to hear some real world examples of when linux on commodity hardware may not be the best investment, even if the initial price looks very appealing.

Linux driver installation is a pain...

[special_fx]

We have linux 9 and trying to install GL drivers that work correctly with certain graphic applications is a pain. Just check out the nvidia linux install instructions... 104 pages. Every time you get a new driver, or new application, you have to modify a script. Yes, that is not too hard, but trouble shooting driver problems that is related to installer script is a pain. It should not be that difficult, but I spent 3 days trouble shooting, a waste of my time, or heck I could pay someone else to do that, but where is cost savings?. Our SGI Irix seems easier! I like Linux a lot, but it is not nearly as painless to set up as Mac OS X. If something goes down or needs updating, no sweat... just click and go. And command line is near by just like any other modern Unix system. I like Mac OS X a lot especially with a dual proc and plenty of ram running Shake 3 has never been easier.

Yes

[Brian Knotts]

It's only a matter of time. Contrary to what many here are saying, Apple's hardware is still way overpriced.

I could build a dual Opteron 244 today for less than their dual G5, and the Opteron smokes the G5.

All good points, BUT...

[overunderunderdone]

All good points, but some of them are one (very critical) day outdated.

Dual 1.25 Ghz G4 Proc

What is this "G4" of which you speak? That is sooo last-week!

Re:All good points, BUT...

[zerocool^]

G-4 is so last week, i agree.

However, so is a 2.8 P-4. It's been out for about 6-7 months. Granted, not the 800mhz version, but the 533 has.

I know G-4 is older. I felt it was good to compare 32bit to 32bit arch. Reason is that any comparason I made to a 32 bit vs. 64 bit apple, people would clammour that the 64bitness would make up for it, and there would be no measure to see if they were, indeed, full of shit.

Plus, the p-4 is older too. It's been out for, what, almost 3 years now? All that's changing is clockspeed.

~Wx

Re:All good points, BUT...

[overunderunderdone]

Still the fact that Apple released a radically better chip and even more importantly a radically better *system* for that chip to live in significantly changes the equation.

Sure the P4 is an older architecture, sure you would get unfair and unwarranted comments about the G5's 64 bitness but still you are comparing the current price of an existing Dell being sold today to a Mac that you CAN"T buy from Apple anymore.

To be fair the Dell still ends up looking better on paper for a price/performance comparison. Then again on paper it looks even better than before, the new more expensive PowerMac has only one 1.6 GHz chip instead of TWO 1.25 GHz chips.

However, the more effecient chip & fast frontside bus (formerly a real bottleneck on the G4's Altivec performance) goes a long way in compensating especially if you need the machine for anything that benefits from Altivec. By all accounts Altivec is much better than the P4's SSE2 and the G5 has 2 altivec units (over one in the G4) and finally has a bus that can keep them fed. The end result is that on many tasks the P4 will likely be faster than the more expensive G5 but on SOME processor intensive tasks it won't even be in the same class. Fortunately for Apple those tasks are what many people need a really fast processor for in the first place.

Re:All good points, BUT...

[zerocool^]

Please don't take this the wrong way, i really value your input and don't want you to think i'm arguing just for the sake of arguement. I really value feedback and responses.

I just wanted to point out that the price that I got for the G-4 was from apple's website. It's here:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebOb jects/A ppleStore.woa/71302/wo/Vu6KTiVTVxV52Y76Op2QqG0SnH4 /0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.8.1.0.0.0.1.0

That url may have a problem because it's a session ID. If you go to apple, click store, and scroll down the G-4's are right there.

I don't know what the frontside bus is on an apple, g4 or g5, but it's most likely that it's less than 800 mhz in the p-4's.

It comes down to some people will buy apples. I've kind of been thinking about buying a G4 powerbook for a while now (but, can't because of money). I love OSX. And there will be some things that apples are faster at, like photoshop. I still think that few people use photoshop enough to justify buying a computer to increase it's performance, especially when you're not talking minutes of difference to render, just 1.2 seconds versus 1.4. Some people will think it's worth it.

But, apples will never have better games or more compatability with software. If you walk into best buy and look around, it's rare that you'll find mac hardware. Mabey a warcraft disc that works for both. But, mac's have less available software (it goes with the proportionally less market share).

It's really all preference. They'll do some things better, and some things not. I don't think i'll ever be able to justify the price of a mac tower. Mabey a laptop, because you buy it as much for the power as for the design and weight (soemthing that PC manufacturers haven't been able to get right - i'm typing this on an 8 lb PC laptop with a desktop P-4 in it).

Re:All good points, BUT...

[overunderunderdone]

don't want you to think i'm arguing just for the sake of arguement.

That's OK I like arguing - why else would I be on /.

I just wanted to point out that the price that I got for the G-4 was from apple's website.

When I went to Apple's store yesterday there were no obvious links to G4 systems. I went back and see them but the dual 1.25 Ghz one is now $1600 not $1800 as in your post.

I don't know what the frontside bus is on an apple, g4 or g5, but it's most likely that it's less than 800 mhz in the p-4's.

You're right on the G4 which was crippled by a slow bus (so that impressive Altivec performance was actually slower than it could have been) but the G5 has a frontside bus 1/2 the speed of the processor. So on the 1.6 GHz the bus *is* 800 MHz, on the 1.8 GHz the bus is 900 MHz and on the dual 2.0 the frontside bus is a whopping 1 GHz.

there will be some things that apples are faster at, like photoshop. I still think that few people use photoshop enough to justify buying a computer to increase it's performance, especially when you're not talking minutes of difference to render, just 1.2 seconds versus 1.4.

Actually Pro Photoshop users are a reasonably large market and they tend to be in *very* time sensitive fields. Also, while Apples Photoshop bake-offs might cook the numbers a bit (pardon the pun), they aren't off by *that* much. If you are talking 1.2 seconds on the Mac it's not unreasonable that it might be 2.4 seconds on the PC. Still just a second or so off & not worth any extra expense. But pro photoshop users still do things that can take quite a bit longer than that even on the high end machines. But even photoshop users are probably starting to get to the point where extra speed is becoming superfluous (but not quite yet). The people that can really use all that vector processing power are film, video, broadcast users (& Apple hopes the consumer with the dv camcorder)

But, apples will never have better games or more compatability with software.

I'll grant you games, but then again that's what a cheap game console is for not a $1.5K to $3K+ workstation. As for software It's very rare that you can't get what you need, though as you point out you won't find it at Best Buy, but if you are only looking at the selection of software available from BestBuy* I can almost guarantee that you will find perfectly good Mac equivalents just by clicking on "Get Mac OS X Software" in the Apple menu. In many cases those equivalents will be the exact same product for the Mac - it's just that BestBuy only carries the PeeCee version. The only place where you will run into a lack of software for the Mac is titles that are too specialised to be sold at a mass consumer place like BestBuy. Of course if you are looking at the Mac's niche markets (graphics, video etc.) it might be the PeeCee that doesn't have the specialist software. Most of the PeeCee only software that is lacking on the mac is a lot of redundancy & shovelware. The PeeCee world probably have a dozen competing titles along the lines of DentistOfficeManager2000. The Mac using Dentist on the other hand has to settle for just one or maybe two titles (usually the better ones) in that particular niche or at worst has to settle for a general Office management title.

*If you think about it BestBuy, or any brick & mortar store only has a very small selection of software, a few thousand titles at best.

Re:All good points, BUT...

[zerocool^]

Holy batshit, dude. 1Ghz Frontside bus?

Christ on a cracker. Amazing.

Good point, though. If I buy a $3k workstation, I'm not really worried about games probably, i'm probably buying it for one or two specific apps (dreamweaver and photoshop for instance).

Eh, i guess if you want it and can afford it, it's a good idea. I just can't spend $3k on a computer.

Safari

[Scholasticus]

No offense, but Yes Safari would exist. The Engineers just chose not to use Gecko and also not to develop their own, in-house trying to add to a project that already invented the wheel.

This is not a flame, I just thought something in the above looked really funny. It reads "The Engineers," so I'm wondering, "Who are "The Engineers," that they get a capital letter? Is it a band? Are they gods? Is this a reference to "The Ringworld Engineers?" And then I thought, "Oh, it means the engineers who coded the Safari web browser. What a letdown."

Not until they get rid of slow XFree86

[Paladine97]

Maybe if the Linux GUI got up to speed with OS X then it would surpass it. Users want responsiveness in their applications. OS X has it, Linux is playing catch up.

Nope. But is that the goal?

[andy_geek]

One of the (myriad) problems with Windows is that by integrating everything - by trying to do everything - it actually winds up not doing any one thing very well.

Linux is an outstanding OS - particularly as a server environment. That's where the bucks are in sales and service anyway: why compete with OS X? I use both Linux and OS X every day, and I wouldn't dare try to combine them/integrate them. They're each brilliant at what I need them for, but they'd be wholly inadequate if their roles were reversed somehow.

OS X will never be Linux, but if people spend time trying to make Linux behave like Jaguar/Panther/whatever, doesn't that undermine Linux as a whole?

Why Apple will never produce the leading OS

[artemis67]

The software is awesome, but it's the hardware that's the constraint. So long as Apple remains the sole supplier of Macintosh computers, there will never be competition leading to lower prices, and thus significant gains in marketshare. Microsoft achieved 50% marketshare with cheap PC's running MS-DOS against the elegant, graphical but pricey Macintosh in the late 80's/early 90's.

It also means that there will always be significantly less variety than the PC world; you can get (or build) a PC in any shape, size or feature-combination imaginable, but with Macs, you only get what one vendor produces, and Apple offers a fairly limited selection (I mean, they only came out with rack servers just LAST YEAR fer cryin out loud).

The ONLY way for Apple to actually BEAT Microsoft is to reopen the clone market, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re:Why Apple will never produce the leading OS

[Macka]

Yeah, but they'd never generate enough cash to remain profitable from pure software. A better strategy would be for Apple to start growing their server business, with larger 2-8cpu & 16-128GB systems, and to back this up with Enterprise class Consultancy & Support services. They already have the storage in place.

Once that's in place (or growing) releasing the desktop to cheep cloners (providing they're restricted to the desktop) could be a gold mine for Apple. Increased desktop marketshare would increase demand for the more expensive back end servers, support and consultancy. IT Managers love constancy in their organisation.

I'm hoping that Apple will take this approach anyway, as there are loads of markets they just don't have a presence in right now.

Macka

Not Without Serious Apps

[theManInTheYellowHat]

Macromedia and Adobe need to port their apps to Linux and make them for sale before any serious desktop war can be waged.

It is not that the current soup of Linux apps are not present, it is just that they are not really up to date with the current offerings of the heavy hitters. This is not to take away for their development work. It is just reality.

Depends who you ask

[Dstrct0]

I just took a quick visit to googlefight and Linux Desktop absolutely trounced Apple Desktop!

2 690 000 for Linux Desktop, and 1 490 000 for Apple Desktop.

So, depending on how much value you place on amount of hits from a search engine, it looks like Linux has already got a decided victory :)

In all seriousness though, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of Apple and Linux sharing the desktop scene. So long as somebody beats out MS, I'm happy.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[SubtleNuance]

bs. Install Debian including the "Graphical Desktops" (cant recall exactly) option. You get mozilla in the Gnome menu and Konqi in the K menu.

Fonts look great...

as for teh 'version on my os installed cds" mp3 stuff.. apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade. Just like, um, "start -> windows -> update" (sorta).

if someone donsnt know how do do these things, they should install Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows or %end-user-home-distro%.

Debian is for Geeks. Red Hat / SuSe for Corp.Engineering.Professional desktop. etc etc.

You are 100% off base here.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[sgtrock]

Type?

Jim-Bob doesn't type.

He clicks.

Can't click? Jim-Bob can't do it.

Sometimes talking to Linux zealots is like talking to an addict. Until you can make them admit that there is a problem, they're in denial. Until they're out of denial, they can't correct the problem.

Anyone who has tried the latest RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, or Lindows distros (other examples?) knows that the days when the only way to install software was to type stuff in are pretty much gone. Please check your facts.

I'll grant that Linux is NOT ready for the typical home user yet. But it's far more ready than it was even 6 months ago, and just keeps getting better.

Trust me on this: Corporate America has looked at Linux on the desktop.

Yes. And we are continuing to look at it.

Are they running it on the desktop?

Not yet. Although it is beginning to make inroads for tied down desktop apps like POS terminals, I don't expect to see widespread Linux adoption on corporate America's desktops for quite some time.

I do think it's inevitable, though. The economic worth is just too compelling. Either Linux, BSD, or some other FOSS OS will be on most desktops at some point. The cat is out of the bag, and you're not going to stuff it back in. :)

Perhaps they've noticed something you've missed, in your too-close myopic vision?

Actually, I think the real Linux penetration on the desktop will happen in Europe and Asia first. (witness the recent announcement of Munich's decision) Together, the two regions encompass a desktop market approximately 50% larger than the entire US market, not just corporate America.

Perhaps they've noticed something you might have missed as well?

OS X on Intel Would Rule The World

[Nathan P. Clarke]

This whole debate would be over if (when) Apple ports OS X to the PC. Finito. Kaput. And Microsoft would finally face a true contender.

Might even knock out Linux in the same blow.

Gee, I might even buy a Mac then (would be my first).

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[big_groo]

"I used Slackware for years, and I'm a fairly reasonable administrator, but I don't want to do MORE work when I get home. In essence, I'm willing to pay Apple to be my sysadmin. That kind of convenience is worth my money, because the actual work isn't worth my TIME."

I couldn't agree more. Until Linux is here, you won't see widespread adoption on the desktop.

Period.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[Dixie_Flatline]

I don't use Slackware anymore, that's the point.

Now all I have at home is a FreeBSD mailserver, and no personal computer of my own. I sold my PC so that I could fund a Mac purchase, but I decided to drop the money into student loans instead.

In any case, I have nothing against Linux or Unix at all, and I want to make sure that's clear. I would much rather be working on a Unix workstation right now than the Windows box that I'm required to have. RedHat may be a slightly better solution, and I'm sure you 'nearly' never have to dick around with config files, but you probably have to once in a while. Getting a RedHat system up is easier than ever, but getting a Mac up is even easier than that. Getting all the glitzy multimedia stuff running and having a solid UI are HARD under any kind of Unix (and since I have a hobbiest interest in UI design, I really appreciate how hard it is to make a good UI). It's easier than before, but not as easy as Apple makes it.

I don't want my computers at home to be work for me anymore. I want my Mac to be an appliance, where I sit down, and it works. It should be like my microwave, where it just does what it's supposed to, and the only setup that I have to do is plug it in. Even if I had to 'configure' my microwave only once in a while, it would be too often.

Yes and No

[$criptah]

I have been a Mac and a Linux/FreeBSD fan for quite some time now. Originally, I started using RedHat but it turned out to be a nightmare compared to FreeBSD. Still, I think that Linux has a great potential if its developers achieve the following: 1. Whoever does GUI interfaces for Open Source must be top notch. Afterall, Apple Inc. managed to gather the best of the best in terms of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) professionals. Almost every course HCI course that is taught in this country refers to Apple and their neat ideas: simple things that make life easier and more appealing. 2. OS Management! Whoever thinks that I like being in front of the computer for eight hours a day and then come home and maintain more computers got it wrong. The reason why I switched my desktop to OS X from Linux was the amount of time I had to spend when I wanted to update the system. If Linux distros want to be better, they have to learn from FreeBSD and its 'ports.' Easy system updates and builds via cvs are breeze and should be used by linux in the future. 3. People who develop apps for Linux must have some sort of enforced standard. One of the few reasons that make me want use os X is its consistency. Apple has published a set of guidelines that are to be followed during the development and it makes all applications look and feel the same. Things like having "OK" and "Cancel" buttons in the same places across all programs make it easier to navigate. I know that some standards exist in KDE and GNOME communities, but what about the rest of applications? 4. Better Java support. Yes, it is lame, but many people use Java now and I would love to write Java code on Linux, except that it does not work as good as it does on Mac OS X (as of today). 5. Better laptop support. 6. More business software. Sorry, Linux does not have a good pack of usable business software yet. I used KOffice for most of my work; it was good, but still sucked compared to Microsoft Office (I can myself being moderated down) in terms of portability and some weird bugs that occured quite often. Mac OS does not have a hudge business software base, but at least there are more stable products. Also, more multi-media products could help (again, something that is stable, not pre-alpha). That's what I have on my list. Some people may have more or less, based on their preferences. Additionally, I think that there should be more companies that sell Linux ready desktops with adequate (read professional) support that knows what's it is doing. When I started using Linux, I was frustrated with techs who could not help me due to their lack of knowledge. When I called Apple tech support because of some problems they helped me without wasting my time and I was glad that I was a Mac owner.

LOL

[Frobozz0]

"Will Linux ... emerge as the only viable competitor to Windows on the desktop?"

Are you kidding me? That was a good laugh. Thanks.

Re:Yellowdog Linux

[Dixie_Flatline]

Heh, I was just making guesses. The other ones were correct though, right? :)

I loved my Slackware box for years. I ran Linux at home for 5 years, and it was far and away the best alternative available at the time. Compared to Win95 and the MacOS of the day, Linux was a beautiful thing. I'm finding now that the OS field is levelling out a little, though. Linux is still rock solid, but it no longer has the advantages over the other systems that I'm looking for. When I was a University Student, tinkering with Linux in the evening was fun. It didn't seem like work, and it kept me in a familiar environment. Nowadays, Windows is more stable (but still crap, if you ask me), Linux is a little more user friendly, and OSX is something that I can not just use, but enjoy. 2 years ago, I would have laughed at you if you had described the current situation, but here it is. OSX is Unix, it's usable, and it takes a lot less time out of my day than a Linux box would.

But I'm not a student any more. I can afford a nice computer like a Mac. And you're right, the home computer is a bit of a toy. But like most toys that I have, I don't want to do any work to play on it. I'm a professional programmer now (out of the sysadmin biz, fortunately), and I do enough work at work. I want something that I can come home to that turns on just like my Gamecube, and doesn't make me tinker with anything to get stuff running. Ever.

But, the more I talk about it and think about it and use different computers, the more I REALLY see how people can disagree so strongly on computer choices. A lot of people don't want to pay very much for their home computer, and I can relate to that. I can also relate to people wanting something familiar at home, or something that takes no work, or something that takes a LOT of work.

And in the end, it's true. All we use them for is /. :)

Productivity Not Price

[TheBillGates]

What all the Mac and Linux zealots are overlooking in this argument is the actual bottom line in regards to productivity. Time for you and your customers has a cost that most overlook in the hardware and OS pricing.

I support 400 Macs and most of the time there's not much need for my help. My windows counterpart supports less than 100 PCs and he's always busy. So while his customers have a lot of downtime and frustration mine are happy campers and are not suffering from productivity loss.

Don't just look at the pricetag. In my experience the initial higher price of the Mac is more than offset by the labor saved. Plus there is the intangible aspect that I'm not constantly frustrated having to hack my system to get it to work

I'll switch to Linux...

[Dave Clifton]

...when they prise the single button mouse from my cold, dead hands.

Re:I'll switch to Linux...

[Mithrilhall]

I'll 'prise' it from your cold dead finger!

In Short

[geekoid]

You can't deal with having options.

Well at least the tv tells you where to get stuff and what to think.

I switched last year

[Mistah Blue]

I switched to RedHat 8 last year on my company laptop (I'm a field consultant). Crossover Office was the enabler (as I have spreadsheets with macros in them I have to use). My company uses Exchange but runs IMAP/POP on the Exchange servers. I use Mozilla for mail (it's LDAP gets my directory info from Exchange).

I loaded RedHat 9 on my new Latitude C840 and continue to Crossover Office (and Plugin). I use VMware to run a Siebel application we use.

I see no need to run Windows as my host OS.

Re:I switched last year

[Mistah Blue]

I neglected to mention the Siebel app must run from Windows.

Linux will take OS X

[Mithrilhall]

The reason... More and more governments will start to use it simply to save $$$. When workers are stuck using it for 8 hours a day they will want the same thing on their home computers. It's that simple. And the funny thing is...I like the look of KDE more than OSX!

Ahh, so you see

[bninja_penguin]

There, you now maybe realize my point, in that you are making wide assumptions about all PC systems, just as I pointed out some assumptions about Mac systems. You may have known some people who shell out money every year for PC upgrades, but that doesn't mean all PC users do. And yeah, I run some Macs also. I have 53 total computers, everything from PowerPCs to Alpha Boxes, an AS/400, some Amigas, and a couple of PCs. I have Mac LC's etc., but I don't want to bore you with details.

Suffice it to say, I felt the need to reply to you, as you were spreading as much FUD about the PC world as I was about Macs. My preference is Linux, but so what? Yours is Mac.

Not at the expense of OS-X

[stickyc]

Linux PCs will pass Apple in desktop market share next year

That's likely true, it may pass Apple in market share, but I dont see Apple's market share decreasing to meet that prognostication. Linux's primary growth in the home market is on secondary Intel machines as users continue to upgrade hardware and are looking for a use for the older boxes. The Linux rally cry of "it works great on older hardware" is working.

I'd be curious to see a statistic of how many of those new Linux boxes see more than a few weeks of use before being obsoleted by people disenfranchised because they can't find Network Neighborhood, get streaming audio working under Mozilla, figure out how to print under CUPS or apply their generous experience of Outlook filters to Evolution.

Doubtful

[Aapje]

I think that most people who still use Win9x are risk-averse and technically challenged. Generally, they run a few Windows and DOS applications in which they have invested a lot of effort. When you put them on a Linux box, you would find them to be very concerned about running their favorite apps and not very interested in the advantages of Linux. That's not the kind of demographic that would switch to Linux in droves.

Like you'll ever see this

[bninja_penguin]

Anonymous Posters suck, but hey I'll reply any way... No, I'm not a very good gamer, but I can get Red Faction to run on a Cyrix 333 at 20FPS!!!(hint, minimum requirements listed: 400Mhz w/mmx)

Re:I don't think that building the price into hard

[aaarrrgggh]

But I'd contend that the costs of R&D is for improvements to future machines, and by granting those spin-offs for free to existing customers, they build customer satisfaction with their brand and their product, and as a consequence, build customer loyalty.

The problem with that equation is that the hardware lasts five years, rather than the 2-4 in the PC world. A satisfied customer is important, but the cash flow of upgrading every fifth year doesn't work!

Re:For personal use? Apple is way more expensive

[Onan]

Well, you could use a g4 tower as a midpoint between an imac and g5, giving you both expandability and some more speed. (Yes, they're still available, and range between $1200 and $1500).

My claims about the g5's speed were based upon the information revealed yesterday, which implies that they're actually significantly faster even than those dual 3ghz amd cpus. Of course, we'll need to wait to see them in person and verify how true that turns out to be, but the current data seem very promising.

And yes, if assembling a machine is something that you find to be fun, then obviously that's not a cost. And without that cost, I think it's safe to say that a personally-built machine will always be less expensive than any prebuilt one.

On Planet X!

[MarcQuadra]

Seriously, I have a G3 running Linux that I use as a file/print/NAT server at home. Well I decided it was time to rebuild the whole thing, since I had some new ideas on how to implement the filesystem layout... anyway, in between the old Gentoo OS and the new install, I popped the Jaguar CD in to see how it felt on my G3.

LO AN BEHOLD!

Jaguar recognized my Compaq NC3131 64-bit PCI dual-port server NIC without ANY configuration! I saw eth0, eth1, and eth2 in the system profiler. I had forgotten that I put the card in there last year to see if I could get it to work under linux. OSX was even reporting all the detailed info on the Compaq NIC that I wasn't expecting!

Apple's OSX has drivers for hardware Apple never even produced, a byproduct of it's Mach/BSD heritage, and it has the auto-configuring niceness of a well-designed Apple OS.

Flamebait

[wayward_son]

Can someone mod this ENTIRE article as flamebait?

Might as well have said "Will Linux ever catch up with XP?" or "Will vi ever catch up with emacs?"

Use what best suits your purposes.

Of course there's a debian style package system!

[Merk]

See? Now this is the type of thing that us Linux-using, tech-savvy people have been trying to tell you zealots. Apple computers are no longer the GUI only, closed-source only, one-button only computers they used to be. I run zsh on my linux machine and my OS X box. I download stuff with wget on both. Basically any utility I commonly run on Linux is easily available on OS X with a simple fink or apt command.

For all those who badmouth OS X but have never used it, see if you can find out a way to try it out for a week before you comment on it. "Terminal" is in Applications/Utilities. Fink is at http://fink.sourceforge.net/. Enabling the root account is as simple as sudo passwd root. Emacs builds on OS X right from their standard CVS repository, though it's not 100% perfect yet, more details here: http://members.shaw.ca/akochoi-emacs/, and I wouldn't be surprised if vi is out there too somewhere, but hey, while you're switching OSes why not switch to a better editor anyhow. ;)

Seriously. Imagine Linux on a pretty computer, with no driver issues, and some pretty damn good closed-source programs to boot. Check it out, if you don't like it, that's cool, but at least you'll have an informed opinion.

This is whats gonna happen people

[Wislr]

People People open your eyes. The computer / OS battles have already determined the future. Its just a matter of time now. Let me explain. Jobs and co. will never and I mean never move to Intel or go entirely open source and here is the reasons. First and foremost Microsoft has made their money selling a good enough OS on cheap computers. Apple has sold a beautifully solid OS and excellent hardware which is mostly proprietary. We all know this. Now here is where it gets interesting. Bill Gates always feared a clever hacker / programmer bringing down Windows. Simply because he knows what he has been selling for years is stolen software that somehow Microsoft turns into bloatware. Probably due to too many renegade developers. Enter Linus Trovald and / or the clever hacker / programmer. Well now and certainly in the future Linux will become the good enough desktop OS for cheap Intel / Amd boxes simply because its close enough to Windows and all software including the OS is either extremely cheap or free. Apple and / or Steve realizes this. Apple also realizes that it can not make the same mistake twice by not being compatible with the bargain basement stuff. Enter OS X. Apple is able to port almost every program, (if not all) for linux or unix to OS X plus have its own proprietary software with the assurance that everything just works thanks to developing the whole widget. So here is the conclusion. Linux will eventually take over Windows on the desktop on cheap PC's simply because of price and being good enough just like Windows was. However those people lookin for something more will turn to Apple simply because all the programs they are used to with linux will be compatible. I expect Apple to eventually give OS X away (upgrades etc.) to existing Mac users and simply make thier money off of thier bread and butter which has always been hardware. In essence linux / cheap PC's will become Ford. Apple will become BMW.

Nuts to Market Share

[mrandre]

Market share matters as much as market share matters. I don't much care whether anyone else uses macs as long as I can continue to use my mac. That depends primarily upon Apple's ability to make money, and they've been very good at making money lately, even amid the slump. Of course, a certain amount of market share is important, but Linux can have all the market share in the world. As long as Apple is making money, I could care less. It's true. You'll pry my macs from my cold, dead fingers. So Go Linux, I say. And Go Apple too!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084727/

[omaco]

Did everyone miss the three letters between "slate" and "com"? I don't think it's the Apple that is terrified, nor the Penguin who is pulling ahead. The cartoon is written from the point of view of m$n who is terrified of the Apple and the Penguin, who are now both running hand in hand! It's m$n's worst nightmare: double teamed by *nix!

Almost all of them, yes.

[leonbrooks]

OK, add on USD$413 for software (do Elements require PhotoShop proper as well?), call it $1900 total in round numbers. What's XP Home and Office XP worth in the land of the Stars and Stripes? Guessing roughly $150 and $500 respectively, that quietly eliminates an MS-Windows PC from the running - although you could sub OpenOffice and then it doesn't look so bad.

they do, I think, run under OS X

Almost all do, modulo most graphic apps requiring an X server. With the advent of free Qt/Mac I imagine that all of the KDE utilities could be recompiled to run native. If Apple Carbonise KMail as well, Many of the lower-level libraries (like SDL) have a Mac version as well.

What Linux society doesn't have doesn't have nearly as much of as Mac land is graphic artists and the like. The rising spread of cross-platform libraries mean that more of this resource is being leaked back into Linux.

Re:Almost all of them, yes.

[2nd Post!]

But you're telling me that in Windows you get the equiv to iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, iCal, and iSync free?

I mean, my copy of iMovie, iDVD, and Photoshop Elements 2.0 (it is indeed standalone) cost me $49, and I've used the combo to earn me $600 in sales (DVDs), so I figure that's a good investment.

I've no beef with Linux, but for 3 days work and a $110 software investment, earning $600 seems a good deal. And I expect that with an additional 2 days work I can make another $700 shortly. If I mass produce the DVDs and distribute them widely, it gets even better. Of course, I have the capital costs of the Mac and the camcorder, as well, but those would translate to equivalent costs on the PC side; cost of the machine and cost of the camcorder. $1499 + $799 + $110; to make $600 in this one time, and another $700 the next time, and so on and so on.

Heh, no?

[trons]

What is UP with all these friggen' Linux freaks?! See, I don't know if the community knows, but if you keep on rattling about something too much, people actually begin to repell it instead of growing closer to it. At first I wanted to learn how to work with Linux, and then I found out what a bitch it was, how hard it is to learn to work with and especially how hard it is to find good documentation and not waste your money when buying a distro (if you already know you won't be able to install it..) Besides, most people (including me) think MacOS X is about the most revolutionary OS of today. Linux? What is this Linux crap you are blabbering about woman? C'est rien, c'est rien du tout! OS X is one tightly integrated working whole, where Linux is just a bunch of thrown together software components that 'should' work together, but do they? Without excessive manual sysadmin tuning?

I've been waiting since Acrobat 3.0

[BoomerSooner]

It's no where in site. Open a form drawn pdf and look at that mess of shit. It's not easy to imagine making that into a good pdf.

Windows, Linux or OSX? (long)

[LVWolfman]

At work and home I use a lot of different platforms and operating systems (See posts for background, especially 1924175 for my feelings about elitists and zealots)

I believe that OSX/Apple and Linux ARE making serious inroads into the desktop, mostly by those who've dealt with Windows and low to mid end x86 hardware for years.

Here's my reasoning...

On the desktop

A few of us are tired of turning on an x86 machine to see the blue screen of death, a boot failure message, whatever... We're tired of Windows working great with a fresh install but six months later slowing to a crawl (must be that reboot timer.)

One of the guys here (who is NOT a computer 'guru') figured out that with the amount of time spent in the past year upgrading/reinstalling Windows and apps, waiting for one of us to come over to DO the work... that he could have bought a top of the line Apple and saved time and money to boot. Nothing that he does is Windows centric.

We did set him up with dual boot and various flavors of Linux (Lindows and Redhat)and he was even more lost, having to wait for us to tell him how to do something or to reconfigure something that he wanted to do. (Perhaps that was our fault for not doing it right in the first place.)

Yet set the man down at a Mac and he's happily clicking away. Doesn't even notice that it's an 800Mhz G4 instead of a 2.4Ghz P4.

I catch my wife using my 400Mhz G3 desktop mac at times because her's "is getting stupid again"... (*SIGH* another weekend shot backing up, reinstalling and reconfiguring Windows XP, her apps and data.)

My boss just brought in his 3.06Ghz P4 because it booted up with an error message one time too many. We're to use it for parts, perhaps for a new database server. (Note, there are dents in the side of the case that match his shoes.) Meanwhile he's using his iBook until his new Dual G5 2 Ghz machine arrives.

And these are just a few examples of the problems folks have with their x86 hardware and Windows that I and others here have to deal with.

On the server side:

The same boss looked at the hours that the two of us have spent configuring and setting up five rack mount servers (a combination of Windows and Linux, off the shelf name brand and custom built) plus the cost of the hardware. (one server purchased from eLinux has had to have the mother board, one hard drive and three power supplies replaced in the year that we've owned it.)

Then he looked at the cost of Apple's X-Serves. As an experiment, He had me set up an OSX server as a mail server, duplicating our Qmail/imap/virtual domain mail server functionality. Total time was about three hours I'd never done it before.) The Linux/Qmail version took me weeks of manhours, mostly spent searching the newsgroups, forums and books as I'd never done THAT configuration before either. Again, it was probably me as I didn't know what I was doing. But I was able to get it done a lot faster on OSX Server than on Linux, not knowing what I was doing on either machine. (Windows would have been faster still.)

We built a new file server with IDE raid to replace our aging Snap server (linux based)... It runs XP. If we don't reboot it every week, it locks up and stops serving shares. If fact, every Monday morning I have to reboot the Windows servers as a preventive measure. We find that they stay up longer.

The bottom line is that through all of this, the Linux machines have only suffered from hardware failures... once configured and running, they stay running.

The Macs (I have the G3 at home, the G4 Powerbook I carry with me and a G4 800 at work, plus a number of others around here) haven't crashed nor had hardware failures. My G3 hasn't needed to be "reinstalled" since I got it other than when I upgraded to newer versions of OSX. (Neither have the other Macs, but my G3 is the oldest.)

Th

Not amazingly useful??

[ZxCv]

Maybe it's the lack of sleep talking, but you'd have to pry my scroll wheel mouse from my cold dead hands. I'd call the scroll wheel mouse one of the few true innovations for input devices, and, as such, I downright refuse to use anything but on a box that I'll be using for more than 5 minutes.

Re:Not amazingly useful??

[theLOUDroom]

(I was being sarcastic)

Re:Not amazingly useful??

[shaitand]

bah forget scroll, going optical has been the greatest improvement in mice since the dawn of time. Going wireless is not far behind. Shortly thereafter comes the three button mouse, and finally the scroll.

OT: Re:Pay attention!

[ralphclark]

Thanks for extending the helping hand. Unfortunately it's not just one or two websites, I think it might be any web site with Javascript on it but it only happens when Moz has been running for a while and has a number of tabs/windows open. I'm pinning my hopes on 1.4 (sucker!)

Latest updates? I have them all. This may be part of the problem. SuSE's QA is terrible, the updates always seem to add at least as many bugs as they fix.

As for Gnome - I've avoided it mainly because I find the interface confusing and non-intuitive. I think I may try again, especially now that the new ximian updates have come out.

Re:CONSISTENCY!!! Was: Re:No

[shaitand]

First of all, you purchased a hardware solution you expect to last for ten years... this i definately stretching the timeline for hardware... when making this purchase, realizing YOU are the vendor now, you didn't purchase extra components???? The reasons to use linux are performance and stability, NOT because it has a lower initial cost.

I dispel this myth wherever I can, it's NOT less expensive to implement linux initially... if anything it's more expensive, it's less expensive to maintain and it's more reliable.

A very low end sun system for example STARTS at about $20,000 for a single machine. In certain applications that machine will compete with a single dual opteron system (assuming it's properly built, with GOOD pc components rather than the cheapest you can find like you will get with a dell, compaq, hp, etc), in some it will lose the performance fight, and in others it will blow it away. For $20,000, I can easily purchase:

1 x monitor, keyboard, mouse ($60)
15 x opteron mb ($2100)
15 x opteron w/fan ($9000)
2 x 32x10gb disk array w/disks ($600)
40 replacement drives ($2400)
1 x clean metal wardrobe w/shelves,brackets, screws, etc ($100)
15 x 1gb ddr 2700 modules ($1650)
20 x psupply ($600)
15 1gb nics ($1500)
total= $18010

Now this gives you enough to build a 10 node cluster. In terms of replacement hardware you have.

5 extra processors
5 extra mb's
5 extra nics
5 extra 1gb ram modules
40 replacement hard drives
an entire redundant disk array
10 extra power supplys

Now assuming absolutely every piece of hardware goes off the used and new market tomorow and ebay erupts in a tower of flame, your STILL in pretty good shape on parts for a 10yr run. Some things like the disk array are actually old now... but still provide a hell of throughput and price/performance especially with $20 a drive max if purchased individually, can't be beat.

Now you intall linux on the system, stick it in a corner and forget it exists for the whole 10yrs. If a piece of hardware dies, you pull the node, replace it (assuming it's not just a drive), and go back to browsing slashdot.

I administer 16 linux servers currently, I've been administering them for 2yrs. To date, none of them have so much as needed a reboot after setup.

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[shaitand]

dunno about your midi timing issues.

But there are great audio apps for linux...

Check out these links, the first is a specific app, the second is a list of various apps (good and bad)

http://ardour.sourceforge.net/
http://www.osnew s.com/story.php?news_id=1511

Re:"Apple is the Ferrari of computer Systems."?

[shaitand]

Now I've always found macs to be fine machines. Stealing basis for the new macOS from BSD would help in this endevour true. But putting pretty graphics on top of a system thats inferior to linux doesn't give you a system superior to linux, sorry. Actually I might consider paying $1000 for a mac (what it will cost me to build an equivelent pc, off the shelf prices don't matter, I can't build a mac myself, so your mac better be able to compete with what I can build a pc for myself for) and running linux on it. Anymore a mac is basically just a pc with a risc processor and bsd clone with a pretty lair of graphics on top.

Now while I'm sure there are plenty of perfectly normal people out there using macs. I've known 4 dedicated mac users, now I've known a few college students who use them because they get discounts and a friend said "macs rule" who couldn't care less what they run. But dedicated, "I think macs are superior" users:

#1. was a homosexual who wrote poetry, fenced, and finally went to france were he flunked out of a french university.

#2. Was a straight man who believed he was a wizard and typically hooked up with women as fat as he could find them so he could get them to stomp on his nuts repeatedly in high heels. He videotaped this and showed them to everyone he could. He also showed heel marks (on his chest) to clients on a regular basis at work.

#3. Another homosexual I worked with at Sony. Definately gay, and didn't know a thing about computers, but he loved his mac. I'm fairly sure I convinced him to go linux+pc before I left... never got to see if he did though.

#4. 4 doesn't really count, he was really an amiga enthusiest who went with the closest thing he could find in terms of hardware to his amiga.

[OT]

[BlameFate]

Hi, How do you set up your software to do real time mpeg4 encoding?

I'm archiving a lot of my old videotape, and looking to do it quickly. At the moment, I capture from video into FCP, edit it up into what I want, then export via Quicktime, which takes considerably longer than real time. If I could get it to do real time it would speed up the process considerably!

I'm on a dual 800 G4 with maxed out ram. Any pointers would be helpful!

Cheers.

Re:[OT]

[BitGeek]

I'm actually using a custom application.

At some point in the future, I'm planning to release it to the world at large.

It just uses the Apple Quicktime framework, so you can write your own app to do it, if you're a programmer.

IF not, keep your eyes open.... my app is coming soon.

Re:[OT]

[BlameFate]

Excellent, thanks for the reply :)

Re:[OT]

[BitGeek]

I've forgotten what it was you asked, someone was asking about using iSight for movies, if that was you, here's a URL that may help.

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/07/01 /i sight.html

IF you were talking about re-encodind DVDs, you could capture them to DV using the Formac DV bridge (But not conopuses) and then use iMovie or Quicktime Pro to re-encode them to MPEG4 or whatever.