(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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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?

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 :)

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.

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

[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.

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 $$$

[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.

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?"

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?

[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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: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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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...

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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

[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.

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

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.

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: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.

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.

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

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.

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: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)

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?

[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!

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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)

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: 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.

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:$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.

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?).

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).

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

[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."

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?

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!

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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: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.

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. (-:

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.

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...

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.

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 :-)

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...

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.