Geeks understand technology much better than they understand market dynamics, and this weeks-long "Linux is threatened" meme is getting old. Add those two things up and I've got to say something.
OS X will not be greater a threat to Linspire or Xandros or the like than it already is, because OS X will never be able to (officially) run on the same machines that Linspire and Xandros run on: Generic x86 machines. And what does that mean for the market?
Well, if you wanna run OS X and you don't already have a Mac, you'll have to buy a Mac. Just like today. If people wanted to run OS X instead of their favorite Linux desktop distro, they would have already bought a Mac. Since they haven't, that's your proof right there that nothing major is going to change.
I'm sure a few (including me) will try to reach triple-boot nirvana after the Intel-based Macs come out, but not most users.
This doesn't fundamentally change anything for the average Linux desktop user.
Okay, it may seem a funny jumping-off point, but stick with me for a second. Digital society hates spam, but not nearly enough for anything to actually be done about it. I think that's because it's basically limited to doing damage to your Inbox.
Yet when everybody's walking around with wristwatches connected to GPS and the 'net, and Joe's Pizza and Meg's Jewelry and Walmart and Target all want to spam your watch with their current specials as you walk within a hundred feet of their stores, people would (I hope) find that far too invasive and seek iron-clad control over the data they receive.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is the likely scenario. Probably most device manufacturers will provide a preference which permits you to turn off "unsolicited advertising" delivered via a certain protocol, but other delivery methods (http, pop3, etc.) will remain just as viable. Too bad.
In another fantastic display of pandering, Schwartz noted, "OpenSolaris will be based on UnitedLinux, because that's the direction everybody's going, isn't it? Isn't it?"
As I read the NYTimes article, and saw that most tablets included keyboards, it became clear once again that Bill Gates isn't really predicting the worldwide takeover of tablet PCs ("Within five years, I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America"), but rather that within five years, most laptops (already on their way to market dominance) will feature detachable screens and a design which allows them to be used in a completely flattened-out manner.
Okay, that's nice. It's good. It'll definitely lead to new applications (read: everything that would work on a PDA if only the screen were larger), but given this level of "innovation," they probably won't be coming from Microsoft.
The decree permits Microsoft to avoid publishing APIs for security reasons, and permits them to release API docs on a 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' basis. How much do think Microsoft will be able to get away with concealing authentication components of protocols on the security exemption, and how much will they be able to use the RAND provision to ensure that open sourcers never see the APIs to things (e.g. filesharing, Active Directory) they need to interoperate with?
If you've kept up on the cost savings offered by Linux thin clients, you know that (given application support) the money in switching to that model is/will be irresistable to IT departments. Dropping your labor costs (the bulk of a mature IT department's budget) by 50% by switching away from client-server is not uncommon.
An essential element that prompted the switch away from mainframes was, I believe, the fact that user interfaces outstripped the abilities of the slow networking in use at the time, and processing power requirements by both valid apps and bloated code exceeded the hot-I/O-but-not-so-hot-CPU design of mainframes.
Now the tables have turned -- gigabit, which shortly will be ubiquitous, is good enough to get full motion hi-res decompressed video to your desktop if needed, and Moore's law has given us 2.8 GHz CPUs to write our shopping lists with.
The costs of maintaining individual desktop systems, no matter how good the tools are, will remain immense. The money saved with centralized computing can be massive, and the inherent attributes of business desktop computing will, I believe, make the client/server model an aberration in history.
Hey, I knew people thought those Shrimp-on-the-Barbie commercials were annoying, but now we aren't even dignifying Aussies by calling them criminals anymore?!
Al-Quaeda/Bin Laden operatives are not the crime geniuses the US government say they are. As a matter of fact, they appear as pretty incompetent to me.
I keep seeing this sentiment from the Slash snobs in the crowd. If I could rephrase it, it would be something like "Terrorists whose full-time job is to kill people and create fear haven't busied themselves with learning to twiddle the right nondescript buttons in the latest corporate copy of Windows, SO THEY MUST BE INCOMPETENT LOONS!"
Let's face it -- the Slashdot crowd is among the most well-informed to shoot it out (metaphorically) over encryption details, but I wouldn't want most of you to make my shoe bomb for me. This doesn't mean you're incompetent, it just means creation of hidden explosive devices isn't your strength.
To assume terrorists are incompetent from one little slip is to ignore the depth of the threat.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC it expands to a 100 meg disk image, of which about 50 megs is used. http://sourceforge.net/projects/user-mode-linux/files/Root%20filesystems/1/Debian-3.0r0.ext2.bz2/download It's an image you can copy right onto the drive. It was made for User Mode Linux, but I'll bet it'll work with only a little bit of apt-getting. Then you can dist-upgrade to Lenny.
OS X will not be greater a threat to Linspire or Xandros or the like than it already is, because OS X will never be able to (officially) run on the same machines that Linspire and Xandros run on: Generic x86 machines. And what does that mean for the market?
Well, if you wanna run OS X and you don't already have a Mac, you'll have to buy a Mac. Just like today. If people wanted to run OS X instead of their favorite Linux desktop distro, they would have already bought a Mac. Since they haven't, that's your proof right there that nothing major is going to change.
I'm sure a few (including me) will try to reach triple-boot nirvana after the Intel-based Macs come out, but not most users.
This doesn't fundamentally change anything for the average Linux desktop user.
Steve
Okay, it may seem a funny jumping-off point, but stick with me for a second. Digital society hates spam, but not nearly enough for anything to actually be done about it. I think that's because it's basically limited to doing damage to your Inbox.
Yet when everybody's walking around with wristwatches connected to GPS and the 'net, and Joe's Pizza and Meg's Jewelry and Walmart and Target all want to spam your watch with their current specials as you walk within a hundred feet of their stores, people would (I hope) find that far too invasive and seek iron-clad control over the data they receive.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is the likely scenario. Probably most device manufacturers will provide a preference which permits you to turn off "unsolicited advertising" delivered via a certain protocol, but other delivery methods (http, pop3, etc.) will remain just as viable. Too bad.
Steve
In another fantastic display of pandering, Schwartz noted, "OpenSolaris will be based on UnitedLinux, because that's the direction everybody's going, isn't it? Isn't it?"
As I read the NYTimes article, and saw that most tablets included keyboards, it became clear once again that Bill Gates isn't really predicting the worldwide takeover of tablet PCs ("Within five years, I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America"), but rather that within five years, most laptops (already on their way to market dominance) will feature detachable screens and a design which allows them to be used in a completely flattened-out manner.
Okay, that's nice. It's good. It'll definitely lead to new applications (read: everything that would work on a PDA if only the screen were larger), but given this level of "innovation," they probably won't be coming from Microsoft.
The decree permits Microsoft to avoid publishing APIs for security reasons, and permits them to release API docs on a 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' basis. How much do think Microsoft will be able to get away with concealing authentication components of protocols on the security exemption, and how much will they be able to use the RAND provision to ensure that open sourcers never see the APIs to things (e.g. filesharing, Active Directory) they need to interoperate with?
Steve
If you've kept up on the cost savings offered by Linux thin clients, you know that (given application support) the money in switching to that model is/will be irresistable to IT departments. Dropping your labor costs (the bulk of a mature IT department's budget) by 50% by switching away from client-server is not uncommon.
An essential element that prompted the switch away from mainframes was, I believe, the fact that user interfaces outstripped the abilities of the slow networking in use at the time, and processing power requirements by both valid apps and bloated code exceeded the hot-I/O-but-not-so-hot-CPU design of mainframes.
Now the tables have turned -- gigabit, which shortly will be ubiquitous, is good enough to get full motion hi-res decompressed video to your desktop if needed, and Moore's law has given us 2.8 GHz CPUs to write our shopping lists with.
The costs of maintaining individual desktop systems, no matter how good the tools are, will remain immense. The money saved with centralized computing can be massive, and the inherent attributes of business desktop computing will, I believe, make the client/server model an aberration in history.
Steve
If that's what I am, I fear for our nation!
The parent was written by Jim Gettys, who wrote the bleedin' thing.
Steve
I hope some of the spam went to Bill Gates... His net worth has been hurting lately, after all.
Hey, I knew people thought those Shrimp-on-the-Barbie commercials were annoying, but now we aren't even dignifying Aussies by calling them criminals anymore?!
I keep seeing this sentiment from the Slash snobs in the crowd. If I could rephrase it, it would be something like "Terrorists whose full-time job is to kill people and create fear haven't busied themselves with learning to twiddle the right nondescript buttons in the latest corporate copy of Windows, SO THEY MUST BE INCOMPETENT LOONS!"
Let's face it -- the Slashdot crowd is among the most well-informed to shoot it out (metaphorically) over encryption details, but I wouldn't want most of you to make my shoe bomb for me. This doesn't mean you're incompetent, it just means creation of hidden explosive devices isn't your strength.
To assume terrorists are incompetent from one little slip is to ignore the depth of the threat.
Steve