Microsoft Sees Linux As Bigger Competitor Than Apple 596
Facetious writes "It seems Microsoft doesn't believe the data from Net Applications regarding Linux any more than Slashdot readers do. In a recent presentation, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed a slide showing, from Microsoft's internal analysis, that Linux client use is clearly ahead of Apple's."
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, OSX is certified Unix.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple's Mac OS X is not entirely closed source. The GUI layer is, and some of the kernel drivers are closed source, but Apple has made the bulk of the kernel, pretty much all of the command line tools, and a whole much of their non-GUI frameworks available as open source (under either the sources original license or Apple's APSL).
In particular, the CoreFoundation framework is useful for cross platform networking and unicode string handling code.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know whether it's POSIX-compliant?
Yes.
Is it proper to refer to it as a "Unix" or is it a "Unix clone" or "Unix-like system" like Linux?
OS X is a certified UNIX.
I'd also be interested in anything explaining why they went with a Mach microkernel and whether that has any non-negligible impact on performance (i.e. message-passing overhead, switching from kernel to userspace, etc). I'd appreciate anything you are able to explain since I'm honestly rather ignorant about OSX.
The message passing overhead is fairly high compared to other systems like Linux or other BSDs. Unlike monolithic kernels, the Mach based one that Darwin (The UNIX part of OS X) uses actually has to do a full context switch when one makes a system call. That can be slow, especially with TLB flushes and such.
Wikipedia and Apple have some pretty good docs on how it works.
Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Of course! (Score:4, Informative)
If MS got a hold of the trademark for "Linux", then someone would rename the kernel "Lunix", or "Orange", or something, and we'd continue where we left off.
As for GPL'd code, it cannot be made proprietary.
Re:Of course! (Score:5, Informative)
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
The Linux kernel is only a part of a GNU/Linux system. Almost everything, including the kernel, has been published under the GNU General Public License (cf. GNU [gnu.org]).
Linus Torvalds is still the figurehead of Linux kernel development, but even if Microsoft would manage to purchase all rights to the Linux kernel, that would have little impact, because the Linux kernel has already been published under the GPL, which makes it legal to modify it and keep it under the GPL forever, no matter if there also would be a proprietary version.
The GNU project (which contains all free Linux software including the Linux kernel) also develops their own Mach-based kernel, called "Hurd" (the OS would be called GNU/Hurd then).
Even if Microsoft would manage to purchase Richard Stallman, the head of GNU, it would have little impact on free software development, since all code that already exists can be forked away before any proprietary branches would emerge.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know whether it's POSIX-compliant
POSIX is a subset of the Single UNIX Specification. Any system that is UNIX(tm) is also POSIX, but not every POSIX system is UNIX.
I'd also be interested in anything explaining why they went with a Mach microkernel and whether that has any non-negligible impact on performance
Because, in 1988, when they designed the system, Mach was the state of the art. NeXT used it and so did OSF/1 and a few other systems. Everything since then has been incremental improvements. There is almost no message-passing overhead in OS X because Mach is just used as a hardware abstraction layer, and most of the stuff runs in the BSD single server.
If you want to know more about how OS X works at a system level, Amit Singh has written an excellent book about it.
Re:Servers (Score:5, Informative)
Actually there is far more money in clients than in servers. The profit margins on server software (and hardware) tend to be higher per sale, but in terms of both gross revenue and total profit clients wins hands down.
Heck, that's why Microsoft is the 800 pound gorilla of software. Windows makes truly ridiculous amounts of money, and the fact that Microsoft controls the end user experience at a very low level gives Microsoft a great deal of leverage.
Microsoft has a very profitable server software division, but its profits are barely a third of Microsoft's Client division, and MS Office (another piece of client software) generates nearly as much profit as Windows.
The client rules, plain and simple.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Makes sense... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Installed base vs. market share (Score:3, Informative)
There is revenue market share and unit sales market share. Both are reported by companies such as Net Applications, but neither reflects the Linux installed base because neither includes copies of Ubuntu etc that were not sold.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html [apple.com]
Re:Embedded Difference? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. I just think they estimated WORLDWIDE market share. Outside of the US, Apple doesn't sell. I live in a large city in Germany and there are exactly zero places selling Macs. In fact, I have never seen a Mac for real. People using Linux on their laptops can be sighted occasionally, however.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Your confusing subset with subclass. POSIX is a subset of UNIX features, so it is possible for an OS to implement that POSIX subset and still not implement all the other features that would make it a UNIX.
POSIX is *not* a subclass of UNIX, so all POSIX oses are not thereby UNIX oses.
By analogy, flight is a subset of the capabilities of birds, so it is possible for an animal to have flight capabilities and still not be a bird (bats, flying insects). "Animal with flight" is *not* a subset of "birds."
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:2, Informative)
Actually your changes would have taken effect immediately in new sessions. launchd runs a new sshd process for every login, so the configuration would be parsed from scratch. Think of it as running sshd through inetd. Since you cannot change parameters to your current session as it already exists, there's simply no need for a mechanism to re-read the configuration.
Re:Not suprising (Score:3, Informative)
Second reason is that Apple is a straight competitor. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer ain't enemies, they believe the same thing: Software should be paid for and the end user does NOT get to own the piece of software let alone use it in any way that they want to. Linux on the other hand says "Here is all this great software, use it, don't pay for it and do with it what you want how you want to for as long as you want to." EEK!
Do you know many Linux developers? Do you know where the average person is likely to get Linux? Linux ships pre-installed by for profit companies, just like OS X and Apple. Most Linux developers are not freaky hippy socialists, but are paid by commercial companies and enjoy spending those paychecks. Apple develops FOSS software and contributes their changes, just like most other companies that work in it. They don't just make FOSS but few major contributors do. Most profit from closed source software, hardware, and/or services and they use FOSS to save money and have more flexibility for the commodity parts. For Apple, the money maker is the polished interface and usability experience. For IBM it is services to get that stuff up and running. For Juniper it is specialty hardware and software in combination. It's all the same business model from MS's perspective though.
Or to keep it simple, an Apple buyer might be persuaded to buy MS office for the Mac. A linux user is a far thougher sell and might even use something like OpenOffice or even worse Abiword...
That's not what scares MS. They've built their entire business on leveraging their monopoly market share. Apple has avoided competing in the desktop OS market, bypassing it entirely. Sure they weaken MS's power, but only a small amount and only increasing gradually. Linux, on the other hand, is a direct competitor and can't be killed by MS's usual tactics because of the licensing. OS X install base may grow a few percent a year. Linux could explode into huge share in only a few years especially as it is cheaper than Windows can be and flexible enough to be a good fit in emerging markets like netbooks, where Windows is very weak.
If MS is ever considering having to market MSWord to Linux users, they have already lost the war and will have to retool all of their business plans in dozens of markets at the cost of huge amounts of their profit.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Linus + Unix = linux
no acronism involved.
I am a unix (tru64, HPUX, sco, freebsd) admin as well as a linux admin (rhel5/centos5, debian/ubuntu) and prefer linux 10:1 to most unix though freebsd is very nice and a close second to debian for me.
linux != unix, linux > unix
though
freebsd = unix, freebsd > unix
OSX is a unix by heritage but it is a Desktop OS. Apple might try to present it as some sleek server unix but it is a Desktop OS sitting on unix, which is a different creature all together.
now Microsoft knows that big money is in the server market. a single server installation with SQL server is more profit than 15 desktop sales, and there is less rampant piracy in the server market.
Microsoft vs Apple is a battle on a single front. Apple doesnt have a strong flanking maneuver in its OSX server product.
Microsoft vs Linux is a battle on the server front that Microsoft is not winning and Linux is improving on the desktop front with improvements happening far faster than Microsoft could have anticipated or even keep pace with. They have never been able to deliver an updated desktop OS on a schedule anywhere near Apple or Linux.
Since OSX came out there have been 5 full releases and twice as many dot releases, each with some noticable and desirable improvement in function AND performance. Linux is such a multifaceted movement that every 6 months there is a dot release of the main components and hundreds of fixes and tweaks. Microsoft is 2 full releases and 3 service packs in that same timeframe.
I also admin a few Windows Servers (2 2k8 and 1 2k3) and they are reliable systems but the heavy lifting in our datacenter is done by linux and the rock solid legacy systems are unix. I have unix systems that are sitting on decade old hardware and have unlimited uptime only interupted by schedule maintenance.
Microsoft is right to fear the triple threat (remember the mobile market) from linux. Apple is such a niche player and seems satisfied with that.
Re:Apple OS != Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
The first system to fully conform to POSIX was OpenVMS (the Open- prefix indicated POSIX compliance; previous versions were just called VMS), a system that was very different from UNIX. Windows NT was also POSIX compliant, but didn't implement any of the optional parts of POSIX which, it turns out, includes most of the specification (a large number of calls are required to exist but may return ENOTIMPLEMENTED in all cases). Neither of these are UNIX, although it may be possible to persuade Windows with SFU or Cygwin installed to come close to passing the SUS tests.
One of the nice things about the SUS is that, unlike POSIX, it is free to access [opengroup.org]. Copies of POSIX still cost money, but you can infer what they say by reading the SUS and checking the bits at the bottom of each page which highlight the SUS extensions to POSIX (and, often, to the C standard, which is also not freely available).
It's also worth noting that you are only allowed to call a system UNIX if it has been certified by the Open Group (who own the UNIX trademark) as conforming to the SUS. The conformance test is for a specific version of an OS on specific hardware. OS X 10.5 on x86 is UNIX, but OS X 10.5 on PowerPC is not. Solaris 10 on SPARC is UNIX, but Solaris 10 on x86 is not. Both OS X on PowerPC and Solaris on x86 will run the same set of programs as their certified counterparts, but Sun and Apple chose not to pay for certification for their system on both platforms. I think the rules were changed recently, but it used to also be the case that the version requirements were very strict, so OS X 10.5 on x86 can be UNIX, but OS X 10.5.1 would have required recertifying.