Slashdot Mirror
Desktop Linux on x86 - Adapt or Die
An anonymous reader writes "The recent announcement of Apple's upcoming x86 systems has gotten a lot of people thinking. Among the conjecture, there has been much thought given to how Linux will be affected by this move. The author of this article does not believe that Linux as a whole is threatened harmed by the 'Mactel' alliance, but does point out that his could mean major trouble for distros like Xandros and Linspire which are reliant on the desktop audience. These distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, which will soon be the primary x86 alternative to Windows XP not only because of OS X's dedicated and outspoken user base but because of its slick looks and ease of use."
But OTOH this may turn out to be a good thing by actually making Linux distributions concentrate more on making easy to use OSes.
diegoT
Ah, but for complex minds ... it is also a very complex OS!
First off, there was discussion about how OsX on x86 might affect Linux - here
Linux should be less worried. MS should be quaking in its' proverbial boots. Linux will remain because of its' use as a sever OS and the geek's premier OS. There might be a few people who make the switch from Linux to
OSX, but I don't believe there will be a large shift. There will be a lot more people leaving Windows for the stability and look of OSX. The price point will be on par with any other Intel machine, and Apple could see a large increase in marketshare.
And finally, a bit of a rant - WTF was the point of having the article spread across two pages? Keep it all on one - I don't want to have to click next for a 5+ paragraph article.
The author makes this huge deal about the rumored Apple shift to Linux, and then at the end decides to say that it won't make any real affect anyway. Make up your mind!
My MythTV HowTo
Maybe I'm just really stupid, but I still don't get why 'Mactel' is a threat to Linux in any way. Why is it even a threat to Linspire or Xandros? Why does your average desktop user care if they are using the x86 platform, or even know that they are using it? I think it is silly to say that two operating systems are 'competing' on a certain platform, because your average user doesn't care. What they do care about is how fast it is, what it can do, and how much it costs.
Switching to the Intel platform only seems to do one thing: Lower the price somewhat. It won't make it so you can run OS X on commodity hardware, it won't make it so your Windows apps magically run on OS X, and it won't do anything else. So, if we are just talking price, there is no way Apple will lower the price to compete with Linspire systems. IMHO, the Mac Mini did more damage to desktop Linux than the move to x86 will, because it is cheap and simple.
What is it that I am missing?
[page 1]
though they can do little to stop Microsoft from adapting Windows to x86 Macs they recognize the fact that OS X has a very dedicated following and Apple's computers will only be a better product now that they will have the ability to dual boot with Windows
[page 2]
Linux will no longer be the sole x86 alternative to Windows, it will have to compete with OS X for this spot, though this will never be an apples
Look, for all the naysaying going on, Linux keeps growing. There are several things missing, but these could be handled by the distros iff they would work together on these.
Admin is the big one. Also, some nice apps that work together would be cool.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Everyone in the press seems to be thinking that now, magically, Apple computers will be price-competitive with wintel computers, or that OSX will be compatible with most computers out there. I see the need to spin and "create" news, but there's no indication whatsoever that this will be the case.
Furthermore, some Apple honchos have stated that Mac OSX will _not_ be available for common computers.
"I think it would be a good idea!"
Gandhi, about Internet Security
Why do some people think advocacy has to mean 'become more like the other'?
I'm not convinced that everybody wants to pay a $150-300 license fee per CPU to run on all their 'desktop' systems.
I'm not even conviced that Apple is going to allow their OS software to run on non-Apple hardware (but haven't we argued that point to death?).
I am fairly certain that this 'issue' is just a new angle to bash linux and freenixes in general with. More of the same from the usual folks.
Until Apple releases commercially OS X for running on standard PCs this is not even a factor. Since I seriously doubt that Apple is going to do that any time soon why are people still even going down tis path. There are to many issues with supporting clone PCs for Apple to even want to get into the game at the time being. It is all about user experience and a crashing system because of a driver conflict or something similar leads to a bad user experience.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
OSX also has it's probelms it's not classic OS, and still has some old tim mac users grumbling about some of the loss of eas of use.
What will hurt Linux is what has been hurting Linux, a steep learning curve, all-too-common installation issues, and lack of some key software to replace favoriate apps on other platforms. All of those can be solved via open source development but they just aren't as sexy to code or work on.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Not until it can be purchased and installed on any x86 system, and it never will.
OS X is only an option if you own a Mac, as always has been and always will be.
Linux is and will be the primary alternative on PCs that shipped with Windows.
The Mac OS has always been an alternative to windows, just because Macs will now have an x86 CPU in place of the PowerPC doesn't make it a more popular alternative. You'll still have to buy a Mac.
See, you can buy cheap hardware and run linux. OSX wont replace linux for those who are conscious about what money they have and what the hardware will cost.
MS should be worried shitless that, one day, Apple will release OSX for all x86 desktops and put a big dent in MS's marketshare. Unless Apple signed some no-OS-compete agreement forever with MS, they have a lot more to worry about in the long run (think 10+ years).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Linux has had a decent head start on x86 to make its penetration into the desktop market, if the best thing going for it is Linspire AND they are worried about losing the desktop market then it's clear that they should have poured more time into that particular aspect of computing.
Personally, I don't see why you might want OSX on PC hardware as Apple is more of a platform company than anything else. The software and the hardware go hand-in-hand.
I don't think OSX will have any more penetration into the desktop market than Linux has had for one simple reason -- the desktop market is the noob market. Plain and simple. Noobs are too preconditioned to Windows right now.
"...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
Yeah beacuse BSD is for simple minds!
Many of us just quietly enjoy using these great apple products, & don't shout it from the mountain tops.
And I don't even mean from a purely "companies are evil" perspective. Apple keeps you in just as much a jail as does Microsoft. Ignorant users are still ignorant users.
Linux/Unix people are going to use the shell features of OSX. Non-Linux people aren't.
I personally use fluxbox, but I have all the eyecandy I care too -- when I want it. I'd rather have the screen repaint faster.
OS X on x86 is no different than OS X on PPC in that you HAVE to buy certain hardware to run OS X. It will NOT run on your current XP box, but Linux will. Therefore there isn't any threat of OS X running on special x86 hardware
Seems to me like you missed the point of technology...
diegoT
The fact that you're buying an Apple box with an Intel chip inside instead of an Apple box with an IBM chip inside is going to mean that all of a sudden OS X will be competing with Linux where it wasn't before. People use processors, not computers or operating systems.
Frankly, I see OS X and linux as more complimentary than anything. Almost all of the OS X "switchers" I've personally encountered in the last few years have been not desktop users, but UNIX-centered power users who found themselves suddenly very interested by the idea of being a machine that can be simple and effortless for day to day desktop activities yet mostly-seamlessly also run anything and everything that they have been doing on their UNIX boxes. Granted most of the people I talk to are computer-saavy, so I don't really have much of a handle on what the proverbial "end user" is doing, but the point is it's possible for things to turn out well for both OS X and Linux. They can mix very well.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Fanatical and shrill, maybe. Mac OS is only going to run on Apple PCs, whereas Linspire and others sell their OSs cheaply for low-cost computers.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I write this as a former Windows user, occasional Linux desktop user and new Mac user:
The reason I switched from Windows is that the features I wanted (better shell, nicer GUI, easier to use programs, better workspace, more scriptability and easier to organize folders) was already on the Mac.
Sure, Linux has some of these features. The problem, I've found is also an 'apparent' strength of other 'Nix systems: X, KDE, Gnome and a whole slew of Window Managers and DEs. I say apparent, because, frankly, with all the work that has gone into each DE and WM, Linux could have one (maybe) two really kick-ass desktop environments. Insead everything would work well together. And something has to be done with the library compatibility problems.
I only want some OSS programs. I don't really care about having an OSS (GLD' whatever) Operating System. I'll pay for the OS. Heck, I just bought a Mac and am really happy. I just like to have 'options'! Doesn't everyone?
However, the desktop is where Linux will die before it is even established. Apple will not drive a stake into the heart of Linux, but rather, the hordes of hackers and Taiwanese-run peripheral factories in China will kill Linux on the desktop. There are 3 scenarios. First, the hackers write a patch that will enable Mac OS X to run on conventional x86-based IBM PC clones. Second, the Taiwanese engineers will violate scores of American patents and build a cheap (possibly, $10.00) hardware plug-in card that will enable OS X to run on conventional IBM PC clones. The 3rd possibility is a combination of the first two.
An interesting side effect of these efforts will be taking marketshare from Windows XP and successors. In the server market, Linux has taken market share from UNIX instead of Windows. However, on the x86 desktop market, there is no 3rd OS to compete against MAC OS X. There are only 2 OSes: Windows and OS X on x86. They will compete head-on, against each other.
Although I would rather that Apple have picked another processor (e.g. ARM), I would be pleased to see Apple crush Windows on x86. Apple has a good chance of winning this matchup since the goodwill of open-source developers is on the side of Apple.
Apple's team: million-person army of open-source developers + freeBSD + most-consumer-friendly (i.e. idiot proof) OS called OS X
Microsoft's team: couple thousand paid but possibly disgruntled slaves (including) H-1Bs + consumer-unfriendly OS[1]. "It" is no contest. Apple wins by 70% marketshare.
side note
---------
1. Windows 98 requires daily reboots in order to be stable. Windows XP requires weekly reboots in order to be stable.
Or, is it that nothing is really going to change, save that Intel gets Apple's money instead of IBM???
They call us sheeple, I wonder why?
The games and the desktop apps! I run 2003 and find it reliable and usable. I recommend and support Linux for lots of backend stuff and production stuff. I think OS X may be pretty, but if it doesn't run all my apps and games, why would windows users switch? I think the x86 and ipod leading to an Apple desktop takeover is the same dream that apple enthusiasts have had in different forms forever. It won't happen until Apple decides to go the humble commodity route and compete in the low cost markets that Jobs has always looked down on.
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
[T]his could mean major trouble for distros like Xandros and Linspire which are reliant on the desktop audience
But more likely, Mac-on-Intel will have no impact on Xandros or Linspire. After all, the Mac platform exists today - and you don't see the Linspire folks all panicky about it.
Let's face it - those who use Linspire or Xandros do so because it is either (1) packaged with a bottom-tier PC, or (2) it's fun.
This is does not describe the Mac user. The Mac user wants a smooth, much-better-than-Windows experience... and is willing to pay for a quality PC to do so. The Mac user doesn't care about the chipset, as long as there is a significantly better user experience than that offered by Windows.
In the future, I doubt you're going to see any name-brand quality PCs with proprietary OSs at Walmart. These very low cost products fit the dirt-cheap niche. If they improve, they could compete with the Mac. If not, they can compete with Windows on price and experience, and they can compete with the Mac on price alone.
In a nutshell, the chipset is less important than the price and the user experience.
Linux, as we know it, is dead in the water.
There isn't going to be any bloody difference whether Apple uses Intels, AMDs, PPCs, SPARCS or Cyrix processors. The same restrictions still apply. No OEM can ever legally contemplate putting OS X on a normal white-box, desktop x86 machine, which is why Linux (and Windows) have gained the popularity they have in the desktop (and server) arena for many pruposes. You can take a copy of them and install them on pretty much anything. Every single one of these silly articles assumes that you'll be able to do the same thing with Mac OS X, because that's what is required to threaten Linux or Windows, x86 or no x86, certainly desktop-wise.
Here's the cluestick - you won't. Mac OS X is still playing to exactly the same audience as with their PPC hardware, because it depends on how easy it is for customers to get a computer running it. You still need a Mac computer. Apple are still going to end up with the same piss-poor supply and economies of scale to customers they've always had. They may get more Intel chips than PowerPC ones now, but they seem to have no clue that that's not where the bottleneck is.
Over the long term is seems, though, that marketshare controlled by Apple will grow with the move to x86 because now the usability of Apple's will increase greatly.
What the f**k does that mean? Supply and economies of scale - read about it. That's been Apple's problem throughout their history.
Can we have enough of this bollocks now please, because these people obviously haven't got the first clue about the dynamics or business models involved in this? I know this article was trying to defend Linux, but it told us absolutely nothing.
As a long-time Macintosh user, Apple's move to Intel chips has actually sparked my interest in Linux.
It's not yet entirely clear why Apple chose Intel. There is some reason to suspect Intel hardware will ease implementation of system-wide DRM capabilities. Time will tell.
The microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and '80s was about individuals controlling machines that had once been the exclusive domain of governments and big corporations. Now DRM, product activation, live updates and other technologies are being used to take back that control. Well, I'm not going back.
I don't doubt that the Linux desktop might seem crude in comparison to Mac OS X. But if Apple chose Intel to help put DRM everywhere, then I, for one, will be more than willing to go "rough it" with the free souls of the Linux world.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
As I see it Apple had a problem, there just wasn't a real reason for owners of current G4+ systems to upgrade. They were adequate for their needs. Same with the notebook users.
With a switch to the Intel platform Apple has provided a major reason to switch. Platform support. Either buy into the new hardware or face the possibility of being left behind - a possibility I suspect will be very much in force within a few years.
As a threat to Linux on the desktop? How could it be? Linux itself doesn't have a big enough share of the desktop to worry about. Windows already has all the ease of use that it needs and corporate pentration to keep its dominance. Where does Apple threaten anyone but current Power-Mac users?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Somehow I doubt OS X will be cheaper than MS Windows, and that many inexpensive PCs will come with it bundled. Linspire competes with Microsoft by price, not quality. No way OS X could replace it. It's on the opposite end of the price scale!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
After all of the "Is This the Death of Linux" articles after the OSX-x86 announcement someone actually puts "the Desktop" qualifier in the title. geez.
What is that? Desktop Linux for a cheap PC being that OS X will run on Expensive Mac Hardware. Theres no threat... the x86 means nothing cheap hardware is what makes the difference.
To think that most users who run Linux on their desktop are doing so only because they don't like Windows is to misunderstand desktop linux entirely.
I'll try to summarize the benefits desktop Linux has over other OSes, and why this is nonsense:
(1) Desktop Linux distros come with hundreds of quality desktop applications, installed and license-free, at no cost. Productivity applications, web browsers, FTP clients, e-mail/PIM programs, messengers, not to mention the rich GNU heritage of command-line tools, a variety of programming environments, etc. This is all installed and ready-to-use after the installation completes on your PC. Thousands more software packages are available in a few clicks via Synaptic/Red Carpet/Yast or whatever. Mac OS X and Windows simply _do not compare_ in this respect.
(Disclosure: It's true that Mac OS has some access to these apps via Apple's X11 and Fink/Darwinports, but you have to admit it's not the same as having these be a "real" part of your desktop.)
(2) Linux will run on a TON of hardware, including old hardware, which means you can use to "revitalize" existing machines and save money.
(3) Linux is always uttered in the same sentence with "open source" and more particularly "open source innovation." For people who want to be a part of the open source movement, Linux (or BSDs) is the natural choice. For people who want to be free of proprietary software, to even the slightest degree, will stick with Linux.
(4) Linux, as a kernel, is hyper-configurable. You can strip it down or compile everything in. Tweakers and power users like this idea.
(5) The "slick GUI" advantage of OS X will rapidly disappear over the next few years, as desktop linux developers make more progress with XOrg, composite, direct rendering, etc.
(6) Linux being used very often as a server, it's just as simple to install major server apps (Apache, Tomcat, mysql, vsftpd etc.) as other apps.
(7) The typical Linux environment is highly, highly scriptable.
Don't think desktop linux is dead. I actually believe that all these pundits are completely wrong. Open source desktop Linux developers will now unite to innovate more so than ever before. This move, if anything, will galvanize developers. Hell, it's already gotten me to get off my ass and start working on something new. I look forward to the future, and you should too.
could mean major trouble for distros like Xandros and Linspire which are reliant on the desktop audience. These distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, which will soon be the primary x86 alternative to Windows XP not only because of OS X's dedicated and outspoken user base but because of its slick looks and ease of use.
People don't switch from Windows XP to Linux because of its slick looks and ease of use. People switch to Linux because it's Free.
Anyway, I agree that these distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, but these distros are clearly not ready to take on Windows XP, either. Anyone who cares about slick looks and ease of use isn't going to switch to Linux in the first place.
Adapt or die? More like adapt or don't come to life in the first place.
People don't seem to understand that Apple has no intentions on selling their software standalone, or atleast they havn't announced this yet. This means that Macs will be virtually unchanged to the end user. Although it has other implications (such as the ability to run x86 Linux and Windows on Macs) this change is as insignificant to the Mac business model as would be changing the type of RAM or the video card. When you look at it from that perspective you suddenly realize that all of these claims about Linux dieing because of OS X are derived from misunderstanding and pure speculation.
I thought MacOS was still only going to run on Macs, not generic PCs. Am I missing something? Will I be able to run it on my PC now? If so I am very happy.
Right now everyone is worrying what this will do to Linux but I can put it in one word: Nothing. The reason? Apple is locking OS X into their computers.
Apple has said it themselves, OS X will not run on generic PC hardware. If someone is looking to switch OSes their choices will be the same as before. Linux and Windows will be the only two OSes that people will be able to run without buying a new computer. And if you're looking to buy a new computer, well, you already could buy a Mac.
I know some people will say "But now you can run Windows on Mac computers!" But that really wont make a difference. The general population will have no idea how to go about doing this, and the geeks that do wont cause a serious disruption. If the geeks want to install windows they either are going to do a triple boot with Linux or wouldn't be using Linux anyways (and if that wasn't enough, geeks really aren't that serious of a market force).
If Apple was to release OS X for generic hardware then Linux should definetly worry. But until that happens there is still going to be this division between Mac and non-Macs.
In the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available). Thus Macs made no dent in the Windows market.
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware or similar.
Thus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will still run. And they will be curious about OS X or tired of Windows malware.
And that's the possible threat to both Windows and Linux. These users will see how OS Xi compares to Windows XP/Longhorn and Linux, and choose OS Xi.
At least that's one possible scenario.
SteveM
As long as Mac OS X is locked to Apple hardware, it is not a true alternative to Windows and Linux (or *BSD for that matter) that happen to run on commodity hardware. Unless Apple will sell their X86 hardware at Dell prices, there will not be competition. Also, the crowd using free (as in speech) operating systems on their computers are not likely to use closed operating system, let alone closed hardware... Just a thought.
Can someone explain me once again what makes MacOS X running on Intel-based Apple hardware any more of a threat to Linux compared to MacOS X running on PPC-based Apple hardware?
...because it is FREE.
I hadn't heard that OSX x86 was going to be free.
What did I miss?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
By now, we've all pretty much accepted that linux still has the huge advantage of being free. If the /. editors could remove themselves from their rich country mindset for a second to understand this, they would stop posting these damn mactel stories because nobody cares any more.
Or, to put it another way, hypothetically, the mexican govt is considering replacing some IT infrastructure. Here are their options:
1. $300 hardware/$300 software - windows
2. $400 hardware/$200 software - mac
3. $300 hardware/$0 software - linux
*numbers fairly general
Or let's look at Brazil - they won't hardly talk to Microsoft because they won't pay for something that can be free. Are they going to turn their back on getting something for free and go back to shipping billions of dollars abroad??
"But OTOH this may turn out to be a good thing by actually making Linux distributions concentrate more on making easy to use OSes"
I do not understand, if MacOSX really has so much better of a GUI why not just copy it? It seems that would be fairly easy to do in Linux.
But having two dominant desktops has hurt linux on the desktop - all because of random historical incidents. That's just fact. You can scream choice all you want, but there's not even a standard toolkit, even though the low-level windowing system X11 is standard.
So now we have KDE that many of the big players are avoiding (probably because of the reliance on Trolltech's Qt), but with superior tech, and Gnome who has big player backing, but has blundered along with failed technologies such as Bonobo and a less than stellar toolkit - Gtk+.
Of course Linus, LSB, or anybody else with influence doesn't want to touch this white hot issue with a ten foot pole, so who knows if things will ever change.
Sometimes being on a closed platform has advantages.
I will hasten to add: "And the fact that for easy software installation, one is *always* tied to a particular vendor..." This makes matters worse.
Imagine this: You are told that the best video editing software for Linux is package ABC. You google it and find thousands of entries. You go for one and find that it will not even install because you're on an rpm based distro and the software is a .deb package!
You go for an rpm package you grab and realise that it's the wrong version. To make matters worse, it's for a different distro. What we need to do for Linux is to adopt autopackage http://autopackage.org/.No one will be encouraged by flames or the so called rpm hell. To me, it looks simple but for many, the decision to adopt autopackage is a non-starter.
To make matters worse, many editors and pundits do not even see autopackage as a viable option and Debian which I use (but is not perfect though good), dismissed it all together!
Mac OS X won't be an alternative os for pc. According to Apple it will run only on their hardware.
The author's a retard. So macintoshes are using intel processors. It won't make any difference. It'll just be a macintosh with an intel chip inside. Oh, and it'll have DRM down to the hardware. That's all.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
All I can say I don't want Linux anyway, all I want is MacOS X. Itunes in Windows was fast on this machine, amarok in Linux, well ;), also it uses 130MB+.
They just made me think twice about getting a 20" iMac, if it wasn't for this x86 shit I was more or less convinced, now I might wait and run this more or less Linux crap until then.
Thanks to OS X, the cost of Windows will drop.
.. if Apple's computer hardware sales starts lagging or failing to grow .. the board or stock price will apply pressure on Steve Jobs (or whoever is CEO) to do something. That something may well be to allow third party hardware to run Mac OS X, at first it may be a subtle "looking the other way". For example, the auto updates and other stuff wont transmit unique hardware id's to verify that the hardware is Apple made. etc.
Even if Mac OS doesn't allow itself to be run on "clone" x86 hardware. To microsoft the threat of it looms.
It goes like this, someday
Another move may be the licensing out of the ability to get a "Apple approved" logo for one's hardware. For example third parties such as Dell may be able to place "certified to run Mac OS" stickers on their PC's.
Furthermore, Apple may decide to reduce the price of OS X (this move may be independent of them allowing third parties to seel hardware that Mac OS X can run on).
So all these forces will cause Microsoft to have to reduce the price of windows, or to bundle apps such as Office etc. with it.
It sucks that a commercial operating systems costs so much money nowadays (and yes I am including the $119 cost of OS X in there).
The killer hardware FOR Linux may be be the Sony Playstation 3 which is supported by Linux, as was announced a few weeks ago and a few days after the Apple move to Intel.
My guess is that Apple was upset by the ppc producers' support of Linux and that that was a main motivation, perhaps even greater than the alleged roadmap issues.
If ppc producers can sell ten times more CPUs through Playstation 3s (and Microsoft's XBox 360, IIRC) than than only through Apple labeled goods, why not?
Lets not forget these factors,
Mac will still be a commercially available commodity
Linux will still win out on price, along with available tools and applications, straight out of the gate
back in the day we didnt have no old school
1. Macs are price competitive with win/intel boxes right now. Price out a dell with similar specs to a given class of mac. The mac tends to be a bit cheaper. Don't forget you have to include all the software on the dell too. This is what typically causes the prices to be comparable. XServes are especially competitive. Actually the same goes for linux distros. Check out the price on RH Workstation these days and look at the quality of the software avialable.
2. Macs on intel are going to be no different than macs on powerpc. Except faster. The internals of the mac are already almost completely a pc anyway. Forget about legally loading OS X on your hand assembled opteron box. Apple will never do it. So for someone who needs unix on a cheap box linux will continue to be preferred.
3. Mac's are already kicking Linux ass on the desktop. Let's face it. KDE/Gnome/X11 is ok at best. All these UI's are chasing the wrong horse. Windows is not where it's at anymore. If you want to see linux desktop share increase then they will need to emulate OS X. Both look/feel, ease of use, and application installation. Right now it's not even close.
4. There are far more new mac users than old. The bitching and moaning about how great classic OS 7-9 is by a very small group. They are flat out wrong anyway. I still don't know that the point of the Chooser is. And don't get me started about the need to manually allocate memory for your programs. Classic is a vast improvement over DOS and Win3.1. It sucks compared to OS X.
And they never will. First you've got the isolated CLI users, happily coding support for their obscure hardware, believing that it somehow improves the greater good. Then you've got the various desktop evironment makers, none of whom understand that "less is more." That's why KDE's default menu is cluttered with a million apps that 90% of their audience will never use, why GNOME's is hardly better and why even Xfce is slower than Explorer. They're so busy copying Windows or failing at copying OS X, they don't even realize what they've created: a monstrous conglomerate of ill fitting software and hardware that rarely "just works."
Look at OS X. Take the Dock for example. Users routinely run only a handful of applications, so why clutter the screen with a lengthy Start/K/GNOME menu? The Xfce guys realized this, though OS X's drag-and-drop support is still several months away (I am on the Xfce developer mailing list). But Xfce still has way too many stupid options in its control panels.
So we've got X.org. X is dead... long live X! Look what's coming: hardware alpha blending, dynamic desktop backgrounds wow! But when will I be able to install by dragging it to the "applications" folder? Or need no install at all? When will X.org not require the user to edit a text file to configure it? Probably never, because linux users just don't care.
You Linux guys just adapt to poor ways and live with it. You're too conservative. You need to rout out all of the shit making up a typical "desktop" linux system. Get rid of the fucking start menus, omit unnecessary system options. Don't give the user forty ways of configuring low-power responses if only four of them are sensible. Hell make it automatic if that gets the job done. The same with everything else. Desktop users don't want power, they want simplicity. They don't want wizards or perfect documentation, they want absence and transparency. Good interfaces don't need documentation.
How many of you reading this, when sending an email in Thunderbird actually changed the "from" field? Maybe ten out two hundred; everyone else just keeps it the same, week after week. So why the fuck is that option there? Why isn't it there in Apple's Mail? Because you Linux dimwits are obsessed, in the traditional American fashion, of attempting to satisfy 100% of users 100% of the time, ignoring the fact that those ten folks who change their "from" fields could just alter their own behavior and get on with honest emails.
O'Reilly publishing its "learning blah" books. You know, it'd be great if you didn't need a $40-70 book to explain it to you.
I used to love linux, but I gave that up for a Mac. No more "ps -ax," no more "su; chmod 755." And like most of us linux-turned-mac users, I realized there's more to life than trying to fix my sound support or looking up the right vi command sequence. But none of you linux users have. And so the Linux "desktop" community will stumble its way into the future, twenty paths, all wrong, while in another world Apple gets it right.
jc - mnemonic
P.S. If there's one thing that taught me a lot about decent GUI design, it's learning how to format a document. I mean choosing fonts, designing headings and learning how to write. Tables never need borders, text doesn't usually need colors. By just realizing that to communicate well, one must communicate less, I realized how stupid Windows, KDE and GNOME all are.
No DRM No "Trusted" computing. Linux, on old machines if need, be and our own UUCP network when we can no longer participate in the Internet. The only thing that will stop our freedom is if it is made illegal.
If you feel the same way as I and the Parent, reply and step up.
Linux encapsulates the open source philosophy of freedom. The freedom as in the freedom of information and knowledge. The great thing about Linux is you actually learn how an OS works. You learn more about your computer. There is no man behind the curtain doing everything for you. You have complete control over your computer, as far as software goes. If knowledge is power than Linux users are more powerful.
I understand many simply don't have the time to run/configure Linux. Or anyway that's what they claim. However Linux distros are getting easier to install.
Anyway I there is something wrong in the attitude of wanting to remove personal reponsibility and transfering it to another power. This goes against freedom. This is what you do when you run closed-source operating systems. You take away some of your freedom for personal convenience.
Look at our dependency on machines. We need machines for everything nowadays. Yet how many of us know how these machines work? How many of us can fix them or maintaim them? As this gap grows the elite will become those who have the knowledge on how these machines work. Or the elite will keep those who do know under their grasp. Linux in its philosophy is a different point of view. We can all know!
Yes I know time is money! All of us don't have the time ect. But unless your job is your passion then you just work to survive. Should a life be so decreased in value that all you are is some paycheck. We shouldn't become our jobs. You should be defined by what you love and what you want to do. Some of us aren't as lucky as others and can't get paid for what we love. But we will never allow our jobs to define our souls.
What this acutally means is that there will be another mainstream Unix based operating system running on X86 hardware. This just means that porting software back and forth between OS X and X86 Linux will be easier than before, and therefore a more attractive option. Porting between Windows and OS X/Linux/BSD would require much more work as the underlying structure of the operating system and APIs are completely incompatible. This could potentially create more synergy and cross development between OS X, Linux, and BSD while leaving Windows left in the cold. I see no potential harm from an x86 OS X to Linux. Microsoft, however, is left as only one of several x86 operating systems, and they just happen to be the only one which is completely incompatible with everything else available. Not a good situation to be in. What's more, OS X cannot be written off as easily or burried in FUD. It can't be labeled a hobby OS, nor can they drum up fears of it forking. Given the amazing ease of use, the argument that it will cost more because of retraining expenses are just silly. Most important, there is a company behind it which every tom, dick, and harry has heard of even if they haven't ever touched a computer in their lives. This move is a threat to Windows, not to Linux.
OS X will not be greater a threat to Linspire or Xandros or the like than it already is, because OS X will never be able to (officially) run on the same machines that Linspire and Xandros run on: Generic x86 machines. And what does that mean for the market?
Well, if you wanna run OS X and you don't already have a Mac, you'll have to buy a Mac. Just like today. If people wanted to run OS X instead of their favorite Linux desktop distro, they would have already bought a Mac. Since they haven't, that's your proof right there that nothing major is going to change.
I'm sure a few (including me) will try to reach triple-boot nirvana after the Intel-based Macs come out, but not most users.
This doesn't fundamentally change anything for the average Linux desktop user.
Steve
I don't see how Mac could be a threat. It seem they don't want it to run on "standard" Windows hardware, so it's not like people can give it try as easy as they can try Linux.
Why they just don't all take a breath and think that the Mac platform will remain the Mac platform? Switching processor doesn't imply anything for the users, nor it changes anything in Apple strategy/marketing policies. Mac OS X will still run on Apple computers only. If Apple, for absurd, was switching to ARM processors would Palm OS be doomed?
When Apple switches to Intel, it'll likely become practical for Linspire and Xandros to make their distributions work on Apple hardware, since it'll be Linux/x86 (which they already support) whereas now they would have to maintain and test a completely separate set of binaries. Their market just got a little bigger.
The same holds true for ISVs. It's a huge pain to have to maintain separate binaries for Linux/PPC; for most proprietary software makers, this type of thing falls below the cut line. However, it's a constant source of irritation, because there are enough Linux/PPC users out there (especially Linux on iBook/PowerBook) that it is a tough call. Once Apple makes the switch to Intel, a single binary should be able to work on Apple hardware as well as cheap beige boxes.
Rob
Apple said 10.5 will not be out till late 2006 or early 2007. that's almost 2 years away. that OS will come out while Apple is roughly half way into the switch to Intel. Jobs said in the keynote: first machines around mid 2006, last ones by mid 2007 or the end of 2007 maybe.
so if the OS comes out while Apple's product line is still half PPC the next OS will totally support PPC AND Intel. then another 2 years or so till 10.6 that should still have PPC support in it (since some machines will be about 1 year since they went intel). if you figure when PPC will really not be supported, the machines will be very old by then.
then at some point even if the new OS was supported, you machine will be slow or something. 10.4 is installing fine on 4 or 5+ year old machines, but i don't know how much more those machines will support.
The one issue that needs to be looked at is support of new hardware. Why do people run M$ or Apple? It works out of the box 99.999% of the time. I bought a new Inspiron laptop in Jan, I installed Fedora 4 2 days ago, guess what... That wireless card that is supported? Nope, needs kernel modules to run. My screen? Wrong resolutions, can't get it running in 1280x800. No 3d out of the can. Issue after issue that took me a whole 25-30 min to fix, but if I was a normal user? I would have booted XP back up so I could get online and forgot about my little experiment with Linux. If the "desktop" is where some distros want to go, they need to work on supporting the hardware of the desktop. Who cares that you support a 10 year old SCSI adapter? Who is running it? No one.
I have been using Linux for ~7 years and I have to say, for some of the projects I work on (Multi-Media,Video capture/editing), I would switch to OSX in a heartbeat. But the 3 things that have kept me away from Apple in the past for the present and in the future are price, price an price. Even if Apple decided to let people install OSX on generic X86 machines (which they have stated they aren't going to do) I could not bring myself to pay for a OS and then every time they release an upgrade to the OS pay full price AGAIN!!.. Apple has always done this and probably always will and that is why they will always be second to Linux, IMHO anyway.
"It's not that I don't understand what your going through. Its that I just don't care"
at no time has it been said that the GM of MACOSX on Intel will run on standard WinTel hardware!!! IMHO Apple will have a method that stops MACOSX running on joe-bloggs brand PC. Bah! there will be NO free lunch!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Some people run Linux because it's cheap and Unix, but could care less about source code.
Some people run Linux because of GNU philosophy.
Some people run Linux because they get the source.
Some people don't even care about marketshare (a lot of old schoolers).
But many people want Linux to make a dent in the windows desktop monopoly, and trying to sell a "tinkerer source code philosophy" will never accomplish that.
Decent management would reduce developer redundancy. But with the whole anti-establishment attitudes of most Linux developers, I doubt that will ever happen. I don't mean to troll, but I can't see Linux advancing much when they keep re-treading beaten paths, sometimes forward but more often to the side.
While it wont 'kill' anything, this whole thing may end up effectively pushing all the free unix variants back into the server room.
No linux distribution ( or other unix-like OS's ) would be able win a marketing battle with apple over the 'average joe'.
That is unless some heavyweight like IBM starts marketing their own flavor to the unwashed non techincal masses.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If Apple ever releases a generic OS X, or only winks at people who hack Mac OS X86 so it runs on clones, then desktop Linux is dead as a coffin-nail.
If Apple locks Mac OS X into Apple hardware and takes that lock-in seriously (both legally and technically), then Mac OS X86 will only help desktop Linux, especially once someone ports the FreeBSD Linux emulation layer to OS X.
That's the bottom line. Technically, Mac OS X as a desktop is so far ahead of any other UNIX based system that it's got no competition. But if you have to keep paying the Mac Tax to get it, it's only going to increase the interest in other desktop UNIXes.
Opendarwin is free.
Based on Debian Sarge and KDE.
Features: GUI-managed home folder encryption, VPN, Wifi, extensive Windows domain support, user-switching, Firefox configured with plugins, and CD ripping / DVD burning integrated into Xandros File Manager.
My main caveats for you are that Xandros isn't the best at notebook power management... and it doesn't run on PPC. However they've made the above features phenomenally well-integrated. I have burned a large number of DVD images from both iMovie and Kino with no problems.
I recently bought an iBook myself. I couldn't think of a Linux that could handle a notebook as well as OS X. My desktops remain Xandros.
Freedom is one thing I care for. I care about the work of bright and altruist people, especially if it's GPL-ed. I tend to agree on most stuff they come up with (and I have to admit I take much longer in getting the brilliancy).
By that, I agree with the GUI concepts as developed by MIT and enhanced by numerous others. If I select a word I expect it to be in the copy buffer. If my pointer hovers over a window I expect it to focus on that window and to keep the window where it is.
I dislike Windows' way of raising windows to get input focus. I don't to type CTRL-C to copy a selection in the copy buffer. I also don't care much for the fact that MacOS actually invented APPLE-C, APPLE-V etc... I also find Apple's Finder pathetic.
I actually like lots of stuff from X11 R4-R6! But spare me pedantic remarks on xBSD. I like the GNOME desktop better than KDE and twm. I'm not into fashion statements, I want a GUI like most Linux distros deliver because I'm more productive that way.
Of course I'll do parts of my job on MacOS-X but I'll use a Linux distro to be productive. So no, I'll not change and very few others will if you ask me.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Maybe I missed it the first time around, but did Apple actually explicitly state that they would use x86 chips? I was under the impression that they would have their own special chip design from Intel...
No distro is ready to take on OS X, on x86 or any other platform. The day OS X came out Linux GUI developers should have instantly shifted focus to being as much like the Mac as possible rather than as much like Windows as possible.
The greatest failing of both GNOME and KDE desktops is that they try too much to be like Windows. I used Linux as my desktop exclusively for 5 years, and every time GNOME or KDE came out with a new release I would give it a try. I've used almost every WM as my desktop in that period and the only one was not a pain in the ass to use was WindowMaker. WindowMaker was based on NeXT, and Mac OS X is the evolution of NeXT. This is not brain surgury. It's disappointing that there hasn't been a fork of WindowMaker to create an Aqua enviornment on Linux.
There's only one company on earth that has created a successful UNIX based desktop system. I think that every Linux developer should sit up and take notice of that fact.
Apple sells expensive machines. They'll always be more expensive than a Lindows box. Two different market segments. Linux is much more adaptable too. I expect there will be solid state 'internet devices' that run Linux and sell for around $100 in the next few years. Will be fine for Mom/Grandma users and anyplace you just want an inexpensive connection to the web (iPotty).
I drank what? -- Socrates
You may be looking at PC prices from several years ago.
$550 and $299 would be competitive.
Deleted
On your desktop PC.
It is still not a PC operating system. Absolutely nothing has changed.
This is a non issue.
Deleted
Apple has already annouced they are tying the OS to their hardware. Maybe because Intel higher production the per unit cost will be somewhat lower but even so most us who don't use Apple hardware aren't suddenly going to discover a reason to buy it.
If anything its going to have kind of a starnge effect on Apple users. My father is one of them and he's always been quite proud about the superiour PPC chip and generally exclusiveness of the Apple hardware, now he's going to be running OSX on still pretty good hardware but he'll know at its root its just an x86 core.
Maybe this won't effect most of you (I'd be more then happy to use it on the x86, but only on my existing hardware) but my father isn't the only one with a commitment based on this kind of hardware based pride, this will certainly be a blow to peaple like him.
Quack, quack.
$1299 for an iMac...
A more powerful Dell is $400.
Dimension 3000
So you can get 3 Dells for the price of the Mac.
I'd hardly call the Mac "price competitive"
Use 10.4 -- cp and friends are all now HFS+ aware.
The rest of the trollish message is not worth responding to... I can't get my most importat apps (the MS and Adobe bunch) to run under this OS -- COME ON!
as far as new-from-windows users or "switchers" in the home universe, Mac is a no brainer, securety, ease of use, pay for the new system, plug it in and you are doneIn the enterprse is where linux needs to focus, for cost consious companies, linux in the server room is a no brainer, as for the desktop, it can be made to work just like windows so there will be no more learning curve than the 2000->xp switch, the only real caviots are extream access reliance and the classic chicken and the egg thing, need for commercial software like Accountedge, adobe *CS and yes, even MS office.
thus the only problem is custom apps, it takes time to re-weite the code...enter WINE and vwala!
AFAIK, it's Apple is simply switching to Intel processors, NOT the entire x86 platform. They will still be building their own proprietary system. An OSX that runs on Apple proprietary hardware with an Intel processor has ZERO chance of running on an x86 PC with an Intel processor, barring extreme modding. Take a few hardware courses. This stuff doesn't happen magically. It is very, very specific.
Producing an interface that is both easy to use and powerful is not a job for dumb people. On the contrary, achieving simplicity while retaining flexibility usually requires very smart people indeed.
Equally, a smart person who wants to get something down rather than just play around is always going to choose a simple-but-effective interface that's efficient over a super-l337, infinitely-customisable, but ultimately more time-consuming and difficult one.
Consider a programming analogy: suppose two developers write code that ultimately achieves the same thing. Say one of them writes 200 lines of intricate technical detail, taking advantage of advanced features offered by the programming language, while the other writes 20 lines using nothing but the most basic language constructs. Which of these is the smart programmer?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
1. Apple hardware is not cost-competitive! I can buy an off-the-shelf Dell system for $349. Point to one Apple system that costs that little! /. and I never believed that they would give up what little advantage they have by allowing their OS to run on just any x86 system without some control. C'mon, people, they are hardware and software manufacturers; they won't just allow anything/anyone run their OS!
2. Apple's desktop interface is NOT the be-all, end-all that everybody says it is. It is not as stable as standard Linux KDE systems that I use on a routine basis. I spend time on school systems running standard macs running OSX and I tell you, it ain't! It ain't even as stable as winXP, and winXP ain't as stable as Linux running KDE!
3. Apple is NOT going to let their OS run on just any X86 configuration. The rumors are already rife on
So, dream on! This may promote a lot more *BSD popularity, but it isn't a Linux killer and it probably won't be a Windows killer! It is more likely just a way to allow Apple to use Intel's/AMD's superiority in processor design to keep running state-of-the-art processor speeds; something IBM has failed to provide in their current processor!
Hey I'm a Mac user since 1984, a Mac developer since not all that long after, and a fairly rabid Mac fan, and not particularly a Linux fan (I've developed on Linux and enjoyed it, but the UI is just not at the same level). And I'm pretty sure "Mactel" won't affect Linux at all. It won't even affect Windows at all. I think that Apple's current market-share growth momentum will continue for a while, and will take away a few points from MS. I think that the switch to Intel is just a necessary step in order for Apple to stay competitive in the laptop market and continue their current growth. That's all!
...there's the oft touted quote from one of Apple's head architecture honchos that there wouldn't be anything stopping you from running windows on your x86 mac, plus, the dev kits are 100% pc compatible. To keep OSX from running on your beige dell they'll probably be using the TCA features of Intel's next-gen chips.
I am NaN
The only trouble that could arise is that you might need to alter your hardware. If Apple has a patent on certain hardware features, then you would be in trouble if you attempted to buy a patent-infringing piece of hardware.
However, in the case of software, there is no such problem. Mac OS-X is the GUI running on top of freeBSD, which is free.
Everyday theres another one of these stories... WHY? After I've thought about this for a while, it makes no sense for anybody to worry one way or the other. The reason I say this is because a Mac will still be a Mac and a beige box will still be a beige box after the arch switch.
Macs will still be priced much higher than the average beige PC. OS X will still (officially) be locked down to Macs. Those are the two things that could effect Linux. Even then, I don't think either of those things happening will hurt much because grandma is still going to buy a Mac and little teen geek is still probably going to buy a beige box with Linux.
So could we please stop with these stories that are so anxious to see Linux take a hit.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
they cant even get cut/paste to work like does on linux.
Mac and Linux have marketshares that are comparable, i.e., a tiny fraction of the market. OS X on Intel will only be available on Apple hardware. Linux is essentially free and runs on just about any Intel hardware. The cost of moving to a Mac and OS X is at least several gundred dollars. If Linux developers can't produce a free desktop that can compete with something costing hundreds of dollars, then they deserve to lose.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
PC is not a platform, it is a use. Macs can be used as a Personal Computer quite easily, and many have been for years.
Luke-Jr
Apple machines will still be Apple machines. They will still look different (Apple isn't going to start using Lian-Li cases all of a sudden people), the OS is still different, and your typical user is still going to think that all their friends use Windows, so they should too.
Apple machines will not suddenly get any cheaper. In fact the rumor mills speculated that Apple could buy PPC chips for LESS than Intel chips at the volume they purchase. Whether this is true or not, Apple will certainly have R&D costs involved with the hardware switch which will be amortized across the price of the individual machines sold.
I personally expect Apple machines to hit a pretty close price mark to where they are now, they will just have slightly different motherboards (but still Apple specific, even if they can load other OS's 'easier'), and a different CPU.
The major draw is still the OS. The OS that is slick looking, pretty darn easy to use, and has a Unix core that is pretty powerful. It comes with pretty nice Digital Photo management, Music Jukebox, Movie Editing & DVD Authoring with HD capabilities, music creation software, system wide integrated services like spell check, search, copy/paste, dictionary, etc., etc., etc.
People looking to switch that want the cheapest possible solution will still buy a Linspire machine. People who have heard of Macs, know Mac users, and have been curious will pay a bit more to get these machines.
The Intel switch while significant for future speed increases, concerns over vector processing and endian issues, and for developer support, is pretty much going to be mostly a non-issue.
The biggest issue is the rumored lack of Classic support, even in Rosetta, and the answer to that is: OS 9 has been dead for 5 years, update you friggen software if you want to update your Machine/OS. If you need to use ancient software, run it on an ancient machine it was designed for!
This is not a new concept, when the PCI based Macs came out, many studios used Nubus Macs for years with older Protools/SDII systems, as they liked the platform, it did what they needed, and those machine ran practically forever. They realized that when a new software came along that they needed they would either put another machine along side it to run the new, or throw the old software out with the machine as it was antiquated. I have seen some of those systems still in use today!
Shawn's Tech Articles
Steve could destroy Microsoft with the following simple words directed to his developers: "Make OS X totally X86 compatible for all machines on the market." MS would last two years and MS stock would be in the penny range.
G
I'm not understanding why OS X is a "threat." Apple computers will still run OS X, and Dell, et al will still ship Win XP install. The Mac platform is simply undergoing some small tweaks under the hood, not radically changing into some mass-produced Dell/HP-like garbage. You still won't be able to buy Mac parts and BYO from Newegg.
Do ya feel lucky punk?
Well do ya?
the fact is: OSX has to move to x86, to compete with the distro's!
.. OSX going to x86 is a retaliatory shot across the bows of Linux...
.. Knoppix and MEPIS are proving this, well and truly.
.. some would say easier, given how easy it is to keep software up to date on such systems (hint: easier than under OSX, yo!)
in case you didn't know this, Linux runs on (existing) Mac hardware just as well as it does on x86 hardware
Its OSX which must compete with Linux, not the other way around. The 'ease of use' myth is about 2 years past due
They're both 'as easy to use' as OSX is
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The machine you linked to appears to come with an entry-level 32-bit processor, only 256MB of RAM, only a 15" screen and naff integrated graphics, WinXP Home, almost no warranty, and those are the good bits. Are you really claiming that's better than a $1,299 iMac? You must have been reading a different page to me, then! Apple's figures show that particular iMac annihilating a much better spec'd Dell box in their Halo FPS benchmarks; that Dell box normally starts at $1,148 BTW.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I suspect it's just another opportunity for Linux to grow into a slightly different market.
I don't think it will be long now before Apple dumps Mach and starts shipping OS X with the Linux kernel.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Let's take a more close view and compare it with the $1299 iMac
OS: you should not compare XP Home with OS X, so to be fair, go for Professional: +$99
Memory: iMac has 512MB, so we give it also to the Dell: +$60
Harddrive: iMac comes with 160GB, for the Dell: +90
Drive: iMac comes with a Combo-Drive, Dell: +$89
Monitor: iMac comes with a 17'' LCD, Dell: +$229
Add this up, and the Dell comes now for $965. I didn't see any WLAN and FireWire options for Dell. It is worth ssomething around $50. With OS X comes a lot of software included, which you would have to get somewhere else, if you bought a Dell.
All in all: to state, you could buy 3 Dells for one Mac is just ridiculous. Even if the Dell still would have some better performance, if you want to have similar features, the prices are not too different.
and will have no problem finding its way onto many casual users desktops.
You think so. Well consider this
How many years has it taken for Linux distros to reach a point where they can install flawlessly on every desktop PC variation out there? Well, we're still waiting on that one. They are very good now, but still screw up on things as basic as sound card support.
If Apple really wanted to reach out more to the unwashed mases, then what would make more sense ( I think ) would be for Apple to license VMware. To engineer a version of OSXi that runs flawlessly inside a modified version of VMware. Then to package them together as one product, and sell that. Hey presto
Do you have some kind of mental retardation? That POS dell isn't even close.
It has half the RAM of the iMac
A Smaller display
1/4 the HD
comes with a POS CD player compared to the iMac Combo Drive
No speakers
No Firewire
No system software
POS XP home
No Wireless Card
Pathetic Warranty
POS integrated Video compared to the iMac's 128MB Radeon 9600
You seriously think the extra 1Ghz P4 comes even close to beating the G5 in the iMac? Especially being crippled by the rest of the system?
By the time you upgrade it to be feature comparative it will probably be MORE expensive than the iMac. And still be a piece of shit.
Desktop Linux has had and will continue to have a big impact on the corporate/technical workstation. Since OS X doesn't exist in that space whatsoever, this entire discussion is a non-starter.
to the front page of slashdot!
umm, i disagree. i can't comment on the unix/osx (non)integration issue, but as far as the GUI is concerned, from 10.3 "panther" and beyond, most of the GUI complains you make are incorrect-- and i've only been regularly using and owning macs for the last 2 years, and you say you have 14 years' experience?
1. windows miniturized to the dock always have a little icon in the corner of the parent program, even if it is a finder window. i believe this was in puma and jaguar, and i know it's in panther and tiger.
2. when you change the window options, they DO retain their setting, in fact, much better than in winxp. they remember last size, last position, background color/image, icon size, sorting options, etc. you can either set it to "All Windows" or "This Window". this has been a part of osx since 10.2 "jaguar" at least.
3. i don't know what you mean by "counterintuitive", but i believe you have your head up your ass. when i first used osx, i was a highly experienced windows user and beta tester. immediately i was taken aback when i saw how remarkably well everything was orgainzed, laid out, interconnected, and, most notably, well designed, simple, and highly functional and reliable. everything is where it should be (99% of the time compared to the -244% in any M$ app), and does what it says it does. it does it well, powerfully, and works very simmply and in plain language with tons of help and support. help and support in linux/unix involves going to a command prompt and having to memorize many key sequences to operate the text-only interface. when you need help (esp. when you're a computer idiot and are freaking out at some new dialog box), the last thing you need to have to do is go through a bunch of complicated steps in a command-line in order to get the horribly written (and often non-existant) help files. and hello? we live in the 21-st centrury, and we have GUIs. wake up and live in the now. and if you say that there's some things you can't do in the GUI, that's because the UBER-geeks (no disrespect) who dev linux don't give a shit about usability for the novice or intermediate user.
so, yeah, you're wrong. really wrong. not only that, but about 5 years out-of-date (like your software). and when you complain about software, do it in the right year/decade/millenium.
dumbass.
my favorite part is
"There is no decent GUI for the UNIX part of this hybrid OS"
because we all know you can't install X on top of Darwin...
You're fighting assumptions here. There seem to be a lot of people out there who figure that Apple is just being coy, and that eventually they'll sell a version of OS X that will run on non-Apple hardware, despite the fact that such a plan would be rife with pitfalls for Apple.
When I see comments that confuse what Apple has actually stated with what wild-eyed pundits have said, I just smile and nod.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I generally find and turn off whatever "slick looks" my OS/window manager has on by default.
I need functionality and speed way more than fancy drop shadows and animated thingys all over the place.
I thought OSXi only ran on Intel based Macs and not the garden variety type X86 PC clones? Is Apple going to allow OSXi to run on el cheapo $300USD PC systems like Linspire and Xandros run on? Wasn't there a Mactel lockout chip or something that prevents OSXi from running on anything other than a genuine Intel based Macintosh?
Move along, nothing to see here. Just the typical troll being accepted as a story by Slashdot editors, yet again, with no evidence or facts to back up any words of it.
Linux has far passed OSX and MacOS in marketshare, many PC users dual-boot Windows and Linux. If Mactel runs OSXi, chances are Linux can be modified to run on Mactel systems too.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I rather think it will become positive for Linux, since it opens a new market and revenuestream for Linux companies. Transgamer and CodeWeavers will get a whole new market, increasing their revenue and making more money available to improve their products. Both on Mac and Linux.
What this really does is allow a practical 3-OS box. I just don't know if my next system will run OS-X native and Linux and Windows in Virtual PC, or Linux native and run OS-X and Windows in VMWare. Almost certainly it will be an Apple as their HW will be needed to do this.
What is pathetic about what you are replying to is:
1) The clown has probably made similar idiotic posts all over the Net
2) Someone like you has called them on the BS
3) The clown will continue to make the same idotic posts in the future
It is fucking sad to see such people who desperately need to cling on to "teh peecee is teh cheapest" garbage.
"Equally, a smart person who wants to get something down rather than just play around is always going to choose a simple-but-effective interface that's efficient over a super-l337, infinitely-customisable, but ultimately more time-consuming and difficult one."
All together now. KDE verses GNOME! And don't give me that look because you all were thinking the same thing.
Even if someone hacks OS/X to run on non-Apple hardware, it won't have much of an effect, because you can bet that OS/X will not run well on non-Apple hardware. And having an OS that runs well is the whole point of running OS/X -- if people want a broken OS with missing-driver hell, they already have Windows installed for that.
I guess it might become problematic for Linux if Apple started to take over the computer hardware market and the majority of PCs sold were Apples with OS/X pre-installed... but I'll believe that when I see it happen.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"(Disclosure: It's true that Mac OS has some access to these apps via Apple's X11 and Fink/Darwinports, but you have to admit it's not the same as having these be a "real" part of your desktop.)"
Nonsense, these apps run as well on Mac OS X as they do under Linux, their user interface is equally good or bad. What is more relevant is that Mac OS X offers a high quality set apps with excellent user interfaces. Many essentially free as they are bundled with the computer. Many also rendering some of that "Linux" software you refer to as redundant.
How is pointing out that some OSS app looks the same, for good or bad, under Linux as Mac OS X flamebait? Or was pointing out that the bundled Mac OS X browsing, email, cd-burning, MP3 playing, etc software have better user interfaces, negating the importance of competing OSS apps, the flamebait? Just curious.
Linux needs some desktop competition. No, Microsoft doesn't provide it - I mean they (the distros) need a solid, secure alternative to M$ competitor to get them to focus on what is important. All those different flavors are a function of the English garden development approach, which has done wonders as far as available software, but someone needs to focus on making desktop management real easy, and I don't mean one distro - I mean there needs to be a package management framework that either encompasses or extinguishes the older, less functional stuff like RPM.
If you want to conquer, and I know you do, get thee a system for Linux that will bring me back after five years of ports on FreeBSD, then you'll have something. Mactel might be the catalyst to make this happen.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Somehow I don't think we'll ever see Mac OS X on a $399 PC at Walmart. I can't see how this is in anyway a threat to Linux...
It took me more time to format and write this comment than it took me to find this:
:)
Toshiba Satellite
for $999 (the price of the cheapest 12" ibook)
you get:
RAM: 512MB on board and one free slot,
CPU: Intel mobile P4 (3.20GHz, 1MB L2 cache, 533MHz FSB)
OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition (SP2)
BUNDLED: No Microsoft® Office software
I'm willing to count this as a feature
SCREEN: 15.4" Wide-screen XGA Display w/TruBrite(TM) (1280x800)
GFX CARD: ATI MOBILITY(TM) RADEON(TM) 9000 IGP w/up to 128MB video memory (64MB default)
40GB HDD (5400rpm)
REMOVEABLE DRIVE: 8x DVD-SuperMulti drive (IS also a DVD burner)
WIRELESS: Atheros® Wireless LAN (802.11b/g) supporting Atheros SuperG(TM) technology
Now for the apple:
1.2GHz PowerPC G4
512K L2 cache @1.2GHz
12-inch TFT Displays
1024x768 resolution
256MB DDR266 SDRAM
30GB Ultra ATA drive
Combo Drive (NOT a DVD burner)
ATI Mobility Radeon 9200
32MB DDR video memory
AirPort Extreme built-in
They appear to have similar graphics cards, (PC version has 2x the ram and is expantable). In all other areas except one, the PC wins: it's not 12"*.. Aparantly they are hard to find with screens that small. No amount of argument (except some benchmarks which i highly doubt you can produce) will convince me that a P4 mobile of more than 2x the speed (almost 3x!) of the G4 is slower than saidsame chip.
*It's 15" widescreen, so it's going to be pretty close to the 12" size in height, but it'll be a little longer - it's still going to fit in your backpack.
I'll admit I might have some bias because I own an 800ghz toshiba satellite (only two things wrong after 4 years of dropping it in the body search line at airports: keyboard connector came loose and battery never lasted long, died quickly as well) It even runs linux. Though If i were to buy another laptop right now, it'd be a powerbook (small form factor, OSX, allegedly good battery life) But performance wise, I'd to have to take the hit vs. similarly priced PC notebooks.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
the most significant thing about this is that linux, running in a XEN Domain 0, will be able to run (and manage) MAC-x86 in a "guest" domain.
and also, vmware will be able to host MAC-x86 under both windows and linux.
that's the best bit about MAC-x86 being available.
At my last job, I managed to lock up a networked eMac loaded with OSX.3 by running something like "find subdir -type f -print0 | xargs -0 md5 > md5.txt" from another eMac. I was trying to get the checksums of files I was set to burn to CDR. The files were mostly free software for GNU/Linux, OSX and WinXP that I downloaded onto the networked eMac via the office broadband. Before it hanged, that eMac, which had GBs of free disk space (as it was being used simply to access email using M$ Outlook), had a two-day uptime.
I'm a sci-fi vegan: I don't want the aliens to think we have as much right to live as the fried chickens we eat.
I have an iBook. I like my iBook. i like my ibook because it allows me to write my books (using NeoOffice) at places other than my desk. But that's it. If I were to have to purchase all the equivalent software for my ibook that i use on my Linux desktop - I, well, I couldn't because I'm a starving artist.
So Linux won't suffer from OS X moving to x86 software. The same people that use Linux will continue to use Linux.
Besides - the reason a lot of people use OS X is because of the sexy hardware it runs on. x86 hardware (unless you're getting it from alienware or something) is just blah.
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
Some twit with a blog pontificates that the death of Linux is, again, upon us and if it doesn't adapt quickly all of its users will jump ship because a minority computer vendor has changed architectures.
Give me a break. The premises are so glib and short-sighted that this argument isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
i find it important to point out that while osx is no threat right now, in a year-or-so, things could (and very likely will) change.
linux's primary market is corporate deployment. licensing deals, et al, as well as os "custom fitting" are the most attractive parts of this deal (security, reliability, stability, and ease of deployment go without saying). BYO concerns don't really apply here.
now, mactels, if they start shipping cheaper as we all hope, will come out-of-the box able to run all 3 OSs, 2 of them natively (some speculate all 3 at some point). this would allow these corporate users to have a better and more reliable computer than they've ever had, the remarkable ease-of-use, power, supremely designed and integrated hardware, and application support (esp. gfx apps) that apple users have grown to love with complete cross-compatibility with linux (as well as functioning nearly the same as KDE in linux), and, if necessary, windows for additional application support-- all for close to the same price they pay for the soon-to-be obsolete single-os boxes.
another important consideration is the wide range of processor options that will be available to apple: 8 instead of 2. in the end, you have these options:
- a windows box. nobody wants that, but often they have no choice due to linux's lack of mainstream software support.
- a linux box. in the corporate context, this is currently the best option for corporations, except (typically) for where graphics development is concerned, due to lack of app support (adobe, macromedia apps, etc).
- a mactel box. running 2 or even 3 of the main OSs in use today, perhaps all 3 natively (and as some speculate, all at the same time), complete with cross-compatibility, top designed hardware intergation and support from apple, the ability to run nearly ANY application on one box, completely parallel performance (except with windows wich is always slower), unsurpassed security, consitant and easy-to-install updates, ease of transition between use of linux and osx(i) for those who don't know computers well, and hardware and software support that in completely unmatched, as well as the ease of mind that your entire computer was engineered to run perfectly by one company... i could go on, but it should be obvious that, if apple does offer competative pricing and volume licensing, the choice is clear.
btw, while you can't build your own mac, this doesn't really effect this market as it pros don't want to custom assemble 100+ boxes. with macs, as with pcs, you CAN order the parts to modify your mac, and you can install them yourself. imho, a comparable solution.
another huge complaint by everyone who has used linux (except for linux fans too proud to admit it), linux's 2 main GUIs (gnome and kde) are incredibly difficult to use. not much help is built in to the gui or even the os with regards to the functionality of the guis, and if you do manage to find it, it's poorly written, incomplete or vague, or it's written so that you need a PHd in software engineering to understand it. linux is developed by programmers, for programmers-- and herein lies that which will be their ultimate downfall. apple knew linux/unix was where it's at and fixed these problems. it's called osx.
"not a threat" is a dangerously short-sighted standpoint made by arrogant linux admins and devs. while it is, of course, a few months too early to tell how badly linux will be impacted, it's stupid to even think that it isn't a threat. if i were a linux distro, i'd be scrambling to make linux's ease-of-use match that of osx, before it can no longer afford the time or money to make those changes.
Just because they're using x86 processors now does not mean that Apple has seen the light. If you want to run OS-X on an x86 based system then Apple is going to go to great lengths to ensure that you can only run it on one that they sell.
This is a long standing policy when it comes to Macs in general. It wasn't all that long ago that if you wanted to add or replace a hard drive or CDROM drive you were forced to buy one from Apple. The reason is that the hard drive partitioning software and the CDROM drivers both checked the firmware in their respective devices for an Apple tag. If this tag was not found then they would refuse to work. The mac cult made all sorts of outlandish and patently false excuses for this, including a rather large canard about inconsistencies in how different vendors implemented their SCSI interfaces.
In any case my main point is that because OS-X will only run on Apple hardware, its ability to meaninfully compete with Linux as a Windows desktop alternative is greatly reduced.
Macs have ALWAYS attempted to be an alternative to PC's. They've also always been marginal also-rans, largely because of Apple itself. Switching the chip that Apple uses in their systems does not represent any sort of a heartfelt change at Apple. The company will continue to behave in a short-sighted self-limiting manner and Macs will continue to claim a miniscule market share.
Now if Apple really wanted to compete with Windows (Linux isn't even a contender) then they'd license OS-X to PC manufacturers whose systems would have to comply to the technical specifications set by Apple. Microsoft would attempt to make this difficult by threatening (behind closed doors of course) vendors the same way they have been doing in response to Linux. I suspect they would be even more vicious and despicable than normal. But then OS-X is a viable replacement for Windows. All it would take would be a few vendors who didn't care about shipping Windows on their systems to tell MS to go fuck itself. The day that you can buy an OS-X based system from multiple vendors running on commodity hardware would be the day that OS-X gained legitimacy. That is something it lacks right now because no matter how nice the OS might or might not be, the plain fact remains that if you want to use it you're forced to buy funky hardware from a single source. Inexperienced first time home buyers might not care about this, but you can be VERY sure that this is one prime factor dissuading businesses from using OS-X. The other factor being that it won't run Windows apps.
If multiple vendors were selling commodity systems running OS-X then that would be a watershed moment. Ideally these systems would be configured to either dual-boot to windows, or run windows from within a vmware type environment. I suspect that Mickeysoft has clauses in their OEM licenses to prevent this, but even this is not a show-stopper. All Apple has to do is make it easy to configure a system to dual boot AFTER the fact. Include tools that would automatically resize and reconfigure the partitions on the system to make space for Windows, along with a boot loader that made it stupidly easy to choose which OS to run. The ability to run the second OS from its own native partition from within a VM would be the final touch that would make the whole thing work.
Apple could even begin marketing OS-X as Windows friendly if they wanted to. The long-time true believers in the mac community would howl about this I'm sure, but then so what. Pleasing and placating a bunch of nitwit ideologues is hardly a wise business plan.
The main problem with Apple is that it is in the business of trying to sell an ideology to consumers who just want to buy a computer. It is like Steve Jobs said to John Scully when he was trying to convince him to come to Apple from Pepsi, "Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world." Apple's approach is to try and convince the world that it
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
As I see it, the problem is not with the coming of Mac OS X to Intel machines.
The problem is that there are still ease-of-use issues left unresolved within the Linux community.
HOME USE
Ease of use means help me as a consumer do the fun things I want to do:
1. email
2. browse
3. shop online
4. manage pictures
5. manage music
6. protect me from viruses, spam, and adware
How easy is it to do these things with Gnome and KDE right out of the box?
Don't tell me I have 91 options on how to check email, browse, listen to music, etc. You do the research for me and have the best tools already pre-selected and built-in from the outset.
It's nice that I have 91 choices for each thing that I want to do, but what I really need is for you to do that selection process for me, so that when I turn on my computer, the technology stays out of my way and let's me have fun.
WORK USE
Ease of use means help me as a business do the efficient things I want to do:
1. email, contacts, calendar, meeting scheduling
2. browse
3. serve websites
4. manage documents
5. etc
6. protect me from viruses, spam, and adware
Again, have the best-of-breed tools already installed so that I just click it and make it happen. And I don't want to think about it anymore. I want it to "just work".
I want the technology to help me but it also needs to get out of my way so I can concentrate on my business, not on the technology that supports my business.
NEXT STEPS
So the real issue is not that Mac OS X is coming to Intel or anything like that. The real issue is can Linux provide an easy and fun experiene for the home user and a powerful and efficient experience for the business user?
What I would like to see is the Linux community come together and work together toward these very specific directions, rather than continually forking the distributions, arguing about different OSes, feeling threatened by other OSes, etc.
I look forward to seeing a Gnome Home Desktop or a KDE Business Desktop. Move forward with UI design. Innovate. Show Mac OS X and Windows a thing or two. We've had years of experience with a desktop. Build on this and move forward.
What the Linux community needs is more structure and direction. Freedom is great, but without structure and direction and cooperation, it turns into an amorphous blob that is quite ineffectual in actually doing anything. In short, the Linux community needs to put its own house in order.
If it doesn't, it will continue to remain as a project of hobbyists or just a free tool in the hands of big corporations who are simply using it for what they can get out of it because they don't have to pay for it.
You are a great community. You have made some great accomplishments. Many of you already know and feel what must be done. Band together and do it.
This is your time. This is your turn. Above all, have fun!
Snowmotion
Please stop linking to sites that run ads from text.burstnet.com. Or at least warn us in the article.
These ads are deceptive (e.g. Link with the text "Linux" that points to getthefacts.com), annoying (I expect a text link in the body of an article to point to something related to the article, don't you?), and an incredible waste of bandwidth and CPU power. (I have broadband, a 2.4 GHz processor, and 1 GB of RAM, and I can notice the slowdown. I shudder to think what these must do to someone running, say, an 800 Mhz with 256 MB on a dialup. Yow.)
Anybody got a pointer to a Mozilla or Firefox extension that kills these things? Or any advice on how to block them? I don't want to be responsible for BurstNet getting any hits from my surfing whatsoever. Banners I can accept as a necessary evil. Flash banners are incredibly annoying. These text-link-ad-horror-things, however, are simply evil and must be crushed.
Thank you.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Perhaps a Linux Desktop Trust Fund or Non-Profit is what is required to spur a commercial grade GUI for Linux.
In the open source world, applications get created when someone with the skills to create applications needs to do something. Once a person is able to create applications in Linux, they have typically surpassed the point at which a GUI would make their work more efficient. There is no incentive for Linux developers to create a commercial grade GUI for Linux.
Applications also get created to meet consumer demands. In exchange for having their demands fulfilled, consumers pay the creators of the applications they use. This is achieved via donations in the open-source world. The scale and complexity of applications like GUIs do not allow for this kind of consumer-producer relationship.
GUIs require a great deal of upfront investments in time and effort to bring them to a standard of usability. No consumer wants to donate money to the producers of a half-broken GUI.
To overcome the challenges of this initial investment, a trust-fund can be set up by consumers to pay for the development of a free, open-source, Linux GUI. Additionally, a public fund or the sale of bonds can be set up at the city, county, state, or federal levels in U.S. that can fund the development of this public good.
This sort of activity is not new. If you are interested in examples of this sort of public investment, check out the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles as an example. I am sure that wherever you live, public projects have been an integral part of our personal and economic life.
If a standards complaint, stable, secure, GUI will help our eceonomy grow and thrive - then lets create it!
With the move to intel, Im thinking windows applications using wine , now that would be interesting. Anyone with know-how like to comment?
possibly with a company proving support , like cedega wineX.
Actually, all that has to happen is for the kernel to support mac hardware (slightly different BIOS/firmware calls). The general architecture, such as bit order, will now be compatable, and since programs do not touch any hardware devices themselves, they will likely be binary compatable. Thus any IA32 linux program that does not have kernel modules should be able to run on a Mac.
badness 10000
If moderation was good and/or consistant- that would be admirable. I obviously chose a different route, and I don't know if I should beleive your story in the first place. Do your friends have names like Jack Daniel's or Ol' Grandad?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Nope. More like making computers usable by people who actually doesn't give a damn about their command lines.
diegoT
I swear I saw a previous article mentioning that OSX will only run on Apple hardware. Not everyone will be willing to buy a brand new machine just to run another OS, specially so if it was expensive in the first place. This article can only be valid IFF apple allow OSX to run on non-apple hardware. Will article writers get their facts straight first? Otherwise this is hype/bull/scaremongering/advert trolling, whatever you want to call it a timewasting piece of crap.
This Apple thing is irrelevant. Desktop Linux needs to adapt no more and no less than it did before the announcement (In fact, all that's changed because of the announcement is now EVERYBODY knows PPC has no future, not just Apple).
The desktop development projects will continue, and anything under the GPL is effectively immortal. Progress will continue to be made on GNOME/KDE etc.
There seems to be a notion that if OSS Unices don't get themselves a GUI comparable to OSX soon, "we" have lost some kind of battle and the world will be shrouded in darkness.
But OSS has all the time in the world, as long as there is commodity hardware. Just make a good GUI and the people who want freedom will take it. The sky, contrary to Slashdot groupthink, IS NOT FALLING.
"Absolutely anybody in the software industry at any moment: Adapt or Die"
-- At least, not until Apple decides to change their mind and start selling to OEMs.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Why do people keep talking about Apple moving to x86 as if it simply MUST have an impact on Linux, and in particular, Linux on the desktop?
Apple has already said, pretty clearly, that OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware. So who cares if its a Pentium 4 running OS X or a gumball machine - if Apple doesn't make it, it won't be running OS X.
And if that's the case, how can OS X x86 be seen as a "Windows alternative" on x86 any more than it is now seen as a "Windows alternative"? It will remain AN alternative, but only if you're looking to buy a box from Apple. If you're looking to build your own machine or turn your Dell into something moderatly more useful and definitely less vulnerable than the Spyware/Virus/Trojan magnet it would be with Windows - guess what?
You're out of luck - you won't be running OS X x86 on your non-Apple box.
Is it possible that more people will switch to the Mac once its running on observably better hardware, particularly on the laptop side? Absolutely. But a switch to the Mac at that point isn't a threat to Xandros and other desktop Linux distros - its a threat to everything that isn't as easy to use and reliable as OS X.
You must realize that people like myself use software like Linux and OpenBSD because of the freedom that it offers. I do not hear many people talk about this freedom, as it is a freedom from the whims of software developers themselves. If a particular piece of open source software does something in a way that annoys me (maybe something as simple as a splash screen) then I can change the source to disable that splash screen. Ever used DVDPlayer on a Mac? Notice how you can not skip the FBI warnings and advertisements? With open source software, I can change the code myself so I can skip those annoying features. Mac OS X sure is slick, pretty, coherent, etc... but it is no more free (not as in beer!) than MS Windows. Should "Linux" be afraid? Not a chance.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Interestingly, people who don't want to use OS X or Windows could probably come up with something based on Darwin, using X for the GUI.
Device drivers developed for OS X on Intel will probably work with Darwin on Intel, which could help such an X+Darwin system gain better device support than Linux.
So this could be the real 'threat' to Linux on Intel - the ability to take advantage of OS X's drivers while not having to pay for OS X or a Macintosh.
Lycoris would have been one of those desktop-centric distros clearly in the OSX/x86 line of fire. Joseph Cheek must have seen the writing on the wall when he contacted Mandriva with an offer. With the newly combined features user friendly features from Conectiva (SMART package manager), Mandrake (drake config tools) and Lycoris (XP like control panels utilities etc and Iris software system that will probably give mandrakeclub a nice "click and run" like overhaul) Mandriva will have a strong chance to survive on the desktop.
-- Cheers!
The main thing holding Darwin on Intel back right now is the lack of drivers. Third parties have had no reason to release their drivers built for Darwin on X86. Now, they will be releasing such drivers - for OS X on Intel.
Many drivers developed for OS X on Intel should also work on Darwin for Intel. Which means that Darwin for Intel will start being able to use a lot more hardware. It'll be more about peripherals, than motherboard things, but it'll help.
These drivers will make it easier to build a viable free operating system based on some X-based UI on top of generic Darwin/x86, running on generic x86 hardware.
That is what *could* be competition for Linux.
not a retrofitable option.
The current layout of the presentation of data & their labels in ALL the GUIs is WRONG.
While person A needs to see data in English, person B needs to see it in French and this should be maintainable metadata instead of requiring code change and/or separate copy of code.
You need some mechanism to aid in/with 'plage'd layouts. You have to get rid of current layout tools.
The presentation and selection of executable code needs to be done in internationalizable form. (regardless of the triggers used [short-cut keys, menus & items, pop-up menus, push buttons, light pen activation, whatever.])
Likewise is the configuration of security (person A can see particular data do particular operation while person B shouldn't even see it or know its available.)
The GUIs available to Linux are a time and effort intensive mess.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Or ... can anyone change my mind on this judgement by teling me how apple changing PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES will cause everyone .. not just everyone, but NONTECHNICAL USERS that these easy distros are aimed at, to suddenly go out and buy, not just any x86 machine like they normaly would, but a MAC running OSX ... ... when the option already existed for these users to go out and buy a mac with OSX before?
... or something. I really just don't know how to apply a reasoned analogy to such illogical leaps.
I mean, is Apple switching to shipping OSX on Dells and turning OSX into a Windows app or something?
No. They're selling Macs. With OSX. Running the same OSX that it always has, targeting a different processor.
My god. It's like saying that because I shaved my cat, it's not only a chihuahua, but all other cats are going to turn into them
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
I don't think the big problem with Linux on the desktop is the amount of work or lack of interest in doing the work, I think it's just that Linux developers have no taste. 'Taste' may be the wrong word for what I'm thinking of, 'aesthetic', or 'artistry' might be better choices. Point is, the Linux desktops and distros that I've seen just look butt ugly to me. Too much mimicry of Windows and too many slapped together in the most expedient manner designs.
From what I've seen Xfce has the best aesthetic of the Linux desktops. And even that is very influenced by Mac OS X. Someone needs to start with the toolkit and work their way up with a well defined theme ('theme' in the design sense, not in the 'bitmaps-go-here' sense). This takes a single creative personality, which is kind of the antithesis of how open source is developed.
UI design, like all design, requires a certain panache that really seems to be missing from most open source. Pure opinion and not the least bit helpful, I know, but that's how I see it.
"I don't think it would be legal to sell a patch or device that would let OS X run on non-apple hardware without Apple's OK."
Modchips for consoles.
And yes, I would laugh my ass off if it was hackers that brought about the downfall of Linux on the desktop. No honour among...and all that.
...until we see the price for Apple Intel systems.
Why does everyone think its the end of everything that apple is going to be using Intel CPUs? It's not like I will be able to go install OS X on a Dell or Gateway. Its going to be exactly like it was before, Apple's custom hardware with their pretty cases. The end user will never know the difference. A main x86 alternative to Windows XP? What stopped people from going to PPC Apple? Its still going to a whole different world. This isn't a new IBM clone.
Their notebooks are thin, silent, 100% Linux compatible (sans the airport extreme), and pack a punch. Find a 3-4lb notebook with a 12" screen with the same features of the iBook for $999 in the Windows world- it doesn't exist.
Out of 50 Dell OptiPlex 270's that my company purchased 18 months ago, 27 have had their motherboards fail due to capacitors exploding.
PC manufacturers have margins that are unbelievably tight. The quality sucks.
So...I say that you get what you pay for.
--- Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas
* I can't get my most importat apps (the MS and Adobe bunch) to run under this OS. Classic is not an option.
Microsoft Office, MSN Messenger, Windows Media Player, and others, are all available on Mac OS X, as well as Adobe's suite of graphics applications. I use Photoshop CS on my iBook all the time...
Which programs from these vendors were you speaking of when you said they don't run on OS X?
This (on page 2 of the article):
.. is nonsense.
[ UNSIGNED NOT NULL ]
My airport base station failed due to a capacitor exploding. That's 100% of my sample size.
(an anecdote is not a statistic)
The allurement of Linux has never been an easy to use, intuitive Desktop OS. The only people who usually purchase linux are either A) Broke, bought a PC through Walmart and are planning on pirating a copy of Windows. B) Technologically inclined and downloaded the lastest kernel from a university FTP. C)Are essentially group B but like the convenience and fancy packaging.
A) doesn't matter, they're just using Linux
B,C) Were wanting just linux anyway.
I see no threat to Linux from MacOSx86. However it will be interesting to see the battle on BitTorrent Trackers between Windows and OSx.
The game is Unix vs. Windows.
... I think I see it starting to break now... Bill's got all ten fingers plugging leaks ... whoops Bill, there's one more leak right at about waste level...
Micosoft is breaking its noodle to crack the Unix server market. Now here come two Unix-based OSes entering the its desktop market. The more Unix that enters the desktop market, the less chance Microsoft has of taking over the Server market. Why? Because Microsoft is trying to define the server market by creating "features" and proprietary formats in the desktop market. The best example is Outlook-Exchange which is dominating the Intranet mail. That could change. What if Novell open sources Groupwise (yes, you heard it here first!)? What would the repercussions be? What if OSX becomes a clone OS running on any hardware?
I know this post has been somewhat of a rambling wreck, but really you see my point. Unix on the desktop is what MS fears. So I say OSX is good for Linux.
Now, why isn't it happening NOW? Because MS is scaring the shit out of hardware vendors with reprisal should they abet this effort. But eventually the dike will break and
KDE might have more of what you want. It uses what are called ioslaves that can hook into different network filesystem through the kde environment: sftp and ftp, for example
I've used it for sftp. In konqueror, I typed sftp://username@hostname, got prompted for a password and it acted just like a local folder. I opened a file from the remote server (I believe it used Kate) and whenever I hit save it'd upload the new version of the file.
You'd have to try it out for samba as I don't know if the implementation is different. I would be surprised if it didn't work the same but you never know. I don't know if there's a way for non-kde apps to work as seamlessly as kde apps do. So unfortunately if your preferred editor doesn't start with a k or have a kde-ified version, then you may be back at square one.
I'd say put in a Knoppix CD to try out the KDE environment. Put samba://whatever in konqueror. If it works and you like it, you could install a distribution that is based off of KDE like Kubuntu if the Ubunutu distribution is your preferred choice. (Or maybe just install KDE inside ubuntu? I thought I saw some kde entries in that package manager of theirs.)
First you set it up for them. So they wouldn't be able to do it themselves. I find that alone makes people feel really unsecure about using it, because they don't feel like they are or even could be in control.
.Mac and uploaded photo albums to their website.
On Mac OS X I find people who've never used computers or even don't like computers doing the initial setup themselves. And that gives them a feeling of "wow, even I can do that! I might actually be able to really use that thing".
The most amazing thing to me was that most computer-illiterate people I've introduced to OS X have after a while started using the computer for things they'd never thought they'd be able to do. They'd start taking pictures with their digital camera and organize them in photo albums, they might make postcards or whatever from those pictures, then some got
They get into these things, because they sort of play around with the iLife apps (out of curiosity) and find that they are so easy to use (even without a manual) that they grasp the concept in no time.
Some even became really adventurous and bought DV cameras, starting to edit movies and make their own DVDs. If I would have told them they'd be doing things like that with the computer, they would have laughed at me and called me a dreamer.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
I mean, a proprietary operating system is just what the Linux devs are looking for. Why haven't they converted already?
The better programmer is the one that got it done ahead of schedule and according to spec.
This kind of argument (using 'advanced features of a programming language') is the downfall of most programmers and applications in the long run.
Using advanced features of a language means typically that you are relying on non-portable, compiler-specific features that will cause countless problems when (inevitably) you try to port and/or someone else is maintaining the code long after it was originally written.
For our development, the programmers that we hire are specifically instructed to NOT use so-called 'advanced features' of languages for this very reason.
Additionally things like proper function and variable naming (ie human-readable) and proper commenting are so much more important than 'advanced features' of any language.
Gekido's Lair
I'd say quite the opposite. The poor continue to shop Walmart for staples like toilet paper and bath towels at $1.50. But Walmart is losing the middle class to higher-margin retailers like Target and Linspire off a pallete won't bring them back. Target thrives; Wal-Mart wobbles Microtel may be talking up Linux, but its latest offering for Walmart.com is a $1500 home theater styled Windows MCE.
Look. MacOSX will always be pricey and elite. That's fantastic. Let it be what it is and let the market do as it will. This really does more harm to Microsoft than anything else.
That said, since future releases of MacOS binaries will be available in x86 versions, it's only a boon to Linux the way I see it. Since OSX has a lot of *BSD in it, it would seem that making a "Mac" version of "WINE" would be trivial by comparison to the WINE project. It would only mean that we Linux users will have the opportunity to use MacOSX programs on our machines in the future.
At last Microsoft Office will be available along with anything else that we'd like to use... like Photoshop, for example. With the added availability of applications being run through translation layers or through some other means such as a "recompiler/relinker" perhaps(?), Linux will get the show it desires.
All that dreaming asside, though, with added attention away from Microsoft, it only gives added wriggle room for Linux's growth. But I think Apple surely has done its homework and will at least try to keep all of this from changing the market too much.
Anonymous Coward writes:
"because of its slick looks and ease of use."
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned. (Bruce Ediger, bediger@teal.csn.org, in comp.os.linux.misc, on X interfaces.)
Jeez, am I the only one who sees this as a last
ditch effort by Apple to survive? Right now, the
ONLY two contenders in the ring are the 800 lb.
gorilla: Microsoft (the EVIL Empire), and the
Rebel Force: Linux. Who will win? Xandros and
Lindows/Linspire suck hind tit. MS-Windows can't
even support it's own legacy baggage (which it
carries everywhere). Linux, being OPEN, can do
ANYTHING it wants to do, from desktop to embedded
and BEYOND.... Think OUTSIDE the BOX! Heh!
Nice to see that so many die hard linux "freedom fighters" have dropped everything they were waving the flag for a few years ago and taken the "easy way out". I don't blame them....If they did not have the guts to stick around, then we don't need them.
I for one am proud of all of the strides that free unix based operating systems have taken over the last few years, and am saddened by the people that have drifted away to the easier path.
Hopefully, much like their new "friends" in the Apple world, this wall of conversion (or apostasy) that I have seen of late is just a very vocal minority.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Okay, your next task is to configure an Apple that costs $400, and see how that compares to the Dell. Also, don't forget to add a screen.
First of all, YOUR MOST IMPORTANT APPS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU IF YOU UPGRADE. If you converted to OSX without upgrading to OSX native apps, you're just stupid.
Secondly, you've only been using it a month, and it sounds like with a lot of resistance. Take some time to understand it before you bash it.
Finally, understand the architecture differences between OSX and UNIX before you screw with UNIX on OSX. It might be a little eye-opening for you.
You should really think harder about making the OS work for you, rather than complaining about it all the time.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
What makes OS X on an Intel-based Mac more attractive than on a Power-based Mac? Is the slick OS X user interface somehow made more slick by running on an Intel processor?
Apple has said (if memory serves) that OS X will only run on an Apple-manufactured Intel-based system which I'd expect to cost considerably more than a garden variety PC. So those who didn't switch to OS X on Power due to cost of the proprietary Apple hardware will suddenly open up their wallets and spring for the more expensive alternative because it's running on Intel's chip?
Sounds to me like some anti-Linux writers grasping for a straw.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Macintel is a much more clever than Mactel.
cpeterso
"archane directory structure"
/usr for installed programs
/etc for all systemwide configuration files
/home for different user's files
/boot for stuff related to booting the system
/tmp for temporary files
/usr, making it nearly impossible to cleanly uninstall if it was compiled from source or the package manager database got corrupted ("--force", anyone?), ocasionally with bits and pieces spread under /bin, /sbin, etc (look at all the different places the files from CoreUtils is usually installed). The fact that "ping" and "traceroute" are stored in different place is not systematic.
/var -- now that's something quite hard to do (its de facto usage in distros, not the dream world described by the FHS).
/etc,
/etc they are placed almost randomly. If you don't know the exact name of the configuration file you need (which may or may not be under a subdirectory...), you're out of luck.
Those are what you are likely to occur, every thing is nice and systematic.
Except that everything is not nice and systematic. First, all programs get dumped together under
I also noticed you didn't describe
"random placement if configuration files"
System configuration files will all be in
programs generally check the following areas -
True, but under
Yes, the usual Linux directory structure is arcane.
The filesystem is the package manager
You refer to "proofreading dialog boxes and checking for consistent menu options" as not being fun. On the contrary, this is exactly the type of thing I want to do. I have a general understanding of programming but I really enjoy creating a consistent, seamless interface to what's underneath. I've never been able to find where to sign up my talents. All the Linux distro pages are completely intimidating and text-heavy.
So, where do I sign up? Who do I talk to who will listen?
Who exactly is the "they" to whom you refer? I'd like to thank "they" for pointing out that James Gosling and Tim O'Reilly are simple minds. Not to mention Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Tech, and the hosts of bioscientists working on trifling problems, such as the human genome, protein folding etc. I'd never have known if you hadn't done your part to inform us.
I say start from scratch, and engineer a system for today's hardware. Also, don't try to provide backwards compatibility for X. Just start fresh. Application developers will follow.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
I feel ya there. I too have tens of thousands of images and it's a pain in the ass to navigate any folder with more than just a few hundred images.
What seems really mad to me is "gnome, inc" keep thumping the HIG regarding spatial browsing, pointing out how it is supposed to ecourage a "flatter" directory structure. I've even heard some say things like "if it's more than three layers deep oyu are doing something wrong."
Well, let's say you have 500,000 images (go ahead, wiseguy, and crack wise - but if you are a photographer you might take 1000 or more images in a day and at that rate it doesn't take long to build up a huge archive).
If we make the directories all "wide and flat" how do we do it? 500 folders of 1000 images each? Even that would be ridiculously slow. 50 folders of ten subfolders of 1000 images? 50 folders of ten folders of ten folders of 100 images?
It needs work and so far I've been unable to get the devs to take this issue seriously. I use gnome, I'm comitted to it and I'll learn to hack code to fix the problem if I have to, but it seems to me it would be a lot more efficient all around to get one of the monkeys who actually knows how to write decent code to address a long standing problem that, for many, is damn near a show stopper.
I'm playing with "smart folders" and beagle as a means of getting around the problem. Actually, I think that may solve many of the issues and I suspect this may be the thinking behind the developer's chronic refusal to give meaningful priority to this issue.
Mac OSX 10.3 is WAYYYY ahead of any linux distro I've played with. IT JUST WORKS! No kernel recompiles, no digging through esoteric web pages in Hungarian, etc. Unless I really want something odd, then it's there! The robust hardware and kernel combined with the comparitive ease in accepting open source is a godsend.
Do I still use Linux? Yes, for work, where certain esoteric pieces of software haven't been successfully ported, and my boss won't get me a compiler for the Mac. But I greatly enjoy the fact that I can actually get 90% of my work done on my laptop while downloading my podcasts and not having to reboot because my USB connections are FUBARed, again.
I can't say much about Windows. Its administrative interface seems to be some really odd mix of GUIs, command line and random stuff deep in the file trees. I try to keep boxes running for family and friends, and mostly succeed, but I reinstall often. That, and the security vulnerability, is shite.
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
A number of people in separate threads have made the point that, due to apple's statements that osxi will only run on apple's machines (without some hacking...) apple's x86 switch will mean little outside of apple.
Let me ask you this. What reason do you have to believe apple? Let me remind you, that not very long ago Jobs went on record saying that he had no plans to switch to x86. It is now obvious that this plan has been in the works for a long time, and jobs has only been waiting for the right time. At the time he made those statements because he knew that if the switch happened, it would be a long way off and he didn't want customers to hold off on buying hardware during that time.
In this industry it is sometimes very important to not show your hand too early. Why would jobs be bluffing about not allowing machines on generic hardware? The obvious answer is because such a switch would not happen immediately. It would be a huge transition for apple to suddenly switch to a hardware vendor with enormous revenue, to a software vendor with a much smaller revenue stream, but probably much higher profits. This switch would probably scare the hell out of apple's investors, and it would not be a good idea to do while everybody is still worried about the x86 transition.
There is another reason why apple would not show their hand at this point. Microsoft went on stage at the WWDC, and they commited to porting office to x86 osx. Would they have done this if apple was making moves to put itself into more direct competition with microsoft? I think they would be foolish to. Even if they felt compelled to do so for fear of more anti-trust aligations, microsoft could certainly take all the good developers off the office mac team, resulting in a late and buggy versions of office for mac.
Anyway, I'm not saying there is a good reason to believe that apple will make osx avaiable for generic x86. I'm just saying that if they *were* going to do such a thing, they certainly wouldn't tell *you* about it. So apple's statements about lack of support for generic x86 should be taken with a grain of salt.
I edit video. I create graphics and I do it fucking well and I do it professionally. I do these things with "tools that fit my hand."
OS X doesn't feel right to me. What you folk who keep pandering to the church of Jobs don't seem to get is that not everyone works the same way. I'm classically trained, art and music have been a huge part of my life since I was a child - and I just happen to also have a decent aptitude for science.
If you want to craft everything with store bought tools that all look alike and feel alike that's fine, but not everyone thinks that way or wants to work that way. It doesn't make you right or me right, it makes us different.
Linux is my operating system. No, it's not finished nor perfect - neither is OS X, Windows or any other OS. But I am an integral part of the evolution of my desktop, and I own my desktop.
That's what strikes me most ironic about all this: Apple used to have a rep as the tool of the "counterculture" - the anti-estabishment. But now it just seems to be the tool of technologically handicapped yuppies, soccer moms, and aging stoners.
MacOS X runs World of Warcraft already...
... easy use, security AND getting to play your favourite game ? Sounds like heaven to me.
This could be big
The premise of this article is garbage. X86 Linux has nothing to fear from OSX because OSX is only going to run on Apple-Intel hardware. Unless you suddenly think that Apple is going to replace Dell is the premier shipper of X86 based PCs, the market for OSX will intentionally (and stupidly) remain constrained to the small number of Apple branded boxes leaving Linux the best alternative for 90%+ of the PC market.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...because Apple has no interest to make OSX running on generic x86-hardware. Like in the past Apple want's to make money with proprietary systems.But this is not possible if OSX runs on every 199-Euro-Dicounter-PC. Just a built in x86-CPU makes not an 'IBM-Compatible'.
After the move to x86, Apple will continue to be Apple. Except for the possible inclusion of an intel inside sticker on the box, they will be proprietary machines running mac os x, something you won't be able to run on different hardware, and popular with end users.
Linux fills and has always filled a completely different genre - that of solid geeky type who like it for its idealogical purity, flexibility or because it's a bit unusual. The changes the Apple decision makes are minor:
- there might be a few more Apples sold to linux geeks who want to use photoshop occasionally and who choose mac os x over Windows
- since Apple looks set to increase its markey share, there will be a greater proportion of people making the transition from a desktop computer usage to unix-geek computer usage, which means linux will benefit.
Believe with me, my saplings.
although not as popular as python, there's been decent growth and development(ruby on rails, etc.) recently. it's at least a bit more palatable than python for an old duffer like me who finds python a bit of a headache to learn.
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
I think too many people are assuming that since new Apple boxes will use Intel chips that this somehow translates into generic Intel-using boxes being able to run OS X. Why would anything change from the current status of Darwin being OSS and running anywhere but the GUI for OS X onbly running on Apple Boxes? There are lot's of ways to ensure that FULL OS X only runs on one of these new Apple/INTEL boxes.
I can't see there will be a clash between Linux and OS X. If you want to run OS X, you will probably still need to buy Apple hardware.
People, grab a brain. "Slick looks and ease of use" is the mistress not the wife.
GoboLinux tries to do something like this, albeit not with stow. It puts each package in its own directory, and then symlinks everything back into better recognised locations... one of the GoboLinux philosophies is that the file system itself is the package manager. I presume that to uninstall a package, one would essentially delete the directory, and then do a file system sweep every so often of orphaned symlinks.
It's been mentioned on slashdot a couple of times. For whatever reason, the main reaction here seems to be rideculing the idea, claiming that package managers have already solved all those problems, and claiming that accessing everything through symlinks will slow the system down.
I don't use it, and go for Debian instead, if only because I prefer to have the much bigger support community. I do use Stow a lot with accounts on other people's systems, when I want to build my own miniature installation hierarchy and need a simple way to organise it. What Gobo's playing with doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me.
The Mac OS X Setup Assistant does it all for you.
I think it counts. And that loyal user base is mere 2% of PC users. Maybe it is easy to forget some 500 million users in India and China who access some kind of Linux but not one Apple.
OSX is not intended to run on anything besides apple hardware. This was mentioned in a previous article on slashdot, that OSX would rely on a bios ID to run.
I would strongly suggest that anybody who is currently involved with development of the Linux desktop take three weeks off to use OS X. There are things there that have become a must-have -- don't even talk to me about a desktop system that doesn't have a search function like Spotlight, for example, and no, "we're working on it" doesn't count. I have to be able to drag-and-drop anything to everywhere. Every single application needs the same keyboard shortcuts, because I don't want to have to remember every developer's personal whim anymore. I don't want to have to "mount" anything. The list is long and a lot of things are only small details, but they add up to the nice, big whole that is OS X. This is why people are switching, not because of pretty colors and cool graphics.
This is not to say that things are hopeless for Linux, especially in the long run. Apple is run by a pig-headed monomaniac who happens to have made a series of right choices for a while now. Sooner or later, however, Steve Jobs is going to screw up again, simply because he is human, but also because he is a control freak. There are lots of things about Apple that are a pain in the ass because of his ideology: Two-button mouse support is patchy at best -- for example, it is non-existant with iMovie -- and three-button mice are not supported at all. There are no virtual screens because Jobs thinks the poor stupid user would be confused. None of Apple's DVD drives seem to support DVD RAM, the best invention on the backup front since cuneiform writing. This, too, is a long list. When Jobs is good, he is very, very good, probably the best in the industry, but when he is bad, he is very, very bad, and things go downhill fast. It's going to happen again sometime.
So on the long run, Linux has the stronger development model. It will get there, and it will kick ass when it does. But that will take time. On the short run, Apple has a bunch of very good people willing to innovate and push the envelope hard with multi-million dollar backing. They cross their t's and dot their i's and spend time designing the interface so that it feels easy and natural. And it shows all over the place.
Those of us who just want to get the job done so they can get on with their real life with their real jobs and loving family and crazy kids and other fun hobbies will come back to the fold when Linux on the desktop Just Works. "Daddy will come out as soon as the device driver has recompiled" is just not an option for some of us.
This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":
GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).
What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.
Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.
- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.
One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.
Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.
This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.
- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).
- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).
Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.
- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:
** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **
I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th
- -- Truth addict for life.
The guy was AMUSED that I didn't have Ruby installed on my machine.
Haha. He used Ruby in the script to rename the file.
Look, too many egos in linux, and too many ungrateful 'users' who are worthy enough to use this program, and just have problems.
Its a traditional client-developer relationship, but we are not paying.
I am into Mac OS, but as usual, EVERY story about this forgets one thing:
People will not BUY a new computer to try MacOS, so if it doesn't work on my computer I have at home today, then guess what, I won't try it, and probably won't steer my purchase decision based on OS.
I don't want intel, I don't want 'THAT' graphics card.
So there.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
This is how Linux distributions should evolve to "survive":
GNUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).
What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with! It's open source and under a Freedom licence. GNUstep aims to be compatible with both the OpenStep specification and with Mac OS X. It should be easy to write an application that compiles cleanly under both GNUstep and Cocoa.
Users only care about user land. They care about where to find files and programs. The choice users make is on the level of KDE, GNOME, GNUStep or Cocoa not on the level of Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin.
- KDE and GNOME are, by comparison, just a thin shell around the underlying kernel. When you use FreeBSD, you will get confronted by FreeBSD. When you use Linux as a kernel, that will shine through in it's own way as well. However, Open/GNUStep create a complete user environment. A stable place for a human to call it's home on the PC. No matter what the underlying kernel is, the user will experience GNUStep.
One of the user land features of GNUStep that both KDE and GNOME do NOT have is application folders/bundles/appfolders. This means that an "installed" program is always completely encased in it's own directory called "program.app". Install the program by just copying one directory/.app file over to your PC. Uninstalling is just as easy. This is so great because it makes the PC so much better to use for a human being.
Traditionally, installing a program meant that the program's files were thrown all over different directories on your PC's hard drive. If you wanted to get rid of your program because it was misbehaving, you'd have to rely on something called an "installer" that had to have a perfect record of where all the individual files were thrown to in the past. This perfect record never happened of course.
This and a couple of other user land things that are really nice, like a standard directory structure which is the same no matter what kind of kernel is running under GNUStep, is why GNUStep will win the fight of becoming part of the ultimate operating system of the future.
- We've all fantasized about the ultimate operating system, and I now know what it will look like, at least for the forseeable future: A NetBSD, OpenBSD or *BSD kernel for their technical excellence and simplicity, GNUStep on top of that and lots and lots of programs ported to that new operating system in neat little ".app" appfolders. (I said ultimate, not only).
- Because Windows, MacOS X and Linux can also host GNUStep, programmers are able to write programs by only keeping in mind the GNUStep Programming Environment. Windows users that want to keep using their Windows games can keep running their usual OS while at the same time get used to the superiour GNUStep way of appfolders, it's GUI and the GNUStep programming language (Objective-C).
Another easy way for people to transition over to the "Ultimate OS" is with Intel processors with the "Lagrande" feature (AMD has something similar). This feature will allow you to run 2 operating systems on 1 processor AT THE SAME TIME. This means you can switch between the "Ultimate OS" and Windows/MacOS X without rebooting. Problem of the world moving over to Freedom and technical excellence is hereby solved.
- The only "tactical choice" that could improve the "Ultimate OS" is the programming language. The new programming language of GNOME (Mono C#) and GNUStep's language (Objective-C) compare like this:
** Deleted a lot of technical stuff **
I would like the GNUStep OS to switch to another programming language because I th
- -- Truth addict for life.
Linux is great. I won't deny that the LiveCDs that I've used are great. But I can't keep my optical drive occupied forever by my OS. That's why we have hard drives...
Funny you should mention that. I recently rebuilt my system after a mobo failure, and I built it with 2GB of RAM.
When I initially built it, I fired up a KNOPPIX CD to test the system out. Since I had so much RAM, I used the "toram" option to copy the CD into memory (took an extra 2.5 minutes at boot), so the DVD burner would be freed up. Wow. What a great way to run!
My system is on a UPS and rarely gets rebooted anyway, I'm starting to think this might be viable for longer-term than just testing. Zero install could be the future of the OS.
It might not be all things to all people, but it is getting closer. For the most popular purposes (web/email/images/music/dvd's*), it works now.
*With libdvdcss added after boot...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Before Apple move the x86: generic x86 hardware will run Windows, Linux or a few other (mostly open source OSes) Apple hardware will run MacOS, Linux or some other (mostly open source) OSes. The The overwhelming majority of Apple hardware actually runs MacOS. After the move: Generic x86 hardware will run Windows, Linux or a few other (mostly opensource OSes) Apple hardware will run MacOS, Linux or some other (mostly open source) OSes. The The overwhelming majority of Apple hardware will actually run MacOS. The only extra competition that Linux faces is that it will compete with Windows on Apple hardware. Some of the people who currently install Linux on Macs might go for Windows, this is hardly a huge part of the Linux user base. In addition, IF Apple hardware become cheaper as a result of this, then both Windows and Linux might lose ground to Apple. Unless Apple is going to take a lot of extra market share in the PC market as a whole, this will not have much impact. It is unlikely Apple are planning cheaper hardware, as that would lower their margins on hardware and there would be no reason to restrict MacOS to their own hardware - a strategy that swaps (high margin) software revenues for hardware revenues.
Point one: Go to http://www.linuxiso.org/ . Click on any Linux distro. Click on that distro's homepage at the top. Find the link on that distro's home page called "screen shots", which are pictures of actual Linuxen running on actual computeren.
Look! There's a bar at the bottom of the screen just like Windows. There's an icon on the far left of the bar just like Windows. Click on the icon and a menu pops up just like Windows. Move the mouse up the menu and look at all the programs, just like Windows. Select the email program from the internet submenu, just like Windows. Click on Mozilla and a web browser opens up with a titlebar you type Google in and a back button and other gizmos at the top, just like Windows. I've never seen the full Linux distro that didn't come with the solitare card games, just like Windows.
The difference is, whenever you want to, you can hit Ctrl-Alt-F2 and have a completely different computer, with ten times the stuff that Macintosh and Windows has combined, and you'll be able to use your computer in new and imaginative ways. And when you're done with that you can hit Alt-F7 and get your I-can't-believe-it's-not-Windows desktop back like nothing ever happened. Oh, yeah, and it's cheaper.
Hey, did you hear the one about the foreigner who emmigrated to the US and couldn't speak English? He got a job and had a co-worker who knew his language and a little English. So the co-worker taught him to say "Apple pie and coffee", so he could order lunch.
After a week of this, the shy foreigner got up the nerve to trouble his friend to teach him some more, because he was sick of apple pie and coffee. So then he learned "Ham sandwich and coke".
So he goes in and orders:
"Ham sandwich and coke."
And the waitress said, "You want that sandwich on wheat or rye?"
He said, "Ham sandwich and coke."
The waitress added, "And is that coke regular or diet?"
So he said, "Apple pie and coffee."
That's just what the Windows crowd is starting to remind me of. Sick of what they have, too intimidated to try anything else.
There is just one, and only one, reason why Linux is harder than the other operating systems. Because the store doesn't install it for you when you buy the computer. If Linux came default with every box and MacIntosh and Windows had to be gotten by other means, nobody would know a smit of difference. We'd all be saying how impossible Windows and MacIntosh is to learn, and nobody in their right minds would use them. That's because all operating systems are hard to install, if you don't have it as your professional job to do.
Point two: MacIntosh isn't going to steal too many users that weren't going there already. If anything, it'll take Microsoft down a notch or two. I'm dying to hear a report from the first home user to load a Mac OS on an x86. Let's see how they do!
This is not the point. The question was, whether that what Apple offers has a reasonable price, and that you have to compare systems which have at least similar specifications.
rename *2004*.txt *2005*.txt One mental thing I do with cmd's rename tool. When asking in linux help channel on day, I was given a *SCRIPT* to do this.
Ok. So you might have to make a little script to do this (there might be other/easier ways as well), but do you really mind that you have a powerful, scriptable shell which power-users can use to do advanced stuff, if they feel like it?
No, not mv, not cp (move, copy anyone)
Like this isn't fixed in an instant with either a alias, a symlink or simply a copy of the program you want another name for. Some distroes have actually allready done this 1 second task for you.
So give programs good names. Linux supports AnyType.of.filename.You.WANT. Yes all programs executables are extremely contracted (and many are headless (command line) the name would be important.
I guess flexibility is a two edged-sword which strikes you in both ends. However for good names... yes, ofcourse Nero burns CDs, Trillian does instant messages, Acrobat shows documents while ACDSee shows pictures. That's really just logical as well isn't it? I'm not disagreeing with your point regarding good names, however that argument goes both ways.
Plus when you got a gazillion tools to do the same job in Linux, calling them all the same thing as the task at hand might be a bit impractical.
Hi mum, what, you want to install a new email client? yes, apt-get install, but, hang on, yeah, it if gives you anything about dependancies, oh them
You do know that apt-get resolves dependencies for you, don't you? So instead of going to site A, downloading to location B, unzipping to location C, executing installer to install to location D, you just open your favorite package manager where you can install any application, and voila! you're done. Now that was hard wasn't it.
So, yeah, shut up fan boy.
I don't know if that was targeted toward yourself or "the linux community". Me, myself, I use Windows. Basicly because of some issues with hardware-support and TV-out the way I want it. So I guess it ain't targeted at me.
Wheater you're a troll or simply uninformed or lazy, I don't know. You may have all the complaints in the world about Linux, but your's are simply redicilious.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Running OS X on a PC? Will this make Mac people's heads explode?
So Desktop Linux on x86 will go from having Windows as a superior competitor to having both Windows and MacOS as superior competirors? Big deal. Free loving open source hippies will continue using Linux because its free, while everyone else who is trying to get anything done will continue to use Windows or perhaps OSX.
[duck]
Backslider! There is no purity in Linux! No true Free Operating System would permit proprietary binary drivers! Come back to the Hurd, abandon the tainted kernel!
Wtf, seriously?
You can't compare a 12" to a 15" one. Your argument is crap, it is still bigger. The point stands, find a 12" laptop for the same price.
no text, you goddamn lameness filter.
Apple using Intel has absolutely nothing to do with linux, no impact, no noting. IT will still be a mac, not a wintel box, you'll still buy it from apple, and it will have the same features you would expect on a mac. It's not suddenly going to run on every linux box or anything like that.
I work in tech support for a corp desk outsource and had an interesting coversation with a top level customer about not being able to customize things in Novell Groupwise like he could in Outlook and then he sfinally tated "You know all the time I spend customizing my GUI, I could have just been doing real work."
And considering all the time I spent at my prior tech support job helping people move the start buttons back and fixing toolbars on IE makes me wonder if the majority of the world just needs to conform to whatever the programmers deemed needed.
Customization is nice for advanced and power users, but I think as default it shouldn't be needed to get functionality.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
On the other hand, vague error messages provide job security for low-level admins and help desk types! };-\ I remember it was a long time before anything more substantial than man pages were available to unix (& un*x) lusers. I hate to say this, but if the "market" doesn't demand better error messages, its pointless for programmers to spend time and effort on them, that even goes for even FOSS developers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
The future impulse from Linux will come from the 3rd world and from Asia. Macs, OSX? Expensive, closed, controlled by foreign companies.
The bit you're mising is that Mac OS X is a free UNIX based operating system. The kernel, Darwin, is free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer. In addition, substantial subsystems including "Webkit" (the core of the Safari web browser and Dashboard) have also been released as open-source software.
If they had used a Linux kernel with some proprietary code on top, as many embedded Linux system vendors have done, you would no doubt be cheering Apple on. Perhaps because the Mac OS X kernel's based on a less "GNU oriented" OS, we instead get people (apparently honestly) claiming that it's no different from Windows.
Apple's commitment to open source has been ridiculed far too often, and despite the ridicule they have not only continued to release source, they have added more all the time.
Carry on like this, and you turn into Amiga.
Apple's current sales are three times the highest the Amiga managed in its best year.
Mach & BSD have been available on Intel forever. It is not a threat to Linux on Intel.
Whether a desktop system that's trying to play in the same space as the Mac OS is based on Linux or not is as irrelevant as the fact that the Mac OS is built atop Mach with a BSD personality.
Is Mac OS on Intel a threat to open source desktop system on Intel? Yes, but no worse a threat than any proprietary system is to its open source counterparts.
Apple knows very intelligent people will figure out how to load OS X for Intel on to unsupported hardware. Apple doesn't care about this group because they are a small minority that won't effect Apple sales. All Apple has to do is keep the herd from loading OS X onto unsupported hardware.
Here are some ideas. (Without DRM, since DRM will eventually fail)
1. Use SSE3 (with no fallback path) as requirement for all closed parts of OS X. This makes OS X unusable on older hardware. Which many casual users own.
2. Very Limited Driver Set. This limits usability more then bootability. Casual users will not like uses a machine with no network and sound support.
3. Make it BIG. Install Image wise. Make sure an image/disk of the latest OS can only be burned by the most cutting edge hardware. Again the idea is to prevent casual users who don't have the latest in cutting edge hardware from booting it.
I'm sorry, but you've failed the idiot test. There's a drop-down box to say what kind of password you want to put in, and it explains in helpful English that if you want to put in a 64-bit Hex key, then you can.
...
The WEP password is for Apple-Apple systems, who can choose their own password and it doesn't have to be hex or a particular length. It's hashed into an equivalent WEP key to use.
Insert brain before opening computer
These distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, which will soon be the primary x86 alternative to Windows XP not only because of OS X's dedicated and outspoken user base but because of its slick looks and ease of use."
Gnome, KDE, and Mozilla have dozens of themes that satisfy every imaginable taste in user interfaces: simple, fun, slick, calm, elegant--you name it, they have it as a theme. Apple's one-size-fits-all approach is depressingly limited in comparison.
As for claims that the Macintosh has greater ease of use, show us some actual studies demonstrating that.
This entire thread has completely missed the mark. Mac's decision to switch to x86/intel chips will not effect anything. On the contrary it is a result of motorola's inability to adapt, coupled with intel's truely innovative chip designs that encouraged the switch. Yes, linux has difficulties as a desktop machine. Mac is an excellent desktop (aged refined and spendy). Microsoft is great for introducing people to computers (cheap and mostly intuitive). Linux offers power, with power comes responsibility (work). That's all. The kids I see (16-20yrs) that are power users typically use Microsoft for gaming and set up old linux boxes as game servers (Quake, Unreal, etc). Mac's tend to be used by people who are generally more professional with a little vested interest in computing (My Lawyer, Writing instructer, My Friend in a band). Maybe, one day someone will back linux on the desktop to the point where it is competitive. I don't care. I use Linux From Scratch and configure things myself with blackbox ( no desktop/lots of work ), Fedora Core 3 ( configure less/less work ) , and Windows XP ( wished I could configure more/virus scan runs on its own-all else fails reinstall ) all on the same box. Each system has things I love and things I don't. Should I have the means in the future I most certainly will purchase a Mac. I love them all and I am excited about what Intel is doing with their microprocessors, because, as the tide rises, so do all the ships on the sea.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Linux niche is operating system for servers and workstations. Just as Microsoft and apple will never own server-side of the web, Linux will never be the major desktop/client OS.