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."
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.
Not to mention that you have a hardware lock-in because Apple probably won't support you if you use hardware other than what they sell. Add to that the expense of purchasing an Apple versus a Dell server and I think this is a gigantic laugh of an article. Plus, now that Apple is using Intel hardware, the whole maintence argument that Apple parts last longer is out the window.
If you want to talk about Apple on the desktop versus Linux then I'd listen to the argument, but in the server world you can't compete. I really just wanted to respond to this article with a gigantic Simpson-esque "HA HA".
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.
Yeah, and if companies can save money on technical staff by having an OS that's more user friendly, they'll do that. That means more to most businesses than benchmarks.
OSX is a potential solution to anyone using Windows who doesn't like it. It's more secure, more stable, and doesn't require the technical retraining (or rehiring) that a migration to Linux would. Sure, some people and companies require more power and freedom than OSX has, but many don't. As OSX becomes more popular for personal use, it will become more popular for business use.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
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...
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.
Not to mention that you have a hardware lock-in because Apple probably won't support you if you use hardware other than what they sell.
There's no "probably" to it. Why would Apple support something they didn't sell? They don't qualify MacOS X to run on anything but their own hardware. This is not to desparage Apple - it is their business model.
Oh, you do realize that the entire article is just a troll to get Mac fans and Linux fans angry at each other, right? There is no factual basis for this arguments presented in the article at all.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I would guess that your parent poster would answer 'No. I don't think that. But those who would make that argument, have a much weaker argument to make.' But that's just my guess. The point is, settle down and be graceful with the posts of other people.
-Combatjuan
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