Desktop Linux on x86 - Adapt or Die 924
An anonymous reader writes "The recent announcement of Apple's upcoming x86 systems has gotten a lot of people thinking. Among the conjecture, there has been much thought given to how Linux will be affected by this move. The author of this article does not believe that Linux as a whole is threatened harmed by the 'Mactel' alliance, but does point out that his could mean major trouble for distros like Xandros and Linspire which are reliant on the desktop audience. These distros are clearly not ready to take on OS X, which will soon be the primary x86 alternative to Windows XP not only because of OS X's dedicated and outspoken user base but because of its slick looks and ease of use."
But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But OTOH (Score:2)
If this factor leads to new 'easier to use' distros that is fine. If it means a good current distro goes Fischer-Price, it's a bad thing.
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's interfaces are much more Fisher-Price than Apple's. Unfortunately, Fisher-Price doesn't mean simpler to understand.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Interesting)
I got a mac recently. I like it quite a bit but it does have some flaws. In fact, there is one flaw that is amazingly annoying -- no middle-click paste. The only saving grace is that quanta runs under X11 and I can middle-click there. But it drives me crazy when I'm using aqua apps and simply highlight, switch apps, try to paste, then have to redo the process with ctrl-c type strokes. It's really a downer.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
The menu bar is nice. And pre-OS 10 Mac interface was pretty nice in most ways too.
The NeXT boxes were great though. The only thing I didn't like - lack of the menu bar. Every other UI element was as good, or better, IMOP.
I was really hoping OSX would be a lot closer to NeXT, or failing that, would just have the NeXT guts with an OS9 GUI. What we actually got, however, was something inconsistent with both in a lot of ways.
Still nicer than Windows, but then again, has the standard
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cocoatech.com/ [cocoatech.com]
Re:But OTOH (Score:4, Funny)
There's a difference between "dumbing down" an OS, and giving an OS and applications consistent and easy-to-use interfaces. Apple makes things easy by giving programs similar interfaces and similar menu structures.
In truth, Apple has a long way to go too.
Why just the other day, I was trying to set up wireless on our houseguest's ibook. I had to type in the essid and the WEP password. "password?" I thought
Put the name of the wireless network in the "name" field, and your password in the "password" field.
Okay, screw this, I'm going to Google. After some futzing around, it turns out that to enter a hex key one has to put a '$' before the key. That's completely unintuitive, and not documented. What a load of overhyped bantha poodoo is this OS X...
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Informative)
You just pick what kind of key you are using (ASCII, hex, WPA) from the pick list and type it in.
What version where you looking at?
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
If you let everyone have it their way, you get the GUI disaster that is Linux (take one or the other of the big DEs alone, and there is a little more consitency, but then, who are the GNOME or KDE guys to tell me: only run KDE or GNOME apps otherwise your whole consistency in UI design goes down the drain).
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Interesting)
And I love my Mac.
But truth be told, the Mac can be annoyingly toyish too. Not nearly as often as Windows, but it's there for sure.
The interface guidelines have slid downhill since OS9, the glowing gumdrops widgets annoy the hell out of anyone trying to get real work done, and of course Macs have always, and continue, to insist on the particular way they want you to do it, which is not always optimal for anyone but a rank beginner. I know, for instance, I agree with the poster that misse
Re:But OTOH (Score:4, Informative)
OK, why not?!! How do I fix it?!!
Not sure if that was an _exact_ example of what I remember seeing but you get the idea.
Easy to use until something goes slightly wrong. And it also still has (Apple) apps with greyed-out options with no clue given as to why they haved been greyed out.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
Those sort of glib, uninformative error messages are the bane of computing. If you're a programmer and this is how you handle errors you're a waste of time.
The only place I'd say this approach was acceptable would be software for a kiosk type app but for a desktop app it's inexcusably poor.
At the very least there should be a way to retrieve additional details from the error prompt (perhaps a button if it's a GUI app) Activating this "additional details" option should then give a ful
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not dumbing down at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Producing an interface that is both easy to use and powerful is not a job for dumb people. On the contrary, achieving simplicity while retaining flexibility usually requires very smart people indeed.
Equally, a smart person who wants to get something down rather than just play around is always going to choose a simple-but-effective interface that's efficient over a super-l337, infinitely-customisable, but ultimately more time-consuming and difficult one.
Consider a programming analogy: suppose two developers write code that ultimately achieves the same thing. Say one of them writes 200 lines of intricate technical detail, taking advantage of advanced features offered by the programming language, while the other writes 20 lines using nothing but the most basic language constructs. Which of these is the smart programmer?
Even more to the Point (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of argument (using 'advanced features of a programming language') is the downfall of most programmers and applications in the long run.
Using advanced features of a language means typically that you are relying on non-portable, compiler-specific features that will cause countless problems when (inevitably) you try to port and/or someone else is maintaining the code long after it was originally written.
For o
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But OTOH (Score:2)
1) to have solid easy-to-use bundled apps that work out of the box (ala Apple's iLife suite)
2) to have consistency throughout the OS (actually, this is something that Apple's been having problems with in its own GUI with OS X)
3) Linux needs a much better GUI (and, no - the Windows-like interface doesn't cut it)
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
Recent mac purchaser (powerbook prior to Tiger). So Tiger comes out and I think "that looks cool", except it's $129 to try it out on one machine ($200 for 5 (and I have two macs here)). In contrast, Hoary Hedgehog comes out and I've got two other machines upgraded in no time, no cost. And you know what, I like the linux DEs. Linux might not take over the entire world -- but so what? Why is that the test? How about these:
Honestly, som
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think survival of the fittest is ever the right phrase[1]. I propose survival of the most adaptable. You can be the fittest in one environment or set of circumstances but when the situation changes; e.g. Apple moving to x86, what defines the fittest changes. The ability to adapt to whatever is going on and where it's taking place is what counts.
The GUI is an understatement. The strategy of Windows-like but not Windows will not win in the long run. It's not an improvement. Mac is the right
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just a load of baloney. In the Windows world, the division between desktop and server OS is largely artificial (limiting clients and CPUs). There's no harm in having a kernel that can handle network file systems or firewalling running on a desktop. I've done it plenty. There are specific situations (like embedded systems) where you will obviously want a small kernel with a minimum of tools, but those are specialized situations.
Take a look at Ubuntu. It's a minimalist, desktop distro. Comes with a browser, email, office suite and some multimedia utilities. Nothing to stop you from install MySQL, Apache or whatever if you want.
The only reason to create "server" and "client" operating systems is rake in the money at both ends of the spectrum. It's a licensing fiction which makes guys like MS considerable amounts of money. Why would you want to lock Linux into such a thing? If you don't want a server-class Linux, don't install the server components.
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone already knows that Linux needs a lot of work to become a viable mass market desktop. We've known it for quite a while. We even know a lot of the specific was in which it could be improved to bring it closer to this goal. So why isn't it getting done?
Some developers completely don't care about that. They use linux for what they use it for, and a polished gui desktop is not important to them. The success of Linux as a desktop OS means nothing to them.
Some think it's good enough, and that users should become more competent. A lot of Linux's woes are blamed on these sorts of developers, but I don't think there's as many of them as all the complaining would leave you to believe.
I'm guessing most Linux developers would love to have a more polished interface, but they don't want to do it, because it's boring work. The fact of the matter is, proofreading dialog boxes and checking for consistent menu options and whatnot is not all that fun. Linux development happens mostly through hobbyists, and they're going to spend their free time doing what they enjoy.
No, to really get the crappy work done, you've got to get paid. And right now, at least, it's hard to convince someone that there's money to be made paying for linux desktop development. The mere fact that the GPL requires you to give away the source code to anyone you sell it to makes the financial future of any investments questionable. You can't push service contracts on people the same way that you can with businesses, because people don't want to pay for that. I
I think the only way that it could work is something closer to Apple's model, where you're selling an entire system, and the integration between the hardware and the software is what you're really paying for. The complete experience. Otherwise, you're going up against the MS juggernaut completely head on, and you also have to compete against free versions of yourself. I have a hard time believing that that will work.
I guess there's more of a "workstation" market that could be targeted, and you might even be able to sell service contracts with those, but the workstation market is sort of fragmented, and there are lots of specialty needs, and I'd think it would be hard for your company to meet enough of those needs quickly enough to make money.
Re:But OTOH (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it clearly is *getting* done: anyone who's actually used Gnome, for example, for the last five years or so can see that enormous amounts of work have gone into making a usable desktop.
As for why it isn't actually *done* yet, there's a much simpler reason: because it's really, really hard work, and that kind of thing takes time.
Really? These days there are a *ton* of people working full-time on linux development (I should know, I am one...), so a statement like that requires evidence....
--Bruce Fields
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
What it boils down to is that for a successful desktop distro to come around (in my opinion anyway) it n
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh... Have you actually put as much time into learning to using Linux as you've put into using Windows (or MacOS)? Or even a reasonable amount of time?
Unless the Linux interface dupicates another OS *exactly*, it'll never be possible for a user of another OS to just drop in and be an immediate expert. And that sort of complete duplication isn't a good idea anyway.
A modern desktop Linux distribution will be perfectly usable for anyone who's willing to learn *any* new desktop OS.
The reason why people in your category (Windows Power Users) have trouble switching to Linux is an unrealistic expectation that your "extensive computer skills" mean zero learning curve for a new system. It'll actually be harder to pick up for you than for a new user, and there's no real way to change that.
Again - Linux isn't significantly behind at anything important for a generic desktop user. Feel free to give me specific examples if you think I'm wrong. The fact that you can't find a defragmenting tool or a virus scanner is *ok*.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be a lot of arguing back and forth about the user interface, but quite frankly I think that the user interfaces of gnome and kde and the distros that use them are just fine. I think, as you do, that their interfaces are just as serviceable as Windows or Mac.
There are some things that need to change, though. One thing, which I read about from time to time is the lack of a consistent clipboard in Linux. That's a big one to me.
Another factor, though, which I don't see much mention of, is
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Informative)
They do a good job if you don't fill the disks to the brim. My ext3 disk only goes above 1% fragmentation when it is nearly full. When that happens, there is this defragger. [oo-software.com]
Not quite! (Score:3, Informative)
Those are what you are likely to occur, every thing is nice and systematic.
Except that everything is not nice and systematic. First, all programs get dumped together under
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way? Two years since my move from windows confinement to linux and I am still discovering new stuff I cna do with an OOTB linux that I used to have to spend HOURS looking for documentation on from Microsoft - or even making my own tools or searching for tools already made by others.
I don't know what you do with a desktop, but I find nothing missing. Parent has it right, gnome has improved pretty dramatically just in the last year and ubuntu, the distro that focuses most directly on it right now, is an absolutely fantastic OS. Yeah, there are still some annoyances - for example in Nautilus (try opening a folder with a few thousand items and you might as well get a cup of coffe while waiting for the content to pour into the frame) - but on the whole it's a fantastically functional desktop that is far easier to customize with custom widgets than anyning Microsoft has managed or even that applescript stuff.
OSX was build from almost scrath in less than half the time Linux has been in existence.
The core of OS X was around for decades and in this respect so was linux (sort of). But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was around since NEXT, and I do believe that predates both Gnome and KDE.
But even if not, what's it matter? For one thing this whole notion of linux being threatened by a move of Apple to intel is based on the already disproven assumption that one will be able to install OS X on any intel hardware. Unless OS X can run on commodity PC hardware it is no more a "threat to linux" than it ever was.
MS and Apple are busy moving forward all the time.
So is the linux desktop. Quickly, and in a hundred directions. Choice is good.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between bundled functionality and usability. This is exactly the mindset that I feel has been holding back linux usability work to date.
But the desktop, what people think of when they think of a mac, was
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Informative)
It will come with a lot more than ANY Linux box. Because
Here, hear (Score:3, Insightful)
What seems really mad to me is "gnome, inc" keep thumping the HIG regarding spatial browsing, pointing out how it is supposed to ecourage a "flatter" directory structure. I've even heard some say things like "if it's more than three layers deep oyu are doing something wrong."
Well, let's say you have 500,000 images (go ahead, wiseguy, and crack wise - but if you
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Interesting)
????
I've presented this story before. My business partner is not computer savy at all -- she still has an AOL dial-up account. She calls the computer a "cpu" -- you know the type, points at the case and says "cpu". She's the type of person who bought a computer years ago and since it still allows her to check email, she has no interest in getting something else.
When I set up our office, I used linux set up with the KDE desktop. I was surprised one day when I came in and saw she had independently changed the wallpaper to her kid's picture. She's never had a problem with openoffice (used MS Office before) or Mozilla or Kmail.
I'm thinking that if she can use it, almost anyone can. She may not be able to do a deep configuration, but she wouldn't be able to do that with her windows box -- I know this -- recently she called me up and asked me how she could burn a CD from her computer at home (she has no problem with k3b). Fact is, it's been so long since I've used any windows software it was hard to guide her (you know, I'm saying stuff like "ok, look at the menu for something suggests the concept of burning or writing
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Informative)
Woah there nelly. You haven't got that one quite right. The origins of OS X [kernelthread.com] began in 1985 with the first public release in 1988. It's older than Linux by a few years. It evolved a bit between 1988 and 1997 before Apple bought it, and Apple did some fairly major reworking, but OS X has a 20 year history and has spent 8 years with Apple. Linux is only 14 years old and KDE/GNOME are only 8 years old. So to be completely honest, the KDE/GNOME guys have managed to build *two* desktops from scratch in less than half the time OS X has been in existence! You got it exactly backwards.
Re:But OTOH (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, Aqua, Mac OS X's Desktop Environment. NeXT might have built the system, but the engineers at Apple made it soar.
Re:But OTOH (Score:3, Informative)
I have heard that sort of assertion several times before, but I don't believe it is true. You only have to hang out on the kde
Re:But OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary flaw with that line of reasoning is that MacOS is not going to be available for just any x86 system. It isn't like people can go out, and buy OSX to replace their current Linux installation. In reality, because of the hardware lock-in, OSX on x86 wont be any different than the current PowerPC state of affairs. If you want MacOS, you have to buy a Mac.
The only real difference is that now Windows will be able to run on Mac hardware (Linux already could).
The bottom line is that the processor change is going to have little impact outside of the Apple world unless they decide to change their mind about the hardware lock-in.
There has been SOME discussion.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux should be less worried. MS should be quaking in its' proverbial boots. Linux will remain because of its' use as a sever OS and the geek's premier OS. There might be a few people who make the switch from Linux to
OSX, but I don't believe there will be a large shift. There will be a lot more people leaving Windows for the stability and look of OSX. The price point will be on par with any other Intel machine, and Apple could see a large increase in marketshare.
And finally, a bit of a rant - WTF was the point of having the article spread across two pages? Keep it all on one - I don't want to have to click next for a 5+ paragraph article.
The author makes this huge deal about the rumored Apple shift to Linux, and then at the end decides to say that it won't make any real affect anyway. Make up your mind!
Re:There has been SOME discussion.... (Score:2)
Not to mention that there are develop
Re:There has been SOME discussion.... (Score:2)
It's all about advertising, baby. Spread your article over two pages, you get 2x the hits. If it makes you feel better, I've offset your extra page hit by not reading the article
"The author makes this huge deal about the rumored Apple shift to Linux, and then at the end decides to say that it won't make any real affect anyw
I still don't get it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Switching to the Intel platform only seems to do one thing: Lower the price somewhat. It won't make it so you can run OS X on commodity hardware, it won't make it so your Windows apps magically run on OS X, and it won't do anything else. So, if we are just talking price, there is no way Apple will lower the price to compete with Linspire systems. IMHO, the Mac Mini did more damage to desktop Linux than the move to x86 will, because it is cheap and simple.
What is it that I am missing?
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't.
What is it that I am missing?
Not too many brain cells, for whatever comfort that may offer.
KFG
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Mac Mini did more damage to desktop Linux, imagine a cheaper version, with higher clock rates that can do everything a Linux desktop can, but has more software available to purchase for it, and of course has Office on it. Now if your average user only cares about 'how fast it is, what it can do, and how much it costs' and you see the Mac Mini doing damage, then what will one that hits all of the points that the average user cares about do to desktop Linux.
Thats why its a threat to Linux distros that target users.
You still won't be able to run OS X (Score:5, Informative)
It is still not a PC operating system. Absolutely nothing has changed.
This is a non issue.
Intel switch to generate new hardware sales... (Score:2)
With a switch to the Intel platform Apple has provided a major reason to switch. Platform support. Either buy into the new hardware or face the possibility of being left behind - a possibility I suspect will be very much in force within a few years.
As a threat to Linux on the desktop? How could it be? Linux itself doesn't have
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And for the millionth time, Apple does sell OS X separately [apple.com]. It's just that, as you say, it does you no good unless you have Apple hardware to run it on...
Just smile and nod (Score:3, Insightful)
You're fighting assumptions here. There seem to be a lot of people out there who figure that Apple is just being coy, and that eventually they'll sell a version of OS X that will run on non-Apple hardware, despite the fact that such a plan would be rife with pitfalls for Apple.
When I see comments that confuse what Apple has actually stated with what wild-eyed pundits have said, I just smile and nod.
Re:I still don't get it.. (Score:3, Informative)
Ironically, Apple has sold Tiger, separately, over two million times.
They have you beat by an easy mil.
and OS X will not run on non-Apple hardware! How hard is this for people to understand?!?!?!?!?
OS X runs on non-Apple, Intel hardware, right now. When the x86 version becomes available, PearPC will be just that much faster. The only way Apple can stop it is to use rock-solid DRM, and as there has never been a rock-solid DRM scheme to date,
Only, Minor things are missing (Score:2)
Admin is the big one. Also, some nice apps that work together would be cool.
Re:Only, Minor things are missing (Score:2)
ObSimCityQuote: "Naysayers Say Nay"
Sorry. Every time I see that word, I think of Sim City.
Don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, some Apple honchos have stated that Mac OSX will _not_ be available for common computers.
Re:Don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
You would be right to assume that Apple doesn't compete for the bottom dollars, but for a classy, capable, usable system (plus charging for ease of use as a feature), Apple does fine. Not the greatest deal but also not the worst deal.
Switching to Intel now makes Macs performance competitive. Before it was already price and feature competitive, offering reasonable prices, reasonable features, and reasonable usability, but
Sorry, but $999 and $1200 are *not* competitive (Score:4, Insightful)
$550 and $299 would be competitive.
Re:Don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Competative in what market, exactly?
I don't particularly want to let myself get drawn into a debate about Macs vs PCs, but the absolutely lowest priced Mac available, the stripped-down, all-but-useless Mac Mini, costs in the same range as a typical name-brand desktop PC.
Going into the $1300 range, you can get some fairly sweet business-class machines from Dell, just shy of "with the works".
Re:Don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok done. (Score:3, Informative)
Toshiba Satellite [toshibadirect.com]
for $999 (the price of the cheapest 12" ibook)
you get:
RAM: 512MB on board and one free slot,
CPU: Intel mobile P4 (3.20GHz, 1MB L2 cache, 533MHz FSB)
OS: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition (SP2)
BUNDLED: No Microsoft® Office software
I'm willing to count this as a feature
SCREEN: 15.4" Wide-screen XGA Display w/TruBrite(TM) (1280x800)
GFX CARD: ATI MOBILITY(TM) RADEON(TM) 9000 IGP w/up to
Re:Don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
It already is, via PearPC. The only problem with PearPC is no hardware acceleration, and PPC->x86 translation.
x86 OS X removes the need for PPC->x86 translation.
Even if Apple locks the OS with DRM, DVDJon will have it cracked within a week. Yeah, you won't be able to just pop in the disk and install, but since we're talking Linux users here, they can handle a small boot image to load OS X with--it'll be easier than the "swap the disc" hac
More of the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that everybody wants to pay a $150-300 license fee per CPU to run on all their 'desktop' systems.
I'm not even conviced that Apple is going to allow their OS software to run on non-Apple hardware (but haven't we argued that point to death?).
I am fairly certain that this 'issue' is just a new angle to bash linux and freenixes in general with. More of the same from the usual folks.
Re:More of the same. (Score:3, Insightful)
Point taken, but how many people in muliple computer homes paid Bill for seperate licenses on all the computers?
Re:More of the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
With DRM and palladium coming, I think Microsoft will be able to enforce license purchases within the next 2 years. Notice I said 'be able'-they won't do it yet, not as long as there are viable free alternatives like Linux.
So their strategy is to get as many users as possible on windows, pirated or not, and when there are only a few left on Linux, force everyone to pay. Then you'll look ofcourse for a free alternative, but it'll be too little too late.
The funny thing is, most windows users with pirated versions, think they are 'cheating' Microsoft, while infact they are playing Microsoft's game. And Microsoft treats them like criminals, like they've done something bad. The same tactic banks use. They'll give you more credit than you can afford, and when you cann't pay it back on time, they'll blame you and treat you like you've done something bad. So people usually fall into the trap, borrow more than they can afford and end up paying extraordinary fees without complaining. After all, it's their fault...isn't it?
These people need to stop thinking about short term convenience and think the long term implications of their actions.
Nowdays, Linux is very easy to use and very powerful. There really is, no excuse not to use it.
x86 != PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Pure FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
OSX also has it's probelms it's not classic OS, and still has some old tim mac users grumbling about some of the loss of eas of use.
What will hurt Linux is what has been hurting Linux, a steep learning curve, all-too-common installation issues, and lack of some key software to replace favoriate apps on other platforms. All of those can be solved via open source development but they just aren't as sexy to code or work on.
Re:Pure FUD (Score:2)
That's not what matters. If it runs on off-the-shelf Intel hardware (which I heard it probably won't) and is pirateable, then that's all that matters.
Re:Pure FUD (Score:2)
Joe Consumer likes to comparison shop and if they can get that idea in their head, Apple could start to see more Macs flying off shelves.
I dont think it will make much difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I dont think it will make much difference (Score:2)
What I am sure about is that at least someone will try.
MS should still be more worried than linux (Score:4, Interesting)
MS should be worried shitless that, one day, Apple will release OSX for all x86 desktops and put a big dent in MS's marketshare. Unless Apple signed some no-OS-compete agreement forever with MS, they have a lot more to worry about in the long run (think 10+ years).
Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see why you might want OSX on PC hardware as Apple is more of a platform company than anything else. The software and the hardware go hand-in-hand.
I don't think OSX will have any more penetration into the desktop market than Linux has had for one simple reason -- the desktop market is the noob market. Plain and simple. Noobs are too preconditioned to Windows right now.
Re:Well, (Score:3, Funny)
You keep using that word "noob." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Cuz, y'know (Score:2)
Frankly, I see OS X and linux as more complimentary than anything. Almost all of the OS X "switchers" I've personally encountered in the last few years have been not desktop users, but UNIX-centered power users who found themselves suddenly v
If by "dedicated and outspoken" you mean... (Score:2)
MacTel is a threat (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason I switched from Windows is that the features I wanted (better shell, nicer GUI, easier to use programs, better workspace, more scriptability and easier to organize folders) was already on the Mac.
Sure, Linux has some of these features. The problem, I've found is also an 'apparent' strength of other 'Nix systems: X, KDE, Gnome and a whole slew of Window Managers and DEs. I say apparent, because, frankly, with all the work that has gone into each DE and WM, Linux could have one (maybe) two really kick-ass desktop environments. Insead everything would work well together. And something has to be done with the library compatibility problems.
I only want some OSS programs. I don't really care about having an OSS (GLD' whatever) Operating System. I'll pay for the OS. Heck, I just bought a Mac and am really happy. I just like to have 'options'! Doesn't everyone?
Hackers, not Apple, will kill Linux on Desktop. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the desktop is where Linux will die before it is even established. Apple will not drive a stake into the heart of Linux, but rather, the hordes of hackers and Taiwanese-run peripheral factories in China will kill Linux on the desktop. There are 3 scenarios. First, the hackers write a patch that will enable Mac OS X to run on conventional x86-based IBM PC clones. Second, the Taiwanese engineers will violate scores of American patents and build a cheap (possibly, $10.00) hardware plug-in card that will enable OS X to run on conventional IBM PC clones. The 3rd possibility is a combination of the first two.
An interesting side effect of these efforts will be taking marketshare from Windows XP and successors. In the server market, Linux has taken market share from UNIX instead of Windows. However, on the x86 desktop market, there is no 3rd OS to compete against MAC OS X. There are only 2 OSes: Windows and OS X on x86. They will compete head-on, against each other.
Although I would rather that Apple have picked another processor (e.g. ARM), I would be pleased to see Apple crush Windows on x86. Apple has a good chance of winning this matchup since the goodwill of open-source developers is on the side of Apple.
Apple's team: million-person army of open-source developers + freeBSD + most-consumer-friendly (i.e. idiot proof) OS called OS X
Microsoft's team: couple thousand paid but possibly disgruntled slaves (including) H-1Bs + consumer-unfriendly OS[1]. "It" is no contest. Apple wins by 70% marketshare.
side note
---------
1. Windows 98 requires daily reboots in order to be stable. Windows XP requires weekly reboots in order to be stable.
Re:Hackers, not Apple, will kill Linux on Desktop. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
But more likely, Mac-on-Intel will have no impact on Xandros or Linspire. After all, the Mac platform exists today - and you don't see the Linspire folks all panicky about it.
Let's face it - those who use Linspire or Xandros do so because it is either (1) packaged with a bottom-tier PC, or (2) it's fun.
This is does not describe the Mac user. The Mac user wants a smooth, much-better-than-Windows experience... and is willing to pay for a quality PC to do so. The Mac user doesn't care about the chipset, as long as there is a significantly better user experience than that offered by Windows.
In the future, I doubt you're going to see any name-brand quality PCs with proprietary OSs at Walmart. These very low cost products fit the dirt-cheap niche. If they improve, they could compete with the Mac. If not, they can compete with Windows on price and experience, and they can compete with the Mac on price alone.
In a nutshell, the chipset is less important than the price and the user experience.
Could Boost Desktop Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
As a long-time Macintosh user, Apple's move to Intel chips has actually sparked my interest in Linux.
It's not yet entirely clear why Apple chose Intel. There is some reason to suspect Intel hardware will ease implementation of system-wide DRM capabilities. Time will tell.
The microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and '80s was about individuals controlling machines that had once been the exclusive domain of governments and big corporations. Now DRM, product activation, live updates and other technologies are being used to take back that control. Well, I'm not going back.
I don't doubt that the Linux desktop might seem crude in comparison to Mac OS X. But if Apple chose Intel to help put DRM everywhere, then I, for one, will be more than willing to go "rough it" with the free souls of the Linux world.
Re:Could Boost Desktop Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Jobs wants to lose the costly liquid cooling in the G5s and make faster powerbooks. This is clearly reason enough without the need for any ulterior motive. All this DRM stuff is just Linux community FUD.
Re:Could Boost Desktop Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Prices, prices! (Score:2)
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Desktop Linux will not die, but grow instead (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll try to summarize the benefits desktop Linux has over other OSes, and why this is nonsense:
(1) Desktop Linux distros come with hundreds of quality desktop applications, installed and license-free, at no cost. Productivity applications, web browsers, FTP clients, e-mail/PIM programs, messengers, not to mention the rich GNU heritage of command-line tools, a variety of programming environments, etc. This is all installed and ready-to-use after the installation completes on your PC. Thousands more software packages are available in a few clicks via Synaptic/Red Carpet/Yast or whatever. Mac OS X and Windows simply _do not compare_ in this respect.
(Disclosure: It's true that Mac OS has some access to these apps via Apple's X11 and Fink/Darwinports, but you have to admit it's not the same as having these be a "real" part of your desktop.)
(2) Linux will run on a TON of hardware, including old hardware, which means you can use to "revitalize" existing machines and save money.
(3) Linux is always uttered in the same sentence with "open source" and more particularly "open source innovation." For people who want to be a part of the open source movement, Linux (or BSDs) is the natural choice. For people who want to be free of proprietary software, to even the slightest degree, will stick with Linux.
(4) Linux, as a kernel, is hyper-configurable. You can strip it down or compile everything in. Tweakers and power users like this idea.
(5) The "slick GUI" advantage of OS X will rapidly disappear over the next few years, as desktop linux developers make more progress with XOrg, composite, direct rendering, etc.
(6) Linux being used very often as a server, it's just as simple to install major server apps (Apache, Tomcat, mysql, vsftpd etc.) as other apps.
(7) The typical Linux environment is highly, highly scriptable.
Don't think desktop linux is dead. I actually believe that all these pundits are completely wrong. Open source desktop Linux developers will now unite to innovate more so than ever before. This move, if anything, will galvanize developers. Hell, it's already gotten me to get off my ass and start working on something new. I look forward to the future, and you should too.
Re:Desktop Linux will not die, but grow instead (Score:3, Informative)
Torvald's response came quickly and succinctly. "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5 (aka PowerPC 970) - it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more
Reference [zdnet.com.au].
linux users don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at OS X. Take the Dock for example. Users routinely run only a handful of applications, so why clutter the screen with a lengthy Start/K/GNOME menu? The Xfce guys realized this, though OS X's drag-and-drop support is still several months away (I am on the Xfce developer mailing list). But Xfce still has way too many stupid options in its control panels.
So we've got X.org. X is dead... long live X! Look what's coming: hardware alpha blending, dynamic desktop backgrounds wow! But when will I be able to install by dragging it to the "applications" folder? Or need no install at all? When will X.org not require the user to edit a text file to configure it? Probably never, because linux users just don't care.
You Linux guys just adapt to poor ways and live with it. You're too conservative. You need to rout out all of the shit making up a typical "desktop" linux system. Get rid of the fucking start menus, omit unnecessary system options. Don't give the user forty ways of configuring low-power responses if only four of them are sensible. Hell make it automatic if that gets the job done. The same with everything else. Desktop users don't want power, they want simplicity. They don't want wizards or perfect documentation, they want absence and transparency. Good interfaces don't need documentation.
How many of you reading this, when sending an email in Thunderbird actually changed the "from" field? Maybe ten out two hundred; everyone else just keeps it the same, week after week. So why the fuck is that option there? Why isn't it there in Apple's Mail? Because you Linux dimwits are obsessed, in the traditional American fashion, of attempting to satisfy 100% of users 100% of the time, ignoring the fact that those ten folks who change their "from" fields could just alter their own behavior and get on with honest emails.
O'Reilly publishing its "learning blah" books. You know, it'd be great if you didn't need a $40-70 book to explain it to you.
I used to love linux, but I gave that up for a Mac. No more "ps -ax," no more "su; chmod 755." And like most of us linux-turned-mac users, I realized there's more to life than trying to fix my sound support or looking up the right vi command sequence. But none of you linux users have. And so the Linux "desktop" community will stumble its way into the future, twenty paths, all wrong, while in another world Apple gets it right.
jc - mnemonic
P.S. If there's one thing that taught me a lot about decent GUI design, it's learning how to format a document. I mean choosing fonts, designing headings and learning how to write. Tables never need borders, text doesn't usually need colors. By just realizing that to communicate well, one must communicate less, I realized how stupid Windows, KDE and GNOME all are.
Re:linux users don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
So right click on the KDE panel and install a couple docks. No big deal. I put one up on top that I keep visable with a digital clock, and a dictionary lookup entry widget, and links to documents that are currently in play alot. My math and physics software all goes on a hidden dock to my left. Office software on a hidden dock to the right. These are all drag n' drop. No big deal to configure. And yes, the icons zoom when I mouse over them. I can set tran
Re:linux users don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
When will X.org not require the user to edit a text file to configure it?
Ok, if that's your desktop linux experience, then you've either been living under a box for the last three years, or you haven't used linux for the last five. The only retort I will bother with...Ubuntu Hoary w/ Gnome 2.10. Very nice distro with an out of the
You missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
No distro is ready to take on OS X, on x86 or any other platform. The day OS X came out Linux GUI developers should have instantly shifted focus to being as much like the Mac as possible rather than as much like Windows as possible.
The greatest failing of both GNOME and KDE desktops is that they try too much to be like Windows. I used Linux as my desktop exclusively for 5 years, and every time GNOME or KDE came out with a new release I would give it a try. I've used almost every WM as my desktop in that period and the only one was not a pain in the ass to use was WindowMaker. WindowMaker was based on NeXT, and Mac OS X is the evolution of NeXT. This is not brain surgury. It's disappointing that there hasn't been a fork of WindowMaker to create an Aqua enviornment on Linux.
There's only one company on earth that has created a successful UNIX based desktop system. I think that every Linux developer should sit up and take notice of that fact.
Re:You missed the point (Score:3, Interesting)
I know about CDE. CDE is the biggest disaster to hit the UNIX world since SCO Open Server. It's an appallingly bad design, and completely failed to provide a usable desktop environment.
You're defining desktop as "something you put on a desk". I'm talking about a computer that you run desktop software on, that provides a Xerox-star-like working environment. So...
Now lets discuss our definition of success.
My definition of s
OK, Enough of these stories! (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs will still be priced much higher than the average beige PC. OS X will still (officially) be locked down to Macs. Those are the two things that could effect Linux. Even then, I don't think either of those things happening will hurt much because grandma is still going to buy a Mac and little teen geek is still probably going to buy a beige box with Linux.
So could we please stop with these stories that are so anxious to see Linux take a hit.
Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if someone hacks OS/X to run on non-Apple hardware, it won't have much of an effect, because you can bet that OS/X will not run well on non-Apple hardware. And having an OS that runs well is the whole point of running OS/X -- if people want a broken OS with missing-driver hell, they already have Windows installed for that.
I guess it might become problematic for Linux if Apple started to take over the computer hardware market and the majority of PCs sold were Apples with OS/X pre-installed... but I'll believe that when I see it happen.
Linux cannot be threatened. (Score:3, Insightful)
The desktop development projects will continue, and anything under the GPL is effectively immortal. Progress will continue to be made on GNOME/KDE etc.
There seems to be a notion that if OSS Unices don't get themselves a GUI comparable to OSX soon, "we" have lost some kind of battle and the world will be shrouded in darkness.
But OSS has all the time in the world, as long as there is commodity hardware. Just make a good GUI and the people who want freedom will take it. The sky, contrary to Slashdot groupthink, IS NOT FALLING.
Death To False Metal (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice to see that so many die hard linux "freedom fighters" have dropped everything they were waving the flag for a few years ago and taken the "easy way out". I don't blame them....If they did not have the guts to stick around, then we don't need them.
I for one am proud of all of the strides that free unix based operating systems have taken over the last few years, and am saddened by the people that have drifted away to the easier path.
Hopefully, much like their new "friends" in the Apple world, this wall of conversion (or apostasy) that I have seen of late is just a very vocal minority.
This debate is a complete waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux fills and has always filled a completely different genre - that of solid geeky type who like it for its idealogical purity, flexibility or because it's a bit unusual. The changes the Apple decision makes are minor:
- there might be a few more Apples sold to linux geeks who want to use photoshop occasionally and who choose mac os x over Windows
- since Apple looks set to increase its markey share, there will be a greater proportion of people making the transition from a desktop computer usage to unix-geek computer usage, which means linux will benefit.
Re:But you know what they say. (Score:2)
Re:But you know what they say. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me like you missed the point of technology...
Re:But you know what they say. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. More like making computers usable by people who actually doesn't give a damn about their command lines.
Re:Microsoft:Sauron::Apple:Saruman (Score:4, Insightful)
Technical people are going to use the shell features of OSX. Non-technical people aren't. But not all technical people using Macs are old UNIX types. Apple's long had an active community of amateur hackers doing their scripting with Applescript, and these people are hooking Applescripts into shell scripts, and taking advantage of the way Apple's extending the hooks Applescript's using into other languages. The platform is at least as scriptable as UNIX.
Mac OS X currently ships with Perl, Python, Tcl, bash and tcsh, Applescript, PHP, and now Javascript scripting in Dashboard.
If that's a jail, freedom is slavery.
Re:Alternative to windows? (Score:2)
You'll still have to buy a Mac.
True. But in the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available).
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware of similar.
Vhus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will
Re:What are you smoking? (Score:4, Insightful)
The stability argument is a myth. Linux is more stable than Win9x, but Win2K or XP with decent drivers is just as stable, at least for desktop use. I can crash my Linux machine just by starting Xawtv. I remember people were bitching about how a more stable version of Windows will kill Linux. Well, it's not stability that's the selling point.