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

[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

[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

[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

[anagama]

This is 2005, and I *still* can't use Linux (I was a senior database developer for several years).

????

I've presented this story before. My business partner is not computer savy at all -- she still has an AOL dial-up account. She calls the computer a "cpu" -- you know the type, points at the case and says "cpu". She's the type of person who bought a computer years ago and since it still allows her to check email, she has no interest in getting something else.

When I set up our office, I used linux set up with the KDE desktop. I was surprised one day when I came in and saw she had independently changed the wallpaper to her kid's picture. She's never had a problem with openoffice (used MS Office before) or Mozilla or Kmail.

I'm thinking that if she can use it, almost anyone can. She may not be able to do a deep configuration, but she wouldn't be able to do that with her windows box -- I know this -- recently she called me up and asked me how she could burn a CD from her computer at home (she has no problem with k3b). Fact is, it's been so long since I've used any windows software it was hard to guide her (you know, I'm saying stuff like "ok, look at the menu for something suggests the concept of burning or writing ... starting at the left, what is the first menu title, no not that one, next ...").

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

[nathanh]

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

Woah there nelly. You haven't got that one quite right. The origins of OS X began in 1985 with the first public release in 1988. It's older than Linux by a few years. It evolved a bit between 1988 and 1997 before Apple bought it, and Apple did some fairly major reworking, but OS X has a 20 year history and has spent 8 years with Apple. Linux is only 14 years old and KDE/GNOME are only 8 years old. So to be completely honest, the KDE/GNOME guys have managed to build *two* desktops from scratch in less than half the time OS X has been in existence! You got it exactly backwards.

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

[ArmorFiend]

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.

In truth, Apple has a long way to go too.

Why just the other day, I was trying to set up wireless on our houseguest's ibook. I had to type in the essid and the WEP password. "password?" I thought ... what password? There's just a hex key. Well, I'll type in the hex key, see if that works. No. Well I'll press the help button, and see what it tells me. Roughly paraphrasing, here was the help of the "user friendly" Apple OS X:

Put the name of the wireless network in the "name" field, and your password in the "password" field.

Okay, screw this, I'm going to Google. After some futzing around, it turns out that to enter a hex key one has to put a '$' before the key. That's completely unintuitive, and not documented. What a load of overhyped bantha poodoo is this OS X...

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

[Toddlerbob]

There seems to be a lot of arguing back and forth about the user interface, but quite frankly I think that the user interfaces of gnome and kde and the distros that use them are just fine. I think, as you do, that their interfaces are just as serviceable as Windows or Mac.

There are some things that need to change, though. One thing, which I read about from time to time is the lack of a consistent clipboard in Linux. That's a big one to me.

Another factor, though, which I don't see much mention of, is the lack of good error messages and other systme-level feedback in Linux.

My typical example of this is getting printers to work. I'm no Linux expert, but I do know more about it than Mom and Pop at least. But getting a printer to work that's attached to a Windows machine is always a headache. I pray that it works the first time, and sometimes it does, but more likely than not it doesn't. So where's the problem? Is it CUPS? Is it Samba? Or somewhere else? There are no error messages whatsoever to give me clue.. Instead, the system either reports nothing, or reports that printing was successfully spooled. However, nothing emerges from the printer, so it's always some manner of guess and check. Once it finally works, it works forever, but I'm afraid to even touch the printer configuration for fear of screwing it up again.

Another example is a machine I dual boot into Linux or Windows. In Linux, all of a sudden the network connection was incredibly sporadic. I finally gave up using the computer and went to another, as I didn't have time to tweak this and discover that to figure out the problem.

Later I booted the same machine into Windows, and as Windows started up it informed me that there was an IP address conflict and that it would therefore deactivate the network card. Well, once I knew that, it was easy to fix the problem for both windows and linux.

Anyway, that's what I mean by lack of error messages and system feedback in Linux. And that's the level where I think Linux needs the most improvement.

Re:But OTOH

[Air-conditioned cowh]

After my recent experiences of using a Mac I can see it is _usually_ easy to use. However the error messages when they appear are completely useless. Messages like "the disk can not be burned right now".

OK, why not?!! How do I fix it?!!

Not sure if that was an _exact_ example of what I remember seeing but you get the idea.

Easy to use until something goes slightly wrong. And it also still has (Apple) apps with greyed-out options with no clue given as to why they haved been greyed out.

Re:But OTOH

[macshome]

Erm.

You just pick what kind of key you are using (ASCII, hex, WPA) from the pick list and type it in.

What version where you looking at?

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..

[Squareball]

Ahmen brother! People are acting like OS X has been announced for generic X86 boxes and it hasn't. In the end you'll still have to buy a mac to use OS X so I don't see how this changes anything. The only difference is that it'll have Intel x86 inside instead of PPC. Other than that it will be the same damn thing.

Re:I still don't get it..

[kfg]

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?

It isn't.

What is it that I am missing?

Not too many brain cells, for whatever comfort that may offer.

KFG

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.

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.

[VStrider]

These people need to realise that one day they will be forced to pay seperate licences. You cann't get away with it forever. And Microsoft has already started pressuring users and businesses to buy licences with the "genuine (dis?)advantage" program.

With DRM and palladium coming, I think Microsoft will be able to enforce license purchases within the next 2 years. Notice I said 'be able'-they won't do it yet, not as long as there are viable free alternatives like Linux.

So their strategy is to get as many users as possible on windows, pirated or not, and when there are only a few left on Linux, force everyone to pay. Then you'll look ofcourse for a free alternative, but it'll be too little too late.

The funny thing is, most windows users with pirated versions, think they are 'cheating' Microsoft, while infact they are playing Microsoft's game. And Microsoft treats them like criminals, like they've done something bad. The same tactic banks use. They'll give you more credit than you can afford, and when you cann't pay it back on time, they'll blame you and treat you like you've done something bad. So people usually fall into the trap, borrow more than they can afford and end up paying extraordinary fees without complaining. After all, it's their fault...isn't it?

These people need to stop thinking about short term convenience and think the long term implications of their actions.

Nowdays, Linux is very easy to use and very powerful. There really is, no excuse not to use it.

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.

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.

MS should still be more worried than linux

[doormat]

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).

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.

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...

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.

Could Boost Desktop Linux

[Michael_Burton]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You still won't be able to run OS X

[Colin Smith]

On your desktop PC.

It is still not a PC operating system. Absolutely nothing has changed.

This is a non issue.

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?

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.

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.