“A headline like that is bound to draw the ire of the Macintosh faithful. After all, since Microsoft, which can marshal its forces and target competitors at will with lethal precision, hasn’t finished-off Apple after all these years (and I’m not saying that this was necessarily a Redmond goal), how on earth can an operating system like Linux spell trouble for Apple?” Read the comentary at ZDNet by David Berlind.
Will Linux finish off the Mac?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Gartner said the Apple’s marketshare is going up.
Today, Apple’s shares have a value about +81% than one years ago.
Taday, S&P500 index has a value about +1% than one years ago.
These are facts, not words! 🙂
Apple will always sell hardware, even if they (but it’d be a very poor investment) ported OSX to x86. I’ve seen the new G5 imac in a shop and it’s awesome. picture don’t do it justice. My powerbook is a gorgeous.
And if you think looks don’t matter, then go and see how much some people spend on cars, clothing and furniture and you’ll see that an iMac is quite benign in cost for quite a interesting segment of the market. 😉
Yes, it is hard for them to understand. As far as they are concerned, Mac OS X is a new toy which they really want to play with for 10 minutes. Once they discover that the x86 port doesn’t have all of the neat Macintosh applicationss, never mind the neat Windows applicationss, they will toss it to the wayside. They will then spend all of their time running around like a chicken with its head cut of screaming (as only a headless chicken can do) that there is no software, simply because most of the developers haven’t has a chance to port their software to the x86 based Macintosh computers. Of course, they won’t add that last bit.
I think Linux will be a lot like the whole “IBM Compatible” thing that hit PCs. As long as all the vendors make sure they are fairly compatible you’ll see innovation and big take up. As for complete Apple obliteration, that won’t happen. Instead, Linux by it’s popularity will keep Apple from reemerging in market share, and will take market share from Microsoft. That is what will happen. Apple will stay a cognescenti OS while Linux will steal market share from Windows and become the #2 OS.
Are Macintosh and Linux users the same demographic, just because a few Linux users buy PowerBooks? I think not. The reason why Linux users buy PowerBooks is simple: there are very few good Unix based laptops out there, and Apple makes a very good Unix based laptop.
But I doubt that Linux users are rushing for Macintosh desktops.
There is a fundamental difference between “Linux” and Apple’s operating systems. It has nothing to do with ease of use or quality.
The Linux mentality is that of freedom. Run it anywhere, anytime, on anything and however you like. As a result, Linux is a million and one things to different individuals.
Apple’s strategy, clearly, is to lock users to their hardware, products and platform. Apple tells you how to eat, sleep, sit, stand and take a dump with regards to their products. Excuse my figurative expression.
Linux is not only outpacing Apple’s operating system at present, it is destined to do just that, albeit by accident. OS X will never ever match Linux in terms flexibility, customizability, portability and scalability.
Today, the only advantage OS X has over Linux is a pretty graphic user interface. But before long, even that will be history. If Microsoft is panicing, Apple should be crying.
Note, I’m not saying OS X sucks. I’m just saying all that glitters is not gold. I’m saying Linux will outpace Apple’s offerings is places where looks and feel-good factors don’t matter.(i.e Corporate settings, Developing Nations, Academia, Geeks, 99% of home use, Kiosks, Libraries, embedded devices etc etc).
As a desktop operating system OS X is beautiful. But that only takes you so far when customized solutions are and will be the rave of the future. As for customized solutions, nothing beats Linux to date. And this is where Linux will outpace OS X in the future.
I like OS X and I want Apple to succeed because they make fantastic products worth shelling out cash for. But I’m also not deluded in thinking Linux will not outpace it in the nearest future. The question we should ask ourself is: how fast is OS X developing as compared to Linux? And therein lies the answer.
3.) OS X performance
Sorry, that just sucks. The performance boost you get when switching an Apple over to Linux is not even funny anymore (especially if you use the 2.6 kernel, wheeee). No spinning beachball of death, no getting coffee while loading Mozilla. I understand that a lot of the crawl is down to OS X doing far more in the graphics department, so you’re just paying for the glitz, but for someone who just wants to get work done on his machine it can be very annoying. I think this is especially true for laptops because of the slow disks they have.
Run Scimark on OS X and then run it on Linux. Do the same with almabench. OS X is quite a bit faster than Linux in the benchmarks that I’ve run. I rarely get the spinning beachball, and I don’t run a fast machine.
Mozilla, Mail, and most apps load fairly quickly on my iBook.
i understand the hardware part of the deal
as far as porting OS-X to X86 goes
if Apple dont do it then somebody else will make a clone desktop frontend and bolt it on top of one of the BSDs and make a dummy-proof installer
Very true. As amazing as Apple hardware maybe, what drove me to linux is that “anything can happen” state of affairs. And it has proven true everyday.
Add memory to use Mac OS X and avoid most of the performance issues. If you want a snappy machine without adding memory, run Linux on it instead (which is pretty much what I ended up doing).
Apple sells nice hardware. Unfortunately, they like to skimp on memory.
If you are short on memory, run a mimimalist version of Linux. I use Crux/PowerPC and it runs beautifully. I have little doubt a KDEified or Gnomified distribution would run slower than Mac OS X on this configuration.
so why will linux.
this is more pc world fluff to aggravate apple and to get publicity. Saying mac will be killed does a bit for ratings.
But the truth is that apple is sitting in a damn good position. As linux takes share away from MS, MS will have to scale back its massive infrastructure, resort to layoffs and watch its stock decline.
Apple on the other hands has an excellent OS. They ‘ve pulled off the 32 to 64 bit transition smoothly and they’ve made the right processor decision. IBM will do well despite some teething.
But the real kicker here is this. Apple can grow. MS will implode under its own weight as apple, linux, and others takes its share.
<<Apples Mac OS X is nice, very nice. I don’t agree with their methods of using a bsd kernel (and bsd licence – ie. they can take but not give back improvements, that’s a *real* community spirit – NOT).>>
1) If you build off of BSD, you *must* use the BSD license. Period. If you tried taking BSD goodies and putting them under GPL, the UC Regents would like to have a word with you and believe you me, they retain *good* lawyers.
2) Yes, the license doesn’t specify that you have to share your code, OTOH, anybody building off of a BSD base can’t copyright it, so there’s little incentive to not be open source.
3) Apple has given back to the community all of their improvements to the BSD underpinnings of OS X. They’ve also released their changes to KHTML.
If you don’t like the BSD license, don’t bitch at Apple, go and lobby the UC Regents.
“if Apple dont do it then somebody else will make a clone desktop frontend and bolt it on top of one of the BSDs and make a dummy-proof installer”
And how long will it be before Apple sends its legal beagles to arrest that development? If the developer for that front-end is a solitary geek, does he/she/it have the deep pockets to fend off the lawyers.? Apple is a public company and a company like any other that is partly motivated by profit/ If they see anything that would threaten that motivation part, they would do anything legally possible to stop it.
There are hundreds and possibly thousands of little, little things that Apple has pattened for Mac OS X to make it what it is. Could that developer be sure that whatever it is doing would not be infringing on Apple’s patten? I seriously doubt so.
Furthermore, if that person is able to design a front-end GUI for the flavour of BSD/Linux/Unix used, would’t it make more sense to register itself as another OS rather than be a clone of Mac OS X. Nice thoughts but almost an impossibility to execute.
It’s like that fish 3.7 million years ago, that fish had a tail on it’s head, it was different…it’s extinct now
Evolution will finish off the mac, one can’t the deny the slow, but steady drop in market share.
i seem to recall some news posts about grumbleing in the bsd camp about apple not giving back the some or all the changes done to the bsd kernel (under the bsd licence, changes are not mandatory folded back into the main code). and i allso think there was a statement somewhere that apple have made so many changes to the khtml code that it can be regarded as a fork. trying to fold the changes back into the main tree will take to mutch time and effort compared to the benefits.
when you start to look into it, apple and microsoft isnt that dissimilar. its just that apple seems to be better at covering their ass (at times one can start to call it a cult). this is not about the products tho, this is about how the company looks…
Apple Rules at:
Marketing. The people in the Apple marketing crew are the guru’s of the trade. They could sell ice cubes to an eskimo if they came in color combo’s and rocked a fat jam of mp3’s.
Problem is:
The majority of people use x86 hardware. They hate BSOD’s, Reboots, and weekly virus’. While Linux and Mac’s are on level playing fields in this arena those same people are unlikely to drop $x,000 on a new Mac and are more likely to drop $600 on a Dell –ack…not even in the same universe as far as hardware quality goes….but they don’t know this.
Try to purchase OSx for you new x86…and after the sales person stops ROTFLHAO he’ll probalby tell you to grab Mandrake or Suse. Because OSx is based on Unix and so is Linux ( well sort of ).
Take it or leave it Zealots.
-Nx
To everybody complaining that they have to pay Apple for software, get over being cheap!. Goddamn you people, you don’t whine as much when Blue Cross raises your health insurance by 25% or All State increases your home insurance by $500/year or that the govt increased the tax on a pack of smokes by $1.25. You don’t bitch and moan that movie tix that used to be $5 are now $9.50 (and the quality of movies has been going down since Star Wars I). You don’t grumble that Lawyers are makeing $300/hour. You don’t complain that Doctors are overpaid – but god forbid if you have to fork over $149 to Apple (or $199 to Microsoft and I don’t blame MS because the biggest companies don’t develop their own OS and sell BG’s OS, so who’s to blame here?)? Apple atleast makes its own OS and machines.
Just get over being tight wads. Pay Apple and see how much money Apple will spend on making YOU look cool. Yes owning an iPOD or Mac box will do wonders for you social life (just like owning a Merc or a Beamer). It’s like being at high school all over again! Apple spends lots of money trying to make its customers part of the in-crowd – does Redhat or Novell do that for Linux?
. Once they discover that the x86 port doesn’t have all of the neat Macintosh applicationss, never mind the neat Windows applicationss, they will toss it to the wayside, simply because most of the developers haven’t has a chance to port their software to the x86 based Macintosh computers. Of course, they won’t add that last bit.
Is cherryOS an emulation or do the developers first have to port some applications in which case i ask what’s the use of it all.If you run for example w2k under vmware on whatever platform you can run every app (exept games) that you would normally run.If CherryOs or PearPC works like
vmware nothing has to be ported.
That the various OSes out each have their niches, and that probably nobody will be wiping anybody else out.
macpenguin:
“Apple is proprietary system. You don’t wanna be a slave do you?”
I’m such a slave to da man!, (LOL) they keep me down!, I really feel the need to spend MORE time on the command line.
50,000 word processors to choose from, most named things like
“RgWp_v.03.4.7, dependencies, documentation from HELL, etc.
Linux is great, it’ll get better. But don’t lecture me, it’s not there yet.
Meanwhile, I have a commercial to get out, (d-e-a-d-l-i-n-e).
hylas
Are we at this flamewar of OS vs OS vs OS … ???
To everybody complaining that they have to pay Apple for software, get over being cheap!. Goddamn you people, you don’t whine as much when Blue Cross raises your health insurance by 25% or All State increases your home insurance by $500/year or that the govt increased the tax on a pack of smokes by $1.25. You don’t bitch and moan that movie tix that used to be $5 are now $9.50 (and the quality of movies has been going down since Star Wars I). You don’t grumble that Lawyers are makeing $300/hour. You don’t complain that Doctors are overpaid – but god forbid if you have to fork over $149 to Apple (or $199 to Microsoft and I don’t blame MS because the biggest companies don’t develop their own OS and sell BG’s OS, so who’s to blame here?)? Apple atleast makes its own OS and machines.
Just get over being tight wads. Pay Apple and see how much money Apple will spend on making YOU look cool. Yes owning an iPOD or Mac box will do wonders for you social life (just like owning a Merc or a Beamer). It’s like being at high school all over again! Apple spends lots of money trying to make its customers part of the in-crowd – does Redhat or Novell do that for Linux?
Heheh…You’re kidding, I assume, but…Yes, actually, I think people complain about all those things you mentioned. Also, having cool LOOKING gadgets isn’t necessary for my social life, I do fine on my own.
I think your post is nonsensical.
That said, Mac OSX, IMO, is not going any where any time soon. Apple seems to be at its most solid in years and OSX looks to be the overall ahead of the competition right now.
Still, Linux works better in my life. I use it for web development, and get vastly better performance out of vastly cheaper hardware. And software, of course. Linux still offers more freedom than OSX. That for me is important.
doesn’t ms own half of apple?
No. I’m not sure you could say that MS “owns” any of Apple.
On another topic, as a Mac user, I don’t see Linux crushing Apple. Linux does not just work out of the box, and it’s unrealistic to think that the majority of people who buy computers want a DIY solution.
It’s true that Linux will steal marketshare from MS, but Apple has an opportunity to exploit the misfortune of Windoze users too. Compare the sad state of Win security to that of OS X and Linux and tell me there isn’t room for both players to challenge the Windoze hegemony…
excellent post!
Well, if they don’t want to pay for quality, then they should stop whining about it. They should also stop whining about how much it costs, because there is the old cliche: you get what you pay for.
Then again, equating Apple with quality may be dangerous for your health.
Using an emulator as a replacement for a Mac? Give me a break! The reason why vmware and Mac-on-Linux and other similar toys work so well is because they don’t have to emulate an entire machine. A Mac and a PC don’t even use the same processor, so performance is going to go down the drain.
Besides, you’re only permitted to use Mac OS on Apple hardware. If you use it on anything else, you are a pirate in Apple’s books.
i allso think there was a statement somewhere that apple have made so many changes to the khtml code that it can be regarded as a fork. trying to fold the changes back into the main tree will take to mutch time and effort compared to the benefits.
TANSTAAFL.
Really? Is that why you need a freakin’ dual 2 GHz processor 512 Mb of RAM and DirectX 9 capable graphics card to be able to open applications at a reasonable speed? Cause you can do that with KDE on a stinking 486! Apples window manager is bloated turd that couldn’t be reasonably responsive on anything short of a super computer if its life depended on it!
Hate to tell you, but I am running Mac OS X on an original (orange) G3 iMac running at 400Mhz.
The only upgrade i did is replace the 32MB of Ram with 256MB for $25. Have Office X, Dreamweaver and Filermaker as my main work tools and am connected to the servers in the network. Everything works pretty smoothly and every Mac OS X upgrade has actually improved the speed incredibly.
I can tell you that my P4 1.6Ghz with 256MB had lot’s of problems with speed with Windows XP and only became manageable with 512MB of Ram using the same applications. Still have more temporary lockups with the Windows XP machine running the same apps at the same time and trying to copy some large file to another partition or server then on the 400Mhz iMac. Mac OS X handles multitasking/memory management much better on lower end hardware. As i am writing this I have word, filemaker and dreamweaver open and dreamweaver is doing a full syncronization with the webserver.
Anyway. A very very happy Mac OS X user that is forced to use Windows XP for part of his work.
I highly doubt that’s Linus’ main work machine. I read a few years back that he owned an original Sony Picturebook too. Now the Picturebooks are great machines, but I’d go nuts if I had to use mine as a main machine for more than a month or two. I think Linus is a bit of a gadget geek on the QT
Hopefully someday everything will be free and nobody will ever have to work and we can all live in peace and have sex all day. All this whining about the cost of Apple’s products is annoying. God forbid a company try to make a profit off their work. Apple is no different than any other company in that it is selling their products at a price that makes them most profitable. I would love it if I could buy a Mac running OS X for $500 but that’s not going to happen. I realize if I want to run the best OS out there on excellent hardware then I am going to pay more. Quit getting so hung up on the Mac marketshare. Macs will never have a large marketshare because they are premium products. Premium products never own a large marketshare. I think comparing cars with computers is ridiculous but in a way it is relevant. Ford Festiva’s will get you to the same places a BMW will so why do some people keep buying BMWs? BMW’s market share is nowhere near Ford’s market share yet I don’t hear anyone pissed off at BMW for not selling their cars cheaper.
If linux wants to kill Mac, they should standardize the supported hardware platforms as well. Pick a couple of configurations and say, these are the ones that are guaranteed to work. Everything else might work. If the vendors start to take advantage of this, it would be easy to switch. Essentially take control of the hardware like Apple has.
Linux as open source is here to stay and it will certainly be a front running an embeded OS in many devices but supplanting Mac or Windows – No. Why? it’s a custom chop shop OS – absolutely nothing wrong with that – there are millions of custom cars rolling around but there are 15-20 million cars that roll off the dealer lot EVERY YEAR. The main drivers of the early days of Linux are people who prefer hands on BUT once LInux becomes too automated/stable & some might say transaprently usable – these people will move onto another arcane platform that requires tweaking, building and compilng. Again, nothing wrong with that but don’t confuse them with a solid user base. just like there are people who refuse to give up on Amiga or are runninga Newton OS server, once LInux is generally ‘accepted,’ they will reject linux as too commercial and has gone corporate. They will look for another aquatic mammal to adopt … linux will continue to grow but as the secret-handshake OS, it has about 2 years to go and then it’s bye-bye Linus, hello ….
I don’t think Linux will kill it as long as Apple puts out solid products that it runs on and it’s popular enough. And there seems to still be enough interest. I don’t think it’ll kill Windows either though simply because of it’s pervasiveness.
Write it against whatever provides the best balance of functionality and availability. Provide builds on the disc against the latest versions of maybe Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE, Debian and Mandrake, and then a statically compiled version for everyone else. Where’s the problem?
“If Microsoft though they could make money developing and selling software for Linux, believe me they’d be doing it. They’ve demonstrated more than often enough that – like any successful corporation – they’re more than happy to put profits before principle.”
True, but they’ve also always taken the *long view* when it comes to profit. Since they’ve identified Linux as their number one competitor, building software for Linux would simply legitimise its adoption as a platform. There’s no way they’d do that in exchange for a minor profit.
“The secret of Apple’s success is its control of hardware and software, and its ability to create and enforce design standards.”
No. No, right now, the secret of whatever success Apple is having in commercial terms is…the iPod.
“Yes owning an iPOD or Mac box will do wonders for you social life”
yep, owning a small white device which specifically impedes social interaction will do wonders for your social life. Makes sense to me!
(Tips To Geeks In Search Of A Social Life: 1: buy deodorant. 2: Throw away four-week old pizza. 3: Throw away computer.)
“Besides, you’re only permitted to use Mac OS on Apple hardware. If you use it on anything else, you are a pirate in Apple’s books.”
Oooh, boy, I’d love to see them make that stand up in court. I can write “I 0WN JOO SOUL!!!111!!!!” on an EULA and have you buy the product. Doesn’t mean it’s legal.
“The main drivers of the early days of Linux are people who prefer hands on BUT once LInux becomes too automated/stable & some might say transaprently usable – these people will move onto another arcane platform that requires tweaking, building and compilng. Again, nothing wrong with that but don’t confuse them with a solid user base. just like there are people who refuse to give up on Amiga or are runninga Newton OS server, once LInux is generally ‘accepted,’ they will reject linux as too commercial and has gone corporate.”
Hmm…nope.
I use Linux because it fits the systems I want to run it on, it costs nothing, it works, and it’s *free*. I don’t particularly LIKE hacking around at the command line to get my fricking network card working. I’ve had to do this progressively less over the years I’ve run Linux, and it’s only made me like the system more. So long as Linux is free – and thanks to the GPL, it always will be – it will never be “too commercial” or “go corporate”.
So long as Linux is free – and thanks to the GPL, it always will be – it will never be “too commercial” or “go corporate”.
Linux ‘the kernel’ may always be free, but if Linux ever manages to break the 20-30% marketshare level, you can bet it will be on ‘AOL Linux’ or some commercial Linux distro, where the only thing open source about it will be the kernel. Of course, there will still be Debian and its ilk with a 1% userbase, but it’ll still be irrelavent in the grand scheme of things .. just like it is now.
I disagree.
Hmmm… I see the Trolls are out in force spouting the same old same old. Can’t these bozos ever invent new rubbish? The old anti-Apple stuff is getting pretty stale.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the obvious fact that x86 based processors are starting to suffer the same point of diminishing return problem that Windows is suffering. Intel’s latest failure is their attempt to make commercially producable GHZ 32 bit Pentium 4s… they run SLOWER than even the previous 3.6 GHz P4 which ran no better than the older 3.2 P4. Intel has smacked into the Point of Diminishing Returns. This means Linux on a 32 bit Intel box is also a dead end.
Okay, so what abot AMD’s 64 bit x86 stuff? True, AMD’s 64 bit chips do significantly outperform Intel’s latest round of silicon failures, but it is still stuck with that horrible x86 32 bit design with kludged extensions thumb-tacked onto it so it can look like a real 64 bit chip… but the real speed boost came from the Hypertransport bus, not the so-called 64 bit x86 processing core.
This also means that AMD may buy a little time for x86 but only 18-24 months at best. The horrific inefficiency of the x86 instruction set will eventually kill it off.
Even Microsoft has read the hadwriting on the wall…. why else have they ported Win NT to PPC code so the next gen XBox can shed Intel problems and go PPC? Then there is the mystery of why M$ has purchased the rights to H-P’s True 64 Unix. Makes one think… (Well, SOME of us think!) Copying Apple once again by aping Apple’s success in merging a highly developed GUI with a industrial strength Unix? Redmond can only copy, NEVER innovate.
All this adds up to:
Linux is a nice try and will probably make headway… in Asia. The fact is that most Linux boxes are cheap/outdated 32 bit x86 boxes that otherwise would be in landfills. Take that outdated hardware, add to it a cranky stripped down version of Unix (check out the Minix/Linux connection some time. VERY interesting, despite the shrill denials!), add the Interface From Hell and Linux has about as much chance of killing the Mac (true 64bit IBM RISC hardware with lots of advanced goodies inside… running a full fledged true Unix not a crippled toy Unix!) as I have (a 61 year old man) of taking the Top Model job from Tyra Banks.
Linux is merely techno-fashion of the day, not a real player in the long run. Windows is the last fully proprietary (non-standards compliant…) op system left, and it’s days are numbered. The Mac is based on industrial strength hardware and operating systems. Perhaps this is why it is gaining ground in serious scientific computing and even the US Government is waking up to it… Clarke (of the NSA) uses a PowerBook to avoid security problems of Windows for mission critical work, and the latest Attack Sub in the US Navy uses a rack of XServes to run it. Plus, COLSA Corp. is building a 1,566 unit XServe cluster for hypersonic emulation studfies for the US Army.
Nice try Linux guys, but no see-gar.
(*giggle*, *snerk*, HAR HAR!)
Anonymous said:
re Macintosh and Linux users the same demographic, just because a few Linux users buy PowerBooks? I think not. The reason why Linux users buy PowerBooks is simple: there are very few good Unix based laptops out there, and Apple makes a very good Unix based laptop.
But I doubt that Linux users are rushing for Macintosh desktops.
I say:
This is the exact reason I first got a Mac, I needed a fully working UNIX notebook. To be honest I wasn’t too impressed with OS X when I first used it, but after a week or 2, and when I started to actually get an idea of the applications that were available I was hooked, that was about the time I gave my Linux box to my GF.
10 months later I purchased a Power Mac G5, it’s an amazing bit of kit. Now I don’t know who’s rushing to get the G5s but I can tell you if I’m glad I did. Linux is a great server OS, it’s a reasonable desktop one (if UNIX is your thing), but it currently doesn’t come close to OS X, and without real commercial support I doubt it ever will, but then all the religious zealots out there don’t even want closed source proprietry stuff. Speaking of which did you remove your closed source 3D drivers yet?
Don’t get me wrong I use Linux everyday at work, but it’s something I prefer not to use at home now. OS X just works, it has X11, heaps of open source apps/tools, but the kicker is the commercial stuff. I spose I’m a reformed zealot. My new philosophy is use what you want, I don’t care! I wish the Linux users could get over the Linux has to kill every other OS out there vibe.
Did you make those performance claims solely based on Apple’s fairy tale advertisements? How about pointing us to some real links? Have none? Well let me help you out with some factual benchmarks done by artists that prove the PPC architecture and OSX are not all that Apple claims it to be.
Shake Benchmark: http://homepage.mac.com/breadboi/shake/
Maya / Mental Ray Benchmark: http://zoorender.com/
A short list of some of the reasons why I chose Novell SuSE Linux and their services over Apple and Microsoft.
1. Security.
2. Stability.
3. Ease of use compared to other Linux distributions. Easy for users familiar with Windows to transfer over with little of no training.
4. Easy to install and maintaine in the network.
5. Runs on current x86 hardware and supported on both 32-bit and 64-bit processors.
6. Ability to run DCC (Digital Content Creation) graphics hardware (ie: FireGL, Quadro, Wildcat).
7. Auto-Detection and mounting of hardware.
8. Auto-installation of NVIDIA graphics drivers. Novell is working on offering an improved script to allow this for ATI and 3DLabs users too.
9. Lower cost for implementation, licensing and support.
10. Increased support and offerings for both commercial and open source software.
11. Current software used for film work support Linux.
12. Large support for both current and legacy hardware.
13. No need to purchase new hardware just to run software.
14. Performance benchmark results for both film software (Maya, XSI, Shake, etc) and graphics benchmark results indicate significant cost savings when using Linux.
15. Ability to play and test games by using free Wine or Cedega.
16. Ability to use current software ported to Windows on Linux with use of free Wine or commercial products such as Cross Over Office.
17. Office applications ported to Linux that are free (ie: Email, Conference/Chat utilities, word processing, etc).
18. Novell iFolder.
19. Proven Leader and strong supporter in the Linux community.
Linux will not kill mac. becuase they both are a *nix it will serve apple well. as Linux gains ground so will OSX.
sheesh….
-Nex6
Write it against whatever provides the best balance of functionality and availability.
Thereby immediately ruling out about half of the potential userbase as possible customers.
Provide builds on the disc against the latest versions of maybe Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE, Debian and Mandrake, and then a statically compiled version for everyone else. Where’s the problem?
The problem is “Linux” is not a stable or consistent development target. If you port Office to KDE/Qt, you lose most of the potential customer base that doesn’t use KDE/Qt. Likewise if you target GNOME. If you target the major RPM distributions (Redhat & Suse), you lose out on potential sales to customers using other “major” distros. Trying to target the fast-moving target of Gentoo, for example, would be an exercise in futility.
In short, “Linux” is too fragmented a platform to port something like Office to – there’s simply too little reward for the effort expended. You’ll likely see a port to KDE or GNOME on FreeBSD before you’d see one to Linux.
Not to mention even all that is ignoring the simple fact that any port would be a *massive* effort simply by virtue of having to turn it into a “unix” application.
So you can write a list, well done tiger… Doesn’t prove very much does it?
“A short list of some of the reasons why I chose Novell SuSE Linux and their services over Apple and Microsoft.“
1. Security.
How is Linux more secure than OS X? OS X is pretty damn secure my friend. I agree that is is more secure than Windows, but that wouldn’t be to hard now I guess. Point is though, you haven’t told us why Novell is the most secure Distro out there, you just wrote the word “Security”.
2. Stability.
How is Linux more stable than OS X? Not after personal testimonials either, but facts… You might be right, I haven’t installed my copy of Novell yet. Remember, an argument wouldn’t be that it’s stable, but that it has an edge over Windows and OS X…
3. Ease of use compared to other Linux distributions. Easy for users familiar with Windows to transfer over with little of no training.
Reason you went with Novell’s Linux was because it is easier to use than other Linux distro’s, and compares to windows? That isn’t an argument for not choosing Windows or OS X is it… OS X is arguable easier to use than either (depends on the person and so on), so this point probably should have been left off your list perhaps?
4. Easy to install and maintaine in the network.
And Windows isn’t? Esp. if you are talking about a Win environment… Remember, we are after reasons why you went with Novell’s distro over Windows or OS X, not reasons to help you justify your choice.
5. Runs on current x86 hardware and supported on both 32-bit and 64-bit processors.
As does Windows… OK, you got OS X there, it doesn’t run on x86 hardware…
6. Ability to run DCC (Digital Content Creation) graphics hardware (ie: FireGL, Quadro, Wildcat).
Your list isn’t getting any better is it?
7. Auto-Detection and mounting of hardware.
Tell me you didn’t write this one…
8. Auto-installation of NVIDIA graphics drivers. Novell is working on offering an improved script to allow this for ATI and 3DLabs users too.
Hmmm, something that OS X and Windows does better right now, good point, glad you brought it up.
9. Lower cost for implementation, licensing and support.
This might be a good point, arguable at best, glad you included facts to back it up…
10. Increased support and offerings for both commercial and open source software.
OS X would win this one hands down I think you’ll find. Windows would do OK as well.
11. Current software used for film work support Linux.
Deary me my friend, this is just getting sad now…
and so on and so forth down to point 19.
I think what you’ve done is written a list of why you went with Novell’s distro over other Linux distros. You haven’t come up with one valid point as to why your choice was better than OS X or Windows. I’m not saying your points are true, some maybe true, but you didn’t back up anything, just wrote a nice list down and hoped someone might say, “hey, my goodness, he’s right”…
You would get an F, maybe an E for the effort involved for this, there might have been a couple of minutues of research, but what we have here is like a few others who post here, a passionate arguemnt for their platform of choice, not a well reasoned analysis.
True, AMD’s 64 bit chips do significantly outperform Intel’s latest round of silicon failures, but it is still stuck with that horrible x86 32 bit design with kludged extensions thumb-tacked onto it so it can look like a real 64 bit chip […]
You make it sound like this matters to anyone except a tiny number of low level developers.
[…] but the real speed boost came from the Hypertransport bus, not the so-called 64 bit x86 processing core.
The same applies to the G5 (at the same clock speed, a G5 is only marginally faster than a G4), so…what’s your point ?
This also means that AMD may buy a little time for x86 but only 18-24 months at best. The horrific inefficiency of the x86 instruction set will eventually kill it off.
YOu probably don’t remember (if you even knew in the first place), but people were saying the same thing back in the early ’90s about the 486. Then intel pulled out the Pentium. Then they were saying the same thing in the mid ’90s about the Pentium. After which intel pulled out the Pentium Pro.
Like Apple, x86 has been “dying” for about the last 15 years. Like Apple, it’s still doing pretty well.
Note that IBM aren’t having much luck ramping up the 970 at the moment either…
Even Microsoft has read the hadwriting on the wall…. why else have they ported Win NT to PPC code so the next gen XBox can shed Intel problems and go PPC?
It’s hardly a recent phenomenon – NT has had a PPC port since 1993.
Microsoft have a PPC port for the same reason they had MIPS and Alpha ports back in the day, and Apple had (and almost certainly still has) an x86 port of OS X – “just in case”.
Copying Apple once again by aping Apple’s success in merging a highly developed GUI with a industrial strength Unix?
NeXT was hardly “industrial strength”.
I doubt there’s any plans whatsoever to try and drop the Windows GUI on top of Linux. Even ignoring the massive effort this would require simply because of the differences between unix and NT, there’s simply no need to – NT is a more than capable OS.
Windows is the last fully proprietary (non-standards compliant…) op system left, and it’s days are numbered.
Which “standards” are you thinking of other OSes follow that Windows doesn’t ?
Perhaps this is why it is gaining ground in serious scientific computing and even the US Government is waking up to it… […] and the latest Attack Sub in the US Navy uses a rack of XServes to run it.
Yes. Running customised Linux, IIRC.
Quote: “If you don’t like the BSD license, don’t bitch at Apple, go and lobby the UC Regents. ”
Apple didn’t need to use a BSD license did they? So yes, in fact I think I can make some snide comments about Apples real intents towards OSS. They take, they give back as a PR stunt some of their improvements and keep the rest.
Dave
To clarify I wasn’t trying to say every point was something superior to Windows or OSX but that they are the reasons why I chose Linux over them. As for the ease of use, etc with SuSE Linux I’ve test several distributions to find the one that best suited my needs for home and studio coming from Windows. Example I experienced nothing but headaches trying to install and run my highend software (already mentioned) on Mandrake Linux where as they installed easily on SuSE Linux just as they do on Red Hat Linux which they are ported to.
Clarifying my points:
1. No reason to really explain this one since I know from experience how insecure Windows is. Spyware, Viruses, etc. OSX may be secure but Linux has proven itself to be just as secure. Oh and it’s nice to know I have an open architecture that can be scrutinized by programmers, etc. For example the NSA contributes security enhancements to the Linux kernel but I’m sure you’re aware of such contributions to securing Linux.
2. Well it’s nice to know I no longer have to reboot when I receive a system update or install an application. I also can run Linux 24/7 with out crashing or causing defragmantation of the hard drives unlike when I used Windows. Oh and I’ve found SuSE Linux ReiserFS to be faster and even more stable than NTFS or even other Linux distributions that still use ext2 and ext3 partitions.
3. Do I really have to explain this one? Maybe ummm…YaST and the tools offered, layout, etc are similar to Windows XP Professional but the distribution offers so much more. Believe me the list is to long to lay out here. Take time to read the reviews or better yet try the distro yourself
4. Compared to installing other RPM based distributions I’ve found SuSE Linux more logically set up by the developers to handle most situations with little work need to be done by the end user. As for maintaining yes using Linux is better considering the one biggest reason is that it’s less costly to maintain due to not crashing every second day like Windows.
5. Unlike Windows, Linux developers such as Novell and Red Hat offered 64-bit support before Microsoft or Apple. So I have more faith in Linux developers making advancements and actually producing things “now” not next year like Microsoft and Apple are notorious of doing to consumers. I also should have to point out the significant cost savings by not having to be locked in to PPC hardware which OSX user are.
6. Well this point is more focused towards Apple in that they have yet to provide DCC graphics hardware. Since I use DCC cards for highend 3D work which is necessary if you are serious about completing your client’s projects on time and I have the hardware no then OSX is not an option. Both NVIDIA and ATI have commented to me via email that the lack of DCC cards with Apple is an Apple issue.
7. This was more of a point to clarify for non-Linux users. A lot of distributions do not offer this but SuSE Linux does and does it well. So using it not only in my home but in a pipeline for production work it’s good to know I don’t have to worry about Plug & Play support. Having to manually configure everything like some Linux distributions would be a pain and costly.
8. This is something that has shocked other Linux users too. To not have to enter a long list of commands just to install 3D graphics drivers or have to reinstall graphics drivers after a kernel update is a great thing to have. SuSE Linux is the only distribution that I’ve found that offers this feature. Right now it’s only with NVIDIA graphics but a recent email from Novell stated they are working to offer this auto-install driver ability for ATI consumers also.
9. No reason to really explain this one. I’ve looked at all the figures and found Linux to be far cheaper to use over time than using Windows or OSX.
10. Sorry but really again I shouldn’t have to explain this one. Do you want me to list the 4000+ Open Source applications available to me? I already listed some of the commercial software I use. Maybe check the long list at http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/ in the pinned topic “Linux Software” scroll down to the one about software for artists.
11. Just pointing out I don’t have to worry about dropping software in the studio because it’s supported on Linux by the developers. By the way list all the software used in studios and you’ll find better support on Linux than on OSX. Oh and when I say studio I’m not talking about graphic design which Apple has basically focused on marketing to over the years.
12. Clarifying that I have just as good support on SuSE Linux as I did with Windows except I probably in some cases now have better support for any Legacy hardware that Microsoft no longer wants to certify. As for OSX well I could start with the lack of DCC cards and continue from there but I’m sure you get the idea
13. This was pointing the finger towards the “lock in concept” Apple causes with consumers. Sorry but I’m not buying into Apple’s hardware just to use OSX. Even then it doesn’t take me long (maybe 30 minutes) to have similar widgets and the exact same look as OSX. Why do this when I can have Linux with it’s open architecture.
14. This I really shouldn’t have to clarify if you took the time to check the benchmark results for highend software (ie: Maya, Shake, etc). Two of the links I already posted in this thread. Example: The dual G5 systems tested by individual artists were far behind in Maya / Mental Ray benchmarks compared to other systems.
15. Umm..again do I really have to explain this one?
16. Self explanatory.
17. This is about saving money. I’m sure you must have understood this point since both cost with Windows and OSX.
18. http://www.novell.com/products/ifolder/
19. Self explanatory but you can do a Google or just read more about Novell on their website.
Linux still sucks. For exmaple, it takes the average user days just to figure out how to install programs… And it pretty much requires the user to be familiar with icky unix stuff.
Sorry, but your “technical” argument is just bs. After all there are a lot of closed source apps for linux already. Take StarOffice, […]
Is basically OpenOffice.
Opera, Textmaker,
Are tied to Qt and therefore sticks out likes dog’s balls under anything that isn’t. They have the same problem an Office port would have.
DoomIII,
Is hardly a comparable example – doesn’t have to worry about the toolkit at all. It’s about as relevant in this context as Oracle.
Realplayer, Acrobat Reader etc. for example.
Both suck (Realplayer by definition, Acrobat isn’t particular nice to use on any unix).
The problem is simple – there’s too much fragmentation in the “Linux” world. Which distro, toolkit and vendor-specific customisation are they supposed to target their product at ? How are they supposed to make an application that “fits in” when every distro does everything differently ?
I also would doubt that MS had any interest into porting Office to Linux, not just because they wouldn’t make enough money with it (which may be true or not), but because it would make Linux an even more viable alternative to Windows than it already is and I don’t think MS has any interest in that.
They do it for MacOS, which is a *far* more credible “threat” to Windows than any Linux distribution.
drsmithy, before you keep on talking about things you don’t know much about, please name one app that runs on Fedora and doesn’t run on Debian or the other way round (pick two distros of your choice).
The issue isn’t whether or not it can be coerced into “running”, it’s the experience the user is going to have running it. Office isn’t an OSS hobby project whose users can be fobbed off to newsgroups or with an RTFM when something doesn’t work – it has to actually be supported – and to make that support practical, it can only be supported on a limited subset of Linux distributions.
When there’s a clear, defined “Linux platform” to target, an Office port might be a somewhat justifiable business decision. Right now, there is no such platform.
They ‘ve pulled off the 32 to 64 bit transition smoothly and they’ve made the right processor decision.
Say what ? They’ve barely even *started* the 32 to 64 bit transition, let alone “pulled it off”. Half their product line is still using 32 bit CPUs and OS X isn’t close to “64 bit”.
Apple’s strategy, clearly, is to lock users to their hardware, products and platform. Apple tells you how to eat, sleep, sit, stand and take a dump with regards to their products. Excuse my figurative expression.
Apple’s strategy is – and always has been – to sell you “the whole widget”. A single, coherent product that includes everything the typical user would want in the box so it “just works” and feels like a unified tool.
Linux is not only outpacing Apple’s operating system at present, it is destined to do just that, albeit by accident. OS X will never ever match Linux in terms flexibility, customizability, portability and scalability.
Nor does it need to.
Today, the only advantage OS X has over Linux is a pretty graphic user interface.
I imagine all those Cocoa developers out there would disagree. Indeed, I imagine a great deal of commercial software developers would disagree.
NOt to mention dismissing that “pretty graphic user interface” with a wave of the hand like it could be implemented tomorrow is very disingenuous.
I’m saying Linux will outpace Apple’s offerings is places where looks and feel-good factors don’t matter.(i.e Corporate settings, Developing Nations, Academia, Geeks, 99% of home use, Kiosks, Libraries, embedded devices etc etc).
Developing nations and embedded devices I’ll give you, but for the rest of them OS X is a *far* more attractive platform than Linux.
But that only takes you so far when customized solutions are and will be the rave of the future.
Er, no. Customised solutions are a massive PITA and a management nightmare. Most businesses I know of are moving away from their old in-house, written from scratch, customised solutions towards off-the-shelf, out-of-the-box, “just works” products as quickly as they can. They’re cheaper to implement, cheaper to run and the people who run them are far more interchangeable, making replacing them easy and keeping their wages low.
Why on Earth – given the choice – would any sane business tie itself to a once-off customised product that required constant in-house maintenance and support when they could buy something off the shelf and outsource the implementation, maintenance and support to any one of a hundred different organisations ?
The question we should ask ourself is: how fast is OS X developing as compared to Linux? And therein lies the answer.
That Linux is playing catch-up ?
Apple takes from the BSD license. They do *not* have to contribute any of their improvements back to the OSS community.
Apple also uses a lot of GPL (eg: gcc) and LGPL (eg: khtml) code and have contributed quite a bit back to OSS because of that.
Period. This is the one immoral reason why I do not endorse a BSD style license.
Releasing code under the BSD license is the height og generosity. How could it possible be immoral ?
The GPL allows *anyone* to take, even Microsoft. They can alter it, improve it etc etc. If they do so, and only use the improved version internally they do not have to publish the improvements/changes etc. If they intend to sell it and release it to the public then they *must* provide the src code for any of the changes/improvements etc etc. That forces working with the community, and giving back to the community, for the benefit of the community.
The LGPL provides 90% of the result for the community but also allows for a saleable product. Overall, it’s a much fairer license than the GPL.
Apple has not given much back to the OSS community.
Apple has given *loads* back to the OSS community. Their PPC optimisations to gcc being one of the bigger examples.
Sure they took KDEs khtml and used it as the base for Safari, and they have returned improvements back to the KDE/khtml camp. But there are still sites that display on Safari properly, but konqueror has problems (ie won’t display at all). So…Apple clearly hasn’t given *everything* back.
They have to. They might not give it back *immediately* (eg: they probably only return modified code periodically, to coincide with OS X releases), so it’s quite possible Apple’s modifications are in CVS, or still being chewed over by the khtml maintainers.
Read why RMS didn’t use BSD licenses, but drafted up the GPL, and it’s for the exact same reason as what Apple is doing with BSD stuff.
RMS drafted up the GPL because he’s an idealistic hippie who thinks no-one should have to pay for software.
the P4 core would scale to 10GHz, if needed. x86 is moving to 64-bit a) because it sounds good, b) because it can and c) because of the addressable memory. it’s really not a very big deal.
oh, and Linux has nothing tying it to the x86 processor architecture. It runs perfectly well on PowerPCs. And SPARC boxes. And Alphas. And ARM. And just about any other processor architecture you can think of.
“Then they were saying the same thing in the mid ’90s about the Pentium. After which intel pulled out the Pentium Pro.”
…which, in the interests of historical accuracy, tanked hilariously. They gave up on it to all intents and purposes, accelerated development on the P2, and squeezed the original Pentium until the pips squeaked for a few extra MHz to keep people happy in the meantime.
…which, in the interests of historical accuracy, tanked hilariously.
Uh, no. The PPro was big in the server and workstation market. PPros were still preferable to P2s in the server market until some time after the latter appeared due to their faster (and larger) on-chip L2 cache and their availability in Quad-CPU configurations.
I’m not entirely sure what measure you’re using to say the PPro “tanked”. They were an extremely successful product. Indeed, when you take into account the PPro “legacy” – still there at the core of the current 2Ghz Pentium-M (Centrino) CPUs, it’s probably one of the most successful CPUs ever built.
They gave up on it to all intents and purposes, accelerated development on the P2, and squeezed the original Pentium until the pips squeaked for a few extra MHz to keep people happy in the meantime.
A P2 basically *is* a PPro (as is a P3 – the Pentium-M is a further (significant) refinement of the PPro base) with MMX (or SSE for the P3). With the P2 Intel took the PPro and separated the CPU and cache (thus making it slower) and put it into a new package (Slot 1 cartridge). This made them much cheaper to produce by increasing yields and by allowing the use of slower SRAM for the L2, because it could then be clocked at a lower ratio than 1:1. A few years afterwards their technology had improved enough to make fusing the CPU and L2 back together again affordable, producing the famous 300 Mhz Celeron A and eventually the PGA-style P3s, P4s and Pentium Ms.
They didn’t “give up” on the PPro, they’ve been continuing its development since it was released. The Pentium MMXs were tapped out because PPros were so damn expensive to make they weren’t a viable option for the home market, so intel needed something to fill the gap until they could come up with a “budget PPro” aka the P2.
PPros were the preferred x86 server and workstation CPU until the first Xeons showed up (several years later). A 200Mhz, 1MB L2 PPro – while hideously expensive – was generally faster than a 300Mhz P2.
well, yes, that was more or less my point exactly. the PII may be very architecturally similar to a PPro, and the PPro architecture may well have been the foundation for the PIII, but neither of those processors were actually branded Pentium Pros. The processors that *were* so branded were, as you mention, extremely expensive to manufacture, correspondingly expensive to buy, and never sold very well. Sure, they wound up as a fairly successful *niche* product, I’ll give them that. But the original post posited them as a mainstream processor that came between the Pentium and the P2, which they never were.
But the original post posited them as a mainstream processor that came between the Pentium and the P2, which they never were.
No, I pointed out the PPro was the chip intel released right about the time everyone though the Pentium (and the entire x86 platform) was running out of puff to prove them all wrong, just like they’d done with the Pentium (which wasn’t a “mainstream” CPU initially either). It wasn’t meant to be a consumer-level part at release (and neither was the Pentium). The PPro pioneered the techniques that gave x86 a new lease of life, like a RISCish core and an integrated L2 (or “backside” as Apple likes to call it) cache.
Personally I think calling the PPro a failure of any discription does it a great disservice. At the time it was probably the most important improvement to x86 CPUs since the 386 and in the “big picture” would be surpassed in significance only by AMD’s recent development of x86-64. Don’t forget the PPro was initially released *9* years ago. Calling it a failure because it wasn’t successful in a market it was never really pitched at is rather harsh.
Anyway, the underlying point I was trying to make was that people have been calling x86 and Apple ‘dead’ since the early ’90s – but they’re both still pretty healthy – and that every time everyone is *sure* it’s the ‘last gasp’, they pull something out of the hat.
The same old same crap.
I like to use Linux and will not pay shitloads for a Mac to have the same processing power.
You are free to choose what you want. As long as I can read your documents and view/hear your created files (and visa versa) I don’t really give a toss.
End of story.
Yep this is really it, we shouldn’t give a toss what the O/S is, all apps should be multi-platform.
Better question than “Will Linux finish off the Mac?”
Will it finish off Windows?
I know which one I would prefer to die.
Nay say I. Try Debian with apt.If you’re a total GUI stoogethen debian even provides Synaptic. Did I mention that apt cures the “Dependency Hell” everyone rags on about?
Seriously If you think linux sucks for that reason try Debian
-nX
“I guess I am one of the few who prefers Linux over Macs. I just like the tweaking and working out problems. Sure, Macs “just work” but I personally think that takes out all the fun. ”
I’m glad that works for you, but this is why I would rather use OSX and Windows over Linux. Yea, there is some fun to be had in figuring out what makes it tick by soving some problems, but at the same time, its just time wasted on my part. Why should I settle for something that takes constant tweaking and fixing to work properly when its competitors can have it run out of the box with minimal tweaking?
more opinion on a holy war .. :
Apple just works very well… because it has to in order for Apple to survive…the hardware it has to support is limited…there is money backing the operating system to ensure a great (depends on taste_not my taste must say) experience_OSX is idiot proof_Apple desktop has been around for much longer than Linux …which has prop now started…Apple computers are geared towards multimedia…which some people/industries just need…Apple is a known working alternative to Windows(reason of survival)…Apple computers look good_they are pretty(so they can match the interior of the studio,flat,reception,… anything… something sexy & professional looking)…with OSX they are very stable -> combine a few of these reasons together & conclusion :
Windows & Apple mostly serve different markets in my opinion
Linux ? In a year earliest or maybe two Linux desktop will be as good as Windows ..with out-of-the box support..& hopefully speed as well… and prop many times sexier if there is full allround OpenGL in the graphics server_like OSX & which is then also used as well to have maybe a full 3D game-like environment..maybe…whateva the taste & money wants…Linux is no good on Apple-hardware as far as Ive read … WINE doesnt support all major programs & the Apple equivalent is supposedly very slow (ive read a while ago …)
there is still tons of heavy development going on on Linux ..like freedesktop.org … in two years all things might have all come together beautifully to create a powerful just working real desktop alternative on PCs…& maybe then for Apple computers as well … then Apple might have to start worrying ..???.. 🙂 Poohgee
Linux is merely techno-fashion of the day, not a real player in the long run.
Okokok…I have to jump to the defense of Linux. First off, Linux is NOT a fad. It’s 10 years old with its Unix roots going back 30 years. It may not conquer the world, but (barring being outlawed) it’s not going anywhere.
Linux works for me for the following reason. Being an intermediate Linux user is quite liberating as compared to being an intermediate OS X or XP user. For instance, with Arch Linux, I can boot from a CD, install the kernel along with all the software packages from the ‘net in a matter of minutes. Total time from first boot to complete system with GUI and all devices installed and configured: 40 minutes. That’s with all the newest versions of everything. Impressive.
Linux is the most open of the three as well, permitting a high level of control. Linux gives more control over your processor cycles than any of ther others mentioned. I run a minimialistic install with almost no daemons (or services) running X as light as possible, pekwm and pypanel with a pretty background. Fast as lightning.
Now, I admit it’s probably better to be a beginning user of OS X or XP than a beginner with Linux, but with Linux the power that can be unlocked is very great.
OS X and XP are great in many situations, I’m juct explaining my opinion.
I think the question is more “Will the mac finish off linux?”.