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?"

Comments

I don't agree.

[Ckwop]

Sorry, I simply don't agree. While people may be more inclined to develop for the mac platform when it's using the x86 architecture, let's not forget why people will be more inclined to develop for the mac; because it's easier to do.

People will be able to develop truly cross platform libraries more reliably, on which people will write applications which will work on all platforms. I find it exceedingly unlikely that a developer would choose to develop solely for apple, when for a little extra work they can cover Linux too.

I disagree with his slurs against open-office too. The bi-monthly preview versions of open-office 2.0 are very impressive, not only in terms of functionality but also in the quality of its interface. I'm sure there are arm-fulls of features present in Microsoft Office that are not there in open-office but do I really give a flying fuck?

It's not the total number of features that matters; it's whether the features I want to use are there that really counts. I'd bet that almost all of the Slashdot community have not used any of the new features in Microsoft Word since the release of Office 97. After Office 97 no real value was added to the office suite, so why should I have to upgrade every couple of years?

Microsoft force upgrades because you can't buy Office 97 licenses any more. When your company expands you have to get the brand-spanking-new licenses of office and then because of possibility of incompatibility between the two versions it becomes sensible to harmonize the licenses across your business and this invariably means buying loads of new licenses.

In contrast, Open-office has all the features I want to use and they're organized in an accessible way. I can always get an older copy of open office so the same expansion issues do not apply. I think if most companies could start over with their office suite, most would adopt open-office. What's stopping market penetration by open-office is the hidden cost of converting all the documents to the new format.

Simon.

Re:Marginal effect on Linux

[saintp]

Ding ding ding! Thank you, dave-tx, we have a winner!

Why OS X on x86 won't kill Linux:

1. It's not free.
2. It's not that other free, either.
3. It won't run on a generic whitebox that you built from Newegg.
4. It probably won't run on those nice 1U rackmount servers you just bought from HP.
5. Loyalty. Loyal Mac users have taken Apple through all sorts of dark ages, but they aren't programmers. OTOH, most open source hackers are loyal Linux or BSD users, who aren't likely to switch.
6. It's not a real Unix. Of the tiny handful of Unix gurus I know who have switched, they have all switched on the desktop, not in the server room. As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications.
7. Netinfo. It's even worse than ncsd.
8. Cost. If you expect an Apple box to cost significantly less with a different processor, you're smoking crack.
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.

Summary: We might see a blip in the desktop penetration of Linux, and possibly a fiery Clash of the Zealots, but that's about it.

Re:More good than harm.

[larry bagina]

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Remember, NeXT went from selling Computers with a BSD-based OS to selling just the OS for x86 computers. Steve Jobs was there, he saw how well that worked.

Re:More good than harm.

[Nytewynd]

So that means it will be about 2 days before someone cracks it and has it running on a PC?

Re:More good than harm.

[Arker]

How could it possibly harm Linux? That's really quite absurd. What, the SMP code is just going to mysteriously degrade? Pthreads develop bugs without human intervention? What?

Talking about companies as if they were people is bad enough. Talking about computer programs as if they were people is just absurd.

Re:More good than harm.

[Ninwa]

This is probably true but I know for a fact that I would buy an Intel Mac because I could put Windows AND my favorite Linux AND Mac all on the same dual-booting machine. That's very apetizing for me seeing as I've never been into multiple-computer setups. Multiple OS single computers sounds great.

Re:More good than harm.

[eyeye]

What about the hardware comparison that will surely not favour apple.
e.g
3.2ghz Pentium 4 1GB ram 200GB HD PC $600
or
3.2ghz Pentium 4 512MB ram 120GB HD "Apple Mac" $999

I wonder which consumers will think is better value, up till now apple could pull the "but our hardware is magically fast even though it looks slow" trick.

One possibility is Intel reserve its true dual core (or some other new cpu) for apple only but then it will shoot itself in the foot considering AMD is already producing better CPUs.

Dvorak was right, let's admit it.

[wealthychef]

BTW, I just had to add. I don't think you have read his original prediction, the one you claim is just another guess that happened to hit it right. It really is well reasoned and in retrospect seems an obvious conclusion. I mean, why did Steve Jobs KEYNOTE at an Intel conference? Why were Intel execs in the front row at Macworld Expo? How could Steve let Pixar switch to Intel (something I raised eyebrows at, too, knowing the tight reign Steve has on things)?

Let's be fair to this guy; he really had it right. And of course, as flame retardant, I have to state my Mac credentials: I am writing this from my dual-G5 Tiger box... I've never owned an Intel machine. But I'm glad and hopeful for this switch, although a bit worried at the same time.

Intel Macs will not use OpenFirmware

[Paradox]

According to Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, their machines will not run OpenFirmware.

This doesn't mean they will run a standard BIOS. Surely they will not. But it looks an awful lot like they want their solution to be an Intel showboat.

Also, given the fact that we have Apple on record saying that they will do nothing to stop people from running Windows on their new macs, I think that they're going to stake their Different-ness more on the speed and quality of their engineering.

Re:I was thinking the same thing

[Orp]

Let's face it, with a Mac you get Unix AND a great GUI.

Am I the only one out there who doesn't really care for Apple's "great GUI"? I currently have the latest greatest dual proc. G5 with 4 GB of memory running Jaguar on my desktop sitting next to my vanilla Athlon running FC3. Guess which one gets used 99% of the time? I am a hard core Linux user from the start who cares most about three things: the terminal (gnome-terminal with tabs), the editor (vim/gvim) and whatever handles my personal key and mouse bindings (which is why I hate Metacity and stick with sawfish). I don't care if I have 64 bit rendered window borders with buttons that look stunningly like cough drops. Honestly, the only software I run regularly on the G5 is the Palm software which syncs up my Zire. It's broken in FC3 right now.

I got the G5 with grant money (I'm a meteorology professor/researcher) because I am interested in creating movies of renderings of my model data, and got the Final Cut Pro / Motion / DVD burner suite and it works fine. I also wanted to see how the IBM processor stacked up to the Athlon/Intel for large floating point model runs (now that seems to be less of an issue). But you can bet if those movie making apps ran under Linux, I wouldn't have bothered with the Mac.

Unless something much, much better comes along, I will probably run Linux as my primary "Desktop" and research OS until I retire in twenty-odd years.

Re:More good than harm.

[tolan-b]

Nope, because Darwin already runs on more than just Mac hardware, and that's where the drivers live.

I would be *very* suprised if OSXX86 (heh) can't be made to run on standard PC hardware. It will be against the license, and it won't be plug and play, but I'm 99% sure it'll be possible.

Dvorak hates linux

[pjrc]

We all know (or should know by now) that Dvorak hates linux, and given any chance, he'll attempt to spread uncertainty and doubt about the future of linux and open-source and free software.

First, he spends about 2/3rds of the article trash-talking open source applications. They're not intuitive, he claims, and thus haven't been accepted much. Somehow macos is going to kill them (even though he claims they aren't accepted?)

But in the last third (last 4 paragraphs) is where he actually makes some arguements, instead of just trashing open source applications.

First, he makes two claims obviously false claims. First, source apps haven't targeted macos, but suddenly will. Simply wrong. Lots of open source apps have been ported to os-x. But even more rediculous is the notion that macos on intel support will be to the exclusion of linux support. Utterly stupid. There's a very strong established trend for multi-platform support on almost all major open source apps. Suddenly everyone's going to abandon gnu autoconfig, automake and libtool? Yeah, right!

Then in the 3rd to last paragraph, he talks about the GPL's "rigid license requirements". Ok, compared to BSD or public domain, maybe? But compared to Apple's macos? Or any other proprietary software. The GPL's source code release requirements are only "rigid" to one group of people... the proprietary software vendors, who would really, really like to appropriate all that free code, if only they themselves wouldn't have to play by the same rules.

But Dvorak claims everyone who's believed the GPL was a good idea in the past is suddenly going to see profit opportunity and abandon the GPL. Doesn't seem too likely. This is an old, well worn fear/unknown argument that seemed believable years ago when Red Hat, Caldera and others companies started selling, going public, etc. Hackers worldwide weren't suddenly overcome by greed then, seems unlikely now.

But the fear is really laid on thick in the last two paragraphs. Apple's going to benefit (probably), so somebody is necessarily going to suffer. Suddenly linux is going to have a new "enemy", and together Apple and Microsoft are going to destroy linux.

Yeah, like Microsoft hasn't already been trying as hard as they can? And Apple hasn't already been trying to draw people to macs as agressively as they know how? All of a sudden, because Apple's switching chips, BOTH Apple and Microsoft are going to try to attract new customers where they weren't before.

It's all so silly. If these are the best argument Dvorak can dream up for the impending doom of linux, open source and free software... well, I think those of us who use and depend on linux on a daily basis can sleep well tonight, without nightmares of fear, uncertainty and doubt whether the rest of the linux world suddenly shun linux in favor of macos when we awake in the morning.

Re:I was thinking the same thing

[javamagnoman]

Do you own a car?

Do you realize that if the "Car" patent hadn't been slapped down as harmful to consummers in the 1900's that there would be only one manufacturer of cars, and that the Ford Assembly line would never have been invented?

Same for the TV! Look it up sometime when you are checking out the "car" patent.

Great analogy, for the opposite argument.

What's special about software is that is an attempt to get patents on the Concepts, otherwise a copyright would serve the purpose.