Is Mac OS X Threatening Linux?
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jan 16, 2001 09:34 PM
from the are-there-pope-bears? dept.
from the are-there-pope-bears? dept.
An unnamed correspondent asks: "Does anyone think that the release of Mac OS X will threaten Linux? A UNIX-based OS that XFree86, the GIMP, Apache, etc. run on, and is easy to use and maintain for a beginner, might not bode too well for the little OS that could. I'm not talking about techies -- I'm talking about people who might use Linux on their desktop (companies who are deploying it, etc.). Why would they want to use Linux instead of OS X?" It's not a new question, but it won't go away, either. Anyone out there planning to jump to Mac OS X from Linux or one of the (other) BSDs?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Is MacOSX Threatening Linux?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 625 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Linux on the desktop? (Score:3)
I think you overstate things a bit though.
The installer situation on Windows is pretty piss poor too. Microsoft says you're suppose to have an installer/deinstaller that does certain things, but leaves it up to you to manage all those things. It takes a lot of effort and thought to do a good installer, even with a tool like Installshield which does a tremendous amount of the heavy lifting for you. This is one area in OSX that's very intriguing -- packaging up an applications resources in a directory and treating the whole package as an object. This helps users to move applications around with impunity -- one of the best historical features of MacOS.
Windows has exactly the same library dependency issues that Linux has, which is to say if you require a later version of the MFC dlls you'd better install it. It makes me a bit nervous to routinelly install the MFC dlls, since I don't like the prospect of creating regression bugs in other software installed on my users' computers. Installing these dlls in the system directory requires that you have essentially unlimited access to the computer; I don't like this all-or-nothing approach to security.
The graphical chaos you mention was pretty much the case in the early days of GUI program development on Windows or the Mac too, and quite a few klinkers are still being produced for both platforms.
Re:Not a chance in hell (Score:3)
That's an argument about their choice of peripherals, not about their support of i/o standards. It's marketing, not engineering. (Not that marketing is not important, just a different discussion.)
First to use Firewire. Using 32bit Nubus when PCs where using ISA slots.
Still using Nubus years after the PC had moved to PCI. Indeed, I'd count Nubus along with SCSI--in both cases Apple went with a clearly superior solution early on, but ended up being held back as the mainstream PC standards, driven by the much larger marketplace, managed to improve much faster and yet be much cheaper than what Apple used.
The "laughably inferior video card" may be so for FPS, but actually performs quite well for graphic artists. Makes me wonder why they specced it.
"The Macintosh does not have any decent 3d support, so therefore we can pretend that 3d support is not important." Any $9 graphics card is just fine for 2d, although I seriously doubt that 16 MB and a 230 MHz RAMDAC are really good enough for any serious graphic artists. The simple fact is that the Mac does not do 3d well, and that that is simply pitiful in this day and age. And no, 3d is not just used for games; you may be shocked, but there are actually graphics artists that work in three dimensions too! (They use PCs and Unix workstations.)
BTW, the only decent 802.11 system out there that can hold a candle to the AirPort system is the Lucent Orinoco system, which is slightly more expensive and a lot harder to set up.
I don't know how hard it is to set up, but IIRC for what you admit is only a slightly higher price it has a much greater wireless range.
How many makers right now are putting out machines with DDR RAM? Last I checked, not many. Sure they're ramping up, but Apple would be stupid (and possibly insane) to be on the top of the curve for every trend. Their machines would be even more overpriced and they could end up with a Rambus/Intel fiasco on their hands if they made the wrong choice. Better to let someone like Intel make that mistake and fight the battles worth fighting (i.e the ones pretty much won already like USB, firewire)
As this thread was initially about system *performance* (as opposed to capabilities), let me tell you that DDR is MUCH more "a battle worth fighting" on this metric. But you have a very valid point--indeed, I agree with you completely. The thing is, what you're saying assumes that Apple will be designing and validating its own chipsets, incompatible with the real world, every time they want to add a feature. In such an environment, it is indeed not worth it to come out with a DDR chipset now. Moreover, while it would have been worth it to come out with a PC133 chispet a year ago and a DDR chipset in around 3 months time, the fact that Apple is the one designing and validating every new chipset is the reason these chipsets are always a year behind the times--it's a very complicated process and Apple's engineers are understandably stretched thin to try to replicate the work of dozens of companies in the PC world.
That's the problem with having a vertical monopoly; there's not enough room for differentiated product lines and innovation. In the PC world, there are 2 or 3 major chipset manufacturers competing to come out with the fastest chipsets with the most new features, and another couple players who drop in to keep competition high. There are about a dozen major motherboard manufacturers, who compete to best implement these chipsets with the most features at the lowest price. Because the PC RAM market is so large, you have all the DRAM manufacturers in the world driving chipset innovation as well. Finally, because PCs are used for general purpose tasks and because there's an independent benchmarking industry in the PC marketplace, all these people know that they won't be able to get away with a single toy SIMD benchmark as an overall measure of "performance"--thus they all feel pressure to create components which actually work fast over a wide variety of circumstances. Hence the PC market is moving into 2.1 and 3.2 GB/s FSBs while the Mac is finally hitting 1.1 GB/s. Oh, and while we're on the subject, it turns out I was wrong: you won't be able to buy a G4 with on-die L2 cache until the G4+ is released in March. Only then will the G4 finally be approaching clock-for-clock parity with x86 chips (according to SPECcpu, i.e. a real benchmark suite).
Now, I'm not saying there aren't some important tangible benefits to Apple's vertical monopoly. I just don't think they're worth the drawback: machines which cost twice as much as the equivalent PC did when it was released 9 months ago.
One final word re: price/performance -- find a notebook that can compete in that area with the new powerbook. Good luck.
Here you finally have a point: the new powerbook is very impressive and indeed competitive with PCs in price/performance. One important reason why is that AMD has not yet had a viable notebook CPU for the mainstream and performance ends of the market, so therefore Intel has a monopoly over that segment and thus performance notebooks tend to cost as much as powerbooks. Conversely, Apple has seen itself frozen out of the market it practically invented with the first powerbooks, as the portable market becomes more and more dominated by corporate consumers. Thus you have a reversal of the situation in the desktop PC market: Intel is getting away with monopoly pricing, while Apple is heavily discounting to try to break back into a market they've nearly lost.
Still, no matter how I might try to talk bad about it, there's no doubt the new powerbooks are very competitive. On the other hand, the situation is decidedly *not* as Apple has presented it. Here's what Apple has to say on the matter:
Sony Vaio Z505...........PowerBook G4
12.1-inch display........15.2-inch wide-screen display
Magnesium alloy..........99.5% pure grade CP1 titanium
650MHz Pentium III.......400 MHz PowerPC G4
No optical drive.........Slot-loading DVD-ROM
2 hours battery life.....5 hours battery life
Not wireless ready.......AirPort antenna built-in
1.15 inches thick........1 inch thick
$2549*...................$2599*
(Taken from here [apple.com].)
Now let's look at what the actual facts [sonystyle.com] on that Sony Z505 really are.
First off, let's take note of the fact that contrary to Apple's blatant misrepresentation, the Z505 with a P3-650 actually costs $2250, not "$2549". But what's $300 among friends? Well, we can use some of that money to buy the Z505 a 6-hour battery, so hahaha on you. The cost is now $2450, or $150 less than the Mac. Also while the powerbook may be a miraculous 3.8 mm thinner than the Z505, the important measure is of course weight; the powerbook, at 5.3 pounds, is 41% heavier than the 3.75 pound Z505--which makes sense, as they really serve different purposes. Indeed, the low weight (and its huge popularity) is the reason the Z505 is so underpowered for its price (for a PC that is), but we'll disregard that for now.
Unfortunately, there's no way to buy the Vaio as unloaded as those powerbooks: in particular, no way to buy it without at least Word 2000. Nor is there any way to purchase Word 2001 with our brand new powerbook at the Apple Store. We could buy it from MS for $400 [microsoft.com] but that doesn't seem quite fair. Instead we'll upgrade both machines to Office.
Where does that put us now?
Sony Vaio Z505...........PowerBook G4
12.1-inch display........15.2-inch wide-screen display
Magnesium alloy..........99.5% pure grade CP1 titanium
650MHz Pentium III.......400 MHz PowerPC G4
No optical drive.........Slot-loading DVD-ROM
6 hours battery life.....5 hours battery life
Not wireless ready.......AirPort antenna built-in
1.15 inches thick........1 inch thick
12 GB HD.................10 GB HD
3.75 pounds*.............5.3 pounds
$2650....................$3060
*Longer battery adds weight from this original measurement, but I couldn't find out how much.
What's missing? Well, the DVD player, for one thing. An external one adds $400 to the Z505's cost, making it just a hair cheaper than the powerbook. The 650 MHz P3 is in reality a good deal faster than the 400 MHz G4, but by using the right programs an argument can be made that the G4 comes close. "AirPort antenna built-in" is a red-herring, since you still need to spend $100 for the AirPort card. I looked it up, and the first place I checked [insight.com] had an Orinoco card for $160. Again, I'm almost positive this card has much better range than AirPort. Eh, let's look it up, shall we? Well, AirPort only goes a measely up to 150 feet [akamai.net]. Orinoco goes...let's see...up to 1750 feet [wavelan.com]. Hmm. Guess the "built-in antenna" isn't working too well, is it??
So what do we end up with? The new powerbook is almost exactly the same price as a similarly configured Z505, except that the Z505 has a tad more HD space, has an extra hour on the battery, and, sorry to say, is the faster machine. Alternatively, you can get the Z505 without a DVD player and save $400.
Meanwhile, the powerbook has a luscious 15.2" screen, while the Z505 is stuck with a 12.1" which, while quite small, at least manages to almost hit the resolution of the powerbook (1024x768 vs. 1152x768). The benefit of giving up the nice screen and the internal DVD is up to 1.55 pounds of heft and of course that extra hour.
In other words, it's arguably a tossup. Of course it's a bad comparison because one is a sub-notebook and the other a full-sizer, but Apple chose it, not me. Still, it's worth noting that the Z505 is perhaps the most overpriced laptop around, so it's not such a surprise that Apple chose it when making a comparison.
Well phew! Aren't we enlightened? Did I pass? (It wasn't that tough, I let Apple "find a notebook that can compete in [price/performance] with the new powerbook" for me!)
Now it's my turn: find a desktop Mac that can compete in (price/1.5)/performance with a similarly equipped desktop PC--and I mean in a wide variety of benchmarks, not just Photoshop and RC5. (Indeed, it would be tough to do that even with Photoshop, assuming one actually used a complete Photoshop benchmark like PSbench [geocities.com].)
Good luck. Unfortunately, there are very few good cross-platform benchmarks to consult; the most well-respected cross-platform benchmark in the world, SPECcpu, shows the G4 in a rather unflattering light--indeed, because of this Motorola hasn't even released official scores for the G4, making it the only current general-purpose CPU family I can think of for which SPEC scores are not available. Oh wait, I lied: there's no SPEC scores for Cyrix chips either. However, there are SPEC scores for the P3, P4, the AMD K7, for Sun's UltraSparc II and III, for IBM's POWER3 chip which is sorta related to the G3 kinda sorta, for the Alpha EV67, and the MIPS R12000 and the HP PA-RISC 8600-just in the past year. The point is, every real chip releases SPEC scores, usually early and often. The best we have for the brand-spanking-new G4+ is an *estimate* for the outdated (in fact retired) SPEC95 suite, and man it's not too pretty. Of course, Motorola can always complain that they don't have a very good Fortran compiler, which is key to a good SPECfp score (their SPECint score sucks too, though); still, this is no one's fault but their own, unless of course they never meant the G4 or G4+ to be a high-performance general-purpose chip (oh that's right, they didn't; they built it for the embedded market).
Other cross-platform benchmarks are invariably much less trustworthy, because they are almost always binary only and are never of the breadth or depth of the SPEC suite. Picking Photoshop, for example, is just plain dumb, as Photoshop is simply better optimized on the Mac than on the PC (alternatively, we could benchmark Word and see which runs it faster). There's a nice collection of published cross-platform Mac vs. x86 results here [jc-news.com]; it's worth perusing, even though most of these programs make *very* poor overall benchmarks, taken as a whole they at least provide some semblence of a big picture. Needless to say, I think your task will be pretty difficult, even if there were a good way to compare performance across the two platforms.
ownership (Score:3)
I once heard ESR say in regards of controlling your business "if you own a piece of software that is crucial to running your business, and you don't control that software, you don't control your business."
Forking GNOME and turning linux into OSX (Score:3)
Why choose between a mac interface and linux when you can have the best of both worlds? I'm currently in the process of creating a GNOME fork that is based on the Mac OS UI (as opposed to the current GNOME UI layout that is copied from Microsoft). Due to the open source nature of the GNOME project (thanx for the code, helix, er, ximian) I am able to quickly modify Gtk/GNOME apis so that they will produce mac-like interfaces. And when I recompile code that uses gnome-app-helper macros, voila! Instant mac interface. Cancel/No buttons will be on the left where they belong, as will OK/Yes buttons on the right. The "Exit" menu item will now called "Quit". Simple keyboard shortcuts will use the modifier key by the spacebar (alt), instead of the one in outer mongolia (ctrl). The menubar will be at the top of the screen where it belongs. And list goes on and on. So many GNOME apps on Freshmeat, so little time!
It gets even better. GNUstep is, of course, open source. And what does GNUstep have? Bundles! (just like MacOS). Once gnustep's bundle code is added to the mixture, the stupid hassle of dealing with packaging systems will be less stupid and more robust. Goodbye annoying RPM/deb messages and corrupted binary databases, hello fast, easy installs!
Code is power.
I will certainly switch. (Score:3)
- It is unix based - thats essential for me. I can install ssh, use vi, etc, etc.
- It allows me to use most of the apps I already know and love on linux.
- It has a good front end that will run all those commercial apps I've been missing in linux (the whole reason why I have linuxppc & OS9 on my laptop).
- Hardware compatability. Linux-ppc is doing an awesome job, but there is still alot of devices that just wont work or features of the machine that arn't there (like sleep support, firewire, irda, etc).
- Ease of use. OS X is looking like a great interface - the sort of thing I can give my girlfriend and have her happy without asking me a billion questions.
Yes, I will miss linux. But I still wish the project well and look forward to when I can switch back. But when it comes to the uses above, it is still very much in development, and I don't have the time needed to spend working on it (tweaking my installation and helping code) at this time in my life.HmmmmNo. (Score:3)
For example, I like being able to change just about everything about my OS. I like to spend hours just fscking around (every pun intended) with my GUI and my OS, just to see what will happen. Yes, I have ended up spending a hell of a lot of time re-installing or restoring from backup, but that is what "beater" computers are for. And besides, I've found that to be the best way to learn considering the open hostility and serious condescension I've received when asking questions in online forums.
Please forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't Apple not going to allow you to use whatever configuration of GUI or shell that you want? As I recall that was subject of some conversation and even a story here at Slashdot, and it would strike me as something very UN-Steve Jobs to allow the end user to make drastic changes to his OS. I mean, he is (or at least was) rabidly against allowing anyone to do too much tinkering with his OS and computers in the past.
Anyway, much as I did think OS X was a might peerrrrrrrty, and had lots of fun animations in the way things worked and was zippy etc., and much as I do still really like Apple hardware, OS X isn't going to get me to just chuck out my Linux library.
The answer is...who cares? (Score:3)
1) Take all the Mac users.
2) Get rid of any who aren't currently using Linux, or likely to in the near future in the absence of OS X.
3) Of those who remain, calculate the percentage who are likely to jump ship.
If my numbers are correct, you end up with about 3.5 people.
OK, I know that's a gross exaggeration. The point still remains that there are a tiny tiny number of people actually running Linux on the Mac. OS X isn't going to affect the Linux community as a whole much at all; and it's probably not going to affect the Linux/Mac community much either since they're already going against the grain. They _are_ they techies, the hobbiests, and the tweakers; if they decide to run OS X, they'll figure out a dual boot system to do it on.
it may be the other way around. (Score:3)
granted, the mac is a much better design (in the guts) but is that enough for people to "go proprietary"?
X86 compatibility, all the chipsets that gpl code runs on, would be a royal pain in the ass to support without looking at a lot of gpl'd code. remember, linux has no problem running on chipsets that were made years ago.
the reality is, if they support PC's, a lot of mac people might jump from their hardware...a lot of linux/bsd people won't pay $120.
in the meantime, linux will continue to improve on all architectures.
on the other hand, if it were priced at something like $30-$40 bucks, without copy protection, i bet there are a lot of linux people (and companies) who would jump for x86, just cuz it's exactly what people want -- an alternative to macs (peecee hardware) running an OS that isn't embarrassing or slimy to use, and is supported by a fairly reputable corporation.
....or, is Microsoft threatened by OS X ? (Score:3)
Released the Whistler beta with code in it to prevent you installing an app on more than one PC. I am against software piracy. I am also against anything that makes my life significantly harder in maintaining the banks of otherwise identical M$ boxes I manage in an educational institution
There are noises that M$ are looking to kill off or restructure the volume discounts to corporates
They have announced plans to kill off the 95/98/Me line, to try to move the world ultimately towards Whistler. Thing is, many PCs have been sold with Windoze on board in the last three years almost as home appliances. How will these users react to being told that the PC which (sorta) functions as they expect, will need an OS upgrade, and they will have to pay for it ? This is not corporate world folks, and I bet many don't !
It seems that M$ (or at least, its putative OS corporation) are in the process of trying to rationalise its product line, and maximise profits. In doing so, and being too gung-ho about it, they risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg. For corporates, the cost of ownership of M$ will skyrocket. This opens the door for a machine which consumers (and corporates) can buy off the shelf which is easy(ish) to use. Like an iMac or a G4, for instance.......
The question is not of losing Linux users (Score:3)
Important to note, however, is that Linux is being used more than ever for servers, in both number and market share. This, IMO, is where Linux excels the best. Mac OS X will run a server on an overly expensive (for what's given) system that just is a GUI overkill for your average e-mail or web server. On the other hand, Linux runs a very slim OS as an e-mail, web, database, DNS, etc. etc. server. While Samba definately isn't perfect or near NT's native implementation of it, it's definately reliable enough now for regular use.
I'll grant those anti-Linux people that Linux isn't perfect for the desktop. I used it for some 11 months, but found too many applications I needed just couldn't run under Linux, and I don't think Wine is really worth trying to run Office through (even though it, as of recently, does run it). However, I'm absolutely astounded by its hardware support, and comparing directly to MacOS X it's unbelievable (running only on the later Macs and their supported accessories is just plain crap for hardware support). I currently run Linux on my laptop (old Pentium 150 Mhz), and my server - they run absolutely beautifully. All of my laptop hardware is supported by Linux, even my old Chips and Tech video card under XFree86 4.0!
Coming back to my original point though, new people are still getting into computers, most taking a newbie OS like MacOS or Windows. But those that are using Windows now are switching to more advanced OSes like Linux, BSD (all flavors), BeOS, etc, as they become comfortable with setting up their systems. Perhaps MacOS X will take a chunk of LinuxPPC users, but I think that Linux is in good position to gain serious market share in the next 3 years.
Re:MacOS used to be FREE from ftp.apple.com. (Score:3)
One thing I have always liked about Apple is how they do this. Just try finding a free (legal) copy of windows 95, or even win 3.1 or dos for download from microsoft.
Re:The hardware problem... (Score:3)
That will not happen. Apple knows better than tread onto M$ turf. They would NOT do this for the following:
Trust me - OSX will not be going anywhere near x86. M$ and Apple surely have a agreement of 'non-competition'. If they hadnt we would have seen OS# on x86 long ago - maybe even for free (gratis)...
Not Quite (Score:3)
Well, who cares if it runs Linux apps? They are usually open source anyways, they can be recompiled. What isn't open source, can be bought today for MacOS, and will be available by fall for OS X. On top of this, the personality of Linux (and Windows apps for that matter) don't appeal to Apple's customers. Too hard to use and feel to cludgy.
"A deal with Insignia Solutions to license Virtual PC code and create Red Box (an environment in which Windows apps can run). "
What developer would EVER code for Mac native apps if a Mac could transparently run Windows apps? What does this offer a customer that Windows doesn't offer natively? Apple's customer base is NOT interested in running Window's applications, generally speaking. They are too cludgy. Even MS Office on Mac "feels" better to a MacOS than Office 2k on a PC. Microsoft KNOWS what their Mac using customers want...that's why IE for MacOS had many usability features before it did for PC. Print preview, tabbed searches, easy to manage favorites (much easier than in IE 5.5 on WIndows), you can set it to ask to accept/refuse cookies on a site basis (great when you want to go to nytimes and slashdot, but dont want any other cookies...it REMEMBERS it too)...just to name a few.
Even if these reasons didn't matter, MacOS X won't exist on x86 commody hardware for the two following reasons: 1. OpenFirmware blows BIOS out of the water and 2. IRQ's are a great source of pain. Mac customers don't want to know or see or even deal with anything resembling IRQ's. When I first of IRQ's my first thought was "you gotta be kidding me?"....
Re:Not comparable .. well partially true (Score:4)
The other thing people are missing is that OS X will have something(s) Linux WONT. Quicktime (used exclusively on many sites), IE 5.5 (needed for some sites you debate the good or bad of this), office, and many more windows programs. Linux wont have these. It will basically have all that Linux has plus a whole lot more.
Lastly OS X will ahve cocoa and carbon, which although I have not used, I have heard are way better than QT and gtk/gnome API's. AS well they are making a program that will make GUI creation easier and faster than Visual Cafe or Powerbuilder.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Maybe its good for linux? (Score:4)
The same is now happening with memory management, many times, on the linux kernel mailing list, people refer to 'BSD is faster in this type of operation or load', and people are coding like crazy to make linux the better party.
So why wouldnt it be posible for Mac OSX to do the same? masses of linux coders brushing up gnome/kde/xfree86/etc to get it upto spec, and maybe even better then Mac OS X.
Nothing seems to motivate a linux coder more then 'the other guys were better then you'. So heck, im hoping it will be a good thing
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Not comparable (Score:4)
While Linux is a nearly-universal kernel which runs near-flawlessly on many different systems, MacOS X is strictly a workstation for Macs. Linux has no problems running my Sparc 5 and my AMD K6 - nearly all of the services I run on each are source-compatible between the two - and is a proven server operating system. My department deploys no less than 5 Linux servers (Oracle and Apache), and they requre little maintenance - just a rack to live in. OS X is a very smooth desktop operating system, and that is in fact what I use at home and at work. While Linux can be used as a workstation and OS X as a server, for many reasons they are not comparable:
The only reason OS X might tread on Linux's toes is the fact that it does have Unixish services and such. You can run Apache, sshd, proftpd, bind, innd, and other services from MacOS X. But that is not its focus.
The only reason Linux might tread on OS X's toes is that Linux can be used as a power-user's desktop operating system. But in my opinion, that is not its forte - and shouldn't be its focus.
Already have (on my iMac) (Score:4)
so I can make certain that patches I submit as a result of porting utilities to OS X don't break Liunx builds!
Finally, part of the appeal of OS X for me was summed up quite nicely by Linus Torvalds some time ago:
has gotten too easy on Linux!
Would be switch to Windows... (Score:4)
-
-Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.
But... what is Linux? (Score:5)
You see, when you say ``Linux,'' what do you really mean? You really don't think of your kernel. Really, you don't. You think of all those great tools that help you to get your work done... tools like make and vim and gcc and grip and the gimp and apt and everything else that make you more productive. Things like the window manager that does what you want, and configurability of how your text editor works, and being able to easily remap your keys and such.
If, suddenly, you can get something from Apple that has a BSD underneath, with all the great tools you have grown to love, is it really MacOS that you're loving? No, it's still the things that you love on your computer that you call ``Linux.''
Might MacOS decrease the number of people who run the Linux kernel? Perhaps. Mostly, though, I think it will increase the base of people who have access to all the great tools that we love. In that perspective, what we call ``Linux'' will just have more people added to the ranks.
And, I think, this is what is going to happen to all the computer vendors, especially the UNIX vendors: They will either become like Linux, or they will die. Either you will have all the great tools available to you on your UNIX variant, along with easy (apt-style, perhaps) upgrading and such, or you will see that flavor of UNIX die off. So you might still have a Solaris or IRIX kernel, and maybe even C library, but your installation will become more and more Linux-like. And so, sort of, Linux will achieve Total World Domination. Maybe not the kernel... but the powerful environment, for sure.
Re:Not comparable (Score:5)
This is the real threat to Linux--Mac OS X for x86. Suddenly, you have an OS that does everything Linux does and can even run Linux binaries (thanks to BSD Linux-binary compatibilty), and has a nice GUI. Three things stand in the way:
1) Steve Jobs. If he doesn't like it, it will get "Steved".
2) Minor performance tweaking and testing.
3) A deal with Insignia Solutions to license Virtual PC code and create Red Box (an environment in which Windows apps can run).
I've said it before... (Score:5)
-Vercingetorix
Just bought a Mac (Score:5)
Just recently, I aquired a dual-G4/500MHz machine and MacOSX beta. I started up the machine (which shipped with OS9 installed), and the first thing it did was crash. Then I installed OSX.
First of all, OSX is *beautiful*. You'd be hard-pressed to pick out an individual pixel on the screen with OSX running. The anti-aliasing is done very well (does not look blurry), and I haven't noticed any slowness in any of the rendering.
The interface isn't extremely different from previous MacOS's (note that I haven't used previous MacOS's much). The menu bar still stays at the top of the screen, and programs still don't quit unless you choose "quit" from the file menu, which bothers me. The rest of the interface is very nice, however. Lots of drag-and-drop, which I like.
I could see myself switching to OSX as soon as it goes mainstream and gets more applications to support it. You can run OS9 programs now, sort of, but it's slow. OSX is stable, though, and POSIX-compliant, which means it beats Windows in my book. And since I really like things that are well-designed and thought out, I like it better than Linux, at least on principle. We'll see about usability.
Oh, and I absolutely LOVE the G4 hardware. The instant I openned the case, I thought "Damn, why didn't anyone else think of this!?" You really have to see it to understand, though.
Over the past few years, Apple has really changed. Basically everything that was wrong about them before has been fixed, and in many cases made *better* then the competition. The only problem remaining is price. G4 hardware is still on the expensive side, though not so much so as I rembered. Also, if you know what you are doing, you can bring the price down by buying just the case and mobo and using standardized parts for everything else (ATA/66 hard drives, PC100 RAM, AGP video (ATI cards), USB keyboard/mouse, etc.).
------
Linux on the desktop? (Score:5)
Linux, as we know it today, it not going going to ever take over the desktop -- not when it doesn't support any of the new media files, not when it doesn't have a decent web browser, not when every distribution comes with (several) piss-poor, incompatible, incomplete control panel utilities, not when it every single program I run seems to have its own widget set, has a different set of fonts, has home-rolled its own ugly alpha blending, and has a different look-n-feel to go with it all.
It will never take over when clicking "install everything" on any distribution means that every passing script kiddie has root on your machine. It will never take over when every single piece of software available requires a certain kernel, a certain C library, a certain set of fonts, a certain version of X, a certain version of Gnome, or any one of the half-dozen Java Runtimes, and each is incompatible with whatever you're running now.
Linux will never take over when every significant program has implemented it's own (somewhat incomplete, and slightly buggy) installer, each incompatible with any method you were using to keep track of where every file on your machine came from.
Linux will never take over when every distribution, every desktop, ever file manager, and even ever program available has its own way of associating files with programs -- It will never take over when telling Gnu Midnight Commander, Netscape, Mozilla, Konquerer, and any other program whether to open PDF files with Ghostview or Adobe Acrobat means configuring each program individually.
Linux is never going to take over the desktop as long as working as a networking client is so piss poor. It will never take over when browsing the network, and attaching to an SMB share, or a Netware share, or an NFS share requires either strong administrator magic, or a user poking around in the shell as root.
Linux is never going to take over the desktop as long as printing is still such an immense pain in the ass -- printing on Linux is about as pitiful as printing from DOS was 15 years ago. The only difference is that DOS programs often made an attempt to work with available printers, while every Linux program demands either a PostScript printer, or a buggy filter manually set up to pretend there's a PostScript printer there.
In short, Linux as we know it essentially has no desktop presence at all. Given the realities of the market, I can't imagine a situation where most current Linux users would consider using a version of Linux that fixed the flaws of Linux that makes it so useless on the desktop. Linux has nothing to worry about from Apple on the Desktop, because Linux isn't on the Desktop anyhow.
Re:Not a chance in hell (Score:5)
Well for starters you lose all those lovely ease of use features once you start using X instead of aqua. So there goes that.
The ease of use is *not* totally lost once you start using X. In fact, for many people, I suspect the ease of use associated with the Mac OS isn't really just the cues/navigation abilities in the Finder and widget set -- though those are nice.
No, the real niceness is in the system administration/configuration/installation courtesies. It generally just seems to take less time to learn how to do these, so you get your system out of the way faster to do whatever else it is you wanted to.
OS X follows in this tradition. I installed it, and it worked. Inside 30 minutes. OK, with all the dev tools it inside 45. And oh yes, it's full of all the commandline goodness I've come to expect and love from Linux.
Secondly, you can't run full OS X on x86 platforms - just darwin. So you get an expensive and slow computer from apple that has a candy coated shell. Am I the only one that doesn't see a point?
Apple *will* somehow have to address the price performance issue if they want to gouge market share out of others. But they can keep their core advantages (enumerated above) and keep their core customre base, maybe even grow a little.
BTW, on what do you base your assumption that current apple hardware is "second rate" other than processor speed?
The deal is that since apple customers are cultist followers,
Blah, blah. "I don't understand apple custumors so they must not be rational." Great logic. I expect you to admit also think people like Minkowski and Feynman were loons (pardon my assumption that you don't understand all the theories they published).
But at least they don't have a cpu fan - that's worth an extra $600, right?
Not, as it turns out, in the mass market. But I love laptops for this reason. I hate the noise.
And, as it turns out, one of my hobbies is audio/video production -- a big market for apple. Having a quiet computer really is an asset. But you probably didn't think about that.
If OS-X does anything, it'll simply be to raise the bar for KDE and GNOME - a challenge they will be able to meet.
KDE and GNOME, great as they are, don't get anywhere at solving the underlying system administration problem. Eazel might.
Sorry, but apple has gone the way of the Amiga - thousands of deluded followers and zero relevance.
If by deluded you means that there's not hope of world domination, then your comment has truth. But if you mean that Apple's offerings don't have things worth examining -- even buying -- then you're off your rocker. The Cocoa (formerly Yellowbox/Openstep) development framework by itself is a find. The other benefits I've touted in this post are real and will appeal to people -- even some Linux users.
Mass abandonment of Linux for OS X? Hardly probable. Even if OS X was completely superior and ran on Intel hardware, the ideology of Open Source and sheer stubborn religiousness withing the
*LINUX* community would keep users -- just like the "deluded apple followers" you mention.
But don't think that means that OS X isn't something to be reckoned with -- and learned from.
--