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
But I concede that the world isn’t as round as it could be.
“People use Linux because they WANT TO use Linux. They use Linux by choice; they have since day one.”
Very well said!
When I tried my first linux distro I absolutely, literally fell in love with it (members of my family and friends can still witness it) The previous day I didn’t even know what linux was exactly.
> The owner of this site and the two respected journalists have more experience and insight into the industry than any of your clowns that fashion yourselves as someone equivalent.
The three people you mention are journalists, but the columns in question are opinion pieces.
In any case, authority stems from the strength of one’s ideas, not a masthead. I’m sure Eugenia and others would agree that polite discussion of their columns should not necessarily be denied the poor and unwashed.
Very well said.
Made a post in response to this and similar entries over the past few days at:
http://mrevelle.blogspot.com/2005/06/apple-macintosh-and-intel.html
So, is Linux that important that people will begin announcing its death? 🙂
Like the Macs — people have announced the death of Macs for a decade now. 🙂
Now, Macs are going to kill Linux. What a world.
Many of my Linux magazines over the last two years also lauded OS X and talked about how many Powerbooks running OS X were at various Linux conferences.
Now, everything has changed.
I think Apple will still increase their market share among those *nix geeks that want something non-Windows that “just works”. Probably more slowly than by sticking with PPC because of the geek factor but I could be wrong about that because of the performance gains by switching to Intel.
If Apple decreases their prices even further, OS X may make inroads into businesses that may have been considering a change from Windows.
But Linux is still a construction kit. Between people who appreciate that and people for whom “Free Software” is important Linux will continue to grow.
I wonder what kind of effect Apple’s decision would have with people who have been considering *BSD distributions. Not that that is a very large number of users.
Dvorak is a hack, but I have a lot of respect for Vaughan-Nichols. Read what he is saying. His point is that OS X on x86 will require Linux to improve. I have no problems with that. I think that ever since the switch to OS X Apple has been a driver for Linux improvement.
Apple PPC computers have become more and more attractive to me over the last couple of years. I’ve seriously considered buying one but I haven’t made the jump yet. The attraction was equal parts OS X and PPC.
Now I’m not sure, but I will take a wait and see attitude depending on Apple’s pricing. I may be willing to pay a small premium for OS X, but not much.
I like Linux and I respect the Free software concept but the thought of having a *nix base that also has a low-maintenance GUI really appeals to me. It could still be the best of both worlds.
I concede that Vaughan-Nichols is good, for I never read anything from him, but your posts had a good tone.
Enterprise Linux vs Macs is one thing. RedHat, Mandriva, whatever, have to worry about their pricing and softwares. Let’s see how Macs are going to fair now.
Enterprise Linux does not equal Linux. Almost no one here paid $2000 for Linux licenses. RedHat, Mandriva, whatever have to deal with competition as they have been doing for quite a while. There is market for everyone, because it’s about marketing, support, etc. Apple is not really a services company, yet. RedHat is.
I warmly welcome Apple over to the Intel processors and wish them the best of luck. But I don’t see Macs killing Linux, just like I don’t see Macs killing Windows. Microsoft does not need to worry? Don’t know. It’s good to have some competition for Dell, who have been rulling for too long.
His point is that OS X on x86 will require Linux to improve.
Why?
If Mac OS X was being sold as an off the shelf shrink-wrapped OS ala Windows or Linux, and could be run on a generic PC, I could understand the notion. But it isn’t. It’s still being sold as a component of a Macintosh. And no, I don’t think many people are going to buy a Mac to run Windows or Linux on it. (Anyway, if you need to do that, you can do it already.)
So I’d like the advocates of this idea that Mac OS is suddenly going to jump up and bite Windows and Linux in the ass now that it’s running on Intel to explain one thing:
What does a Macintosh running on x86 bring to the table that a Macintosh running on PPC does not?
And if that can’t be explained, then this thoery still has no legs no matter how many pundits expound it.
Time to RETIRE!!!!!!! Time’s up!!!!
>> His point is that OS X on x86 will require Linux to improve.
> Why?
Because I think that *some* people who are interested in switching from Windows are choosing OS X instead of Linux on the desktop. Including many *nix geeks.
>If Mac OS X was being sold as an off the shelf shrink-wrapped OS ala Windows or Linux, and could be run on a generic PC, I could understand the notion. But it isn’t. It’s still being sold as a component of a Macintosh.
True. I think that OS X would be a bigger threat to Linux if Apple would market it to people like me who prefer to build their own boxes.
>And no, I don’t think many people are going to buy a Mac to run Windows or Linux on it. (Anyway, if you need to do that, you can do it already.)
Agreed.
>So I’d like the advocates of this idea that Mac OS is suddenly going to jump up and bite Windows and Linux in the ass now that it’s running on Intel to explain one thing:
What does a Macintosh running on x86 bring to the table that a Macintosh running on PPC does not?
I think that OS X has a draw by itself, but less without the geek cachet of PPC. But if Apple continues their downward pricing then that is what it will bring to the table. Not that Apple will be as cheap as Dell or white box PCs. But the vertical integration of hardware with OS X will be a value-add by itself.
“What does a Macintosh running on x86 bring to the table that a Macintosh running on PPC does not?”
The remaining standard hardware. PPC and its support was the last proprietary support on the Macs. Lots of its hardware was standard (generic) already.
“Physical barriers” are the only way to keep the control of the system. Since all the hardware will be standard, the barriers will be easier to remove once they want that to happen.
Also, by adopting standard hardware they are playing in the same level of the other guys. “If you can’t with them, join them.” It’s easier to be slightly innovative and sell lots this way. Say they want to subsidize a little bit the hardware to recoup in the software and support.
Simply put, Macs “just work”. Let’s say. 🙂 Any system that “generally works” is less “innovative” already.
And things may change in the future again. Who knows if they decide to support the Linux kernel which has more driver support? Some crazy things happen from time to time.
Okay guys, everybody is forgetting one HUGE reason this will work a LOT better having OS X on intel.
Linux and Windows support…
You like a Linux program like Openoffice? Just got a HELL of a lot easier to move over to OSX.
Like Windows programs? Yup..here comes Wine for Mac….
Game over… period..
I don’t think Linux is under any serious threat. The user base, just like that of Mac OSX is loyal. Linux runs on a plethora of platforms, has a shorter update cycle, and the appeal of open source has not dimmed. OSX also suffers from a paucity of software developers, which caused the Mac port of OpenOffice to falter for some time. (I think it was finally resurrected as NeoOffice or something like that)
As others have pointed out, you will not be able to run OSX on just any old PC, at least until someone hacks the firmware. Sure, it could be a great boon to the sale of Macs (I would personally be thrilled to own one) but I will always have a Linux box somewhere in my house.
I don’t think Linux is under any serious threat. The user base, just like that of Mac OSX is loyal. Linux runs on a plethora of platforms, has a shorter update cycle, and the appeal of open source has not dimmed. OSX also suffers from a paucity of software developers, which caused the Mac port of OpenOffice to falter for some time. (I think it was finally resurrected as NeoOffice or something like that)
As others have pointed out, you will not be able to run OSX on just any old PC, at least until someone hacks the firmware. Sure, it could be a great boon to the sale of Macs (I would personally be thrilled to own one) but I will always have a Linux box somewhere in my house.
@Jason Gade
Because I think that *some* people who are interested in switching from Windows are choosing OS X instead of Linux on the desktop. Including many *nix geeks.
Sure. I’ve mostly switched from Linux to Mac myself. But that’s an attraction of OS X. What does the type of processor have to do with that?
I think that OS X has a draw by itself, but less without the geek cachet of PPC.
Yes, I’m a little disappointed by that myself, although I reluctantly agree it was the right decision (for reasons of economy and supply – not because I think A Miracle Will Occur just because it’s an x86).
But consider this – most geeks already have a spare box somewhere running Linux, or OS X, or BSD or Solaris or whatever. Despite that, Windows still has 90% + of the market. The point is, geeks aren’t a big enough market to give a honk about. You could sell a product to every geek in the country and still go bankrupt if that’s your only market (just ask Be 😉
But if Apple continues their downward pricing then that is what it will bring to the table.
That would be a good thing, but how much does a processor contribute to the price of a computer anyway? On a white box, the most expensive component is Windows. I’m skeptical Intel processors are significantly cheaper than PPC’s.
But the vertical integration of hardware with OS X will be a value-add by itself.
But it already has that. How does a change of processor enhance that?
@Dewd
The remaining standard hardware. PPC and its support was the last proprietary support on the Macs. Lots of its hardware was standard (generic) already.
I understand that. But the whole question is, why would that make a Mac more attractive to an end user?
Joe User walks into Best Buy to buy a computer. He can buy a PC or buy a Mac. Why would having an x86 in the Mac suddenly make the Mac more attractive to him than the PC?
There seems to be a perception that when Macs get x86’s, suddenly they’ll start performing miracles. I’m not seeing it. From the user’s perspective, it will still in every way be the same as it ever was.
9 out of 10 Joe Users probably couldn’t explain what a CPU is, let alone what the difference between PPC and x86 is. Why is an x86 based Mac suddenly going to be more attractive to him than a PPC?
Simply put, Macs “just work”. Let’s say. 🙂 Any system that “generally works” is less “innovative” already.
But that’s already true. Again, from the user’s perspective, what changes?
Hi,
I plan on getting a desktop Mac x86. Later I will get a Mac laptop x86.
I have PCs and laptops running Linux (Fedore Core 3 and Ubuntu) and WinXP Professional. With all that I enjoy my iBook G3 the most, it’s definitely slower, but MacOS X to me is a joy to use.
I mean I was ready to buy this year an iMac for my son.
He tends to like the Macs at school better than either the Windows or linux boxes at home.
Not now.
Not until I see how this breaks down for Apple and what is coming next.
What the hell use is their spending money buying a Mac right now when all these changes are coming down the pike?
Screw it I priced out a shuttle with a monitor for around $1200 without shipping and handling.
all the comments about processor or low level system performance are moot for 98 percent of computer users, unless you are doing scientific computation or serving files on a large scale. For the rest of us the slowest part of the computer these days is the user. As such 80 percent of a computer performance arguably comes from the GUI, and how well it allows users to manipulate and acess your data.
For example, take a look at the gazillion ways to use drag and drop in OSX between any apps (including finder) using any kind of data or subset of data. That is the kind of things linux needs to implement if “it” ever wants to be relevant on the desktop.
I keep hearing OSX UI is “pretty”. This is imho why linux will have a hard time reaching the desktop, as most of their devellopers and fanbase are oblivious to the importance of UI clarity and efficiency. A good GUI is not about pretty. It is about allowing the user to focus on whatever he wants to do at this point and to handle his tasks without effort. The fact that the GUI is esthetically pleasing/bearable/not in your face does participate in overall usabilty, but reducing OSX’s gui efficiency to its esthetics is quite short sighted. Despite the perceptions from the wintel-linux crowd, Mac users do not use macs for fashion value, but actually work on their machines and are arguabky quite more productive than on the alternative(s). Pretty is a side effect of gui and system efficiency.
I for one will be buying a new 12” powerbook before they retire it as I cherish its current form factor, and I am totally satisfied with its versatility, performance and build quality. I smile whenever I see the wintel luggables equivalents that provide as much bang for the buck. I doubt Apple will be able to keep its current sleek form factors on intel while keeping their prices as low.
Whose noticed that Mac salesmen have been outright lying when they tout the G5 as amazing; I always knew it was a nice but typical performer. But they keep touting it as vastly superior to Intel (that was true, when Intel first released the Pentium line they were still behind in performance; they caught up). Now the admission of guilt from Jobs: IBM’s failed to deliver.
I’m no Intel lover; but I’m always bothered by Apple’s willingness to just straight up lie to your face. I mean, at least stop bragging when you know things are going wrong; you don’t have to admit the problem just don’t brag about being better when you’re barely keeping up!
Anyway, I’m happy to hear about them releasing webcore cvs (the day after konq passed acid2); maybe Apple is making a turn around and trying to be a decent company for once this millenia.
I don’t have the focus on the end user. But you are right. Steve Jobs might have asked that question as well. 🙂 I mean, Steve Jobs worries about end users more than most of us, including Microsoft.
Whoever an end user asks for advice regarding buying a new computer might end up recommending Macs more than before, simply because of the extra giga-hertz of the Intel CPUs and because now they can replace them themselves.
You know, many users don’t need to buy the parts from Apple because they are all standard hardware anyway. I remember a story of a guy who wanted to replace the Super-Drive (DVD-RW and CD-RW) of his Mac. Just buying it from Apple was a nightmare; besides, it was much more expensive to buy it from Apple. He later found out that it was a generic drive anyway so he ended up buying it for $100 or something and solved his problem.
Standard hardwares are much more supportable by the technical people.
Also, now whenever Intel announces a new advancement in chip design, Apple will be glad to hear about it. 🙂 “Bring it on”. 🙂
The end user will be will be much better now: faster, supported (standard) and future-proof hardware.
What else? Intel is not a chips-only company. They have been spending real money on motherboards, compilers, etc. Apple can leverage all this now.
It’s good for Apple that AMD exists, because it keeps Intel healthy and a good business partner — ask Dell about this. 🙂
The end user will enjoy whatever Apple can leverage from what is available from Intel and AMD. Apple has been producing iPods, Laptops, Workstations, etc. All this could enjoy new technologies, besides being more compatible with what the other companies sell.
But there is the corporate market. Apple could win some big customers due to all of what was said above. It would be awesome to see some data centers built with Apple technologies. When are we goind to see some blade servers from Apple? 🙂
Linux is FREE . FREE means FREE . FREEDOM , LIBERTY . Don’t understand that ?
Life
Love
Linux
Liberty
…………..
…………..
Licence
.
Linux and Windows support…
You like a Linux program like Openoffice? Just got a HELL of a lot easier to move over to OSX.
Like Windows programs? Yup..here comes Wine for Mac….
Game over… period..
As you stated, OpenOffice and wine is availabale for Linux already. Linux is free. Cheap x86 hardware is um. cheap. Why the HELL would anyone fork out uber bucks so that they can buy a mac and osx to use software that doesn’t require it?
NO POINT!
“You like a Linux program like Openoffice? Just got a HELL of a lot easier to move over to OSX.”
No, it hasn’t. In fact the openoffice devs are still facing the same problems as before, that is, they’d have to port openoffice to the OSX APIs and it doesn’t matter one bit if OSX is running on ppc or x86.
The only question which matters is: will OSX soon run on commodity, ie open source, hardware?
If, as the announcement said, it will still only run on “Apple Macs” then what processor Apple uses is not only irrelevant to Linux, its irrelevant to the computer industry, and Apple will continue its progress into the geeky equivalent of the luxury goods market, along with Mont Blanc pens and Gucci watches. And B&O stereos. You can see that this is a lot of their user base, if you look at Mac Rumours. There are guys in deep depression at the thought that the stickers on the boxes may say Intel. This is not about computing, this is about some sick idea that what you buy says who you are.
If that is what it is going to be, who cares what a manufacturer with 4% share uses for hardware? It matters to the rest of us as much as where they get screws for their cases.
Now if they release the OS, that’s a different matter. The fact is, the days of integrated OS/hardware manufacturers are over. The question is, is Apple going to come to terms with this and try to go mass market?
Eugenia, *Dvorak* agrees with you if that doesn’t set off your alarm bells I can’t help you.
ROTFL!
I am sure, Apple will put some work in the Wine project effort when they switch to x86. Now the time is right to do that.
Furthermore I think GNUSTEP will benefit from the move.
Linux is useful on the desktop because it provides an elegant, secure, inexpensive alternative to Windows on commodity hardware.
Linux may be fairly secure and inexpensive, but you can’t seriously call it elegant, even compared to Windows. The multi-layered mess that is Unix still shines through in too many places, even with the latest desktop environments.
No TREAT, linux *BSD will are open source and they will survive whatever :-)). There is another alternative for IBM to make avalible PowerPC on their own platform so Linux may develop freely without any concurent on it which is good thing you know. It will boost linux on server market of RISC processors :-))). So HAVE NO FEAR !!!
If apple wants competition they’ll get off their asses and support ALL ATI/NVIDIA cards in their shiny new X86 macs, I’m not paying $1000.00 for a shit geforce 4 or any other mac only bullcrap. Apple can damn well alow some other hardware to run. If they want sales we’d better be able to buy PowerMacs that ship with only the cpu/mobo. Else they aren’t going to get squat from linux users.
well said.
“Now if they release the OS, that’s a different matter. The fact is, the days of integrated OS/hardware manufacturers are over. The question is, is Apple going to come to terms with this and try to go mass market?”
Therein lies the problem of the article …. it asumes that apple will release OSX to the mass market – which I doubt.
But even if they were to release OSX, the article shows that the authors do not understand the free software movement. I found the articles a lot of BS.
There is no great strategy behind the switch to x86. Apple was forced into it, there simply was no other realistic option anymore.
New PPCs for the PowerBook weren’t forthcoming, and the outlook on the desktop was bleak too.
I am sure, Apple will put some work in the Wine project effort when they switch to x86. Now the time is right to do that.
Yep, it would be great if they could integrate Wine (or something similar) properly with the rest of the desktop and apply the Aqua looks to Windows applications.
Win32 could become just another OSX API along with Cocoa, Carbon and X. Same goes for .Net/Mono and Java.
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.
there’s even more BS in his article… i’m wondering how dumb people like that actually get to write ?
quote from the article:
You know what else? If you’re a Linux developer and you’ve been spending time on, say, porting Linux to the prehistoric z80 processor or writing device drivers for the long obsolete ESDI (Enhanced Small Device Interface), maybe you should consider spending your time on something that’s more productive.
jesus, how stupid can you be? People spend their time on what they like. The developer porting to an old system may not have the knowlegde to do e.g. desktop related stuff,… he may not even be INTERESTED in it. People doing stuff the author of the article doesn’t understand are much more useful than the same people doing nothing because it doesn’t interest them. Let them do it… it even has it uses, even the Vaughan-Nichols guy doesn’t understand at all what they’re doing.
This must have been one of the most irritating articles i’ve read recently…
Jobs and his minions have clearly stated they are not interested in seeing OSX running on random hardware. They can’t afford for this to happen, both from a practical (driver) point of view and from a branding (apple is the new nike) point of view.
My guess is they will use the DRM on the Intel chip to protect their OS, they will be in a strong position to take legal action if someone breaks the DRM to circumvent it. They will also undoubtedly employ the same (rotten) tactics they already have for the precious iPod.
Three things have helped me decide never to but Apple ever again, DRM, PowerPC to Intel and the dubious way this has been dropped upon the loyal and inflential community….and the Job’s Keynote really didn’t cut it for me, roadmad shroadmap!…Cell decimates x86, but who will buy? Now we know why Apple aren’t mentioned on Power.org, now we know there’s one less innovator, one more also-ran PC manufacturer….it’s incredibly sad.
The only people doing well out of this are Intel and eBay, and LinuxPPC just got a whole new bunch of potential users (emotion is a funny thing).
Linux and opensource is a phenomenon. No product will shut it down. It’s a bit like thinking that because there are DRM enabled WMA AAC and MP3 files available for purchase out there, mp3 file swapping will stop.
The difference being that there is nothing illegal in putting together a GPL linux distro and offering it to whoever is interested, and of course, that linux is far from being as common as file swapping 😉
After all, some people still customise cars, bikes, build their own houses and hifi speakers. All of that is widely available commercially. So stop worrying about Linux and buy a Mac (nice machines imho) if you like but I’d wait 2 things :
1/ That the new hardware is here
2/ That software porting is well under way.
But you can always play with Linux in the meantime. It’ll still be there when all that happens.
Hi.
Take a look here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617139.stm
there are five reasons one might use LINUX instead of Windows:
Faster
more stable
more secure
cheaper
able to inspect source code (useful for foreign governments)
OS X for Intel invalidates 4 of these five, and running “naked Darwin” with X11 on top maight kill the fifth.
intel adding all the DRM and other protections and at the same time apple switching to intel… coincidence-me thinks not
> Linux may be fairly secure and inexpensive, but you can’t seriously call it elegant, even compared to Windows. The multi-layered mess that is Unix still shines through in too many places, even with the latest desktop environments.
I was really thinking of the tidy, consistent Gnome interface when I wrote this, not the innards.
This will have exactly the same impact as Solaris on X86. Reality is very few people actually know or care what’s in a mac so long as you hit the button and it looks like one.
Actually, OSX x86 will have even less impact on Linux than Solaris x86 since OSX will only run on Apple hardware and Solaris will run on generic PCs. If Apple let OSX run on generic PCs, Linux might have a problem.
True, ppc owners are the ones who are getting burned, but that’s crapple for you, they fsck their customers all the time and have a very rich history of lovely, “surprise announcements”. Take the poor bastards who bought 68020 based macII’s to have them life cycled when 68030 came out two months later. They won’t run 0sX. You buy crapple you buy a snapshot of now, and get some lube because you know it’s coming, next surprise announcement will put it on the ash heap. Perfect window substitiute especially if you’d miss getting reamed on a regular basis, probably just the thing you’re looking for, otherwise use Linux, (unlike crapple the new version will run on that old mac too).
“A crapintosh by anyother name is still a crapintosh.”
We’ve been hearing for years and years how each new iteration of the Macintosh is going to change the face of computing; and how everyone will abandon IBM compatibles to make the switch. Which is nothing but the high hopes of media editors (teachers, editors and artists; the Mac target audience) who think “a little too different” from the general public.
This switch from PPC to Intel strikes me more as Mac admitting defeat than any sort of cunning marketing plan. If I was you I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it.
> This switch from PPC to Intel strikes me more as Mac admitting defeat than any sort of cunning marketing plan. If I was you I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it.
I really think the switch was made necessary by the need for modern mobility hardware and something we don’t know yet.
Cost? Nah, Intel chips will be had at parity with IBM chips, at best. Speed? The gigahertz wars are over. Laptops? Yeah, Intel makes kick-ass mobility products. That makes sense. But there has to be more.
Apple must be thinking about in-home HD entertainment delivery. They’ll supply the infrastructure and content; Intel will supply technology. They’ll probably also sell a Windows version of whatever Steve Jobs has in mind.
We’ll see.
“We’ve been hearing for years and years how each new iteration of the Macintosh is going to change the face of computing; and how everyone will abandon IBM compatibles to make the switch. ” This has been the failing (due to inertia, mostly) of non-technical users to want to improve themselves, rather tahn a failing of Apple.
“> This switch from PPC to Intel strikes me more as Mac admitting defeat than any sort of cunning marketing plan. If I was you I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over it.
I really think the switch was made necessary by the need for modern mobility hardware and something we don’t know yet. ”
I think Kit is right on the money here. Jobs, I suspect, was backed into a corner. But, I now, IBM, MSFT, and Red hat are pretty much tubed. IBM won’t be able to keep a chip division profitable on low-end XBox chips; MSFT will have to compete on a level playing field with a much faster, more secure, more stable OS with lots of drivers and Apps. LINUX is just plain hosed. Things will be bad for the current Mac user for 12-18 months, than we will start kicking some serious marketshare butt. Particulalry when Apple “accidently” leaks a version that will run on ANY PC.
against Sony Vaio, Toshiba, Acer, ViewSonic. That move hardly affects Linux because it can be installed on all of these system. I think the editorial has completely overlooked that possibility.
“against Sony Vaio, Toshiba, Acer, ViewSonic” ummm– you forgot about Dell, the 800 pound gorilla. My prediction: In 3 years Dell will be selling Macs.
I think Jobs wants to retire and is setting it up so M$ can finally outright buy Apple. If that ever happen, I will dump Mac faster than macitosh. I see this a big threat to M$ than Linux. Linux is not changing their chip set, they still will have 86 to play with and dual boot to a Mac if they wish (if M$ does not buy it first).
“LINUX is just plain hosed. Things will be bad for the current Mac user for 12-18 months, than we will start kicking some serious marketshare butt. Particulalry when Apple “accidently” leaks a version that will run on ANY PC.”
“against Sony Vaio, Toshiba, Acer, ViewSonic” ummm– you forgot about Dell, the 800 pound gorilla. My prediction: In 3 years Dell will be selling Macs.”
Now I understand your nick. Poor little richard had his 1337 PPC taken away so no he went for the drugs instead…
Too bad you’re going to have a hell of a hangover when those hallucinations of yours get crushed by the brutal reality. I hope you aren’t trolling, are you? You know that’s a bad thing to do.
..will be on you, bub.
Here, here!!
First, I don’t really think this changes much at all. The only ones who will continue to lose market share (albeit slowly) is Microsoft and their vendors. Witness the erosion of the IE user base to Firefox. A year or so ago, most folks would have laughed at anyone who suggested that the browser wars were about to reignite. And with the rapid development of KDE and Gnome, as well as mainstream applications like OpenOffice.org 2.0, Firefox, Thunderbird and GAIM, and all those newbie-friendly distros like Xandros, ArkLinux and Linspire, the switch will be more rapid and easier than ever. I doubt seriously whether many people besides a few of us geeks will attempt to install OSX on an Intel box. All this move by Apple does is seriously unermine their long standing contention that the PPC processor is superior to Intel’s Pentiums. It’s really a big assed shot in their collective feet.
And secondly, I’d really love to know how you made the switch to supporting Linux. I’m dying to make that change in my career, cuz frankly I’ve had it with Windows all around.
Unless much thing changes, Cell is not targeted to the desktop.
A Cell-based Linux workstation is supposed to be demoed at LinuxTag 2005…
“two high-profile editors seconded the notion”
Someone on /. made a wonderful list of quotes Dvorak made in regards of Apple. For example, he may have been right on this switch, but he said they’d do it in 2003 already. He made a lot of comments. This person on /. hit the nail on the head when he said: “Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.” Touche. Describes the majority of ‘analists’ to me as well.