Slashdot Mirror
Apple and Windows Will Force Linux Underground
eastbayted writes "Tom Yager at InfoWorld predicts: 'At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.' That's not a gloom-and-doom omen for the ever-popular Linux kernel, though, he stresses. While Apple and Microsoft will grapple for dominance of client and server spaces, Linux will be 'the de facto choice for embedded solutions.' And by 'embedded,' Yager means 'specialized.' With a push of a button and a flip of switch, he predicts, you'll be able to create a configured database and a mated J2EE server — all thanks to Linux."
Linux was designed for the cheapskate, to download as much free porn as possible. Nothing stops porn, and the need for people to have it for free. Not to mention free software - the two are the yin and yang of the internet.
Well, whatever may or may not happen on the desktop, I sure would rather see Linux dominating the embedded market than Windows or Apple. The whole concept of embedded Windows seems ugly to me - like dressing up a nightclub bouncer in a pixie costume.
Argh.
I just rebooted from a hard crash on my new mac pro
OSX is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.
OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows.
OSX isn't a serious solution.
-bms20
Is this prediction really such a bad thing? Most predictions I've heard as far as the future of computing goes point to us eventually moving to solely imbedded solutions. Powerful cellphones, smart washing machines, etc. A computer chip in every device.
FTFA
Now before anybody goes nuts, understand what I'm saying: Apple isn't going to win or even wage a religious war with Linux. The market will bring about the adjustments to which I'm referring. There will be more money than ever to be made with Linux, but sales won't derive from a model fashioned to compete with Windows and OS X. Microsoft and Apple will be the top-seeded fighters in general client and server computing platforms. Linux doesn't need or want to be the third man in that ring.
But don't get rankled by my prediction that Linux is going underground. It will thrive there.
Let me be the first to laugh at his prediction.
Apple UNIX will overtake Linux at the expense of whose market share? Windows? or Linux?
And have they figured out how to count Linux installations yet? (A very hard problem since you can just download Linux off the internet for free, so there are many more ways to get it)
I can't help but think this guy got all hyped up because of an Apple conference and just had to gush over it in print. Not to sound flamish or trollish, but what he fails to take into account is that Linux is seldom sold pre-installed. People generally buy the machine they want and then install linux post purchase. It is short sighted to only take sales into account when comparing OS use.
My humor is probably your flamebait
You mean they're bringing back A/UX?
The biggest surprise at the end of the decade will be flying cars.
In the year 2010, all of the worlds money will be replaced by toilet paper. "Stay lonely" will be the new "goodbye". Apple pie is no longer American, being bought out by the Canadians. Google releases new TattooSense, paying people to get chest-and-back tattoos of ads. George Bush, in a hostile take over, becomes King of the Planet and enslaves all of humanity. He uses his new slave army to move Mt. Everest -- mumbling something about proving an interviewer wrong. Donkey Kong is brought back to life, only to be shot three days later after going nuts in a barrel factory.
ADD rocks.
You see the trends clearly now. Windows vs. BSD with a proprietary GUI shell on the desktop; Windows vs. Linux on the server. That's because you don't need a nice GUI on the server, but the transparency of the code base for Linux and its toolchain mean that technical users can apply self help to their problems, rather than submit a ticket to Company A and wait 3-12 months.
Why?
You're making "predictions" without explaining the "logic" behind them. Why will all those countries / governments / cities currently deploying Linux drop it?
If they don't drop it, why will other ones go with Apple?
And this will fail to drive Linux adoption
If anything, that would seem to me to be something that would drive Linux adoption.
The poster, eastbayted, is hanged just after violating the church of slashdot. He is survived by his two wives, Mindoz and Fruity.
You will never have experience until after you needed it.
Considering the number of enterprise companies that have invested in Linux and do exert some influence over kernel development(IBM, Oracle) and I don't see Apple letting Dell, HP, or IBM build XServes I don't see this happening. Does Apple make a good, stable product? Yes. Is their client (desktop version) more user friendly than Windows or Linux at this point? Yes (I use all 3, Macbook being less than a month). Will Apple carve out a decent chunk in a few different markets? I hope so but I don't see them moving linux out of the data center.
Especially if it gives the OSS community to put out better software. As much as the OS market looks like a monopoly, it's still the competition that will fuel innovation. And no one will benefit more than us users.
. o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
Hahahahahahahahahaah ahahah hahhah hahahah ha ......
Read radical news here
Have you ever tried to get Oracle running on anything but Red Hat? When are we going to face the fact that Linux distros are different from each other? When I say "I run Linux" I've really said something as vague as (here comes the car analogy) "I drive a car" (as opposed to "I drive an Oldsmobile"). When people pick on "Linux" what are they really picking on?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Apple? MacOS take any server share at all? To be honest, taking away commercial UNIX desktop share isn't exactly a big effort - most of the Sun guys I know use Apple laptops and most of the HPUX guys I've met use Windows.
No way on the serverside, though. MacOS is unreliable, balky, slow, RAM-hungry and generally inappropriate. It makes a lovely desktop but doesn't make an ideal server by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, their hardware is sub-par (although very pretty) and underpowered compared to what other vendors are putting out there.
Give me Sun opteron boxes running either Solaris or a certified Linux for all the small jobs and give me big, solid, heavy SPARC hardware for the big iron. I work in a *very* large (over 10k servers) environment and Solaris still completely dominates the database server/large app server end with Linux running web servers, the occasional customer firewall and other small jobs. HPUX is still a big force with a lot of appplications only running on HPUX, although migration to Solaris is a happening thing.
There is no way any serious organisation is going to start switching to Xserves. They're just not up to scratch compared to the current Opteron lineup. Maybe when I can get a 16 or 32 core Xserve with 32Gb of RAM they might start having the grunt, but until then they're just pretty looking.
By the end of the decade, the world will have exploded due to either the fall of meteorites or total nuclear war.
There won't be nor electricity nor Apple nor Microsoft.
Sorry for me spell bad, not a native but I'll do my best
I'm waiting for the "smart" vibrator and blow-up doll myself.
Linux, BSD, Solaris and Windows rule the ISP server market.
I've never touched an OSX box that did anything really important.
Most don't take it seriously, and Apple has not built many 1u rack mounts, but I guess they have a new product now? I just checked..
He assumes that Windows marketshare isn't going to decrease, and implies that Mac is fighting for marketshare with Linux for the market of "Unix based computers."
Linux desktop marketshare is taking off and will take marketshare from Windows. Look at OLPC, Ubuntu at 6 million users and doubling every 8 months, the recent news of an Indian state moving to free software, etc. Each doubling of users will double engineering resources to cause Linux to pick up further steam. Sure, Linux will dominate the embedded space, and it is well on its way to doing that already, but it will also own the desktop space as soon as its last 10,000 bugs are fixed.
Mac marketshare might grow somewhat from its piddly levels today, especially given its new ability to run Windows, but people buy PCs for the price and the choice and while Apple's outlook might be somewhat positive, their marketshare will never hit double-digits.
I can't see the Mac OS having long-term importance. Once Linux swallows Windows, obsoleting the Mac OS will be just a snack. If a Mac of the future is running FireFox, OpenOffice and tons of other free software, why not just run the whole stack and throw out the few, tiny, proprietary Apple pieces? Is anyone even a fan of Quicktime?
What is it with the high percentage of Apple stories that make the front page? For the 95% of us who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, it's getting ridiculous. Everything Apple does seems to make headline news. What's next, "Jobs visits executive washroom"? It's starting to make the front page look less like an amalgam, and more like Apple marketing.
With all of the Mac crowd self-gratification going on, perhaps it's time we stopped calling Cupertino's golden child "Apple", and instead refer to them as "Fapple".
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
There are still those who want the luxury of an Open Source OS that's free like beer. Just ask any starving student or long haired hippie. ;)
http://pinoymac.org/
Linux *is* underground for all intents and purposes. Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of Linux. If they're not in IT, web design, or a related field chances are they have not.
Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of windows, or apple. Even if they don't own a computer, they probably have.
Linux has made great strides in the past 10 years, but let's not confuse what it is. Linux is the survivalist to windows' soccer mom.
Have any tech journalist's long term predictions ever turned out to be right or even close? Was anyone back in 2000/2001 saying that by 2006 sites like myspace will have the most traffic? In 1996 were people talking about something like the ipod and other mp3 players having the ubiquity they does today?
I think its just another FUD article because there's no facts that would support his claims. Current server market share, and there's a reasonable chance that Linux might gain huge market share in the corporate desktop field soon. Judging from the TCO, overall higher security of the Linux platform(including absence of viruses), the absence of games, along with the availability of a wide scale of development tools, makes it an ideal platform, ready for deployment. Its important to note that government insitutions and companies do heavily rely mostly on custom enterprise applications, which is why any open source platform will offer more flexible environment in order to deploy such solutions. What's still missing still is a bunch of professional third party applications(and those are rather heavily used as home user applications as well).The home user of course has to wait. There's still a lot of applications that are missing in this area. But it will happen sooner or later.
I predict that a chipmanzee will be our next president, we will have a permanent settlement on mars in two years, world peace will be declared tomorrow, pigs will fly, etc. Futhermore, I feel no need to explain my position.
On the contrary, I see Debian Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora/Red Hat more and more on the desktop. Once it has finally catched up with some of the requisites of the corporate environment (eye-candiness for the lame Windows admins, graphical userfriendlyness, + monitoring tools, clients for obscure protocols/formats), it will be shipped OEM by hardware vendors (look, Lenovo will ship Suse soon if not already). And they will offer support.
GNU/Linux adoption can only grow on the desktop. Just look at the trends for the home desktop (Ubuntu gaining on OSX and Windows). The same will come true (with Ubuntu or not) in the corporate environment too. And Apple will remain a niche market, because their "holier than thou" attitude discards them, and OS X is far from GNU/Linux (yep, you read it well; not only XGL/Compiz @ GNOME/XFCE will own Aqua in no time [even if Aqua has some good stuff, most end-users don't care, they only see eye-candiness], but under the hood, GNU/Linux is far more customisable [including "lock-able", that's what companies want] than OS X). It's not only GNU/Linux that will gain share, but all F/OSS.
This Tom Yager is on the same stuff as John Dvorak; instead of their speculations, they should tell us who their dealer is.
Really, I don't see MacOSX beating Linux as long as Apple requires you to buy Apple hardware to run it. In order to beat Linux, MacOSX should become available on HP/DELL/IBM/[pick your preferred server manufacturer]/... hardware, instead of being only available along with the poor XServe ...
And I'm not talking about the bad performances of the operating system itself while used in a server context...
In the future, no-one will wear pants! The pantsaphogia virus, to be engineered by terrorists in 1999, will leave us all restricted to wearing breezy summer dresses or short-shorts.
In the future, the only colors allowed will be those based on citrus. This will be mandated by the Tangerine Council world government, headquartered in Morocco. In an effort to reintroduce all the beautiful colors of the world into human products, scientists will genetically engineer strains of lemon with tunable 48-bit color, with the exception of mauve, and there will be much rejoicing.
In the future, spammers will form a revolutionary movement to fight for their right to speech, and incite a rebellion. The rebellion will be crushed mercilessly, but create the foundations for the great Spam Wars of 2015.
That's all for now.
-Laxitive
As the second and third world countries continue to develop, they will increasingly use computers. Apple's market strategy cannot support that need - a company whose main desktop starts at $2500 just can't work in a country where the average worker makes that in a year. Even a Mac Mini is far beyond the reach of most people and companies in that area. On the other hand, those people will be far more likely to use recycled low-end x86 systems and inexpensive RISC systems (China's homegrown chip springs to mind) and the OS of choice on those systems will be Windows (quite likely pirated), Linux, or xBSD. That will create both a huge user and developer base for Linux.
The article also fails to explain why companies such as IBM and HP, who've invested much in the server side of Linux, would just walk away from that investment. I'm sure that IBM consultants will sell Apple products in the times where they are the exclusive fit for the need, but they can't control or steer Apple's direction the way they can Linux, which is one reason they push it so hard.
Well duh, Apple OSX (or whatever it's called by then) costs 100$. Ubuntu Linux (for example) is free as in gratis. How many Ubuntu licenses do you have to sell to reach the revenue of one "Apple Unix" license?
By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux.
That's very well possible, since there are hardly any systems (specifically in the Desktop realm) which come pre-installed with Linx. Usually you flatten the hard disk of a Windows taxed box, or you build from scratch if you want to run Linux.
You sir are either dim, dishonest or just a plain old idiot.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I can't see corporate America wanting to switch to an OS that charges hundreds of dollars a year per seat for what most would consider minor patches and updates.
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
What do we know about the majority of Linux installations?
Right, it's downloaded for free, or purchased at low cost by inividuals. These "facts" are completely invisible to the enterprise/financial people who were the drivers for this article.
Linux will be alive and well by the end of the decade (or in 3 years time). Nothing much will have changed, except more apps will run across all platforms.
You never know, Apple's UNIX may still be there, too.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Mac OS products from Apple require payment for major updates made available at vendor convenience which may include bugs requiring workarounds, performance downgrades, and changes to the user experience that may not be desired.
Linux OS products supplied by the community at large require payment only for professional extensions or support and can be tuned to avoid using versions with bugs that require workarounds, to avoid performance downgrades, and to enable the user experience to be customized for both convenience and consistency.
The increasingly strong popularity and large installed user counts of the most recent Linux distributions is evidence of a growing and competitive market with many kinds of customers. Also notable with recent Linux distributions is the amount of attention given to toolkits, integration, and style elements, all of which are well outside the kernel and kernel extensions that the article claims is at the core of all Linux development.
His opinion only reflects corporate/consumer use in the US. In the rest of the world Linux use is growing at the expense of Windows.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Sounds like a plausible secenario, as long as you pretend that the whole world is the United States. However, with so many people/governments/schools in all the other countries taking to Linux, that's going to create a huge realm of competition and applications that are not accounted for in the article.
So I really doubt this is anything but some MacFan having dreams. (Or posturing to try to inflate Apple stock.) Apple's still dying (As a computer company anyway) in the long term. They may end up an entertainment company, but their machines are irrelevant for the long term. Unless Apple can figure out a way to undercut the price of a server that can run either Linux or Windows. Nobody gives a shit about 'pretty' in the server room.
Forgot, there's one important thing to note. Such thing as Apple unix overtaking Linux will never happen, until Apple decides to make their software products independent from their hadrware. And AFAIK, the actual unix he's talking about is darwin, and it's open source, but there's a number of technologies that aren't open source, but they do exist in open source form either in the Linux kernel itself of happily run on top of it. That include drivers, graphics and audio technologies(X, Jack, etc).
"The following message brought to you courtesy of X?"
Fine print: The previous statements represent what X would like to happen and have nothing to do with what might happen.
I find apple is better than Linux on the desktop and for average users but in my opinion, Linux is better than OS X on the server end. That's why my laptop has OS X on it and my servers all have linux on them.
The greatest thing about "apple's UNIX" (to quote the article) is that it plays nicely with linux. Now I can have OS X and Linux boxen on the same network and it's fairly easy to jump back and forth.
I think apple and Linux can both exist and give the end user <gasp> choices. </gasp>
Linux is the survivalist to windows' soccer mom.
Excellent news! After all, in a fight, would you bet on the soccer mom or the survivalist?
I often read about vendor lock in, and wonder if people actually realise what they are saying.
ANY choice made in IT means some kind of lock-in. If I go all OSS I lock myself into something else. Of course one could argue that with OSS you can alwais "fix or change it yourself", but then again, most companies and users do not want to do that, they want to use functionality. By chosing OSS you lock yourself into that path, which is effectively no different from the vendor path.
Sometimes it can me more cost effective to do this, sometimes the option with "evil vendor lock in" is actually more cost effective.
The longer I am in IT the more just pick the tool for the fucntion. looking at the staff available, strategy of the company etc..
Vendor lock in as such is a myth, there is alwais a path that's being closed with every choice of tool...
To be honest, in a lot of cases MS actually provides a good sollution...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It's still more Open Source than Windows.
On the server?
On the destkop?
Care to elaborate?
Links perhaps?
Really?!?! Based on all the facts you provided I suppose we will have to believe you!
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
On servers, Linux has about... what, 30% share (and growing)? OS X has maybe few %, if that. If they plan to overtake Linux in servers in just few years, they better get cracking! Then we have supercomputers, where Linux has about 70% share in top500. Either Windows and OS X are about to overtake Linux there as well, in just few years, or supercomputers are considered to be "underground". Which one is it? Regardless, I find neither possibility likely.
Client-OS'es are a different matter. OS X has about 3-5% share, and Linux has maybe 2-4%. And I can see both of them going up from there. My guesstimate is that by the end of the decade, Linux has about 4-7% share on the client-side, while OS X has about 5-8%. I really don't see any indication that OS X (or Windows) are going to remove Linux from the desktops. The core-users of Linux are VERY unlikely to stop using it, and as the functionality and ease of use improves, it becomes more and more suitable for "regural" users. OS X is suitable for Joe Sixpack (mostly at least), but it requires Apple-hardware. And Windows is getting too hardware-hungry, and it doesn't really offer any tangible benefits that Linux does not offer. Well, maybe games.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
What advantages does MacOS have over BSD? If we're talking servers here a GUI is actually a negative not a positive ince it takes up resources and has more stuff running which could have security holes. Maybe it will be easier to install and configure. But Debian/Ubuntu is pretty damn easy now.
This guy is obviously talking out of his ass.
The Author Of TFA fails to consider the biggest object on the radar: the Open Source Movement.
And it's big enough to scare Monoposoft. Consider:
A) The Web is where it's at. One competent, cross-platform browser that supports a very high level of Web interactivity makes the choice of client OS much less important.
B) Where the above is true, the unspecialized user with limited funds will choose piracy or FOSS. Monoposoft and the US government are chasing pirates (any except China) and suing families.
C) There are thousands of talented programmers giving their energy to design something free and international, with good design and often-amusing, non-corporate quirks. If you don't like what you see, you roll up your sleeves and you change it. Or you offer a bounty. Simple.
D) Large, successful corporations backing FOSS as part of a new generation of hardware-software consultancy. Yes, I mean deep-pocketed folks like Google (googol of cash) and IBM as well as smaller players whose best interest is not served by Redmond's domination.
OS X is very nice and Apple makes cool hardware and has a good plan. They want to make gains with the new generation of home users who benefit from A and B in particular. Things can change quickly but Monoposoft has feet in the corporate doors and has plentiful money too -- they can buy their way into any market.
Linux is a wedge with a formidable force behind it. It is MUCH more than just a "good kernel".
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
i wouldn't really like to see Apple takeover this whole movement.. not as long as they're charging for their software.. an Apple OS of any sort will probably never be opensource as well.. the fact they even mention Linux is kind of strange, considering it's *BSD they should be talking about.. they're two totally different things, and will remain seperate for quite some time I think..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I've been a slashdotter for a long time. Not a beginner, but certainly not a newbie. Check out my number.
When I found this place I didn't even know how to SAY linux. I said it "LINE-ix."
Over the past 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of predictions about linux breaking into the home market. A million reasons have been given, and later, a million excuses.
I use linux lightly in my (development) job. I'm occassionaly tasked to do website stuff and all of our webservers run LAMP.
I enjoy using it. Partly because I'm an elitist prick who likes things that other people don't know much about. Also because it's sort of straight-forward. Things are a heirarchy, not an unorganized collection of windows, tabs, dialogs, and buttons.
I enjoy windows, as well. I make a living developing windows software. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.
My point in this is not to make 1000 people hate me. My point is that SOMEONE needs to do to linux what NeXT/Apple has done to BSD.
Yes, I know that Linux has shells, but these are after-thoughts. They don't come close to the experience of OSX or even Windows XP.
If all the OSS guys HATE microsoft so much, and they think Microsoft sucks so badly, then why the hell can't they build an OS that is actually able to beat windows at its own game?
The strength of Linux is in it's stable and secure kernel and low-level "plumbing." The same as BSD. An OS that includes a "Windows" experience on top of this solid foundation would for teh first time attract real attention and a real user base.
I know this isn't easy, but look at all the time you've had. People slam MSFT for taking 6 years to put out a consumer OS. How is it better to take six years to NOT put out a consumer OS?
Right now Linux is like a Hamm Radio. Adored by hobbyists but foreign to the public. Everyone has a radio, but it's closed-source. They can't tinker with it. They can't do much at all, except press its buttons and turn its dials. The Hamm operators know that their setup is superior, but that's a fact that's lost on the population as a whole.
I would LOVE to have a real alternative to Windows. But I don't. Maybe I never will, at least not in the form of linux. But the way people grasp linux with religious fervor makes me wonder why they don't do what it takes to actually build it into a windows-killer.
Maybe linux-devs and linux-fans really don't want to supplant Windows. As crazy as that sounds, I think it has some merit. What I'm suggesting is that you work to "dumb down" linux a bit. Build a linux that appeals to the novice. But I think the linux camp is waiting for the novices to "smarten up" and adopt linux. I just don't think that's ever going to happen.
Before you slam me, understand that I'm advocating linux. Yes, I'm criticizing the Linux community, but I'm doing it because I (somewhat) agree with the goals of that community.
I would love to see a world where Windows has a 75% market share.
I am really surprised at his prophecy about the Apple OS. With the current pricing and hardware lock-in, will it ever find a market in growing economies, or even outside of the US? Who needs an expensive, overpriced PC to execute his or her everyday task? And what about the enterprise market, servers, etc.?
Again, is the article summary inspired?
And the last three paragraphs are astoundingly sci-fi.Is this guy really qualified to make such broad assumptions and statements? I call it inspired, and FUD.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I dont know what is with us americans that we fall for everything that has a little bit of cosmetics and a LOOOT of marketing behind it.
Dont get me wrong Apple makes excellent products and I love OS X but let it stay where it belongs to - on a nice desktop. But the article has a point - some people would give up anything (not the informed ones, but lets face it - there are some that arent)just for the IMPRESSION of a security and that there is a COMPANY/Vendor behind their home/office IT asset.
Everybody needs the help and people just dont feel confortable with the "go to the phorums, IRC channels, RTFA". They need to be able to call 1-800-MYPCBAD and the guy in india is supposed to fix the issue. ANd they dont even want to pay for it - because dell does it for free - if you are running windows, or apple for the MAC-s. On the other hand, people responsible for the server market seem to be just a bit more informed - they have to keep their jobs dont they? - so I think we have to wait a bit more for this to turn...
First off, the headline for this article has flamebait written all over it.
Secondly, I've seen some interesting things from Linux in terms of how they're handling support issues. I think the press about the whole community driven support is intended to speed up the development process more than that of providing adequate technical support for commercial use. If you really want commercial support from Linux you're going to have to pay between $50-$2500 depending on your needs. I think the article attempts to state an opinion yet can't carry any depth into how Linux vendors are handling their attempts towards market share. Call it free, call it community, call it whatever, in my opinion it's an open development for a business model continuing it's pursuit to perfect itself. If that makes it underground then I think someone missed the memo.
DOOMSAYER!!! Take it back!!!
It sounds as if the author is trying to invent a reason why free software won't be free. If Linux is relegated to the embedded market, it's not really free anymore. Oh sure, you can download the open source part, but if you don't have the hardware or the bundled commercial app, it won't do much for you. He doesbn't like the idea of free software, probably feels too damn commie to him, so he invents a fantasy in which it is relegated to a role where it isn't free, and the fat happy capitalists get to make money off of it, as God intended the fat happy capitalists make money off of everything.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The heading on TFA is the biggest flamebait I have ever seen in my life, and does not serve to describe the article, only rile up the SlashCrowd. I bawk at anyone who deals in absolutes...linux is going down, everybody grab your ISOs now and run for your mothers basement! Please.
As long as any OS cannot do everything you need it to, OSS and linux will be alive and well. This is even more true with all the changes that Apple has made.
We are not at the end, this is only the beginning...
Oh yeah, I don't own a trade rag and accept ad revenue. I think these rags must run dumbest prediction and hand out the Nostradamus award. In all seriousness, I had no idea Linux had eclipsed Apple in the first place. Who wants apple OS anyways? There is no upgrade path unless you buy a new machine. And I don't know anyone upgrading to Vista as the hardware upgrade path is going to take a big investment for what return - the same return I am getting out of XP. What more do I need in my computer that I don't already have? Is VISTA taking that big of an innovative leap that I won't be able to do without. The game industry is the only thing that is pushing me to ugrade since they failed to embrace an open graphics package. I don't know why the game industry feels that people should pay a Microsoft tax just to game. Complete bullshit and an overhead that I don't feel I should have to pay to play a game. So, games don't just cost $60, they make sure you support the 800# gorilla and pay homage to the liege Bill Gates.
As soon as Linux looks as shiny as MacOSX, this will change. Yet the question is, can Linux eventually reach this point. For that Linux (better said the Linux desktop) first has to solve the "top inhibitors of the Linux desktop adoption" (see http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005. pdf). Any GUI software has to use DirectFB/Cairo (see http://www.directfb.org/) as it graphic engine so it looks as shiny. And applications have to follow the wyoGuide guidelines (see http://wyoguide.sf.net/) so they have an equal usable look&feel. If these requirements are fulfilled Linux will completely replace MacOSX.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
It's written right here in the summary : commercial Linux.
So you just have to ask Redhat, Mandriva, Suse... without any consideration for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo and others...
Worthless if you ask me. I wonder if Apple hasn't already more market share than combined commercial Linux distributions (in units) (*). And the end of the decade is in four years. Big deal.
Now IMHO, the whole author opinion is worthless...
(*) From what appears in some web hits statistics
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
He seems to have forgotten about the rest of the world. Linux is making huge strides in underdeveloped and developing nations (not to mention the first world). In many places, where they can't afford to assemble much equipment capable of running pirated software, it is still the only real option. And a lot of those running Linux out of necessity also eventually learn the value of freedom. It's unlikely that they'll voluntarily give that away. I can't think of a single compelling technical, financial, or idealogical justification for his argument.
The growth of Linux in the server market is about features, lack of lock-in, and standardization across the board. If I write an application powered by Linux I have the ability to:
- Choose the distribution
- Choose the support provider
- Choose the hardware vendor
People like choice, and competition leads to better TCO. Thats why Linux is so popular on the server side, and thats why most corporations wouldn't even consider Apple as a server platform..out of the underground yet. What is this guy implying, that linux is not in the underground still? Not sure how it can get pushed back when it never left. Duh! I think in the meantime, we will find Linux in the hood and backstreet alleys practicing its shady art. Linux is fraternizing with crazy orientals, east Europeans and South Americans. I also get glimpses of Linux at speakeasys drinking moonshine and smoking unfiltered cigarettes. Go linux, live the life those not in the underground can't do without being hypocrites.
No, it's just not in the general public's immediate consciousness. Kinda like Windows and MacOS aren't either. Worrying about that stuff is "for computer geeks".
Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of Linux.
Lousy benchmark there. The general "bloke on the street" isn't the one who does the investing in IT hardware. We're not talking about "OMFGBBQ the desktop is so HAWT I want to have it's children!" bullcrap. We're talking about server-side infrastructure. Essentially, the only ones REALLY using Mac for this are the hardcore Mac-freaks who're still drinking the Flavor-Aid in the RDF. Why is this? The same reason they're moving off Windows Server onto Linux. Price/performance ratio.
If they're not in IT, web design, or a related field chances are they have not.
Again, they're also not the ones making the decisions for a company's infrastructure either.
Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of windows, or apple. Even if they don't own a computer, they probably have.
BFD. How many people outside of enterprise IT have heard of Oracle database? Or Roxxon? Or BIND? Luddite public consciouness is a piss-poor way to limit your purchases.
Linux has made great strides in the past 10 years, but let's not confuse what it is. Linux is the survivalist to windows' soccer mom.
BWAHAHAH! You obviously are a web-wonk who thinks that because you can write HTML and rip off an occasional javascript from someone else, that it makes you "real IT".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
...ever actually seen a Mac server installed somewhere? Except at Apple. Wow. This is some prediction the guy has considering that Apple is so low on the server end that even plan9 are not worried about getting edged out of the server market by them. I truly can't imagine anyone at MS even having a concern about this unless Mac has something amazing up it's sleeve that only this writer knows about. Maybe he means in 50 years.
Having run OS X server for 3 years on a mission-critical file server, I can say that Linux in the server room is quite safe. Apple suffers from a number of critical problems that currently prohibit it from taking over from Linux in the server room. First off is Apple's schizophrenia regarding the enterprise. They say on the one hand they want to be an enterprise player, but on the other hand they treat the enterprise just like the consumer market. Apple told us point blank that we cannot ever expect OS X server to not require a reboot after most updates (just like the consumer version). Hence OS X server's uptime will be at most 1-2 months, as frequent updates require frequent reboots. We complained about this to Apple, saying that Apple's OS is far far worse than Windows ever was when it comes to requiring reboots. Our rep just sighed and said that's because OS X really is a consumer product. We've also had problems with Apple's enterprise support, although that has improved somewhat.
But the most serious impedement to beating linux in the server room is the fact that although Apple ships with familiar open source products like samba, openldap, and apache, they are actually proprietary. Let me explain. So you're stuck with whatever versions apple wants to ship. You cannot upgrade or replace these OSS components with their latest versions downloaded from source. This is because apple alters and extends these programs with deeps hooks into their own OS and componentns, such as OpenDirectory. Although they release their code, it is not in the form of patches, so you cannot apply apple changes to newer versions. Further, apple-released source code is not buildable on your average OS X server machine. There are often requirements for proprietary header files (like for PasswordServer and other things including the kernel) that aren't shipped with their developer tools. I spent months trying to figure out how to build OpenLDAP 2.2 (latest at the time) on 10.3 server since their version had serious bugs. I gave up on it. Apple's official line to us in response to problems was to upgrade to Tiger server (to be fair 10.3.9 fixed many of the openldap bugs but not all).
What this really means is that Vendor locking is as bad as Microsoft and far worse than *any* other Unix or Linux vendor. At least with Solaris I can still build whatever version of Samba or OpenLDAP I want. Apple's revolutionary integration of OSS parts with nice shiny guis is seductive, but in the end, it is not done in a way that promotes the same proprietary-ness that Microsoft promotes. Our experiences with this lock-in have not been good.
Current OS X Server 10.3 uptime: 21 days (rebooted for no apparent reason -- a crash?)
Current OS X Server 10.4 uptime: 1 days (just did an update)
Current RHEL4 file server: 251 days (numerous updates performed, I am aware of the kernel vulnerabilities that I haven't patched yet)
Ironically we have another RHEL4 file server that I installed netatalk on to allow some mac users home directories from the that server, and AFP from the RHEL4 box is more reliable than Apple's native AFP support on 10.3 server (10.4 is better now).
Just some words of warning and caution to would-be Apple Server users.
As long as Windows is what most games are developed for (even if it's only Windows first), then Windows will dominate the market. Most consumers want a computer for games and porn because there really is no difference between Windows, Apple, and Linux in the other software (browsers, office apps, etc.).
in Microsoft and Windows; is he joking?
JoloK
I always thought the final war that would decimate mankind was not machines against man, nor over gasoline or water, nuclear holocaust or my-OS-better-than-yours. It was going to be between toilet-paper-over people versus the toilet-paper-under people.
My heart would go with the survivalist, but unfortunately the soccermoms will easily overwhelm them with numbers.
Really though who cares?
I, have my freedom.
I, have access to everything I need with Linux.
If the rest of the Software world chooses to go down the same old roads, I say let them. It will be the 1980s all over again, with Apple, Google, Sony, Yahoo and Oracle making inroads into Microsoft's monopoly.
Again, the difference between the tides of the fortunes of the major software vendors is that people have the freedom now to simply switch off and run a full and complete Open Source OS.
Let the fools destruct themselves in Apple/Windows land, those who jump ship and come to Linux country have made the smart move.
This guy is an idiot. To even think that Apple has a chance to take over the server market os obsurd. It lacks the flexablility, configurability and multi-platform support.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Who the hell wants a mated J2EE server? Gawd! That's like *choosing* to use inefficient forms of expression. Only morons choose to program against those things.
Look I really, REALLY wanted to love OSX. Honest. Come on it was to be a BSD-esque system on a mass produced desktop computer, whats not to like about that. But as usual Apple filled a room with brilliant engineers and got brilliantly engineered crap. A quasi-open source (nowhere near free software), incompatable BSD with a registry and a pretty, if useless, GUI. On top of which they (as is often the case) completely missed the point of a micro-kernel by dumping a monolithic kernel on top. Then they once again attempted suicide (take a knife and get it the heck over already) by making their hardware windows compatible. Now there is very little reason to bother with OSX. So how exactly is an OS going to compete in the corporate marketplace when its having trouble competing with MS and GNU/Linux on its own hardware? And how are either of them going to dominate a desktop when its rapidly becoming an embedded device for most people? a field the writer admits is better served, and gradually being dominated, by free and open source software?
I write software for a living. Primarily windows software, but I know java, use tomcat, occasionally write the cutsey little php/javascript based web apps you mention.
I've used Linux since 1994. I still use it on all of my servers.
Joe Public opinion and knowledge IS a big factor for a lot of companies. It's not an infrastructure decision, no, but it is a deployment decision. There aren't a lot of large companies writing Linux software, because there's no profit in it. Most of the large companies I know choose windows because as bad as it is, they can get support for it in a timely manner. Some I work with use linux with great success, but they're smaller and more nimble--their employees have experience with it previously. They're the vast minority, and basically underground.
> Linux *is* underground for all intents and purposes.
> Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of Linux.
> If they're not in IT, web
> design, or a related field chances are they have not.
I used to agree, but now here (Switzerland) the biggest national employer, Migros (initially a supermarket chain, but now selling everything from groceries to banking) is offering courses in Linux and even use it for advertising their learning centre, When this happens, it is definitely no longer mainstream.
That's right, bubble pack computing, coming to a Target/WalMart impulse buy rack near you.
Computers are nosing down below the $200 mark with the OLPC/CM1 leading the charge. Soon enough they'll be in bubblepacks next to the 5MP digital cameras, prepaid cellphones and DTV videogame units.
Is there going to be a $150+ OS on them? Not likely. Tweaked linux distros and FOSS will dominate. Zero Maintenance zero support disposable computing. The fun part comes when they outnumber PCs and M$ and Apple realize that they've become the DEC of the new era.
The Linux is destined for fringe applications if it does not make greater use of hardware abstractions. The Linux HAL and its utils MUST be put on use fully.
If your shipment of Kool-Aid has not yet arrived please call Apple Support and they will help you track down your shipment of Kool-Aid and if necessary order you replacements if the originals were lost. The very last thing us here at Apple Computer Support Department want is any of the public to ever have to go through Kool-Aid withdrawl.
Sincerely
Apple Customer Indoctrination Support
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
OS X blows my left . This one person's opinion is worth nothing. When I buy a desktop and a standard 1/8" headphone jack will not go between my ipod and desktop something is wrong. Apple is not only a vendor lock in solution, it's a use our solution and only our solution, because we won't work with anything else. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to buy all of our accessories only. We don't work with anyone elses hardware or software solutions. Open Source is open source not because it's free, but because it is freedom.
who wrote this crap
in a decade i wouldnt be surprised if windows and apple were both biting at linux's heels
As the snowy white owl says... O RLY?
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
While Apple and Microsoft will grapple for dominance of client and server spaces
Well, that's just asinine.
Besides, why the hell would any IT manager fork over the dollars for an Apple server instead of running *BSD? And that's going with the incorrect assumption that Linux will have been relegated to running toasters, etc.
I think that one of the areas where Linux is going to gain relative to both OS X and Windows, in the future, is the bottom end of price. Neither Apple nor Microsoft is going to compete well in the market for computers which cost less than the Microsoft tax (this is the license fee which Microsoft charges to bundle Windows with a new PC, thought to be about $200, although Microsoft and PC makers don't disclose the amount.) Manufacturers are just beginning to press the advantages of Linux. One of these is the ability to transition to a new processor type without as much problem as the commercial vendors would have. One Chinese company is working on pressing this advantage by developing a low cost version of MIPS just to run Linux. That's the sort of thing which will drive adoption of Linux in the future.
Linux grows without market pressure and without advertising.
After all, it started with and still grows from the idea and potential of open source. Microsoft and Apple cannot copete with this, using a closed OS.
Once someone has really switched and understands how an open, free and flexible OS is better than a closed, DRM and virus ridden OS, it is hard to switch back.
Once governments/schools/businesses realize that they can use open source, often being higher quality and more secure, while saving millions/billions, it's hard to justify going back.
Sorry, I didn't read TFA, as the Title was wrong. But how exactly does one convince a open source person to start paying for something that is less flexible?
There is really only one way to stop open source, and that is to make it illegal (outlaw open source, or mandate DRM). But that cannot happen world wide, and would be hard to do without causing revolt and giving more free societies an advantage.
In the end, it is hard to directly compete with open source. It is better to try to stay ahead of the open source curve and add value to existing open source.
I'm not the biggest optimist for Linux, especially on the desktop, but this article is just ludicrous:
By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.
And what the fuck is that based on? Fresh air? Given the fact that Apple has showed no signs of being able to get this mass growth at any stage, largely because, oh err, they have their own proprietary hardware which can't hope to compete with the massive supply of the Windows and x86 Linux world......... Everybody who knows anything about the computing world, and professes to write about it, should know this.
Push a button, you've got an enterprise database, configured, loaded with sample data and listening for connections. Want a J2EE server with that? Flip this switch, it'll unpack itself, sniff out that database you installed and mate with it....Plug in a drive, and within a few milliseconds you have a self-contained instance of an enterprise application. If you need more database instances, put in a blank flash drive and tell the existing database instance to replicate itself.
There are no words.
Jesus H. Christ. I'm definitely in the wrong job. Feel free to sign me up for a job as an online 'technical' journalist where I can stick my finger in the air and throw whatever shit that comes my way from the pulpit.
If hundreds of millions of children actually do get Linux computers in the next few years it will probably change things significantly.
Much as I love MacOS X, Apple is clearly committed to a war on the desktop front, not the server space. For boring ol' mission-critical server apps, Linux is likely to keep its fingers in that particular pie for some time to come, wrestling with Windows.
Only a small fraction of people need more than a fraction of their computer's full "horsepower"
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
J2EE. "Enterprise Edition". Racks of blades, web services, distributability, scalability.
Embedded solutions. Single, self contained devices in which performance is critical.
Honestly, I just don't know what niche Slashdot is supposed to be filling any more. "Randomly Selected Links", perhaps?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
As someone who works with FreeBSD and OS X on a daily basis I feel strongly that OS X = BrokenBSD. The one and only reason I am still using OS X is for audio production. The Mac excels at AV production because of its superior sound and video and it looks real purty too -- but most real geeks don't want to consume 40-80% of system resources just to surf the web and play some tunes, which is the reality of Macintosh -- they're powerful systems because they have to be just to run a "simple" OS X desk top. We've got code to compile and servers to run after all, so we need small, light apps. We also don't want to part with big wads of cash every time we need some software.
I suspect Yager has little real-world experience with commercial systems to have made this "prediction". Apple will continue do do what it has always done, which is to provide nearly idiot-proof machines aimed primarily at technoklutz consumers and AV pros.
Caveat Utilitor
From the article:
"By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows."
uhh...doesn't it do that now? It should be or MAC is in touble not linux. As far as I know there are very few pre-installed linux offerings out there. Most folks who run linux use a machine that originally had windows on it or built the machine themselves. True there are no reliable counts on the number of linux users, but I am pretty sure it far exceeds Mac users.
I think the author kind of missed the point of even what he was saying...
With a push of a button and a flip of switch and ALL your desires come TRUE!
welcome to the real world, where people solve problems, not buttons and switches.
You do bring up some very valid points, and I will give credit to you for that. Most linux distros are too complicated for the average user. Ubuntu is wonderfully simple to operate and configure, I think the only drawback there is that the installer goes way over the head of most users, though so too did Windows not too long ago. I have worked in shops where the SOP for a hosed Windows was Fdisk, Format, Reinstall. This process, too, is over the head of most people, which is why companies started to make system restore disk sets, to do this for you. With a similar setup, I think it would be very possible to put Ubuntu into the hands of someone who never used a computer, and they would find it very freindly (although they might get mad because game X says only runs on windows). Personally, I'm a nerd, I prefer SourceMage or Slack, but that's just me.
Yes, the Linux support community is a stretched a little too thin, and getting support for Linux from a real person can be tricky at times. That, in my opinion is the thing stopping most people from adopting Linux on the desktop. I always like to say "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft" just like no one ever got fired for buying IBM. Linux is getting there, but look at how long it took to get from Win 1 (1985) to XP. The linux kernel was started in 91, so in 15 years a people have volunteered (most as a side project) and created a great OS. In the same amount of time(85-2000), a HUGE corporation (the founder of which is now the world's richest man) we went from Win1 to WinXP (I know MS-DOS was probably around a little longer than Windows, if anything that only furthers my point that Microsoft has had more time to iron out the bugs than Linux). I'm not dogging XP, its a decent OS, give credit where due and all that, but the only real problem with Linux on the desktop is people. Either lack of support fot the hundreds of Linux distros or the unwillingness of people to change. Linux on the desktop is a real possibility. It is no harder to use than Windows, just harder to set up initially (though pre-imaging installs w(c)ould easily take care of that).
I got nuthin
Eventually, Trusted Computing will be a required part of all computing hardware. It wont be hard for big business to force governments into making it mandatory. Even if its not always enabled/required (yet) it will be eventually.
Media companies want this as it'll help them track those copying music/movies.
Hardware companies will want this to sell new hardware (it also helps impose limits on long term use)
MS wants this as New PCs = new sales of Windows and make free software harder to use.
As open source OSes wont work with TCM (when its required), this will leave the people to choose MS or Apple.
Dont 64 bit processors already have some TCM parts??.. probably why the MPAssA only wants HD movies on 64 bit processors.
That is because of two immediate reasons:
1. Linux is not advertised as much as Windows or Mac. There is no public hype except within geeks.
and it's spin-off:
2. Linux is not pre-installed. People don't get to know XGL and how beautiful it looks! OSX or Windows XP are not sold beside latest KDE with XGL support.
But that was for desktops. For servers, for Linux, there is(are) only one competition: BSD(s) - Better performance and better security.
This article should also have the following one linked.
= 387
http://www.theopensourcery.com/wordp1/index.php?p
I'm as much of a Mac OS X booster as anyone - I have 4 of them in my home.
But until Apple resolves the performance issue that apparently is part of the mach kernal, (which could possibly involve a major re-architecting of the OS), I don't see OS X Server taking much marketshare.
Mac OS X Client, *is* definately poised to steal a bunch of marketshare from Microsoft. (mainly due to Microsoft's incompetence - that monopoly was theirs to lose). But I just don't see the server market going anywhere but Linux anytime soon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
If you read the second paragraph very carefully, you can see that the article author actually doesn't refer to just the server market when talking about numbers of Mac OS X machines - he's actually talking about the combined server *and desktop* sales of Mac OS X. That second paragraph actually hides a multitude of sins:
* Refers to "commercial Linux" when it's quite likely the number of non-commercial Linux installs far outweighs the number of commercial Linux installs out there (obviously difficult to get numbers on the former to prove or disprove this though, but free vs. paid for very similar products would logically suggest that more people would install the free version than the paid one).
* Again "rate of revenue growth" is a debatable one - Red Hat in particular has been showing quite nice revenue growth rates, but it's starting from a smaller revenue stream than Apple of course. It's difficult to quantify this when so few desktops come pre-installed with Linux and it's actually possible to buy OS-less servers (yes, even from Dell) and install a free Linux on them later.
* More references to "Apple systems" rather than specifically servers only (servers are where Linux is currently completely and utterly dominating Apple with no current sign of the gap narrowing, which is why the author is loathe to split desktops and servers up in his grand announcement, because he knows Apple are very weak on server sales and quite strong on desktop sales).
* And to hammer the point home again, the final sentence includes "Apple UNIX" vs. "Commercial Linux" and "client and server computing platform". It's using sleight of hand to do such comparisons - leaving out non-commercial Linux and a proper client vs. client / server vs. server comparison.
Overall, his pronouncement was smoke and mirrors - Apple has a *long* way to go even to rival commercial Linux installs on servers (let alone the likely even higher number of non-commercial Linux server installs). Yes, Mac OS X desktops do outsell Linux desktops, but that's only because virtually no OEM pre-installs Linux at the moment, so getting true figures on Linux [of any type] penetration in the market is quite tough.
But it makes the comment no less true that it was authored in a tone designed to anger mac users.
The simple fact is that Apple doesn't have any magic hardware and the only thing that they offer that others don't is the specific case design and the 800 Mbps firewire. (At least, I haven't seen FW800 on PC laptops yet, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - but it's certainly not widespread or anything.)
Just as an example (that I've used before) the only reason to get a MacBook Pro instead of a Compaq nw9440 (or similar) is if you want to run OSX, like Apple's case, need FW800 for some reason (I'm sure someone does) or want a backlit keyboard and a built-in camera instead of an ambient light sensor, and a bunch of snazzy security crap including a fingerprint reader. Otherwise the two might as well be the same machine now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, the comparison is between "Apple Unix" (Mac OS, presumably) that people pay for a license/support contract from the OS software vendor (Apple), and Linux that people pay for a support contract from the OS software vendor (Red Hat, etc.)?
Well, duh. A big part of the whole point of OSS is that it doesn't have to be "commercial software" to use it in production: you can support it yourself if you have the in-house expertise, you can have an application vendor do OS support if they have the expertise to support the environment for their application, or you can have third-party support. Or you can close your eyes and pray. All without violating the license agreement.
Whereas something like Windows or MacOS, you have no choice—you pay for a license from the vendor that covers the use you are making , or you aren't legally able to use the software. Comparing "commercial Linux" to "commercial foo" when "foo" is only available as commercial software is not really apples-to-apples.
I think it's more Joe myEmployee Public that matters to the companies. The companies want to use computer systems the general public knows how to use, so they can hire someone, plop them down at a desk, and expect them to be productive.
"Piter, too, is dead."
I'm having to agree with recent comments on multimedia support. As long as it stays as it currently is, Linux will never make it on the desktop.
I realized this again after I installed Ubuntu on my main desktop, replacing FC5. All the steps I had to go through (plf, multiverse, etc) is definetley keeping Linux back. I never really thought about the work necessary until recently. Plus, there are legal issues with current methods (ie, w32codecs).
What would be a good idea is if there was a low-cost commercial distribition, preferably based on Ubuntu (preferably with a nice blue skin...), that including fully functional multimedia in a default install. DVD playback, mp3/aac, flash (I despise it, but it's necessary), java, etc. The cost should be just enough to cover the licensing and development.
Gstreamer makes good multimedia support possible, as evidenced by the Fluendo plugins. It just needs to be out there for users, and easy for a n00b.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Yes... because those Apple servers are so damn popular. Perhaps we can use them to manage the automatic regular reboots for the Windows servers. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
...that's plain bullshit.
That's a good point, and I have seen that as a factor as well.
If you look at the case of the in-kernel framebuffer windowing-system project FramebufferUI (http://home.comcast.net/~fbui), which has been totally rejected for inclusion in the kernel, the case can be made that actually the Linux "clergy" are choosing against a more embedded friendly path. Embedded Linux is struggling now in the graphics area, but the Marie Antoinette-like response from the kernel gurus is "Let them use X Windows".
By the end of the decade global IT trends will not be dictated by US corporate spending.
Apple is doing to Linux in the desktop market what Linux did to Microsoft in the server market. Basically blunt it's move into that new market segment.
OSX is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.
Consumer market: No, they don't care.
Server market: "Many" is an overstatement, Sun shows vendor lockin is a viable strategy. "Lock-in" is a gross overstatement. Mac OS X runs FOSS UNIX-based software just like Linux, you do *not* have to use proprietary solutions like WebObjects.
OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows. OSX isn't a serious solution.
Of course you referring to benchmarks using the new Core Xeon based machines rather than the PowerPC machines that are no longer available?
This is another columnist saying something he knows is going to generate lots of heat and debate and draw lots of readers to his column. This will make the Infoworld advertisers happy and he'll get paid.
:-)
Perhaps we can just start calling him John Dvorak Junior.
I spoke briefly to Jeff Kinz (a Linux developer and former IDC software analyst) who doesn't agree with with Yager.
Kinz says that Apple has enjoyed several advantages over Linux. Among them being a marketing department with a budget. Despite having several advantages over the years Apple's desktop share and the reported Linux desktop share are equal. This means that the actual numbers of running Linux systems is larger than Apples because there is no way to measure, nor any revenue to reflect how many Linux systems are installed and working. This is made even more true by the fact that Linux effectively runs on all hardware platforms unlike apple which until recently ran only on its own closed, proprietary (and expensive-ish) hardware. Other sourced hardware is continually being re-sourced as Linux systems. They are effectively immune to the web based malware that exists today and their security design makes them inherently safer to have in the corporate environment than many others."
Further Kinz goes on to point out the following:
While both Linux and Apple serve capably in the server room, support and licenses for Apple will always be priced at a premium level. This is the nature of the Apple approach. While both platforms have proven themselves to be quite capable, and indeed they now share the same basic architectural underpinnings because of Apples switch to a UNIX/BSD derived operating system, Linux has several advantages going forward:
The first advantage for Linux is of course the cost of license acquisition and the cost of support options. While companies like Red Hat are also charging a premium for their server licenses with support included there are identical clones of the Red Hat products like the versions available at "centos.org" available for the simple cost of a download. Centos uses all of red hats publicly available source code and simply builds the same product. They remove all references to the Company's trademarks which was requested by Red Hat. They even use Red Hat's documentation. The major difference between Red Hat's product and the centos product are the support options.
Since centos is a Red Hat based there are large numbers of users who provide mutual support to each other, including the centos users for free using forms, e-mail lists and real-time text communications on the Web. Mr. Kinz has been observing these communication channels for the past few months and notes that they run 24 hours a day seven days a week. Most of the time, he says, "helpful information and solutions come back faster, in many cases under a minute and just as accurately, if not more so, then a vendor often provides." He also notes "I have never seen any vendor achieve that level of immediate responsiveness. I attribute this level of, well, call it 'aggressive supportedness' to a kind of social competition between Linux afficianados to show how much they know. The communication channels are public and densely populated so the people offering help and solutions are effectively performing in front of hundreds or thousands of their peers (and perhaps potential future employers)."
Another advantage states Mr. Kinz "is Apple's approach to the market perception. Apple continually tries to be a ' different' from everybody else. Linux, on the other hand, strives for and is implementing compatibility with everything. As examples Mr. Kinz notes the existence of tools which allow the Linux systems to integrate with Windows systems. The Linux systems can mount, manage and administrative Windows filesystem shares using the common formats and protocols which Microsoft supports, even when those file systems are on the disk drives of the Linux box itself. Linux can replace the active
Unix-based OS X is "not a server OS?"
I think OS X Server operations like this disagree with you.
Here Apple has a choice... Mac OS and Linux could team up, and maybe force Windows underground? think of a world where computers do not crash on a regular basis... I bet there would not be the epidemic of high blood pressure in Americans that there is now.
Sniper's Motto: One shot, One kill- If you run, you'll only die tired.
Wait a second, you mean that Linux was abouve ground at one time??
"But this one goes to 11!"
While Apple and Microsoft will grapple for dominance of client and server spaces, Linux will be 'the de facto choice for embedded solutions.' And by 'embedded,' Yager means 'specialized.' With a push of a button and a flip of switch, he predicts, you'll be able to create a configured database and a mated J2EE server -- all thanks to Linux."
All thanks to linux? Wow. So "Linux" built the j2ee server, the database, and the scripts becessary to create them? Why do people say stupid things like this?
If I had a concrete building inside which I invented a cure for cancer, I wouldn't claim that the cancer cure was all thanks to the concrete provider.
I'm not sure why he thinks OS X has a big future in the server market.
* It doesn't run on generic server hardware, like all of its competition do.
* It's much easier to administer through a command line than Windows, but far harder than any other modern UNIX platform.
* It shares Windows' poor support for "headless" operation.
* It is missing a lot of APIs that its competitors have retained, including the ability to easily run native servers chrooted and standard UNIX tape drive interfaces.
* The native file system, HFS+, is far more fragile and easily damaged than the typical modern UNIX file system like UFS. It doesn't have Linux' wide variety of file system support.
* Its NFS support is extremely nonstandard, and running a normal automounter on it is a recipe for disaster.
* It's missing the "super-chroots": things like FreeBSD's jails and similar facilities in Linux that give you the encapsulation advantages of virtualization without the overhead.
* The Mach kernel still gives it far more system call overhead than its competitors.
All in all, OS X is a mediocre server platform when compared to other variants of UNIX, even if the inability to run it on generic hardware wasn't holding it back.
After RTFA I can say I don't agree with everything this guy says, but if it should come to pass I would rather have to live in a world with OS X as a dominant player than not.
I only got two paragraphs into the thing, and stopped reading. Apple's UNIX (who knows what it'll be called by then) will overtake commercial Linux in rate of revenue growth by the end of 2007. From 1 to 10 is a 1,000% increase - who freaking cares? By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. Ummmmm ...... who the hell buys computers with Linux already installed? Don't 99.9999999% of people install it themselves? Hell - it's probably easier to find a factory installed windows 200
I think the guy's talking out of his arse - I don't see anything here to support ANY claims whatsoever.
The only trolls here are Apple fanbois like you that are so in love with Steve Jobs and Co. they don't know what the "facts" are.
Yes, Apple has stolen more Open Source than Microsoft. But when it comes to giving back, just ask the KHTML developers what a bunch of assholes they are.
How about this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&
and this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520
Threading is found on all platforms, so OS X sucks on all of them.
You only believe what Steve Jobs tells you to believe. I believe in the solution that is best for the job, be it Windows, Linux or FreeBSD. Apple is not a solution as they only offer brainwashed fantasies for nitwits like you.
The linux counter shows usage stable or falling, though I think there was a purging of the system.
Do people just not want to do low level non graphics work any more, and who wants to be a pointy headed bosses biter and byter when you can produce slick demos and at worst powerpoint slides.
I miss the good old days when the future of low level tech looked good.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
I don't think OS X's kernel is fast enough for Apple to displace Linux on big iron. I guess that could change with revised architectures into the future. Admittedly, I didn't read the article, and it is /. policy to mangle or quote out of context, but this sounds like FUD to me.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Tom Yager at InfoWorld is an Apple fanboy. He's a joke. If you read his column over a relatively short period of time, you will see he doesn't have a clue. He's such a crackpot that I don't trust anything printed in Infoworld anymore. If the editors let such an obviously clueless person have a column, you can't trust anything they print.
Client - maybe (it's already way behind), server - no. I run all three. Windows and Mac on the desktop and Linux on my router and file/dhcp/cache/web/mail/etc server. On the server side Linux is just too good to ignore. I wish someone would write something as integrated and painless as ASP.NET for web development (I know there's RoR, but I'd like to see something Java based, in addition). On the server Linux absolutely kicks ass.
Its cool.
People like cool. Even geeks
Actually, that should be 'especially' geeks.
Apart from the polished look, I see no difference between Apple or Microsoft in their practices.
Actaully, I believe that if the roles were reversed, Apple would have done worse than Microsoft.
Here in the US, IBM, Dell and HP all run ads on national television - I've even seen some during primetime - announcing their ability run Linux on their servers. While some may not know exactly what Linux is, they probably do know it's an OS.
Or maybe you think you're one of those few people who are more intelligent than everybody else.
Of course! Apples UNIX!
- System V OS
- System 7 Look and Feel
- 'Real' SCSI
- 'Real' workstation processor (680x0), just like a SUN!
- 'Real' X Windows! (direct from MIT!)
This is -definately- the way forward!
Linux - you have met yer match!
Note: If you're actually looking at operating systems, IT solutions, etc, the very last thing you're worried about is if Billy Joe Jim Bob in Bumblefsck, AR, knows about the solution. If you're actually in a position to purchase, you've DONE your research on this stuff, and you're making an informed (if not unbiased) decision.
THAT is what I have an issue with. Randomly stopping A. Guy Onastreet and asking him if he knows about one of the solutions you're looking at is NOT a way to make decisions.
Unless you REALLY want them telling you that MS SharePoint Portal Services will run JUST FINE AND DANDY on a MacOS-based server, or some other such nonsense.
The opinions that matter are those of the people you've hired to implement/support it, and those who're paying for it. A. Guy Onastreet (uninformed decision making based solely on brand name recognition) isn't one of them.
So far, all I've heard is brand-fapping. Not a real, solid TECHNICAL reason why this fantasy would become reality.
Oh, wait. Macs. Fantasy. Macs. Fantasy. I get it now!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
And the reason is DRM. Computers are much less unattractive to the general consumer without their ability to manage music and video. When MS and Apple manage to lock down all media at the hardware layer, you can be sure that Linux will be left out in the cold.
Fergeddaboutit.
Mac UNIX will not overtake Linux. Linux will develop every capability the Mac OS has and then some.
However, both Mac OS and Linux will do well at Windows expense.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Not true! Linux must be mainstream because it was referenced in a Dave Chappelle sketch (the one at the copy place where he trains people to windows users they only have Macs and vice-versa to make customres go away--and if customers say they have Linux, tell them the computers are all down for service!)
Although still somewhat ahead of its time, Mac OS X will soon be superseded by the much-hyped Mac OS Y.
As we're all acutely aware, anything made by Apple is sleaker and simpler to use. Mac OS Y will have a number of features tailored to suit the unique needs of the zombies of the Apple World, including:
* An Apple logo.
* A one button mouse-driven GUI that makes it easier for you to create and display Apple-logo wallpapers.
* A mouse with an Apple logo.
* Keyboard-to-tower interaction, making it possible to impute your Apple-related thoughts to the machine.
* A Keyboard with an Apple logo.
* A CD caddy with an Apple logo.
* An internection connection to Apple sites.
* Default browser page has an Apple logo.
because the only reason to use a non-Microsoft OS is that it's the most popular.
long live the Desktop interface.
The idea of Desktop is the remenent of 80's and as such it's relevance is fading with the emergence of web native services. Being web native meaning that the access method to the services is rendered insignificant (e.g. IRC with Web server, GUI and TUI clients).
This change is slow but society driven in a way that makes it inevitable. In time people will do their social networking from their couch via entertainment systems, from their vehicles via MFDs, from the mall via their Cell phones or via their desktop at work.
This article predicts the opposite of what is actually happening. Apple will be relegated to a small and insignificant number three supplier of desktop operating systems for their expensive, proprietrary, and integrated solutions.
This article is the incoherent ramblings of one of the cult of Apple, backed up by no substantive evidence of any sort (in fact, the article contradicts all evidence that I could find).
It certainly does not appear to match the reality, as Linux makes significant inroads into the enterprise market, both as a desktop, and as a server.
At the same time, in the same market, Apple is nowhere to be seen. Linux also continues to grow rapidly, particularly on the corporate desktop, but also increasingly now as a replacement for Windows. Linux is now available from the magazine rack of every major store in the country, and people are trying it. Growth of the desktop market share is a factor of magnitude higher than what limited growth (if any) in Apple's overall share of the computer market.
As Linux gets more usable as a desktop operating system, I think it is far more likely that Apple, already a tiny bit part player, will be wiped out completely.
I dont understand why Usians claim that apple pie is an American creation.
Almost every nation has some kind of apple pie; it existed before Columbus discovered America.
Ok. We've heard it all. Windows will beat OSX which will beat Linux which will beat Windows which....[insert end of loop here]
The FA makes its point but completely fails to provide any argument to support it. It's just one statement after the other, while carefully trying not to hurt any sensitive mind. In that matter, that's a politically correct FA but technically, it's void.
Linux is divided and conquered(250+ disto's)
how came there are still kittens alive?
I still have A/UX 2 to 3.0.3 disks (I paid A LOT of money for them). Too bad I have no Quadra anymore to run A/UX on. Whatever you say it was nice for its time, it was possible to run most system 7 applications under Unix.
EFI, it's the main difference between macs and pc's atm and it's bigger than one may suspect, the BIOS is a 20 something year old POS held together with hacks, my macbooks boot time is legendary even when booting windows, i just hit the button press down to select XP and bam the windows logo appears, none of this scrolling black text shit, no bios random issues, everything just works perfectly and reliably, it's pretty similar to open firmware, just a little less open. I've switch many many more people to platforms other than windows through the soft sell, telling people they are an idiot for buying a pc from asda (uk version of walmart) is not going to get them to trust you to install ubuntu on it, you need to be open and talk to them about their needs and skills and determine what's best for them, this whole linux/mac/windows fanboyism that is so rampant with nerds needs to stop, otherwise people will just baulk at it and continue to use windows which we ALL don't want. OS X is very much the user friendly version of unix, i'm skilled at useing linux/BSD and i run it on my headless boxen but everything i can do in linux i can do better/faster in OS X, unless i want to be completely customizing my OS linux is not really suitable for the desktop as OS X eclipses it in most respects, sure for those on a strict budget linux is still a good OS choice if your technically competent. but OS X is perfect for 90% of users and it has a complete open source underpinning. It is imperative that linux is kept going, and i cant see anything killing it in the near to distant future in the server space, OS X will take a decent amount of that market from both linux and Microsoft once apple becomes more established, xserves are awesome 1U servers and are gaining marketshare fast once admins actually look at them. OS X is not the end all OS, but it seems like the majority of linux geeks have been handed a near godly OS and they've shunned it because the UI and a few API's are proprietary, it's not perfect and it's not going to replace linux but it's a damn good OS inbetween windows and linux as it has allot of the advantages of both, apple is not going to become Microsoft, and if they did they would have to turn OS X 100% proprietary which would alienate most of their user base, being hostile to apple is completely silly.
You might want to notify my computerphobe inlaws who have been using Ubuntu on a Thinkpad T60 for a couple of months now as a replacement for their now-discarded PowerBook G4.
..general client and server computing platform..
Microsoft is popular as a client platform, this much is true, and it is true because the number of knowledgable people is far less than the number of clueless consumers.
In the server market however, there are 2 types of consumers:
1) Enterprises that are small-medium and want a simple-to-use set of products that have a hundred-billion-dollar corporation standing behind them.
2) Enterprises that understand the concept of a solid computing environment, reliability, security..etc..etc. Some of these are willing to pay, but most have a dedicated IT team that can set up a distributed system based on FOSS.
Microsoft will never be a leader in server platforms/specialized machinery, because that is where computing begins to get serious.
I haven't seen one linux ad that makes it clear that it is an OS. They always seem to be really abstract and not tell anyone anything.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
They're only using it because a) you or another relative/friend set it up for them or b) they'r enot computerphobes.
In fact I'd have to say b is true... since they obviously bought and own computers.
What I'm doing every day since a very long time is - simply put - the following:
1) Go there and understand what they really need.
2) Give everybody there the feeling switching to Linux is good for them (for several different reasons, some of them strange and not logical).
3) Wipe all other operating systems and install Linux on every single piece of hardware that pretends to be able to calculate 1+1=2.
4) Put all nicely together and fix some transitional problems.
5) Show everybody that you can still use your mouse and download porn (or that you're still able to forbid that).
6) Help them planning for the future - and cash my check.
My clients are not just businesses, but also artists, non-profits, administrations or whatever.
I never came around a single person who did not finally find their reasons to free themselves from locked in and closed source operating systems and applications. Because it's simple to understand: Your intellectual property, your documents, your art, your personal stuff - all that should be under your control only in the future. Because you never know; you never know about your plans, and you do not about theirs.
Some of them even started to contribute to the open source world some of their money, time, knowledge and time. So, I am a very happy person. I make friends every day, I do something useful, I have fun, I make good money.
I joined Slashdot because I expected to meet clever people and less wanna-be geeks. Those who explain why they love, but still not really use Linux, and why they think it's still not ready for them (or they are not ready for it).
Damn - how dead wrong I was.
Greetings,
Chris
"An operating system must operate."
Proper hardware support is the reason of Linux not taking big marketshare in the consumer desktop world, not religion or elitisism. When you buy a device or card or whatever, you are usually provided with a CD which says WINDOWS 98, ME, 2000 or XP. The manufacturer of the piece of hardware releases the software to make it perform as it supposed to, UNDER HIS TERMS, since its his piece. The free software developers have somehow to figure out how this piece works and to develop their versions. Manufacturers of proprietory hardware don't like releasing open source drivers, they don't like releasing specs for their hardware and they don't like even releasing proprietory drivers for FOSS. When they do, they provide crippled, buggy and inferior drivers. They justify themselves by saying its because of lack of linux standardisation, small userbase, and all that crap, but in reality its because of DRM. Free software and DRM are oxymoron. If you knew how exactly it works, you can FREE it, i.e. remove the DRM. No more computer games sales, no more Macrovision, no more HDTV. So for the intents and purposes that the specs for the hardware are released and known, like processors, motherboards, etc. the future of FOSS looks bright, like in the server area. For the intents and purposes of protected content, adoption of FOSS will depend solely on bright individuals braking the various restrictions. Up to now we have been lucky. But the future remains to be seen..
http://google.com/trends?q=mac%2Clinux
http://google.com/trends?q=osx%2Cubuntu
I think Apple has a niche market, as a premium consumer brand, and they are good at it.
When it comes to the real world, Linux will make a lot of inroads in the business world, and from there, it will slowly but steadily move home.
I think Yager is also wrong on several other counts:
-- His view is totally US (and California) centric; in most other nations, Linux has long surpassed Macintosh so far that most people haven't even heard of Apple. Even iPod is much more of a US phenomenon than anything else. And while California used to be the trend-setter for the youth in the rest of the world, it isn't anymore.
-- Counting revenue from pre-installed operating systems makes little sense; Linux drives a lot of PC hardware sales, both with Windows pre-installed and without.
-- Calling Linux "just a kernel", while literally true, is missing the point; when people talk about Linux, they mean the kernel and the user environment. And, in fact, at this point, the Linux kernel is arguably the most limited and most troublesome part of distributions like Ubuntu, Fedora, or SuSE.
It's not very hard to install linux on cluster nodes. You just need to take a root file system installed somewhere, and replicate it for each node. You don't actually need to install it on each computer. If you do, then kickstart is perfectly able to install on machines without graphics card (I know, as I've installed it on an old alpha with a serial console).
If you go the replication route, you then adjust the file system for each machine (change IP address, ssh key, etc). We run a set of linux (i386 and x86_64) computers running Scientific Linux with the root directories NFS mounted off a server. Pretty easy, and you update the software in the usual way.
--deckert
I have been looking into a Mac for myself and after some trolling around areas where there have been many users (perl, ruby, lugs) of Apple notebooks I found there is a dark side to the story about Apple.
Apple's computers are not Open Source. OpenBSD based yes, but not Open.
This means that there are a lot of obfuscations and disconnections going on. Like gcc is called cc. X windows isn't really X11. OpenOffice doesn't install easily and when it does it's fugly. There is no real package manager like apt-get.
Apple looks more like Windows than it does Linux. Who's going to be attracted to a machine that looks like Windows? Similar to Windows, much of what it really does is heavily wrapped in it's own disguise, making changes harder to do because you only have the choice of a GUI interface.
Check out the software. Lots of data stored in binary file formats. Hardly open. Will this attract Linux users or send them away?
I think the people who are using Linux today aren't likely to pick up a machine that looks more like Windows...
I'm not sure I see a real connection here. To me, "underground" implies that it is being developed out of sight to avoid detection by those who would rather see it destroyed than thrive.
The word "underground" was only used once in the article, and misused at that. If the author were to say "Linux will be forced out of the desktop and server space and into the embedded market," that would say it all and be more direct and truthful about it.
Note that I'm not commenting on the accuracy of the prediction, just the sensationalist wording used.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Fact 1: I've got a 75 MHz Toshiba Satellite CDS100 laptop. Still works.
Fact 2: I have a Powerbook 190cs that still works.
The Guarantee: Screw what's going to last longer, nothing today is guaranteed. Your mileage will vary GREATLY, that *IS* guaranteed.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Hear hear! At least someone in touch with reality. To say that Linux will conquer the world you have to have a very, very narrow definition of the word "world". It's like saying microbreweries will put Anheuser Busch out of business, or that Ralph Nader will be the next president of the US. Linux may have a terrific future, but get SOME perspective into your linux fanboying, will you? You're not doing ANYBODY any favors by being out in left field.
Some of the soccer mom/survivalist arguments really makes it painfully obvious. Yeah, you might rather want to be a survivalist if there is a nuclear war. But in the REAL world, who would you (or most people anyway) prefer to have as a neighbor, or to take care of your kids? Right.
The idea of Apple UNIX (also known as OS X) marginalizing the Linux desktop doesn't sound too far-fetcehd to me, but it certainly isn't a guarantee either, Apple could hurt themselves if they start meandering too far down the DRM road or keep moving their core apps away from open document standards like they did with Mail in 10.4. The Apple server OS, though, has a long way to go be competitive with Linux or other BSD UNIXes. This argument just doesn't make sense when you can set up a Linux server on any hardware you want with absolutely zero software cost and OS X server must run on Apple hardware (which isn't more expensive, let's dispense with arguments that expired after the 90s ended please) and is simply not as mature as the other BSDs or Linux.
The model helps them maintain quality. they dont have to deal with every piece of garbage PC out there, making them look bad when it locks up every 10 minutes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well actually the OP admitted he might be thinking about Sun, and he probably was, because I don't remember anyone making the argument for longer-lasting quality parts in Apples, just better design, and longer lasting value (as in depreciation when selling used product) I used to code on Apple IIe's, so I think I would have remembered such a boast. About the statement "some have said..." Similar to stating: "I don't think this, but my friend says..." Rather than a detailed recitation of the facts, it can be interpreted as a defensive dodge of responsibility.
Slashdot needs grace like a submarine needs a screen door.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
The Hula Hoop... The Model T Ford... They're coming back with a vengeance, baby!
Apple PPC used to use SCSI hard drives, not IDEs like the IBM clones of the time (they often weren't called PCs back then unless they were IBM branded) They also used to use different hard drives, "FireWire" when others were concentrating on usb, and ADB connectors for keyboards and mice before then. You may notice that Apple has been slowly evolving into cheaper commodity parts, and the Intel CPU is just the latest change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Apples were supposed not to break as much because they had better design, not better parts. Apple and their users brag about all sorts of things, but better parts (with the possible exception of SCSI drives, which SUN also used) wasn't one of them, because Apple would rather their users not open the box and replace parts, and concentrated on a market that didn't include many hardware hackers. Now at a time when Laptops outsell the traditional Boxes with easily changeable and upgradable components, Apple might be in a better position to market "Quality parts" (even if its not true)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
I thought the Morlocks already lived there.
that's never gonna happen because Micro$haft is gonna be bankrupt this time next year and OSX is gonna be hax0rized ;)
That Apple Developer Reality Distortion Field is so strong the dude's only now managed to tell us about his Cool Trip. Like Wow, man Apple is gonna take over the WORLD man. Forget that Lan-Lon-Lin-Lunix shit, they're NOWHERESVILLE.
No wonder Cringley left InfoWorld with stellar talent like that biting his heels.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I have an Apple G4 laptop that ran OS X that I was using at work for a long while. I finally got tired of the clunky OS X interface and installed Gentoo Linux on there. It took four or five days to compile everything, including KDE, and I was thinking the whole time that I was going to have to put up with KDE being slower.
Not so! KDE/Linux smoked the hell out of Aqua/OS X!
Without threads, how can one program take advantage of the multiple cores in a machine (dual CPU, dual core, hyperthreading)? If you use processes, there still has to be some sort of locking so that your multiple server processes don't step on each others' toes when manipulating shared state.
I didn't see anything about the startup and switching performance penalties for using processes on the 90 percent of installations that have slow processes but fast threads.
/me waves away the crack smoke coming from Tom Yagers pipe
Sure, just what the datacentre wants, ANOTHER bloody OS/Arch/Vendor to add to the support list.
The only thing I see happening, especially in traditional Sun environments, is the trend of replacing arbitrary linux distros on x86 boxen (usually webservers) or entry level sparc servers with solaris 10 x86 on amd64.
When you have to maintain 100+ boxen you generally want to standardise on both OS and architecture, and if you cant standardise on architecture, you at least standardise on OS.
With Solaris or Linux this is possible on arbitrary x86 platforms or ultrasparc systems.
Unless apple allows folks to boot MacOS on arbitrary x86 systems or in VM's, only the deluded could possibly believe it will replace ANYTHING in the datacentre
I'm sorry but I think the entire article is patently stupid. Apple and Microsoft if anything
are viable on the desktop but saying that the choice boils down to the two in servers is simply
so homecomputer small-fries kind of "Look-at-ma! I-just-overclocked-my-pentium' thinking.
I can assure you. We will NOT be running Microsoft nor Apple even by the turn of the _next_
century and along with us I think most of anyone else I know.
Okay, I might find kinder words if this weren't so outrageously stupid but hey...
To whoever wrote this: What about Sun? What about IBM? What about HP?
Market implies "share of market", which implies there is a form of monetary exchange taking place for a product. Sure, sales data != install base, but it definitely indicates market share.
What open source DOES do is shrink the size of the market due to commoditization. Apache drastically shrunk the market for licensing web servers, for example. People still pay for them, but usually indirectly (IIS) or for niches (embedded, Java-based, etc.)
-Stu
But when the files, containing persistent data shared among the tasks, are one of the major points of what an application does, and a suitable ready-made database management system is not available, then what happens? Should the developer of an application that uses flat files, possibly because the app is designed to run on inexpensive shared web hosting that may not provide any DBMS, switch to SQL and have the users eat the higher price of hosting? Should people with a need for specific data types not supported by MySQL and PostgreSQL add those data types to the DBMS instead?
Correct. I was speaking in generalities so as not to incite Microsoft bashing.
Can you or anyone else link to any guides on doing so?
You mean the technique called "preforking", where the master process starts a dozen worker processes in advance, right?
it doesn't virtualze ... it does not run on IBM/HP/DELL blades
Those should only be major issues for operating systems that don't have strong internal trust boundaries. The majority of virtual server and blade installations I've seen have been on Windows, rather than UNIX or Linux, or in hosting centers... not in general IT. When the only way to run two copies of IIS (or any other service built using Microsoft's model on Windows) on a server, bound to separate addresses and/or operating under separate trust domains, is to run two copies of Windows in virtual hosts or in Blade servers... of course that's going to be a big deal.
UNIX doesn't need that, and OS X is UNIX. There's a whole spectrum of tools from simply running two site trees to running two instances chrooted or in jails (or the equivalent) that make almost every deployment of virtualization or blade servers look like the stopgap it is. If it wasn't for Microsoft abandoning their real server class OS in the '80s and trying to turn a relentlessly single-instance (single-user, single-domain, single-service, single-everything) desktop operating system into something they can use for the timesharing and server applications they used to pooh-pooh.
So they look at what people are doing outside Microsoft to deal with their limitations, coopt and promote them, and eventually (as they did with Citrix, to solve the single-user problem) buy them. This is just more of the same...
Getting back to OS X, the main reason I can see for wanting to virtualise it are to make up for the complex library environment that makes chroot hard, and because they didn't import jails from FreeBSD when they had the chance.
Another columnist saying something to generate heat and debate and draw lots of readers to his column. This will make the Infoworld advertisers happy and he'll get paid. His content is crap.
:-)
Perhaps we can just start calling him John Dvorak Junior.
I spoke briefly to Jeff Kinz (a Linux developer and former IDC software analyst) who doesn't agree with with Yager.
Kinz says that Apple has enjoyed several advantages over Linux. Among them being a marketing department with a budget. Despite having several advantages over the years Apple's desktop share and the reported Linux desktop share are equal. This means that the actual numbers of running Linux systems is larger than Apples because there is no way to measure, nor any revenue to reflect how many Linux systems are installed and working. This is made even more true by the fact that Linux effectively runs on all hardware platforms unlike apple which until recently ran only on its own closed, proprietary (and expensive-ish) hardware. Other sourced hardware is continually being re-sourced as Linux systems. They are effectively immune to the web based malware that exists today and their security design makes them inherently safer to have in the corporate environment than many others."
Further Kinz goes on to point out the following:
While both Linux and Apple serve capably in the server room, support and licenses for Apple will always be priced at a premium level. This is the nature of the Apple approach. While both platforms have proven themselves to be quite capable, and indeed they now share the same basic architectural underpinnings because of Apples switch to a UNIX/BSD derived operating system, Linux has several advantages going forward:
The first advantage for Linux is of course the cost of license acquisition and the cost of support options. While companies like Red Hat are also charging a premium for their server licenses with support included there are identical clones of the Red Hat products like the versions available at "centos.org" available for the simple cost of a download. Centos uses all of red hats publicly available source code and simply builds the same product. They remove all references to the Company's trademarks which was requested by Red Hat. They even use Red Hat's documentation. The major difference between Red Hat's product and the centos product are the support options.
Since centos is a Red Hat based there are large numbers of users who provide mutual support to each other, including the centos users for free using forms, e-mail lists and real-time text communications on the Web. Mr. Kinz has been observing these communication channels for the past few months and notes that they run 24 hours a day seven days a week. Most of the time, he says, "helpful information and solutions come back faster, in many cases under a minute and just as accurately, if not more so, then a vendor often provides." He also notes "I have never seen any vendor achieve that level of immediate responsiveness. I attribute this level of, well, call it 'aggressive supportedness' to a kind of social competition between Linux afficianados to show how much they know. The communication channels are public and densely populated so the people offering help and solutions are effectively performing in front of hundreds or thousands of their peers (and perhaps potential future employers)."
Another advantage states Mr. Kinz "is Apple's approach to the market perception. Apple continually tries to be a ' different' from everybody else. Linux, on the other hand, strives for and is implementing compatibility with everything. As examples Mr. Kinz notes the existence of tools which allow the Linux systems to integrate with Windows systems. The Linux systems can mount, manage and administrative Windows filesystem shares using the common formats and protocols which Microsoft supports, even when those file systems are on the disk drives of the Linux box itself. Linux can replace the active directory tools currently bei
For the ones living on the moon for the past 10 years or so, most of the linux installation happen in this manner:
1.) buy a PC or laptop
2.) remove Windows
3.) install linux
4.) maybe install Windows again for dual-boot
So comparing number of preinstalled linuxes vs macs vs windows boxes, is simply stupid.
But hey, I hope that paycheck from apple/microsoft bought you some fun.
Microsoft Kills a kitten... Everytime you install Linux a woman masterbates.. The choice is yours... All the sudden I hate cats.
"The whole concept of embedded Windows seems ugly to me - like dressing up a nightclub bouncer in a pixie costume."
Please be considerate in your descriptions. When I read that the image of Ballmer throwing chairs while dressed in a ballerinas outfit flashed through my mind. AAAGGGHHH!!! My eyes! My eyes! Now I have a headache and I am sick to my stomach.
Matthew
I run one of each (WinXP, Win2K, MacOSX, and Debian Linux) on my network. The PowerMac G5 with MacOSX is far and away the crappiest waste of money I've ever spent. It is MUCH less stable than the others and can't generate smooth video for DVD burning even with 1.2Gb RAM (512 on Win2K works fine). Of course my primary desktop is the Debian machine, so maybe I'm a bit spoiled. Yager probably came from an Apple II or VIC-20, so his expectations were lower to start with.
That the parent actually has experience in this field while you do not....