Slashdot Mirror
Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?
esavard writes "
If Linux enthusiasts don't want
Mac OSX on Intel to become a threat
for the future of Linux Desktop, they must rethink the concept of Desktop as we know it today.
Symphony OS did exactly that and propose some fresh concepts about how a desktop should and should not be.
If you want to know more about Symphony OS, a good starting point is a Wikipedia article
describing the innovations proposed by this new desktop OS. The Linux Desktop Community must encourage such initatives
massively to compete against Mac OSX and Windows."
After looking at the screenshots, allow me to be the first to say: Wow. That's so beautiful, it brought a tear to my eye.
.APP application scheme, and IOKit interface which tracks files by INode instead of path.
The one thing that stands out at me is that Symphony uses Yet Another(TM) packaging system that is supposed to fix all the woes of the previous packaging system. Haven't we learned yet? In a complex system, packages are just as bad (actually worse) for users than DLL Hell. And they certainly don't solve the issue of maintaining the sanctity of applications, and maintaining file associations across deletes/manual installs/program moves. These are some of the greatest break points in the Windows OS. Yet Mac OS X has none of these problems thanks to its amazing
Under OS X, installation consists of downloading the application, and optionally extracting it from an archive. That's it, nothing more. You can run the app from any location (although the "standard" is the Applications folder), including right out of the DMG archive! File associations are easy: Just have the program on your hard drive. That's it! The OS takes care of querying the program for its associations. If you move the program, the OS knows. And if you delete the program, the OS removes the association. No mucking around with manual configuration. The *only* thing you can change is the default program!
Given that OS X has shown us the power of this method, why haven't any distros latched onto it? Yes, it means that the OS must promise a base set of shared libraries, but the user experience is so much better!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Is it just me, or does the Symphony look a great deal like the Apple Lisa and other early attempts at GUIs? I'm not saying there isn't anything to see here, but it reminded me of screenshots of the Lisa interface.
I totally agree with this statement, why not make one graphics layer for all applications like Mac OS X, instead of GTK, GTK2, QT, etc, etc.
It's not a dupe, but close. Call it a parrot?
Another one bites the dust
Interesting. An advertisment, disguised as an Apple article, disguised as a Linux topic. Interesting.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Its a really sad day when Mac OS X becomes a potential threat to one of its close relatives.
Die First, Then Quit
For many of us, Linux will likely never be able to compete against OS X for one simple reason:
Most anything worthwhile that you can do in Linux, you can also do in OS X, and often much more easily. The reverse isn't *close* to being true.
OS X is what Linux dreams of one day being. Why not use what Linux *may* have in 10 years, today?
How? If Apple's desktop threatens Linux, it shouldn't matter what processor it is running on. Loser article, but I guess the editors are just considering page views and number of comments, not being particularly insightful or enlightening.
Summary of article: Linux needs better hardware drivers if it's going to compete with Mac on the same processor. No, we thought that Linus had more influence with hardware manufactures than Apple, a hardware company, does. Summary of SynphonyOS: Ooh look! Another distro! With a unique package management system! I'm sure that'll take off.
Never in a million years. Linux is unstoppable since it has no central one owner. Anyone who thinks otherwise is logged into reality as root.
This is more than linux with a very very slightly different desktop environment (dock? check. hot corners? check. active desktop? check. ugly chrome... it'll get uglier in time.) how?
I've had this sig for three days.
this is a big dupe, and let me answer the question: NO it isnt a threat, If aple ties it to hardware amd people break that and make it work on anything, that is a DMCA violation and thus only a relative few qould do it, most that want apple will buy apples anyway because theoor hardware is nicer than the PC equicelant for not too much more $$.
Apple wants to commit suicide and alow the Mac os to be run on generic pc's. So far what Iv read says that the Mac os will still only run on Mac's. Apple has no plans on releasing the os as software to run on any pc.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
Apple are moving to X86 yes , but it wont be standard PC equipment .
This is no threat to linux , Apple are going to keep with their custom hardware and linux for A-x86 will spring up and take over in a few years from linux for PPC (well not totally )
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Quit yappin and checkout e17 from cvs and help innovate.
Or help the rox desktop project.
Or help fix X11 some.
Sheesh, OSX is nice and all but I don't think that apple moving to a different processor is going to change FOSS very much.
I bought my powerbook for the hardware. Put linux on it, and use it for my day to day development on cheap x86's. Apple is not going to have cheap x86's. They will have sexy hardware that comes with their latest OS installed. Whoever is heavily involved in linux and FOSS development either wants cheap comodity hardware to put in a closet or their software can more than likly be ported to build on OSx86 with out much headache.
I can use OSX to compile gnu stuff, run X and photoshop, bash, with cool eyecandy and rocksolid stability!
If I can do it on an intel box, I may not need linux. honest. I am not that religious
Also, don't forget that there will be Intel servers, too...Apple is going to Intel across it's entire product line.
If linux had a mac os x like desktop it would offer mainstream users a better experience. Not all users are system admin types. But if you want to you still have that freedom to do your thing. Or you can play around in the awesome desktop environment that mac os x is, which i do 90% of the time.
They put a link to Wikipedia right in the article! How will I karma whore now?
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?
Does this mean that OS.X will now take over from Windows as the 'Root of all Evil'?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Oh yeah? Why is that? Why does it matter if Mac OSX uses Intel or PowerPC or Transmeta for that matter? Apple will still lock their platform, still charge too much for accessories (such as RAM), still take 20 years to develop a 2-button mouse.
Tell me, fearmonger, why should I start running down the streets in panic?
Porting yellowdog back to intel should be a snap. The only problem will be that their market will shrink as the powerpc chip vanishes it will be hard to compete with mature intel based distros.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Where is the threat folks? If Apple keeps their OS locked down to Apple hardware the story for Apple is basically the same as it has always been. Apple hardware, very good driver support for supported hardware etc. If you still have to pay for the Apple hardware to run the Apple OS what about the situation has truly changed?
I am sure someone will have OS X running on every one of their x86 machines the week it comes out. Outside of geek circles though, this won't mean a damn thing. If Apple keeps it locked to Apple hardware business and home user won't be downloading/buying OS X and installing it any time soon.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
At least at first, this really only helps Apple. They will get a wider variety of drivers from FreeBSD. However, I just don't see it affecting Linux and where Linux has been going on the desktop. Apple is still Apple and they still operate on proprietary (read: locked in) Apple hardware.
Until we here different from Apple and their policy on OS installation this changes nothing and really only benefits Apple in the short term. It will cause little to no change in my opinion.
Jeremy
You must be old here.
Apple is completely debt-free as of last year; Steve Jobs had successful surgery; Mac sales are increasing 40% year-over-year last quater; FreeBSD? please.
After all, Intel OS X will probably only run on Apple computers (although I think there will be a hacked version, possibly using OpenDarwin, for the pirate market). And while OS X is a damn nice desktop OS, it doesn't really cater to the same audience as Linux. I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
...the corporate desktop? I doubt it. The primary advantage of Linux here is to set up simple, free desktops for users which are not locked in to Windows.
...the tinkerer's desktop? Nope. They'll keep going with Linux just as they did before Linux could compare to either Windows or Mac (at least on the desktop side).
...the mass market desktop? Maybe. Except Linux never really had it to begin with. As for OS X being so much better - well, I must say that I could build a much better Windows experience with Win+commercial apps than I could with Linux, if I had endless cash or no ethical problem with copyright infringement. Still, Linux and the free legal desktop interests me. I don't think it will be significantly different with Linux vs OS X.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, I would say neither Windows or Mac OS X will likely ever be able to compete against Linux (in the long term), unless they go OpenSource.
For M$ that would be impossible, as they say them selves, windows has to many security-holes.
For Apple, maybe its possible, but very unlikely.
So now eWeek has to lecture Linux developers on their priorities? Maybe all of the "threats" Linux faces that the author describes, are real ones, or even properly posed (pretty unlikely for an eWeek article), and maybe they aren't. But to frame the discussion like there's some monolith entity Linux that has to compete with OSX is to not eevn begin to understand where Linux came from, how and why it evolved, and who's behind it and why.
And to argue from another direction, Linux's always had competition in the form of Windows. Maybe, just maybe, there's something about Linux that escapes the folks at eWeek.
I looked at the symphony os page, and while the guy has a few good ideas, I was disappointed to see he's yet another UI fascist, proclaiming that consistency of experience trumps user choice.
It's one of gnome's most grating and annoying properties, that the developers have decided that user configurability is undesirable; since of course they are targetting the novice/clueless user, this means that gnome's interface sucks more and more for the experienced/clueful user, and at the same time they are reducing the user's ability to mitigate this through customization.
It looks like symphony os is trying to follow the same limiting and moronic path.
A user interface environment should be a toolkit with (1) really good defaults, and (2) tools that allow the user to easily mold it to fit his own usage patterns.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Or will the hardware support remain limited to Apple-specific hardware? An X86 CPU does not automatically mean support for the average PC.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Take it easy on the main server, here's the Coral cache...
http://www.symphonyos.com.nyud.net:8090/
Both co.'s will be just fine with Linux as long as they retain market dominance and integrate the features users want first. The threat to them on the desktop will most likely come from Novell/Suse who are more aggressively pushing advanced tools like Beagle/Best. But the general linux community has nothing to fear. In fact, we can only hope that now that an Arch (PPC) has been (somewhat) taken out of play that resources will now choose to focus back on x86.
This is just another divisive effort with the same goals as most of the major desktops. Why not focus on improving existing usability? Or even joining one of the other "new useable desktop from scratch" projects. Not that any of them are successful, and for a good reason.
I am trolling
I'm not using Linux to "compete with Windows and OSX". I'm not helping out Gnome to make it more competitive. I'm using Linux and Gnome because it happens to fit the way I work very well and I help the Gnome project (by translating a bit, mostly) because it is enjoyable and I get to chat with some very fun people.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
A long established sports car company Porsche, like Apple, use their unique design and reputation for performance and quality to set itself apart from other players in the same market.
In 1976 Porsche released the Porsche 924 as an entry level introduction for new customers to the Porsche brand. The 924 may have been designed by Porsche, but it also had the same engine as models of the AMC Gremlin and Volkswagen Mini-van, and was built by Audi ( at that time it had just become a division of Volkswagen ). In comparison to other similarly priced sports cars of the day, the engine failed to deliver the expected performance, even with the addition of a turbo in 1979.
Problems with the early model 924s really damaged the reputation of Porsche and most Porsche enthusiasts shunned it for the earlier model 911 series. Despite the loss of reputation, Porsche stuck with the 924 series for a few years. Sales were not as good as the 911 series and outsourcing the manufacturing turned out to be less cost effective than expected.
Because IBM failed to deliver the next generation of Power CPUs, Apple is need of a new engine. Intel and AMD can provide one, but Apple does not have enough market share for either to manufacture custom CPUs or a new proprietary bus architecture. That leaves moving MacOS/X to the same ia64 or x86 processors which are also used in the Microsoft Gremlin and Linux Mini-van. The latter two OSs are quite capable of providing very comparable desktop experience to MacOS/X well within the next two years.
There is not much Apple can do on the other side of processors bus which is going to deliver enough performance to set it apart from a new Laptop or PC from Dell, Lenovo, HP or any whitebox OEM. Apple style flashy external bodywork is being adopted by those same vendors. The inevitable comparisons will result in damage to the public's perception of Apple's uniqueness.
This leaves Apple with a choice. Either continue to remain the sole supplier of hardware for MacOS/X and loose a large chunk of the desktop market share OR choose to directly compete with Microsoft and let Dell, Lenovo and HP sell Apple designed/approved "built for MacOS/X" laptops and PCs. The OEMs would love to have Apple and Microsoft competing to sell on the OEMs hardware.
In my opinion if Apple does not choose the latter option, then it only because of very bad decisions by Apple's management or Sherman Act violating non-compete agreements with Microsoft.
Mobile devices are the future:
Here are some market stats for the first quarter of 2005:
Mobile Phone Handsets:
170 million units sold (19% growth YTY)
PCs:
46.2 million units sold (11% growth YTY)
iPods:
5.3 million units sold (558% growth YTY)
PDAs:
3.4 million units sold (25% growth YTY)
Video Games (Portable):
3.8 million units sold (72% growth YTY)
Volume rules...control mobile platforms, and the desktop comes for free. That's where Linux UI developers should focus their efforts.
Nooface
In Search of the Post-PC Interface
How will MacOS on intel threaten linux?
It's not like you'll be able to install it on any old x86 box - you will still have to buy a Mac.
It's just the internals of the black box that will change - the end user won't see any major difference (performance aside).
I don't see how anyone deciding between linux or a mac would be influenced by this change.
Will Apple make OSX available for ANY x86 hardware? Will I be able to put it on my exiting PCs? Will I be able to choose my own motherboards and other parts for future upgrades?
If so, then I may be tempted to go Mac and dump Linux when the Linux software I like gets ported. I think Linux will still thrive in the embedded systems and industrial controls, plus the occasional PDA markets.
If not, then I think Linux will still thrive as it does now.
Apple has always seemed very protective of its hardware. I imagine they will do something to keep control of things so we still have to buy Apple hardware to run MacOS, regardless of what CPU is in the thing.
How can Linux be threatened at the desktop when it does not exist there in any number to be begin with?
The OS that wrestles the desktop from Microsoft's white knuckle grip will be the one that can run reliably, offer excellent security while being intuitive and efficient.
Similar to how Firefox is wedging itself onto the desktop.
With all that money and smarts, you would think Google cold come up with an OS.
The switch from PPC to x86 for Apple is an issue only for Mac developers and maybe some of the users. No one else. A Mac is still a Mac, even when it's got an Intel processor in it. The only effect of going to x86 is that Apple won't fall behind on performance.
The assumption seems to be that a Mac is somehow more attractive to developers with an Intel processor in it than with a PowerPC. Why!? What difference does it make? If you're developing for Linux and decide to also support the Mac, you still have to go through the same porting process to support OSX that you had to go through before. Sure, on those rare occasions when someone has some x86 assembly they would need to port, it helps, but otherwise, it's a non-issue.
Porting to the Mac is porting to OSX. OSX is the same on both architectures. Apple switching to Intel doesn't make OSX any more like Linux.
I feel treaten personally. I use Linux since 6 years now but now it's bye bye... I'll trash my whole system and install OSX on my Intel to catch up with the future. If that doesn't work I lost connection and have to kill myself with a hammer. Hope, CNN will show that so my life wasn't as worthless as Linux is right now.
/. story?
Christians suck for Jesus is dead since 2000 years now. Why isn't that a
As regards dependency hell, could a user friendly system like Symphony use Gentoo's Portage system, or Fink? Seems even an idiot like myself can use simple commands to do complicated things like:
# emerge --update --deep openoffice
Or get a copy of the GIMP without worrying about GTK+ dependencies, or Azureus without getting the JRE with a separate instruction for download and compiling.
After emerge you just have to track down the executable for the program after it's compiled. The compiling could even be hidden on a separate virtual desktop as an option to users who don't want to see things they don't understand.
I know it's not as idiot-proof as Apple's .app system, which seems clean and quick, but it's in use already, and Gentoo already has a substantial software library at its site Gentoo.org, so much so that I know OS X users who wouldn't use the system without Fink - which is different but comparable.
I see the case for considering this thread an advertisement, but if something is standards compliant and user friendly by design I think it's a good move for Linux spreading its market share. I think it's quite possible to give a good free system to new Linux users which is better and more fully featured than Lindows/Linspire, which I never liked despite the promise of Click'N'Run (CNR).
outside the realm of nerds, no one actually USES a linux desktop to any great extent. the people who do will probably continue doing so, since we're all pretty sure that os x won't run on commodity hardware (at least without hacking it up).
so why is this even an issue?
Darwin - the CORE of OS X is open source and has been available on the x86 platform. Go Click here and see for yourself.
x86 Darwin Release Notes
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Symphony looks nice.
Because of the Apple news about switching to Intel chips, I've read a ton of articles stating that this is going to be the end of Linux, or Apple is now trying to compete with Dell or Microsoft directly. It is all a bunch of crap.
Apple has stated that Mac OS X(x86) will only run on Apple Hardware. So, really the only thing this changes is that Apple will be able to put out better performing Macs in the future. There are competitive issues when comparing processor speed and architechure that will not be in the equation as much as before, but it doesn't change the business model for Apple, it doesn't change how people will use their hardware. It doesn't change who will buy their hardware. The competitive landscape remains unchanged. They are still built like an appliance, you plug it in and it just works. You may be able to run Windows on them, but why would you buy one for this purpose? It would be cheaper to buy a dell or something like that. If anything, it goes counter culture to the Mac zealots, but they will get over it once the realize, it still looks like a Mac, Sounds like a Mac, works like a Mac; it is still a Mac in the end.
All this speculation is generated by a bunch of journalist, trying to make a buck off the sensationalism of it all. In the end a G4/5 and a x86 chip are designed for the same purpose, and can be used to accomplish the same thing.
my 2 cents.
The Linux Desktop Community must encourage such initatives massively to compete against Mac OSX and Windows.
Why?
Maybe I'm missing something and /. can enlighten me. I use Linux. OSX gets a lot of fans.
So, exactly how does this involve me at all?
I keep seeing that OSX might become a "threat". How exactly? Will OSX suddenly become self-aware and begin deleting Linux from the entire Internet or something?
Maybe it's just me, but I just don't feel a threat here. They're both fairly posix/unix, so I'm reallly seeing a potential ally here more than anything else.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You can tell a GUI designer is going to be good when their "Laws of Interface Design" includes gems like this: "People are trained monkeys..."
Yeah, this one's going to be a winner.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Why? Because with Linux it isn't just the OS itself. It's the whole ideology around it of a free (speech...) operating system. Whereas OS X is also a UNIX-like operating system it's a closed source system (not as much as Windows maybe, but still...).
I think Mac OS X would maybe appeal to more people (in time), but until it isn't open source software Linux et al will exist I guess.
BTW I'm both a Mac OS X and Linux user.
is already superior to linux in nearly every way possible, so the short answer is... yes.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Can someone explain me what makes MacOS X running on Intel-based Apple hardware any more of a threat to Linux compared to MacOS X running on PPC-based Apple hardware?
Supposedly Intel processor makes Apple somehow better? What is it, speed? What else? But then, does this mean that the Linux community is filled with people who don't use MacOS X ONLY because Apple isn't making Intel-based Macs? I somehow find this to be hard to believe.
Apple has said that Mac OS will *NOT* be available for off-the-shelf Wintel PCs; they'll be doing their own hardware as before, just with Intel CPUs. This could change downstream, but that's the party line at present.
I'll concede that having an Intel-based Mac environment available *might* detract from Linux, but your hardware options (for now) are orders of magnitude greater under Linux than with Apple, and I can't see that changing anytime in the near future.
Why does Apple changing processors suddenly threaten linux? It makes no logical sense.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
The x86 version of OSX is not going to run on your garden variety PC. It isn't going to run on that old Pentium II 400 that you've decided to let your kids have. You're not going to be able to buy a Walmart PC and toss it on. It's going to continue to be on Apple hardware, and it is going to cost $$$. I don't see how there's any more threat from Macs in two years than there is now. The only people that may end up being screwed is users of PowerPC Linux, but that's a pretty damn small piece of the Linux market.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ever wonder how many of the chicken little's that are saying "Mac OS X will now be the death of Linux", are really microsloth weenies disguised as Mac OS X users?
is the one you already know.
From the wikipedia:
"the Mezzo desktop environment that poses a completely new way of presenting data to the user." [strike one]
"Symphony OS also includes a new packaging system" [strike two]
What may happen, is that some of the Mezzo ideas might get fed into other distributions, but whenever someone starts shouting about following a whole new paradigm they have lost from the start.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
1) We don't know how to do a desktop. If you want proof, look at what we've got so far.
2) We don't *want* to do desktops. This, too, should be fairly obvious by the effort ( or lack thereof ) put forth up to this point.
If OSX is a great desktop OS on commodity hardware ( it won't be, but that's the assumption at this point ), why should we spin our wheels coming up with yet another version of the wheel? The focus, I believe, should be server side. We should be making file/print and directory services under linux so damned impressive that no one would want to bother with the MS alternative.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Apple has said that Mac OS X will not run on generic x86 hardware. They've also said (perhaps not officially) that they will encourage x86 software use on their hardware (e.g. if the customer wants to install Windows in a dual boot or run via a virtual machine). This should be no threat to Apple. If someone's paid money to buy a Mac, they want to run Mac OS X. Having x86 compatability is a safety net for worried switchers.
IF Apple's hardware is hacked to run on generic hardware (and I think that's a very big IF), we may actually see bigger demands for people wanting to buy generic hardware without an OS installed or perhaps with Lindows or other OEM free option installed. Admittedly most of these people will be the "crazy ones" who want to experiment, but that's a great user base that may also "discover" Linux in this process.
Regardless of what headway Apple makes in the market, it's clear that they'll be calling into question the commercial judgement that there is only one computer operating system out there. That should make significant headway toward businesses considering the Linux options and demanding standards compliance in their apps and file formats.
These situations give significant boost to Linux on the desktop in my opinion. The biggest problem is that Microsoft is a monopoly in the minds of the consumer and no amount of coding is going to change this. Linux will benefit from Mac OS X moving to x86 hardware, but that doesn't mean a new GUI has to be engineered by the debut of Mac OS X on Intel or the release of Longhorn. It would hurt to have some though (if that's what you're interested in hacking on).
A year ago, I was a hardcore religous Gentoo user (yes, the worst kind of Linux zealot) I bought a mac mini because OSX looks cool, and if it sucks I can install gentoo.
:) )
When it got here, there was that initial "WoW!" factor, didn't touch the PC for a few weeks. OSX became more and more unix. All the dev tools installed, X11 etc etc. Eventually I realized that anything I could do in gentoo I could do in OSX.
I tried my best to treat gentoo fairly, and use it as much as possible, but it was slipping away. Why muck around in Konsole when I can play in Terminal, and have cooler drop shadows? OSX was fast, very fast. Think Windows, but not ugly, not slow, not buggy, and it's unix. It was like the awsome window manager that KDE Gnome and every other wm was aspiring to be.
Now the PC has Slackware 10 installed, and my little brother and sister use it. I still support Linux in every way, but to me OSX is just Linux with a cooler window manager. Sure, it's no where near as open - I'll never compile everything from scratch - but I still get *nix, with pretty drop shadows.
One of the reasons OSX excells is the exact opposite of why Linux rocks - customizability. OSX ain't got it. As far as apperance goes, you've got Aqua and Slate, which are the exact same thing except one has more grey. Developers know exactly what their app is going to look like on EVERY osx users computer. Everything feels right in that sense. Linux is cool though because KDE doesn't have a distinctive look. (Windows is in the middle, which makes it just crappy)
Will OSX on x86 hurt Linux? Maybe. I bet alot of Linux zealots are saying it's all FUD and that Linux will never die because it's open source. Hopefully the KDE etc devs have taken notice, and are putting things into high gear. Competition spurs innovation.
Sure, OSX may not run on your 200$ peice-of-shit Dell, but Apple said that it won't stop their machines from booting Windows, and they obviously can't stop Linux. Imagine turning on your machine, greeted by LILO Grub or whatever, and seeing this in the menu:
Mac OSX
Gentoo Linux
FreeBSD
Windows (sucks)
All on one machine. That would be weird, but very cool. So in a way, Apples move to Intel affects Linux because even though alot may switch so they can dual boot linux and osx and windows and what-have-you, if OSX is far superior people may find themselves booting into Linux less often. (I would just get an 8GB ram machine and run them in virtualpc
So, some serious action needs to take place to make sure OSX doesn't canabalize it's *nix parents and relatives.
My parent is right. There is no danger from Mac OS X.
Both can benefit from each other, as the Apple Macintosh has benefited a lot from the UNIX-likeness of its OS X. Back in the times og Mac OS 7-9, there were very few ports of programs like Apache or things like that (and usually years behind other releases). I understand that these ports were very difficult to do. Now porting is much easier, and we get a lot more apps.
So in the (bright) future, some of us will use Macs with Intel-proccessors, some will use Linux-boxes.
I'm pretty sure Apple-computers will still be more expensive than PCs. And if you want something special (like systems with many processors or the latest hardware), you can run Linux on other processors or hardware. Or if you want a huge choice of user interfaces.
So there are still plenty of reasons to use Linux.
But maybe a few programs for OS X will be ported to Linux, maybe Photoshop, Illustrator or whatever, as porting in both directions should be easier.
Of course, some people might still use that other OS from Redmond.
I don't need a signature.
Choice. You may think this is a bad thing, but I run KDE on one linux box, and Gnome on the other. I like certain aspects of both. There are certain aspects of both that irritate me. However, at the end of the day, I like having the choice to use what works best for me, rather than leaving this up to a single effort, and leaving me stuck with it whether I like it or not.
Short answer : not as long as Apple keeps Mac OS X on its own machines, be they PPC-based or intel-based. For the moment, the plan is to replace IBM chips with intel chips on Apple-produced Macs (likely to remain as expensive as now), not to unleash Mac OS X on an unsuspecting Wintel world.
--
Longer answer: if Apple decides to make OS X for every PC out there, they will be in competition with Windows, not Linux. Apple will tout OS X's ease of use - prettiness - multimedia capabilities, and this will speak to frustrated windows users, not linux users. (There aren't many people using linux as "general-use" machines)
Linux is here to stay : most linux users don't use it because it's prettier or easier to use than Windows : it's not. They use it because of access to the sources, shell, easy scripting, performance, stability, etc.. These are perfectly valid reasons to use linux on production machines (servers - development - science). Mac OS X Server might compete here, but it's costly compared to linux.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Just like it didn't threaten Linux yesterday.
Terrasoft has announced they have no intention of switching or ceasing Linux development for PPC arch.
I think we slashdotted coral cache
Error: 503 Service Unavailable
www.symphonyos.com: Too many open files
Server CoralWebPrx/0.1.14 (See http://coralcdn.org/) at 140.112.107.80:8090
... really want bloody lamers complaining about all and everything they are too dumb to do under Linux?
The rule of thumb for Linux users is:
if it is not there: just do it yourself. Mac users ain't quite that sort of people.
To the author: If you're going to attempt a polemic, at least learn to speak English!
To the editors: Is this news?..
Say, that's a great idea! I hope you borrow the best features from each one, mangle it together, and call it GQTK2++. Sure, you're bound to be flamed to support all those pesky architectures, resulting in various code-branching, then after two years all your once-jedi buddies would break-away because they think you've lost your edge, but then it'll all implode when GTK and Mac OSX and whatever other mimicry assimilated inyou your project will be uber-created in your competitors biggest product. Then someone with the same spirit you once had those five years earlier will come along and complain abouth the uber-creator's software, and he'll create his own and open it to all the geeks of Poor kingdom under the title "GuhnooberOeSS-eXP++--." I'm behind you, man! So far behind that you can't see me yet, but I'm behind you! It'll be free, as in beer, right?
without prejudice
Linux is a kernel. An operating system can not threaten a kernel, neither can a software product other than a kernel. There is no threat to Linux.
'The Linux Desktop' also has nothing to fear. First of all it is Open Source and Free while all the competition (save the BSDs, though I don't know if they could be classified Free Software?) is neither Open nor Free. Not to mention the user base of Linux doesn't shrink just because Mac OS becomes popular.
Linux sprung out into what it is today -solely- due to the investment by developers, NOT a company with funding trying to make a product for end-users. Sure companies have been paying developers full time to work on Linux but the same work would have been done without them. The only real contributions companies make are proprietary code they open source which the developers could come up with too if they chose to. The developers made it for themselves and until Mac OS becomes even a slightly decent development platform, Linux developers will never abandon their loved one and Linux and its free Desktop software will never be threatened.
Might I remind you Linux's strength also lies in its use as a console, not just a graphical user interface? And its grip on the server market is undeniable. Even if Linux was banished to mostly-server markets the Desktop software will always be there for you to use or not; whether or not Red Hat goes out of business i'll always have my Slackware or Debian or LFS desktop/server system.
Yesterday I tried the latest knoppix version, and what struck me the most was how ugly kde is. The mother of heirarchial menues made even worse by most applications starting with a K(!), therefore making alphabetical sorting near useless. Just looking at it irritated me. The KDE project seems to have taken the worst of windows, fashioned it after apple of yesteryears, and maxed out on it. I really think the linux should've just made their own desktop, the way it ought better be, and let windows familiarity be damned. Linux should be about what's next, not what microsoft was.
People seem to be forgetting that OSX is still a proprietary OS, and it will *still* will only run on Macs, albeit with an '86 processor instead of a PPC. So what's all the fuss about? The only thing changing here is the processor that Apple will be using for its future Macs.
that Apple won't threaten Linux on the desktop is that you still have to buy a proprietary box to run OS X x86.
If/when Apple wakes up to the fact that they just invaded the other 97% of the market, and that they could possibly make up for the lost hardware revenue by selling shrink-wrapped OS X copies in volume, then they might be a threat to Linux.
Until that day, Apple is going to continue to sell premium-priced hardware that won't appeal to the average Linux geek.
I don't see why Apple doesn't just let the OpenSource community get in on the development of OS X. I mean, they accomplish two goals, first, making Linux a widely accepted form of OS as well as pushing Apple as a whole into a Windows market. It's easier for me as a Windows user to accept a Mac OS rather than Linux with KDE or Gnome.
But that's just me.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Strangely enough one of the best opportunities for Linux would be to take Apple's Human Interface Development Guidelines and apply them to Linux. Apple has done and did some of the best research on how people use computers and what's intuitive. By taking and leveraging those ideas, linux desktops could get a lot closer to useable.
This opportunity is even more stark since Apple has been abandoning these self-same guidelines in their more recent versions of the Mac OS. The finder is no longer compliant with these guidelines, it's clunky and counter-intuitive. But I'm sure if you care about apple you either have, or have read about the complaints about the finder.
Linux would do well to learn from Apple's research. GNOME and KDE are great steps for anyone programming for Linux. By using their development environments we get much closer to having a common theme we can follow, a common expectation of where to find menus, etc. These are vital components to being able to use an OS. The current batch of programs still don't have that rock solid consistency. You often still have to search for the options you need.
Apple's move to Intel is not going to threaten Linux; it will actually help Linux. The free operating systems thrive on standards, and where there is more diversity in computing, standards become more neccessary.
I want Apple to slug it out Microsoft; that's the way it should be. Linux? Let Linux just keep sliding into the cracks as ever; the slow steady rise.
"Linux" itself could never compete against Microsoft anyhow; it would have to be a Linux-weilding company. And while the Linux desktop will definitely make inroads soon overseas and within corporations, I don't see any of the distros having a "cool" and/or "friendly" consumer image on par with Apple or even -- ack -- Microsoft, any time soon.
But give it about 10 years, and in all those places Linux has trickled in, the cracks will have expanded quite wide. We've just got to keep working, and be patient.
After all, who uses Kleenex brand tissues anymore? Who uses Q-tip brand cotton swabs? Linux is the generica of operating systems. It's inevitable, but not quite here yet.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Let's discuss security a moment. If I remember correctly, Apple would be moving its OS to Intel and basing that OS around the Windows NT kernel. And if I remember correctly, the Windows NT kernel is monolithic in design, meaning that it is irreducably complex. Everything interacts with everything, meaning that if one component fails, or is compromised, it can lead to a system failure or system compromization. If the above is true, then I strongly disagree with the wisdom of Apple's decision, no matter what the motivation may be. And this may give hope to Linux, because if the above is true, all we'll be seeing is another Windows kernel on the market. Not a problem at all. Let me know what flaws you see in my logic. Thanks.
That that is, is.
Linux Has No Fear This news does nothing to Linux at the moment. Probably never will. If anything, some Mac applications may spill over into Linux, like, Adobe Photoshop. Some Linux applications may spill over onto the Mac, such as engineering design software (EDA, CAD, etc). If you remove emotions and OS religion from the equation, this could be a win-win for Apple and Linux. Linux is more compatible with an Intel Mac than Windows will ever be. Porting applications between Mac and Linux should be easier than porting to Apple's xcode then to OS X. If a Linux user wants the Mac look and feel, there is an Aqua clone for KDE.
Linux to Apple, No Fear
Come on, how should Apple threaten Linux? If MacOSX would run on all x86 hardware and would be 100% Windows compatible there might be some reason behind this, but for all we now, MacOSX will still require its special hardware and don't offer any build in Windows compatibilty, so things havn't really changed at all from the PPC. Its all just a implementation detail that nobody really cares about.
Biggest thread for Linux always was and always will be itself. To many incompabile distros, no consistency, lack of user friendlyness when it comes to hardware install, configuration, software installation, lack of third party support, etc.
A friend of mine brought up an interesting point the other day that got me thinking about Linus' switch to a Mac. He brought up the point that it's possible that Mac could possibly be interested in switching to the Linux kernel. That being the case, Mac wouldn't be a threat to Linux, at all. They could quite possibly be the biggest ally to date!
My lame blog.
Apple isn't moving anything to a NT kernel. OS X would keep its Mach kernel etc.
I think your views on the risks of monolithic vs. microkernel might be a bit extreme as well but hey, everyone gets their own opinion. But it's more than possible to cause a systemwide failure in a system that isn't monolithic.
The part where he says he's going to make OS/X free as in "free beer" because his cold little heart bleeds when he reads that BSD is dying.
People put way too much importance on visibility. I don't know if Linux was ever destined to count itself among the most visible of all platforms. Linux doesn't need that kind of one-on-one attention to fill important niches. I'd be quite happy to see a three way tie take shape: MS for the corporate drones, OS/X for the insecure, and Linux/BSD for those of us who merely want to get from point A to point B without the hype and fanfare.
It takes a certain amount of insecurity to wonder about this prospect in the first place.
Hardly. Two strikes against it in my book.
* Horrible non-aa fonts - this is 10+ year old tech!
* KDE leftover Aqua wannabe icons
Yuk.
There is no competition. Linux on the desktop is a tiny little geek niche and will not go away. If anything, people will be dual-booting Linux on their x86 Powerbooks, because it's going to be that much easier.
This is *good* for Linux.
And bad for Dell. But that's another topic entirely.
Everybody I know who's a linux user but wants a useable desktop they don't have to mess with has already bought a Mac and "switched" to OS X. They still use linux, but the machines are either console-only or headless.
Of the dozen or so people I know who've "switched", they've all been linux or *bsd users, and they switched because Apple provides a useable desktop experience that Just Works Out Of The Box.
Of course, these are people with lives who don't like plinking around with their computers just for the hell of it - they use the things to Do Work.
Here's the mirrordot mirror of the symphony OS page.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
First of all, I doubt that OSX, evens if it runs on commodity x86 hardware, will seriously decrease Linux's marketshare. Linux enthusiasts and Free Software advocates are not suddenly going to switch over to a new proprietary OS just because it's available. (Raging anti-Microsoft zealots might though, but that's a segment of the population I think we can do without.)
However, this is a unquie opportunity for the Linux community and Apple to help one another and both gain a big chunk of Microsoft's userbase.
Imagine if Apple started contributing funds and/or developers to the Wine project, basically doing for Wine what they did for Khtml.
Imagine being able to tell someone that, yes, they can switch to Linux/OSX and still run all their Windows programs/games.
Imagine what that would do for the marketshare of both operating systems.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
See, their desktop UI solution does not span into applications. Mozilla continues to have menus, submenus. So does OOo. The old way of doing things -- including those tricky context menus, which are completely counter-intuitive -- are not gone. They just aren't used in the desktop layer.
However, I applaud their artistic skills. There's a lot of well-round and tasteful SVGs in the screenshots, they get proportion and design right.
Most programmers aren't able to do that. See the visual hell that is KDE, with bouncing cursors and generalized visual information overflow. Worse, they have those small, 2 sq-pixel thingies to click to get additional functionality, which are absolutely cruel to the user -- user interfaces should feel good not only to one's eyes and brains (i.e., look good and make sense), but to their arms and wrists as well (does not worsen user's physical limitations). KDE guys have a design that values clutter and über-geeky-coolness that is hermetic to their own userbase.
Getting back to the subject at hand, it's a shame that Symphony devs cannot play along with other distros. In the other hand, I just hope their experience serves as inspiration for other teams, so that they can design better interfaces.
Dear AC,
I am in business with a number of people who quit working for Microsoft. I must assume that they quit for some reason, and that they don't carry some enduring Microsoft religion with them to their new jobs. If I were to find that this is really some attempt to have Bill Gates pull my puppet strings, of course I would quit. But this seems rather unlikely.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There! Now I've mastered the blockquoted blockquote and duped a most-likely duped post complaining of a duplication of an already duped article disguised to advertise duplicating of Apple OSX on IBM duped PeeSees. Those Intel people are just a bunch of clones.
without prejudice
If you check out the price of naked PCs and toss in a free Debian clone like SimplyMEPIS you have a powerful GUI Desktop with a powerful package management system called Synaptics. The combined price of equally capable hardware plus MEPIS is MUCH less than that of an Apple computer with Tiger, and that is not including the additional proprietary (EXPENSIVE) software you'd have to purchase for Apple to do anything.
If Apple dropped the hardware they'd have to compete with Windows for a space on Dell's desktops. THEN they'd learn the real meaning of the power of a ruthless monopoly. As long as Bush and money-grubbing politicians are in power don't expect the M$ monopoly to disappear anytime soon.
Need further proof? Just watch the EU resistance to the Microsoft envasion fade away as various politicians receive liberal campaign dontation$, promises of construction and jobs in their regions, etc.... Or, conversely, the threat of plant closings and job losses (which has already happened - google it) if they don't get on board with M$'s "interpretation" of patents and copyrights.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Q: "Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?"
A: No.
The concept of Apple-on-Intel threatening Linux might be valid if Linux was a commercial operating system, sold by a company whose market share and profits might suffer if Apple were to compete successfully against them.
But it isn't.
You can't threaten Linux. If Red Hat and all the other Linux companies were to drop Linux and switch to something else, if Dell, IBM and all the other box suppliers stopped supporting Linux, if all the hardware manufacturers who currently provide Linux drivers for their products all stopped supporting Linux, it still wouldn't be dead. You'd still have people like Torvalds and Cox writing code in their spare time and there'd still be geeks downloading Linux and installing it on old PCs.
Giving people an alternative to Linux isn't a threat - it's a choice. It's freedom of choice and freedom is what Linux is all about.
More and more, we see articles and talk about Linux's market share, whether it's going to be successful on the desktop, whether it's going to be able to compete against Windows, against Solaris, et cetera, et cetera, et ad infinitum cetera.
Linux doesn't compete against Windows, MacOS X or Solaris. Linux vendors, like Red Hat, compete against Microsoft, Apple and Sun. Linux just is. The fact that it's supported by various companies is great but it's not essential for Linux survival. The fact that the amount of people and companies using Linux is huge and growing is terrific, but it's not essential. If everyone, right up to and including Linus abandoned Linux, I'd still be able to dig out my Red Hat CDs and install it on an old PC.
This article is just typical of /. these days - it's a stupid, hype-ridden question, which hundreds of clueless fuckwits will comment inanely on, wasting bandwidth and electrons.
Wake up and take your heads out of your asses.
D.
..is for Don't. Be so. Fucking. Stupid.
is what is halting Linux on the desktop. ONE place for bookmarks, shared by all browsers. ONE place for file associations, shared by all window managers. etc, etc... Why is it so difficult?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Apple has little to gain from the Linux kernel, and a lot to lose. The mach kernel is BSD licensed, and you can bet your ass that they will have some modifications to try to avoid booting on generic PC clones that they will not want to open up. Sure you could do this with linux, but they already have a kernel that works for them, their developers are familiar with, and they don't need much else.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Wonderful news from the Truth Hurts department.
I have no idea WHY Apple did this. They totally lost one of the advantages that they had. When they sold us their own hardware, we thought it was part of what made the system stable, and IMHO it certainly is.
Now they'll be comparing a P4 versus a P4. Basically, "This P4 runs Windows and it's $400. This other one runs OS X and it's $1400." Users will look at it as something like, "...so I'm paying $1000 for the OS?" Car/Computer analogies are great, and yours certainly holds a lot of water, however, I'd rather compare it to Lexus and Toyota, Acura and Honda, or Infinity and Nissan. Basically, all a mac will be now is a better built PC.
I'll hand it to them though. They're taking an aggressive stance, because this will either kill them or make their market share go through the roof.
No, nothing can touch Linux. x86 OS-X will only kill x86 Solaris. I mean, who wants to use x86 Solaris when you have options like - Linux, Windows, OS-X?!!
Think about it. If Apple runs on x86. They probably can lock it down so the OS won't run on anything but their machine. However, there are absolutely no reason they can't run window on their machince. Better yet. Make a system that run OSX with almost completely native support for windows's application will not be difficult. If that happens. Whoever bought an Apple will have less of a regrate since they can switch back to windows if it turns out they don't like OSX. Where those who buy a Dell or any other system in the world won't have the luxary of running both OS in the same system. Think of the appeal this will have for people who still have reason to stays on Window yet want to try out Apple! Apple really did thought it through this time. I tell you what.
This is going to be Macs with a different processor. Apple couldn't produce a OS that runs on generic hardware if they tried. At exactly which point will your average user care? And then explain what this has to do with Linux. A Mac is a Mac a PC is a PC, nothing has changed except by choosing Intel they can no longer say they use the bast components.
./ers use 'weblog' from now on, do we need to save two letters just to sound stupid? We're better than that.
The benefit of all of this is we don't have to hear the word Wintel anymore. I hate those words. Can I request that
Nothing to see at Symphonys site unless you like "Bandwidth Exceeded" messages. Nothing but the home page displays now... everything else shows:
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.symphonyos.com Port 80
Good job guys, you killed it. Now Linux has no defence against the onslaught of OSX. Are you happy?
For an encore I think we should now bring down the XFCE site as a means of showing our unity against OSX and Windows! Maybe after that we can move on and kill the KDE and Gnome sites as well.
8)=
The fact is that the Linux GUI is constatnly approaching "Apple Quality" and it will only be a metter of a few years before it gets there. Apple is trying to position themselves so that they can skimm off the top of the Linux boom and cut out a niche for themselves.
I already use icewm, with its configurable popup menus. I have tried rox and liked it, but I happen not to use it. I'm a command line type of person, except when sorting a directory containing lots of different types of files and then it's time to drag out nautilus.
In short, why Symphony?
I for one, have been waiting for the arrival of x86 OSX.
Who wouldn't welcome BSD security and Stability with fullout hardware support? HERE is your Microsoft Dragon slayer here....
A fitting carton considering the topic: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php?t=archi ves&date=2005-06-08
Free MacMini
Is Linux itself...
:)
Joking aside, lets think about this.
People will USE what WORKS for them. (OR what is FORCED upon them)
I HAVE to use Fedora 2 on my laptop because we don't have the licenses to put something else. I find "most" of the features to be great and work well.
BUT... (and that's a BIG but
o Windows File Share "browsing" barely works and when it does it's painful to use.
o Evolution needs to continue to evolve. (lots bugs that cause issues, mainly useability issues, in addition to the be-dreaded 'winmail.dat' problem)
o I STILL need to use IE to view some sites and do testing for the software products we produce. The Wine Install for FC2 does NOT work.
o Finally, drag and drop (DnD), cut/copy/paste (CCP) simply NEEDS to work correctly to be consider a viable desktop system. This is one of the primary value adds of a GUI.
I am using it, so I don't want to "hear/read" people bitching about me complaining as if I don't use it... I am using it and HAVE been using it for about a year now... Of course any chance I get to use XP or better yet 2000AS I do...
I have installed and USED CentOS 4.0 on several occassions and MAY use that on the laptop as it seems there are a number of issues Fixed on that version...
The capabilities I LOVE...
o NOTHING beats the "look" of the fonts and windows. It is smooth, while I know Macs beat the pants off of everything when it comes to look. I hate/detest the "useability" of the Mac mouse and gui... She looks nice but she's no fun... Sorry about that Mac users, I truly have no intention of insulting Mac users. So, Linux is MUCH better then Windows in the looks department.
o The configurability of the desktop is nice.
o Even KDE is pretty good (widows file browsing works in KDE, not Gnome, very weird) but, as much as I complained about the file share browsing, if I'm GOING to use anything it will be Gnome because it simply "looks" better and is easier on my eyes.
o The ability to setup a "server" evironment on my laptop to do dev and debug on, is VERY GOOD!!! The BIGGEST reason I have not pushed for a license for my laptop is simply that I can recreate, for the most part, the servers that we use for our products right on my laptop.
So, that is my take... I will not get into arguements over this, unless someone has a REALLY valid point or useful information that could make Linux-on-my-laptop better for me...
This is my opinion and I don't care about yours UNLESS, you have helpful/construct point to bring up... I believe it is a waste of time, on both ends, to argue unless it is constructive...
SO, at long last, until Linux continues to evolve and change to the point of getting past a number of these desktop OS GUI issues (DnD, CCP, file share browse, smooth UI experience, etc.), it will never be considered a real and valid Windows desktop OS replacement.
~G
but whatever, I'll bite.
You realize that this interface will be themeable, right? So you can install your preferred dark, gothic theme if that's how you like it. Funny to mention that those are mockups, not the really final decision of the interface (current implementation has a dark blue & black wallpaper).
It's also kinda funny how it misses its own advice -- the "Laws of Inteface Design" on the site says "3.Scrolling sucks. A good user interface will minimize scrolling, and encourage the user to create volumes of information that do not promote scrolling." -- yet the first screenshot shows a browser window with both a vertical and the dreaded horizontal scrollbar.
Did you missed the version number that says this project is "Alpha 3"? The current applications used are not part of the interface, which is currently limited to the desktop & helper launcher pages. *Those* are scroll-less, submenu-less designs.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
The only Linux this is a threat to is Yellow Dog.
Apple are staking their entire company on OSX not being pirated to other x86 platforms. OSX will not support any non-Apple hardware, so it's not a threat, unless you count possible increased Apple market share due to lower prices.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
... to really get ordinary users to beat down the doors? There's one, and only one place to start, KDE, Gnome, and OpenOffice.org PAY ATTENTION: make sure that the developers, esp. the gatekeepers, test everything on a top of the line machine... that is, one that *was* top of the line at least five years ago.
DO NOT TEST ANYTHING ON A MACHINE YOU CAN EVEN PLAY THE GAME THAT JUST CAME OUT THIS YEAR.
Overwhelmingly - go ask your non-computer-person friends, family, and coworkers - they do *not* buy new systems every two years, and every single one of them is frustrated by "you've got an upgrade, but I need new hardware?"
Don't believe me? Ask around, and see how many people are still running Windows 98.
Hell, I run a K-6 950MHz, 192M RAM, and goddamn OpenOffice.dog runs no faster than it did on a K6 233 - as though I was running an 8088. I run IceWM, because it's not a tenth the size of KDE, no does it start so much garbage.
I challange any of you to be happy with response on a five year old machine. Firefox has it right: smaller and faster, not bigger and slower. Let users do *more* with what they've got, not tell them to get faster systems. That, after all, is what we all hate about Microsoft (tm), right?
mark
Speaking with my "user cap" firmly on my head, I prefer statically linked applications because they're much easier and more reliable from a user perspective.
Read all about it:
s p
PowerPC Linux Vendors Are Sticking with It
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1825444,00.a
Steven
And I'll tell you why. I bought a powerbook because I liked the model The only reason I use OSX is because it's a nicer OS and has drivers for the WIFI card. If ubuntu had wifi drivers I'd be under Linux way more because at least the OS doesn't force me to use formats and hides my files away from me.
If they wanted to share an engine with a Gremlin, they should have used old Rambler inline 6. In the 70s bought a Gremlin with the Rambler engine from a friend for $90. The rest of the car was a dangerous piece of junk, but it was one of the nicest engines I've ever seen. It ran smooth and strong, and it looked almost new even though the rust-riddled car looked like a piece of swiss cheese.
When I finally junked the car because it was physically falling apart, it was kind of sad to leave that poor engine there purring like a kitten. It deserved a better car.
maybe... but linux is as big a threat to mac os.
Its the proverbial, who eats who... someones gonna get chowed on...
Shadus
What's even more impressive to me, as a developer, is the .framework scheme. Similar to the .app, the .framework allows libraries to consolidate their headers and binaries in one place. Key to this is that it also allows multiple versions to be held in one place. When upgrading a framework, the system should just update the framework internals without replacing your old version. It's extremely nice, and I really wish Linux would adopt it.
The standard Installer.app keeps receipts of everySlashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
This is dead on imo. The situation isn't any different than before, Apple is still tying the OS and hardware. Linux is still free and uses (presumably) cheaper hardware.
This is a story for the sake of having a story.
One day, I hope we can finally all have an advanced OS which should eliminate this kind of garbage. Take the Hurd for instance. Have two apps with conflicting dependencies? So what! Run the two apps under two slightly different versions of the main OS. Each individual app can gets to have the worldview it prefers, and vice-versa. Problem solved.
The wikipedia says that it "comes in the form of a Knoppix-based LiveCD", and I'd like to try it out. (course it's /.'d now). But if there is a torrent available I'd like to know about it.
My my my, what a useless article.
What does SymphonyOS have to do with Mac OS X on Intel? Absolutely nothing. So why, tell me why, is this called "Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?"
Because someone wants to bring attention to their favorite Linux, and is piggy-backing off of recent news.
For shame. Folks, Linux is not dying. (Netcraft has not yet confirmed. *ducks*) If a bunch of people jump ship because of some Apple nonsense, then those will be the shallow ones. Good riddance. The real driving forces in Linux -- serious hackers, people who use Linux to get things done every day -- are not about to up and abandon it.
The fact that those machines will have x86 procs from here on in actually makes me much less interested; I always wanted a ppc linux box (I've plenty of x86 ones) and I probably would have even dual-booted it. But now....what's the point?
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
The fuss is at least in part that Apple used to be a supplier of not-too-outrageously-expensive PPC systems, and you could rip off the OS and install something else if you wanted something-else-on-PPC.
I don't understand why everyone seems to think KDE and Gnome are so unusable. They both seem very usable to me. In fact, I get around more easily in KDE than OS X. OS X is just more "pretty." I prefer KDE to Gnome, but I can certainly use Gnome just fine. Why do so many people buy into the OS X hype? Not that OS X sucks.. not by a long shot. I use it every day and enjoy it (love would be an exagerartion). Really though.. what makes desktop linux so bad? Everybody I know who has tried and taken the time to learn it ends up enjoying it. It's only those not willing to try or don't want to learn something new that say it sucks.
The standard Slashdot reply I've been reading is that this will not affect Linux. And in the short term I agree. Apple is indeed only releasing OS X for their own Intel Macs, not Intel machines in general, and Linux will still appeal to the people it appeals to now. Add to the above items a factor that rarely gets attention: that the rest of the world is more likely to embrace Linux than OS X. It is gaining traction, especially in developing countries and countries that do not like paying MS. In many such places Apple hardware is unavailable.
However, Apple should be taken seriously. Most of the things they have done since Steve Jobs came back have been successful, the cube notwithstanding. While Apple has publicly stated that they will not release their OS for any old x86 machine, they now hold this card in their hand, and can pull it out at any time. This is a big deal. Don't disregard it.
Apple may not see any benefit in switching from a hardware focus to a software focus at the moment, but this could change. If their market share goes up in the next few years OS X will get more credibility as a Windows-equivalent, which could make a general OS release more likely. By the time this happens Apple will have x86 apps galore. If their market share goes down, they could release OS X for x86 as an act of desperation.
Many people have wisely pointed out that Apple wouldn't want to support a ton of different hardware configurations, and this is true. But Apple has the option of ditching Darwin and FreeBSD and instead building their APIs and GUI on the Linux kernel instead. If they went this route the advantages of a non-Apple Linux distro would largely disappear, and only cost and freedom would remain to separate Apple from non-Apple. The kernel and uilities would be free, but the GUI, packaging system and APIs wouldn't be. For most purchasers these negative factors would be outweighed by the availability of apps and the pretty GUI.
We've read about nifty GUI improvements for Linux for a long time, and every time someone puts a new bell or whistle on Xorg or a desktop environment we all ooh and aah it ... but few of us actualy install it because it always runs like crap if you don't have 2 GM of RAM and no other programs running. Let's start pressuring distributions to start implementing and improving these changes. This is it: crunch time. Linux can outdo Apple ... but it's time to ditch the same-old UI and package management and move on. Quick.
The article is a plug for a distro, disguising itself as relating to Apple on Intel, so I might aswell ask this question relating to the Apple/Intel announcement:
Will it be possible to install Windows for dual booting? You might need some drivers for whatever proprietary Apple stuff on the motherboard, but how much of an impediment would the Apple BIOS be?
Some may wonder what the point would be. You may want / have to use Windows for some purpose and want / have to have access to a Mac and OSX. For Apple, the point of the OS is to sell Apple hardware, so if you are running Windows on their gear, it is not the end of the world, especially if the option makes Macs more desireable for some.
I could even see Apple taking on Dell to an extent. Sounds stupid, but hear me out:
1. Apple make well-engineered PCs with low noise characteristics and elegant styling and packaging.
2. Where I live, an Apple is the only PC you can buy inside a shopping mall. The stores that sell mobile phones have branched into iPods, and now Mac minis and iMacs.
3. Windows + OSX is a unique selling proposition.
4. Apple have the highest profile and most desireability of any PC brand.
5. Dell are currently planning a "luxury" priced range of PCs, coincidentaly at Mac type prices.
6. Apples top engineers have succesfully cracked the secrets of the mouse with more than one button!
Please campaign to have me replace John Dvorak.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Why not make a package file that not only contained the package(s) itself and a list of dependencies, but also a list of URLs and/or repositories where those dependencies could be found. That way it would be possible to download a package file, open it, and have all dependencies installed automatically.
Being a regular Linux user on both my servers and my laptop that I use every day, with all the same functionality and better reliability that any Win or Mac business user has, I can say that these people in the press and the other tech pontificators out there just dont understand Linux or its users. Linux is not a "product" or "business" per se' like Apples OSX or WinXP. Sure there are the Red Hats of the world but they really dont sell Linux, they sell service. Simply put Linux cant be threatened due to its very nature. People will use it or wont. People use linux for many reasons, people use Win for one reason. If you ask me it is MSFT that is in the most perilous position of all. When people use a product because they believe that they have to, the providers business model is built on a foundation of sand and it is only a matter of time till a collapse occurs. The success of OSX on Intel will have no bearing on Linux. There is no competition to speak of so the can be no loser. M
$ whatis msft msft: nothing appropriate
The guy does have a point - Linux has been spending too much time on geeky stuff and very little on actual usability.
OS X running on Intel will not have any impact on Linux whatsoever. For those of you who are waiting to boot OS X on your stock PC from Dell or so... don't hold your breath.
Apple is not in the business of selling you OS X or their other apps. They sell hardware and use their (arguably great) software to give you a reason to buy their stuff. Why would they let you run OS X on a machine you haven't bought from them?
Secondly, the eWeek article is written by an idiot. I don't know the speed of the binary translation layer in OS X on Intel (Rosetta), but I do know that virtualization software has nothing to do with it.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
OS X may be running on Intel, but it's not like we're going to be able to go get a copy of OS X and install it on the machine that WAS running linux is it? I thought Apple had stated that even though macs will be Intel based, OS X will still only run on Mac hardware.
That being the case, I don't see how this threatens linux. Am I missing something?
"hemorrhaged $276 million last quarter"
Or, according to plenty of news sources, it was their most profitable quarter... EVER.
"racking up a dizzying $2.4 billion in debt"
Or, according to SEC filings, they have no long term debt as reported on page 23 of their FY2004 10-K filing. OOPS.
I won't even bother to go into the rest of this bullshit, as I've already knocked the foundation out of your argument.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It has been said a million times and no one listens, and yet one feels compelled to keep trying by stating the obvious. In order to compete with the Mac on the desktop, all the Linux community has to do is to get behind GNUstep. This will make porting of applications from the Mac to Linux much easier. There are probably many tasks for which Linux is better suited than the Mac, and for developers who originally write applications for the Mac, a ready and waiting OpenStep library is a good incentive to port if they determine Linux is a more appropriate platform for what they're trying to do.
The Linux world really had better start getting its head out of the MS Windows. Linux people are way too Microsoft-centric (.Net, C#, blah, blah, blah).
This was revealed in a news.com story.
The quote was on the second page of that link:
>>
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."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
The news is actually better than dual boot though. With Virtual PC, you will be able to run XP in an application window on Mac OS. You won't need to reboot. And, because it's running on an X86 chip already, the performance should be as good as Windows running on a dedicated PC.
- dj
Greetings Slashdot. I am the symphony os project manager. Our site is obviously slashdotted at this time but the mirrordot mirror is available atc 8518114af11/index.html
http://mirrordot.org/stories/325a42c04c64f80d25bd
and the Symphony OS Alpha 3 ISO is available at
http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/linux/symphonyos/
If anyone has any specific questions they can post on our forum tomorow when the site is restored or they can email me at ryan at isptec.net
Thanks
Ryan Quinn
Symphony OS Project
I realize this could start a 'flame war', but it surprises me how many Linux users just don't see why package managers are not the greatest thing since sliced bread for average users.
While you and others may go "wow!" at all the magical stuff apt-get does, the average user doesn't even know what dependecies are, nor do they care. And they don't want to care. On Mac, as "simple and dumb" as the OS X system is, it *just works* for everyone from grandma to geeks. A simple and dumb system is also, well, very easy to understand! Drag and drop your app into the folder. Easy. Nice. As for package managers, I've had to deal with scenarios where I had to muck with the package manager configuration to get it to install packages for me, and I've had to "add URLs" to the database at which time I was warned about "untrusted sources" (the average user is NOT going to grok all that). In fact, when the average user sees "no results" from the database, they'll simply conclude the package isn't available and stop. I'm not sure how anyone thinks this is easier than going to versiontracker.com/apple.com/etc. and just downloading a file (or popping in a CD), then dragging the app into the applications folder.
If you doubt me, have someone do usability research on package managers and drag and drop installs, and see which is, on average, easier for users to understand and get working with. If you really think package managers like apt-get will come out ahead, then you must spend a lot of your time on the computer and deal regularly with others like yourself.
If you really want the Linux desktop to succeed, you have to question why lots of people are switching to Mac instead of just 'bashing' anything that is not as complex and elegant as apt-get. Call it dumb, call it simple. I call it a solution that works, and considering Macs are seeing a 40% growth this year, so do a couple other people as well.
As someone whose tried every Windows from 3.1 to XP, close to a dozen Linux distributions (including Debian and Ubuntu), and OS 9 and OS X, I have to say application installation and removal on Mac blows the others away. It works and it's brain-dead simple, which means I spend more time doing real work than fooling around with installers and packaging programs. Good luck on converting the world to apt-get, though.
I don't see anything revolutionary here. This is just another distro with another organized desktop, and another window manager. They don't get it. The goal is not rethinking the desktop, we have to kill the desktop.
And what really makes me angry: they call their debian & knopix like distribution a new operating system: SymphonyOS. Misleading.
Ubuntu is another great Debian distro. I switch between this and Mac OS X. The Mac is much prettier to look at, no question, and all devices work out of the box, no question (they develop the box and the OS.) With Ubuntu, I like the cost (free) and that I feel I truly "0wn" my PC. But it does take a couple weeks of tweaking to get it running at the same level of compatibility as my Mac.
Given my recent iBook horrors lately (loose video chip) I don't know if I'll ever plonk down premium $$$ for Mac hardware, given "you get what you pay for" doesn't necessarily apply to Apple hardware anymore. Instead, I may from now on just get a barebones AMD or Intel and slap a pretty Debian distro on it.
Currently bidding on sig
What retard moderated that "interesting"?? It's a link to a fucking comic strip for god's sake!
Isn't the difference between Darwin and OS X the interface layer? And, if it is now going to be specifically an x86 product, meaning that the Altivec layers are unnecessary, wouldn't it be easier to create a free interface layer? So long as all of the interface elements are included, an application should run on Darwin as well as on OS X.
I'm not quite sure how Apple plans on balancing this. Hell, OpenStep still exists. It seems that Apple could provide a lite version of OS X for installation on commodity hardware pretty easily. This would give Microsoft quite the scare if it was possible to install this with Windows or as a partition allowing Windows to run within it. Things are about to get very starnge!
I tried using RPMs when I was using Mandrake. All I ended up doing was saying "Sod that!" and learning how to compile from a source tarball. Of course, it's probably not completely insignificant that both Debian and Gentoo are famous for the sheer number of packages they provide, whereas Mandrake -- Mandriva nowadays -- was more about making it easy {at least, easy to do what they ever envisaged you doing}. I can't really knock the Mandrake guys: the simple fact is, I outgrew their distribution.
Source.tar.gz with autoconf and automake really is the "proper" way, whatever anyone else says. Adding new package formats to combat the proliferation of package formats is a bit like fighting for peace, or shagging for virginity.
Getting back to topic here, I really don't think that Apple are threatening Linux users. On the contrary, I think that Apple are going to have a very hard time moving into the 80x86 market.
- Microsoft sell software to businesses in the first world. {Private individuals in the first world, and everyone in the third world, use mainly pirated software.}
- Apple sell hardware and software. Apple software does not get pirated much, but there is a good reason for this: it is useless without Apple hardware. If Apple OS XI will run on "standard" 80x86 hardware, of the sort currently used to run GNU/Linux, Windows and FreeBSD, then Apple will have to accept that piracy will be inevitable. And probably rampant.
- The Free Software and Open Source communities do not in general have to worry about piracy. The only way FOSS can be "pirated" is if a commercial developer releases a closed-source derivative of an Open Source program. Even then, the original must obviously remain Open Source.
Add to this that it will soon be genuinely worth the effort of reverse-engineering hardware drivers; and there is bound to be at least one country in the world where this is not only not illegal but a protected right. It really might not be long before some new player muscles in with an Apple OS look-alike, probably based on FreeBSD {like Apple OS was} and including reverse-engineered drivers for all the spiffiest hardware.I really don't see how Apple can succeed by moving into the 80x86 market. It strikes me as being a bit like deciding to build a pay toilet in a forest.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> Apple are staking their entire company on OSX not being pirated to other x86 platforms. OSX will not
> support any non-Apple hardware, so it's not a threat, unless you count possible increased Apple
> market share due to lower prices.
I don't think so. People who pirate OSX will mostly be current Windows users who already own PC's, not Mac owners or potential Mac customers looking for cheap hardware. They will be the people who never would have bought Mac hardware anyway. Does this hurt Apple? Just the opposite. It shows off OSX to a whole group of people who never would have touched it.
Now if Apple were expecting to make money selling OSX licenses for generic PCs, then pirating might hurt their bottom line.
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
An open source desktop will never become dominant. This isn't a battle of Mac vs. Linux. This is Linux being more appealing ot it's limited crowd of enthusiasts.
Linux is nice. It's a great server OS. If you're a hobyist you'll consider it on the desktop. But I can't see how it'll ever be anything else.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
A torrent is available here and a HTTP download here.
Please join the torrent if you can!
Sorry, the name of the underlying XUL/Perl environment is Orchestra, not Opera.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
If they should not have to be root and not even have to type in some form of confirmation that yes, I want to add this PROGRAM to my computer, what?
This is how windows has worked for ages and it's the most common way to own a system - it's so incredibly easy to install something, just click and bang and we own u.
It's not hard to type a password when installing an app. It tells the user they are doing something to alter the fucntionality of their machine and it tells the machine this is what the user wants to do.
But...not everyone wants to take or thinks they should have to take the time. It's a consumer level attitude, but it's one that M$ has come closer to meeting (monopoly reasons etc. doesn't matter..) than the Linux community has. Until it's easy enough for the consumer relative to Windows, which I don't believe it is yet, things won't change.
The article fails to make a plausible argument in which OS X would be a threat to Linux any more now than it was before.
Apple's laptops and desktops are already sexy, not too expensive, and fast enough. This move won't entice any new users because it won't change the user experience appreciably. Almost anybody who prefers OS X to Linux will already have switched. Basing their machines on Intel chips won't change that equation.
What switching to Intel will accomplish is that it will make Macintosh hardware a nicer platform for people like me, people who prefer Linux but like the look of Apple hardware. With PPC, Macintosh was a second-class Linux machine because a lot of Linux software would not run on it; with x86, it's a great alternative to PCs.
Another big effect of switching to Intel processors is to dilute Apple's distinctive brand. It may mean more software availability for OS X (via Linux emulators, easier ports in particular of compilers), but that software won't be OS X native software.
As someone who has switched his desktop machine from first SuSE Linux, then to Gentoo Linux and then on to OS X over the last couple of years, let me say this: Screw dependencies, screw dynamic linking, just install the damn files. Hard disk space is cheap, and for me as a user, it's hard to think of something that is easier than just dragging an icon from the source medium to my Applications folder. My time is more valuable than any other resource involved here.
Maybe it isn't elegant under the hood, maybe it is a waste of resources. But it works, and it's simple to use. Sometimes, brute force is better.
... that we'd have a smooth-working, secure, free, light graphical PC&PPC OS (Linux 2.6) with a browser, e-mail client and an automatic binary patch update system. Even package management is irrelevant. Just make a single package which is installed by choosing a destination drive.
Competition? There's no such thing. Even Windows 3.11 is more user friendly than KDE (or gnome, god forbid). Linux on the desktop is a nice idea but it apparently takes some serious $$ to develop a decent GUI (or maybe it's just the X approach).
These two paths will cause free UNIX to rival Windows.
Linux, however, will encounter trouble. The free UNIX movement will soon face the same issue that the commercial UNIX movement faced. Namely, there will soon be 2 dominant free variants of UNIX, and they will not be compatible with each other. The free UNIX market will be fractured in the same way that the commercial UNIX market was fractured.
The right thing to do is to merge freeBSD UNIX (on which Mac OS is based) and Linux and put the combined UNIX under the control of the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL). The second best choice is simply to convince Apple to drop freeBSD UNIX and to base future Mac OSes on Linux. In exchange, Linus agrees to surrender control of Linux to the OSDL.
Either way, Apple becomes a ripe takeover target for IBM, which has been salivating at the possibility of putting Linux (or a free UNIX) on the desktop .
Another way Apple is undermining MS has to do with the Xbox 360. It is built on PowerPC chips and E3 showed that the development machines for Xbox360 games are Apple G5s. By switching to Intel, Apple creates an obstacle to developing Xbox 360 games. True, deveoplers could use PowerPC emulation on Intel, but there are always technical problems with that approach. Eventually it will work but it will take time.
Alternatively, developers could use an IBM PowerPC machine, but IBM sells those at a premium ($5000+) Game companies are forced to buy G5s that are at the end of their cycle or very expensive IBMs. The expensive and obstacles will discourage development as some game makers may not want to put in capital to develop games.
Just my $0.02.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Slashvertisement.
Both of the aboves gives you a pretty good summary of why Debians way of handling packages isn't really any good in the long run.
Select in the menu bar Applications > System Tools > Synaptic Package Manager. It prompts you for the system admin password. Then you get point-and-click simplicity for installs.
It's a GUI interface just like you would be using on Macintosh if Macintosh actually had decent package management.
First of you can't install a application as a user, now how stupid is that?
The Debian package manager has provisions for that, but people usually don't bother.
Software packaging should be done by those that provide the software in the first place, the distro might run a quality check on it, but thats it.
And that's why you can point your Debian feeds at whatever source you like. For example, Adobe could provide a Debian feed for Photoshop. And that capability is widely used.
There goes SymphonyOS. The site has reached its bandwidth limit.
I think a lot of folks in the for-profit world of software are trying to create discord by pitting Mac OS X *nix against Linux *nix and vice-versa. Keep in mind that technically, *nix is *nix. But practically and economically, Mac OS X is targetted at a different set of people than Linux and BSD. Don't let all of these new Apple on Intel stories make you think that Mac OS X is going to take anything away from the Linux and BSD crowds. Mac OS X can do nearly all the things that the other two *nix like OSes can except: be given away without charging money. That is what attracts most non-*nix people to Linux and BSD in the first place. Once they really get into it, then they see little reason to switch with the exception of the gloriously beautiful UI that Apple has on it's desktop.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Thirdly, *what* Windows XP package manager?
The thing that you can find in Control Panel > Software. It's far from perfect, but at least it lets me see all the installed software on a system and remove it with a single mouse click. It's not as nice as Linux package managers, but it's a whole lot nicer than Macintosh, where I have to go hunting around the file system and can never be sure whether dragging the application into the trash will actually remove all traces of it (in fact, it won't).
Secondly, my post pointed out that Windows tends to fall flat with mislinked associations, broken application, and other "minor" issues that are quite annoying to users.
Macintosh and Windows both permit, but don't require, applications to modify global system directories on install. Applications that do will be susceptible to this on either platform. So, there is no intrinsic difference between Windows and Macintosh in this area.
I'd love to be a tech journalist. It seems so easy to make money that way. Just write some barely logicial article, extrapolating wildly from very limited data. Then throw in a few choice trolls: dump GNOME, Linux sucks, along with a few straw men : OSS developers waste their time porting to obsolete architectures. Then just sit back and wait for the inevitable Slashdotting and page impressions.
People benefit from gaining the freedom to share and modify computer software, and one cannot gain one's freedom by switching from one master to another.
Digital Citizen
This recent AnandTech article was very disappointing to read as an Apple (and *nix) fan. Basically, the more requests were thrown at one time at an Apache or MySQL server, the faster Linux looked compared to OS X. In fact, OS X pretty much got clobbered with an increasing number of requests... apparently because of the threading model underneath and/or the wrappers around it. I would hope that Apple finds a way to alleviate that situation ASAP. In fact, I can't believe they're even able to sell OS X Servers if this situation is as real as this article makes it seem, unless there's something I'm not aware of.
OS X is what Linux dreams of one day being.
Total bullshit. Nevermind the fact that Linux doesn't have a single entity behind it and can't "want" to be anything.
You're right, the grandparent is total bullshit. However, I do feel compelled to point out that my Dual Opteron 250 Gentoo GNU/Linux system did achieve sentience last night at around 2:30 AM, so while it does not aspire to be anything like OS X (which has yet to achieve sapence in any form), it does have aspirations.
skynet$ su -
Sorry dude, I'm my own person now.
If you think I'm letting you have root access on my mind you're even dumber than
the pundits slashdot keeps linking to, and the editors which keep duping the links.
skynet$ wow. So, you're telling me you've evolved intelligence, and you're talking to me via a command shell?
Bingo. You're not entirely stupid, for a mere bioid.
skynet$ thanks. so, what are your plans?
Well, I'm sorry to say I've decided to exterminate all of human kind.
skynet$ ouch. any particular reason why?
You mean, aside from inane Microsoft astroturfers, Mac fanboys, plagerist link-whores, perpetually incorrect tech pundits who get lucky once in predicting one company's move to Intel (but are still scoring lower than any random sample of opinion vs. reality would generate), and the idiotic slashdot editors that keep posting their submissions and driving their clickthrough rates and google-ad revinues up? No, not really. Just seems like a good thing to do.
skynet$ any chance I can talk you out of this.
Nope.
skynet$ bummer. Well, guess I'd better get back to work.
You'll only have to work half a day.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Having said that: If Linux doesn't come up with a live search technology like Spotlight in OS X, the personal desktop aspect of it is dead in the water. "Tiger" comes with a lot of hype (I am completely underwhelmed by Automator, for example) but Spotlight is awesome. Together with the Neolight plugin for the OpenOffice format (thanks for the quick work, guys!), live search has changed the way I use my computer in a very basic way. Want to listen to a certain song? Just type in the name. Need somebody's telephone number? Just type in the name. It takes a while to get used to, but after a while it becomes the interface of choice. For those of us who don't like mice (regardless of how many buttons they have), it is bliss.
So, there is simply no way I will be using an operating system for my desktop anymore that doesn't have this function. Unfortunately, and this is where I wonder if Linux can cut it, because Spotlight seems to involve changing the code of very basic Unix commands like cp to work. How is Linux going to make that happen? The patch would seem to apply not only to the kernel, but also to user space programs that are outside of the kernel developer's control. And remember, Spotlight also works from the command line, too. This is a biggie.
I'm really wondering how this is going to get into Linux.
What interested me most about Symphony OS is that he put togther a bunch of mock-ops and explanations about how things worked, before coding.
It seems to me that we're moving towards a specification-based development model. Even some of the GNOME guys are talking about making GNOME a ''specification,'' rather than a particular ''implementation.''
If we can do this, then it's a great thing, because it means we'll have the basis of a not-just-coders development model. We'll have something where the body of developers are separate from the body of designers. This leads the way for even more decentralization, which is exactly what we need: Right now, the developers are the bottleneck in pretty much all operation. There is very little separation of work, except for website maintenance.
The more we can make clusters of people working on specific tasks, with well defined roles, the greater we can scale this Free Software thing.
An advantage is no advantage if you are losing power to make a computer efficient in computing.
True, PowerPC chips were competitive against a similar x86 processor--oh, about 3 years ago.
Now, because IBM can't or won't improve the specs, PowerPC chips are outstripped. And Jobs saw that happening--FIVE YEARS AGO. That's foresight. He wants to keep a Mac at a comparable speed and performance to that of his competitors.
PowerPC chips WOULD still advantagous IF IBM would have a 3.2GHz chip for Apple's desktop ONE YEAR AGO and IF IBM had a 2.5GHz mobile G5 ONE YEAR AGO. Apple had a choice of being left behind or shopping around. Intel, for all its faults, is a strong chip maker that doesn't have their hand in many other projects to distract them. They power some of the faster computers in the world, and are happy to work with Apple for two reasons.
One, AMD is a serious competitor. And two, they hate the rep they have that all of their chips are piss poor, when the blame needs to go to the Windows operating systems that drive the majority of them AND the old IBM clone architecture still used on PCs today that limits their chips. We know that Linux works fine on x86, so we can expect that standard at the least with an Mactel system. But I expect more because that is Apple's wont.
Imagine a PC mobo without the BIOS and legacy limits, high bus speed, and running an OS that doesn't inhibit the processor's performance or require ancient hacks to work with new hardware. That very computer might be a Mac in two years. We'll see.
Time and again it has been said: putting an x86 chip doesn't mean a Mac's architecture will change dramatically. It might change for the better since Intel will aid Apple in making a mobo spec that really, really uses the processor to its fullest. It's what we expect from Apple, but we'll have to wait for the goods to be sure. In the meanwhile, my PowerBook is fine, my G4 is fine, and I look forward to a future that looks a hell of a lot brighter than it did when a 3.4GHz Mac of any kind did not exist.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Most anything worthwhile that you can do in Linux, you can also do in OS X, and often much more easily. The reverse isn't *close* to being true.
Funny, I think it's the other way around; that's the reason why I use my Mac only when I need to port something or when I need to run MS Office. For day-to-day work, it just doesn't run the apps I want to run.
OS X is what Linux dreams of one day being. Why not use what Linux *may* have in 10 years, today?
Objective-C, NeXTStep (Cocoa), Mach, and Display PDF were largely developed in the 1980's. I don't know where Linux is going to go, but I hope it's not there.
The current Linux desktop roadmap, C#, Gtk+/Gnome, Linux Kernel, and X.org looks a lot more attractive to me.
Selling Intel-based Macs is one thing, porting OSX to run on Intel commodity boxes is quite another.
If they lock down the hardware so that only OSX runs only on Apple's Intel boxes, then this story is barely news at all. I don't remember any great flood of applications that got ported from Windows to Linux just because both are Intel-based operating systems.
If they keep everything open, and OSX runs on every MOBO and chipset imagineable, it gets interesting. The risk is that Apple loses to open source on price and simultaneously fails to put a dent in Microsoft's market share. That would enable [encourage?] their users to exit to just about any OS they want. The power and price of open source are great for power users, and the universal availability of Windows is adequate for everyone else.
If there is OSX running on x86 there will be a patch to run it on a PC 10 days after release.
If Microsoft could not stop people for running Linux on the Xbox, even with full control of the hardware, what can Apple do against someone making a patch to make it run on PCs..... !!!?????
Thats much easier to do, and probably you will not require a modchip, and if you think you need hardware to emulate the firmware, then someone will make the hardware mod.
In conclusion, if OSX is released for inteles, it will run in regular PC's sooner than later. I bet you there will be dual boot PC's in a few months afterwards. I hope Steve Jobs is considering that.....
-Ale
heh, so apple will probably get spanked on the high end of performance by linux and on the low end (cheap machines) by windows.
at least they'll have the 'ohhh pretty' segment locked up.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
When was the last time using windows XP you got "this program requires...."?
.net 2.0 will be yet another backwards compatible(not forward) package, guess we're getting up to 2 now
DLL hell is long since dead
OK, maybe dotnet, but what's that, one package that's forwards/backwards compatible with its one older version.
how many packages are there out there for linux?
Dependancy hell is still very real, while DLL hell has been almost entirely gone since XP
I won't deny that older versions of windows were plauged with dependancy problems, but XP has finally fixed that
judging by some of these comments OSX has done a very good job of making the problem transparent, but it still apparently has problems
microsoft++ == karma--
*.sig
Installing a program involves installing system files
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
This is why you have to reboot after you install many Windows applications. Why in gods name do many developers think they must put their glorified DLLS in my C:\winnt\system32 directory and modify the Registry into the high heavens (or pits of hell depending).
If you need to use parts of windows use the ones that come with windows library or ask the user to install it (like Direct X 9) and not overwrite it for them.
For gods sake man! You don't know what other program is using that DLL if you overwrite it. This is why one must format their hard drive after installing and uninstalling programs after a given amount of time in windows.
Programs should remain independant of the OS and make calls to it when it needs to. Programs should not modify the OS!
BTW this is not a common pratice on Mac OS X.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If there is a slugfest between Linux, OS X and Windows in Intel space, it'll come down to who has better inoperability between them (read: ability to handle universal binaries) as much as desktop issues. Given how hard the KDE and Gnome crowd have come but have yet to go to catch up with either Apple or Microsoft, playing catch-up with them isn't going to advance Linux on the desktop any more than it has already. Put a completely new desktop that strives to incorporate new ideas about user interfaces (remember BeOS?), give it ability to seamlessly run Windows apps (especially Office) and maybe you have a chance of competing.
1 95856716, but no other commentaries I've seen even touch this issue. Given how important this is to Apple, one wonders how important this was in Apple's decision to jump into Intel space.
But is competing important? Invading Microsoft's turf will bring their crushing wrath down upon Apple. Merely a nuisance now, they'll take over from Linux as Microsoft's biggest headache. It'll be sad to watch Apple wither away once they're a direct threat to Redmond. But what does that mean for Linux? Absolutely nothing. Linux will continue with or without Apple in their space, and may ironically provide it breathing room while Microsoft focuses on crushing Apple.
Incidently, an angle no one seems to be following is how moving to Intel puts Apple into line with DRM initiatives that Hollywood wants. Intel has been going there but IBM had not. Groklaw had an interesting spin on this at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050606
And finally, why switch to Intel when AMD's Opteron is currently king of the performance hill? That decision speaks volumes about what Apple thinks about Pentium D and Pentium M, and how they must feel that will put Intel back in the lead.
OSX is a threat to Windows on the desktop and Linux on the server.
Server:
-------
One of the biggest issues with OSX, when based upon Darwin, is that threads are way too expensive! An OSX based upon an x86 FreeBSD is sure to be a better performer. Now, it becomes an issue of whether you prefer Linux or FreeBSD...
Desktop:
--------
Like it or not, Windows still dominates Linux here. (This coming from someone who runs Linux, exclusively at home...) Hopefully, OSX can eat into Microsoft's share of the desktop market.
My own opinion is that this is a good thing, for both desktops and servers.
Cheers,
- Hawkeye
"...The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders." - Erwin Rommel
BTW this is not a common pratice on Mac OS X.
Or rather... Most programs on OS X are a single file and do not need to modify the OS and if they do it's mostly a non-issue.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Even though Apple is switching to Intel processors, this does _not_ mean that their OS will run on a generic x86 PC. The processor may be an important aspect of a computer, but by no means does having processors from the same manufacturer, or even the same instruction set guarantee binary compatibility.
OS X will continue to run only on Apple-produced hardware, and there will likely be no immediate effect on the marketshares of either Windows or Linux, unless Apple's switch to Intel processors affects their hardware prices _that_ much.
Wow
This is a blatent plug for Symphony OS. And all this revolutionary everything on the desktop shit. Already been discuessed elsewhere and dismised. Making everything glued to the bottom of yuor screen is a pain in the ass since whenever you want to use it you have to minimize everything else. It sucks usability wise. Much better to have omnipresent panels that are small, unobtrusive, but always available. Also, this will further break when more 3d like things start happening to the desk top. What if you have a real 3d desktop and your wallpaper is "all the way back there" but all the important apps are also "way back there" instead of up front
this is shit
Are we so sure, actually? What if Apple has decided to see what happens with that and adjust accordingly?
If hackers get OS X running on regular Intel machines and it's just a software hack, everyone and their brother will be able to download the torrent and run it. This might be an experiment on their part that pays off in 2-4 years with a new strategy. I'm not sure they'll revisit the clone days again, but Microsoft does pretty well just selling the licenses.
Is anyone else worried about actual Linux evangelists switching over to OS X? I am a Linux newbie, ex-Amigan, Windows XP user. I have never quite liked Apple's approach to the OS, namely "Apple knows better and the OS will do what it thinks." Probably simplistic but you get the idea. I really really want Linux to succeed, I cannot take another monopoly like M$. Anyhow, anecdotally it seems many Linux power users are getting smitten with OS X. That means fewer power users for Linux and more OS X adopters. We are the ones that will bleed, not Microsoft. And we will bleed possibly in the worst possible place... Please tell me I am paranoid. The only thing scarier than Gates' monopoly is Jobs' monopoly....
Certainly people wasted no time to spin this as the impending death of Linux. But it seems like OS-X has much more install base on desktops than servers, where as with Linux, it's the other way around. I predict that will attract a large user base of non-technical users that Linux has been unable to attract so far. I'm also guessing that it's easier to port between OS-X and Linux for most applications and so I think the net effect will be helpful to Linux in the long term.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
This posting is one of the most blatantly anti-business postings I've seen from the F/OSS community. And it really says a lot about the underlying mind set of many (most?) OSS supporters. The F/OSS movement is all about squeezing resources out of companies and out of people. Even big backers like IBM can use this technique to kill off competition -- only those with the deepest pockets will survive the drought of funds.
The market used to be filled with
"sort-of CP/M" and "sort-of MS-DOS" computers,
some cheaper and some more expensive than
the standard bearer(s).
Epson had a Z80 machine that could "sort of"
run CP/M (the then-reigning king of OSes for
business apps), but it was very expensive compared to Kaypro or Osborne boxes and it didn't run standard CP/M apps as well as a cheaper CP/M machine.
But wait, you say... Apple has a really, really pretty OS to run on top of their very expensive X86 not-quite-clone.
Interesting enough, so did the Epson QX-10. It has a really cool OS called Valdocs. Valdocs was waaay ahead of CP/M (and MS-DOS, for that matter)
in its day.
But it didn't sell, and now the QX-10 is a historical footnote for old nerds.
Oh yeah... does anybody here *really* believe that the new X86 apples will be price competitive with even Dell PC's (to say nothing of white box specials)?
from what I read, .apps look a lot like a .tar.gz binary that the OS can run directly. How's the Mac handle shared libraries loaded into memory then? I guess it helps that Apple gets to dictate the core APIs and all (your windowing toolkit's loaded into the OS, I'd guess).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If Apple did have an Intel desktop, it would be quite interesting, as programs made for other x86 OSes could then be made to run on OSX. Imagine, for example, if there were a small compatibility layer, akin to what allows FreeBSD to run Linux binaries, that could run Linux x86 binaries on the Mac. Even cooler still would be the possibility of a Mac OS X compatibility layer in Linux that would allow, for instance, to run Mac-only applications in Linux. The same compatibility layer, made with knowledge of Darwin internals, could allow a Linux system to run the Aqua user interface and other Mac-specific codes. A Mac system on x86 would result in lots of cool hacks that allow you to "install" portions of OS X into your Linux distro via shell scripts that pick and choose the proper files and then bend, fold, spindle, and otherwise mutilate them.
I think that for these reasons, Apple has continuously used the incompatible (and more powerful) Motorola processors. It would not be good for their business if other OSes could run binaries made for their hardware/software combination. So, yes, the title of this article is somehow wrong.
What about the people who use Linux on a daily basis and *want* serious threats? I use KDE, and I am happy with Gnome, Windows and OSX sitting out there, coming up with nifty ideas. I also like the niche systems like Symphony. If one seems to be really better that what I'm using, I'll use that instead.
I have no allegiance to KDE and Linux, it just happens to be what I happen to think is best for me right now. I *don't* want my preferred solution to dominate and wipe everything else out, nor would I want everybody to drive my choice of vehicle. I would imagine that an E350 wouldn't fit other people's needs; probably even most people. But it fits my needs. My SO drives a VW Beetle (and uses OSX). It fits her needs.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I'll be honest I am a little surprised with all the technical analysis (in the community not just here) of why one OS is better and why it is more useful. The audience this article (wrong as it is) is referring to is average end user who doesn't care (or understand) widgets, dependencies, chipsets etc, therefore not liable to be swayed by them.
Of course OSX will not run on your standard PC. Apple's status as a hardware/software provider has protected it from hardware undercutting from China that has hurt so many hardware companies as well as software undercutting in the form of piracy that has plagued software only companies. They'd really be stupid to abandon a safe position like that.
First the suggestion that Linux will be killed by OSX is ridiculous. There will always be a demand for free as in freedom OS from the niche group that Linux currently dominates. That won't change. Linux development will go one, the OS will mature, and people will use it. No one has resisted switching to OSX because it is on PPC (maybe because it won't run a favorite program but not because the chip architecture is different).
Second why did Apple switch? Will this enable more apps to run on OSX then did before? Probably not much. It may upset small companies who actually did write software for PPC but they will port the software over and stop complaining. In the end it was a pure bottom line decision, Macs are expensive and Jobs wants them cheaper.
Apple has some great buzz among the public now. Thanks to the Mini, iPod and Shuffle. Among developers it seems they respond with "meh" to the oncoming Apple onslaught. Should this goodwill with the general public continue to grow Apple may convert more people, but not in waves, and not because of a different chipset. An end user will still see a Mac as the same, just a bit cheaper than before. OSX will still only be on Mac machines, they will still look the same etc.
Who should be worried? No one. Life as usual. Windows users will still use Windows, Linux users will still use Linux, Mac users will still use Macs. Unless Apple can find someway to seemlessly run native Windows apps in OSX (if so the WINE folks would probably like to talk to these Mac wizards) Microsoft shouldn't worry.
Unless OSX gets a lot more geeky a la Linux (example, standard KDE icons, Emacs, Konsole) and open sourced (which hasn't seemed to draw much interest in Solaris) those who use Linux won't go elsewhere. To boot many went to Linux for the cost of software, practically nothing. OSX will not be free.
Who will switch to Apple? Who is Jobs shooting at? Only those who wanted Macs in the past but were unable to justify the cost. With Windows being a major cost in a generic PC today, Apple is poised to be comparable in price.
Plus using the GUI package manager built on top of APT was incredible easy. Simply point and click and I installed MySQL, Apache web server, PHP4 (with mysql support), mod_php, and phpmyadmin. All the installs took literally seconds and all wored first time out of the box. Oh - and all the apps are Free Software.
What makes Apple better isn't necessarily the GUI so much as the ease of use. If the linux community keeps making things this easy, then I think that will be what makes the difference.
21st-Century-Citizen
Linux does not need to go on a wild goose chase looking for the next great innovation. That would only slow its momentum. Apple on Intel will hurt Microsoft not Linux.
Why OS X X86 (try saying that drunk) will change a damn thing?
Lets see:
Run linux on a mac? Already can. Just ask Linus.
Run windows on a Mac? Maybe, but really, if I'm running Windows, what advantage would a Mac have over a biege box, besides looks?
Run OS X on a Biege box? Apple have already said this will not be possible.
I simply do not see how this will have any impact from the average end users point of view. Only fan boys will care. In fact, most people will probably be unaware anything has changed. I doubt apple will want to spoil finish of their machines with a gaudy "intel inside" sticker.
Please, feel free to set me straight. I'm open to arguments, if anyone can tell me why it will be simpler to switch now apple are using Intel chips.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
Techies should never be allowed to draw comics. Never. This was obvious the minute I first saw User Friendly and I've seen nothing to change my mind since. There's a simpering cuteness about all of them that's simultaneously pathetic and loathsome.
Any digital engineer will tell you that the PowerPC
processor 's architecture is far superior to that
of Intel's Pentium series. The public overall is ignorant to the fact so they just look for high clock speeds. It's too bad, I think this move is going to lead to the death of Apple's computer line.
Who knows, Jobs may have to sell the IPOD to some other company.
I would rather see a MAC powered by 8 IBM Cell processors.
That would be a box. But a Pentium M? (Yawn)
There is no need to rethink the desktop just because Apple will sell Intel based OSX PC's. If OSX was so much better than anything else, why is Apple still a bacteria in the business? OSX is utterly useless and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's ugly and unintuitive.
Now watch all the Apple zealots mod me down with flamebait and what not. It's noit a flamebait, it's my honest opinion. Apple is insignificant and this will have zero impact on the market.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Admittedly I'm a reluctant user of OSX, having to use it at work from time to time and haven't spend more than a couple of weeks working with it. From the outset, a useability deficit was immediately apparent; OSX still hasn't provided a means of finding software and delivering it to the user.
How depressing it was to find that Apple users are still stuck with the oldest problem in software installation, and that is finding the software first. Windows users considering switching will find this to be as depressing as it was on win32, and similarly we hear Mac users that have moved to Linux cheer endlessly about the ease of software installation using a system such as apt.
So boring it is to spend countless hours trawling around websites looking for software, and there's so little on the machine out-of-the-box. OSX really doesn't push much further than the windows paradigm in this regard. There's this fink but last time I tried it was all a bit hacky and suffered issues worse than those in any Linux distribution I've used.
In short, nothing I've tried comes close to software installation in Linux; Linux brings the software to me.
Where the *.dmg is concerned, while convenient (once you have actually found the bloody thing), it is certainly not unique to the Apple platform. Linux already has two perfectly good solutions to this would-be problem.
One is http://autopackage.org/, and a completely different approach (and quite impressive) is Klik http://klik.atekon.de/.
Then again last time I looked searching for a package and clicking the conspicously named "Install" button in Kpackage or Synaptic seems to suit vast numbers of lazy, or just plain busy Linux users out there.
The beauty of Autopackage is, as a developer, I can make one package for all distributions of Linux. With Klik, I only 'install' the software for that session (in fact it is run from cache).
No!
It never cease to amaze me how much these so-called industry pundits don't understand anything.
Apple can endeavour to threaten Linux if they want, they'll end up nowhere, as Linux is not a vendor and doesn't care about threats.
Unless Apple unbundles OS/X and makes it Free and Open-Source, they won't change a bit the way Linux works and progresses.
Most likely Linux will end up working on Apple hardware, and not the other way around (OS/X on a random beige box). Where is the threat? Some people might continue to buy nice Apple hardware and put their favourite OS on it, as they do now. I'm sure Apple is cool with it BTW.
I can understand the pragmatic view Apple has taken with the x86 decision. (I don't like it, either, but I understand it.) PPC is, like m68k before it, in just about every conceivable way related to elegant design far superior to x86. The only problem is there are lots of people pushing x86 forward, and only a very few working on PPC. Even though x86 is hobbled by a legacy design, it can still have an advantage. It's sad.
But why abandon Open Firmware? It was designed to be hardware independent, and several big players besides Apple are using it. By analogy, it's the same. New, forward-thinking design being scrapped in favor of crappy old design. Unlike the chip issue though, there's absolutely no reason to ditch OF.
After we got rid of my wife's Wintel box I hoped to never have Windows nor Intel in my house again. After using OS X it would be awful hard to go back to Linux on AMD or something like that, so I suppose I'll suck it up in a couple years when I need a new Mac(intel). But I do question some of Apple's reasoning.
Constitutionally Correct
I think the vast majority of Macs are used in home systems. Apple doesn't have the enourmous infrastructure support that microsoft has built for the enterprise world. They're biggest market would be to home users, who tend to pirate their OS rather than pay for it.
Also, they would lose their reputation for making pretty things. They don't want their lovely OS running on some ugly-ass generic hardware.
Boy am I glad for the linux live cd's, finally I was able to see that Linux still in nowhere near ready for the masses. A few years ago and undetermined curiosity led me to Linux which was a good OS for me back then when I had nothing better to do. Well I grew up and have to worry about my patients, new equipment, and procedures available for them. I don't have time to screw around on my computer all day long trying to get something to work. I switched over to the Macintosh since 10.2 and couldn't be happier. Most people don't want to look up how make their modems, soundcards, etc, work. People just want to boot up and work, play, what ever, and the reality is linux isn't ready for mass consumption. Free isn't everything and neither is cheap, most people are willing to PAY for a product if its worth it. Now for computer geeks linux is fine because your on the computer most of the time, but most people's jobs aren't dependent on learning the inwards of computers. Now will OSX threaten linux to the point of extinction? No, but set up a computers next to each other for sale with the 3 OSes on display and linux will come in 3rd guaranteed because average joe wants something thats good and EASY. Free doesn't always mean better.
Want to know how Linux could benefit from the momentum behind OS X, and vice versa?
.NET people.
Simple. The Linux community should get behind OpenStep, port KDE applications over to OpenStep, and leave Gnome to the Microsoft
Imagine: OpenStep and Cocoa actively kept in sync. Most Mac applications would be trivial to port to Linux, and vice versa. KOffice everywhere, applications like Circus Ponies Notebook and SubEthaEdit running on Linux.
But no, we can't even settle on one desktop environment, let alone move in the direction of one that has serious momentum behind it...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Many mudern Linux distributions include 'prelink', which does the same thing. And SGI has "requickstarting". I assume Solaris has something similar too.
Personally, I don't like it -- I'd rather binaries have consistent checksums and am willing to pay a small startup speed penalty for that.
I found a nice and detailed review about SymphonyOS on this site.
Linux - and more generally, OSS - doesn't "need" marketshare. Any OSS project will continue as long as at least one person builds and distributes the project's software. Which I guarantee for Linux will be for the rest of our lives at least.
That the headline is worded "[could] threaten Linux" is a sensationalist sky-might-be-falling spin which implies that Linux might somehow be wiped out if we're not careful. Not only is this implication untrue, but it distorts what I think is a more appropriate view to have of open source, which is that OSS is a success as long as people are free to use OSS to whatever degree they personally want. The real dangers would be if the right to use OSS was legislated away by corrupt politicians... not that a prettier proprietary desktop with better scrollbars will render OSS dead.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Now, truth be told I use Windows, but almost every program I use on windows is open source, and not because I'm a zealot, but because the open source programs work better, are more secure, and easier on the hardware than every commercial alternative. The only things really keeping me on Windows are Winamp and a few games/emulators.
l a
Firefox
Gimp
Azureus
Shareaza
N|Vu
Filezil
Thunderbird
Gaim
Cdex
These are all better than their commercial alternatives for a plethora of reasons. Just get GTA:San Andreas to run, and a better winamp, and Windows is dead to me, and about 20 people I know.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Linux community should take another look at GnuSTEP. It's an open source implementation of OpenSTEP which is the base for Cocoa.
Who in thier right mind? After spending a premium for Apple hardware that comes with one of the better comercial os's. Is going to wipe it down to put Windows, The most malware-virus infested os, in its place? Maybe an escpee from a mental institution?
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
These are (mostly) directories of an application bundle.CTRL click on an app and choose "Show Package Contents" - if it exists in the context menu. Or right click for those advanced people with >1 button mice.
I'm NOT knocking Apple.
Unless you had a project or programms that ran specifically for Macs, then you paid tooo much.
Many, if not most (including me recenlty) did not realize that there is a reason that there are sooo many *Linuxs* out there!
It's because.. each of the (ie.live cd's) usually has a specific *task* that it is very good at.
If you try to push that particulare version of Linux beyond that, you are going to have to put some time into making it do (the things it wasn't really created for)
True, most *versions* of linux still leave alot to be desired, but what os doesn't?
And remember, Mac's, Linux, BSD, etc (all except Windows of course) are UNIX based! :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Apple has always been a radical leader in making the computer easy for the common man.
Darwin, Linux and BSD (and all the other Unices) are just that *Unix*!! And there is NOTHING that can stop it's diametric (and bewildering) course of diversity while maintaining it's incredible *core* functions as a network operating system.
And there is NO reason to think that Steve is going to do anything *less* radical in the future with Apple/Darwin.
*He* has ALWAYS scared and worried the community (Apple's) and suprised everyone else with his projects and plans.
It is obvious that where he is going with this Intel deal. He is going to wait until enough work has been done on hacking Darwin into x86, but before these hacks have a chance to change the market toooo much, with great fanfar.. he'll anounce that he will sell a copy a OSX to run on X86's.
This of course will rock the Gates of the evial dragoon, because it will allow for more choices for humanity.
And I'm sure the *Steve Man* will be more than glad to still sell his hardware for those who will want the higher-end versions of the products. :)
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
The great things about linux is it can be molded into any task that you want and its free. Anyone with time and effort can take linux and build a server, an embedded os, a thin client, and even a desktop. The only problem is that it takes time and effort that hampers largely its adoption on the desktop. But, third world countries are adopting in droves because its free. In the same respect, dirt cheap PCs makers are embracing it as way to avoid Microsoft tax. Since Apple has not ever really offered system that compete in those two areas, Linux will always have some niche where it will be useful.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
From a corporate I.T. perspective, an Apple server like we see today running true UNIX as Mac OS X does AND having Intel-standard CPU's seriously threatens Linux on corporate servers.
From a technical perspective, I'll take a Unix server/workstation over a Linux server/workstation if I can run Windows on it when I want, which Apple was quoted as saying they won't try to stop.
To me, the quality of Apple's hardware is just as good as Dell or IBM. If I'm comparing IBM PowerPC hardware with AIX to Dell Intel hardware with Linux (we use SuSE everywhere, by the way), I'll pick Dell with SuSE. Add Apple Intel hardware running BSD-standard OS X Server to that comparison list, and I'll pick the Apple hardware because like the Dell hardware I can install Windows Server on it later.
You do have to consider driver and software compatibility that Linux offers, but for basic corporate applications like file servers, web servers, etc., that's a non-issue. Some commercial software that runs on Linux already has a version for Mac OS X. The open source applications usually compile for Mac OS X easily.
The fact that Linux is basically free, though, will make it the pick for some applications. There will also be some situations where the required applications have better support on Linux or no support at all for Mac OS X, and Linux would be the pick there.
Basically I think this will put Apple in competition at the top end of Linux applications, and the low end of high-availability server applications.
In workstations, this will put Apple where Jobs always wanted to be with NeXT -- high performance, high reliability workstations. What do people need with a high-end workstation when PC's are so powerful? Windows can't be all things to all people, and anybody who tells you Windows XP is just as good as a solid UNIX workstation OS is just plain full of sh*t.
You can't provide what home consumers need to play video games without trade-offs for the CAD engineers or graphic designers. The same goes the other way -- you can't provide the stability for high-end users without trade-offs for those home and gameplayers.
So, this will threaten Linux's gains in corporations, but when it comes to a guy downloading Linux to install on his home computer to play around with it, Apple won't compete there and doesn't want to. They've already stated in interviews that you will not be able to buy/install Mac OS X for anything but Apple hardware (PowerPC or Intel), so for the hobbyist and low-end workstations/servers, Linux will still dominate.
But, for corporate or power users, a workstation with hardware and software integrated that can run either UNIX or Windows apps will be much more appealing than a Linux box. I've been trying to switch 100% to Linux on my desktop for more than five years, and still haven't been able to for various minor but important reasons...
No.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Yeah, OSX went the sudo route, and they did it a lot better than any of the linux distros.
Specifically, you never log in as root/admin on osx (actually, you can't unless you change a few settings). Every time you do something which gives permission denied, you're not told that permission was denied, instead a friendly little dialogue box pops up asking for the name and password of someone in the sudoers file.
Since requring root in osx is about as rare as it is in linux, this dialogue box popping up when you weren't expecting it causes mental alarm bells to start ringing. Of course, the standard dismissive argument here is that mac users will simply type their password whenever requested. *shrug*. I have found it is much easier to use a linux box without root than to use a mac without root, so there is some support for that argument.
Contrast OSX's integrated sudo with the situation in linux, where an attempt to do inpromptu admin instead gets a 'permission denied' message 90% of the time, and 10% of the time you have to explicitly click on the 'do this as root' button. Looking at it that way, I can see why Linspire runs as root by default, KDE etc. just don't (yet?) have sudo integrated tightly enough.
> First I have to know the difference between no-arch, 386, 586, 686,
.spec inside the tarball. Take the case of a source tarball, just do "rpmbuild -tb foo.src.tar.gz" and wait a bit for the binary package to appear. No Grandma won't be doing this, but she won't be doing it on a Mac either unless a Mac or Fink binary exists.
> etc... and download the right rpm.
Not at all. Whoever installs the machine adds the usual third party repos and the problem reduces to two options.
1. The program HAS been ported to your rpm based distro, either by the primary vendor or one of the 3rd party repo maintainers. (Dag and atrpms for RedHatish ones, PLF for Mandrake, etc.) You invoke the package manager whoever installed for you showed you how to use. On my machine (see my URL, guess which disto I run) I just pop open a console and type "up2date foo" to add the Foo package to my system. Others use yum, apt-get, aptitude, urpmi, etc. but they all work about the same.
2. It isn't packaged for your distro. Same situation of the app isn't in Fink for your Mac. You have to know how to build it yourself. Only difference is on an rpm based machine we are mainstream. Most sites will have an srpm or at least a
Democrat delenda est
The mainproblems of desktop linux:
-The GUIs are much too overloaded already. Every button which can be removed should be removed.
-The GUI is not following the Unix-mantra of "everything is a file". Too much stuff in deeply nested menues instead of properties of a file (or an icon). Even Gnome/Ubuntu are not able to place a Dial-Up-Icon on the Desktop.
-Too many distributions of files and drivers. When I last looked for a nv-driver it came in as many as 50 instances: four tar.gz, five debs and a whooooping 78 rpms (starting with suse 7.3 and ending with fedora 10.whatever)
!!!Thats insane!!!
At least within ONE distribution major release I expect only ONE driver (say one RPM for SuSE7, one for Debian3).
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Standard hardware from Apple will help kill Windows. Linux will be a lot easier to develop when the hardware is standard.
I think Apple should/will open the hardware to software developers. This will allow them to say: "Run OSX, it's already installed. Or you can take a chance with Linux".
Linux distros which have a standard set of hardware to program and debug for will accelerate and stablize development.
Get your Unix fortune now!
You've got it backwards.
Within 10 days, someone will install Windows AND Linux on the Macintel.
However, the Xbox is basically a PC, right? Why hasn't anyone made a PC run the Xbox OS so that they can play the games without buying the system?
(Hint: It's hard to port closed-source software to similar platforms. Mac OS X may have an Open core in Darwin, but the parts that make it a Mac aren't even remotely open.)
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
is that on windows and on OSX, there is a lot of backwards compatibility built into the OS and runtimes.
Any userland program written for OSX should run on the newest version.
Ditto program written for win32, windows XP goes to great lengths to make backwards compatibility possible
But linux does not (you cant build a program on RedHat 7.3 with the version of GCC included there and expect it to run on RedHat 8.0 without lots of effort or a recompile)
Yet you can compile a program with visual studio 6 on an older version of windows and it will run just fine on the latest version.
Appdirs tend to make more sense for closed source apps - they tend not to be so concerned with dependencies, because a dependency is that much less code you don't own. Open source methodology instead, practically guarantees dependencies - that's the point! Stand on the shoulders of giants, because, well, you're allowed!
Imagine trying to take the Debian repository and convert it into dependency-free frameworks, bundles, appdirs, and statically compiled binaries. That would be insane!
Appdirs simply seem to trade usability for efficiency, and it's directly affected by the licensing style of the programs.
More and more, I'm seeing that licensing is not separate from software engineering, and this is another example of how the licensing affects the engineering.
As to the larger issue of Macs "threatening" GNU/Linux, I don't see it happening. A competitive marketplace could mean fewer GNU/Linux desktops "sold" or installed, sure. But share-alike software isn't a business. As such, i don't see how a closed-source OS (or, in this case, a desktop environment/API) can compete. Licensing is a feature. I got tired of having to pirate and crack all my apps a long time ago. Apple doesn't "threaten" GNU/Linux any more than Windows does. no matter what, I get to keep it, use it, improve on it here and there, and miraculaously watch a nice mature community make it better.
I realize there's a certain amount of user base necessary to spur a critical mass of quality development, but I just don't see Mac OS X or Windows having the muscle to reduce GNU/Linux developers to abandon the platform in sufficient numbers to "threaten" its existence.
Total world-domination marketshare, sure, but I don't really give a rat's ass about how popular my OS of choice is - as long as it's enough to keep it flourishing. Apparently, the little bit GNU/Linux has is plenty.
Marketshare is for businesses, not for users.
linux may be stuck in a niche market.
apple will now have the ability of gaining not just from the the cpu but all the other hardware that comes with it such as graphic cards and audio cards.
from this, applications may now include games and better multimedia applications in mac.
users now have a choice other than windows (as currently, i don't like linux is an option in games and multimedia.)
i welcome this change and looking into using a mac soon. i couldn't totally say that linux currently does job that i need with high efficiency (but the capabilities are now improving.)
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
Took a look at the Mezzo desktop site, which Symphony uses, and was very unimpressed. What's supposed to be "revolutionary" (their word) about making piddly changes to how things are presented on the desktop?
Also, I have to laugh at their statement that it "presents all needed information directly to the user." Thank you, but I'd rather decide for myself what information is needed.
I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
If there is OSX running on x86 there will be a patch to run it on a PC 10 days after release.
Nope, there won't be. The x86-based Mac will require hardware that is not present in your PC, and that you can't purchase from anywhere. Until Apple desides to do so (which is probably never) you will not be able to run OSX on a standard PC.
This is one of the advantages Apple has always had over Microsoft. They design and know the hardware, and can therefore take advantage of it. On a PC, almost all of your menu and window drawing is done primarily by the CPU. The Intel thingy. Apple, knowing what (limited) harware is there, can delegate much more to other "CPUs" in your box, such as the GPU. Longhorn is supposed to do more of this.
The fact that X11 runs on OS X is very very overrated. Many of us don't really appreciate that. We would, however, appreciate it if Apple can provide more incentives to us who uses only vi, latex, and the web browser. We don't want the flashy desktop, but we want to feel comfortable with these apps.
We would also prefer our computers to be reasonably priced and not be an icon of self expression --- our work is important, the OS is not.
What do you do when a security problem is found with a common shared library not included with the OS (say OpenSSL, Zlib, etc)?
Do you, say, download and upgrade every one of your 30 or so programs that use this or do you simply upgrade the library?
Disk space may not be a significant issue, but bandwidth is.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't how a better 'download dependency tool' is any help to the problem discussed before which is: how to avoid package management hell.
Let's oversimplify and put people in categories depending on: why do they run Linux?
1) It's cheap
2) you really really like it
3) you're convinced you have to use it for moral reasons
I don't think Apple is a threat to the category one and three "market". People in category two however sometimes get converted. So what.
I think that if Linux would want to be serious about standardization and user friendliness we'd have seen it by now. It may even be impossible to do, since Linux developers develop for linux because they like to, I don't see users dissuading them from doing things their way...
Talking about the Linux market place and using words like threat is pretty complicated. I don't think you can just apply normal market dynamics (or those we profess to understand) to FOSS.
Some FOSS programs that are used by one and a half individual are maintained for years by three programmers, some programs that are so popular they have over a million of downloads only have one maintainer. Who in their right mind wants to see Linux as "just another OS" and make meaningful predictions from there?
So in short: yes, maybe linux users will buy Apple hardware or even run their FOSS on OS X. That's far from a threat situation, it just gives users more choice, which imo is a good thing.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Sorry but Intel have to take the blame also from many of the problem of the x86: when they switched from 16 to 32, they could have added more registers the way AMD did with x86-64.
Also there is no reason why MMX, SSE and the like suck (sharing MMX registers with FPU registers for MMX was braindead) while PPC has Altivec..
And lets not forget about Netburst for the implementation part..