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.'"

Comments

Seriously, why do people think in terms of THREAT?

[gorim]

The only way anything can be a threat to Linux is if it is better.

There can only be fear if one does not think Linux is up to it. In which case, surely the Linux community has strength to solve such problems ?

Or not ?

If there was ever a real threat to Linux, it would be any legal challenges to licenses or intellectual property issues squeezing out such good and useful ideas a breathing oxygen or using a keyboard to type a useful program.

You know what?

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

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.

Re:You know what?

[Boss Sauce]

...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.

Yep, and most people will be running ten year old versions of Windows.

agreed...

[bad_outlook]

and let's not forget when OS X was announced, since it was 'based' on FreeBSD everyone was saying THAT was the end of Linux on the desktop, and if anything it's gotten stronger. DISCLAIMER: I own two macs; one runs Linux, and 3 linux boxes; one is my main workstation - So in the end, we all win! ;)

bo

Re:agreed...

[Incongruity]

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.

it is the end!

[matt me]

Apple and Intel are two major corporations producing green-house gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water) than contribute to global warming - this is going to melt the ice caps, destroying penguins' natural habitat - the antartic, and Tux will die...

Linux has more than a few things that go in its...

[Caspian]

...wait, did the SlashDot editors just use "its" correctly?

Holy shit. First Apple switches to Intel, then Sarge is released, and now this? I think Hell has officially frozen over now. ;)

Free software

[theurge14]

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.'" Actually, they don't, because the majority of the computer public truly believe that Microsoft Windows and Office comes free with the PC. Most new Macs come with OS X and iLife free. Despite being true or not true, this is the perception out there.

This might start a firestorm but:

[blake3737]

IT seems to me unless you have hardcore certified geeks in your company, linux will cost you a lot in consultants. A lot of people can easily set up a windows or Mac box, but as for linux, it requires a more savvy end user. a LOT more savy.

Re:This might start a firestorm but:

[Buelldozer]

I have no idea who modded you "insightful" because your comment is the exact opposite of that. It should be modded "doubleplusmoronic" or perhaps "flamebait".

In response to your post though, most fools can probably get a desktop PC running, but that doesn't mean they _should_.

Most users cannot CORRECTLY setup OR EVEN MAINTAIN a windows box, which is why there are approximately 15 Billion private computer companies (consultants) making good money doing it for them.

So your mythical corporation saved $100 on the install by doing it themselves, but spent $300, or more, on having a consultant come back later and recover data from their spyware, worm, trojan and root kit infested machine and then re-install the OS and reconnect it to the network.

Then they clean the rest of the network from the same spyware, trojans, worms and rootkits.

While they are there someone mentions that their Exchange server get's a lot of bounced messages. After an exhaustive 3 hour search turns up an employee who knows the, undocumented, administrator password, they check and the Exchange server that some looney CPA setup "good enough" has now been blacklisted as an open relay.

When they are done with the Exchange server they look at the file server and discover that it hasn't done a backup in 12 months because the drive failed and no one noticed...the secretary just keep changing tapes as normal.

When they get that fixed they find out that backup won't fit on a tape ANYWAY because someone's 50 Gig porn/mp3/funny video/funny pictures collection is sitting on the server.

Then it's on to the roughly fifty drive shares that have full permissions assigned to "everyone", including the "accounting" share that has the company financials and payroll data.

Then they shut off IIS since it was pwned about 8 months ago due to someone plugging the network DIRECTLY into their "high speed internet" with no firewall in place and assigning a second IP address to the Server NIC to "make it work".

While they are in there they notice the mirror drive failed sometime last fall and the single running hard drive is throwing I/O errors, which no one noticed because checking the event logs "takes too much time.".

The whole network has statically assigned IP addresses, with no documentation, because when the server was setup no one could figure out how to correctly configure DHCP. ...and the list goes on and on and on and on...

If you think I'm exaggerating you better check yourself, I've seen every one of these scenarios in the last 12 month and so has every other consultant in the country.

Lots of people seem to think that they "know" I.T., most of them barely know how to wipe their ass. Most of them have opinions just like the one you posted...until their server gets it's nuts crushed by some random script kiddie. Then I come in and bill them 10 grand, or more, for cleaning up the mess that they created with their "I know how to do this!" attitude.

Businesses should concentrate on what they do best, and leave the rest to people who know what they are doing.

My thoughts

[jwthompson2]

I doubt Linux will be significantly hurt by Apple's move. But, there is always the potential that OS X adoption could slow Linux adoption in the desktop arena. One the server side I would expect Linux to keep gaining ground. But since OS X is Unix and provides a more unified platform in comparison to Linux as a desktop solution there is always the potential that Linux adoption could slow in specific areas.

But remember, everyone is still specualting and until we have Intel based Macs shipping no one has any clue what is going to happen....

Re:My thoughts

[fbg111]

But, there is always the potential that OS X adoption could slow Linux adoption in the desktop arena.

No it won't. If anything slows Linux's desktop adoption, it's Linux, not OS X. In general, people who buy Macs are not the same ones who install Linux, Jamie Zawinski and /. OS hackers not withstanding. OS X has the easiest most user-friendly interface and driver support and it "just works". Linux is like the Millenium Falcon and requires owners to actually enjoy hacking it. There is not much overlap between markets for these two products, on the desktop.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[bodester17]

The real threat to Linux is harware manufactorers purposely making devices that only work on windows and not supporting linux at all.

Fundamentally different approaches

[Sv-Manowar]

I would have thought this was pretty obvious by looking at the approaches of the two camps. Linux goes out of its way to support as much hardware as possible, even obscure and lesser-used devices. Apple support their own specifically designed & built platforms. There's a total polarity on the two approaches to the underlying platform, and of course the two can co-exist well, as there are needs/uses for both these approaches in today's computing environment.

OS X "emulation"

[DarkSarin]

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.

Re:OS X "emulation"

[m50d]

I'm pretty sure you don't even need an emulator. The NeXTStep specs are all public, and linux support does exist at least in basic form with GNUStep. Gnustep apps work on OSX, so there's no reason OSX apps couldn't work on Gnustep. It might even not require reimplementing too many libraries (if the interfaces are the same). At the moment Gnustep looks butt-ugly though.

Re:OS X "emulation"

[GlassHeart]

First of all, you forgot about Carbon. A lot of apps are still using it.

Secondly, just because GNUstep apps run in OS X doesn't mean that the reverse is true. From the GNUstep developer FAQs:

It's easier from GNUstep to Cocoa than Cocoa to GNUstep. Cocoa is constantly changing, much faster than GNUstep could hope to keep up. They have added extensions and new classes that aren't available in GNUstep yet.

MacOS X also has various frameworks for audio, video, disc burning, etc. So no, it will definitely be a non-trivial task, along the lines of WINE.

What? Logic?

[Ygorl]

"The second point of interest is the driver support that currently favors Linux." ...because some companies are starting to think about fooling around with Linux support? That's supposed to be better than the current support for Windows or Mac?

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[Reverend528]

A bigger threat would be an open source version of solaris that runs on x86.

Hard to tell

[Hyksos]

I really think that Apple's move to x86 is such a bold move that it really is hard to tell what exactly is going to happen on the market. I think I've heard "experts" cover every possible scenario, and one of them has to be right, I guess! But really, we just have to lean back and watch Jobs' handywork as it unfolds.

This is getting old

[ajs]

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.

Re:This is getting old

[The Angry Mick]

more power to them taking over the desktop market from Microsoft

I think this is the more salient point. Apple switching to Intel is going to be a lot less of a problem for Linux, and much more of one for Microsoft.

Before Darwin, a lot of geeks I knew liked Macs, but were uncomfortable with MacOS because you couldn't get at its guts - no geek likes being locked out anything. Additionally, a lot of folks who were uncomfortable with PowerPC simply because it wasn't Intel. Once Darwin arrived, the MacOS suddenly became geek-friendly - you could poke around a lot much more than in the past, and the UNIX feel of things made it more appealing as a geek playground. Folks started looking at it seriously once again - the rather slick GUI improvements helped heaps here - and it began to gain a little traction as a computer and OS that was suitable for homes and not just graphical artists.

Once/if the switchover to Intel is successful, potential end users will now be presented with an alternative, and very slick, OS that now runs on the same common hardware (mostly) that Windows users are familiar with, and this can only broaden its appeal for the somewhat techno savvy.

I guess what I'm saying is that Apple is subtly targeting a more mainstream audience by opening up to a market commonality(?) like Intel, and that Microsoft may soon have to get off the laurels and start "thinking different".

Re:This is getting old

[DF5JT]

"I think this is the more salient point. Apple switching to Intel is going to be a lot less of a problem for Linux, and much more of one for Microsoft."

I believe you are right. Apple is now in a unique position to take a step towards the mass market AND have an operating system with all necessary applications and support PLUS a slick, easy to use interface.

Bundle that with chipsets specified by Apple, certify certain hardware makers "for use with OS X" and leave the world divided: Those with cheaply assembled hardware and Windows and those with an Intel/Apple and OSX.

Add to that perfect entertainment capabilities and a deal with the largest chipmaker in the world and their distribution systems and you have what Microsoft had in the early 90s.

Intel has massproduction capabilities and that's what Apple wants: their software on as many as possible computers out there. With minor adjustments to Apple's specifications, hardware manufacturers can still produce a single component for both Apple and the rest of the Intel world.

Apple will "certify" a large number of components and specific configurations and their will keep their own DeLuxe Apple design that will be distinctly different from the rest of the Intel pack, by design and manufacturing quality.

If I were Microsoft, I'd be scared shitless tight now.

It's not a threat to Linux, but it is to Windows

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

In an entirely unrelated story

[AtariAmarok]

""No Threat to Linux with Apple and Intel Deal""

In an entirely unrelated story Titanic says that the iceberg is no threat.

Re:In an entirely unrelated story

[Coming soon!]

Which one's the iceberg?

admission vs ownership

[prgrmr]

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one

Everytime some Linux zealot repeats the myth that Linux is without cost, it's another blow to the collective credibilty of the Open Source Software movement.

While Linux may have a zero or near-zero cost of admission, the continued ownership is not without cost. Either a company is going to pay maintenance fees to someone like RedHat to be able to keep their systems patched, or they are going to be paying for talent in-house or renting talent via consultants to keep their systems patched. Or they are going to run unpatched and venture the risks (knowningly, or not) present in the forms of the bugs and security exploits and eventual incompatibilities that present themselves down the line and have to deal with those costs.

We run not quite a dozen boxes with Linux on them at my employer, and we are paying for maintenance for all but 2 of them. And those two are test/development platforms that management would chose to live without if it came to that. Not because the OS weren't on maintenance, but because they were free and running on semi-obsolete hardware.

no.

[Cryptnotic]

That phrase was cut and pasted verbatim from the linked article.

Freud on Linux Zealots

[parvenu74]

The Linux community gauges everything in terms of fear and threat. "Microsoft is a threat." "Mac OS is not a threat." "Don't fear the Penguins."

This fixation on fear could be explained though. Do you really think Linux Zealots were jocks in high school? It's more likely they were geeky moma's boys for whom interaction with the outside world was all about fear. Fear of getting physicallly beaten. Fear of having their lunch money stolen. Fear of still being a virgin when they turn 30. Fear of someone undermining what they thought was a brilliant post on /.

Some have come to grips with this fear but other have not. Instead, these latter types act out against their fear through aggression in the form of first-person-shooter video games and flame wars. They engage in anti-social activites like reading books about fantasy and magic, dreaming of worlds and cosmologies where they can be wizards, powerful warriors, magicians, and other important people. Occassionally they commune with other Linux zealots for a game of D&D but this form of real human interaction is rare.

Linux zealots need to realize that there is no reason for their fragile psyche. They are people with many wonderful qualities. They are good enough, smart enough, and darnit, (some) people like them. Why can't we all just get along without worrying about what threatens us? Hmmm?

Re:Freud on Linux Zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this bigoted, stereotyped load of crud get modded up? It's pretty much the same as saying Windows Zealots are all best-buy employees fresh out of highschool with delusions of grandeur , or Mac zealots are all homosexual interpretive dancing graphic-artists.

Re:Freud on Linux Zealots

[ejito]

Why do you psychoanalyze other people? Most people who psychoanalyze randomly are insecure about themselves and have to vindicate themselves by learning how other people tick -- however instead of doing it with any concrete basis, they use generalized stereotypes and bad conjecture. Does it just make you feel better about yourself because you magically know everything about other people more than themselves? Did an unfortunate accident happen when you were younger and now you have to figure out lives through neverending psycho babble rather than utilitarian means? This thread is a steaming load of hypocrisy.

A genuine threat to Linux is a good thing

[leereyno]

Whether something is a theat to Linux or not will only matter to those whose preference for it is based upon something other than the objective merits of the system.

If something better than Linux comes along and Linux takes the back seat, how is that a bad thing?

Now I'm not saying that OS-X is better, or that it is worse. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter.

I think that a lot of people are afraid that something will happen to Linux akin to the things that have happened to superior products in the past that were defeated by inferior alternatives.

Luckily the market segment in which Linux dominates is one where technical merit really does matter most. The only way that something can displace Linux is if it is truly better, and if that happens, how is it a bad thing?

Lee

Which raises a question in my mind:

[biglig2]

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?

Re:Which raises a question in my mind:

[am 2k]

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?

Theoretically, yes, practically it's a different matter. Linux uses C for drivers, while Darwin uses a special version of C++. You'd have to write a compiler for that one first...

Re:Which raises a question in my mind:

[Oniros]

Nope. Darwin driver architecture (IOKit) and kernel have nothing to do with the Linux kernel.

I think whenever the driver binary is PPC or x86 is the least of your problems at that point.

Re:Which raises a question in my mind:

[q.kontinuum]

"Binary kernel modules are bad, therefore we don't even talk about it and if you want to then to hell with you." Ever loaded a binary-only module like the one from Nvidia for the graphics in Linux recently? You get this big ugly scary warning about "tainting" the kernel. *sigh*

Are you a software developer? With a binary-only driver noone knows anymore whats going up in the kernel space. Thats not (only) a geeky or paranoid issue, but a very pratical one: What, if the system crashes? How will You locate bugs in the kernel when you do not have full access to the source? That's what the tainted flag is about: If you use binary only drivers don't expect anyone to debug it for you.

That said, I'm also not really lucky with the development strategies of the kernel team. While I understand the importance of the tainted flag I would really wish for clearly designed interfaces in the kernel to make the source easier to understand.

But anyway, I will get rid of those problems next year by switching to a clean microkernel architecture, where even drivers are protected from each other. Did you know, hurd will be released next year?

What is the panic about?

[deinol]

People don't use Mac OS because they happen to have a Mac Computer sitting around. They use it because they choose to. Someone has to specifically go out and buy a Mac. Even if that Mac ends up having an intel processor, it's not going to be just any old PC that can run Mac OS.

Different operating systems serve the needs and preferences of different people. What hardware it runs on is really secondary. Certainly one of the appeals of Linux is that if that toaster has a processor in it, someone will port linux to it. Just because they can. Mac or Windows are never going to be that kind of OS.

I like what they've done with OS X. It's a nice tool. I like using debian for certain types of servers. I like mandrake for certain kinds of workstations. I still use windows for other types of workstations. They all serve different functions. But when I build a machine, I hardly worry about the specific hardware involved unless that is a requirement for the machine (like needing that hot nvidia graphics card for... um, computational fluid dynamics.. yeah.)

Life goes on, let's go live it.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[tktk]

Did it miss something? Not to troll, but I can only think of a few hardware companies that even try to support linux.

OS X will never be a threat to Linux

[linguae]

...because Linux and OS X serves two completely different markets. Linux is a hacker's (in the ESR definition) operating system. The source for everything is readily available, and all of the changes you want to make is just a compile away. You can learn just about everything about how the operating system, the utilities, the compiler, the graphical environment, and the applications work. Want to learn the architecture of the Linux kernel? It's all in your source directory. Developer tools are also freely available (thanks to the GNU toolchain), and anyone with programming knowledge can make their own programs as well. Linux is great for developers and hackers, but Linux's usability still needs some work. Some distributions are better than others, but sometimes setting up exotic hardware or laptops can be a PITA.

Mac OS X is the type of operating system that you use when you finished a long day, and you don't feel like struggling to get your printer or sound to work. Mac OS X is very easy to use and has a wide selection of very great applications (MS Office, Photoshop) that aren't available for Linux. Mac OS X inherited all of that NeXT goodness (which I still lust after), and made it even better. Mac OS X isn't as "hackable" as Linux/BSD is, but it is very easy to use and very pretty, and is very stable and is Unix-compatible whenever needed.

I don't think that Apple's switch to x86 is going to hurt Linux at all. Remember, just because Apple is using x86 computers with the same architecture as a PC (cough x86 cough BIOS cough) doesn't mean that you'll be able to run to the Apple store, buy the latest Mac OS X, and run it on your newest Dell or your beefed up Opteron. Mac OS X isn't an option for these people; the closest they'll ever get to Mac OS X for a "white box" is NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (which are still capable operating systems; I look forward to buying a copy for my old laptop), or OS X under PearPC. And even if there is a way to "crack" Mac OS X in order to get it to run on a regular x86, it would probably be very difficult.

If you're interested in computers and want to find out how an operating system work and do your computer science homework, then you'd use Linux, BSD, Plan 9, or GNU Hurd. If you want to sit down, type some essays, surf the Internet, listen to your latest music, and edit your photos hassle free, your best bet is Mac OS X. I have a FreeBSD machine for the former purpose and plan on getting NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (yes, I still lust after these OSes) or a brand new shiny Mac for the latter purpose.

I don't understand this debate...

[kollivier]

Apple changing its hardware has no direct impact on Linux, and it most certainly isn't a threat to Linux. I don't see why anyone is worried about this, much less refuting those worries.

If anything, Apple's switch to Intel means that along with the ability to run Windows easily alongside Mac, now you'll be able to run Linux distros easily alongside Mac too. Gee, that sounds like a kickass machine for cross-platform developers, doesn't it? One box that runs Win, Linux distros, and Mac. I'm also fairly certain someone (if not VMWare themselves) will devise software along the lines of VMWare for OS X which will make this virtualization pretty fast and seamless. (Yes, there's Virtual PC, but that didn't work well with Linux distros last I checked.)

In fact, one thing I realized about this transition is that it's companies like Dell that have to be worried. Once you can install Mac, Win, and Linux in one box - and they'll probably have hardware that is competitive with other PC boxes - the only reason to buy one of those other PC boxes is the cost advantage. And if you're a pro software developer, or a home user or small business sick of viruses and spyware, that cost advantage doesn't look too appealing when weighed against your additional time and effort messing with the machine(s). People can now say "well, I'll try Mac - if I don't like it, I can always throw Linux or Win on this thing..."

I myself have been thinking about getting a faster PC box, but after the Intel news I thought - why not wait a year? VMWare is alreaday pretty responsive on my existing PC, and if it runs on my Mac box (which I use for my day-to-day work), I can have the best of all worlds and a significant speed-up at the same time.

Lastly, because of the above issues, I think Mac on Intel is only going to cause pressure on PC vendors to look at Linux more seriously, if only to squeeze another $50 off their PC prices.

Anyways, personally, I'm tired of all the off-the-wall and sometimes bizarre speculation and rumor-mongering going on. (piracy as Apple's strategy???) Since when is everyone and their cousin weighing in on the 'switch' actually news?

Yes, without too many hassles. How 'bout none?

[ArielMT]

Try SimplyMEPIS, then. I installed it on my Dell Inspiron 600m notebook and not only was it a completely effortless install and completely effortless to use, but I didn't have to touch a CLI or text file at all. Not even to run updates, install new packages, and uninstall packages no longer wanted. Linux is free of hassles already; just choose the right distro for the right job.

Constant reassurance.

[ARRRLovin]

Does linux have such a huge self esteem issue that it needs this much press?

"You're not fat, Cartman. You're just big-boned."

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[suitepotato]

This is something I don't really see happening as it steals the thunder from the mobo and chipset manufacturers. Intel, AMD, nVidia, Tyan, etc. do not want to see their boards' creative direction completely usurped by Microsoft, but at the same time are under the gun to support DRM by Microsoft which they for whatever delusional reasons they have believe might somehow screw them in spite if they don't.

What is MS going to do? Buy a processor maker, motherboard company, and so on and be like Apple? Microsoft is a software company, not hardware. The TCP/A Palladium crap should be dumped and the manufacturers should tell Microsoft to kiss their arses.

If the boards are restricted to Windows only, they shut out any future port of OSX should Jobs ever suffer a brain injury that miraculously cures him of his megalomaniacal idiocy, yes. And they kill Linux on all new hardware. But they also kill BSD which is used in sizeable amounts in corporate America in the server farm, they kill x86 Solaris, they kill a lot more than just Linux.

We don't need a PC tech forking to end all forkings. We don't need Microsoft gone over all Apple. We don't need the PC hardware being dictated from Redmond. We don't need to stifle the creativity in hardware we've had for these many years.

Of course there will be PC hardware and Windows-specific PC hardware. So the real threat to Linux is still the people who promote and move it and their lack of understanding as to why people choose Windows over Linux so overwhelmingly. Hints: EASE OF USE, EASE OF INSTALLATION, EASE OF CONFIGURATION, EASE OF ADAPTATION. Did I say that too loud?

Finally, sanity in an insane world.

[ImaLamer]

I've been saying that this move will only help Linux. Over and over...

But once again, let me point out why: Because Apple wants to sell pretty, uncrackable, all-in-one, gold standard computers. They've been doing that since the 1970's and they will continue to do so. As we see with OSX and the ability to easily install Linux on a "Macintosh" that the software is just another layer.

Apple isn't concerned with those who want to run Linux, or even Windows on their computers. Doesn't matter because you bought their high priced, well worth it, hardware and likely paid for OSX twice in the process. And think about how open source friendly Apple has become over the past few years. Really, the only reason they went with BSD is because they can keep their version closed (right?). Apple knows that there is competition out there, they don't ignore it like other companies (guess which one I mean for extra points). Apple realizes that there are other options out there and looking at OSX you can see that they have made their product better to compete with those options. For once proprietary software is looking more and more like open source hardware (look at their widget campaigns).

Apple wants you to run whatever software you want, on their PC's.

Don't you think linux development and customer support is going to skyrocket when there is just a few configurations to develop for? Maybe Apple will be the first large computer manufacturer to offer a choice of Fedora, Mandrake, Suse, FreeBSD, OSX, Zeta, Windows, whatever. Maybe you buy Linux from Apple because that price includes Apple's own Linux support. Maybe that isn't feasible, but the point still remains: Apple can grab a giant amount of marketshare by telling buyers that they have a choice. Wouldn't you rush out to buy an Apple knowing there is no politics in what software you use.

So Jobs: Lock OSX to your machines, but leave your machines open to other operating systems. The world will thank you.

No threat

[jafac]

The one thing that the PPC->x86 move shows is that Apple Is Not Serious About The Server Market.

For servers, anyone could just as easily run Darwin, or Linux, or BSD, on their favorite x86 server platform. The xServe was pretty cool, but there's really nothing compelling there from an OS X standpoint.

The x86 move was aimed at portables, and low end desktop machines. Bringing (or continuing to bring) the OS X user-experience to that market. A market where Linux has traditionally not made even a minor ding.

The only folks who will suffer are the Mac OS X users on high-end desktops. And it's the ISV's who will determine what happens with that market. I have no clue where that's going to go, but without hardware as a big differentiator there, it really depends on whether ISV's abandon the Mac platform, or how well they transition Alitvec code to SSE3, and how well they handle the transition by supporting legacy hardware, and at the same time also support new hardware without cutting either segment of the market out. It's going to be a tough, tricky game for the Adobe's of the world.
For Microsoft though - my guess is that if Office OS X is too hard for them, they'll just bundle VPC with Windows office and be done with it.

Time = Money

[Shannon Love]

"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."

Linux is free only if you value your time at zero. Of the three OS's I think it safe to say that most spend more time configuring Linux than the others. If you are technically proficient you may not notice this cost but if you had to pay somebody else to do it you definitely would.

The price advantage of Linux can evaporate in a hurry when you have to pay $40 dollars an hour for a tech to set the system up. Such a cost is trivial when configuring a server but for a personal machine it could easily reach the cost of a copy of OS X or Windows. Time lost to unexpected problems when installing Linux on diverse hardware or when installing new software also translates into cost for many people.

I have been very impressed by the gains made by many Linux distros in ease of installs but there is no way that in the desktop and laptop areas that Linux compares to the other two OSs when it comes to time spent configuring the systems. Basic installs work well but wander away from the pre-installed software and nightmare tangles often ensue.

I think that the Linux community to often holds the time of the end user to be a worthless. Until that attitude changes the spread of Linux to the general population will continue to be slow.

Re:Time = Money

[hacker]

"Time lost to unexpected problems when installing Linux on diverse hardware or when installing new software also translates into cost for many people."

And how quickly did it take you to get OSX running on "diverse hardware"? Did it detect your 8-year-old video card and bleeding-edge SATA drives?

Oh wait, it can't.

Re:Time = Money

[Angstroem]

Basic installs work well but wander away from the pre-installed software and nightmare tangles often ensue.

Wait a minute, you did want to make a point for Windows here, didn't you... Cause that very same behavior is what drives Windows people insane: install something "non-standard" and in worst case the system breaks.

I tend to disagree on the configuration issues. When was the last time you indeed did configure a Windows machine from scratch? Those boxes come with Windows preinstalled and preconfigured, so obviously you don't need to set up basic things like video cards and mouse drivers. OTOH, Windows never ships with as much stuff as a generic Linux distro will slam on your hard drive -- in other words, how often do you configure a *mail server* or a *print server* for Windows?

And having installed SuSE9.3 recently, I can tell you that standard configuration takes the least time. Just let it detect your hardware settings, select what you want to install, and let it go for a few hours. It wasn't any uncomfortable than e.g. installing Windows -- especially since it didn't ask any questions during installing or asked for keypresses or anything else.

Agree, But For Different Reasons

[reallocate]

I agree that Apple's embrace of Intel poses no threat to Linux, but not for the reasons outlined in the article.

Linux is increasingly driven by ideology and the fact that it can be obtained at no cost. It's merits as a desktop system have improved, but, by and large, it isn't good enough to attract large numbers of people already using Windows or a Mac. It is good enough to not be a dealbreaker for people who are atracted to Linux because they support its underlying ideology or simply don't want to pay for their software.

Could the Linux desktop become to good that it, alone, attracts users? Sure, but it isn't there yet.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[SocietyoftheFist]

Mac OS X, imho, is the best UNIX desktop out there. Linux still isn't there, especially with regards to laptops. I've been using it since I first got Slack 3.x and remember running a 1.2.13 kernel. Currently, that I know of, not one distro ships that will put all ACPI notebooks into hibernation(or even one for that matter). I purchased a Cardbus 802.11g card and the kernel didn't have support for it, I had to grab the MADWIFI drivers. There is no 3D accelleration for ATI IGP 320M yet. The driver for the sound card apparently doesn't support mixing as when one process is generating sounds, all others get a device busy message.

Apple moving to x86 isn't a threat to Linux servers, and I don't see it as a threat to Linux on the desktop/laptop either. Mac OS X is already better and in more widespread use than Linux on the laptop/desktop. I do see iBooks and PowerBooks in use at libraries and coffeeshops but inevitably when I see an x86 laptop, it's running a variant of Windows. Just once I wish I'd see somebody else running Linux on their laptop like me but it has yet to happen. For those about to pounce with the "I see it all the time", what is the context? A Computer Science Lab/University library? At your place of work that deals with Linux? I'm talking about laptops I see owned by the unwashed and filthy masses, not in selective environments.

Apple is dying! Linux is dying! BSD is dying!

[kitzilla]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Apple going to Intel changes things a bit, but change is a constant process. Change needn't mean Linux is going away, anymore than Apple or BSD has withered under the stream of "[Insert OS here] is dying!" FUD forever flooding Slashdot.

MacTel means almost nothing to Linux unless Apple eventually releases OS X to beige boxes. Cupertino so far shows no concrete signs of doing so. Even if it happens, OS X for PC wouldn't be taps for the Penguin.

Linux and Mac are approaching the market from different directions. Linux' greatest growth potential is in governmental and corporate workplaces, and in the developing world where its cost makes it attractive.

Apple has a small portion of the installed desktop market -- nobody agreees how much -- and very little penetration in Linux' core market. While Apple's switch to Intel makes them somewhat more competitive in the short-term battle for desktop share, they have a LONG way to go back in the server room, in government offices, and anywhere plopping $140 down for an OS that may only run on premium-priced hardware is a financial burden.

I'm a huge Apple fan, but MacTel's supposed killer feature, dual-booting Windows, isn't even likely to be supported by Apple. That'll be a tough sell in the boardroom.

Meanwhile, the so-called developing world is starting to make the US and Europe look like Slow Company. This is likely where Linux will flourish in coming years.

Who will buy MacTel? Fairly well-heeled Westerners. Everyone else will use Linux and unlicensed copies of Windows.

Something else: there will be Mac hardcore abandoning the platform. They feel as if they're sleeping with the enemy when it comes to Intel. Many of them are furious that their rather substantial investment in PPC hardware won't run cutting-edge Mac software much longer, Universal Binaries be damned. Mac software developers won't optimize for Power very long. It's over.

I'll stay with Mac. I really enjoy OS X, and I need several commercial applications not likely to run on Linux anytime soon. I don't wish to own a Windows box or even dual-boot.

But I know that means I'll be buying new hardware in the near future -- an Intel-based Mac laptop first, and then a replacement for my PowerMac.

In the meantime, I'm uninstalling OS X on my older Mac gear. Tiger left two of my machines behind. They'll be converted to PPC Linux. There's already an Ubuntu Live CD in my Bluberry iBook.

The moment Steve Jobs showed the Intel logo, I knew that my dual G5 would one day be running Linux. In three years, I'll have more Linux machines than boxes running OS X.

MacTel's impact on Linux is a lot more complex than most pundits are giving credit. And far less drastic.

Re:Apple is dying! Linux is dying! BSD is dying!

[sfgoth]

I'd have purchased a Powerbook this year. Gets pushed off until Intel is inside.

"I was going to buy a computer this year, but I heard there will be a better one in two years, so I'm going to wait."

Am I the only one who think that's the silliest decision ever?

Re:paying is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you prefer a hooker to your wife?

On a per-orgasm basis, hookers are usually cheaper than marriage.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[peragrin]

First nitpick correction.

OS X and Linux aren't a Unix. They look act and play like unix but were banned membership due to long hair and tatoo's.:-)

Second OS X is proven to be a terrible Server. Sure it can handle small tasks effectively. and It's priced right, but handling for high loads Windows does a better, more reliable job. The guy who reviewed the G5 over at anadtech recently was comparing linux and OS X with Linux always coming out ahead.

It's that hybrid kernel slowing down thread creation. So if you keep a database and a webserver on the same machine(normal for Linux, BSD's, heck even OS X) you take a performance hit after so many connections at once. (ie minor slashdotting)

Not a very convincing article!

[NineNine]

• Linux is free
  
• Linux is getting more drivers every day
  
• Linux is slowly getting better
  

Wow. That's actually totally unconvincing. Actually, this article convinces me that Linux WILL be in trouble.

• $200 being too much for an OS (OSX or Windows) isn't very convincing. Much less if OEM. Besides, who says OS prices won't fall?
  
• Right now, OSX has -zero- driver problems (they do QA), and there are already tons of working OSX drivers out there. Of course, everything has a Windows driver. Linux is far behind.
  
• Yes, Linux is getting better every day. In 1/5 of the time, Apple developed an incredible, functional OS from the same base... something that Linux still hasn't been able to accomplish in more than 10 years. Who says that Apple and MS are going to stop improving? When will Linux actually catch up in terms of functionality? WILL Linux EVER catch up?
  

Re:Apple isn't a threat.

[graffix_jones]

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).

The article's author knows nothing about OS X

[argent]

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.

Um, dude, Mac OS X has a proprietary GUI... but it's ALSO running on an open source operating system. It runs the same amazing open source software as Linux, including the compiler and your X11 and Gnome and KDE desktop apps (if you want tham). It's got some shortcomings on the server, because of the overhead of Mach messages and threads, but that's not its focus. On the desktop it's got every advantage that Linux has, as well as having all the proprietary and commercial software that came along from the classic Mac OS.

And no matter what Linux does between now and 2007, no matter what new cool things are created for it, those things will also be options for Mac OS X.

And Mac OS X is well past questions like "can it replace Windows": the real debate now is "can Windows catch up".

Re:It's not a threat to Linux, but it is to Window

[rsheridan6]

It's a threat to Linux because quite a few Linux users have switched to Macs, and those are people who won't be contributing to Linux anymore. Case in point, Slashdot ran a story a few days ago about jwz's defection - he had written a mp3 jukebox, and more importantly, xscreensaver, which I've been using myself for 3 years or so. So those are now probably orphaned projects, because he will probably just use the software that comes with his Mac. Jwz's defection, by itself, is not that big of a deal, but if a lot of people switch, it could add up to a big deal.

Ye Gods, I hope so

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[temojen]

My iBook falls down under a heavy load copying files . I know this sounds like the well-worn anti-linux troll, but I frequently copy a DVD worth of small files to&from a USB drive, and the system becomes unresponsive during this (and I have 768MB RAM).

My RH 9 workstation does too, though. My Gentoo box has no problem with this whatsoever (mostly due to the 2.6 kernel, not anything gentoo specific).

How long do you keep using a computer anyway?

[argent]

No sense rushing if I'll have to buy new software anyway.

Let's see...

Apple has typically supported old hardware and operating systems for five years after a transition (68000-68020, 68k-PPC, Nubus-PCI, OS9-OSX, and hardware abandoned by OS X has generally been that far behind the curve). There's really no good reason for them to drop PPC software support this time, because they're using an OS that makes old platform support easy. There's less reason than ever for software vendors to drop the old hardware, with the single exception of game software, because by the time Leopard comes out they'll have had to become portable ... and there's an awful lot of recently purchased Powermac G5s that are still going to represent potential customers 5 years from now given the way Moore's Law has hit the wall in the last two years (remember, IBM didn't hit 3 GHz but Intel's speed improvement over the same period was even less).

And most companies are likely to provide "Intel-compatibility" upgrades fairly cheaply to avoid losing their customer base.

So if you buy a Mac now, it's going to be 7 years before Apple drops PPC, and at least 5 before your apps are unavailable for PPC... so what's the new software you're worried about having to buy?

More Linux users wearing rose colored glasses.

[TampaDeveloper]

Linux isn't going away because there is always going to be kids and misers in the world. But when I got busy with my job and with life, I had to simplify. That extra $100 to remove extra hassle from my life was well worth it.

Recently I went through the process of re-deciding what to buy. Linux is still the same old story. The only company that seems to champion Linux is IBM. That doesn't give me warm fuzzies. I almost bought a think pad until I realized that the T43 is not on the list of laptops that support Linux. The rest of them are only offered with low resolution LCDs. I spent quite a bit of time looking for a laptop that would run Linux flawlessly. But they ALL seem to have one problem or another. This one doesn't hibernate. That one has trouble with the video card. These don't have the right sound drivers. I bought a Dell about 5 years back on the premise that it would run Linux well. Well, somebody made a minor "tweak" between revs that ended my dream.

I got excited for a moment when I read the above article because it mentioned that HP has a new laptop which officially supports Linux. But alas, it was all smoke and mirrors. I looked at all the laptops offered by HP, but none are offered with Linux. So I typed "Ubuntu" in the search window and got no hits. Where is this corporate embrace everybody in the Linux community is always talking about? I don't see it. I see some also-ran's selling Linux on their 7.5lb brick-books, but nothing that tells me corporates are beginning to take Linux serious.

I think most technology companies see Linux as a hassle that they secretly wish would go away. Think I'm off base? Most people are perfectly satisfied with Windows. Companies consist of owners and employee. Since owners and employees are people, it stands to reason that most owners and employees are satisfied with Windows. If they are satisfied with Windows, that means they think Linux is a waste of time. If they think that, then they view anything they have to do to support it as additional work. Nobody likes additional work.

No, most corporations are just playing the game. They say, "Yeah yeah yeah, we like Linux." But when it comes time to put their money where there mouth is, the Linux support never seems to materialize, or its short lived if it does.

Meanwhile, I plunk down an extra few hundred and I get the best customer satisfaction in the industry, noticeably better service (Dell versus Apple), more durrable and reliable hardware (Go to CompUSA and do the flex test on the laptops. The PC laptops feel like they are made out of sponge. The motherboard is mounted to the casing. How durrable can they be? On the Apple side; even the iBooks are rigid as heck. Not only are they made of a thicker plastic, but they are LEXAN; Pretty much indestructable.), and an operating system that just works.

I run my Unix apps. I run my digital multitrack recording apps. I've got XCode and a whole host of other development IDEs to choose from. I've got Microsoft Office, in case I need to read one of the devil's files. In fact I've never found a problem domain in which there wasn't EXCELLENT software available for the Mac. And as a bonus, I don't have to buy the hardware to find out whether or not hibernate will work on it. If I buy a Mac, I know it will.

Re:More Linux users wearing rose colored glasses.

[Edmund Blackadder]

"Linux isn't going away because there is always going to be kids and misers in the world. "

I guess it is cool for apple people to repeat 5 year old MS FUD nowadays, but keep this in mind -- you'd better hope Linux and open source continue to live because the "OS that just works" you love so much is mostly copied from open source projects after Apple tried and could not for the life of them create a real multitasking OS.

Apple was damn lucky that the "kids and misers" that created BSD and the Mach microkernel were generous enough to offer their code under the unrestrictive BSD license, so Apple could finally offer their clients a modern OS. That was not very miserly of them was it?

BTW the reason why you canot get one of those HP Linux laptops is that they are not being released in the US.

OSX on Intel could actually HELP Linux.

[Yaztromo]

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.

Darwin

[tm2b]

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.

RMS, Perens et al turn in their non-graves

[FhnuZoag]

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.

"No threat?" How about a benefit?

[Lost Found]

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.

Do it yourself automobiles rule too

[ignatz72]

Oh, wait, it's pretty tricky to build a car even if you had ALL the parts and instructions in front of you. That's why I bought a Honda - they did all the work, I get to drive.

Totally separate markets segments here... Car nutz like to build cars, super geeks like to build their OS. I'm no dummy, but I've tried about 8 diff. flavors of Linux on my Intel box over the years, and when I was done, I felt like I'd been through the wash. The "freeness" of the OS was overshadowed by the ridiculous amount of work that I, an above average computer user, had to do to even get it running.

Linux will continue to have trouble on the desktop in the consumer market, because consumers consume, not compile. Apple:Honda as Linux:kit car, so yeah, Linux you're safe. Thhpt! :)