Slashdot Mirror
No Threat to Linux with Apple and Intel Deal
LnxPhreak writes "Gundeep Hora of CoolTechZone.com has a new editorial up that discusses why Apple and Intel's partnership is not a threat to Linux. The column weighs in on different points equally. From the article: 'However, that doesn't mean it's the end of Linux. In fact, it shouldn't even threaten Linux by any means. Linux has more than a few things that go in its favor, at least for the time being. The idea of open-source software is an amazing one. The fact that Linux isn't much of a commercialized operating system, and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself. The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.'"
Nobody knows anything. My guess is, in ten years time, there will still be a current version of the Mac OS, a current version of Windows, and a current version of Linux.
The only one there's a real question about is Mac OS.
In 20 years? Who knows. I'd put money on Linux, even if only maintained by a few hobbyists. I'd wager that there *won't* be a version of Windows that has much in common with the current Windows. And if there is a Mac OS it will probably still be running on top of something like Darwin.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
I know that this isn't the best place for this comment, but I want opinions on this:
With Apple moving to x86, what are the chances of a full-speed emulator for linux, similar to WINE (yeah, WINE is not an emulator, blah blah blah)?
I would think (not being a hardcore programmer, just a web monkey) that it would be easier to implement a translation layer for Carbon/Cocoa (whatever its called now) due to the unix roots of OS X (and that there is probably a fair amount of documentation available for this). A translation for Aqua (to gtk or whatever) may also be necessary, but I don't know much about the whole setup.
After all, X works on OS X.
The reason I ask is this: if a near full speed MINE (MINE is not an emulator....) could be developed, it would open up a lot of applications (photoshop) to the linux user. I could see this scenario being smoother than the WINE situation, and providing a better interface. I could also see it really helping linux.
As for the Apple switch, I am surprised they did it, but if anything this will help linux. I think that those saying it will hurt linux are way off-base on this one.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
A bigger threat would be an open source version of solaris that runs on x86.
Badass Resumes
First Dvorak jumps in with his usual troll, and now we get J. Random Reporter from some cool tech site telling us why he's wrong?
;-)
I'll make my own prediction: I think Apple's move to Intel spells a short-term rise and long-term fall of Linux for PowerPC
Seriously, it's just not THAT sweeping a move. Let Apple have its fun, and more power to them taking over the desktop market from Microsoft. I'd certainly rather have to occasionally use a Mac at work than Windows.
I don't know why everyone sees this as a threat to Linux. It's a real threat to Windows. If Apple sticks to only allowing OsX to run on Apple hardware, and is successful in marketing the advantages of a *nix system, then people are going to want something similar. Microsoft can't provide that (the *nix advantages). However, Linux can.
Apple's premium priced OsX on premium priced Intel systems positions Linux as the poor man's version of OsX on regular Intel systems. Apple, doesn't loose anything (they only allow OsX on their own equipment), however Microsoft easily could.
It seems to me the only clear looser in this deal is Microsoft -- why? because it's going to be relatively easy for people to develop for OS Xi and Linux (it has been already but now it'll be even more so) with less of the hassle of supporting Windows. For the moderate run, I believe OS X will strengthen the OSS community -- development for linux helps OS X and OS X development, in some cases, helps linux inasmuch as ports of non-cocoa apps are pretty easy. Sure Apple is a very closed source shop for much of what it does, but even they are giving some small amount back to the open source world and their OS encourages a lot more of the same -- all of that is more than Microsoft, to be sure -- and Microsoft said it themselves..."developers, developers, developers" get the developers to develop and you'll get the user base. But hey, this is just my opinion...I can't wait to see what the future holds.
If manufacturer Z makes drivers for product y for OSX on Intel (which is of course based on Darwin), does that have any impact on Intel drivers for Linux for y?
If a driver is available for Darwin, even if it is a closed binary, could a layer be built to make it work on Linux, since Darwin is open source?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Wow. That's actually totally unconvincing. Actually, this article convinces me that Linux WILL be in trouble.
I fail to see how buying an Apple computer constitutes 'Hardware Lock-In'... of course you're probably talking about running Windows on a home-built PC made of OEM commodity parts, but try speccing a PC with similar features and you'll find that Apple remains competitive (maybe a bit more, but that's the 'Apple Tax').
But, you aren't 'locked in' to their hardware... you can buy commodity parts off the shelf, install them, and have them work just fine, such as mice, keyboards, hard drives, CD-R's, DVD-R's, RAM, monitors, etc.
Gone are the days when you had to buy everything Apple-branded or Apple 'compatible' while paying a hefty mark-up... as I write this I think the only two components that still require design specifically for Apple are SCSI and Video cards (I'm talking 'basic' components, not obscure ones).
Apple wants you to run whatever software you want, on their PC's.
Because we could be seeing the next big blow to Microsoft. Apple is already Unix-ish. Now it'll be x86-ish...
...and suddenly without too much fanfare, Wine becomes a do-able port. Look out Bill! Imagine being able to buy an OSX box and run Windows apps on it.
Drop that in the next Mac Mini and it'll seriously change things. Unix stability with Windows compatibility. Coupled with Mac reliability. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's not going to get windows users to come over, because those users are unlikely to buy all new computers and software just for OS X.
This just made me think of something interesting.
One of the big costs of "switching" is having to buy all new hardware, software, etc for the new platform. Standardizing on USB/FireWire/etc has has alleviated the hardware problem for the most part, but the software has still posed a big problem.
Now, if Microsoft goes and gets Windows running on Intel Macs, as they seem very likely to do (hey, they sell more software), then Wintel users can go ahead and buy Apple next time they upgrade, getting a machine that will run Windows and all its software AND Mac OS X and the new software they want to try out. This will be nothing but a boon for Apple's hardware sales.
However, I worry, as other posters have mentioned, that if "Mac" users can just run Windows versions of major software packages, that that will be less reason for software developers to produce Mac versions of their products. That, in the long run, will undermine the strength of OS X as a platform, which in turn negates the big drawing point of Apple hardware in the first place. Which makes Apple an overpriced commodity hardware vendor with pretty cases == dead Apple, unless they can turn into a *really* good hardware vendor. And there's always the chance that if OS X *didn't* whither, and began to chip away at the MS monopoly, MS could then fix Windows to not run on MacIntel, reducing the value of an Apple box to the average consumer.
Though now that I think about it, Apple does sell other software besides just OS X itself, and the iApps and their professional big brothers (Final Cut Studio et al) are a major draw to OS X. It could be possible for Apple to to keep OSX around as a meta-platform, existing only in userspace as an API set and a pretty interface running on top of any kernel (Windows, Linux, Darwin/BSD), designed to support Apple's "killer apps", which would be the real draw for most users who don't particularly care about APIs or nice standard interfaces. Then again, NeXT did almost exactly that with OpenStep, and look how well that turned out.
So it seems to me, Apple's got three choices. Either it keeps Windows off the Mac, in which case the status quo is almost unchanged (except now we've got TCPM on the Mac and other such arbitrary [non-technical] barriers to the unhindered use of *my* computer, which I object to philosophically). Or, if Windows does run on the Mac, and it reduces the value of the OS X platform, Apple faces the choice of either becoming a commodity software with a nifty API and interface, or a commodity hardware vendor with pretty cases. Neither of which seem like the Apple we know, and both of which ruin their existing business model which, despite low platform marketshare, is doing them damn well financially.
I predict that Apple will probably allow Windows on MacIntel until such point that it begins to hurt the OS X platform (and probably try to find some way to prevent that), and if at some point that does become the case, will then bar Windows from their hardware with TCPM and return things to the status quo... except now we've got Trusted Computing DRM crap on our Macs. Which is really all that bugs me about this move in the first place.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
For the record, I'm both an OS X and a Linux user.
I think that OS X on Intel, if it has any effect on Linux at all (and I'm not quite conviced yet that it will), will probably be positive, particularily in smaller networks like my own.
OS X is a fantastic client and development OS. I do all of my development on OS X these days, as well as all of my e-mail, web browsing, Skype usage, iChat/AIM instant messaging, gaming, music (iTunes/iPod), video playback, and device synchronization. From a user perspective, OS X is damn near perfect IMO. From a developer perspective, I like Cocoa and Objective-C these days more than just about any APIs available on Linux (with Linux having the advantage than when things go really bad, at least I have all the sources to try to trace a problem, and not just some of the sources). It has desktop Linux beat 15 ways from Sunday.
However, networks still need servers, and while Apple has done some interesting things with its Xserve line, an inexpensive Intel box running Linux is a vasty better server platform than OS X is. And it's also vastly cheaper.
This contrast could help Linux if Apple's new Intel systems do start winning over Windows users. Linux servers are based on much the same Open Source server technologies that OS X is built upon, so using Linux on your servers for OS X client networks just makes sense. It's more cost effective, and the two have much the same settings between them.
I'm still not convinced that Windows users are going to start switching en-masse to OS X just because it runs on Apple custom Intel machines, but we'll have to wait and see. If they do, I see this as an opportunity for Linux in the server space, and not as a net detriment.
Yaz.
One factor that people seem to be overlooking is the free (beer), open source Darwin x86.
To date, I've tended to run Mac OS X on desktops and laptops, and either Debian or OpenBSD on servers.
With the change to Mac OS X x86, I'm much more likely to run OpenDarwin on my servers: I get some binary compatability and a uniformity of Unix idioms, and still have the Open Source goodness that comes with any of the open source unixes. Beyond thread-switching (I don't run MySQL anyway), the only thing that it lacks is the GPL - correctness. For some people, that will matter - for most, one open source Unix is going to be as good as any other one.
My expectation is that Mac OS X on x86 won't directly compete with Linux, but its existence will make OpenDarwin compete much more strongly with Linux. There's even a commercial opportunity there, to start selling support contracts for OpenDarwin in the same way that one can get Linux support contracts from people like Red Hat.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that. Shame how the libre definition of free has fallen by the wayside.
Wonderful! So all the proprietary vendors will continue to port to OS X, which will now be on x86. They're *that* much closer to being able to run natively on Linux.
If anything, success OS X has will raise awareness of the possibility of non-Microsoft. And once they start to gain ground in the corporate world, Microsoft might just be forced to interoperate.