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.
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
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.
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.
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
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".
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
like dressing up a nightclub bouncer in a pixie costume.
This actually sounds like quite a good idea to me.
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.
Vendor lock-in is something I'm willing to live with as long as the alternatives are insufficient - and there is an alternative. I'd like the choice to be between OSX and Linux. I quite like my MacBook. It's easy to use, it looks good, it performs well for its price. While I do Linux development at work, I like to have an enjoyable experience at home.
Slower than Linux or Windows? I'd like to see those numbers, please!
As for serious, by what standard? I'd readily admit I would not recommend running OSX on servers unless OSX adds geniune value (as it might in a Mac-based business).
In my world, Linux is best for backend. OSX is best for front-end. (while Windows is probably best at the standard business desktop)
Stop the brainwash
Bank of America ATMs didn't lock up... they ran out of money or had hardware falures but they never used to lock up.
Now they run on Windows and they do... the touch screen is (seemingly) required for operation and they stop working all the time.
IF my life depended on Windows... really depended on it... I'd be long dead by now.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
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...
"Slower than Linux or Windows? I'd like to see those numbers, please!"
p =1
MacOS X has infamously bad threading, which makes it an absolute dog for many important server apps. Anandtech, what I regard as one of the most trustworthy hardware sites on the Internet, has an article outlining the problems:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&
Unless MacOS X for Intel has gotten miraculous improvements in this area, and I'm not aware it has, you'd be an absolute fool to use MacOS X for any server apps requiring high performance threading.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
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.
...but but but... they're so cute. The server may not be fast (nor cheap)---in fact, it may not even work at all---but it will be the cutest server in the whole datacenter (the one and only reason why people like Apple).
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
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
Cars are a vendor lock in solution, and not many people like that. Cars are slower than flying. Cars aren't a serious solution.
yes, of cource i'm the flaimbait when the parent is the one with many outraged responces due to his FUD, and it's entirely my fault for pointing out that he's posting completely incorrect information http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html OS X is faster than windows http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/opinion/dellmacpro followup/index.php
Macs are in general cheaper or about the same price as equally configured pc's, though this is a hard thing to do if you put some work in to find a truly equally specced machine apples come out cheaper. and the argument about reliable hardware is moot, apple has not switched manufacturers, they still use asus and foxconn, they still use the same high quality pcb and they design all their own motherboards the same as before, the only difference is they order the cpu and chipset from intel instead of IBM/motorola.
Some of those things may of been true of apple 10 years ago, but people need to open their eyes and quit with the blind faith, I run OS X windows and linux and each has their advantages, to label OS X a bloated toy thats not a real option is naive.
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
What clubs do you hang out at?
Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
Not to worry AC, the Linux mods have finally rolled out of bed. :-)
Wanna see those numbers? really easy.
install linux on a G3 or G4. Massively faster than OSX on that hardware.
On it's own hardware, ubuntu kicks OSX arse hard.
Graned you dont get the nice-y OSX and I do like OSX. but it takes a killer machine to handle it.
Dual G5 2.5ghz runs it nicely.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
Embedded windows is ugly. I used to work a cashier job, and when I started, all of the registers had some variation of embedded linux. Eventually the touch screens started to die, so the registers were replaced with new, "better" ones. These ran XP embedded, and were nothing but trouble. Wouldn't print reciepts right, wouldn't take credit cards half the time, and just froze at least a few times a day.