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?"
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.
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.
Another one bites the dust
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So that means it will be about 2 days before someone cracks it and has it running on a PC?
/. ++
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.
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.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
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.
Currently hooked on AMP
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.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
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.