After my editorial yesterday about the hurdles the Linux desktop will have to endure after Apple moves to x86, two high-profile editors seconded the notion: read John C. Dvorak’s editorial and eWEEK’s Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols’s analysis.
More on Desktop Linux’s Fate After Apple’s Switch
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
155 Comments
2005-06-07 10:26 pm
2005-06-07 10:26 pm
2005-06-07 10:29 pm
2005-06-07 10:29 pm
2005-06-07 10:31 pm
Anonymous
Hey, I want a piece of that! If people are going to be silly about this, I might as well make some money of them 
2005-06-07 10:33 pm
2005-06-07 10:36 pm
2005-06-07 10:46 pm
2005-06-07 10:50 pm
2005-06-07 10:52 pm
2005-06-07 10:57 pm
2005-06-07 11:07 pm
2005-06-07 11:10 pm
2005-06-07 11:11 pm
2005-06-07 11:20 pm
2005-06-07 11:59 pm
2005-06-07 11:59 pm
2005-06-08 12:02 am
2005-06-08 12:02 am
Anonymous
he’s talking about gaming (the whole “why doom3 is slower on mac than on wintel” camp is going to not buy game for mac)
the orginal link is http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/finger/finger.pl?user=icculus
here the sample :
“- At the time, I hadn’t heard Phil Schiller’s comment about “we won’t stop people from running Windows on the Intel Macs”. Okay, now I understand everyone’s panic. Apple, don’t let people run Windows. Take active measures
to prevent this. I know you don’t personally care if someone runs it, because it doesn’t affect your business, or, say, Adobe’s business, but it WILL hurt the Mac gaming business when all their customers just boot
Windows instead of waiting for the game to show up on Mac. Likely games will be the number one thing affected by Windows on a Mac.
– The funny-sad thing about the Intel switch, especially if dual-booting Windows is made to work, is that Mac gaming has officially starting rowing the same boat as Linux gaming. I’ve been hearing the “dual-booting is killing Linux gaming” rants, and the “Wine is killing Linux gaming” rants and the “Linux users will buy Windows games and not support Linux companies” rants for five years. Welcome to my world. Let me give you a basic intro course:
a) Windows emulation is going to show up without any doubt (and much faster, since they’ll just get Wine running instead of having to write Wine in the first place). Right now, Gavriel State is probably somewhere popping open a bottle of champagne, too, since it blows open
a huge market for Cegeda on MacOS, and Transgaming would be damned fools to ignore that. Expect these technologies to run some, but not all games. Expect a camp of vocal opposers to talk about how this is slower and “not pure” and whatnot. Realistically, both sides of that argument have valid points. Expect the consumer to pick and choose options where it lets them play games acceptably. Everyone that has ever said “Mac users demand quality, polished ports” will find out that they were flat out wrong when someone gets Wine to limp through Half-Life 2 on an Intel Mac.
b) People will dual boot in about three and a half nanoseconds if they are able to. Expect to start hearing things like “I’d take Windows off my Mac if only I had this one specific game.” Unlike the pain in the ass of dual-booting to run a word processor, people are totally willing to do this for video games. In my experience, they’ll do it even if they have free access to a native port of the game, if there’s a feature missing that’s in the Windows version, or even if they get a minimally higher framerate.
c) Expect people to start wanting shit for free. Expect to hear a lot more of “I bought this game for Windows, why should I have to pay again for the Mac version?” and “This game is 10 bucks in the bargain bin for Windows, why do I have to pay 40 for the Mac version?”
d) Expect me to laugh at everyone that thought the Linux users were the only shitty game customers over the years. It may pan out that really, the Mac users weren’t loyal customers so much as loyal hostages. If this is the case, expect that loyalty to dry up with a quickness.
– Apple’s documentation says that you have to build with XCode (or rather, GCC instead of CodeWarrior) to support x86, which is an obvious requirement, but the new docs on developer.apple.com say you have to use gcc 4.0. Seriously, Apple, do you know how long people used gcc 2.95 after it was good and obsolete, and you want people to jump to a major gcc release that is less than six weeks old?! I thought shipping this as the Tiger default was insanity, and this isn’t much better. Then again, gcc4 breaks the ABI again, so I guess that Apple doesn’t want to support multiple ABIs out of the box, again, which I can respect.
However, gcc4 is a total motherfucker about syntax, and even if you’re just moving from gcc3 to gcc4, you’re going to have to fix something in your code…or maybe a lot of somethings. Then, you can deal with the byte order issues.
– Apple notes that the default compiler settings for Intel builds include gcc’s -mfpmath option…that is, use SSE instructions for even scalar
math. Partially this is because this route is faster, I suppose, but I wonder if x86 MacOS will take the Win64 route of not preserving the FPU stack on context switch (and if so, it explains the need to force gcc4 onto developers to get this functionality in the compiler).”
A man who is alone the whole linux gaming industry and behind some of the best Mac os X game, can’t be that wrong….
Djamé
2005-06-08 12:42 am
2005-06-08 12:57 am
2005-06-08 12:59 am
2005-06-08 1:02 am
Anonymous
I really don’t see this impacting linux much.. I’m still not sure what to make of this whole scenario anyways The announcement came as a shock to me.
btw, before people start pointing fingures, Grammar Nazi was *not* me. I didn’t know anyone which the same IP range as me read OSNews.. weird
2005-06-08 1:08 am
2005-06-08 1:08 am
2005-06-08 1:24 am
2005-06-08 1:27 am
For me it’s no question. Unless “OSX86”, or what they will call it, is at least two generations beyond Windows, I will not spend more money for the special mac.
If I want to spend money on an OS, I will buy Windows. If I want an alternative, I will use Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris. I will not pay extra for an alternative OS just because it runs Photoshop.
I considered buying a portable Mac, because I like new technology, but if it’s just another PC…
why would a linux user switch to mac OS X? this switch by aple may swipe some linux users on the basis of if they dont like mac os they can simply put windows on it. for the linux on ppc group apple just lost selling them any more hardware, ever, after the switch is complete. thouse peeple werent using macs to use a mac, they, like linus himself, were using a mac becuz it was ppc hardware.
…well, if you don’t know, there’s hope that you can figure it out.
As for Vaughan-Nichols, any comments?
Of course Mac interface shines, but it isn’t very shiny when you have to use it at work everyday – my company has 3 Macs and 1 Linux 🙂 And John Dvorak talks about developers running away from Open Source development to Mac field. But this choice has always been available. Why haven’t they run earlier?
I think the choice will still be between the free and the proprietary. I don’t know if Linux is going to have some 30-50% of the market, but the choice is always there. A costly thing like Apple Mac should not destroy this choice very much.
if i wanted a pretty desktop that i had to pay for i would buy Sky OS.
(just had to through that in, i think it will be comparable to mac os x sumday.)
I don’t see mentioned in the editorial as pro-linux factor the spreading of live distro CDs, only for linux avaibles, and a strong tool of proselytism. I had myself converted me from win to linux through knoppix without pains and hassles.
two high-profile editors seconded the notion:
Not sure its a good thing having Dvorak concurring. Having said that the responses from the press have been varied. Some ignorant people think that they will be able to run the same MSOffice binaries on Windows machines and Mac machines because they have the same CPU.
I find myself concurring with Balmer of all people. Yes its a first.
Nothing will change. You still have closed Mac, just a different processor. PPC processors are not more expensive the x86 processors. Macs will cost the same. In fact I am typing this on a Mac I was actually enjoying Tiger but if I have to use a clunky processor with more patchwork on it than … can’t think of anything with more patchwork than x86 then it will be Windows or Linux. Okay maybe I will change my mind in a year. But the thought of taking PPC out of the Mac and replacing it with the dog of all ISA’s x86 makes me sick.
In the time being Apple has really screwed themselves. Sales will take a big hit at least until the release of x86 machines.
The only positive is that you will probably be able to run Windows and Mac on the same box. Most people don’t dual boot or have any intention of dual booting. So not much gained.
It’s interesting that comments about OS X threatening Linux’s acceptance have come so quickly, literally within hours of the Intel announcement. It would not even occur to me.
There is no way that Mac threatens Linux long-term or short-term. That is a free system developed primarily by volunteers, and it’s an international effort. Linux will continue.
On the other hand, Apple can steal some thunder from the corporate-sponsered efforts of Sun and Red Hat. Anyone looking for a desktop alternative for business use will have to consider future Macs, if they are competively priced.
This is silly, its asuming that developers will want to just walk away from open source to go to mac, and another assumption is that as soon as Apple makes the switch droves of people will be switching to macs, thats dumb, if they didnt switch before what were they waiting for? oh thats right joe six pack really wanted that x86 achitechture didnt he? the fact still remains that people will still have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software, and since OSX isnt open source what kind of alternative is it to OSS developers?
But the fact is that OS X won’t run on ordinary x86 machines (unless some emulator comes around) which means it is like the old Mac saga. Great OS but you need a special machine to run it.
Running it under an emulator means it is not a replacement for either Linux or Windows. I hope that OS X on x86 does not affect the growth of Linux! Go Open Source!
First off all, thank you for making such an amusing fuss about a total non-issue. It’s really entertaining.
What really cracks me up is that all those important analysts are unable to deliver one single argument why Apple changing the processors in their computers (and yes, that’s all that has happened folks) should harm Linux.
But why bother with arguing your point when you can write entire editorials simply predicting doom for Linux? 😀
This guy sounds like a cheerleader. Linux not for desktop? The other thing, Gnome and KDE are cross platform. They run on BSD, Linux, Solaris etc. etc… They are not just for Linux.
Man I wonder if that guy gets paid for his BS.
I think alot of ppl, who say that they will now NOT buy a mac becuase of intel inside. are not really getting it.
when you buy a mac, you not just buying the hardware, its the OS,the hardware and the intergration. and they are very well designed.
only now: you will be able to load windows on your powerbook if you wanted too.
and that, only helps apple. becuaase now you can buy a powerbook, and you are not locked into OSX. if you are unhappy you can load winXP, or Linux what ever you want.
and think about this:
Pent M daul core 2.0 gz
ati vid card 256 ram
how about a powerbook with those specs?
could happen and probley will
sheesh
-Nex6
do realize some peeple did buy macs specifically because they used ppc processors.
while this is nice becuz i see the bottom falling out of ppc macs.
this also means no more hardware upgrades to the topend macs of today.
the cheepest ibm power series computer is around 6000 or sumthing.
Bullethead: “This guy sounds like a cheerleader. Linux not for desktop? The other thing, Gnome and KDE are cross platform. They run on BSD, Linux, Solaris etc. etc… They are not just for Linux.
Man I wonder if that guy gets paid for his BS.”
Thanks. I figured as much, though it’s good to know when it is worth reading an article…as well as when it’s not worth the time.
only now: you will be able to load windows on your powerbook if you wanted too.
Probably, but will not be as easy as just putting the install CD and booting. Probably will use firmware and not BIOS. Macs won’t be PC clones otherwise you could buy the OS and install it on any PC.
and think about this:
Pent M daul core 2.0 gz
ati vid card 256 ram
how about a powerbook with those specs?
Well they could have put that ATI card in PPC based powerbook right now. Just have a look at the cards on the PowerMacs. You can get the latest Nvidia and ATI cars for PPC, Apple just doesn’t include them standard.
Regarding the PPC. What about Freescales new dual core G4+. Anyway they dual core Pentium M is not available. I realise the problem going forward is lack of low power CPU for notebooks, but I really wish something other then puke/vommit x86 was used. Sun’s Niagra looks good. Yes I know that was never going to happen but I like Apples clean design to be matched by a clean CPU.
This is not particurily a big change as it is in practice, as it is psychologicially. Now Macs are PC’s, and are even referred to as such by Mr. Jobs.
People who wanted to port software to Macs only had to recompile — depending on the programming language — and port to the Mac API and may even have to change a few assembly instructions, assuming their application used inline assembly. The real hurdle in theory is porting to the Mac API, not recompiling.
I’m getting tired of this.
Fact: To run OSX you’ll need Apple hardware.
Fact: Most linux users doesn’t run it on Mac hardware.
Fact: Those linux users that do run it on Mac hardware won’t have any incentitive whatsoever to buy a Mac again, since the hardware in a Dell or “build your own” will be essentially the same, but probably much cheaper.
So all in all this “OSX-gonna kill linux” is just a load of crap that the mac-heads that feel cheated that they just lost their “superior” ppc cpu is using as a security blanket for the moment. IF Apple had made it possible to install OSX on any whitebox, and dirt-cheap too, it could have made a difference. Then I guess a lot of people who are tired of viruses, spyware and the rest of the Windows “Xperience” probably would have jumped ship. But go out and buy a Mac? I’d say the probability that people are going to fork out for entirely new system isn’t any greater now than before, intel cpu or not.
So things are going to stay the same. Nothing will change except that the Mac will have the added capabiliy to run Windows. Linux will still be free, customizeable, flexible and run on any hardware, Mac or PC.
Both articles are BS in my opinion written by people that seem to know nothing about how free (as in free speech) software works. I use GNU/Linux because it’s free as in free speech and not because it is shiny (By the way GNU/Linux IS shiny). Apples move could never affect my decision about what OS I use. If I were to move to onother OS this OS should have the following:
1. it should be FREE Software as in free speech
2. better than GNU/Linux
Well said anonymous, In fact I think because of the two year gap and the longhorn delays Linux might be even more popular if Open sourec plays its cards right, that means LUG’s going out and evangelizing people, new and more robust projects (not saying that there arent any now) and just plain innovation, so basicly the same things we’ve been doing since the beginning.
Apple won’t be using Openfirmware. This has already been confirmed and a Apple vice-president didn’t even really try to downplay that you’ll be able to run windows on these machines.
Widespread adoption of linux on the desktop was always doubtful at best. People never got behind one desktop enviornment and those that are offered don’t do anything special anyway. Thngs could have been different. Maybe if Gnome had never happened, or something like E17 had come out years ago.
With OpenSolaris coming out this month Linux has even more competition.
From the article http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1825058,00.asp
The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on FreeBSD.
This is incorrect. The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on I/O kit.
Microsoft will be affected more than Linux. People who use Linux either use it because it’s free as in speech or because it’s free as in beer. Microsoft and Apple are neither.
Apple should open up to run all x86 hardware. Then you will see people formatting Windows and installing pirate Mac OS X.
A recent OSNews.com article suggested that’s piracy can be a good thing for the company.
Maybe eventually Apple will allow more hardware. Haven’t they made incremental steps in making some pieces (hard drive, video cards, printers) work between Mac and PC?
So the people, orginazations, and government agencies who are switching or considering a switch to Linux are going to do what? Buy a Mac? Just because the processor changed from PowerPC to x86?
Why would they do that? They can buy a Mac right now, from Apple, today.
Get back to me when MacOSX runs on cheap whitebox PCs and is free (as in beer and freedom).
I’m wondering what kind of benchmarks they will publish for the mac_x86. Since today they always compared CPUs. Probably we will see XP vs. OSX benchmarks in a year.
Looking into the next year, we first see the outrageous absurdity that it will cost developers $1000 to RENT a single processor P4 machine for the “privilege” of developing for Mac. And if you are not already a “Select” or higher Apple cult member, you need to fork over another $500+.
$1500 BUYS a very nice machine + software outside the Mac world.
It simply is crazy to move the Mac model ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) to the PC. If you are going to move Mac to PC, make more changes. Like reducing the “rent” of the Mac x86. Something like $299 would be much more reasonable.
Another thing not good for developers is the closed nature of xCode. How will developers help make the platform better with so much of Apple’s software being either closed source or poorly extensible?
Over the long run, the Intel move will be very good for Apple. But there will be serious growing pains. What I might term in a vulgar sense, “the bullshit level”, is much lower in the PC world than in the Mac world. Steve/Apple’s Reality Distortion Field will weaken and perhaps even collapse. Prices will have to come down so that value to the buyer is improved. The platform will have to be opened up to a much greater extent.
It will take Apple time to adjust to this reality.
Apple won’t be using Openfirmware. This has already been confirmed and a Apple vice-president didn’t even really try to downplay that you’ll be able to run windows on these machines.
Okay lets say they don’t use Openfirmware. How do they prevent people from running OS X on hardware other than a Mac without making the new Mac’s something other than Stock PC’s?
Maybe this is where trusted computing comes in
or some signature on the CPU?
Apple’s decision to go with Intel was without doubt the wrong one. However, I see it as rather beneficial for Linux because it simplifies development. Linux is about to become real competition to the proprietory Mac OS just as it is taking over Intel and AMD based desktops.
There are lots of dual-booters. So if they buy one of the mac machines they know they’ll be able to run windows too. The people that look at GNU as a political movement will always run Linux, but they are a very small minority. There’s going to be a significant number of people that will buy these machines just for the fact that they can boot into windows if they want. This will affect linux.
Jobs is making the same mistake that he made with NextSTEP. Throw in the towel with one processor, port it to x86, and then refuse to license it to other OEMs!
Consider this:
1. Apple is NOT selling OS X for any old x86 computer. As usual, it’s proprietary only so you can only buy it from Apple (probably at a premium too).
2. OS X is still around $100 a copy.
3. I’m sure the Wine project will benefit greatly if Apple contributes anything to the project, however, Linux already has it and has Office XP running on it.
The bottom line is this: More competition for Microsoft is always a benefit, however, OS X on Intel is a big step but what they really should have done, is license it like Microsoft to OEMs like Dell. I can buy a Dell right now for $300 and it includes a 17″ monitor. Apple just can’t do that no matter the software engineering feats.
—
Ryan Nix
President
Prometheon, Inc
phone 312.224.8604
fax 312.552.2381
tollfree: (877)847.8627
email [email protected]
http://www.prometheon.net
I think Eugenia and the two guys there did not get the point.
This maybe could have happened if apple switched today. Linux in a year time has even space to grow.
I had my check ready for Apple and what? I saw osnews. No apple until the switch is done, better invest my money in my actual machine I think all soon-to-be-switchers now think the same. Apple will be hit in Sales.
Linux runs on X86-64 Architecture, we don’t know about Mac-OSX, but probably will.
A recent editorial on osnews compared the server performance of MacOSX with mySql. Oracle too has bad performance on MacOSX Server. So no worry for Redhat in the Linux Server Business.
Back to the Desktop, yes… Linux could be better, snappier, cooler and the like, but an year time is long and Apple will provide the switch to low-end line and then to high-end line. We should wait until 2008 to own a super Workstation.
In the meantime the high adaptive capacity of Open Source can make the difference. Remember Charles Darwin.
Linux is here to stay and I’m not troll or Zealot. I use Win2k for DAW and FC3 for the rest. I was thinking to a Mac because of the quality and stability of multimedia software (iLife, Final Cut), but many users are no willing to pay more than needed. Intel PCs area cheap. This soon might turn into a price war.
What all the arm-chair pundits who cannot come to terms with Linux don’t get is:
Linux has been growing for years in spite of all the FUD, in spite of all the bullshit market studies and in spite of all the arm-chair pundits. Why? Because it works, it saves money and it doesn’t offer you surprises. Hardware architectures change and linux goes with it.
If you think that Linux is not going to succeed on the desktop, think again and look at what all the paid pundits were saying in 1996-97. And Linux, then, wasn’t the formidable best that it is now technically or in terms of the community of users and third-party vendors that have bet their business on its success.
Linux is about freedom, something that many of you cannot get through your skull because it would requre that you accept the pre-requisites of many governments, non-profits and end-users as valid, even if different from your own set of pre-requisites.
As a consultant, I have more Linux work than I ever did in the Windows world and I know the same is true for many of the IT folks that I talk to.
Keep your eyes shut, press your hands to your ears and keep rooting for proprietary companies. The rest of us will continue to enjoy what we do. KDE 3.4 and Gnome 2.10 are gorgeous and when KDE 4.0 comes out and the respective gnome version, I want to see who among you will say that it isn’t beautiful or intuitive.
Continue the FUD machine. It’s an echo chamber and you are the only ones listening to it. The more you dismiss Linux, the more desperate you sound.
i know i said it once but i think its the way to go. if people want something like macosx, why not make a freeosx? with gnustep and some good developers its all possible. it would be (my opinion) the most brillant project of the last few years.
having a feeosx would give us so much more possibility. alot of people could get it (free) so many of em could participate in the project by developing some “gnustep” applications. even current macosx developers could port their cocoa code to gnustep easily.
Linux this, not that, blah, blah… Beware always especially when someone says that Linux is not and cannot be something that some other proprietary thingy is.
Are they talking about Redhat or Debian or DSL or specialized firefall distros, super computer Linux, Linux that the Hollywood studios use to make their movie special effects, or embedded Linux in your mobile phone or the one in your brand new mobile tv, or what?
The most important thing in Linux (or GNU/Linux) is the freedom. It is so customizable that it can be made into almost anything you want it to be. The commercial hardware support is also practically there already (just avoid non-Linux friendly companies and their products). That’s why there are hundreds of different distros, various different desktop environments for Linux etc.etc. Is that a problem? Not at all, on the contrary, if you just choose a right distro for yourself (and that ain’t so difficult, you know… – there are usually only a few natural distro choices for a particular need.)
Granted, MS Windows and especially Apple Macs, might often offer a bit more polished experience out of the box, and they might therefore suit especially non-experienced home users best – so in general people with standard needs and who don’t have their own “IT support”. But both Macs and Windows have their problems, and if you choose them, you’re also stuck with those problems. In such situations there’s often not much that you can do. Besides the future upgrades, and the often necessary third party solutions tend to be expensive and can cause their own problems.
Not so with GNU/Linux. Though every Linux distro has its problems too, there are good cahnces that you could find a very good solution to meet just your needs. You can, for example, also choose an expensive well supported commercial Linux thingy from the many available otions, but you can as well get it all free or even roll your own distro. Just choose the right Linux tools, customize them to your liking, or hire someone else to do that for you etc.
The biggest advantages of using Linux have nothing to do with processor architectures. It is about how the OS and the community around it works that makes the big difference.
Hardware vendors now may decide that its time to develop ISX drivers especially for the press exposure of supporting Apple.
Then from there, it can only be a small step to build a common driver that will also work on all the variants of *nix.
Though every Linux distro has its problems too, there are good cahnces that you could find a very good solution to meet just your needs
..as long as it doesn’t include (god forbid!) stuff like instant messaging with webcam, of course
Also, don’t forget that Apple Macs have always been a big thing mostly in the North Anmerica only. In the rest of the world Macs are usually considered too expensive and they are used mainly by publishing people and others like that only. For example, I don’t actually happen to personally know anyone who would use Macs at home here in Finland… (there gotta be some rare individuals somewhere though..?) Apple’s switch to Intel architecture hardly changes anything in that respect.
No company or goverment is really seeing MacOS as a alternative. It is just Windows or Linux PERIOD.
Buying “expensive” Macs is just bad publicity. And for a lot of companies MacOS isnt flexible and cheap enough.
You can write for your personal ego stuff as long as you want but some things will not change just because Apple switched to another architecture.
Eugenia, *Dvorak* agrees with you if that doesn’t set off your alarm bells I can’t help you.
All of you Linux fanboys (of which I am one – I really like Gentoo and use it often) that are whining about OS X not running on cobbled together hardware should listen to yourselves – you’d have a good chuckle.
<fanboy mantra>
I want OS X – NOW!
Give me OS X – NOW – on my hardware!
</fanboy mantra>
You all whine and complain about the stupid decision Apple has made to keep OS X on controlled hardware and how superior Linux is because it can be installed on any hardware, but you’d all soil your pants and dump Linux at the first opportunity if OS X was released from those “shackles”.
“If only BeOS was thriving…” blah, blah blah. BeOS was crushed for exactly the reason Apple isn’t opening up their hardware. Only thirteen year-old boys working out of mommy’s basement believe that building a computer is somehow 1337.
Real businesses buy systems, not parts, to build their enterprises on, so quit your tantrums and begin saving your allowance to you can purchase your coveted OS X.
A lot of commentators are really speaking out of their asses on this one.
For example, one of them notes that Apple may face a challenge since Darwin doesn’t support as many drivers on Intel x86 as it does on PPC. This is a _very_ important point. What do you think most Linux kernel development is? It isn’t mostly scheduler algorithms and such. It’s drivers, drivers and more drivers. Look at most of the patches for the Linux kernel. Most of them are to support the amazing diversity of hardware here in the x86 world.
If Dvorak and Co. sincerely believe that OS X will, one day, run on any and all x86 hardware, they first better realize that that day won’t be very soon. It takes a lot of developers and a lot of effort to support the x86 world, especially with the standard Apple has set for stuff that “just works.” I believe (and everyone else should too) that Apple will very much limit the KIND of hardware OS X can run on, so that Apple will remain the primary hardware vendor of Apple machines.
But despite this good point about drivers, he defends Apple, stating:
“The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on FreeBSD. No, the BSD operating systems don’t have as many developers as Linux, but their best people are the equal of Linux’s best.”
The issue here isn’t that FreeBSD doesn’t have a lot of drivers, or even bright developers. The issue is that Darwin _is not_ FreeBSD! Darwin is “based upon FreeBSD,” and the Apple developers will have to track FreeBSD development. And FreeBSD development is driven mostly by hobbyists and scholars. Meanwhile, Linux driver development is starting to be driven by the corporate world too: you see Intel, HP, and other companies contributing programmer time to these drivers. It would be a strange day indeed if these big companies started throwing their weight behind Apple’s experiment instead, and pulled a 180 on this.
The only thing I do agree with is that this should be an impetus for developers to start unifying and throwing their weight at the desktop. This is already happening in a lot of ways, and will only continue. I see a lot of innovation from apps whose implementation has been simplified by high-level programming: I’m talking mainly about PyGTK and Mono apps, and even some Java ones.
I realized that myself and have begun throwing my brainstorming and programmer time toward trying to make Linux Desktop better for all of us. To put the “shiny user interface” argument to sleep, I think Keith Packard and anyone else with low-level graphics programming understanding should continue pushing for a move to a direct-rendering-enabled X server, so desktop developers can use the fancy effects Mac OS X has had for a few years. And we should continue innovating with apps like Beagle, F-Spot, and Tomboy, while keeping strong staple apps like Galeon/Epiphany and Evolution in the running. And that’s just the GTK/GNOME world. There’s lots of really amazing and wonderful innovation happening in KDE world too. Have you ever used AmaroK? Most innovative music managing program I’ve ever seen (way better than iTunes).
As for the suggestion to “just pick one desktop,” I think that’s ridiculous. Don’t destroy a desktop: simply continue unifying the toolkits. Fine-tune the engines that allow QT apps to look and feel like GTK apps, and vice versa. Get some agreement on both sides about things like Open and Save dialogs. But don’t rm -rf * years of development only because you don’t like to have a choice.
I think the times are really exciting for Linux developers. We have a chance to put together a serious desktop for developers and for users, and we will be competing alongside the biggest players in the industry. I think we can do it. It’s not as grim as it seems.
Even if Linux lost some casual users, hackers that want to create something neat and share it would always prefer it. The existence of the FreeBSD and OpenBSD is proof that one does not even have to believe in software freedom to choose working on an open source platform. Open source software will continue to thrive as long as coding is fun.
It’s funny how many comments here seem desperate with their defense of Linux using freedom and low cost as the “last line of defense”. I’ve used Windows, OS X, KDE and Gnome long enough to get a good feel of each and personally I actually _prefer_ KDE’s interface to OS X. Sure OS X is prettier but I’m willing to wait for a stable compositing manager to bring the eye-candy to what is IMHO otherwise a superior UI. In fact we may well have that before OSX/x86 and Longhorn come out.
As I stated previously, Linux does not have to worry about MacOS. Windows, MacOS, and Linux all cater to different crowds. Windows will always be the dominant OS, and the other two will always have their small but very important marketshare.
MacOS simply does not appeal to the same people Linux appeals to. MacOS appeals to the “latte sipping, high-class, cultured, accomplished” individual that places more emphasis on the image a product purveys as on the personal satisfaction he will get by choosing that product. MacOS is only succesful because it caters to these people. If Apple ever outgrows this marketshare, it will be crushed since these people will abandon it and everyone else will run back to Windows.
Linux on the otherhand caters to technological elitists. The last thing these people will care about is image and ease of use. Rather, they are far more concerned about doing things the technically right way and adhering to standards. These people will not move to Mac. The majority of these people sneer at Mac and view it as two steps below Windows. For them, Mac has compromised on way too much for them to ever consider it. It is the worst of Unix combined with the worst of Windows.
Finally, there is the group of people Windows caters to. Who does Windows cater to? Well everyone else who just wants to check their email and use Office and Internet Explorer.
Did you even bother to read what people have been writing here?
The point was not, that they want OSX to run on “cobbled together hardware”, but that nothing much with respect to Linux has changed as OSX still only runs on Macs, the only change being that these Macs now run on Intel.
But I guess these sublte differences are lost on raving fanboys like you…
..as long as it doesn’t include (god forbid!) stuff like instant messaging with webcam, of course
Maybe there are no easy, not to mention free choices for that kind of special needs yet. But what prevents Linux hackers and companies from developing such things? Soon you might also be able to do video instant messaging with your pals by using handy mobile devices running Linux…
One major area of IT growth is still the mobile business. Linux already runs on many mobile devices, and major mobile companies trust Linux in such tasks. MS has its Windows CE, but what does Apple (with or without their new Intel architecture) have in mobile front: a few nice looking but expensive portable computer models and ipod?
“On the other hand, if Apple, with some help from Intel, manages to get Mac OS X running with VT (Virtualization Technology), all bets on performance are off.”
I have to bet this technology will be used and Apple’s own too.
This is a stupid battle, Apple has never said it was after the Linux market anwyays. If people choice to dual boot into Linux from OS X they should. Or just plain out use OS X.
Mac on x86, good for coorporate, …what took you so long?
for one thing, they took away my Sun Microsystems, sun ultra,… sun was sleeping too long,….apple, just announced it, what will save it enough,…
the thing is, in the coorporate cublicle farm, the PC (x86) is king, and you could be kicking and screaming, never mind a new OS, ( sun os free ?, linux ?) but , what new hardware, IT won’t support it, not even for ceo’s ,…
1st point, apple
2nd, hope they don’t tie it completely with their s*& apple , ROM,… so you can’t run it on your x86,….
shoot themself again in foot, they will,….
3…. wish they would still do PPC, the new IBM workstation chip,….
since,.. walt disney,… remember,… the supercomputer,… tried the PC crap,…nop,….be-wolf pc,.. nop,…. sun cluster,….nop,…apple 1500 ,…bingo….
…gotta run,…
cheers, Robert Schultz
OK, get it straight. Apple will run on their boxed Intel solutions and only their boxed solutions. Now Windows and Linux will run on anything they want to be run on. Big difference here. Not to mention OSX is just a fancy GUI built ontop of normal open source projects (BSD, sqlite, khtml anyone). Enough of this “Apple ist ubber alles”.
While I’m a tech that supports Windows at work, I’ve been totaly MS free at home for a couple of years now. When my x86 PC died it was running Lindows (now LinSpire). When it died I didn’t bother fixing it as I used my iMac (and now my PowerBook) much, much more.
People are talking about the possibility of dual booting Windows and Mac OS X on a MAC x86. What I’m looking forward to doing is dual booting Mac OS X and Linux, probably still LinSpire. But I’m only likely to use LinSpire less than 5% of the time. It will be more for seeing how it is coming along and not really as a work or play machine. Unless of course there are games that run on LinSpire that I can’t run on Mac. If I can’t run the game on either, I’ll buy a PS3 but NEVER Windows or xBox.
..as long as it doesn’t include (god forbid!) stuff like instant messaging with webcam, of course
Maybe there are no easy, not to mention free choices for that kind of special needs yet. But what prevents Linux hackers and companies from developing such things?
Bugs me!! My friends using Mac OS X talk about Spotlight, Smart folders, Dashboard etc and I still have to go through the embarassment of saying “sorry mate, can’t accept your webcam chat request..I’m on Linux, see….”
Really, really weird to see all the Linux hackers developing all those obscure stuff for weird platforms but not caring about something so commom nowadays as webcam support to Kopete and Gaim.
Bottom line is, as long as there’s no brain-dead webcam support on Linux, it’s not Ready For The Desktop ™ for a lot of people!!
PS: I couldn’t care less what CPU Mac OS X runs on. The main thing is Mac OS X and the software that runs on it. I couldn’t care less if it runs on PowerPC or x86 or something from another planet. The OS is what matters most. And mostly that it isn’t Windows.
I would not use either of these two industry “experts” to back my opinion on anything. They are both idiots.
Apples switch to Intel CPUs won’t effect Linux much, if at all.
People who buy Mac’s buy them so they CAN run OS X.
When Mac’s have “Intel Inside”, people will STILL have to buy a Mac to run OS X (hacks not withstanding, you can hack and emulate NOW to run PC/OS X or Mac/Windows). NOTHING CHANGES.
To most MAC USERS using Linux is a giant step backwards in user experience. That’s why there is only a tiny handful that run Linux on PPC now. Having Mac/86 will change nothing.
The one and only fact that results from this move is that now Macs will be able to run Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris, etc.
So it’s simply a matter of added value to your Mac.
I do believe there are people who move from Windows to other x86 OSes because they’re *tired* of Windows. And many of those people might move to Mac, but they wouldn’t because they’d lose the ability to run Windows, for one, and all the other alternatives.
Now that changes – people can happily move to Mac, since their compatibility is guaranteed.
As for the switch per se, it was inevitable. PPC wasn’t going to develop further. It stopped developping more than a year ago, afaict. What should Apple do, keep using a processor line that would see no further development?
Apple has always grossly overcharged for a bit of status and a pretty, simple user interface. You have the 5% who go for that sort of thing, but it will never be more. And that demographic has precious little overlap with the Linux demographic. Both these “journalists” are just blowhards who need to babble nonsense to earn a paycheck.
Will anyone read this? Probably not…. But I think it’s true that this is pretty meaningless to Linux. People who switch to linux and stick with it tend to be pretty geeky sorts – who just love meddling and fiddling until they are up to their knecks in it. They actually enjoy the complexity of Linux over something like OS X. OS X may be cool, it may not be. Eugenia seems to think so, as it seems she would like to see OS X kick Linux’s butt. But it isn’t for everyone. As a geek myself (officially) I found it too cutesy, too patronising, too simplistic. Sure it just works, but it is even more simplistic in the range of options it presents to the user than Windows. It doesn’t just simplify things, it over simplifies them to the point of completely dumbing them down. It’s like the whole one button mouse thing, where the question appears to be, ‘why have a two button mouse when you can do everything with one?’ There seems to be an assumption that in every instance the simpler you can make something the better it is. I personally don’t think this is always the case at all.
So yes Mac may attract some switchers. Maybe some n00bs will like it. But a mass exodus away from Linux? I doubt it. Personally as an OS nut I would probably buy a Mac (and don’t forget you will still have to do this) and set up a triple boot scenario, with Windows, Mac and Linux. Windows for games, Mac for Video Editing – and Linux for the inner geek within.
Do I see a rush of people running out to buy Macs just because Apple have changed architecture? No! Why? Because the average computer buyer won’t even have a clue what this means.
You over estimate the extent of ordinary people’s knowledge about these matters – no matter how much hype there is right now within the tech press.
Peeps who spread stories like this should certainly try to spend a little less time in front of their computers and a little more time outside. If you did this, you could try asking the next passer by in the street what they thought about Apple’s switch in architecture, and then see what their response might be. If they don’t walk away thinking you are a complete nut, then I will eat my hat.
GJ
Here is my two-cents.
I own an Apple g5.
1. Mac OSX is good but it is has a niche market.
2. Putting an Intel inside will cost Mac in the long run.
3. People like me who just bought a Mac in the last couple of months are the ones who are getting burned here.
4. Linux will not lose that much if anything at all.
5. With Intel inside what makes it better than a PC from Dell,HP or any other Vendor.
6. The nice looks and the pretty GUI only go so far people do not forget being burned.
7. When Apple stops supporting ppc which I think will happen in 2008. I will do nothing but install Linux on my g5.
8. For me Linux has alway been a better choice I have my trusty Debian laptop a desk away and it is my main machine.
9. At this point I think moving to intel is a step backwards at best.
10. I think I will wait for the Cell desktop to come out good looks are fine but for me it is about performance not nice GUI’s and nice cases.
11. I also think letting the flood gates open for Mac OSX on Intel boxes will leave Mac OSX open to bugs,virus and other Windows garbage it will be put right in the crosshairs. No one has even brought up this point.
“…I personally believe there are two main architectures out there: Power and x86-64…”
I would be very interested in seeing what Linus is going to say about this: if anything, primarily due to the fact that just recently Linus switched over to the PowerPC platform.
http://news.com.com/Torvalds+switches+to+Apple/2100-1003_3-5606030….
There is no doubt that hobbyists will port Linux to the XBox360 (An upcoming PowerPC 970 platform), but now that Apple is dropping support, will he leave the platform as a leader and head back to the x86 camp (maybe focus on the x86-64 side of things?)
Granted, Apple has said that PowerPC will still be supported for years to come, but two to four years from now (if Jobs’ timeframe holds), PowerPC will be nothing but a faint memory.
I’m sure Linus has plenty on his plate as of yet with the closing of Transmeta, but nonetheless: with all the talk about Apple harming Linux, etc.
We keep going around in circles and we must even read BS from the likes of John Dvorak, who has never written a meaningful sentence in his life!
Once again:
1)Linux runs on everything, even on your toaster. OS X will run only on expensive Mac machines. How many of the potential third world users will buy one?
2)Linux is free as in freedom and as in free beer. I can download at least 2 distros a week and I can tinker the way I please.
Is linux unintuitive? Compared to what? Past studies have proven that if you put two groups of people in front of linux and in front of Windows they’ll need the same time to learn.
And what about Xandros, Linspire, Lycoris? Even my granny could use them. Give me a break!
7. When Apple stops supporting ppc which I think will happen in 2008. I will do nothing but install Linux on my g5.
Why, will your OSX stop working?
8. For me Linux has alway been a better choice I have my trusty Debian laptop a desk away and it is my main machine.
Ah, so you’re not very much into OSX anyway.
9. At this point I think moving to intel is a step backwards at best.
‘Backwards’ has been to pass the last 2 years waiting for IBM to develop chips it doesn’t wish to develop.
10. I think I will wait for the Cell desktop to come out good looks are fine but for me it is about performance not nice GUI’s and nice cases.
Unless much thing changes, Cell is not targeted to the desktop.
11. I also think letting the flood gates open for Mac OSX on Intel boxes will leave Mac OSX open to bugs,virus and other Windows garbage it will be put right in the crosshairs. No one has even brought up this point.
…because there’s no point at all? What ‘Windows garbage’ will make it to the x86 Mac?
I hate x86, but there’s no alternative.
Well, it would be simple enough to put some sort of signature bites in the BIOS. This would enable the Apple PCs to be compatible with all other operating systems, yet would allow OS X to search for those bites and only run if they are present. In fact, something similar to this is done on many OEM PCs today with regard to Windows activation. If the OEM copy of Windows sees a certain signature in the BIOS, it will not ask the user to activate since it has identified the PC as licensed by that same OEM. It wouldn’t be too hard for OS X to do something similar… however, it wouldn’t be that difficult for a hacker to get around, either.
You all whine and complain about the stupid decision Apple has made to keep OS X on controlled hardware and how superior Linux is because it can be installed on any hardware
This is now a moot point given that Intel is building DRM into the chips, and AMD has plans to. Talk about controlled hardware.
I was happy about Apple and PPC because I didn’t see/hear any plans about chiplevel DRM.
At this point in 12-18 months it won’t matter: with the exception of Via, over in x86land, you’ll soon have (nigh inescapable) DRM on every new computer, and I wonder how long it is before Via caves.
Linux or any OS won’t mean a damn thing if the hardware prevents you from building a PVR or ripping your CDs.
But back on to the main topic.
I think we’ll see a few more converts from Linux to OS X (those fed up with how *obtuse* Linux can be about certain things — I know several hard core *nixusers who have been seduced by the “just works” ease of OS X) but I think this switch makes it easier for people planning to jump ship from windows to OS X to do so. A big psychological barrier has been removed.
But those people thinking of jumping to Linux simply because they were fed up with Windows … will now have a much more tempting option.
“Do I see a rush of people running out to buy Macs just because Apple have changed architecture? No! Why? Because the average computer buyer won’t even have a clue what this means.”
Well said.
I haven’t read all these threads entirely, but I believe nobody has mentioned one factor: in this country, and I suppose in many others, many or most Desktop PCs are built by small shops. Which OS are they going to advise? Either Windows or linux. Definitely not OS X: from what they say you can’t even build a PC and put OS X on it.
Well….I have 4 friends at work who were planning to buy new G5 computers and now they changed their minds. They are not buying anything because PPC desktop computers are dead already. They don’t want to invest $2000+ in something that wouldn’t be supported in a couple of years. Who is gong to buy new Macs in the next year and a half know that they are going with Intel getting better performance on this new platform?
I wouldn’t buy anything until I see the new models and specifications. I hope they have better specs than the Xbox 360.
-2501
What does the 360Xbox have to do with everything?
and don’t say 3.2PowerPC cause how can so many intelligent people be so dumb
Just to say that the kde developers have managed to get webcam receiving support in kopete working (still in development), and are going to implement webcam sending next. So, maybe the next version of kopete will have 100% webcam support.
And I believe gnome-meeting also has some kind of support for video (if not complete).
i would not buy a mac with just one P4. I can get that anywhere.
I don’t actually think Linux developers care as much as all these people writing editorials seem to think they do. So a small computer manufacturer swaps to Intel. Big deal.
It *could* herald a large block of users moving to OSX, but that’s not likely if they *still* have to buy Apple machines to do so – effectively nothing has changed.
What is much more likely is that some clever hacker is going to figure out how OSX checks to see what hardware it’s running on and then fakes that. There isn’t any comparable technology that’s actually effective; this will be reverse engineered like the PC BIOS was many years ago.
Does anyone else know what Dvorak is talking about when he says “Anyone who has played with the Open Office Programs such as the Powerpoint clone called “Impress” soon finds themselves lost in a jungle of menu structures and naming conventions.”?
I thought that sounded odd, so I fired up Impress. Funnily enough the meun structure is identical to Powerpoint’s – it has it’s problems but it’s no worse than MS Office which doesn’t seem to be chasing off a lot of users because it’s hard to use.
How do know that English is his first language?
Maybe you’re writterings would be unintelligible in something other then English.
Maybe you should look at yourself first aswell before going on the offensive.
thing is that chip level drm cant do a thing without the software using it. ie, unless the software your using makes use of said drm features its just dead transistors.
same deal as with the data protection bit that amd and intel started to put into their cpus. unless the os sets said bit it will have no effect.
but with say a intel chip + windows + wmp or similar and presto your in big trouble when trying to “pirate” something.
still, no amount of drm will be able to stop you from ripping a cd. the reason for this that the current cd tech have no way of indicating if it have been ripped or not (thats what you get from using a ro media
).
and with the tech inertia we have these days they will have a problem trying to introduce a format that have that ability. that is unless they start to ship em with more songs or similar.
so at best what they can do is stop you from sending said ripped files out onto the net. of if you do so to track you down and arrest you. but that again means you have to be so stupid as to use a ripper software that puts in drm info into the files (alltho the os to can do that). but with formats like ogg out there one is still safe.
that is until the next gen dmca shows up and makes all media formats that dont carry drm info illegal. and while their at it, and any os that dont uphold said drm to for that matter. hell, maybe make it illegal to put in a option to turn of the drm functions unless you at the same time turn of all ripping ability of said software.
basicly, any drm is only as effective as the laws that protect and support them.
“This is now a moot point given that Intel is building DRM into the chips”
Actually that’s a myth.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/05/1833241&tid=155&tid…
No one will be able to assemble their own Mac x86 PC, and so, all of the advantages people think Apple will have moving to x86 simply don’t exist.
I want a Pentium M Powerbook now, not next year, I really think they should have kept this quiet and pull the covers off something we could all go and buy either now or next month. BUT A YEAR! surly if OSX is running on a P4 show machine it wouldn’t have being to hard to start up production right away
“This is now a moot point given that Intel is building DRM into the chips”
Actually that’s a myth.