Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Says Apple Move to Intel Will Harm Linux
Deep Fried Geekboy writes "John C. Dvorak is pretty quick off the blocks with a response to the news that Apple intend to switch to Intel processors. Thankfully, he doesn't gloat about having called this one correctly, but says that the move is likely to hurt Linux, as OSS developers increasingly target the Mac. Since it now turns out that Dvorak was apparently not smoking crack when he predicted the Apple move, could he be right on this one too?"
could he be right on this one too?
Harm? yes.
Kill? no.
This is redundant, but you can't kill something that isn't tied to the ownership of a company. Just like HAM radio, Linux will be used by enthusiasts who still like using it for a long long time to come. Sure, some perhaps many people will switch to OS X86, many will not.
In the long run I think the Apple move to Intel will help non-windows people in
general by creating a more dominant force of alternative operating systems on th
e Intel platform. We all win out by having more choice and interoperability between operating systems. You have to admit, its all getting better.
Why does anyone listen to this guy?
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
If anything, Apple moving closer toward commodity hardware may be the undoing of the Mac, but it's the attraction of Linux I believe is there regardless of Apple's existence.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
MacOS on intel doesn't mean it will work on beige boxes.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Apple will grab a lot of Windows users with this move, but many more Linux users will switch. Linux users will get familiar environment on their platform of choice. Plus, if they don't like OSX as much they can always boot into linux, this time, they can but their favourite x86 distro.
I wonder can you install Xp on that machine...
A lot of it depends on what Apple does. Right now, Linux can run on a Mac, so that's not a barrier. Linux will (and I'll go on a limb here) certainly run on the new Intel Macs.
So by "hurt", there's no net change: Linux runs on Macs, and will in the future.
If Apple makes its Macs (say that three times fast) as closed as they are now, then Linux will have nothing to worry about. Linux succeeds, as one developer mentioned, because nothing runs faster than on commodity hardware running with LInux running with Apache. Linux succeeds because of its ability to work very well with open systems. Apple will be a niche player - maybe they'll grow if WINE should run well under OS X with an Intel processor (and I'm hoping so, if for no other reason than I can play Half Life on a Mac finally), but I don't think that Linux will be threatened by a locked hardware base.
If Apple, say 5 years from now, decides that it's going to let the machine hardware become the commodity item and focus on its "special" hardware (iPod, etc) and software (Final Cut Pro, iLife, etc), then Linux will still be unharmed. Even if Apple says "OK, we're still going to sell premium desktop machines at +$300 compared to the competition for quality - but you could always just buy a Dell and pay us $150 for OS 10.7 and we'll be happy, since that still means you'll buy our other software too and you're likely to someday make an official Apple machine your next purchase", Linux will not be "harmed", since Apple can't stop Linux from being made. Linux will proceed along its way.
If by "harmed" you mean market share, then he may have a point. If Apple lets OS X run on standard PC's, then I can see Linux desktop share either becoming stagnent or shifting about.
My personal bet is that if the latter happens (OS X on standard machines), within 10 years we'll see a 50% Windows, 30% OS X, and 15% Linux, 5% other varients in the desktop market - in the server market it may be much as it is now, maybe with OS X and Linux overtaking the bulk of the traditional Unix route.
So, "harm" to Linux? The truth, as you may learn, depends entirely upon a certain point of view. What I've described is just mine. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Exactly what I've been saying recently. Dvorak didn't necessarily guess anything spectacular. There were pretty good odds something like this would eventually happen. Apple went to IBM because Motorola couldn't turn out G5s fast enough. Then IBM ran into trouble with G5 production. Who else was there to turn to? No one else has a viable chance of making PowerPC chips right now. Just because Dvorak happened to put pieces together, along with some wild speculation, doesn't necessarily qualify him to continue to make wild predictions. It just means he got lucky one time.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Umm... just because it'll run on x86 doesn't mean it'll run on average PC hardware. Tell me Dvorak isn't this stupid? I really don't think apple is just going to give up their proprietary lock, I believe this move is just to get in on more profit/cheaper hardware. I'm sure they'll still have their own proprietary system in place of the bios, which means all of us on regular x86, not mac x86, still won't be able to use it. And I *REALLY* dont' think you're going to see hundreds of thousands of people running out and buying a mac just because it's "Intel inside".
It's one thing for Dvorak to predict the Apple move to Intel; that's a meat and potatoes hardware business prediction that lots of other (non zealotous) people made as well.
But he doesn't have a freakin' clue about open source development. It's not an either/or proposition. People will continue to write software that can be targeted to OS X and Linux and [insert favorite *NIX OS here].
Yes, it may hurt Linux on the desktop somewhat, if Apple's Intel-based hardware is cheap and/or running OS X on generic hardware isn't a big PITA. But that's no real skin off my potatos as long as it helps hurt M$.
fnord.
Personally I do not think this will hurt Linux at all. In fact, I think it could help Linux to have some really well designed Intel boxes to run on - Linux can benefit as much from Apple's design constraints as much as Apple, you could be more sure a Linux distro would work on an Apple box because there was less hardware to test. Also Linux will still run on all sorts of Intel hardware that OS X will not.
I think a really interesting aspect of this Intel move is that now Apple has REALLY positioning itself square against Longhorn. The next release of the OS is due around the Longhorn release, and all the lower end macs like the Mini and iMac should be switched by then as well. So come time for Longhorn release will people buy Longhorn boxes or Apple boxes with a sort of "Longhorn" that's had almost two years of refinement, not to mention what's new in Leopard!
At first I didn't think the Intel switch was a good idea, now I'm kind of neutral. One thing I still find odd though - why Intel of all people? Why not AMD?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Has USB/USB 2.0 led to the undoing of the mac? Has the move from SCSI to ATA led to the undoing of the mac?
Then how can anyone predict this will hurt the platform?
Anything that increases the Mac marketshare over windows has the opportunity to boost Linux in the short term. Any time you add people to developing on *NIX or BSD, you end up with code that can be ported back and forth easier then, say, some DirectX or MFC app made for Windows.
So in the short term, you end up with more projects that can be released under Mac & Linux.
In the long term... the key to success probably hinges on adaptation. If Linux distros continue on their own path with mixed up UIs, uneven standards, and so on, then the core audience won't grow as fast as if there's a consensus to make it appealing for newcomers.
I'm not saying 'Just make everything look like Mac', just that a succesful long term strategy probably involves watching and, when appropriate, adopting best practices from the similar OS that has a bigger marketshare.
If Apple move to machines which can also run Windows, then OSX is doomed.
Consider this reasoning: most software runs on Windows. The average Mac user who's not a paid-up Penguin Jedi doesn't care about OSX being technically better than Windows; they'd care even less than about the PowerPC being better than x86.
The average person who wants to use a video/music/graphics package on x86 hardware will not want to reboot to OSX every time they wish to use the package. (This has been tried before; the DJing software Final Scratch was first launched for Linux, and proved unpopular for this reason.) And with most things still running on Windows first, only a few users would move permanently to OSX.
One part of Apple's business is selling professional software, such as Shake, FCP and Logic. With their own PPC hardware, this software was incentive to sell Macs; if OSX runs on generic hardware, the software becomes its own concern. And if it runs only on Apple's weird (but advanced) OS, it'll be at a convenience disadvantage to rivals which run on ordinary, everyday Windows.
I predict that, within five years, OSX will be "reinvented" as a compatibility layer on top of Windows. This layer will come "out of the box" with copies of Apple's software (be it iTunes or Final Cut Pro), and users won't even need to know it's there. UNIX purists and techies will cringe, but that's not where the money is.
First off, there's a difference between being right about something that you heard leaks about. Dvorak never came up with unique arguments for an Apple to Intel switch. All he gave were the same list of pros and cons that the Apple community has been arguing about for years. Congrats to him on hearing the rumors and the leaks before a lot of other people, but that doesn't make him a great visionary or insightful interpreter of the industry. His track record isn't very impressive in my opinion.
Second, Apple's switch to Intel really doesn't change all that much unless you're a current Apple developer. Apple's hardware is not going to get significantly cheaper, their OS is not going to run on non-apple machines. There's still going to be just as much proprietary-ness in both their hardware and software as ever. They've been making general strides towards open source with OSX, but I don't think that's going to function any differently now that they're on x86.
A mac will still be a mac, and a PC will still be a PC, they'll just happen to have the same processor inside. Like they have the same hard drives and ram and lots of other stuff now. If Apple was opening up OSX to any old dell or emachines box, then maybe there'd be significant migration from Linux. If Apple was entirely open sourcing the whole of OSX, then maybe there'd be significant migration. But not because they're changing processors in their otherwise the same computers.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Damn, and me without mod points today.
Thanks for posting the funniest thing I've read today!
Dvorak may have gotten the Apple switch to Intel correct, but he's suffering from the same mistake a lot of others I've seen talk about this lately.
Namely, he seems to believe that Apple will make OS X run on any x86 hardware.
They won't. They said they're switching to Intel for chips. They didn't say they're porting to standard x86 architecture. They didn't say you'd be able to run OS X on your current hardware. They said they'd use chips from Intel. Period.
So, going from the past CPU switches they've done, it seems more reasonable to me that Apple will either have Intel design Mac-compatible boards for them or do it themselves, using all the existing technology they use now (OpenFirmware, PCI-x, etc). They won't just start slapping together off-the-shelf hardware that will dual-boot to Windows.
They'll still be Apple. They'll still be Different. And unless they get their hardware extremely cheaply and give up their profit margin, their rigs will still be expensive compared to the cheap commodity hardware that Linux enjoys so much success on.
... And so it comes to this.
That said, the Mac is acting - and will continue to act - as a retarding factor to Linux desktop adoption. Essentially, if you don't like tweaking, MacOS X is "desktop Linux" available today, and with Microsoft Office, QuickTime and all the rest. In this respect, RH got it right by shifting focus from the hobbyist/home user desktop. Me, I enjoy the tweaking, and consider it a fair price to pay to avoid being locked into anyone's proprietary software, whether Microsoft or Apple. Each to their own though; I gather some people actually use computers to do their real job, strange as that might seem!
Of course, as MacOS X is more-or-less a UNIX, it can be argued that any retardation it causes Linux is balanced by the invigorating effect it gives to UNIX-like OSs like Linux.
People listen to [Dvorak] because he has an amazing grasp and understanding of the computer industry. He was able to call this one years ago. Indeed, he was correct.
I can't help but wonder if this is a joke, but here goes anyway.
No, to call his grasp on the industry amazing is quite a stretch. For one thing, he wasn't really right. He predicted Apple would move to Itanium within 18 months, and that was over two years ago.
In any case, his latest prediction doesn't seem any more likely than most of his previous ones. This move by apple will have little direct effect on Linux at all. Please, people, get this through your heads: Apple is going to continue selling their computers at premium prices and not allow OS X to run on beige boxes. The only change will be a slight speed bump and maybe some slightly lower prices. Laptops will probably see the biggest benefit.
The point is, this will not change anything. People run Linux for a number of reasons, and one of them is the pricetag. Few people running Linux are thinking, "I would love to buy a Mac if only it were using the x86 architecture." They might think, "I would love to run OS X if only it would run on this computer I built," but that's not what's happening. At least not yet.
Sure, it might be a little easier to run Linux binaries on OS X x86, but it's easy enough to run your Linux programs on OS X now. The bottom line is that if you want a Mac, even after Apple has switched to Intel chips you'll have to shell out for Apple hardware and a largely proprietary OS.
Dvorak says things to get people to read his columns. Period.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
...and almost equally important want access to the Intel's compiler for xcode.
Intel's compiler from the start gives a sizable speedup compared to gcc...
I was thinking about that yesterday. I wonder, will APple drop GCC? Or spend time trying to improve it to the level of Intels compiler? The hopefull among us could wish that part of the Apple-Intel deal was asking Intel to provide some improvements to GCC. But that's wishful thinking and it would probably be easier just to switch to xcode.
The binary portability document though still has a section on flags for GCC as they differ between platforms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And because I forgot to address Dvorak's real argument (should have previewed!), here's a little more:
If he thinks that it will hurt Linux as OSS developers focus on the Mac platform (now that it will be running on x86), well he's still not making much sense. If writing OSS apps for Mac will suddenly be easier, well writing apps that are cross-platform between Linux and Mac will be easier too.
We'll still have plenty of Linux users, and if some OSS developers decide to focus too much (in the viewpoint of Linux users) well, it's open source! The people who want that app on their platform can take the source and make it happen.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
I am a developer. I use Linux, OS X, and Windows for development all the time. However, I run Linux as my primary OS because it's light(er)-weight and easier to secure than the alternatives.
Windows is insecure, plain and simple. You have no source code and there is all sorts of legacy code and other crap in there that you can't control. Except for the stupid licensing/activation it is a fine operating environment but I just can't trust it. That plus the lack of a nice scripting environment that Unix-like systems provide make it unusable as a primary OS.
OS X is slow, bloated, and somewhat insecure. The slow and bloated parts are just a problem with the design. BSD on Mach is wasteful and they do way too much object-oriented stuff that is inefficient (not that OO is bad, just their design which has Smalltalk-like issues). This goes way back the design of NextStep which had similar problems. As for the insecurity, it's the same problem I have with Windows. I don't have the source code to most of the system and there are is lot of legacy and convenience stuff in there that will eventually lead to insecurities just like on Windows (just wait and see when OS X is more pervasive). Although I trust it more than Windows, I can't live with its performance and that nagging insecurity feeling won't go away.
So I'm left with Linux. BSD is not an option because I need VMware to run Windows for development purposes. Linux can be a pain in the ass to work with but it is getting better and at least I have full control. For me this is mostly about security and performance. I know what's going on and can control all the details. This can be a huge pain and I try to mitigate the problem by using the proper tools but at least it lets me sleep at night. Also with Linux I can control what I run. I don't need an Aqua-like eye-candy system to do development on. I can chose to run GNOME, KDE, or something lightweight. I like that control because it keeps my system performance up in the places I need it (eg. I need to run VMware fast, I need to compile fast, etc.).
Non-developers have different needs of course.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
> with a Mac you get Unix AND a great GUI. ... and you give up your freedom.
This is the kind of stuff that really makes me wonder how many people just don't get it.
Imagine if a car company came out with a nice new sedan. This sedan is VERY nice. How much would that sedan hurt the truck sales of a competing company? If the sedan is VERY nice, then it is sure to have an impact on auto sales in general, but since it is not a direct replacement for a truck, its impact on truck sales is going to be limited.
OSX is NOT a direct replacement for Linux. The reason is that it will not run on STANDARD HARDWARE. If Apple were to actually create a version that ran on generic PC's then someplace in hell some imps would be making a snowman. Apple will not create a version for standard PC's because Apple is Apple. If you know the history of the company then you know what I mean. If you don't know the history then explaining it will take too much time. There are many books that have been written about Apple and its history. If you want to know the details, read a couple of them.
The value of Linux is that it is FREE, and yes I mean as in BEER as well as in speech, and you don't have to buy funky proprietary hardware to run it. This is why it is found on servers all over the place, as well as on more and more desktops every day. OS-X is expensive, both in terms of the OS itself, and in terms of the proprietary hardware you have to shell out money for in order to run it. Proprietary solutions, even if they are superior, always have a very hard time competing with commodity solutions. This has been Apple's problem for the better part of 20 years now. It wasn't Microsoft as a software company that sank the Mac, it was the PC hardware industry whose products became ubiquitous. Microsoft simply rode the wave.
As for the development argument, how many Open Source projects are there out there which target the mac exclusively? Answer, very few. How many in fact support the Mac as an afterthought, if at all, because of all the funky things that Apple has done which make porting to it more difficult than porting to Solaris or some other mainstream version of Unix?
I really do get the idea sometimes that people like Dvorak are in the business of making proclamations like this just to get attention. If they're right even some of the time then they'll be able to create an audience and a paycheck doing it.
I have an alternate prediction for everyone. My prediction is this: The Open Source projects that benefit the Mac will usually benefit Linux and vice versa. There will be a few that are Mac-only, or Linux-only, but only in order to replicate some desired functionality that is already present on the other system. Most of the Open Source development that is done for OS-X will be in porting stuff from Linux to it, and in the creation of new projects that can be developed on both platforms simultaneously.
We already see this with FreeBSD where everything from Apache to zsh is up and running because the work of porting between FreeBSD and Linux is usually trivial and writing conditional code to support both platforms is even easier. There are a few packages that don't exist on both platforms, or which exist on one platform as a kludge, but these are the rare exceptions. Linux and OS-X don't have as much in common as Linux and FreeBSD do, but they are still similar enough that supporting both is not a herculean task the way it is with Unix and Windows. Development on OS-X will therefore be a net gain for Linux since most of the stuff that is developed for OS-X will be developed for Linux at the same time and vice versa.
Besides, there is no guarantee that Apple's move to Intel is going to increase sales. It may result in faster computers, but it takes a lot more than that to convince people to buy your funky hardware so they can run your funky os.
Linux has one strike against it in that it is not windows. It is able to overcome that because it is FREE and runs on standard hardware. Choosing Linux is not a commitment to Linux, it c
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Developers write to the OS and API provided by the OS, not to the CPU.
Why will it make any difference at all if developers are telling their compilers to compile for x86 or PPC? The application-level code still has to be dealt with, and the CPU isn't even visible to most developers writing most applications, particularly the critical-mass open source stuff that the "masses" would have to adopt to make this turnabout happen.
I'm not happy with the Apple decision, but for reasons other than these.
I think you're confusing Dvorak with Bob Metcalfe. Metcalfe is a respected commentator and accomplished industry pioneer who was wrong once ten years ago. Dvorak is a Linux-hating troll who is wrong most of the time.
Have you read my blog lately?
Well, I think both will happen. First, since you'll be able to dual-boot, people might dual-boot Mac and Windows now, and since that'll only be possible on a Mac, that means people might leave Dell for Apple.
However, I also think people are leaving Linux for Mac, but that has NOTHING to do with the chipset. It's been happening for a while since Apple switched to OSX. I'm living proof, buying a powerbook I never thought I'd own. But in a way, this will help linux too - I, as an Apple owner, can now put on whatever linux distro I want. Hell, talk about Nirvana - I can *triple* boot Mac, Linux, and Windows. Gives me dirty thoughts just thinking about it.
If there's on linux distro that's probably hurt by this, it's obviously Yellow Dog. Still, great effort all those years, guys.
OSX uses the XNU kernel, a development of the Mach kernel, with the BSD-UNIX personality hardcoded in. It doesn't have the performance characteristics of the BSD kernels at all. On top of this sits Aqua, as eye-candy intensive a GUI as any out there, which places heavy demands on chip performance. Switching to an inferior CPU isn't going to make it faster, even with the higher clock speeds in performance terms the switch is likely to be a wash.
OSX isn't going to outperform Windows on the same hardware by any stretch of the imagination. The switch may well enable Apple to improve their price/performance ratio, if as is rumoured this was prompted by difficulties getting the next generation of PPC chips at reasonable prices in reasonable quantitites, but expecting OSX to outperform any other system on the same hardware is pretty ludicrous. Unless he means to compare OSX today with Longtooth in 5 years or whenever it's finally released.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Dvorak did NOT call this correctly.
He predicted the shift, yes, but it didn't happen for the reasons he cites. Dvorak was overall ignorant to the inner workings of the Apple-IBM relationship that prompted this decision over the last year. Dvorak's reasoning is that he believes that Intel is a titan, and that monopolies are good, and that the market should reward them. Steve Jobs switched because he's playing hardball with is suppliers.
I think that this move will be more likely to help Linux than to hurt it. For one thing, this move makes x86-compiled Linux binaries more compatible with the x86-compiled OS X - therefore puts more Linux apps in reach of "casual" open source dabblers who are Mac-heads. Ultimately, this will more closely tie Linux with Mac Users, and vice versa. (not the non-technical subset of Mac users, but the hobbyist/power-user set). I *do* believe that cultivating WiNE for OS X, and other Linux x86 apps, are secretly part of this strategy. Partially to backfill the applications that the platform WILL lose, when it goes x86 - because face it, Adobe and Microsoft may be buying into this bullshit, but the reality is, most other ISV's are not going to recompile or put in the effort to port to x86. Particularly a lot of the shareware/freeware games and utilities (you may as well delete them now, and get used to their absence, they're gone).
I don't think that a whole lot of Linux users are switching to Apple because of the CPU. They're doing it because Apple supports Unix tools they're familliar with, in a much more powerful sensible and workable User Environment (OS X compared to Windows+SFU). This hardware change won't impact that AT ALL, unless there's a real price/performance difference betweem PPC Macs and Intel Macs (and I seriously doubt that, if anything, there will be a penalty in certain areas where the PPC Macs currently exel, like CD ripping, and MPEG encoding).
Above all, I doubt VERY MUCH that the PPC->Intel switch is intended to have an impact on the street-price of Apple systems. Jobs says this is purely about MHz ramping, and heat/power/performance capabilities. He's not going to put a celeron in the Mac Mini, and suddenly drop the price $200.
Linux-heads who are in love with cheap hardware, will stick with Wintel-compatible hardware, and run Linux.
And NO ONE, will run Linux on Apple-intel hardware. Because Apple-intel hardware will cost more than other brands of intel systems, and the features that make it WORTH more (nifty volume controls, sleep/wake/variable power/cooling management, color management etc) are tied into Mac OS X, and won't likely work as well with Unix.
The LOSERS here are Apple Customers who have legacy systems. Over the past 5 years or so, Apple has readily demonstrated their utter contempt for people not running the latest and greatest Apple hardware, by cutting off support for older hardware. Us PPC owners are going to be shit on a lot over the next few years.
Our only solace may be PPC Linux. That helps, not hurts Linux.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Darwin _is_ opensource, but Aqua, the GUI is not. I wouldnt' be surprised if people could boot up Darwin, but then fail to have Aqua start because of the (hypothetical) missing chip. And really, why would anyone want a command line only Darwin? It's easier to run any of the BSDs or Linux.
So, buy the Mac with the chip (or buy the haxored PCI card that emulates it) and get the shiny happy Aqua GUI.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
You won't have to worry about endianness issues between the OS platforms.
Also worth noting is that it's going to help Linux adoption overall as largely the same frameworks are in use for producing Linux games as MacOS X games- the endianness issues, etc. make it more difficult.
Now, it really WILL be pretty much the same thing when you make a game port for one or the other- it's just a recompile away... I like that.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The difference is, IBM owned the BIOS, but not the OS.
The company making the OS for IBM computers (Microsoft) had a direct interest in seeing to it that "IBM Clones" (as they were called back then) worked seamlessly with MS-DOS and Windows.
Apple owns both. They could, if they had to, continually update their OS to:
1. Detect knock-off ROMS and ignore them.
2. Re-flash the ROM periodically... possibly even crippling the "fake" ones.
3. Read motherboard serial numbers and phone home.
4. Any of a number of other options to render unauthorized clones useless.
This will make the task of reverse engineering the Apple ROM monumentally difficult. And what would a company get for doing so? A chance to bite in to a small piece of a very small pie (the Mac market.)
No chance of such a thing happening unless Macintosh market share suddenly baloons deep into double-digits... and even then, not much of a chance.
So long as Apple makes their margins on hardware, they are not going to let it happen.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Do you own a car? You do realize that there are various patents and copyrights covering your car?
Do you own a microwave oven? Once again, there are patents and copyright limitations covering it too.
Do you own a TV? Same thing.
Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant? What's so special about software that requires it to be "free" (as in speech and beer)?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Ignoring, for a moment, Dvorak's predictions for Linux's demise, he does have a very valid point that Linux/Gnome/KDE advocates seem to be missing:
The problem isn't isolated to Impress; KDE and Gome applications tend either to mimic Windows equivalents, or have UI's with far too many menus, toolbars, tabs, sidebars, bells, whistles, and fruit baskets. GUI concepts change dramatically between releases (Gnome's file browser, anyone?), and there seems to be little or no documentation for many applications.
Unix-oriented developers tend to be both intelligent and arrogant; the assumption is that if a program is good enough for a geek, it's good enough for everyone else, too.
That isn't to say that Windows applications are any more consistent; even Excel and Word have annoying differences in menus and options, and programs these days are a web of menus and options. To change a program's behavior (on Windows, KDE, or Gnome), do I look for "Preferences" or "Options" or "Settings" or "Configure" in the menus? Something so simple, and yet so inconsistent.
Being "right" doesn't always (or even usually) mean you'll succeed, and just because FOSS developers think they have the moral high ground doesn't mean users are going to flock to their door. KDE and Gnome need to give people a reason to use them, by providing more intuitive interfaces and a better understanding of user's needs.
All about me
Because with a car you're 95% free to do with it whatever you want. You can put other wheels on it, a different engine, 30" subwoofer in the back etc. You can look under the hood and see how it works, tweak it, fix it or break it. And you don't violate any patent/copyright law.
With closed software however, you can't look under the hood (although it's legal under EU patent system to reverse-engineer) or modify as much as you want, simply because it isn't quite possible.
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
Having taken the time to RTFA, it's obvious to me he's making it up as he goes. Linux PPC work will will slack off as it's platform moves to legacy status, but otherwise a MacIntelosh won't make a bit of difference to Linux. Addressing his comments:
Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
Obviously harmful to the computer makers in general and to Microsoft: Assuming a Macx86 won't run Windows, the current market inertia will continue. A Mac will remain a nicely made boutique system. For developers, it ain't the CPU, it's the API.
x86 Competition: The rest of his piece assumes that there's a significant number of x86 developers who work with desktop Linux applications because it's the only non-MS game in town, and they'd love to get out from under the GPL if only they could. This is the fantasy of a (arguably) paid MS shill. So the people working on Open Office, Abi Word, GNU Cash, et al are going to drop everything and run to Apple's API because of an ENDIAN change? At least now we have solid proof Dvorak hasn't written a line of code since he last ran BASIC on a TRS-80.
Made On A Mac (tm)
Luke, help me take this mask off
A few things to note. Dvorak is right and wrong. This is the only time apple could of made this transition. Right now they are sitting on like $5 billion in Cash (from iPod sales mostly).
If you listen to the TWIT Podcast, Leo and Dvorak were speculating about this on Sunday and Dvorak was preaching about all these people who would buy these new macs, and dual boot windows and osx. this is BS. dual booting is a PITA, and joe user from mac OSX won't give a hoot about dual booting.
Now on to why this will help linux. There is going to be a down turn in demand for apple's ppc equipment now that everyone knows they will be moving to intel. Linux runs great on most macs, and between a slow down in sales and a possible price reductions from lack of demand, plus the number of Macs available for resale during and after the transition, will be a nice base of machines to run linux on. A Dual 2 ghz G5 would make a great Web server that would be capable of a lot of load.
Dvorak makes reference to the crazy interfaces in Linux apps. I don't know if they are any harder, but different is harder sometimes. Also with Gnome's focus on usability and HIG I thing if anything It is getting easier to use than windows and even OSX in some instances. Is there room for improvement?... of course there is.
"you forget that darwin is opensource."
You forget that darwin is APSL which support propietary software whitin it. Apple can add whatever the hell they want to darwin's codebase without releasing its source code.
"alternatively how will they prevent the people from running darwin (already working) and adding the proprietary pieces of osx?"
1/ Propietary pieces of "osx" will only run on top of Apple's propietary "darwin".
2/ They will prosecute whoever tries to break their IP.