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."
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.
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
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
How again was this modded insightful? I could think of a few other things to call it, but insightful wasn't one of them.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
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.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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.
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
Linux will always run on pc hardware. Too many people have too much fun with it. And don't forget NetBSD. It'll run on anything. As long as a single hacker has a single finger, there'll be free software. And porn.
I drank what? -- Socrates