Today’s confirmation that Apple is going x86 makes today a historic day in the industry. It may mean that Microsoft might see a few percent decline of their market share the next few years, but what about Linux? If Linux were to lose an equal amount of share it would alter its spread to the desktop, a spread that has been very positive so far.Regardless of whether I think that the Apple processor switch will be beneficial to Apple, Linux-on-the-desktop does not look as favorable anymore. Please note that I am talking about Linux on the desktop, as I don’t see the Linux server business declining — Apple will have no effect on the server Linux. Here are a few thoughts:
Usually there are two players rather than three: the favorite and the underdog. The “third” person does not matter as much. With Apple moving to x86 it can quickly become the underdog of the platform and put Linux in third (outsider) place.
Apple mentioned that Mac OS X will require Apple PCs, but you will be able to run Linux/Windows on them just fine. This is a huge advantage for Apple rather than for Linux or Windows. It brings over these last few potential customers who also needed Windows but didn’t want two computers or commercial emulation. Apple can sell more Apple PCs when the customer knows that this is a normal x86 that can also run native Windows, because it allows the customer to think that “oh, well, if I don’t like OSX, I can always run Windows”. It gives customers a choice even if Apple won’t sell Windows bundled with its PCs, or “support” Windows on its hardware.
With Mac OS X’s great desktop experience, why would anyone use X11 and its DEs? They are known to be rather “disconnected” from the underpinnings of the underlying OS, making the desktop Linux experience worse that it should be. For example, OSX just “works with the hardware” rather than “Gnome/KDE working on TOP of a kernel”. There is a disconnection of all X11 DEs and how well they “wrap” the experience and the underlying hardware. There is no cohesion.
Someone could argue that “Linux will have no problems with Apple PCs because there is already Linux on Apple machines today.” While true, this is completely beside the point. PPC Linux is only a blip on the screen compared to the larger Linux movement, and making a commitment to PPC Linux means making a commitment to a niche hardware platform. x86 Macs will run the mainstream versions of Linux without modification, and once Linux users start making the switch to OSX, their favorite Linux apps will become increasingly more available on OSX, initially through Apple’s X11, but eventually in a more integrated fashion.
The percentage of Mac users using a Linux on PPC is way lower than the percentage of x86 users also using Linux. For example, 3% of all x86 users use Linux according to some recent stats, but less than 1% of the 3% of the Mac users use Linux (that’s 0.33%). With the release of the x86 Apple hardware, there will probably be a jump in Linux-on-Apple use a first, because more than a few Linux users are likely to buy Powerbooks, but it will be interesting to see how many of them stick with Linux once they have a side-by-side comparison with OSX, and all its user-friendly Unixy goodness.
There is the other thing too: I have spoken to a lot of Linux users in my time and most of them say “ah, yeah, the Macs are nice, but I can’t afford one”. With Apple able to provide well-priced x86 Macs AND giving the re-assurance to these users that can also run x86 Linux there, it makes them way more likely not only to buy an Apple PC as their next upgrade, but perhaps eventually to ditch Linux altogether! So, it’s not only that the Linux adoption might see a decline, but I expect many current Linux dekstop users will move full time to OSX.
Yesterday I mentioned that Microsoft will probably help Mac OS X on the x86. Quoting myself: “…Apple coming to x86 is not bad business for Microsoft initially in terms of “fighting together” Linux. Microsoft has failed to squash the Linux hype but users who go Mac OS X almost never look back. With Apple managing to squash Linux in the x86-64 market, Microsoft will have to fight Apple at a much later future date. And it will be easier for Microsoft to fight an ‘enemy’ that plays with the same rules as they are rather one that doesn’t (open source). My enemy’s enemy is my friend, kind of thing… This is a lot like you are getting beaten at both the club and the school, but you give your lunch money to the bully at the club guy to come and beat the school guy. At the end, you end up with ONE bully instead of two and that’s progress…”
On the other hand, Linux has two very strong cards to play:
1. Linux is strong overseas as it’s cheaper to acquire. Developing countries will take Linux on a cheapo PC anyitme over an Apple PC or even a Dell with XP on it.
2. Apple’s transition to x86 might spread a newfound desire for people to try out alternatives more openly and so Linux will also get an advantage.
3. There are many people in the industry who are idealists, and even though they might even buy an Apple Powerbook because of its industrial design, they will insist on Linux or FreeBSD for ideological reasons. Mac OS X, for all its open source underpinnings, is still a closed platform, and will remain so. It will never be Free-as-in-speech enough for the GNU crowd.
However, it all depends on how well Apple does on this new platform and how competitive its pricing is. If Apple does well, desktop Linux will have a hard time keeping the same growth curve it has now. No, Linux will never die; in fact, its server business will continue to grow immensely. It might even evolve into something else in the future, but Linux will never ‘die’. It’s open code and open code does not die. But it can be contained enough away from full scale desktop success, enough to let Microsoft sleep tight at night. And Apple can definitely help the ’cause’.
Apple is a very serious player when it comes to desktop, Linux has no means to compete with it as for now…
> With Apple able to provide well-priced x86 Macs AND giving the re-assurance to these users that can also run x86 Linux in there
Just because they’re moving to x86 doesn’t mean it’ll be well priced. Expect markups because of the apple logo and OS.
… to see Apple going to x86, when PPC is a million times better. I hope they switch back… SOON. I was gonna purchase an Apple with Yellowdog Linux and Mac OS X on it, but not now. Screw that! I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.
You’ll notice that the developers kit for OSX X86 includes a computer. This means that the motherboard probably has apple’s ROM on it to allow OSX to boot. This protection will probably be hacked inside of 2 weeks and anyone who wants will be able to download a torrent of OSX for X86. I don’t think this will appeal to your typical Linux user.
So this means you’ll still have to buy Apple Hardware to run OSX, and Apple hardware will still have a price premium over a build-it your self box or even a Dell. The Mac-Mini, in my opinion, should cost $299 if all you were buying was the hardware. Who’s going to spend $500 just to run OSX when you can get Linux for free on a PC and save a couple hundred dollars?
Not me.
I believe Apple will still charge a premium price for their complete computing solution (hardware & software combination), and people will be willing to pay that premium price.
Exactly what I was thinking. They price their hardware at a premium because Apple fans pay it. However, it will be easier to make price comparisons because the processors will be the same. Maybe that will put more pressure on them to lower prices.
I don’t think that Linux users would switch to MacOS. I bought a Mac mini recently and I’m quite disappointed. Sure, for the normal user it’s a very nice OS but not for the typical Linux geek. Too less configurable, not enough feature loaded (like KDE e.g.).
And I felt quite patronized by the OS. It’s not really geek compatible.
Apple hardware will certainly cost more than no-name hardware. But I’m quite confident that Apple x86 hardware will be priced on-par with HP, Gateway, or Dell hardware that’s comparably equipped. I don’t know whether they’ll try to beat Dell’s online “specials” that will get you a P4 PC with a 19″ LCD for less than $500 after rebate, but they’ll at least be on par with Dell’s posted prices. I’m sure there will be a little extra premium for industrial design, because Apple won’t make a crap-box generic PC like a low-end Dell, so expect to pay an extra $50 there for the apple cachet. But more than that would be a big mistake.
I thought the underdog was the cheaper underhyped alternative. AMD can rightly be called an undergod with regards to Intel. It provides better performance, at a cheaper price and it is totally undehyped in the IT world.
Now OS X is probably going to be expensive, running of expensive hardware, that will be locked to Apple so that only Apple can control with, that will run only Apple products, and that won’t probably perform as better as Linux on the x86-64.
I’m sorry, it doesn’t pass the underdog test. Also, I think the Linux desktop is evolving at the fastest pace compared to OS X or Windows. By the time Apple begins to hype their x86 OS X platform in 2007, who knows how improved the Linux desktop experience will be.
Cheaper, faster, open, portable, totally customizable award goes to Linux. Hence, Linux will remain the underdog for a long while unless Apple can compete price wise with Linux, which of course they can’t.
I don’t see many people spending roughly 30% more for a mac than a comparably equipped Dell. I sure as heck am not. I’d rather wait for a hack to bypass whatever it is that doesn’t let OS X work on Dell’s or HP’s.
I think this move to Intel will turn out to be a HUGE blunder for Apple, espcially if they think they are still going to be a hardware company with a 30% markup.
– Mark
Apple requires money and meeting dead lines with its OSX.
Linux is free (as in beer and speach).
Linux can run on a vast amount of hardware.
Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.
It’s not so cut and dry.
I won’t change my mind just because that Apple switch to X86. I think you really, really don’t know the main reason to be a Linux’s user.
It’s sad to see you attacking Linux everytime and make your mind our thoughts.
And hey, I’m graphic designer not a computer engineer…
Personally it may effect it a bit in the short term but in the long term if apple manages to increase its market share it will help linux. The same goes the other way around more linux desktop market share is good for apple.
Having more people using non windows platforms forces developers to think interpolarity and that benifits all the small players. Though we like to focus on the little details, it is not the little details that is hurting linux it is the encumbered data. The same is true for apple. Most people I talk to still think that using a mac or linux box means they lose all of their data. Not only that they assume that they will not be able to exchange data with windows users. If apple/linux/anyone can get enough market share to change this perception/reality then it will benifit all of hte small players.
Nothing has changed to the end user. They still will need to buy a new computer before they can use OSX. This has always been the barrier to more widespread acceptance.
This switch is obviously a last resort thing. They didn’t ditch IBM, IBM ditched them. IBM just couldn’t see the financial sense in supporting such a small market player. For the next year they’re going to be selling (PowerPC-based) computers that people are going to be very wary of buying. If their iPod business can’t carry them they could take a huge hit financially. Anyone who thinks this switch is a positive business-wise is very naive. This is a very sad day indeed to be an Apple enthusiast.
As for the affect on Linux… Obviously it will be a negative for PPC Linux distros. I think we can be fairly certain that there isn’t going to be a sudden surge in Mac sales because they’re switching to x86 though; so other than that I don’t see how it affects Linux at all.
It saddens me to see Apple going to x86, when PPC is a million times better. I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.
Then just use Linux on you PPC box… Even Linus already switched to PPC… ;-D http://news.com.com/Torvalds+switches+to+Apple/2100-1003_3-5606030….
OSX Will come as binary compatible for x86.
Apple says it will be locked to run only on their machines.
Read that again.
Ok. 1month before it runs on any x86 machine. That’s it. People aren’t stupid. It’ll work on your AMD. All what’s needed are chipset drivers and this part is Darwin, that is, opensource, so easily codable.
The other part will be “Apple protection”.
Sure. No such protection *ever* resisted “us”. So what ?
It’ll be cracked. Everyone knows it.
Good luck Apple Computer.
I doubt it.
I for one will not buy a Mac just because it runs on Intel; I am less likely to buy a Mac because it runs Intel as AMD processors currently are better designed and perform better for my money.
I have heard that the IBM 970 was cheaper that Intel’s xeon P4, so I doubt the price will come down.
I see people
I see geeks
I see caravans
I see dead penguins eaten by leopards.
At best, I think this is a wash for desktop Linux. The thing that is standing in the way of more desktops running Linux is the Linux desktop. It’s pretty good and getting better. (I’ve used it for almost 10 years.) But, no matter how polished DE and Gnome might be, that polish is not enough to lure large numbers of users from Windows to Linux. It is, however, sufficient to not repel users who adopt Linux for reasons other than the quality of its desktop.
For desktop Linux to attract users who could care less about the other virtues of Linux, the Linux desktop needs to delivet something neither Windows or OS X deliver. I don’t know what that is. I do know that being “as good as” the competition means no one has a reason to abandon your competition.
Meanwhile, the outlook for Linux on the PPC looks dim.
(I write this on a Mac Mini I purchased last week for lightweight home use. It replaced a big honkin’ AMD Linux box because it is small, quiet, and doesn’t double as a spaceheater. So far I don’t miss Linux. The virtues of choice and open source don’t count for much when all the machine does is surfing and email.)
it’s a distinct possability that this could in fact help linux. For instance, … it would be very easy to port Final Cut pro or any other osx app to linux…, this could open up the graphic design world to linux….. in addition to that, it will give the push to 3rd party hardware manufacturers to make feature heavy high quality drivers that we do not have now in the linux world (i understand the code is different… but would most likely would be very easy to port to linux)
I used to enjoy them, especially the Altivec ones.
If like everyone is saying Apple will use openfirmware rather than the traditional BIOS, in order to allow Mac OS X only to run on Apple hardware, then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS.
people are forgetting, Linux and OSS are effectively cost-free and in some cases libre-source.
windows neither not macos X will be able to compete with that.
apple will take customer largely from microsoft. don’t underestimate the reasons people use linux/oss on the desktop:
* cheap or free
* extremely customisable – the people love to tinker
* controlled by them, the community
* and so som extent the benefits of free/open source licensing
This is rediculous, your acting as if OSX will be able to run on any x86 when it wont, people will still have to buy Apple hardware to get OSX,this means buying that 299-399 Dell box or that 499 Apple box still! I think this will actually help Linux. Linux has two years to get as many addopters as it can, people arent going to spend money on a Apple PC when it wont be supported later on, they want somthing that will be useful later too, so this means they will buy a Windows box, but they are fed up with the viruses and what not, so what are they going to do? Go and buy the Apple computer or throw the OS their friends have been telling them about, its free, some are easy to use and for beginners, no viruses no spyware…
Common if anything this wont effect Linux at all, it will probably help it in the long run.
what is the number of users who will adopt the mac due to its adoption of x86 based strictly on this? very few i suspect.
not to say people won’t drop the mac due to frustration with yet another lane change, but speaking strictly in terms of new adoptions, this is likely a non-event.
to me the real story approaching 2010 is the irrelevance of the OS. what can i do on a mac that i can’t do on windows? by 2010 we will be saying the same with linux, the functionality of the software i want will likely be available on all of the platforms i am remotely interested in, which gives support to free platforms over time.
even apart from that, virtualization will make single-OS adherents another anachronism. for desktop apps (those very few apps that are not already on every platform), it will be a simple matter of firing up vmware 2010 or bochs or wine or pearpc or whatever.
thats the kicker for me, steve has just made pearpc projects much more viable. will be interesting to see where they go. needless to say you will be able to run mac, windows, linux, PS3 code etc on your 2010 PC, likely all simultaneously.
x: I’d guess Apple will put some necessary video goodies on a rom chip. Remember, the Mac OS ran only on 68000 in a market with several other 68000-based computers. They have a lot of experience at this. It won’t be difficult. If anyone reverse engineers it, they will sue, and win.
Adam: Be rational. Why do your care what chip is in your machine unless your a developer. Bottom line: IBM can’t or won’t provide PPC chips that are fast enough and don’t melt plastic.
jobs even said windows and linux will probably be ported to the apple box… so it must run on standard BIOS
I guess this is the biggest mistake Apple is making. Previously Apple fanboys had a separate architecture to brag about. What will they do now – ” Hey look, I have a Pentium 4 system that is white in color with an apple on it” . Not only is apple vulnerable in x86 because Microsoft is there but also linux is getting stronger day by day.
which is good for linux
it really doesn’t matter if linux users switch to osx. software is more portable between linux and osx. the fewer windows users and the more osx user the better for linux
” then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS. ”
False
Windows does not require BIOS for driver information.
Bill Gates knows better not to rely on BIOS to get driver information. And by the way it is Microsoft’s dream to get rid of BIOS.
>> Ok. 1month before it runs on any x86 machine.
agreed. if not less.
but at that point it almost a non-event. why do i really want to run OSX code on my linux box?
so i can get a better web browser? (nope)
so i can run my choice of word processor? (nope)
so i can use free software? (nope)
its not for games, thats for sure.
OSX will be running on whiteboxes for the same reason DVDs play on linux – because someone wanted to make it happen. but really i see little point in having this, unless you are a windows victim (even then, most of them are running antivirus etc which leaves them limping along)
You still have to have Mac hardware to run MacOS even with an Intel chip (google for the whole story).
This really doesn’t change anything unless the price of the package drops.
Linux will be just as strong a force tomorrow as it was today. Microsoft is safe in that you can’t just run MacOS on any old Dell PC.
agree that it is IBM that “dropped” apple.
the sales on the next gen game consoles are going to be UNREAL. these things are going to fly off the shelves in ways that make even mac addiction look weak.
the size of the next gen console market will be 100x the max size of the mac market. also the buyers are buying in bulk and with narrow specs, which makes it easier for IBM to scale production and roll in the $$$$.
businesses want both commercial and free (OSS) alternatives, currently linux offers all the free alternatives, and some commercial alternatives…. but the commercial alternatives will become more available as mac aps are ported to linux (which should not be hard to do…. and possably could even run under a wine like program. The difference between Wine for windows and Wine for OSX would be that….. 99% of osx aps would run bug free at native speeds.
Look where Apple has been making its money the last few years. It’s not on desktop PC’s. Apple’s future is in little mobile gizmos like the iPoc. IBM’s chips won’t let them do what they want to do. Jobs said as much. Corporations don’t make these kind of drastic changes unless no other alternative is out there.
For one thing, I don’t like the Apple ‘experience’. Too much hand holding and oversimplification to the point of obfuscation of features.
Second is software. The switch to X86 will not suddenly allow the use of all that Windows software on the Mac, not to mention that they might end up loosing some of the developers who do code for PPC.
Then there’s the upgrade price. Linux is essentially free whereas Apple charges full price for every point upgrade. Not to mention the hardware cost included since OSX only runs on Apple PCs.
KDE’s Konqueror is a kick ass file manager.
businesses want both commercial and free (OSS) alternatives, currently linux offers all the free alternatives, and some commercial alternatives…. but the commercial alternatives will become more available as mac aps are ported to linux (which should not be hard to do…. and possably could even run under a wine like program. The difference between Wine for windows and Wine for OSX would be that….. 99% of osx aps would run bug free at native speeds.
my buck 25
One point that has not come up yet…..
WINE for OSX!!!!!
macs compatible with windows binarys?! DirectX games!?!
Linux users have been using it in their switch campagin for years (so did OS/2 come to think of it) Why buy new software when you switch when you can use what you got…
you know WINE will be ported at some point 🙂
heh.. didn’t i just mention wine lol
Damn not refreshing a page!
I started using a Mac in 1986. I’ve been writing software for the Mac since 1996. Last year I switched to Linux on Althon64 and x86. I basically got tired of being let down by Apple and being forced to depend on them. As with any company, Apple does what is best for Apple. This may or may not be what is best for customers or developers. With Linux I’m not dependent on any one company or architecture or person. I find this freedom is worth more than anything Apple can offer. Freedom isn’t as easily marketed to consumers, but it is undeniable and I hope for everyone’s sake that it wins in the end. That said, I’m no free software zealot. I use whatever gets the job done and Mac OS X just wasn’t cutting it.
Yep IBM sees their future, and it isn’t with Apple. Percentage of market share is what it’s about if you’re trying to make money. What I think Apple’s real idea is – to switch to a processor that can prevent music copying using DRM at the hardware level. Look at the Pentium-D. Then look at Apple with iTunes and the iPod. 99 cents a tune adds up fast. They know where they’re headed too.
Apple switching to Intel might not be a good choice but it will be another huge boost for Linux’ on the desktop market. Now it will be the easiest thing to run Linux on a Mac and most likely many people will do exactly that rather than being forced to use priprietory Apple binaries. Just like desktops x86 based Macs will likely make great Linux machines.
This doesn’t have anything to do with Linux.
All this theory and speculation and R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N is crazy.
If you’re going to write such a long dissertation, please put some action and facts in the prose. It’s boring and borish.
We will see and by the time we do, no one will remember this horrible post.
Mac On Linux
http://www.maconlinux.org/
I doubt that Joe Sixpack would buy an Apple computer (x86) with MacOS X, thinking: “Well if all fails, I can still install Windows on it”. Why? Because Joe Sixpack would probably don’t know how to install Windows. Not to talk about dual boot settings. He would buy an Apple for the same reasons as of now and that won’t change.
For the nerds running Linux as their main OS it would be more like MacOS X replacing the Windows partition. And don’t forget that MacOS X is very much over hyped. Objective-C sucks. Developing under Linux/Unix is much more fun. More libraries and better languages.
Apple would have been better off going to a common hardware reference platform. If one wanted to run MS on a PPC then it would run. If one wanted to run MacOS on an x86 that was chrp it would have run too.
Can’t imagine how Apple is going to compete in the x86 market. Just no room for an Apple.
I cannot see why IBM, a known Linux supporter, wouldn’t want to develop PPC for Linux in the future too. Maybe PPC architecture will suffer from the Apple decision, but I don’t see how Linux will suffer in any way?
What ever the major computer architectures will be in the future, Linux will probably run there too.
GNU/Linux (like BSDs) is also strongly driven by its community nature, a bit like arts or science. It is customizable, it is flexible, you can use it as a mini-sized embedded OS, or as a super computer OS, you can tweak it to your heart’s content, make your own distro, it has plenty of alternative desktop environments and window managers, both commercial and non-commercial software and support etc.
I’m pretty sure that Linux (and to a smaller extent BSD) is the most popular OS among regular OSNews readers and other such computer geeks. It is easy to understand why.
Another example: It is often much funnier to go to a noisy bazaar, just for the joy of the colorful community experience, than to go to a yet another shiny new super market designed by the advertising and marketing experts. Something that the businessmen with profits usually as their ultimate goal don’t often seem to get at all. Linux is not just about business and money.
If IBM is expecting to make a ton off of PPCs b/c of game consoles, why is it not profitable to continue making them for apple??
Because these consoles are expected to sell more than 100 million EACH, while Apple was selling 5-6 million G5s per year. That was not enough to get IBM to get interested in fully catering Apple.
If like everyone is saying Apple will use openfirmware rather than the traditional BIOS, in order to allow Mac OS X only to run on Apple hardware, then Windows will not work. Windows currently requires drive information etc. from the BIOS.
Wrong. Apple has already stated today in an interview that they would do nothing to hinder Windows from running, though it would be officially unsupported to do so.
I sincerely doubt they would do this, it’s just too financially valuable to entice people with other options.
ok… i’m goning to go a bit deeper into the OSX aps via wine in linux thing…… imagine this…. (and i could be wrong), but i see no reason why this would not be a huge success… the problems with wine now would really disappear….. osx directory structure, and just the general layout of how it all works at the core is so damn similar to linux…. i see no reason why OSX aps would not run flawlessly on a linux platform which would essentially turn all mac development into “indirect” linux development
I can’t believe how many times I have read “Now that macs will be intel based, linux will get tons of mac software because it’ll be so easy to port!”
FALSE
Linux apps are easy to port to the Mac.
Mac native apps, WILL NEVER port to linux.
It is impossible unless apple open sources everything which it won’t and shouldn’t. Why is linux such a problem? Because it’s open source. There are too many variants, too much crap, too little UI sense. That’s why linux won’t succeed as a desktop os.
So I can buy a mac for lets say, 2 grand…a nice one with a nice intel proc in it. I bet I’ll be able to triple boot Mac OS, Windows, and Ubuntu x86 all native. For a web developer, that is a wet dream.
i guess linux will survive, although popularity will be lower, especially if intel mac affordable.
but if someone, somehow make osx run intel everywhere; linux will be extinct.
simple.
Apple just wants to be able to use upcoming DIGITAL RESTRICTION MANAGEMENT stuff from Intel and those RIAA thugs. Maybe even TCPA ( or whatever it is called right now )
SO: In 2007 no new computer can really be owned.
Sad but true.
If the new Intel-Macs use OpenFirmware (likely IMHO), getting Linux to run on them will be trivial. Linux already runs on OpenFirmware (LinuxPPC). OpenFirmware just loads linux kernel with OpenFirmware support compiled in and goes.
Getting windows to run on them will be a bit trickier. Likely you would get OpenFirmware to boot a mini-kernel, this mini-kernel would probe OpenFirmware to find out about the hardware (easy to do OpenFirmware is Open — we have the specs), it would then convert this hardware info into standard PC-BIOS info and load the Windows kernel feeding the Windows kernel the info it requires.
The other choice would be for MS to modify the Windows kernel, which I find highly unlikely.
Flashing OpenFirmware to be a PC-BIOS — impossible. Completely different chips (well at least very hard).
Getting MacOSX-Intel to run on regular PC’s. A bit harder since PC-BIOS does not allow the flexibility of OpenFirmware to boot something else first then have it load a kernel, but it is possible. OpenFirmware can run machine language programs — PC BIOSes cannot do things like this.
Now, why I figure this will not work, is because of the Intel DRM stuff built into the chip which will likely be used to cause the faked-out MacOSX on regular PCs to not work. Or better but, will be a requirement for MacOSX to run on real Intel-Mac PC’s. Can this be hacked? Perhaps, but we don’t know much about Intels DRM yet. We do know the whole purpose of it is to make hacking difficult though.
I doubt Apple will hop on the DRM bandwagon as much as other companies, but it will probably happen eventually. Don’t blame the computer companies, blame the RIAA and MPAA.
This is where Linux will evolve. If computers have drm on the hardware, linux will blow up like nobody’s business.
You got a mac mini? Have you found the hard drive on that thing to be particularly slow? Because I tested one out at the Apple store, 1.42 Ghz one with 512MB ram and it was slower than molasses running uphill. Just pulling up the system information took awhile, which is a bummer because I was really strongly considering one?
IBM, by doing a half assed job, dropped Apple and PPC Linux.
Sure, they’ve got a game market this year, we’ll see how long that lasts.
This really doesn’t matter because I can go to IBM and buy my PPC Linux Laptop. Oh Yeah, I can’t Because They Don’t Sell Any.
Running OS X Apps on Linux has nothing to do with the CPU.
The switch to Intel will not change this one bit.
OS X Apps required the Mac libraries for Quartz and Carbon. These are the GUI and UI stuff. Linux does not have this now and will not have this in the future. Linux uses X11 and things like Gnome or QT (KDE).
These libraries are also excluded from Darwin.
Note: there are some cross platform GUI toolkits like wx that run on windows/macosx/linux and porting apps written with this is trivial.
If all it took was the same CPU then linux/ppc would have tons of mac apps.
I wanted to get away from lousy x86 CPUS.
Exactly what problems have x86 CPUs ever caused you? Did the cursed EBP register steal your first-born child or something? Did the BCD instructions conspire to cost you your job? Did segmentation run away with your wife?
Linux is free (as in beer and speach).
Linux can run on a vast amount of hardware.
Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.
Linux may be free, but Linux has a lot of things to work out that the community is not directly addressing. If you want people to migrate to Linux, it needs to have a higher level of usability, a better GUI, and importantly a better installation method that can be used on all flavors of Linux. All of this has been addressed by OS X.
The problem with installation is that it is very difficult and/or time consuming to install software on GNU/Linux. You might argue that it is not the case with apt/yum and other repository installed programs. Sure it’s easy to do install using those methods, but try it without a repository.
People don’t want to wait for the next software to be available on repositories. They want it now. They want ease of of installing and uninstall software. No fiddling and wondering if everything is setup correctly in their Linux distro. The distros are very scared of an universal installer since they feel their distro won’t be special enough without their repositories.
It is no wonder why PC-BSD is addressing this problem and why a college in Melbourne, Australia dumped Debian for OS X. And also it is not surprising why there are less commercial software developers crossing over to Linux. You might argue that Adobe has acrobat, but try letting a new or average user install that without a repository. It’s a nightmare.
OS X provides the simplicity, usability, security, and functionality of an operating system that just WORKS!
When Apple comes out with the Intel based computers, you can bet I’ll be buying one.
Linux can be better, but the GNU people are very stubborn. You can have it all, but refuse it because you feel your distro won’t be special anymore.
Windows uses the Win32 toolkit. (and maybe some others )
MacOS X uses Carbon and Quartz
Linux uses GTK+ (gnome), QT (KDE), Motif (old school CDE), or plain old X11 toolkit (very limited).
wx ( http://www.wxwidgets.org/ ) is a cross platform toolkit that runs on all three.
These are the libraries required for porting GUI apps. These are not changing when the CPU changes.
Now, non-gui apps on MacOS, will be trivial to port, but they already are. You just recompile them. Take almost any non-gui app from linux and you can run it on a mac (except the ones that require low level hardware access). This is what Fink and Darwinports and Mac-gentoo do. It works well.
Good point, though AMD is also scheduled to include DRM.
However, Intel seems to actually have a chip scheduled for release.
Personally it may effect it a bit in the short term but in the long term if apple manages to increase its market share it will help linux. The same goes the other way around more linux desktop market share is good for apple.
I agree. Especially since MacOS X only will work on Apple x86 boxes. We can assume thes new Intel Macs will be at least as expensive as x86 boxes with windows. If Apple succeds it is more likely to get customers from windows user that allready is willing to pay too much for software, than from Linunx users.
Besides, by the time these boxes hit the market,
the Linux user experience will be much better than today.
(not that it’s bad now). Just like in MacOS-X, things will just work even in Linux.
If Apple get resonable success it will also spread
Unix awareness and knowledge. This will be good for Linux.
I doubt Apple will hop on the DRM bandwagon as much as other companies, but it will probably happen eventually. Don’t blame the computer companies, blame the RIAA and MPAA.
Well, in picking Intel, in my book Apple just jumped on the DRM bandwagon. And that, my friend, is why I’m mega pissed at Apple about this switch.
So, yes, in about 6 months, I’ll grab one of the last dual 2.7 G5s and it will have a long life as my last “free” computer.
—
But on topic, yes, this means that Linux PPC will shrivel except for IBM’s flavor, and whatever the hardcore port to their XBoxes. I don’t think it will mean the death of Linux on the desktop as a whole, but it’s now a case of evolve or die. Given what’s going on in India and Latin America, I think Linux will evolve.
(This also means I’ll also means that I’ll want to grab a non DRM Pentium M laptop off of eBay some time soon for my adventures in Ubuntu.)
they’re still gonna have a proprietary platform that their OS will run on. they said that they won’t let it run on non ‘mac’ hardware. i don’t really see this being all that big of a deal simply for that fact.
now if they decided to let OS X run on your run of the mill whitebox… well, then it might be worth all this fuss.
It is no wonder why PC-BSD is addressing this problem
You talk about compatibility in your post, yet your bring up a completely new operating system. An operating system diverges from FreeBSD’s own package system, and created its own installer. Also it is not LSB compliant and is not GNU/Linux, which is the de-facto open-source UNIX-like operating system.
So PC-BSD’s attempt at addressing the problem, according to you, is also contributing to the problem.
Average Joes do not use GNU/Linux or Mac OSX.
Dollars to donuts Intel and Apple use EFI (extensible firmware interface) in the new Apple x86 boxen. EFI has proven itself in Itanium/Itanium2, EFI provides OpenFirmware functionality and Apple can rest safe that AMD and AMI have demonstrated EFI as well (no vendor lock in to intel).
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
Just got done watching the WWDC 2005, and those of you that are freaking out that iBooks or Powerbooks wont be useful are worried for nothing, Xcode 2.1 is to the rescue and with one two clicks of a mouse software will be written for the PPC as well as the x86 on the same cd, and for those that buy the new Macs with x86 you will be able to run the old PPC software too! GO APPLE!
I will certainly be ditching Linux for OSX at the first opportunity.
Currently I am using Linux mainly for the freedom, performance, security and configurability.
But all of these features are irrelevant because Mac OS is really pretty. Who cares about freedom from the most restrictive DRM schemes that Apple & Intel can dream up between them when you can just sit there and watch your windows do some kind of funny genie effect?
There are people that think like this and most of them read OSNews.
Here’s a better question for this audience – what does OSX running on x86 mean for Beos? Surely the mighty Beos with all it’s advantages (hardware support, massive software library, openness, huge user base and of course the filesystem is 64bit, which is vital for storing all those documents you create while using the apps) couldn’t fade into irrelevancy?
Eugenia had some nice points in the article – but gone to the wrong conclusions. The OSX DE on-top-of a unixish system is really tempting the linux geeks but not for themselves – but as a good argument to push their relatives over to a unixish underpinning.
That will allow him to rebuild some of ‘his’ opensource tools easily and make it run in the cosy OSX desktop all around. Today it is a kind of hard for the supergeeks as the win32 environments are quite different – especially about customization of the internet access. The OSX happens to be somewhat in the middle of linux and windows administration tasks.
Perhaps some geeks will switch to OSX fulltime as well just to know the platform better in case a relative is calling in. But more likely it will let their neighbourhood to switch to OSX – those who are often dualbooting with win32 and linux (being mostly in win32) might come to dualboot win32 and OSX (being mostly OSX).
And just a note from the real life – I have seen many students at the university who were running linux on a dozen boxes at home and running around with a powerbook in classes. The Mac OSX will be very welcome by the linux geeks – as an add-on to their life allowing them to squeeze out some parts that were left to win32 platforms.
Now that OS-X is going x86, Microsoft is going to wipe the floor with Apple. There is no way in hell Microsoft is going to allow Apple to survive in it’s hardware. As for Linux, no change. You have Linux improving in leaps and bounds every 6 months, Windows Longhorn and now Apple OS-X. Everything comming to a head in 2007, may the best and most open OS system win.
Then again, I will most likely be able to run Haiku and blow the crap out of everything else OS wise by 2007. Ah what a good and pivitol year it’s shaping up to be. Long live open standards and community participation in computing.
Whether or not OSX is a “better desktop experience” is entirely subjective. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. Having used all three OSes (Windows, Linux, OSX), I can say that the OSX UI is actually my least favored one. So one cannot simply surmise that users will naturally gravitate towards OSX.
Regarding software installation: ordinary users don’t install that many applications once they have the tools they need. Getting the “very latest build possible NOW” is not something you’ll find much outside of geek circles. The vast majority of users are better served by a combination of repositories + graphical installers for commercial software, which is exactly what we have on Linux now.
Attacking the repository system seems to be the new warhorse of anti-Linux critics, but like so much FUD before it it is based on faulty assumptions. First, repositories usually only contain open-source software, so if one is to compare apples with apples (pun intended), one would first compare to see if, as a general rule, OSX or Windows versions of open-source software are available quicker than repository packages for Debian or Mandriva (as an example). If you can prove to me that the same open-source apps are generally available for OSX or Windows quicker, then your argument might have merit. Otherwise, it’s apples and oranges.
There are some interesting alternatives for Linux, such as Autopackage, Klik and Zeroinstall (which resembles the OSX method, IIRC). In the meantime, there’s nothing preventing ISVs from using GUI installers, such as the Loki installer, to install across a variety of distro. If Codeweavers can use it, I don’t see why others couldn’t!
It’s sad to see that when Apple decide to swithc from one arch to another, their only aim is to make the switch easier for every one providing an emulator, an transition tool and whatever you want to use the apps you buy still work NOW when one guy in the glibc crew decide to change an api or change something in the format of some obscur lib the apps you paid for will never work again without weeks of tweaking :
think about making wordperfect 8 work on a recent distro, think about a loki game to work, think about Houdini, maya and whatever you buy for redhat X to work on redhat Y.
I know, I know, use the source and stuff but normal people have better to do to spent their life recompiling stuff….
not even mention the change in the way the kernel deals with binary only driver….
Djamé
“Apple has a closed set of hardware that is allowed for OSX to run on.
It’s not so cut and dry”
I’m sure Apple will have a few tricks up their sleeves to stop it from running on a wal-mart dell-sh pc.
It won’t effect Linux at all. OS X has the same closed concept that MSFT does which is why people that want to own and control their own computer rather than feel like a renter use *nix now and not Mac or MSFT.
All this change does is makes the CPU they use Intel. Nothing more. What they should have done of course is still thrown the green light for people to build their own clones and still sell their own hardware that way the power users would be satisfied and would develop use it as their platform for open source software but Apple’s too greedy to do that.
So it’ll have absolutely zero difference to Linux.
“I for one will not buy a Mac just because it runs on Intel; I am less likely to buy a Mac because it runs Intel as AMD processors currently are better designed and perform better for my money.”
A processor is only as good as the OS that runs on it, and nothing comes close to the elegance and power of OS X.
I didn’t read the thread, all of the Apple threads are enormous today.
Anyway.
Intel Mac OS X will have the same impact on Linux as PPC Mac OS X has/had.
Given what we know: Apple will be shipping Intel based Macs. Apple is not selling Mac OS X for install on whitebox hardware. Apple will support the dual architecture systems for some time.
So, the goal is to basically force developers to support both platforms, to create tools, guidelines, and best practices to support that.
Apple is making the strategic decision to not just support Intel, but to support both. This means that developers need to be processor agnostic. Write to the higher level Apple platform, much like you would write to the higher level Java platform — save that it’s easier to cheat.
Then we add in that Apple isn’t going to support white box hardware. If Apple doesn’t have a video driver for their PPC port, they’re not going to have one for the Intel port either. Certainly some enterprising individuals will hack and beat on OS X to try and lever it on to a PC motherboard, and will no doubt have some amount of succes. But this will undoubtedly be an underground project.
When looked at from this perspective, Intel Mac OS X will have as little impact on Linux. Will an OS X be “available” that runs on PCs? Yes, though it won’t be a “slip Apple CD into slot and boot” kind of install, so it will have low penetration (if the bitching about Linux installers has any weight whatsoever).
So, for most Linux users, Intel Mac OS X will be as much of an option for them as PPC Mac OS X is for them now.
The one place that Intel Macs will affect Linux users, though, is with notebooks. I think it will be quite easy to get a Intel Mac Notebook with all of its hardware features (power, sleep, etc.) supported on Linux. With an OpenFirmware boot system.
I can easily see Intel Mac Notebooks becoming a notebook of choice for Linux users, but they’ll just be running everday Linux on it.
what implications does DRM really have on the market, how is it planned to be used and how can it be used down the road,.. i am not totally up on the hardware gossip lol
any info would be helpful
“For one thing, I don’t like the Apple ‘experience’. Too much hand holding and oversimplification to the point of obfuscation of features.
Second is software. The switch to X86 will not suddenly allow the use of all that Windows software on the Mac, not to mention that they might end up loosing some of the developers who do code for PPC.”
You make these sound like a bad thing. Besides, who the f**k needs MS crapware?
Tell me again, who uses the PPC besides Apple in desktop and notebook systems? Those coders have to go somewhere.
> Usually there are two players rather than three: the
> favorite and the underdog. The “third” person does not
> matter as much. With Apple moving to x86 it can quickly
> become the underdog of the platform and put Linux in third
> (outsider) place.
What sort of argument device is this supposed to be? “Usually there are three players instead of four: the winner, the loser, and the loser no one likes. The ‘fourth’ person does not matter as much. With Apple moving to the x86 it can quickly become the loser that no one likes, and put Linux into the loser category.”
Notice that I’ve just made a lot of stuff up.
> Apple mentioned that Mac OS X will require Apple PCs, but
> you will be able to run Linux/Windows on them just fine.
They said that they wouldn’t do anything to prevent someone from running Windows, they didn’t say that it would be possible or even simple.
> This is a huge advantage for Apple rather than for Linux
> or Windows.
Which is all the more reason for Microsoft to not officially port Windows to the Mac/x86. It’s fairly indifferent to “Linux.” If anything it would be a benefit to Mac users with a trivial ancillary benefit to Apple as a result of customers being able to reuse their expensive paperweight should they decide that OS X looked better at the Apple store than it worked on their desk.
> It brings over these last few potential customers who also
> needed Windows but didn’t want two computers or commercial
> emulation.
A dual-boot strategy is obnoxious and would see little in the form of interest from businesses. A VMWare-like virtualization bundled with OS X/x86 would do more for Apple than not going out of their way to prevent Windows from working on Mac/x86.
> Apple can sell more Apple PCs when the customer knows that
> this is a normal x86 that can also run native Windows,
> because it allows the customer to think that “oh, well, if
> I don’t like OSX, I can always run Windows”.
Windows will no better run on Mac/x86 than OS X will run on a generic x86 machine, unless Microsoft is willing to offer support for the platform itself. It has little reason to do so, especially since it might lead to encouraging people to “switch.” So individuals will probably “hack” Windows to run on the Mac/x86, but it would be even less appealing of a solution than “hacking” OS X/x86 to run on a generic x86, because if running Windows is really your thing you can get a better deal elsewhere.
> With Mac OS X’s great desktop experience, why would anyone
> use X11 and its DEs?
For the same reasons that they use Linux now instead of Windows. There are of course a lot of different religious reasons as well as various forms of elitism and novelty. Then there’s the obvious ability to not have to run Windows and not be forced to use the limited hardware options of the Mac/x86.
> They are known to be rather “disconnected” from the
> underpinnings of the underlying OS, making the desktop
> Linux experience worse that it should be.
Should be, or could be? Sure, if you drop support for BSD, commercial Unix, and Windows as targets for your free software, and maybe even “generic linux” instead opting for a tightly-coupled customized linux experience with your software you might create something less “disconnected,” but that’s obviously no one’s goal. If that changes, there’s an enormous amount of software available for them to customized and make as incompatible and tightly-coupled as they want. Indeed, Linspire could–for example–do just that. They don’t need to care if their programs work on Solaris or Windows. They can dictate that KDE’s VFS via KIOSlaves is superfluous and dictate that userland filesystem drivers are the job of the kernel. They can standardize on the Linux proc filesystem for dealing with hardware and create all manner of “control panel” applets for interacting with it. They can dictate that there is One True Firewall, and create a little GUI for it. Let there only be ALSA. There’ll be only one GL-X server and all drivers will be in the kernel where they belong. Let’s dispose of these sound servers. We can throw things out and push things into our custom kernel and dictate that there is only Lindows.
But of course there isn’t only Lindows and developers aren’t going to flock to Linspire because it creates this Lindows, and companies like Sun aren’t going to fund accessibility development for this Lindows because it doesn’t work on Solaris. So all of these custom applications that we’ve hammered this code into aren’t going to see modifications from all of the other developers working on the “disconnected” versions. And maybe you don’t care about this and maybe you do.
But “should” that be the way “things” are? No one really seems to think so that’s actually willing to write the software.
> and making a commitment to PPC Linux means making a
> commitment to a niche hardware platform.
So will Linux Mac/x86. The port will likely just be an easier one to maintain, and things like Java will be easier to have on it.
> x86 Macs will run the mainstream versions of Linux without
> modification
Says who?
> and once Linux users start making the switch to OSX, their
> favorite Linux apps will become increasingly more
> available on OSX
They already are. Take a look at Fink. Do you know why they’re available? Because they’re “disconnected” from Linux. Just like a lot of them are available for Windows for the same reason.
You also haven’t bothered to establish that Linux users have any reason to migrate to the Mac/x86.
> With the release of the x86 Apple hardware, there will
> probably be a jump in Linux-on-Apple use a first, because
> more than a few Linux users are likely to buy Powerbooks,
Since these Powerbooks will just be Pentium-M laptops, whether they’ll buy them will basically depend on whether or not they want to run OS X without a hassle. They could just as well buy a much-more durable Thinkpad or a much more sleek Vaio unless OS X is already something that they want, and they’re averse to “hacking” it run on their choice of laptop. These being Linux users, that’s not exactly a given.
> With Apple able to provide well-priced x86 Macs AND giving
> the re-assurance to these users that can also run x86
> Linux there
Apple has given absolutely no indication that their pricing model is going to change as a result of them moving to the x86. They’ve also given no reassurance that Linux will run on their platform, only that they are not going to make any effort to actively prevent support.
Is that as much as Apple wants to sell the whole experience, it’s possible that Apple may in fact come out ahead, perhaps while helping Microsoft, by creating an Intel-based platform that can also boot Windows. While Apple may not keep as many copies of OS X running on the IntelMacs, it stands a good chance of doing so, even with Windows also installed on the system. What’s important to remember is that even above and beyond Apple selling a total experience, is that most of what they sell is hardware. Thus, they may actually come out ahead, even if people install Windows on the IntelMacs, because they will at least have sold Mac hardware to someone that might not otherwise have bought a Mac, due to not running Windows.
And to Steve who said Microsoft wouldn’t modify the kernel of Windows to run on an IntelMac, it appears there’s a limited understanding of the NT system design: Windows NT from version 3.1 to XP (all versions of NT, even if a different name) have at a very low level something called HAL, for Hardware Abstraction Layer. This makes it fairly trivial for Microsoft to port to a different platform, like they have in the past. It’s useful to remember that NT has had versions for the Dec Alpha, the PPC, as well as the MIPS (3000 or 4000 platform, I can’t remember) in the past, as well as always being available for the Intel IBM PC Compatible architecture.
I would argue that Microsoft would actually WANT to provide Windows for the new IntelMac platform, because Apple has a tendency to provide a more controlled system architecture than the wild implementations of PC compatible systems in terms of such things as handling of interrupts, DMA, sound hardware, etc. and if a million dedicated Mac users have the option of also running Windows on their IntelMacs, that’s serious enough money for them to make the effort. After all, Microsoft doesn’t need some of the fancier details of a system ROM to make Windows run, though it’d be nice, perhaps. That would provide Apple with a hardware sale and an automatic sale of the Complete Apple Experience along with OSX, while also allowing Microsoft the option of selling Windows and the associated software. If the IntelMac hardware is very well behaved and always has great drivers, developing for it as a developer (Microsoft creating a version of Windows to run on it) is so much easier, and the user benefits from a predictable system as well. If people know they can run Windows on a nice IntelMac and also try out the unfamiliar-to-them-but-reputedly-nice-Mac OSX, Apple may win more mindshare as well over a longer period of time. Apple is very much aware that software drives hardware sales, and this could benefit them greatly as well.
Now, will that actually happen? Time will tell!
So we are going to have PCs which are able to run virtually every OS on earth. This can only be good. If after all I am going to like OSX more than linux, what does it matter?
For me operating systems are not a religion. Even M$ would be higher in my esteem if they had made a Win 2003 Workstation.
But it is very unlikely that it is ever going to happen (me liking OSX more than linux or BSD): I love them because they are free in both meanings of the word and I can make what I want of them.
Finally, what is going to happen to PPC Macs in the next few months? Nobody with an ounce of common sense is going to buy them and they’ll see a dreadful drop in demand/price.
Time to buy one, maybe?
Finally, what is going to happen to PPC Macs in the next few months? Nobody with an ounce of common sense is going to buy them and they’ll see a dreadful drop in demand/price.
It really depends on how well the perception of the Intel shift it portrayed. If, in fact, upgrading from the G5 based Mac to a P4 based Mac will be little different than from a G4 to a G5 (i.e. your software and peripherals will still work, and they’ll work faster to boot), then there’s really no reason to wait for the Intel machines. Buy a G5 now, and then replace it in two years if you feel like it.
I bet that new software from major developers will still be native on both PPC and Intel in 5 years. If your machine has the performance to run it (and I don’t see why it won’t), you’ll be able to buy the latest and greatest 2010 versions of Photoshop and Final Cut Pro and run it on your Dual G5 Power Mac.
if i can get a dual cpu power mac g5 2.0 or greater for under $1300, i’ll moste definitly snag one….. maybe 2 or 3
lol
most… not moste lol
Would a hack that lets you run OS X on a Dell or Packard Bell etc really be that bad for Apple? Just like there are people who won’t pay for Windows but are very happy to download it – MS knows this, they don’t really care, because making it hard to pirate would simply drive those people away form Windows completely.
The average user being able to have OS X installed may be very pleasantly surprised and keep it as their primary OS, it’s market exposure for Apple, next time these people are asked by a family/friend what PC they should get.. they may suggest a Mac.
There can be only one!!
Look Jobs is smart enough to realize that IT, programmers, and end users don’t want to be locked into one system. They just want to sit down at a box and go.
The same thing is happening in language. I speak two languages and have a rudimentary understanding of two others, but I prefer to speak English (not because it is better, but because a large portion of the population understands it).
The UNIX variant known as *nix willbe the ultimate winner. Jobs and Apple have chosen their side. OS X is basically a pretty version of Free BSD.
A hungarian portal made a small interview with Markus Weingartner, the technical marketing manager of the european divison of Intel. He told them that this DRM rumor was a misconception (PC World – http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121027,00.asp ) because of Graham Tucker (Intel, Australia).
Mr. Weingartner continued: It’s about DTCP-IP (Digital Transmission Content Protection over IP). DTCP-IP is a network protocol designed for digital broadcasting.
It will allow the clients to play this special media.
DTCP-IP is supported by Hitachi, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba as well. There were several digital media adapters supporting this technology.
The DTCP-IP technology is supported by “software ecosystem built on this platform” not by the hardware (Pentium D or the i945 chipset).
etc…
original article:
http://www.hwsw.hu/hir.php3?id=29058 (hungarian)
Note that it took Sony to reach ~80 million PS2 since it’s launch. the XBOX is about half of PS2 user base while GC running third in terms of user base. At the same time, X86 rocketed to +195 million units per year(2004)(laptop leading the unit sales growth).
I’m a die hard Linux user who appreciates Macs and tolerates Windows, but this news, while a blow to IBM and a boost to Intel, doesn’t really mean much.
Windows users now have two reasons to consider a Mac:
1) Less Viruses
2) They can still run Windows.
The obstacles to this being compelling are as follows:
1) Learning OS X’s interface (Where’s the “Start” button?)
2) Apps that don’t migrate to OS X (the list is getting shorter all the time, but this is a big sticking point)
3) Price (both the hardware itself and the cost of upgrading to new versions of OSX – at least Windows doesn’t charge for SP1 or SP2).
4) Users are stil locked in to a proprietary OS vendor (and now hardware as well).
Schools that used to use Macs and switched to PCs will like this development, because they now have a plausible upgrade path back to Macs.
Linux will remain a niche player, because it will only appeal to the small population of users that don’t want to be tied down to a particular vendor or hardware platform, and that have the technical expertise to install and maintain it themselves.
1. Microsoft can’t figure out how to effectively fight Linux and other OSS/Free software because there is no one company to attack and destroy.
2. Apple moves to X86 hardware.
3. OS X is hacked to run on commodity hardware.
4. Drivers for various bits of hardware are contributed by the OSS crowd (lifted from Linux & the *BSDs). A huge community begins to grow around OS X, siphoning away Linux’ supporters and coders.
5. OS X becomes the new alternative/geek OS of choice — that is, the new Linux. Apple officially pretends to condemn the underground spread of OS X, as Microsoft now pretends to condemn the warezing of Windows (for home use), but does nothing substantive to stop it.
6. Those who don’t want to use Windows but could never get comfortable with Linux because of lack of commercial app support, ease of use, etc., now have a viable non-Windows OS with plenty of apps: MS Office, all the Adobe-Macromedia stuff, etc.
7. Desktop Linux flounders and eventually joins BeOS in the software graveyard. Linux supporters post often at OSNews, whining about how desktop Linux never got a fair shake and how, one day, it’ll be relevant again. Really. One day … In the meantime, back in the real world, Red Hat and Novell focus entirely on delivering server apps and highly specialized desktop and point-of-sale operations. The lesser distros begin to wither and die.
8. The growing Linux threat to Microsoft’s desktop monopoly is soon gone. In its place is Apple, a single company, a corporate entity just like Microsoft.
9. Facing a real, gathering threat and shrinking desktop market share, Microsoft is able to finally take the gloves off now that it finds itself free from the dreaded “monopoly” label.
10. Microsoft, facing its own doom, systematically obliterates Apple and there’s nothing anyone can do about it except admire their style and gnash their teeth in frustration.
11. PROFIT!!
hehe… I find this so ironic…. hard core linux users tend to push push push their linux os’s… however…. guaranteed….. if it ever did go mainstream… most of us would jump ship to bsd or some other free os…. heh
I love linux, it is all I use at home on my 3 computers (and freebsd on one to lol)
I just think it’s funny…. I know I would probably start complaining about linux and how it sucked and all that if everyone and their mom was using it… linux being only a nitch os is part of what makes it so secure and functional, some things are better left as a nitch… honestly, I think this is mac’s fate to.. linux and mac will have it’s nitch markets.. at least as it stands now, who knows what will happen down the road.
Very good fiction, but nothing else
apple will immediately be the 800lb gorilla on the block, and yes, it is the unix derivative that can run linux binaries (a.l.a. freebsd) soon.
And its the linux-y like os that can also run microsoft office, adobe photoshop, apple’s ilife, final cut pro, the macromedia stuff, and the games….
and so of course, its a better linux than linux.
but it won’t be for every linux user, naturally, because they are trying to run a free os on underpowered hardware, and boot their old atari and amiga into something useful….so this has nothing to do with that sort of muckity muck, but you can expect as a desktop replacement for linux, it will be great.
I am typing this from a desktop linux…I would love to replace it with mac os x…I’ve also been a mac user at times too…although I just sold my ibook and this announcement has left me with some pause as to what computer to buy now….
I hate to say it, but they are dead wrong…even a fanboy like me, thinks about waiting now. they better start thinking about ‘deep discounts’
Don’t forget that Sony, Toshiba and IBM (STI) teamed up a couple years ago to design & build the processor/architecture of the future…
http://www-1.ibm.com/businesscenter/venturedevelopment/us/en/featur…
Shortly after that Microsoft & IBM announced a technology collaboration…
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/nov03/11-03XboxIBMPR….
Then, just a few months ago STI unveiled the long-awaited Cell microprocessor…(the future is here)
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/02/07/HNninecorecell_1.html
…and Finally, just a few days ago STI announced that they will open the specifications of the Cell processor to the world:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/25/ibm_opens_cell/
Excuse me for a second while I read between the lines……///IBM dumped Apple, collaborated with Microsoft, and plans to release the most powerful PC platform ever known to mankind///……///Apple plans propriatorize <–(new word) to the Intel platform/// …not good for Apple.
Even if Microsoft develops an OS to run on Cell Processor technology, it will probably be released a few years after Longhorn, lol.
Additionally, Linux WILL adapt to the new Cell Processor which will attract many power users to Linux…
http://cell.raw.net/news.php
I think Linux has a VERY bright future, as for Intel, AMD, and Apple, I already sold my stock, hehehe.
-Stevo
(Testing Linux Since 1998)
1% of 3% is 0.03% and not 0.33%