No Threat to Linux with Apple and Intel Deal

LnxPhreak writes "Gundeep Hora of CoolTechZone.com has a new editorial up that discusses why Apple and Intel's partnership is not a threat to Linux. The column weighs in on different points equally. From the article: 'However, that doesn't mean it's the end of Linux. In fact, it shouldn't even threaten Linux by any means. Linux has more than a few things that go in its favor, at least for the time being. The idea of open-source software is an amazing one. The fact that Linux isn't much of a commercialized operating system, and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself. The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.'"

My thoughts

[jwthompson2]

I doubt Linux will be significantly hurt by Apple's move. But, there is always the potential that OS X adoption could slow Linux adoption in the desktop arena. One the server side I would expect Linux to keep gaining ground. But since OS X is Unix and provides a more unified platform in comparison to Linux as a desktop solution there is always the potential that Linux adoption could slow in specific areas.

But remember, everyone is still specualting and until we have Intel based Macs shipping no one has any clue what is going to happen....

no.

[Cryptnotic]

That phrase was cut and pasted verbatim from the linked article.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[suitepotato]

This is something I don't really see happening as it steals the thunder from the mobo and chipset manufacturers. Intel, AMD, nVidia, Tyan, etc. do not want to see their boards' creative direction completely usurped by Microsoft, but at the same time are under the gun to support DRM by Microsoft which they for whatever delusional reasons they have believe might somehow screw them in spite if they don't.

What is MS going to do? Buy a processor maker, motherboard company, and so on and be like Apple? Microsoft is a software company, not hardware. The TCP/A Palladium crap should be dumped and the manufacturers should tell Microsoft to kiss their arses.

If the boards are restricted to Windows only, they shut out any future port of OSX should Jobs ever suffer a brain injury that miraculously cures him of his megalomaniacal idiocy, yes. And they kill Linux on all new hardware. But they also kill BSD which is used in sizeable amounts in corporate America in the server farm, they kill x86 Solaris, they kill a lot more than just Linux.

We don't need a PC tech forking to end all forkings. We don't need Microsoft gone over all Apple. We don't need the PC hardware being dictated from Redmond. We don't need to stifle the creativity in hardware we've had for these many years.

Of course there will be PC hardware and Windows-specific PC hardware. So the real threat to Linux is still the people who promote and move it and their lack of understanding as to why people choose Windows over Linux so overwhelmingly. Hints: EASE OF USE, EASE OF INSTALLATION, EASE OF CONFIGURATION, EASE OF ADAPTATION. Did I say that too loud?

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[peragrin]

First nitpick correction.

OS X and Linux aren't a Unix. They look act and play like unix but were banned membership due to long hair and tatoo's.:-)

Second OS X is proven to be a terrible Server. Sure it can handle small tasks effectively. and It's priced right, but handling for high loads Windows does a better, more reliable job. The guy who reviewed the G5 over at anadtech recently was comparing linux and OS X with Linux always coming out ahead.

It's that hybrid kernel slowing down thread creation. So if you keep a database and a webserver on the same machine(normal for Linux, BSD's, heck even OS X) you take a performance hit after so many connections at once. (ie minor slashdotting)

Re:My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, people who buy Macs are not the same ones who install Linux

Are you kidding? While many of these people might not be the same, judging by my group of friends and coworkers (ok, limited sample), there is a relatively large group who are exactly the same people who install linux and buy macs.

I like linux for it's freedom, flexibility and cost, and I like OS X for it's polish and ease of use. And I am not alone...

Re:Time = Money

[hacker]

"Time lost to unexpected problems when installing Linux on diverse hardware or when installing new software also translates into cost for many people."

And how quickly did it take you to get OSX running on "diverse hardware"? Did it detect your 8-year-old video card and bleeding-edge SATA drives?

Oh wait, it can't.

Re:Time = Money

[Angstroem]

Basic installs work well but wander away from the pre-installed software and nightmare tangles often ensue.

Wait a minute, you did want to make a point for Windows here, didn't you... Cause that very same behavior is what drives Windows people insane: install something "non-standard" and in worst case the system breaks.

I tend to disagree on the configuration issues. When was the last time you indeed did configure a Windows machine from scratch? Those boxes come with Windows preinstalled and preconfigured, so obviously you don't need to set up basic things like video cards and mouse drivers. OTOH, Windows never ships with as much stuff as a generic Linux distro will slam on your hard drive -- in other words, how often do you configure a *mail server* or a *print server* for Windows?

And having installed SuSE9.3 recently, I can tell you that standard configuration takes the least time. Just let it detect your hardware settings, select what you want to install, and let it go for a few hours. It wasn't any uncomfortable than e.g. installing Windows -- especially since it didn't ask any questions during installing or asked for keypresses or anything else.

Re:Which raises a question in my mind:

[am 2k]

If a driver is available for Darwin, even if it is a closed binary, could a layer be built to make it work on Linux, since Darwin is open source?

Theoretically, yes, practically it's a different matter. Linux uses C for drivers, while Darwin uses a special version of C++. You'd have to write a compiler for that one first...

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE

[temojen]

My iBook falls down under a heavy load copying files . I know this sounds like the well-worn anti-linux troll, but I frequently copy a DVD worth of small files to&from a USB drive, and the system becomes unresponsive during this (and I have 768MB RAM).

My RH 9 workstation does too, though. My Gentoo box has no problem with this whatsoever (mostly due to the 2.6 kernel, not anything gentoo specific).

Re:Which raises a question in my mind:

[Oniros]

Nope. Darwin driver architecture (IOKit) and kernel have nothing to do with the Linux kernel.

I think whenever the driver binary is PPC or x86 is the least of your problems at that point.