Will Linux finish off the Mac?
Doug Laidlaw
Will Linux finish off the Mac?
How can an operating system like Linux spell trouble for Apple? According
to ZDNet's David Berlind, it only stands to reason that Linux, which has
taken a toll on Windows on the server side, could do similar damage to
other desktop encampments. He also says that it's ultimately about what
happens when desktop Linux provides an experience that meets or beats OS X.
Read his commentary to hear all the reasons why he believes Linux may be
able to finish off Apple.
Personally, I would be sorry to see even Windows go. Certainly Windows has
its problems, but if Gates takes his head out of the sand and does
something about it, it could be a good OS again. At the moment, the OS
lets down the apps designed for it.
The link to the commentary is:
http://ct.techrepublic.com.com/clicks?c=65062-54940971&brand=techrepublic&ds=5
Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
Love can heal the world, and forgiveness is the catalyst to make it happen.
- John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
Tony Lawrence
Doug Laidlaw wrote:
> From an e-newsletter from TechRepublic:
>
> Will Linux finish off the Mac?
>
> How can an operating system like Linux spell trouble for Apple?
According
> to ZDNet's David Berlind, it only stands to reason that Linux, which
has
> taken a toll on Windows on the server side, could do similar damage
to
> other desktop encampments. He also says that it's ultimately about
what
> happens when desktop Linux provides an experience that meets or beats
OS X.
> Read his commentary to hear all the reasons why he believes Linux may
be
> able to finish off Apple.
WHEN Linux is as good as Mac OSX for the desktop? Well, for some
people it already is. Or better, depending on your point of view. I
use Mac OS X for my deskop 99% of the time and I like it a lot,
but I'm not comfortable with the assertion that it's "better" than
Linux. It's not even "better" for me: I use it because my Linux boxes
are more likely to be the victims of experimentation and I need at
least one stable Unix box that I can depend on. Also, it's a laptop and
although you can run Linux on a laptop, it's less work to let that be a
Mac. Finally, I like to keep my fingers in different things. It's a
great package, but I could just as happily use Linux.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources
Mike Oliver
> From an e-newsletter from TechRepublic:
>
> Will Linux finish off the Mac?
Doesn't make a lot of sense. They're aimed at practically
opposite "demographics". Mac is for arty types who don't really
like computers per se. Linux is for people who want to know
(and control) what their systems are doing at a nuts-and-bolts
level. Windows is somewhere in the middle.
The only people Linux and Mac really compete for are the ones
who make their choice of a system largely out of dislike for
Bill Gates. As much fun as it may be to dislike Bill Gates,
can that really be enough people to worry about?
Tony Lawrence
Mike Oliver wrote:
> Doug Laidlaw wrote:
> > From an e-newsletter from TechRepublic:
> >
> > Will Linux finish off the Mac?
>
> Doesn't make a lot of sense. They're aimed at practically
> opposite "demographics". Mac is for arty types who don't really
> like computers per se. Linux is for people who want to know
> (and control) what their systems are doing at a nuts-and-bolts
> level. Windows is somewhere in the middle.
Not true today.
While at Linuxworld in Boston, it was quite interesting to see how many
people (exhibitors and attendees) were using Mac laptops. Some were
running Linux, but a lot were running Mac OS X.
I didn't count 'em, but I saw enough to make me realize there were a
sizeable number..
faeychild
> From an e-newsletter from TechRepublic:
>
> Will Linux finish off the Mac?
>
> How can an operating system like Linux spell trouble for Apple?
> According
> to ZDNet's David Berlind, it only stands to reason that Linux, which has
> taken a toll on Windows on the server side, could do similar damage to
> other desktop encampments. He also says that it's ultimately about what
> happens when desktop Linux provides an experience that meets or beats OS
> X. Read his commentary to hear all the reasons why he believes Linux may
> be able to finish off Apple.
>
> Personally, I would be sorry to see even Windows go. Certainly Windows
> has its problems, but if Gates takes his head out of the sand and does
> something about it, it could be a good OS again. At the moment, the OS
> lets down the apps designed for it.
>
> The link to the commentary is:
>
>
http://ct.techrepublic.com.com/clicks?c=65062-54940971&brand=techrepublic&ds=5
>
This is another interesting commentary particularly the last section "On
the cusp of grid computing"
It would be deliciously ironic if Microsoft gets the desktop market
dominance they've killed for, only to be king of an obsolete castle.
--
faeychild
Hiding in Plain Sight
The people at LinuxWorld using Macs were *nix users using Macs not
Mac users who were interested in Linux. I'll explain the difference. OS X
sits on top of BSD so it gives you a complete *nix environment including
GNU tools and most importantly X windows. This allows the Mac to
natively integrate into a *nix environment of both Linux and Unix
machines. The Mac piece of OS X gives the user access to commercial
desktop applications as well as the multimedia capabilities (i.e.
Quicktime and Window Media, neither of which is available for Linux). So
for technical users the Mac makes a fine workstation because it handles
both the *nix style jobs as well as desktop type applications. For Mac
users, defined by Mike as arty types, the BSD underpinnings of the Mac are
invisible. To them the Mac is an easy to use desktop system only. They
aren't interested in the low level operation of their systems, they just
want them to "Do the Right Thing" which is what the Mac is designed to do.
Linux users are on the opposite end of the spectrum, they what to be able
to customize every aspect of their systems from the kernel on up. Linux,
by it's very nature, has a myriad of choices at every level of the system.
That's great for the technically savvy user who enjoys optimizing every
aspect of their computing experience. It's terrifying to most everyone
else who just wants to be able to send an e-mail and play a movie.
It's hard to see how Linux can have any negative effect on the Mac market,
in fact it slightly strengthens it because it gives the Mac a place in the
corporate environment as front ends for Linux servers. It's also hard to
see how the Mac has much effect on the Linux market. It might steal a
handful of workstation positions but by integrating the *nix and desktop
worlds it probably creates even more opportunities for Linux servers as
well as other Linux workstations in the environment.
John Hasler
> The people at LinuxWorld using Macs were *nix users using Macs not
> Mac users who were interested in Linux. I'll explain the difference. OS X
It sits on top of a modified version of Mach with some BSD stuff glued on.
It does not use a BSD kernel.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Keith Keller
> Doesn't make a lot of sense. They're aimed at practically
> opposite "demographics". Mac is for arty types who don't really
> like computers per se.
Like those arty folks at UIUC? :)
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/02/04/turing/index.php?lsrc=mcrss-0205
===== quote
"You know the Linux world," said Heath. "You are totally on your own.
You're getting your operating system and hardware from at least two
different sources. This is much more integrated."
===== end quote
Of course, being totally on one's own means you're not locked into a
specific vendor, but the point is that OS X can compete in this arena.
(As opposed to Windows....)
Still, Mike's point is valid: it's unlikely that linux will finish
off Mac, or vice versa.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Hemant Shah
> From an e-newsletter from TechRepublic:
>
> Will Linux finish off the Mac?
>
> How can an operating system like Linux spell trouble for Apple? According
> to ZDNet's David Berlind, it only stands to reason that Linux, which has
> taken a toll on Windows on the server side, could do similar damage to
> other desktop encampments. He also says that it's ultimately about what
> happens when desktop Linux provides an experience that meets or beats OS X.
> Read his commentary to hear all the reasons why he believes Linux may be
> able to finish off Apple.
I use Unix/Linux at work, and have windows and Linux systems at home.
I recently purchased new HP laptop with Win XP and got tired of upgrading
windows every other day. I decided to install Linux on it but RH, Suse and
Gentoo had problem with my network card, I you cannot use wireless
networking on Linux. I decided to send back the laptop and went out and
bought my first Mac (Powerbook laptop), I can tell you that Apple has done
wonders integrating BSD Unix with its Aqua desktop. Even X11 is nicely
integrated. Being Unix geek I can still get under the hood and run/compile
my favorite Unix apps.
I am glad I bought Mac laptop, I absolutely love it.
If Linux wants to meet and beat OS X on desktop, it has a very long way to
go. IMHO even windows has long way to go to beat Apple for its seamless
desktop.
>
> Personally, I would be sorry to see even Windows go. Certainly Windows has
> its problems, but if Gates takes his head out of the sand and does
> something about it, it could be a good OS again. At the moment, the OS
> lets down the apps designed for it.
>
> The link to the commentary is:
>
> http://ct.techrepublic.com.com/clicks?c=65062-54940971&brand=techrepublic&ds=5
>
> Doug.
> --
> ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
> Love can heal the world, and forgiveness is the catalyst to make it happen.
> - John Gray, author of Men are from Mars, women are from Venus.
>
--
Hemant Shah /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
E-mail: NoJunkM...@xnet.com \ / ---------------------
X against HTML mail
TO REPLY, REMOVE NoJunkMail / \ and postings
FROM MY E-MAIL ADDRESS.
-----------------[DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED BULK E-MAIL]------------------
I haven't lost my mind, Above opinions are mine only.
it's backed up on tape somewhere. Others can have their own.
Tony Lawrence
Hiding in Plain Sight wrote:
>
> It's hard to see how Linux can have any negative effect on the Mac
market,
> in fact it slightly strengthens it because it gives the Mac a place
in the
> corporate environment as front ends for Linux servers. It's also hard
to
> see how the Mac has much effect on the Linux market. It might steal a
> handful of workstation positions but by integrating the *nix and
desktop
> worlds it probably creates even more opportunities for Linux servers
as
> well as other Linux workstations in the environment.
I think that's true. Discounting the folks who are using Macs and don't
care about the Unixy aspects, that leaves a fairly small number of
people, and I bet at least a good number are using it for the same
reasons I am: it's easier to buy a Mac laptop than spend the time
putting Linux on an Intel laptop.
I wonder if another reason some exhibitors used Macs was to give less
offense - in other words, they want an easy to use machine for the
sales guys at the show, but don't want to offend the Linux folk with
Windows? Could be..
In my closet is a very nice jean jacket that a SCO regional manager
gave to me years and years ago. It has a small but noticeable SCO logo
above the pocket, nothing more. My wife likes it, so whjen she saw
that I was wearing jeans for Linux world, she asked why I wasn't taking
that jacket.. I said "You do want me to come home alive, don't you?"
:-)
I do have a customer who is at least considering replacing some desktop
pc's with Macs, but I could not get her to consider Linux, even though
she has Linux and Unix servers.. but if the world were Linux servers
and Macs on desktops, I wouldn't be exactly unhappy..
Tony Lawrence
Hiding in Plain Sight wrote:
>
> The people at LinuxWorld using Macs were *nix users using Macs not
> Mac users who were interested in Linux.
So? My point was that Mac users aren't all "artsy" types as the op
suggested.
> I'll explain the difference. OS X
> sits on top of BSD so it gives you a complete *nix environment
including
> GNU tools and most importantly X windows.
Well, it doesn't give you X out of the box. That has to be added. And
it's somewhat fragile - my X is quite broken right now. And it isn't
(at least to me) "most importantly" because it's been broken for months
and I don't care. I don't NEED X. The Mac GUI is fine for browsing
etc. which is all I use a GUI for - the rest of my life is all command
line.
> This allows the Mac to
> natively integrate into a *nix environment of both Linux and Unix
> machines. The Mac piece of OS X gives the user access to commercial
> desktop applications as well as the multimedia capabilities (i.e.
> Quicktime and Window Media, neither of which is available for Linux).
So
> for technical users the Mac makes a fine workstation because it
handles
> both the *nix style jobs as well as desktop type applications.
Exactly. But I think one thing that the new Linux folks sometimes fail
to appreciate is that there are a lot of us old Unix folk out here who
like Linux because it's Unixy, and not necessarily because of open
source. Don't get me wrong: I'm strongly in favor of open source and
hope it eventually takes over the world, but that's a political opinion
and has nothing to do with my technical desires. On the tech side, all
I care about is that it acts like Unix. So Mac is quite attractive to
me because it gives me what I want at that level. So does Linux, of
course.
Linux isn't likely to kill Mac or vice-versa, in my opinion.
Christopher Browne
> Hiding in Plain Sight wrote:
>
>>
>> The people at LinuxWorld using Macs were *nix users using Macs not
>> Mac users who were interested in Linux.
>
> So? My point was that Mac users aren't all "artsy" types as the op
> suggested.
Indeed. I was at the PostgreSQL "Slony-II Summit" not long ago where
a bunch of the "Core" developers and other parties interested in
multimaster database replication were hammering out _frightening_
layers of details. There were more MacOS laptops than anything else,
which frankly surprised everyone.
>> I'll explain the difference. OS X sits on top of BSD so it gives
>> you a complete *nix environment including GNU tools and most
>> importantly X windows.
>
> Well, it doesn't give you X out of the box. That has to be added.
> And it's somewhat fragile - my X is quite broken right now. And it
> isn't (at least to me) "most importantly" because it's been broken
> for months and I don't care. I don't NEED X. The Mac GUI is fine
> for browsing etc. which is all I use a GUI for - the rest of my life
> is all command line.
Indeed. In the "world view" where the point of having X is the
capability to:
a) Have 6 xterms,
b) Have a couple virtual desktops
c) Run a web browser,
Safari plus a terminal app is as much "GUI" as they really needed.
I'm getting _way_ increasingly convinced that MacOS is the solution to
suggest to computer novices. They'll have _enough_ of the apps they
need, run them atop a reasonably stable form of Unix, and be able to
avoid the massive Windows(tm) troubles.
A friend who's neither stupid nor an expert applied a whole barrel of
"Windows Updates(tm)" last week and discovered it busted a bunch of
her applications. I don't expect the same instability with MacOS...
>> This allows the Mac to natively integrate into a *nix environment
>> of both Linux and Unix machines. The Mac piece of OS X gives the
>> user access to commercial desktop applications as well as the
>> multimedia capabilities (i.e. Quicktime and Window Media, neither
>> of which is available for Linux). So for technical users the Mac
>> makes a fine workstation because it handles both the *nix style
>> jobs as well as desktop type applications.
>
> Exactly. But I think one thing that the new Linux folks sometimes fail
> to appreciate is that there are a lot of us old Unix folk out here who
> like Linux because it's Unixy, and not necessarily because of open
> source. Don't get me wrong: I'm strongly in favor of open source and
> hope it eventually takes over the world, but that's a political opinion
> and has nothing to do with my technical desires. On the tech side, all
> I care about is that it acts like Unix. So Mac is quite attractive to
> me because it gives me what I want at that level. So does Linux, of
> course.
>
> Linux isn't likely to kill Mac or vice-versa, in my opinion.
I agree. It seems to me that there are enough possibilities of mutual
benefit to make them less adversarial with one another than they are
with Windows(tm).
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
http://linuxfinances.info/info/finances.html
"Tom Christiansen asked me, "Chip, is there anything that you like
that isn't big and complicated?" C++, EMACS, Perl, Unix, English-no, I
guess not." -- Chip Salzenberg, when commenting on Perl6/C++