Desktop Linux Share Overtaking Macintosh

if only apple was x86 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 17:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel

Re:if only apple was x86 by diersing · 2004-02-13 17:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Moderators - why is this flamebait?
If Mac OS X ran on x86, it stands to reason the parent, myself and many others might give it a go. If you could run Mac OS X on cheap, available and upgradable hardware it would stand to reason that it would have a greater desktop share. Being that some out there view Apples as cost prohibitive. I feel the parent is on-topic, even if poorly presented/worded.
Re:if only apple was x86 by Mr+Pippin · 2004-02-13 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Regardless, I don't think this is bad for Apple.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Apple has more to gain from Microsoft losing marketshare to Linux than themeslves losing marketshare to Linux. Apple is a Unix proponent, and friendly to Linux in that regard.

Who knows that the future may bring!
Re:if only apple was x86 by l0ungeb0y · 2004-02-13 17:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is flamebait because people have been crying wolf about Macintosh OS's going x86 for years, much longer than the cries about "BSD is dying" and typically, people will post about Macintosh going to x86 to intice a flamewar from Mac enthusiasts and PC users alike.

In fact, I already posted in this thread and in my post I was going to note that it would be interesting to see what the stats would be for x86 OSX desktop installs if such an option were available to the consumer. But wisely I decided to skirt that issue for the very reason you see in your parent post.
Re:if only apple was x86 by rampant+mac · 2004-02-13 17:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

"If Mac OS X ran on x86..."
God Dammit, how many times does it need to be said? As far as the hardware debate, yes, Macs are more expensive. Yes, the retail cost of a new Mac is more than your average clone, or build-it-yourself project, and this is not where Apple is positioned.
I purchased a Mac because I was sick and tired of "tinkering" with my computer, constantly tweaking settings, ensuring everything worked properly. I set my PowerBook up 4 months ago, and guess what... It just works. Apple can NOT provide that same advantage using cobbled-together x86 components thrown together and hope the end user experience "just works" for the average consumer.
You really do get what you pay for.

--
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Re:if only apple was x86 by SiliconJesus101 · 2004-02-13 18:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ahhhhmen brother. As a recent Mac convert (got lazy and sick of "fiddling" with my OS and hardware); I wholeheartedly agree.
Although my Mac is an old "Sawtooth" AGP G4 with a 1.2Ghz GigaDesigns processor in it, it would still fetch at least $600.00 or $700.00; This is for a machine that was built in 1999!! Find me a consumer grade PC worth anywhere near this that was built in 1999 and has nothing more than a new CPU upgrade and I'll [insert favorite disgusting act here] in the middle of Times Square at high noon. Part of the expense of a Mac is saved on the resale value when you sell your old Mac and buy a new one.

--
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
Re:if only apple was x86 by ReallyQuietGuy · 2004-02-13 19:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, definitely, look at how well those other x86 OS vendors are doing even in a field dominated by Microsoft! Like, you know, like... hrm. Who else makes a commercial desktop OS on x86 and is still alive?

BeOS found out the hard way what happens when you try to fight on MS' turf. If you are going to live on the x86 sphere as an OS vendor you are either very niche/specialised (i.e. NOT "commercial consumer desktop vendor" a la Apple, Be, IBM-OS/2 et al), or you are fucked.
Re:if only apple was x86 by Blic · 2004-02-13 19:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I remember running Rhapsody DR2 on Intel - but that was back when they were working on slapping the OS9 UI onto NextStep. It never went any further than that.

Darwin can run on x86, but, uh... =)

In any case, it's never going to happen - Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. The make their money selling Macs, not the OS, the same way iTunes fuels iPod sales...
Re:if only apple was x86 by nomadic · 2004-02-13 19:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is flamebait because people have been crying wolf about Macintosh OS's going x86 for years,

How on Earth does "IF OSX was on x86" equal "OSX WILL BE on x86"?
Re:if only apple was x86 by hype7 · 2004-02-13 20:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

adapting the x86 standard

excuse me? exactly which x86 standard are you talking about?

the fact that a majority of commodity PCs ship with x86 processors does not make it some kind of standard nor does it necessarily mean it's the best choice. In fact, Apple's resolute decision to stick with PPC is going to pay some real dividends in the next 12 months while the x86 world flounders.

-- james
Re:if only apple was x86 by namespan · 2004-02-13 20:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, but considering that Apple caused it's own demise by sticking to proprietary hardware

Demise?

Net sales increased $465 million or 8% during 2003 compared to 2002...Gross Margin of 1.7 billion...recent innovation....

Helluva death. One that a lot of companies would like to be enjoying.

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Re:if only apple was x86 by dasunt · 2004-02-13 20:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

I purchased a Mac because I was sick and tired of "tinkering" with my computer, constantly tweaking settings, ensuring everything worked properly. I set my PowerBook up 4 months ago, and guess what... It just works.

Just because MacOS X 'just works' for you, doesn't mean that it will 'just work' for me.

If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way? Is it easy to find a graphical configuration utility and make the cursor disappear after 5 seconds of inactivity?

Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?

There's just two trivial examples I found off the top of my head. I could easily add more.

Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done. I'm not sure about the rest of the crowd, but the reason I use unix-like OSes is because its more efficient for me to get my work done.

As for my x86 hardware, its performing fine, thank you very much. Unfortunately, there is cheap x86 hardware, just as there is cheap hardware for Macintosh. If you don't do your research when making a major investment, you will get burned. (Or did we already forget the Apple Cube fiasco?) A system from one manufacturer is not a guarentee of quality, nor is the inverse true. There are plenty of cheap automobiles that have problems even though they were designed by one organization. Inversely, I'm pretty sure that kitchen sink makers aren't allied with the lumber mills, and yet the roof overhead doesn't leak and my sink runs water without a problem.
Re:if only apple was x86 by Alioth · 2004-02-13 21:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

I agree with you on the hardware side. My next computer purchase will be a laptop, and it will be a PowerBook. PCs, even 'integrated' ones like laptops are parts-bin machines, and will always be parts-bin machines. The Mac is more like an Audi - although it may not boast any more features than a Ford, it's better thought out and it's more likely to just work.

Having said that, I've been using RedHat Linux 8 since it came out as my primary desktop. I've not had to tinker with it for a long time - it just works. That doesn't mean I didn't need to tinker at the start - my ancient parport scanner for example, I needed to build sane from source. But then again, the scanner isn't supported at all under Windows XP (and I suspect not under Mac OSX), so I still win. Why not buy a new one? Well, the existing one might be old but it works and I don't see the need to replace working hardware which can be fixed by 'configure; make; make install'.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:if only apple was x86 by naden · 2004-02-14 00:07 · Score: 3, Informative

If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear

You know you could just move the mouse to the side of the screen. But maybe thats a little too simple.

Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?

You can set hotkeys to launch applications. Just not ones that involve multiple key presses. For example, I map the F* keys to launch applications.

Also I use Launchbar .. which allows you to type the first few letters of the application to open it. Both useful and elegant.

But I don't think you've ever used OSX have you ?

Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done.

Guess what .. OSX IS a Unix-like OS. Hence with OSX you can both fiddle AND get real work done. You do realise that OSX is just *BSD with a pretty front end dont you ?

OSX is and will probably remain for the medium term a shining example of what KDE/Gnome should have been.

--
Funtage Factor: Purple
Re:if only apple was x86 by TVC15 · 2004-02-14 01:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

i've never understood why people assume that OSX on x86 would be any (or much) more affordable than on a mac. theres no reason why steve doesnt charge $1000 for an x86 license of OSX. and another $500 for each point upgrade. not to mention that instead of charging $50 for stuff like iLife, he might charge $100-$500. after all, if macs have a 'tax' on them, why would he let software only purchasers get away with not paying it?

of course, parent said that they would be 'running it'. perhaps i was assuming wrongly that they would be paying for it.
Re:if only apple was x86 by Megane · 2004-02-14 01:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

i know for sure i'd be running mac os if it worked on intel
But would you pay for it? Or would you just warez it?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:if only apple was x86 by jo_ham · 2004-02-14 01:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple hardware might not be cheap, but it is certainly upgradable and available.

I'm sure if OS X was available on x86 you'd give it a go, but I fear it would go the way of BeOS.

Apple couldn't survive in the x86 OS market, even with an immeasurabley superior OS than the current dug-in tick, sucking life and innovation out of the industry like the current status quo.

OS X wouls achieve greater market share, but I fear it would be unsustainable.

I think as Apple develops further and keeps working on their current model (like it or not, their method works for them) then Apple hardware will become cheaper.

There's never been a better value for money range of Apple computers as there is today - from the budget laptop to the SUV 17" model that most don't need, but is there for the small niche.

Their range of desktops is starting to look like something worth considering - from eMacs and iMacs, through MDD G4s (they do still sell them) and the mighty G5.

I can pick up a pretty good compact laptop - the iBook for just under $1100 that is pretty perfectly specced for the market. Good battery life, reasonable power, great OS, CD burner/DVD etc. I'd certainly go with that over the same laptop I could get in the x86 world for $1100, but it's just my choice at the end of the day.

I'd love to see Linux marketshare growing - and it is (although I've always been partial to FreeBSD myself). I hope that Apple and Linux can co-exist happily in the marketplace.
Re:if only apple was x86 by DrXym · 2004-02-14 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah but running on x86 means supporting all that awkward hardware that Windows, Linux have to support. Can you see Apple doing that, especially seeing as they didn't make any of it?

I can't.

And if for some bizarre reason they did port to x86 they would simultaneously enrage their army of zealots and negate any possible reason for buying a Mac in the first place.

In other words, it would be suicide. With that said, I wish someone would produce a Mac OS X emulator for PCs. I have a Mac so getting the ROMs would be no problem, but it would be handy to be able to fire it up from time from my laptop.
Re:if only apple was x86 by alcmaeon · 2004-02-14 03:43 · Score: 3, Informative

"Just because MacOS X 'just works' for you, doesn't mean that it will 'just work' for me."
Sure it will, you just may not like the way it "just works" especially if you prefer twiddling with settings all the time.
"If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way?"
Yes, in fact, it does just work this way. Have you actually used OSX? If you had, I'm sure that in less than 1 minute you could have deduced that this is an application-specific behavior. The cursor disappears in Safari or Word, for instance, but not in iTunes. Makes sense if you think about it. You primarily read in Safari where a cursor in the middle of the page could be annying. You primarily type and read in Word where a cursor would be jsut as annoying for the same reasons. In iTunes you primarily select things with the cursor where it is more important to have the cursor in a location so you don't have to "jiggle the mouse" to see where it is before moving it.
Would you really want the cursor to disappear in the Finder after 5 seconds of inactivity?
I don't understand this objection at all.
"Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?"
Well, you could either use a macro utility, or pretty easily set up an AppleScript to do this, but this functionality is not otherwise built in for reasons that make sense as someone else pointed out.
"There's just two trivial examples I found off the top of my head. I could easily add more."
Find us two non-trivial examples.
"Don't think everyone who uses the Unix-like OSes are a bunch of twiddling geeks who are content to fiddle with the OS while Mac users end up getting real work done."
I don't either, but I do think that one of the selling points on every Linux distro site I have seen is configurability of the user interface which is fine If you are a twiddling geek, but not fine if you want uniformity of user experience across a company's computer installation. It is typically something that doesn't lead to productivity either. My user interface customization is limited to changing the desktop picture. Otherwise, I spend all my time actually using the computer.
"I'm not sure about the rest of the crowd, but the reason I use unix-like OSes is because its more efficient for me to get my work done."
Another good point. So, on the Mac, just run all your Unix apps in Quartz accellerated X11. I do this all the time, but I still dont' twiddle with the interface. What is the big deal?
Alcmaeon
Re:if only apple was x86 by localman · 2004-02-14 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

You're missing the point. Of course a computer isn't an investment. We all use computers as tools. I won't argue whether the PC or Mac is a better tool but here's my experience with pricing:

In 2001 I bought a G4 Powerbook 500 for $3500. At the same time my wife bought a Sony VAIO for $3200. Aside from the fact that it had no CD, the battery lasted about 1/4 the time, and it had a smaller, lower-res screen, we'll call them equal.

In 2003 I sold my G4 (with a cracked case from droppage) for $1025 on ebay. She sold her pristine VAIO for $400.

Of course, this is for laptops, and it could be argued that Sony's are overprice for PC's. But still, she "paid less" and I "got more" both in specs and resale value.

And all of this is a waste of time anyways -- as people rarely complain if you buy a more expensive car (with virtually no technical advangages) I can't see why people are so hung up on computer price, especially with the functional differences. Perhaps a matter of taste -- but what's wrong with paying more for something that fits your taste? It's all just a pissing contest and it's tiring.

Or so I say -- despite my adding fuel to the fire ;)

Cheers.
Re:if only apple was x86 by WillAdams · 2004-02-14 05:48 · Score: 3, Informative

But NeXTstep _was_ available for x86 (and one can still find copies here and there if one looks) --- why didn't you run that? Oh yeah, it was $795 / seat w/ _extremely_ limited hardware support, and if one called in for tech support on install, one might get a tech who didn't know that (for example) ThinkPads need to have their memory size specified at boot so as to not interfere w/ APM. (Nothing personal mind, I'm just still kinda bumming I never managed to get NeXTstep running on my ThinkPad....)

If Apple had tried to make Mac OS X available for x86, they'd've been pilloried over limited driver support --- if you don't believe that, go try out Darwin on x86. What? You don't have the exact motherboard specified? Sorry.

Interestingly, it's looking like a _lot_ of what will be available for people using in Linux will be derived from things developed on NeXTstep (and I'm not talking about Doom, FreeHand and the World Wide Web) --- GNUstep has really improved by leaps and bounds in the past year, and a _lot_ of nifty software has come up, most notably a full-fledged PostScript / vector drawing program, Cenon available from http://www.cenon.info (so one no longer need regret GYVE being given up on, or a certain Japanese company not following through on an offer to donate their internally developed drawing program).

There's a new look, and a lot of new stuff available at http://www.gnustep.org --- check it out.

William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Re:if only apple was x86 by The+Lynxpro · 2004-02-14 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Apple has more to gain from Microsoft losing marketshare to Linux than themeslves losing marketshare to Linux. Apple is a Unix proponent, and friendly to Linux in that regard."

Not to mention that developing for Linux or Mac OS X should be easier to port things to-and-fro versus between Windows and OS X or Windows and Linux. Increasing market share for Linux or OS X means more resources devoted to open and semi open standards which promote competition versus lending support to closed and proprietary solutions from *The Monopolist.*

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:if only apple was x86 by SiliconJesus101 · 2004-02-14 07:37 · Score: 3, Informative

If you must know, I paid $250.00 for my Sawtooth with it's original 450Mhz G4. I added a 1.2ghz CPU, actually 1Ghz...but rated to overclock to 1.2 by the manufacturer ($329.00), an original Radeon 32MB AGP card ($32.00), swapped the 100MB Zip drive for an old 250 Zip that I got for free, and dumped in an 60 gig 7200RPM drive ($39.00 after rebates).
The original full pop list price for this machine 6 years ago in 1999 was $2499.00. By my calculations, based on the fact that the machine currently sells for an average of $500.00 used without any of the upgrades I added, it has lost 80% of it's value over a 6 year period of time. And while a comparable (?) x86 system from 1999 may have cost only around $2000.00 you will now have to give it away for free to a friend that just needs an old junk router box. And yes, by comparable I mean nice case (not some bleeder beer can case with a crap power supply), 64Bit PCI slots, Firewire (ieee1394), DVD-ROM drive, etc...basically fully loaded as a Mac comes by default.
Please make sure that you are comparing Apples to apples....pun intended. Any x86 system built with low grade cheap components will most assuredly be far less expensive than a Mac, but once you get into loading up the PC with the things that are standard on a mac, you may find your x86 systems to be a bit pricier than expected; Please don't compare the Mac pricing to a Wal-Mart special eMachine.

--
"The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
-Thucydides
Re:if only apple was x86 by toddestan · 2004-02-14 08:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Find me a consumer grade PC worth anywhere near this that was built in 1999 ...

Part of the reason why you won't find a PC from 1999 that is worth that much anymore is because for $600-$700 I could go out and build a new PC from scratch that would totally smoke your Mac (or any 1999 era PC) in terms of performance.

Not to mention that perfectly usuable 1999-2000 era PCs (such as high end PIII's with 512MB of ram and DVD drives) go for under $200 at retrobox.com. I'm sitting in front of one right now.

Not that Macs aren't good computers, they are great machines. But I feel they are overpriced. Which is why I don't see myself buying one any time soon, though I enjoy using other people's Macs.

As A Mac User by molafson · 2004-02-13 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

As a Mac user, I guess I'm supposed to be foaming at the mouth now, extolling the virtues of OS X, and denigrating the virtues of Linux. However, I won't. I don't care about Apple's market share, as long as OS X (and its requisite hardware) is available to me. I will gladly pay the price. Long live the king!

Re:As A Mac User by Dukael_Mikakis · 2004-02-13 17:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think by default Apple users don't care about market share. In fact, my experience is that they abhor market share and extol the "uniqueness" and individuality that comes from being an Apple user. I mean, not any geek could hack on a purple box.

But also, lest you forget, remember that OS X, of course is based on Unix itself (FreeBSD). (Does that in any way qualify OS X for a "Linux distro"?).
Re:As A Mac User by molafson · 2004-02-13 17:32 · Score: 3, Informative

But also, lest you forget, remember that OS X, of course is based on Unix [apple.com] itself (FreeBSD). (Does that in any way qualify OS X for a "Linux distro"?).

No, BSD is a blessed version of the old school source, Linux is a clean re-implementation. They're both good, but OS X definitely ain't a Linux distro.
Re:As A Mac User by burns210 · 2004-02-13 17:33 · Score: 4, Informative

no, it doesn't. It qualifies it as OS X, based on Darwin. Freebsd is indepedent of linux, and freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, and darwin(which borrows much from freebsd) are in no way a 'linux distro'.

To be a linux distro, the OS has to actually USE linux. *bsd and darwin don't use linux, they use their own open(and similar to eachother, in some parts) kernel.
Re:As A Mac User by Greenisus · 2004-02-13 17:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Apple may only have 3% market share, but it's the top 3%.
Re:As A Mac User by RedWizzard · 2004-02-13 19:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Apple may only have 3% market share, but it's the top 3%.
I definitely agree, provided your measuring by pretentiousness.

Now if we could just get... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 17:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Linux - 51%

and Mac - 49%

Re:Now if we could just get... by Trillan · 2004-02-13 18:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Now now. If that were to really happen, we two factions would have no choice but to kill each other...

Right now, we occasionally fight, but we don't have to. We're doing it strictly for fun.
Re:Now if we could just get... by Ryan+Amos · 2004-02-14 05:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, while you're installing drivers and patching your kernel to interface with the nuclear ICBMs, I can just plug them in on my Mac with iNuke and destroy you immediately. Do not doubt the superiority of the Mac. ;)

Good news by mysterious_mark · 2004-02-13 17:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

WE the Mac owners wish to be a small and exclusive club. (Too bad I can't afford the new G5) MM

Re:Good news by phrasebook · 2004-02-13 17:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Sounds like its a little too exclusive if you can't afford to be in it. Oh well, maybe you can just peer in through the Windows.
Re:Good news by jest3r · 2004-02-13 19:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Owning an Apple is like driving a BMW ... sure every car gets from point a to b .. but some do it in style. My Powerbook wows people ... and OSX is like the icing on the cake.

I don't think BMW has ever complained about their 2% marketshare. Neither has Apple.
Re:Good news by Sunnan · 2004-02-13 23:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they are happy with their tiny market share, why pull something like this?.
Re:Good news by IamTheRealMike · 2004-02-14 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think BMW has ever complained about their 2% marketshare. Neither has Apple.
Cars aren't platforms - you can't compare the two. If an OS has no users, it has no apps and it will never get users - ie it is a dead OS. If a car has no drivers, it could still have 20,000 drivers tomorow, ie it's a "sleeping" car ;)

Er... by aitala · 2004-02-13 17:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Those percentages are probably new sales and do not reflect the existing desktops out there.

E

--
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com

Re:Er... by wankledot · 2004-02-13 17:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

They also don't reflect what people are choosing.
That might be a minor point to some people, but I think the number of people that actually CHOOSE to run linux is far far less than people that choose a Mac. Very few people say "hey, I'll get a new PC, I think I'll run linux." Most of the wins in the linux market are from installations where people have no choice... enterprise and business accounts.

--
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Re:Er... by TiMac · 2004-02-13 17:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Which is probably true of many of the Windows installations out there as well. Many people use Windows because they are forced to. And this leads to buying a Windows machine at home "to stay compatible with work" (despite the other options).
So what's the point? Hopefully if people are "forced" to use Linux at work, and find they can maintain compatibility with their Windows PC at home, they might start to realize they could maintain compatibility with their Linux machine with a Mac, too (even more so in some ways).
I find it sad that the Mac's marketshare is represented so low, but I find OS X and Linux users on the same side of the bigger war, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. w00t! :)

--
Re:Er... by mrklin · 2004-02-13 18:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, this is an argument that many of my fellow Mac users would raise. They will point out this is market share data for new sales and do not reflect 1) install base and 2) mind share.
However, the fact is new sales is what matters. Steve Jobs does not want you to keep buying the annual $129 OS upgrade (yes, yes, you don't HAVE to upgrade but this is Slashdot) to use on your G3 450 - he would also want you to buy that spanking new G5 along with the annual OS upgrades and the biannual iLife upgrades. Wall Street, Apple, IBM, Gartner, etc would all want you to buy that new Apple hardware.
"But why should I upgrade my G3 B&W 450 when it runs OS X just fine! In fact, I pity the pathetic Windoze M$ PeeCee users who upgrade their hardware every two years!" some of my more zealous Mac users might say.
The answer is, of course, "because they can".
They can because Motorola took two whole frigging years to go from 0.5 Ghz to 1 Ghz while during the same time Intel went from P3 0.75 Ghz to P4 2.2Ghz. They can because IBM did not come out with the excellent and competitive G5 until late 2003. They can because the competition between nVidia and ATI produced superfast and hot GPU for PC.
They can because the combinationof cheap and fast hardware more than make up for the deficieny of Windows.
If Steve-Apple-IBM-Moto made it cheap for you to swap your machine every couple of years, do not tell me you wouldn't buy new Macs instead of extolling the virtue of G3 450. And if so, market share of new sales for Apple would be higher and I wouldn't have to write this!
Re:Er... by shaitand · 2004-02-13 18:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

How exactly do you figure that not choice? The owner of the pc chooses the operating system. If all pc's come preloaded with one operating system then there is no choice. But if a corporation chooses to put linux on IT'S desktops then the choice was made.

Or do you honestly believe the secretary should choose the OS on the desktop? lol

At home it's your pc or pcs and you choose the operating system on the pcs you own. If you have 4 pcs, like I do, that counts as 4 desktops. Because my computer illiterate wife didn't choose the OS on the desktops I let her use does that mean there was no choice? Of course not, their my desktops and I chose what to run on my computers.
Re:Er... by mitchell_pgh · 2004-02-14 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, most of the people that are forced on to Macs and Linux boxes resist. These people don't want to use anything other then Windows because that's all they know.

Unfortunately, the uneducated public will use whatever they are given, and then defend said platform to the death. I have people that refuse to use anything other then Word Perfect, Windows 98, an old laser printer, etc. They don't want to switch because that's all they know. Throwing Windows XP on their systems causes MAJOR problems (other then the ones associated with the OS itself).

Let's face it... It's going to end up an "Us against them" type of situation where it's Unix (and their children... Linux, OS X, etc.) vs. Microsoft. I only hope we don't kill each other off)
Re:Er... by SideshowBob · 2004-02-14 04:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't see it that way at all. I think that there are some companies that are embracing FOSS, using it where possible, and contributing back to the community. Apple and IBM are in this camp.

In the other camp are companies that see FOSS as antithetical to their way of doing business and fight it (legally and in the marketplace). Microsoft and a lot of others are in this camp.

In my opinion, someday (assuming FOSS wins, which I do) most companies will resemble Apple and IBM - a mix of FOSS and closed.

FIrst post W00T by Provocateur · 2004-02-13 17:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

ANd to think the halftime ad in the Superbowl featured IBM's Linux ad...

History repeats?

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.

I know, I know.. by DwarfGoanna · 2004-02-13 17:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is about desktop marketshare.

But shouldn't this be more a story of Linux gaining ground on Windows? I like and use both, but I hate to tell ya, Apple's core market is safe from Linux for the foreseeable future.

--

"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo

WHere is my half life2 and photoshop? by Billly+Gates · 2004-02-13 17:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

The marketshare is there now right? Most linux installs are for home users who are nerds, cad engineers, and some servers here and there.

The server software is comming and cad software is just now being ported. Home software is still nowhere in sight.

Also most nerds now download iso's from Debian and Gentoo, and FreeBSD. They do not pay for there rpm hell anymore. Are these users being counted as well?

If there could be a way it would tell these software makers to port home software.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:WOW by Dukael_Mikakis · 2004-02-13 17:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Linux installations to reach 3.2%, for the first time overtaking Macintosh market share. By 2007, IDC forecasts, Linux will be installed on 6% of the desktops.

So that means in 2052 we'll have over 50% market share!

And in 2102 we'll be on 100% of all machines!!

And in 2202 there'll be 2 Linux distros on every machine!!!

And in 2302 ...

More design software for Linux on the cards then ? by bushboy · 2004-02-13 17:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

This starts making Linux a very viable software platform in terms of established software companies such as Adobe and Macromedia.

Being a designer, this is the key area I'd love to see Linux flourish in.

To be able to ditch windows and natively run applications such as Photoshop or Dreamweaver would be a dream come true !

--
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !

Not the point. by marcsiry · 2004-02-13 17:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who cares if it's overtaking Mac- as long as the share it's taking over from is Windows.

If Linux was *replacing* Mac on the desktop, that would be worrisome. Instead, you're seeing municipalities, counties, even countries switching from Win to Lin. You're not hearing about ad agencies doing mass migrations to Linux, replacing Photoshop with the Gimp and Quark with... with... um, well, you're not hearing about it.

Meanwhile, the mac addicts will single-click along, content with their 3%- and happier still that they've got some stronger allies against the real threat to their desktop security.

--
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||

Re:Not the point. by dalutong · 2004-02-13 17:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems a lot of people think that overtaking Mac is not a newsworthy feat. It is a huge deal.

They're not replacing Photoshop with Gimp, Quark with nothing, etc. But, if they have developed Photoshop for Mac, including MacOSX, then they now have a reason to develop it for GNU/Linux. This would be a reason for a lot of businesses to get into gear and start porting.

I am aware of all the reasons they might not -- different distros, harder to support, not as focused a userbase, etc. but at least the list no longer includes "it's not even as popular as Mac!"

--

What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Re:Not the point. by great+throwdini · 2004-02-13 18:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

But, if they have developed Photoshop for Mac, including MacOSX, then they now have a reason to develop it for GNU/Linux. This would be a reason for a lot of businesses to get into gear and start porting.

I am aware of all the reasons they might not -- different distros, harder to support, not as focused a userbase, etc. but at least the list no longer includes "it's not even as popular as Mac!"

Unfortunately, I think you are being a bit too optimistic, if not outright mistaken in jumping to this conclusion. Overall shifts in desktop installations for Linux compared to OS X do not translate to equivalent shifts in the interest, need, or profitability for a given application native to either platform.

Let's use PhotoShop as an example.

Those who are increasingly adopting Linux may not be a solid target market for (in this case) PhotoShop. Now, if one could demonstrate that all those graphic designers et al. who currently use Macs or Windows are jumping the fence for Linux, that may be the case, but greater or growing numbers overall don't mean greater or growing numbers of users who want to or are willing to purchase (in this case) PhotoShop.

In the firm for which I work, everyone uses either OS X or Linux on the desktop. The Linux users outnumber the OS X users by a ratio of about 2:1 (and yes, there are more than 3 people in the firm). However, the number of Linux users interested in acquiring PhotoShop is zero. Anecdotal, I know, but my gut feeling is that something about my personal experience with Linux v. OS X on the desktop captures (at least a bit of) the reality in the bigger picture when it comes to this particular app.

It's not the size of the install base, but its characteristics of that base which are most important. Mac users may have a fractional hold on the desktop market, but it's where that fraction of the whole pie has been installed and put to use (DTP, etc.) that attracts the interest of companies like Adobe at present.

"It's not even as popular as Mac!" means a whole lot more when you ask: "Among whom?"

FACTS PLEASE by mitchell_pgh · 2004-02-13 17:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the unparalleled words of Jerry Mcguire "Show Me The DATA".

I'll believe it when I see some kind of data. I have yet to see Linux being used in a desktop environment. I've seen a few macs, but a majority have been Windows based.

Re:FACTS PLEASE by dameron · 2004-02-13 17:27 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll believe it when I see some kind of data. I have yet to see Linux being used in a desktop environment. I've seen a few macs, but a majority have been Windows based.

And I've never seen Bigfoot but I know it exists. Your point?

-dameron

Google says 1% by bhny · 2004-02-13 17:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Google Zeitgeist still says Linux is 1% and Mac 3%

Re:Google says 1% by OneFix · 2004-02-13 17:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Probably because most Linux users change their user agent string to report as a windoze variant...
Re:Google says 1% by ImTwoSlick · 2004-02-13 17:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Probably because most Linux users change their user agent string to report as a windoze variant... That's what I do. I'm sick of so may internet sites denying me access because my browser doesn't identify as IE. Even though 99% would still work anyway. Now I just change the string, and have no more problems.
Re:Google says 1% by arvindn · 2004-02-13 18:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Note that opera on linux identifies by default as MSIE/Windows. Also I don't know what google's "5% - other" means. Perhaps some of that is linux but not correctly identified?

Predictions are like ***holes by tyrione · 2004-02-13 17:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everyone's got one.

This presumes the rate of growth for Linux on the Desktop will be as prolific as it has been for Enterprise deployment, not to mention OS X isn't once mentioned in the article, just the Macintosh Operating System.

Market researcher IDC expects to announce within weeks that Linux' PC market share in 2003 hit 3.2%, overtaking Apple Computer Inc.'s (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News) Macintosh (news - web sites) software.

Macintosh software? Could this article be particularly more vague? I guess being overly general is good to cover their butts?

Good luck on Linux overtaking OS X's momentum.

Since over 40% of pre-OS X has switched since its inception I would expect in a year from now another 30% and climbing, especially with the G5 and soon-after G6.

My daily OS is Debian so no I'm not coming from a Mac biased viewpoint.

Small but significant by Hamster+Of+Death · 2004-02-13 17:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

This just goes to show that you don't need to be an 800lb Gorilla to succeed, you just need to be useful. This is where both Apple and open source competes. They are both useful to different groups (with some overlap) but since the user base of all computer users is so large, 3% is still a large number of people. I guess it's proof that if you are good at what you do, people will come to you.

huzzah by BortQ · 2004-02-13 17:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

While the desktop linux market share is rising about that of macintosh, that isn't a bad thing for the mac. The loss is market share will be to windows.

One of the driving factors behind this is cost (especially in emerging markets). The change is coming in business environments, where the macintosh has always lagged far behind windows.

I can't see any of the traditional macintosh markets switching to linux. The same UNIX base is present on the mac along with other more exclusive things.

Anyway, I think that this is in fact a great thing for the macintosh. The compatibility of programs is much better between os x/linux then it is between os x/windows. And Apple has been showing it is more than happy to take up open-source created standards.

In conclusion: go linux, go mac os x, die windows die!

--

A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux

Critical mass RealSoonNow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 17:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

If desktop Linux starts to hit Microsoft where it hurts, it will happen not so much among typical office employees but among specialized workers. These include stock traders, bank tellers, engineers, customer-service reps, and warehouse employees. They rely on just a few applications and need PCs that are simple to use and rarely crash -- which Linux can handle.

The last part from the article is an understatement, but it shows BusinessWeek gets IT. It is a pretty well written, but short article, from the business perspective.

Some disadvantages do remain in the near future (eg., the home desktop user still has to get around to installing a working DVD player for movies), but even businesses see the snowball is gaining in size and will soon pass the critical mass (to mix metaphors)!

Re:WOW by whiteranger99x · 2004-02-13 17:25 · Score: 5, Funny

And in 2302 ...

We'll be used as batteries for our robotic overlords, whom I for one welcome :P

--
Join the TWIT army now!

Linux overtaking Mac... by Pathway · 2004-02-13 17:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, I think it's important to note that it's not the MAC which is loosing ground to Linux, but rather that it's Microsoft's Windows users who are primaraly making the switch.

I just don't think that the Mac is going to disappear because of linux. The Apple zealots are worse than Linux'es own!

Pathway

Still not there yet... by d.valued · 2004-02-13 17:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think we're going to succeed in pissing off the Macophiles in the crowd with this one. I like OS X as much as anyone, and its multipedia capabilities are utterly obscene, but for general apps most people don't need it.

To be fair, most people don't need the capabilities of any modern system. I'm going to get a 64-bit based laptop, and the only people I can think of who need such power are gamers, video/audio editors, and the highest of power users.

Linux based systems tend to hold the line on excess hardware bloat. You don't need to stay on an endless treadmill of forced hardware and sofware upgrades for support; a skilled tech can keep your setup running. Security is potentially higher, with proper configuration. And virii are pretty much a null threat.

Most office productivity can be handled with F/OSS analogues of Windows tools. Programs like OOo and FireFox, The Gimp and the myriad SQL databases do a great deal of work.

--
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.

How exactly do you do this? by Durin_Deathless · 2004-02-13 17:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

There strike me to be several problems with this: 1) Many linux users(myself included) download iso images, from which it is hard to get an idea of number of users 2) most linux installs are not traditional desktops, for Joe Schmo. Most are for more technical users. 3) When do they 'expire' a machine? For nubmer 3, I mean this: when is a machine no longer held to be in use? I didn't get Panther(it won't run on my Beige G3), does that mean I don't count? What about the Macintosh SE in the basement, still getting daily use? The other beige G3 here, still on OS 9? 2 or 3 years is fair for Wintel boxen as an average IIRC, but a Mac tends to outlast that. I know of several people using first generation PPC machines, simply because they do everything needed. This isn't as simple as OS sales in a given year, I would say harder for Macs than for other machines because the life of a Mac is so much longer than many other platforms, especially without any trackable upgrades. Without knowing from whence these numbers came, they are pretty meaningless.

--
You should use AdiumX on your Mac.

Penguins Eat Apples For Lunch? by l0ungeb0y · 2004-02-13 17:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, this should not be surprising nor alarming.
On the face of it this is a very misleading statistic and /. post. What would be more relevent would be to compare Linux penetration across hardware architectures seperately. Saying Linux has more installs than OSX is rather slanted and not all that informative since there are many more x86 compatable PC's on the market than PPC compatables. Linux is not hardware, Microsoft does not make PC's. OSX is a desktop yes, but tied to the hardware needed to run it.
So let's see the percentile of Linux installs on x86 PC's vs Linux installs (Yellow Dog et al) on PPC architectures.
That would give a better overall view of the marketplace and usage trends. For I'd suspect the migration to Linux from OSX would be microscopic at best while the real breakaway would those migrating from Windows.

Google Zeitgeist by BlueEar · 2004-02-13 17:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google's Zeitgeist still has Linux at 1% and Mac at 3%. I also find it not very encouraging that even with Longhorn delayed by 3 or so years predicted Linux desktop share gains are 3-4%. Maybe our New Years resolution should be to install Linux on at least one computer that was monopolised by Windows. I did just that :-)

--
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend

Re:Google Zeitgeist by prockcore · 2004-02-13 19:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google's Zeitgeist still has Linux at 1% and Mac at 3%.

Yes, but Google's Zeitgeist isn't an authority on the subject. They only count the unique visitors to the site. Many Linux desktops are being set up in work environments, where people may not even have a browser installed, or where work might not let them visit Google.

At home, most linux users have static IPs, or near-static IPs via broadband. The majority of OSX and Windows users use dialup. This means they get counted multiple times.

Re:WOW by fromtheblueline · 2004-02-13 17:30 · Score: 3, Funny

[pink elephant ballon wafts in, all eyes follow]

And a gay president by 2065?

"We're trying to be realistic."

It doesn't matter by Hornsby · 2004-02-13 17:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm a long time Linux user who's just about to purchase my first Mac, a G4 powerbook. I use Linux on the desktop everyday, and while I like it, I'm not afraid to admit that compared to an OSX desktop, it lacks polish. I don't blame X, Gnome, KDE, or anyone for this. I really believe it's simply a matter of Mac development being more focused due to Apple spearheading it's development.

Linux is awesome because it's affordable to everyone, and it's become a very nice alternative to Windows; however, I don't think that it's going to steal a significant number of users from the Mac market since OSX has a major geek appeal as well.

It's silly to think that users have to be either here or there. I plan to continue to use both Linux and OSX after the purchase of my laptop, and I don't understand why everyone is so black and white about what you run on your desktop. Anybody that's used a Mac knows what the appeal is about. Linux has a natural attraction to anybody that wants a stable and cost effective OS. Why not enjoy both?

--
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.

Uhm... duh? by solios · 2004-02-13 17:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

To run MacOS requires a PPC. Not just ANY PPC, a Macintosh. That's ONE breed of computer. Just one.

To run Linux, you need a computer and some means of getting linux onto it. Linux runs on Sparcs, Ultras, SGIs, Alphas, x86, m68k, several different PPC variants, pdas, cel phones, the Game Cube, the Dreamcast, digital watches, and the IBM 390 mainframes.

Not only does linux run on practically everything, it handles almost identically across ALL of these architectures. Your debian experience won't be much different on an Ultra III than it will be on a Dell or a Macintosh G3 (aside from hardware support, obviously).

I can install linux on any computer I can find in the dumpster.

Every other OS on the planet (BSDs excepted) are much less portable and available on a vastly narrower variety of hardware.

So. DUH. Of COURSE it's a growth industry. Linux is popular on the x86- and there's got to be at least 10 PCs for every Mac, just in terms of volume of existing hardware. Linux will continue to gain marketshare because it isn't tied to any specific hardware, making the cost of entry incredibly, amazingly cheap.

Can I get a HELL YEAH! ?

only 6% in 2007? by skillio · 2004-02-13 17:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

hmm, i wonder if they're taking into account the ever-growing usability of linux to casual desktop users when giving this projection. it seems to me that in 3-4 years, just observing the trend, adoption percentages will be much higher than that. it isnt linear because as it gets better, more people try it, recommend it, etc, and obviously the price factor is big. in addition, i'd think something like the walmart cheap PC thing will be multiplying greatly as linux is shown to be user-friendly, with many more major vendors pro-offering linux in some form on their systems. maybe i'm just being optimistic, but i'd hope linux desktop adoption in 2007 would be 10-15% or higher - i guess we can hope (:

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port? by Brandybuck · 2004-02-13 17:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Supposition: Mac users actually buy software, Linux users demand stuff for free. Every platform has its user quirks. I think Linux's is that they all want everything gratis.

Who wants to port to Linux only to have hordes of advocates screaming "it's not Free Software!"

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

To paraphrase Disraeli by pixelgeek · 2004-02-13 17:35 · Score: 5, Funny

There are lies, damn lies, and market share percentages.

Missing the point my friend, but then so did the p by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-02-13 17:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Missing the point my friend, but then so did the poster. Nothing is said about Apple loosing ground. Just that their is now another non-windows OS out there with users in the single number percentages. That they are a fraction higher just makes for nice headlines. It is a journalist thing.

Since real freedom fans are not out to destroy ms-windows but rather to make for a world in wich ms-windows is just another desktop this is good news. Apple and linux and bsd and beOS (whatever its new names is) SkyOS and tron and etc all have tiny shares. TOGETHER we are now beyond the 5% and closing slowly on the 10%. 1 out of 10 people is a significant number. That is the kind of number businesses have to respect or face loosing customers.

With Office on Apple uncertain this could mean that 1 out of 10 people need to get their documents in a more open format.

So this article shouldn't be about linux overtaking apple, wich is hardly a suprise considering it is happening on the office desktop and the gigantic price difference, but the share of non-ms-windows installations increasing.

No MS is not going to go bankrupt over this. But with these kind of statistics IE only websites are becoming just a little bit less good business sense. That can surely only be a good thing.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:At this rate... by sloanster · 2004-02-13 17:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I highly doubt that it will be a nice linear function, for a number of reasons -

It will most likely be exponential at the tipping point, then going more logarithmic as the market sorts itself out.

Honestly, I don't care if microsoft keeps a healthy market presence, if linux gets a good 30% share I'm happy, since that's big enough that it can't be ignored, and microsoft can't get away with the old monopoly games any more.

Linux Compatibility by Phroggy · 2004-02-13 17:46 · Score: 4, Informative

This was on Mac OS Rumors two weeks ago; since they no longer have archives I pulled it from the Google cache:

One of the biggest Mac OS X 10.4 features: Linux? It's that time of year again, folks - last year's big operating system release, Panther, is about to get by far its largest and most mature update yet in the form of 10.3.3 and Safari 1.2 in the next couple of weeks, and Apple's attention is beginning to turn to its next major release.

One of our oldest sources has reported in on the beginning stages of this process, and the first item on his bullet list: Linux. Mac OS X 10.4 will more closely merge the Apple experience with that of Linux in several key ways that will visible to users as well as developers. Panther already implements a number of Linux APIs, but Apple hopes to make 10.4's adoptions higher-profile and therefore mirror (rather than cannibalize, we can hope!) Linux's success in creating an "opening wedge" into the Windows world.

We expect to get more details as Apple fleshes out its concept work and gets coding. Stay tuned....

Interesting follow-up to that:

Apple's 10.4 "Linux initiative" could work both ways. Today's crop of new reports on this topic not only provide considerable confirmation that Apple is indeed pondering a "Linux adoption" move, but hint at an angle we haven't covered yet. It has been suggested that Apple could gain quite a bit of attention and support from the GNU/Linux/OSS communities by porting more of its key pieces of software to Linux: Xcode, Rendezvous, QuickTime, iTunes, and iChat have all been mentioned. More on this later in the week as we continue to analyze this particularly tantalizing line of inquiry....

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;

Re:Linux Compatibility by iotaborg · 2004-02-13 19:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hate to say it but MOSR's rumor accuracy is a close 1%, you can see their past history and their accuracy from webarchive or google (or lack thereof).

And this is why MOSR doesn't have past archives.

Usage vs Install by pavon · 2004-02-13 17:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

I bet the discrepency comes from the fact that IDC is measuring installs and google is measuring hits. There are probably a lot of people who have Linux installed but still use Windows as their primary OS, and/or use Windows at work, and therefore visit google using Windows more often than using Linux.

Re:I'm going to help out here... by Brandybuck · 2004-02-13 18:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

The system for you depends on your particular wants and needs. More than one category can apply.

I'm a clueless newbie and proud of it!
Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros
I don't intend to be clueless forever
Fedora, SuSE
I am not afraid of computers
Slackware, Debian, FreeBSD
I like to tinker with stuff until it breaks
Gentoo, NetBSD
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me
OpenBSD, Debian
I want to be l33t
Gentoo

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Could be even more Linux desktops out there by darnok · 2004-02-13 18:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm now regularly "reviving" old Windows desktop boxes that didn't have enough grunt to run as Win XP systems. They still make perfectly useable Linux systems.

The majority of these are used as firewalls or Samba servers, but some are running Mepis. There's nothing like taking a "junk" PC from someone, then "reviving" it for use as a Web browser/email/simple office PC. Many, many home users are upgrading their old PCs, and I suspect a growing number of these are now retaining their old PCs and redeploying them as simple Linux SOHO desktops.

After all, a ~500MHz, 128Mb RAM desktop PC is barely useful for Windows 2k or XP, but still works fine as a Linux desktop.

I doubt that these PCs are showing up as Linux PCs on any survey - they usually were originally sold with a Windows licence. As they're often "second" PCs, they might rarely get used for Internet access; instead Mum or Dad use them for work stuff while the kids are playing games on the shiny new PC.

Linux not there yet for CAD engineers by PotatoHead · 2004-02-13 18:17 · Score: 4, Informative

Win32 is getting a pretty nice grip on this market. Almost all of the MCAD (mechanical CAD) companies offer win32 versions of their software.

Smaller, niche CAD players, do offer both Linux and Mac versions. PTC, one of the bigger players (for a while longer at least) does Linux today, with Mac coming.

The problem is the number of users running strong win32 based programs. (AutoCAD, Solid Edge, Solid Works) While none of these packages offer the level of capability the bigger packages do, their numbers are creating a significant network effect. Very few mechanical engineering departments, found in small to mid-sized enterprises, run anything other than win32 systems. The big players still make good use of UNIX, with Linux being rare at this point and OS X being more rare or non-existant at best.

These systems are increasingly being tied to back-end PDM (product data management systems) that aim to drive the product knowledge throughout the company. The reasons for doing this are sound, but the platform in the lead right now is win32. Given the strong intergration between win32 and office, additional intergration involving engineering and CRM software, Microsoft is getting hold of manufacturing and product design companies in a big way.

Both Linux and OS X are going to have an increasingly hard time cracking this nut. All of the MCAD sales people use win32 running laptops. Older UNIX products are being ported and adapted to run win32.

Many folks in this market do not even have Linux on their radar yet.

Given this is my area of expertise, it is a depressing story really. Linux and OSS in general are a great story that almost never gets told in this space.

Microsoft has been growing at the expense of commercial UNIX vendors, in this space for the last 8 years or so, almost unchecked. This is an area that Linux is ready for in many ways, due to its technical nature. The ECAD people along with the movie studios demonstrate this clearly.

I'm afraid, without ports to Linux from the big players, the mechanical engineering and product design markets are going to be win32 for a long time to come yet. Even with the ports, the mid-range packages (having the majority of users) are win32 only at this point, because they leverage Microsoft tools at almost every level of the software.

I fear the home software will come first. Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am.

--
Blogging because I can...

Mach microkernel, lots of *BSD bits... once again! by green+pizza · 2004-02-13 18:18 · Score: 3, Informative

The Mac OS X kernel itself is a derrivative of Mach. This is were essential kernel services plug in. A lot of the userland and driver space is based on BSD in general... some bits are from 4.4BSD Lite 2, some from FreeBSD, and some from OpenBSD. In fact, there was an article somewhere in which the author ran the latest Darwin (the opensource, non-gui part of Mac OS X) source through some scripts to discover that there's more OpenBSD in Mac OS X than there is FreeBSD.

Remember, Mac OS X is based on NeXTSTEP / OPENSTEP, which were based on 4.3BSD and did not have any FreeBSD or OpenBSD code (in fact, NeXTSTEP probably predated FreeBSD).

As far as the "Macintosh" side of things, only the Carbon runtime libaries were ported over for legacy semi-ported Carbon applications. Native Mac OS X apps are Mach-O binaries and use the (NeXTSTEP "NS") Cocoa library for GUI. There is also a "Classic" virtual machine for running Mac OS 9.2.2.

Good for Linux, still good for Mac by amper · 2004-02-13 18:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, I just spent the better part of my day building a new mail server.

It's a Power Mac G3 B&W running Mac OS X 10.2.8 (6R73), with Sendmail 8.12.11, Cyrus SASL 2.1.15, Cyrus IMAPD 2.2.3, GNU Mailman 2.1.4, SquirrelMail 1.4.2, Berkeley DB 4.2.52, etc, etc--all downloaded and compiled from scratch with GNU GCC 3.3 (except Sendmail, which doesn't work with 3.3, so I used 3.1 for that).

*And* all of this works with SMTP AUTH through SASL linked through PAM to the NetInfo database. I've done this on Mac OS X 10.3 as well.

I could do this on Linux, too, I suppose, but then I wouldn't also get all the really cool features of Mac OS X or Apple's really cool hardware.

BTW, just saying "Linux" is kind of misleading. Even if you only looked at the major distro's, you're still talking about several different types of systems that have significant compatibility problem between them. So, if you're going to lump all of these into one big "market share", I'd say why not lump all the commercial *NIXes together? I'm sure AIX, IRIX, Solaris, etc could add a percentage point or two to Apple's share, at the least. Hell, you could even toss in all the *BSD's, for that matter.

The bottom line is, no matter what flavor you feel like using, it's all basically a (nearly) POSIX compliant system under the hood.

Just so long as it's not more Windows...

I was listening to NPR briefly today with some silly girl from Wired talking about the MS source code leak. Doesn't it amaze you how much people are talking about hackers taking advantage of the source code to attack Windows?

Don't these people have any memories at all? I would venture to guess that *none* of the writers of the very well publicized virus attacks of the past few years needed access to the MS source code to effectively attack a large portion of the world's Windows systems. Can you say MyDoom? Melissa?

Bah! Windows is a plague on humanity. Hopefully, the combined power of Linux, UNIX, and BSD, especially with the help of Apple, will wipe this incontinent excuse for security off the face of the world once and for all.

More is needed for desktop (suggestions included) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 18:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Quote from the article:

Munich went with Linux, but the city fathers may rue that day. BusinessWeek has learned that the project is behind schedule, bolstering Microsoft's message that Linux still isn't ready for prime time. "I haven't seen any of our customers use Linux in a mainstream way," says Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager for platform strategy.
[End Quote]

Some things a Linux desktop still needs (in my opinion, in random order):

1. Good DVD player & CD-RW that just work, without mesing around. If this software is not part of the distro, simple instructions on how to get/install it (one click?).

2. Friends who are familiar with the OS/Distro, for the network effects and piece of mind in case something goes drastically wrong. This is where having a "critical mass" (fuzzy value) comes in - this is already happening, but the more, the better.

3. Better Wine, but that will come with age. :) [CodeWeavers is doing a really good job, with full disclosure of the limitations, which leads to a sense of psychological well being, rather than the feeling "they are trying to take advantage of me."]

4. Better default settings for Desktop/Window managers that make sense to a majority (and keep the ability to tweak). The "usability" improvements and surveys will help here, a lot. More needs to happen in that field.

5. Use easier "language" - eventually (in 1-2 years) e.g., non-cryptic commands, or a *standardized* set of aliases that work on all distros. [And continue to evolve the GUI so the user doesn't HAVE TO use the CLI.]

6. Better Grub/Lilo/equivalent that is less intimidating for new users that want multi-boot. Preferably with a easy to use GUI that detects all HDDs & partitions and tells you what's on them (with as much relevant information as possible).

7. Some packaging system with less dependency problems. [Yes, there are a few that show very good promise, with only occasional issues surfacing.]

8. The equivalent of a "tray" where one can see the status of the firewall, proxy server, network connection, ..., similar to a few other OSs. The lack of such status is hard to get used to, for a new/non-expert user.

9. Few, well chosen default applications on the distro (not "give them four of everything"). [Lot of progress has already happened in this area in a few distros.]

10. Other stuff that's been talked about in other places. :)

-srr

It's worth noting by MysteriousMystery · 2004-02-13 18:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's worth noting that IDC #s are based heavily on sales figures. IE sales of box sets of Linux aimed at desktops (Lindows, Mandrake, Red Hat person, Suse) or systems preinstalled with the OS and not necessarily people downloading it for free, making copies of copies and such. The reality is that there is a high possibility the number of Linux desktops is SUBSTANCIALLY higher then their sales based estimates.

Re:It's worth noting by fr0dicus · 2004-02-13 19:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Or substantially lower, which Google zeitgeist suggests.
Some people are willing to try anything, but may still find Linux too hard or incompatible with their kit. I wonder how many of those boxsets were sold to people with Winmodems for instance? Given that this seems to be the Internet connection hardware of choice for the non-broadband enabled consumer, I would suspect quite a lot.

We're not all zealots :-) by SuperBanana · 2004-02-13 18:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think by default Apple users don't care about market share. In fact, my experience is that they abhor market share and extol the "uniqueness" and individuality that comes from being an Apple user.

Actually, I just don't care about market share, with either Linux or the Macintosh. I settle for showing people(who show interest) some of the neat things about my powerbook and OS X. I'm very reserved about recommending it for someone, and there's no point in trying to get someone to switch- they have to want to, otherwise, it'll never meet their expectations.

I mean, not any geek could hack on a purple box.

Are you talking about SGI? If so, that'd be indigo, not purple- and one of the first Unixes I was exposed to was Irix on an old Indigo(IP12 with the "Song and Dance" graphics card, not nearly enough ram, and I think maybe 1-2GB of disk- but man, it could do some nifty graphics for the time, and it was an OLD system by the time I got my hands on it!)

People say OS X is the first unix desktop-friendly unix(ie, no command-line necessary), and they're dead wrong- SGI had them beat by almost ten years with Irix.

PS:hard core SGI people started on brown computers, not "purple" ones. Why Indigo, by the way? Well, the color supposedly perfectly matches Lotus Coachworks's Indigo paint(one of the top SGI execs owned a Indigo Lotus Espirit Turbo- guy had taste...)

--
Please help metamoderate.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT. by Bluetrust25 · 2004-02-13 19:20 · Score: 5, Informative

From the article, "Market researcher IDC expects to announce within weeks that Linux' PC market share in 2003 hit 3.2%, overtaking Apple Computer Inc.'s... Macintosh... software."

My company, SurveyComplete, programs online surveys for market research companies. That's all that we do, and we're damn good at it. In fact, I'd say that we're the best in the world at what we do at this point in time and I'm proud of my work. Last year we completed nearly fifty research studies, covering over 800,000 interviews.

This story really ticks me off because we performed an Awareness and Usage study across Internet Users (just two weeks ago) on the topic of Operating Systems and found that Linux is absolutely not overtaking Macintosh.

While 26% of the 1,100 respondents we interviewed were aware of Linux or one of its many distributions, only 1% use it on a daily or weekly basis. Macintosh comes in at a healthy 6%.

One of the most interesting findings in the study came from when we examined techies against the rest of the population and found that "Respondents who are male, aged 35 or more, use broadband, and are college educated (some college or more) are far more likely to be aware of Linux than the rest of the population" to the tune of 43% awareness of Linux in techies versus 15% in the rest of the population. That's a huge gap, a gargantuan gap. When we examined the operating systems respondents currently use, 3% of techies are using Linux versus less than 1% of the general population.

When I read the results, it really shocked me. Why, this means that 2004 is not going to be the year of Linux on the desktop -- this goes against everything I've heard on slashdot! All those hours I've spent reading articles by people in the open-source scene talking about how this year, was going to be it. But this makes more sense: Nobody has really heard about Linux outside of nerds.

Which is probably why the results of our study never appeared on slashdot (even though they were submitted last week.)

It's really frustrating that this pro-linux propaganda gets through onto the front page while articles like ours which have results that make sense, get dropped.

You can read our study results and find out if BSD is truly dead, here:

2004 SurveyComplete Operating System Awareness and Usage Study

Irrelevant by fr0dicus · 2004-02-13 19:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is like saying "Taxi use outstripped Mercedes sales".

What this means by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please remember that "market share" refers to the percentage of units sold in a given amount of time. (In this case, the idea of "sold" has to be a little fuzzy.) IDC is saying that the market share of Linux per quarter is approaching that of the Mac OS.

But the Mac has a 20-year headstart.

By most estimates, there are something close to 40 million Macs in use today. (About half of these run Mac OS X, and the other half the classic Mac OS in one version or other. Many of them, of course, are older machines that are not capable of running OS X. Apple's market research says that of the users who can run OS X on their machines, something like 75% do.) There are about 400 million desktop computers in the world, total, so Apple has about 10% of the total installed base.

It'll be a long, LONG time before Linux starts approaching those numbers.

What IDC is saying here is that they think the rate of new installs of Linux is approaching that of the Mac. Which only makes sense, if you think about it. Linux is the hot new thing, while the Mac's growth has been pretty steady for the past six or seven years.

What'll be illuminating is what happens to the rate of adoption of Linux after it surpasses the Mac's new adoption numbers. Will it keep going, or will it peak out and then drop off?

(Honestly, based on past trends, it will almost certainly peak out and drop off. But time will tell for sure.)

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT. by be-fan · 2004-02-13 19:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm curious --- who were these people that you surveyed? Were they in the US, or worldwide? Does the fact that you conduct online surveys make the user pool somewhat self-selecting? What makes your research methods better than IDC's, anyway?

I definitely think your research should have made Slashdot, but at the same time, I see no compelling reason to believe that your results are more accurate than those of other companies.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

interesting ramifications for.. by ricochet81 · 2004-02-13 19:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

websites too. A LOT of developers i've been around design pages for the mac and pc, and dont care about linux, it works somehow. But, I am increasingly peeved at web content that is windows only (IE and Windows Media Player) eg. launch.yahoo.com and many other streaming Windoze audio/video, IE jscript & other IE only web content. This fact should be made as public as we can so I can get rid of my windows partition once and for all.

--
Error: Id10t detected

Linux in IT may help Mac in long run by Sigh+Phi · 2004-02-13 19:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

The original poster plays up one line in the Business Week article and completely skews the tenor of the article. To wit: Linux is becoming attractive in "business" -- never an Apple strength. The article's mention of Macintosh marketshare is a journalistic technique used to provide a frame of reference. Iraq is roughly the size of California, etc.

But Macintosh and Linux have more than marketshare in common. Both platforms are committed to open standards and interoperability, the former out of necessity due to its historical role as outsider, and the latter out of philosophical conviction of its adherents. If Linux leaks into the business world, IT folks will find that the formats and APIs they're using work just as well on Macs. This could lead to a more equitable situation where people use the tools they like, rather than the tools that Bill Gates wants them to use. Joe the Administrative assistant will while away on Windows, Jane the database nerd loves her Linux cluster, and Johan the turtlenecked web designer makes merry on his Mac.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic. IT monoculture is so annoying.

Both LInux _and_ OSX by Colonel+Panic · 2004-02-13 19:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've been using Linux since '96. I've tried most of the major distros out there. I really like Linux.

However, yesterday I got my first G4 PowerBook. I wanted to actually do some multi-media type things with my computer without having to spend hours (days) trying to get things to work. I wanted to do things like burn DVDs, edit video, play Quicktime movies. Sure, you can do these things with Linux, but I've got other things to do than spend hours/days/months trying to get everything sort-of-kind-of-working.

So, I got a Mac. Seems like the best of both worlds.

Am I going to dump Linux now? No way. Linux is great for lots of other things. I have to say that I actually prefer KDE or GNOME to the Mac's Aqua. The Mac doesn't have virtual desktops, it doesn't have enough mouse buttons and what's with the toolbar having to be at the top of the screen instead of on the actual application window?! (seems to harken back to the pre-OSX days when MacOS wasn't a true multitasking OS). On the otherhand, I can stick a DVD-RW in the Mac and copy a movie to it that will play on my DVD player, no muss, no fuss. I can hook up a digital camera to my Mac via the usb, download the images from it and edit the pics without having to spend hours trying to get it to work - I really like that. Now I can get on with getting some work done instead of being a sys-admin.

Linux and Mac do not share the same market by kyshtock · 2004-02-13 19:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

How can one say such a thing? Macs are for people willing to spend extra money, for people who appreciate design and ease of use, for people who want to have a certain touch of uniqueness.

On the other hand, Linux is for poeple who don't give a damn about the looks of their machines, for the people who aren't afraid to search the net about ten hours for the piece of code they need, and will read the docs and compile for about ten more hours. Oh, yeah, and for people with a certain cash affection.

Oh, so you said desktop boxen! So? Check the prices: same machine, same capabilities: one computer, one operating system, one office package. Which is cheaper?

However, gimme a Powerbook running Linux and I'll change my mind :)

On a different level: applications. Industry uses Photoshop; industry uses Macromedia stuff, industry uses specific software which runs on more standardised systems, such as MacOS or Windows. When Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Flash and QuarkXpress, and all the software that equipment get deliverd with will work on Linux, TOO, than you can speak of a choice. Till then, you need to be extra carefull when you shop, because you new laser printer might not work on linux (been there, bought that).

Cheers and power to the Penguin

--
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2004-02-13 20:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

After reading your "note on methodology" it is pretty clear to me why your survey showed less desktop usage than a survey like IDC -- you claim to have measured "internet using" adults. You are welcome to provide more of the specifics on how your data was normalized, but I'm going to make some educated guesses about factors that are specifically relevant to linux and mac demographics that may not be so relevant for other topics.

1) Mostly American - seems your entire website is in English only and despite the FAQ stating that you have thousands of worldwide members, I bet the number of Americans is an order of magnitude larger than non-Americans.

2) Mostly Home (or non-workplace) Internet Users -- not many companies are going to be ok with people taking for-pay surveys on company time or equipment.

These biases help to explain some of the numbers in your survey related to Mac usage. First, you showed 6% regular or semi-regular mac usage, which is twice what surveys like IDC's show. Unless you happened to get an unexpected spike of people who use Mac's at work (like a bunch of marketing droids were pulled to make this survey pool), it is reasonable to expect that these Mac users are are either home or public-terminal (think public and school libaries)- they may only use windows, or think they do, at work (as indicated by the 98% number) but it suggests their access to your survey is through a Mac that is not at work.

Similarly, your "puzzling" result of high Mac usage and intent to use among employed minorities also suggests free public and school access systems. I am equating minority to "less better off" than the average white guy, but I also expect that employed minorities (versus unemployed minorities) are more likely to understand the value of a buck and make use of public-access systems like that at a school (continuing education, night classes, etc) or library.

Meanwhile, consider the kind of desktop usage that we see reported in the pro-linux press - point-of-sale and other task-specific uses sure seems to get mentioned most. These users may not even know they are using Linux. The more general use deployments, where Linux and apps are displacing both MS-Windows AND MS-Office seem to be in foreign, non-English speaking countries (Germany, China, Peru to name a couple off the top of my head). These users are probably under-represented in your survey population. If you had compensated for higher than "normal" foregin usage, I don't think your reported margin of error would be as small. Based on my assumption that your foreign pollees are significantly less than your domestic ones.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

you folks have the wrong perspective by CAIMLAS · 2004-02-13 21:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Everyone here seems to be foaming at hte mouth, "Mac vs. Linux". No. You've got it all wrong.

That market share increase for Linux came out of MS's market share, not Apple's. This is progress.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Re:Linux may be gaining market share.... by pe1chl · 2004-02-13 21:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

The multi-distribution model of Linux has some advantages w.r.t. development by competition, but it works against general desktop acceptance.

Probably there will be a shakeout and a small number of distributors survive. Only then can the desktop market be really developed.

Linux enthousiasts like choice. Choice between distributors, choice between window managers, system administration tools, choice between applications.

Desktop users like a uniform system where there are some known invariants. Systems that they can ask others to support, or that they can ask questions about when chatting with a co-worker or friend.
Right now, Linux is not like that.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT. by Alioth · 2004-02-13 21:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't even need to do a survey - just look at the Google Zeitgeist for evidence.

Only 1% of Google users are using Linux, it's languishing down there with Windows 95. Macintosh has three times the usage.

I am a Linux fanboy. I'm using my Linux system now, and my primary desktop system has been Linux for quite a while. However, facts are facts, and the Mac is doing much better on the desktop. Linux is ready for the desktop, but only certain desktops (corporate desktops, where competent sysadmins run the systems, developer's desktops, like my own, desktops installed on other people's behalf, like my Dad's). However, it's not ready for the mainstream home user. Macintosh has been ready for all desktops since the 1980s.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:If this is true, why wont game companies port? by shaitand · 2004-02-13 21:19 · Score: 3, Informative

While your general point is true. It's worth noting that linux is an operating system, ie a kernel. RH doesn't add anything to linux in it's Enterprise edition. It adds applications, which are not part of the operating system, rather they are part of the distribution. The kernel is under the gpl, the gpl does not extend to applications that are bundled with it.

Re:THIS MAKES NO SENSE, YOU MUST ACQUIT. by SanGrail · 2004-02-13 21:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hold up a moment and read what you just quoted.

Male.
At least 35.
Uses broadband.
College educated.

This does not equal someone who 'works with computers'.

You got caught by marketing lingo that just gives a particular demographic a cute name. In this case, 'Techie'. But, hey, we don't need to be so biased as to say Computer Geeks are the only techies in the world.

The sample as stated includes any college education, so you've got all the French & Business majors in there as well (and those that failed).

It's still not too bad for statistical data. Except in it's implications for Linux, which still, to me at least, sound pretty accurate.

From talking to a bunch of first year Computer Science students (I decided to go get a degree *shrug*), I wouldn't expect more than 2/3 maximum to know about Linux when starting.
The computer labs use OpenBSD & KDE.
I mentioned to a second year student (apparently doing pretty well) I was maybe going to try the same setup at home, and they told me to get the KDE distribution of linux.
Close enough I guess. :(

--
---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.

keep it corporate by Trilobyte · 2004-02-13 21:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please, can't we just keep Linux desktop installations in corporate environments? I don't want to see my dad buying a new computer and having Linux on it. If there's ever a problem, he's going to have to spend 3 hours on the phone, get charged $450, and end up returning his computer, because there's no way I'm going to sit down and start digging around in the internals to try to get it up and running again.

On the other hand, if he's using Linux on his desktop at work, I'm happy, because there is a paid support staff (made of people like you!) who must administer the machines, and he gets his job done just as well (if not better), while the corporation doesn't have to pay the Microsoft tax (and thereby support the Republican party [and thereby support terrorism]).

I don't think I'd want my dad using Macs at work though, because he'd be complaining all the time about how "foo-foo" it is. He'd make little limp-wristed gestures and talk about the pretty pictures and bouncing icons. I'd try to explain better to him, but he wouldn't care. "Too foo-foo," he'd say.

[I use a PowerBook as my main computer. I'm typing this on an Amiga right now. No joke. Still almost posted this as AC to avoid flamebait accusations. Darn you all.]

Never seen a Mac in my life by mic256 · 2004-02-13 23:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I have a Master degree in computer science. I studied together with a 100 people at my faculty. I work as an IT consultant at a rather respectable company, yet I have never seen a Mac in my life (just in pictures). Suprised ? Well, I live in Poland (approx 40 million inhabitants).

Apple is pretty nonexistant in my country and probably in many others as well. The barrier in a country where the average salary is $500 and there is 20% unemployment is the price.

The IDC survey, as I understand it applies to users worldwide and new computers! Your survey measures existing usage, which is something much different

no year of the Linux desktop in sight jusy yet by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-13 23:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I read the results, it really shocked me. Why, this means that 2004 is not going to be the year of Linux on the desktop -- this goes against everything I've heard on slashdot! All those hours I've spent reading articles by people in the open-source scene talking about how this year, was going to be it. But this makes more sense: Nobody has really heard about Linux outside of nerds.

They said 1998 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 1999 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2000 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2001 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2002 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
They said 2003 was going to be the year of the Linux desktop.
Now they're saying 2004 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop.

Does anyone notice a trend here?
Every year it is announced with great fanfare that KDE and Gnome have reached some new evolution, along with distributions in general, and that Linux will arrive like a biblical flood over the course of the following year. But each year ends, it hasn't happened, people have forgotten the predictions made at the begining of the year, and the process starts over again. Although Linux has become more usable on the desktop over the last 6 years, the number of people using it has not increased substantially. There is no strong upwards trend in the numbers using it. The number of people using Google from Linux is only at ~1% - and technical users would do far more searches than the rest of the population. As much as you may love Linux, or are convinced it should take over the world, or how good we think the technology is, it just is not arriving on the desktop at any meaningful speed.

The truth of the matter is that despite how WinXP has all sorts of security mess ups, few average people either know what Linux is nor see any good reason to use it if they do. Linux is still primary a server/professional operating system and a geek toy. As much as the strong vein of Linux zealotry on Slashdot may want to dismiss this, it is true. If you want free software operating systems on the desktop, there're better vehicals for that task.

Re:no year of the Linux desktop in sight jusy yet by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-14 06:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, but there are two big factors that changed.

1) Open Office is good enough. Open Office used to kind of suck. A lot of bugs have been fixed in it, and you can sit down and actually do work in it. Office applications are the big barrier out there.

2) Big companies are backing Linux. IBM's been behind Linux for a while, and now Novell, HP to some extent, etc. The mainstream folks now are willing to go with Linux.

It will still take time. There is no magical 12 month window. However, Linux users are increasing. Not many folks move from Linux to Windows, and there's a steady flow of users to Linux.

Remember that about ten years ago, there were just a handful of Linux users looking out at the wide world and what might happen. I'd venture to guess that the number of Linux users has done better than double each year, and that's pretty respectable growth.

Remember when Linux wasn't a serious server OS? There were folks that said that it was a toy, and that you needed a real UNIX system if you wanted to do serious work. Well, damn, Linux seems to have tromped all over and overrun those "serious UNIX systems" on the server.

Has Linux become a major desktop player yet? No. Has it gotten more desktop users each year? Yes. Has it gained more corporate support each year? Yes. Is the software getting better faster than Windows? You bet.

And as for the link to Syllable...get real. All the complaints you listed, *especially* the ones about market share, apply tenfold to AtheOS. Hell, I'm a geek, and *I* didn't know that there was an AtheOS fork.

--
May we never see th

People predicting the end of Mac by webmilhouse · 2004-02-14 00:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the number of people who have predicted the death of Apple in the past is directly proportional the number of times Apple has bounced back.

I think Linux is gaining in business desktop use because it is x86 and most businesses already have a large investment in hardware that is easy to convert to Linux rather than replace with G5s.

--

In this house we obey the laws of Thermodynamics!

Re:More design software for Linux on the cards the by clifyt · 2004-02-14 00:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Designers don't want them customizable. Being about to tweak every fucking thing on their computer is infact the OPPOSITE of what they want.

They want a computer that works right, is logical to their way of thinking, and is consistant.

Out of all the machines, the Mac OSs of the day have always been more uniform and perfect around the edges than anything else.

Seriously, this is the problem with Linux users -- they think users want more choices. They don't want more, they want the right choices.

I will say this -- I design Windows Applications for a living. A lot of my clients claim they love my apps because it does exactly what they need. I generally think in terms of Mac users when I do this. No extra features just because it can be built into it. At home, I use both Mac and Linux. Yeah -- I have a PC as well to take care of my office needs, but the G4 and powerbook CAN do most of it. The G4 is for my creative business -- I do music technology consulting. Its the PERFECT OS for the creative end...if you don't understand this, you aren't one that truely focuses solely on the creative end. Some of these folks would rather not think about the computer as anything but a pallete and never have to go into mechanic mode -- which honestly, I do more in the PC than I ever do in Linux.

When I really need something to work towards the geek end of things for myself, I pull up Linux -- but with OSX, I'm slowly abandoning this platform for anything but server activities. The only reason in my mind other than religious reasons not to go with Mac is that you can't afford it...in which case, a Linux box is perfect.

So no, Graphic Designers don't go nutty about things like brushed metal...the only folks I hear about the lack of customization are generally geeks. They think that by changing a theme on a windows manager it means they are truely creative...I'm sorry that doesn't get the bills paid.

All these brains... by w3weasel · 2004-02-14 03:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

All these brains focused on this topic, and no-one seems to get it.
OSS/FS initiatives have already seriously eroded the earning potential of MANY commercial software products. This trend will continue (duh).
Apple has never been a software company... they sell hardware. They give away a boat load of software with any machine they sell. They do charge for some of their software packages (OS upgrades and premium design apps), but the fees they charge are usually a fraction of what a 'software' company would charge for a similar project.

Recently, Apple has made significant moves to more closely incorporate the GNU tools that Linux users expect, or at least design the OS to allow seamless installation of GNU tools. They are hedging their bets. Linux is Apple's friend at the moment, because as Linux makes advances on the desktop, Microsoft users might actually take a moment to ponder their alternatives... some of the people might look at a Mac.

Its not about Linux > OSX or OSX > Linux, As a Mac, Linux, and Windoze user, I cheer the advances of Linux. When my Macs get outdated (after 5 or 6 years) they get a nice Linux distro installed and do odd jobs around the office.

Can't we all just get along?

--

Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

Once again, Analysts.... by poemtree · 2004-02-14 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative

confuse market share for installed base. IDC (subsidiary of IDG) is one of the worst undercounters of Mac marketshare and installed base. A quick look at Google's Zeitgeist shows 3% Mac, 1% Linux. I know these number are not perfect as we all spoof browser IDs, but I think the the ratio of Mac to Linux boxes undercounted due to spoofing is also likely 3:1.

Apple has sold nearly 30 million Macs since 1984. The PowerPC shipped a decade ago in 1994. Any PowerPC will run OS 9, any G3 will run 10.2, and any factory USB machine will run 10.3 (officially, XPostFacto). That is something like 20 million machines still in use mostly as desktops.

I don't hate free software, and I think Mac OS X and Linux complement each other. I just hate these so-called analysts with their biased numbers. My wife used to work for an economics firm that did analysis for the telecom industry. I would liken what they did to selling cosmetics to ugly people to make them look better. They tailored their reports to put the companies that were paying for the reports in the best light no matter what the truth was. IDC is no different. If Apple gave them a crapload of money, they would say Apple's marketshare far outpaces Linux.

--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Macintosh...

Why and what you *should* play! by 0x0d0a · 2004-02-14 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've responded to a post from Adolf Hitler and Bill Gates in the last ten minutes or so. Good old Slashdot.

Why do game companies port to Mac, but never Linux?

Good question! There are a number of excellent reasons:

* Financial differences. Many people using Linux (especially on x86) are using it because they like using a free-as-in-beer UNIX system. Mac users were willing to throw down a significant amount of extra money for proprietary hardware and their OS. Conclusian -- many Mac users may be willing to spend more money on software.

* Interest differences. Linux has traditionally had few games. This means that folks that habitually buy games generally either use Windows or have maintained a second Windows boot and are willing to purchase Windows versions of their games.

* CPU Infrastructure. Partly because Linux often replaces Windows on older boxes when Windows no longer runs well on a machine, and partly because there aren't a lot of CPU-cyle-eating gamers on Linux, there are a surprisingly small number of high-powered Linux machines sitting around. I upgraded my PII/266 to a PIII/550 3 months ago only so that I could watch DVDs and do software decoding in real time. I upgraded to a P4 after that only because the motherboard died. Even on Windows, unless one is running games, it's increasingly harder to justify buying new hardware. On Linux, which runs well on old hardware and for which few games (and almost *no* high-system-requirement games exist), there are few high-end systems.

* 3d Graphics Infrastructure. Because there are few games, there is little demand from customers for good, up-to-date 3d drivers. NVidia provides only binary drivers, ATI does not support any hardware 3d above the 9200 (and even the 9200 has still-being-worked-on open-source drivers -- try using texture compression in Neverwinter Nights with a non-CVS DRI). Matrox has provided poor support for their products since the G450/G550 era. Many distros do an incomplete or poor job of setting up 3d out-of-box. With poor 3d support and most new games coming out requiring 3d cards, it's a rough area to sell games in. Most of the games that have sold well for Linux are 2d.

* Software Packaging. This is a huge pain in the ass for most commercial vendors of any Linux software. Ideally, a vendor wants to hand you a CD that you can pop in your drive, click something, and any required software is installed. This is easy to do for Windows -- you pull out InstallShield or Nullsoft's installer and whip something up. On Linux, some people only use tarballs. Some use DEBs. Some use RPMs. There are various downloading-and-dependency-handling front ends for each (apt-get, yup, yum). None of these deal very well with third-party-packages wanting to use them for stuff that isn't in the original distro vendor's distribution -- they usually require the user to manually, as root, modify a repositories list somewhere on his sytem. The installer can't just dump a file in a directory like /etc/yum/repositories or ~/.yum/repositories. Furthermore, apt-get and yum tend to slow down and not parallelize repository checking, so if there's one slow repository added, all tasks done with them are much slower (this is especially true for yum, which by default checks for updates from repositories on every run). There is no standard for autorun on Linux (admittedly, for good security reasons, but it's still a potential issue). You can't just stick in a CD and have an install window come up. There is no standard front-end to use that can deal with RPM/DEB/what-have-you. Folks may use a front-end like Loki's installer (which doesn't work in text-only mode and doesn't enter anything into the RPM/DEB/what-have-you database, breaking the systemwide packaging system by allowing the newly installed software to break if a library it depends on is removed). Many vendors just provide big shell scripts that kind of sort of do the right thing. It's pretty atrocious.

*

--
May we never see th

Why Linux people act so weird about macs... by TempusMagus · 2004-02-14 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've never heard one Ferrari owner complain about how Ford has greater market share.

Apple is a hardware company - they don't compete on cost - they compete on quality. Whereas with Linux, not a hardware company mostly competes on cost. The nice thing is that both platforms have quality software and many of the applications for Linux run on OS X.

Why does an OS have to be all things for all people? Why do Linux lovers wish that Linux was as borg-ish as windows?

Don't get me wrong, we develop on Macs and design on macs and use Linux (sometimes Solaris) to serve. The only PCs we have are basically for 3D. So, I'm an honest platform agnostic driven by what tool is best for the job.

I think the reason that some Linux people get all weird about Mac/OSX is that it messes with the whole Linux vs. Microsoft dialectic. Remember Apple's slogan was not "Think Opposite" - it was "Think Different".

It's a game of GO not chess. There are more than two sides to the board.

--
-_-

Slashdot Mirror

Desktop Linux Share Overtaking Macintosh

114 of 926 comments (clear)