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."

Comments

But OTOH

[Decameron81]

But OTOH this may turn out to be a good thing by actually making Linux distributions concentrate more on making easy to use OSes.

Re:But OTOH

[FosterKanig]

Why not make it so the distro is easy to use on the surface, but has complexity and more choices for those who want that? A distro doesn't have to be easy to use OR comples/powerful. It could be both if they wanted to do it that way.

Re:But OTOH

[cowscows]

That's an initial conclusion you might come to, but it's not really all that helpful, and here's why:

Everyone already knows that Linux needs a lot of work to become a viable mass market desktop. We've known it for quite a while. We even know a lot of the specific was in which it could be improved to bring it closer to this goal. So why isn't it getting done?

Some developers completely don't care about that. They use linux for what they use it for, and a polished gui desktop is not important to them. The success of Linux as a desktop OS means nothing to them.

Some think it's good enough, and that users should become more competent. A lot of Linux's woes are blamed on these sorts of developers, but I don't think there's as many of them as all the complaining would leave you to believe.

I'm guessing most Linux developers would love to have a more polished interface, but they don't want to do it, because it's boring work. The fact of the matter is, proofreading dialog boxes and checking for consistent menu options and whatnot is not all that fun. Linux development happens mostly through hobbyists, and they're going to spend their free time doing what they enjoy.

No, to really get the crappy work done, you've got to get paid. And right now, at least, it's hard to convince someone that there's money to be made paying for linux desktop development. The mere fact that the GPL requires you to give away the source code to anyone you sell it to makes the financial future of any investments questionable. You can't push service contracts on people the same way that you can with businesses, because people don't want to pay for that. I

I think the only way that it could work is something closer to Apple's model, where you're selling an entire system, and the integration between the hardware and the software is what you're really paying for. The complete experience. Otherwise, you're going up against the MS juggernaut completely head on, and you also have to compete against free versions of yourself. I have a hard time believing that that will work.

I guess there's more of a "workstation" market that could be targeted, and you might even be able to sell service contracts with those, but the workstation market is sort of fragmented, and there are lots of specialty needs, and I'd think it would be hard for your company to meet enough of those needs quickly enough to make money.

Re:But OTOH

[ibbey]

The hidden parent that I'm replying to (I'm assuming the author is usually a troll) says pretty much exactly what I wanted to say-- ease of use & power are not mutually exclusive. MacOS is a perfect example of this. Granted that it's a difficult feat to do right, but it's definitely possible to have the power of Unix in a truly easy to use system.

Re:But OTOH

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

There's a difference between "dumbing down" an OS, and giving an OS and applications consistent and easy-to-use interfaces. Apple makes things easy by giving programs similar interfaces and similar menu structures.

Microsoft's interfaces are much more Fisher-Price than Apple's. Unfortunately, Fisher-Price doesn't mean simpler to understand.

Re:But OTOH

[bfields]

Everyone already knows that Linux needs a lot of work to become a viable mass market desktop. We've known it for quite a while. We even know a lot of the specific was in which it could be improved to bring it closer to this goal. So why isn't it getting done?

Well, it clearly is *getting* done: anyone who's actually used Gnome, for example, for the last five years or so can see that enormous amounts of work have gone into making a usable desktop.

As for why it isn't actually *done* yet, there's a much simpler reason: because it's really, really hard work, and that kind of thing takes time.

Linux development happens mostly through hobbyists...

Really? These days there are a *ton* of people working full-time on linux development (I should know, I am one...), so a statement like that requires evidence....

--Bruce Fields

Re:But OTOH

[anagama]

Recent mac purchaser (powerbook prior to Tiger). So Tiger comes out and I think "that looks cool", except it's $129 to try it out on one machine ($200 for 5 (and I have two macs here)). In contrast, Hoary Hedgehog comes out and I've got two other machines upgraded in no time, no cost. And you know what, I like the linux DEs. Linux might not take over the entire world -- but so what? Why is that the test? How about these:

• Does it work?
• Is it easy for me to use?
• Does it do what I want?

Honestly, some things are nicer on OSX, but I don't really see it as being $200/year nicer. And some things are lousy on OSX, e.g., lack of middle-click paste or the funky way keyboard task switching is done.

Re:But OTOH

[Chandon Seldon]

Uhh... Have you actually put as much time into learning to using Linux as you've put into using Windows (or MacOS)? Or even a reasonable amount of time?

Unless the Linux interface dupicates another OS *exactly*, it'll never be possible for a user of another OS to just drop in and be an immediate expert. And that sort of complete duplication isn't a good idea anyway.

A modern desktop Linux distribution will be perfectly usable for anyone who's willing to learn *any* new desktop OS.

The reason why people in your category (Windows Power Users) have trouble switching to Linux is an unrealistic expectation that your "extensive computer skills" mean zero learning curve for a new system. It'll actually be harder to pick up for you than for a new user, and there's no real way to change that.

Again - Linux isn't significantly behind at anything important for a generic desktop user. Feel free to give me specific examples if you think I'm wrong. The fact that you can't find a defragmenting tool or a virus scanner is *ok*.

Re:But OTOH

[poptones]

Linux is *far* behind Windows and OSX in terms of usability.

In what way? Two years since my move from windows confinement to linux and I am still discovering new stuff I cna do with an OOTB linux that I used to have to spend HOURS looking for documentation on from Microsoft - or even making my own tools or searching for tools already made by others.

I don't know what you do with a desktop, but I find nothing missing. Parent has it right, gnome has improved pretty dramatically just in the last year and ubuntu, the distro that focuses most directly on it right now, is an absolutely fantastic OS. Yeah, there are still some annoyances - for example in Nautilus (try opening a folder with a few thousand items and you might as well get a cup of coffe while waiting for the content to pour into the frame) - but on the whole it's a fantastically functional desktop that is far easier to customize with custom widgets than anyning Microsoft has managed or even that applescript stuff.

OSX was build from almost scrath in less than half the time Linux has been in existence.

The core of OS X was around for decades and in this respect so was linux (sort of). But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was around since NEXT, and I do believe that predates both Gnome and KDE.

But even if not, what's it matter? For one thing this whole notion of linux being threatened by a move of Apple to intel is based on the already disproven assumption that one will be able to install OS X on any intel hardware. Unless OS X can run on commodity PC hardware it is no more a "threat to linux" than it ever was.

MS and Apple are busy moving forward all the time.

So is the linux desktop. Quickly, and in a hundred directions. Choice is good.

Re:But OTOH

[Chandon Seldon]

KDE and Gnome are both realistically there now. Things only get hard when you try to do weird stuff. Like it or not, on Linux, a personal firewall is weird stuff - and that's OK. Even when you mix KDE and Gnome apps the differences aren't really significant enough to matter. The recent SuSE and RedHat released even make them look the same. There still are a couple minor issues with Desktop Linux, but that really isn't one of them anymore.

Re:But OTOH

[SeventyBang]

I don't think survival of the fittest is ever the right phrase[1]. I propose survival of the most adaptable. You can be the fittest in one environment or set of circumstances but when the situation changes; e.g. Apple moving to x86, what defines the fittest changes. The ability to adapt to whatever is going on and where it's taking place is what counts.

The GUI is an understatement. The strategy of Windows-like but not Windows will not win in the long run. It's not an improvement. Mac is the right interface...so far; time has borne this out. The lack of software (including games) has been the Mac downfall. Perhaps time will produce a better UI - beyond voice alone. What happens when, (in reverse order of time):

-o- it reads your mental requests[2] (ultimate)
-o- sees where your eyes are on the screen and reacts to your voice in the context of that location
-o- reacts to your voice
-o- keyboard.

Special mention needs to be made - obviously - for those who are [currently] paralyzed and using an eye interface - it doesn't fit anywhere on the time line per se - but the technology can be borrowed (obviously - above). Something similar will likely be said for a mental interface. It'll either be implemented for those who can communicate no other way and broadened to everyone else, or it'll be developed for the human brain, once. aside from minor changes for those who have some form of small needs.

In the meantime, the question will be: copy Apple or make it Apple-like; enough to avoid listening to landsharks ring your doorbell vs retaining the status quo and watching all but the diehards jump ship. You are not going to convince Mac users to switch to Linux with a Windows' GUI (not "belonging to Windows": Windows prime for the math people, think Windows-- for the programmers) interface.

There is a ready-made GUI ready for Linux to use and I predict it will emerge with an attempt to preserve Linux as a long-term desktop alternative against Windows as the lion's share of the market vs. Mac as the users' choice of UI. What is it? (no fair peeking below) Clues: (a) It predates Windows. (b) It is currently [still] on the market. (c) Its owner has been around for a long, long time. (d) It has become a big supporter of Linux and OS in general and will only do more in the future. Can you guess what it is?[3]

Otherwise, Linux as-is will try to wedge itself between Windows and Mac. Doing so will inflict a lot of pressure. Not good pressure; i.e. not in the sense of creating a diamond. Corporations must have a reason to go to Linux beyond better scalability over Windows' servers and a cheaper, and anti-Microsoft desktop. It will retain the former (servers) and Mac will absorb the desktop, both for the purposes of usability and the anti-Microsoft sentiment. The money won't be an issue because they're already paying it to Microsoft. The Microsoft->Mac migration is nearly a flat transaction (or zero-sum game, if you prefer) when evaluating the UI and finances. Linux will have to find a way to intervene in order to survive. That's as simple[4] as it gets. Granted, it's making serious inroads when it comes to applications - but applications alone will not increase marketshare in the long term .

Next question: When will it be time for Linux to stop being one size fits all? At some point, Linux will have to fork to server and client in order to survive with all of the other occupants riding in the x86 boat. No matter how much people want to defend Linux and see it as invincible, its unity will become its downfall.
____________________
[1] and the intrepretation of Darwin needs to change as well. Otherwise, survival of the fittest is going to be confined to short bursts of time.
[2] a small BIAC in

Re:But OTOH

[MightyMartian]

Next question: When will it be time for Linux to stop being one size fits all? At some point, Linux will have to fork to server and client in order to survive with all of the other occupants riding in the x86 boat. No matter how much people want to defend Linux and see it as invincible, its unity will become its downfall.

That's just a load of baloney. In the Windows world, the division between desktop and server OS is largely artificial (limiting clients and CPUs). There's no harm in having a kernel that can handle network file systems or firewalling running on a desktop. I've done it plenty. There are specific situations (like embedded systems) where you will obviously want a small kernel with a minimum of tools, but those are specialized situations.

Take a look at Ubuntu. It's a minimalist, desktop distro. Comes with a browser, email, office suite and some multimedia utilities. Nothing to stop you from install MySQL, Apache or whatever if you want.

The only reason to create "server" and "client" operating systems is rake in the money at both ends of the spectrum. It's a licensing fiction which makes guys like MS considerable amounts of money. Why would you want to lock Linux into such a thing? If you don't want a server-class Linux, don't install the server components.

Re:But OTOH

[binary paladin]

In terms of ease of use one of the biggest problems for Linux on the desktop is that the GUIs and DEs are just that, GUIs and DEs. They run in BSD, Linux, Solaris, . They're not being set up with a specific OS in mind which means a lot of GUI tools for doing things aren't there. SuSE has YaST and I know some of the other distros have their own tools, but often their integration leaves much to be desired.

What it boils down to is that for a successful desktop distro to come around (in my opinion anyway) it needs to choose a GUI and build everything around it, period. Ubuntu is an excellent example right now with their Gnome centric attitude.

Frankly, for everyday usability I'll take Gnome or KDE on just about any Linux distro over Windows. I recently got a Mac Mini because there are some commercial programs that Linux really doesn't have. (Illustrator anyone?) There are times when I find OS X's customization lacking, but it's a fair trade I think. No OS is perfect. However, I would rather program MY OWN Photoshop and/or Illustrator than go back to using Windows. That's just right out.

The commercial apps are Linux's biggest weakness. Not installation. Not ease of use. Hell, order a commerical copy of Crossover Office. Installation isn't any harder than Mac or Windows. I find that if you make sure that you're using programs from the same DE (don't try mixing and matching KDE and Gnome apps) that the Linux experience is VERY consistent and perfectly usable.

As to what is keeping commerial apps away from Linux, I dunno. I'm not an analyst or even someone with statistics in front of me. It could be market penetration (which is a painful catch-22). It could be the lack of a definitive GUI toolkit. It could be the fact that there's really no definitive distro. Working with Linux commercially is just not the same as any other OS because Linux != an OS.

This usability crap is an old myth. Anyone saying that it's a "hobbyist's" OS and nothing more is living in 1995. Both Gnome and KDE have come far along and work very well. Overall integration can be lacking, but it's moving along and it'll get there.

Re:But OTOH

[dangitman]

But this is automagically done in linux. I thought with OSX, I didn't have to config it? Everything "just works". Still - running off to try.

Well, it's a matter of preference. Middle-click paste is not a very 'Mac" way of doing things. It's a very bad idea especially for casual users, children and the elderly. Because it can easily be destructive. Accidentally hit the middle button while you have a block of text or a large graphic selected, and you possibly have a nasty undo situation on your hands.

Apple likes to offer a standard way of doing things, which you can customize if you have different needs. The Mac user interface also encourages the quick use of keyboard shortcuts, so while you may find the keyboard clumsy, for experienced Mac users (especially of Photoshop) it's an automatic action that doesn't slow work down.

Re:But OTOH

[I_Love_Pocky!]

I keep reading all of these articles about how Linux is in trouble because Macs are going to be using x86, and to me it sounds like a lot of hot air.

The primary flaw with that line of reasoning is that MacOS is not going to be available for just any x86 system. It isn't like people can go out, and buy OSX to replace their current Linux installation. In reality, because of the hardware lock-in, OSX on x86 wont be any different than the current PowerPC state of affairs. If you want MacOS, you have to buy a Mac.

The only real difference is that now Windows will be able to run on Mac hardware (Linux already could).

The bottom line is that the processor change is going to have little impact outside of the Apple world unless they decide to change their mind about the hardware lock-in.

Re:But OTOH

[Sam Ritchie]

Two years since my move from windows confinement to linux and I am still discovering new stuff I cna do with an OOTB linux that I used to have to spend HOURS looking for documentation on from Microsoft - or even making my own tools or searching for tools already made by others.

There's a big difference between bundled functionality and usability. This is exactly the mindset that I feel has been holding back linux usability work to date.

But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was around since NEXT, and I do believe that predates both Gnome and KDE

The Aqua UI and HIG, what people think of when they think of OS X, was built in probably three or four years following the NeXT purchase and the Rhapsody releases.

Unless OS X can run on commodity PC hardware it is no more a "threat to linux" than it ever was.

No arguments there. The only implications of the Intel move will likely be comparable performance.

Quickly, and in a hundred directions. Choice is good.

If any of those directions result in inconsistent user interfaces, it's not good for usability.

Re:But OTOH

[pomo monster]

You know how you can't get anything done in Windows without a wizard popping up, supposedly to "guide" you through your task? I can't find it now, but Apple's Human Interface Guidelines explicitly discourage useless wizards, since they condescend to the user and keep him/her at arm's length from actual configuration. There are situations where a well-designed wizard is appropriate, but their rampant abuse in Windows is just about the most maddening thing about that OS and certainly contributes to the Fisher-Price feel. I'm glad Mac OS X treats you like an adult.

Re:But OTOH

[ciroknight]

Aqua, on the other hand, was fleshed out in 3 years, and keeps getting better.

You know, Aqua, Mac OS X's Desktop Environment. NeXT might have built the system, but the engineers at Apple made it soar.

Re:But OTOH

[siplus]

You do realize, that 'survival of the fittest' MEANS 'survival of the most adaptable' ?

Darwinism, anyone?

Re:But OTOH

[bursch-X]

Well, when it comes to good GUI design, someone has to make decisions.

If you let everyone have it their way, you get the GUI disaster that is Linux (take one or the other of the big DEs alone, and there is a little more consitency, but then, who are the GNOME or KDE guys to tell me: only run KDE or GNOME apps otherwise your whole consistency in UI design goes down the drain).

Re:But OTOH

[Arker]

I almost agree with you.

The menu bar is nice. And pre-OS 10 Mac interface was pretty nice in most ways too.

The NeXT boxes were great though. The only thing I didn't like - lack of the menu bar. Every other UI element was as good, or better, IMOP.

I was really hoping OSX would be a lot closer to NeXT, or failing that, would just have the NeXT guts with an OS9 GUI. What we actually got, however, was something inconsistent with both in a lot of ways.

Still nicer than Windows, but then again, has the standard slipped so low that that means a passing grade?

Re:But OTOH

[jcr]

Microsoft's interfaces are much more Fisher-Price

I really don't think you're being fair to Fisher-Price. They design their products very well for their target audience.

-jcr

Re:But OTOH

[TractorBarry]

Well said that man !

Those sort of glib, uninformative error messages are the bane of computing. If you're a programmer and this is how you handle errors you're a waste of time.

The only place I'd say this approach was acceptable would be software for a kiosk type app but for a desktop app it's inexcusably poor.

At the very least there should be a way to retrieve additional details from the error prompt (perhaps a button if it's a GUI app) Activating this "additional details" option should then give a full descriptive audit trail of all the errors that led to the failure. And all error messages should be meaning ful and supply full details (i.e . if a file failed to open give the reason and the name of the file)

Otherwise we're into the land of pure nonsense as typified by the Atari 1040 range which used to pop up a dialogue box that simply said "Warning something strange has happened, please try to avoid" acoompanied by a button that simply said "I will". Priceless humour but utterly crap design !

There has been SOME discussion....

[thewldisntenuff]

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!

Re:There has been SOME discussion....

[andersbergh]

I don't think Linux should be very worried at all because:

1. Linux is free - OS X isn't, many people choose Linux because it's free
2. OS X will only run on Apple branded Mactels, I doubt lots of people suddenly will stop using Linux or Windows on their normal PC and buy a new Mactel.

I still don't get it..

[suresk]

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?

Re:I still don't get it..

[0racle]

While its true that OS X will have little effect in general, it would be more competition for Linspire and Xandros that they are not really used to. Both of those target switchers from Windows who do not want to know what their computer is doing, and now OS X comes along targeting the same people with a well known name and with a system that is known for being easy to use.

If the Mac Mini did more damage to desktop Linux, imagine a cheaper version, with higher clock rates that can do everything a Linux desktop can, but has more software available to purchase for it, and of course has Office on it. Now if your average user only cares about 'how fast it is, what it can do, and how much it costs' and you see the Mac Mini doing damage, then what will one that hits all of the points that the average user cares about do to desktop Linux.

Thats why its a threat to Linux distros that target users.

Re:I still don't get it..

[LordNimon]

For the millionth time: Apple will not sell OS X separately, and OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware! How hard is this for people to understand?!?!?!?!?

Re:I still don't get it..

[justforaday]

For the millionth time: Apple will not sell OS X separately, and OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware.

And for the millionth time, Apple does sell OS X separately. It's just that, as you say, it does you no good unless you have Apple hardware to run it on...

Don't get it

[moranar]

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.

Re:Don't get it

[2nd Post!]

Apple computers are already price competitive; $999 for an iBook, $1299 for an iMac...

You would be right to assume that Apple doesn't compete for the bottom dollars, but for a classy, capable, usable system (plus charging for ease of use as a feature), Apple does fine. Not the greatest deal but also not the worst deal.

Switching to Intel now makes Macs performance competitive. Before it was already price and feature competitive, offering reasonable prices, reasonable features, and reasonable usability, but now it brings performance on the table.

So the issue isn't that OS X will be available for 'common' computers as much as Macs WILL be 'common' computers.

Re:Don't get it

[pla]

Apple computers are already price competitive; $999 for an iBook, $1299 for an iMac...

Competative in what market, exactly?

I don't particularly want to let myself get drawn into a debate about Macs vs PCs, but the absolutely lowest priced Mac available, the stripped-down, all-but-useless Mac Mini, costs in the same range as a typical name-brand desktop PC.

Going into the $1300 range, you can get some fairly sweet business-class machines from Dell, just shy of "with the works".

Re:Don't get it

[node 3]

or that OSX will be compatible with most computers out there

It already is, via PearPC. The only problem with PearPC is no hardware acceleration, and PPC->x86 translation.

x86 OS X removes the need for PPC->x86 translation.

Even if Apple locks the OS with DRM, DVDJon will have it cracked within a week. Yeah, you won't be able to just pop in the disk and install, but since we're talking Linux users here, they can handle a small boot image to load OS X with--it'll be easier than the "swap the disc" hacks for game consoles.

More of the same.

[SA Stevens]

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.

Re:More of the same.

[stinerman]

I'm not convinced that everybody wants to pay a $150-300 license fee per CPU to run on all their 'desktop' systems.

Point taken, but how many people in muliple computer homes paid Bill for seperate licenses on all the computers?

x86 != PC

[Hungus]

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.

Pure FUD

[JoeCommodore]

OSX isn't free and the intel Mac probably won't be anywhere cheap either. (it will be good, but not low-cost)

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.

OS X will NOT be the primary alternative...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Alternative to windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I dont think it will make much difference

[dyfet]

So long as OS/X is bound exclusivily to some "Apple specific" hardware, I do not think it makes much difference in terms of x86 GNU/Linux desktop adoption whether that hardware is PPC or X86.

Well,

[neurokaotix]

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.

Not all of us are outspoken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us just quietly enjoy using these great apple products, & don't shout it from the mountain tops.

Re:But you know what they say.

[Decameron81]

"OS X - A simple OS for simple minds."

Seems to me like you missed the point of technology...

Hackers, not Apple, will kill Linux on Desktop.

[reporter]

The future of Linux in the server market is secure simply because IBM has invested in Linux on the server. IBM never abandons rich customers who have purchased legacy (which, in this case, is Linux servers) from IBM.

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.

Re:Hackers, not Apple, will kill Linux on Desktop.

[incom]

So you're saying the millions(yes millions) of desktop(yes desktop) linux users today will switch to OSX and desktop linux will die? Not likely. Remeber those google zeitgeist OS stats? There are nearly as many desktop linux users today as mac users, and the momentum is great, and the attitudes of you mac fanboys have turned us far away from the mac.

Is it just me...?

[Cross-Threaded]

Or, is it that nothing is really going to change, save that Intel gets Apple's money instead of IBM???

Re:Microsoft:Sauron::Apple:Saruman

[argent]

Linux/Unix people are going to use the shell features of OSX. Non-Linux people aren't.

Technical people are going to use the shell features of OSX. Non-technical people aren't. But not all technical people using Macs are old UNIX types. Apple's long had an active community of amateur hackers doing their scripting with Applescript, and these people are hooking Applescripts into shell scripts, and taking advantage of the way Apple's extending the hooks Applescript's using into other languages. The platform is at least as scriptable as UNIX.

Mac OS X currently ships with Perl, Python, Tcl, bash and tcsh, Applescript, PHP, and now Javascript scripting in Dashboard.

If that's a jail, freedom is slavery.

Bah!

[standards]

[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.

For the Umpteenth Bloody Time

[segedunum]

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.

Finally

[aCapitalist]

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.

Desktop Linux will not die, but grow instead

[Morganth]

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.

Re:Desktop Linux will not die, but grow instead

[Ramses0]

As a 0.5 yr. Powerbook user (and former 5yr Linux user), I'll play devil's advocate with these:

(1) Desktop Linux distros come with hundreds of quality desktop applications

OSX comes with 3-4 high quality applications that you really need (iPhoto, iTunes). What I use most often extra: OO.org (actually, NeoOffice), FireFox.

(2) Linux will run on a TON of hardware, including old hardware

Good point, but Mac hardware is "better"? Powermac 12" v. some cheap-o taiwan windows laptop? No comparison.

For people who want to be a part of the open source movement, Linux (or BSDs) is the natural choice.

Look at Linus (who uses a powerbook formfactor, if not OSX itself). Nothing is prohibiting you from developing software under the license you choose. Agreed that the OS and applications are not (all) open, and that can be a dealbreaker.

(4) Linux, as a kernel, is hyper-configurable. You can strip it down or compile everything in.

OSX "just works". It's actually quite nice, especially since I've been trying to configure wlan adapters on Linux and it's about as far away from the ideal as possible. (through no fault of linux developers).

(5) The "slick GUI" advantage of OS X will rapidly disappear ...I look forward to it.

(6) ...it's just as simple to install major server apps as other apps.

Installation in OSX is drag and drop (or the winders "click-click-click"), I'm sure server applications behave similarly.

(7) The typical Linux environment is highly, highly scriptable.

Automator. I've tried using it, and it mostly stinks (or I can't figure out good ways to use it), but you can still drop to #!/bin/sh if necessary, and apple is pretty good about making things command-line accessible (ie: mdfind is command-line interface to spotlight. man mdfind does just what you'd expect).

Just some thoughts.

--Robert

linux users don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Stop with these BS...

[brainnolo]

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?

Hardware support is an issue that needs a look

[Vanayr]

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.

You missed the point

[bahamat]

These distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, which will soon be the primary x86 alternative to Windows

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.

Sorry, but $999 and $1200 are *not* competitive

[Colin Smith]

You may be looking at PC prices from several years ago.

$550 and $299 would be competitive.

Re:What are you smoking?

[alienw]

Well, let's rephrase this in simple, easy-to-digest words for idiots like you. People use Linux because they are free to copy, redistribute, and modify it. You don't have to deal with BSA audits, you don't need to worry about keeping track of licenses when you are deploying it, you can customize the OS to do what you need, and nobody can force you to upgrade if you don't want to.

The stability argument is a myth. Linux is more stable than Win9x, but Win2K or XP with decent drivers is just as stable, at least for desktop use. I can crash my Linux machine just by starting Xawtv. I remember people were bitching about how a more stable version of Windows will kill Linux. Well, it's not stability that's the selling point.

Not dumbing down at all

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I guess that depends on wether it is a good thing to dumb down things.

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?

Lotsa Myths here!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!
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 /. 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!

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!

OK, Enough of these stories!

[MrPerfekt]

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.

Just smile and nod

[Infonaut]

How hard is this for people to understand?

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.

Much ado about nothing

[Jeremi]

I don't see what the concern is. If Apple had announced that they were going to sell OS/X as a software-only product that you could install on any PC, then perhaps it would be competing with Linux. But they are only going to be selling OS/X to run on their own Apple branded hardware, which means that for the vast majority of people (i.e. those that already own an x86 PC and those that just want to buy a cheap machine, and aren't willing to pay the "Apple cool design surcharge"), OS/X will continue not to be an option.

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.

Re:But you know what they say.

[Decameron81]

"Which is what, dumbing things down until they are less useful for everyine who is not an idiot?"

Nope. More like making computers usable by people who actually doesn't give a damn about their command lines.

Linux cannot be threatened.

[stealth.c]

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.

Who says OS X x86 will have any impact?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

But Darwin will not be limited that way

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Even more to the Point

[abandonment]

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.

Death To False Metal

[SomeOtherGuy]

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.

Here, hear

[poptones]

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.

This debate is a complete waste of time

[The OPTiCIAN]

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.