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

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.

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.

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: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.

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".

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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.