Is Apple Killing Linux on the Desktop? 1224
Domains May Disappear writes "Chris Howard has an interesting commentary at Apple Matters on recent trends in OS market share that says that while OS X has seen continual growth, from 4.21% in Jan 2006 to 7.31% in December 2007 at the same time, Linux's percentage has risen from only 0.29% to 0.63%. The reasons? 'Apple has Microsoft Office, Linux doesn't; Apple has Adobe Creative Suite, Linux doesn't; Apple has easily accessed and easy to use service and support, Linux doesn't; Apple is driven by someone who has some understanding of end-user needs, Linux is not,' says Howard. 'Early in the decade it seemed that if you wanted a Windows alternative, Linux was it. Nowadays, an Apple Mac is undoubtedly the alternative and, with its resurgence and its Intel base, a very viable one.'"
my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:only if the user can afford to... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Early in the decade it seemed that if you wanted a Windows alternative, Linux was it. Nowadays, an Apple Mac is undoubtedly the alternative and, with its resurgence and its Intel base, a very viable one.'"
Actually, the Mac has *always* been a more productive platform than both Windows and Linux for most typical users. It's just Apple's recent resurgence that's getting folks to actually try it out.
Yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Biased, however.... (Score:2, Insightful)
hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Source (Score:5, Insightful)
No (Score:2, Insightful)
Well gee, that doesn't sound like APPLE is killing Linux on the desktop. That sounds like Microsoft, Adobe, and Linux itself is killing Linux on the desktop.
Then again, are people really buying Apple so they can run Microsoft Office and Adobe...? I tend to doubt it. The last two points are a little more valid than the first two, but that isn't something that Apple is doing WRONG, as the headline implies. That's something that Linux is doing wrong. Or, at least, that is how it is being perceived by many would-be end users.
On the other hand, (Score:4, Insightful)
Take heart: Apple is actually killing Linux slightly less than it used to.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, it has fink, yes, it can use some of the programs which are so effortlessly available under Ubuntu.
To make long story short, I returned it in disgust and got a Linux laptop instead. So far, all is fine.
Apple might be good for a grandma or for a graphic designer, but for a programmer it's an annoyance.
In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux comes with a fully features graphical editing tool which is lovingly called the Graphical Image Manipulation Program. Apple and Windows are packaged with bare bones, stripped down graphical editing tools.
The point is, "Linux" is a lot more than just the Kernel is nobody is "Killing" it. Ever.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this Meme sums it up best
OS X. Because making Unix easy was easier than fixing windows.
That's all OSX really is a pretty closed source GUI on top of BSD.
Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8 [hitslink.com]
0.12% of all devices that access the internet are IPhones? How many did they sell?
0.63% for Linux, which means that only six times as many Linux computers are used to access the internet as IPhones.
About one persent for Linux and about seven for Mac: I would buy that. Sounds reasonable, since many open source guys I know use a Mac for desktop stuff.
But with those numbers for the IPhone the numbers look more like something someone pulled out of their a**. Plus all the computer lab computers at our universities got converted to Linux over the past years. And our university is not Linux friendly in any way. So I imagine that this would happen at many universities and colleges.
apples 'n' oranges, perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the bottom line is that Linux is, and always will be, a bit of a hobbyist and/or experimentalist bleeding edge platform. It's like the difference between commercial radio and amateur (ham) radio: the former is all about "getting work done," as you say, and so it's streamlined, standardized, and widespread. The latter is about experimenting with new ways of doing stuff, about cooking it up at home by yourself, about trying out your individual creative thoughts and ideas. So it's idiosyncratic, quirky, customizable, and thinly spread.
Each has its place, of course. Without streamlined standardized production platforms, people trying to get stuff done who don't give a hoot about computers and software would be endlessly frustrated. Without weird individual experimentation, advancement stagnates. (I don't doubt that one of the reasons OS X is so much more useful than, say, OS 9 or, God forbid, that bombing monster Mac OS, is because it was goosed by Linux coming up fast from behind.)
Re:Not Quite Universal (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and you can use OS X with completely free as in beer software. I use Abi-word instead of Pages or MS Word.
But unlike Linux I can install Adobe Photoshop.
Re:meh statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right on (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of geeks who are reluctant to admit it, though. Most people pinned their hope on Linux + GNOME/KDE for delivering us from evil. While GNOME and KDE brought Unix miles ahead in terms of GUI usability, neither matched the elegance and power of the NeXTSTEP interface developed years before; the evolution from NeXTSTEP to OS X has further secured this lead.
The defeat of their favorite candidate for Unix GUI Savior left many geeks unwilling to even consider or support the idea of OS X as a real Unix, as an improvement to Windows or existing Unix GUIs, etc. Sour grapes, basically. The whole experiment goes to show that in software, as in government, in the ideal case you want a well-backed tyrant with his head screwed on straight. That's Steve Jobs.
Linux has staying power (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still largely a hobbyist platform. (Remember, I'm talking about Linux on the desktop, not on the server.) But given a time-span long enough, Linux is bound to be a major player on the desktop (possibly even the dominant player).
The economics of Linux don't place the same value on a perfected user experience. But it does place some value on user experience. That value only goes up over time. What was the most user-friendly Linux distribution in 1996? What was the installation like back then? Now compare that with installing today's Ubuntu or SUSE or Fedora or Mandriva or almost any distribution that you randomly pick off the front page of distrowatch.com. The difference is huge, and the user experience can only continue to improve.
If Steve Jobs is the great master of the user experience, what will happen to Apple if when he quits or dies? I don't know the answer to that.
But I know what will happen to Linux if Linus Torvalds dies... Pretty much nothing. Linux is analogous to the internet. It keeps getting bigger and better, and it has no weak link. The same cannot be said for Apple or Microsoft.
Also... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of how good VMware is getting, most people would rather have native implementations of their favorite apps than run them on a virtual machine. I cannot imagine anyone who uses Adobe's applications professionally with any degree of proficiency - and note that this does not include people who think they need Photoshop to size and crop a wide range of image formats - settling for less performance when full performance is just a boot away.
I think you have a point with Office, though. I can see myself keeping a VM for the few tasks that OpenOffice can't do quite well, or at all. But with Adobe's apps, computer speed often has a direct effect on project completion time. Someone working contract would be daft to effectively choose to make less money, and someone working salaried would have their manager calling them daft for effectively choosing to hurt the company's bottom line.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if linux is better than MS or OSX, it will still have a hard time gaining acceptance because when I walk down the aisle at Wal-Mart, there is no linux section in the games. Office Depot does not have a linux section for business. If I don't see the software at the store, it must not exist. Download software you say? I just went to download.com - where's the linux tab on the left (the area that has MS, OSX, Mobile, etc.).
For the average person, linux is not a choice because you can't buy a computer with linux installed (yes, I know you can, but they are hard to find) and there is no software for the linux machine even if you got a computer with pre-installed linux (again, yes I know where to download it, but my mom doesn't).
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
That having been said, I don't really trust the stats provided in the article. They claim 0.6% Linux usage, but most other [wikipedia.org] estimates based on web traffic put Linux usage at 0.8% to 3% (and as we all know such techniques are inherently error-prone; e.g. Linux users may spoof their agent string).
As usual, estimating Linux market share is nearly impossible. It can be interesting to look at the numbers, but I wouldn't make any sweeping arguments based on such uncertain data.
Windows always was the alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows was Microsoft's effort to fight back against the GUI interface of the Apple Macintosh. Back in the old days of DOS, the Apple Macintosh was the "windowing operating system." UNIX and X-Windows systems also did graphics, but generally only for CAD (Computer Aided Design) applications.
Linux has never fought in the graphical environment and ease of use space. Traditionally, its strength has always been that it is a great Unix replacement. Today, Linux dominates the university and scientific computing landscape. Additionally, Linux is a great operating system for many focused, special purpose projects. Projects like embedded web servers, routers, and even small portable computers like the Asus Eee PC. In many of these applications, neither the Mac nor Windows are feasible alternatives.
Since the mid-80's, the dominant PC in the market has been an IBM Compatible PC running Microsoft Software. The Graphical arts people have always used the Macintosh, because initially it had good and easy to use graphics. Unix and Linux have dominated in almost every special purpose application environment that the other two architectures could not accomplish.
The new effect is that the Mac, Windows, and to a lesser extent Linux, can all run the same desktop applications, or at least the same types of desktop applications. The result has been Microsoft pushing the .NET languages, hoping to create such a large application monolith, that no one will ever consider switching from Windows again. In practice, people want a simpler, more reliable alternative to Windows. For ease of use, Apple is winning. For cost, adaptability, and reliability, Linux is winning.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:meh statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, TFA clearly points out this isn't an actual measure of market share.
The statistic is percentage of computers used to access the Web, based on the data available to the source company. So, it's like "among companies participating in the stats counter who gave us this data, this is the percentage" -- pretty far removed from everyone on the web.
I seriously doubt it indicates how many actual machines there are, and I suspect that it only covers some high profile sites which may or may not be representative of the rest of the web. I bet nobody has access to that information. I bet this data is skewed to the demographics of the sites in question.
Me, I figure they have no way in hell of really gathering such stats based purely off usage at a handful of participating sites. I bet most people don't use those sites very often, and that much of internet traffic is missed by this. It's probably a good thumb and squint for marketing people for those sites, but it's probably not really useful in much other predictions.
Then again, what the hell do I know about traffic patterns on the internet and how the hell you could measure it. I'm sure AT&T and the NSA has more reliable stats, but they won't fess up.
Cheers
Re:The Universal Platform (Score:3, Insightful)
As many as it takes, until it stops getting upmods.
Story is Flamebait Fodder (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Stealing desktop share is a moot point. Apple has been trying for as long as I can remember to switch windows users and it doesn't work that well on its own until Vista came along.
3. Right now, Linux is the third alternative that will probably make either osx or vista look better to most. It's the shouting (advertising) that makes Apple products more viable. If Ubuntu could afford Apple-scale advertising, then you would see even more adoption.
Come on mods (Score:1, Insightful)
Different customers bases entirely (Score:4, Insightful)
The other problem that I have with this guy's article is that it is contrary to recent reports even here on
It is a totally different business model. The fundamental problem with TFA is that it does not understand this fundamental different.
WINE has their priorities screwed up... (Score:5, Insightful)
For many people and companies, myself included, WINE's ability to run WoW on Linux as a "platinum" app shows technical expertise, but a lack of vision. There would be much more interest in the project (and possibly a cash infusion) if they publicly declared something like "WINE v0.9.xx will fully support MS-Office 2003 on Linux by this summer..."
Wishful thinking on my part... I doubt that CodeWeavers (a big sponsor of WINE) would allow that.
Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't Apple that's killing Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
So... Apple has some great software (and some not so great software) and is easy to use and Linux desktop distributions don't. How is that Apple's fault?
Seems to me more like the lack of software, support, and easy-to-use interface are killing Linux on the desktop, not Apple.
Re:You are right on (Score:2, Insightful)
Sales of Apple computers are being driven by the iPod and other Apple gear, not the other way round. There is no way that I would have considered buying an Apple machine for a minute until I bought the iPod. Once you have an iPod and use it for a couple of years and see how it is clearly superior to the Archos or RCA devices you had before it becomes much easier to think about buying a Mac.
The reasons I did not are 1) I use my right mouse button all the time and don't feel like switching and 2) I write code and don't feel like learning an alternative to Visual Studio 3) I don't see the superior style of the Apple gear justifies those costs 4) at the time I bought Apple did not meet my performance requirements. It is no longer a matter of price, the price markup on the Voodoo kit I bought was rather more than the Apple markup.
The other trend underway here is that Apple is not selling computers, they are selling home computing appliances. These are not desktops, it is not about desks at all. Couch-side is closer to the mark.
Re:The Universal Platform (Score:5, Insightful)
You can dual boot into Windows (or virtualize) to mitigate the average user's requirement for Adobe's products and Office, but on comparable (and yes, comparably equipped PCs and Macs are comparably priced when you don't build it yourself) Mac systems you could boot into Linux, Windows AND OS X. Also, if you think that any linux desktop even approaches the ease of use and learning curve of OS X, you've never used either.
Assuming that the average home user wants to dual boot in the first place. Too many computer geeks assume that their needs are the needs of the majority, and more importantly, that their abilities, resources, and desires are common, when in fact they are not. Most computer users don't want to dig into the insides of their system. Most of them never even loosen the screws on the case over the life of the system. They've never built a computer, they don't want to, and they never will. They don't like installing new software and they HATE upgrading their current software.
They aren't us. Don't assume they want the same things we want.
Re:er...perhaps your not aware of fink (Score:3, Insightful)
A while ago I installed the complete KDE package onto OS X, and found that I could actually connect to it via X, completely bypassing Aqua. All the terminal apps from the BSD subsystem and MacPorts were available from Konsole. I could even launch
But I digress. What I meant to say is that anyone who wants to can submit a project to MacPorts and have it install via the ports system -- I've found a number of OSS OS X Aqua apps that way that I now use every day.
I do have a question -- the people who go back to Linux because OS X isn't developer friendly -- do you do the same thing with BSD OSes? I ask because I got fed up with the depth of non standardization in Linux and tend to stick to the BSD world where I know how config files are set up and where things will be stored. I still use Debian, but I don't develop anything new for it.
Speaking of that, a number of the packages I use on Debian aren't in a repository, and I have to config and compile them from scratch when I want to upgrade. On OS X, I can usually find a binary that I just have to copy to my HD.
So, the only things OS X is really missing from the linux world are: the kernel, GNOME and anything tied too tightly to either of those or to a specific Linux distro.
Of course, I'd love it if GNUStep would somehow merge with KDE/Qt and I could easily port OS X source code to a Linux environment that people actually use.
Re:Not Quite Universal (Score:4, Insightful)
It definitely did for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to be a pretty hard-core Linux on the Desktop guy. Every PC I ever built or bought (laptops) dual-booted Windows and Linux. At one point in college, I was even writing my essays in HTML to print from within Netscape 4, as there weren't any decent Linux word processing software (that was free ;)) circa late 1996.
I kept Windows around because there was-and-is a lot of stuff that Linux doesn't do well, if at all; Photoshop (GIMP wasn't a contender until GimpShop, too little too late), Office, Final Cut Pro, StarCraft, etc. OpenOffice (NeoOffice) is finally to the point where it's almost an Office replacement (in my line of work, I have to volley a document back and forth a dozen times or more between my office and third parties', with Track Changes and Comments and those aren't in OpenOffice).
I returned to Mac (my last Mac previously was a PowerBook 5300/100 with System 7.5.x and MachTen (http://www.tenon.com/products/machten/ [tenon.com]) around OS X Jaguar, on an iBook G3/600. That thing was indestructible (fell off the back of my motorcycle at ~40mph and survived outdoors for a week before I recovered it, still works 4 years later), and led to a PowerBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook (engineering school tote-along), iMac, Mac mini HTPC...
What I love? Running Perl / Apache / PHP / MySQL / etc. in a comfortable "native" UNIX environment, while still having all my GUI goodness with Mail.app, Safari.app, Preview.app, Office 2004, StarCraft (yeah, I'm way behind the times in gaming, don't care, don't have time), etc., all a click away as native apps. Plus, now with VMWare and Windows, I can keep around the software I need for school (XILINX, Visual Studio Pro 2005, etc) on one platform. Front Row is a great HTPC interface. AppleScript lets me automate flipping between it and my Elgato EyeTV, with the sleek little Apple remote control. Awesome industrial design (Macs are pretty; most PCs look cobbled together, with the possible exception of the VAIOs).
I haven't run Linux in years, except at the office where we setup a big Linux file / backup server. Even my home server is now an old PowerMac G4 with matched (and software mirrored) internal hard drives and OS X Tiger Server. The UI is better, the third-party application support is there, and most software I want is either a single-click .dmg install or no more difficult to install than it is on Linux (through Darwin Ports and fink), often easier (fink vs. yum, for instance).
Most servers I'd deploy would still be Linux, as Apple's hardware is expensive in that market niche and there's no value add (I'm going to be running the same AMP software stack regardless of OS X or Linux as the underlying platform). But on the desktop, unless you're totally cash-starved, there's no compelling reason for me or most of the techie people I know to run Linux on the desktop, and lots of good reasons to use OS X instead.
This is a trend that's been building for a while (I jumped in 2002, the biggest geeks in my circle jumped shortly thereafter): http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/1818256 [slashdot.org]
Scientists are buying macs in droves (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs were the perfect solution. They ran our geeky unix software. They ran powerpoint which most prefer for presentations. Wireless just worked.
After a brief stint with macs, I'm back to linux. I love free software. I love the fact I can customize the GUI easily. But most of my colleagues couldn't care less. They just want their hardware to work. They will not listen to argument about free software and proprietary lock-in.
Here's an aside about OS X that's relevant for people who work with PDFs, which includes scientists but I'm sure a lot of other people too. One area that OS X beats linux in handily is Preview, their PDF viewer. Preview does the following things that are much harder or impossible to do with linux software:
In summary, I love Linux, but I do believe that the article/summary have a point and that Apple's significant resources in (1) spending money on proprietary drivers and (2) developing software that is in some cases superior is cutting into Linux.
Re:The answer is no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is LAME (Score:1, Insightful)
WARNING: Automobile analogy imminent!
Uhmmm, Guess what? some people don't mind paying for automobiles, especially if they are good automobiles. The trouble, my friend, is that not everyone can afford a new high end Hummer, BMW, Lexus, or [your favorite expensive car here]. There is a huge number of cheaper automobiles on the road for a reason. MOST people don't need Photoshop, they need a photo organizer and written instructions on how to connect their camera to the computer.[/quote]
I'm sure you won't get this but comparing cars to software doesn't work. Ask Scott McNealy.
Any Mac already comes with a nice photo organizer that looks good and is simple to use,
as well as a music organizer, a fast and functional and simple email program and many other nice, good looking, easy to use apps.
Linux does nothing better, let me repeat NOTHING better, it's simply cheap.
[quote]Don't tell me that Linux is difficult to use or learn. I know better than to fall for that stupid argument.[/quote]
Just because you don't like facing reality doesn't mean it isn't true.
Linux is a pain in the ass to learn and use. Every distro has things in all sorts of places, there is no consistency, NONE.
The guis are often just damn ugly. Granted you can install all sorts of 3D gui happiness so your windows
shimmer or bob as you move around the screen, so what! I now have KDE which looks like someone
beat a crappy windows 2.0 box with an ugly stick and it has shimmery windows. Things are all
happy till you have to go to the command line and while maybe you and certainly I can get around
in the CLI try asking your mom to resolve her driver issue or fix her network problem.
While Linux requires a CLI to fix issues it's crap for a desktop and the fact that you can't admit it
just shows how deep your head is buried in the sand.
[quote]users that don't know how to use Windows or OSX, so they will struggle along with whatever OS is on their computer despite your arguments.[/quote]
Except that if you are struggling along then you aren't being productive are you?
A computer is a tool, not something to fight with, bitch at or STRUGGLE to get working despite your arguments.
Face it, Ubuntu may be free but you basically have to give it away or noone would use but self righteous
geeks who think they know better than everyone else. If Linux were priced the same as Windows or Mac
then the number of installations (outside the geek world) would drop to practically zero.
That right there says something - It's not easy to use, it's not even good looking while
making you struggle with it and too many people in the Linux community can't admit it
to themselves.
Re:The answer is no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. A half-million hobby coders can trounce 10,000 paid Microsoft programmers any day. They have done so already and they continue to do so. The only thing you might expect is that Vista and OS X would have more unified design (in Vista's case, the unifying design concept does not even serve their users so much as corporate interests). Vista is overdesigned malware and OS X is still borrowing from the FOSS movement.
Apple and FreeBSD / Linux may continue to grow closer until it's hard to tell them apart and Quartz / Aqua will just be one of the better Window managers, maybe or maybe not worth buying Apple hardware. Linux has more legs than you suspect.
not only the missing sloppy focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The answer is no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I know there are many ways you can tear up the logic in this post, and I freely encourage you to do so. But ultimately what you need to do is explain why, if my logic is flawed, the situation is as it remains today.''
Eh? Open source _is_ better than Microsoft and Apple. And that's with Apple having gotten a lot of stuff from the open source community. Where commercial software is developed by people under deadlines who have to care more about their evaluations than about the quality of the final product, open source software is developed by people for the love of it, for their own use, and as an advertisement for their skills. It just doesn't add up that Apple, or even Microsoft, could be better than an essentially infinite pool of dedicated and skilled developers with infinite amounts of time and no concerns about budgets or keeping business partners happy. Just compare Ubuntu to Vista.
There. My word against yours. Neither of your arguments are anywhere near conclusive, well-founded, or backed up by evidence. We're both just talking out of our orifices. And that's my _real_ point. While you have been waving the flag of logic and challenged others to step up to a standard you yourself haven't bothered to hold yourself to, I have at least pointed out that flaw in your claims, even if my claims about open source vs. proprietary development models are just as worthless as yours.
The future of Linux starts now (Score:2, Insightful)
The enemies of Linux aren't Apple or even Microsoft, but the fragmentation and confusion caused by the many different distributions out there. Also, since Linux is driven by noncommercial interests, for the most part, it isn't targeted towards nontechnical users, isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and is sorely missing a services infrastructure. That's is a great pity, because Linux is a beautiful idea, except for the fact that the market or target audience just isn't there!
I want Linux to succeed among nontechnical users, but for that to happen, a number of changes will have to be made.
1) Standardization. The various distros need to converge and be forged into a very solid and highly polished unified distribution, a product if you will. This standardization will have to cover every aspect of the operating system.
2) Branding and marketing. Linux needs a common denominator, a product name that people will remember and desire. If there was a Google Linux, I'm sure it would get a huge following, for instance. But there isn't - just a bunch of quirky distros, I'm sorry to say.
In many ways, Apple is the opposite: it's a very tightly run ship, and ultimately, there is only one captain on the bridge: Steve Jobs. This would be a very bad thing if Steve was just a dictator, a greedy tyrant. But he isn't. He has a very positive side that eases the pain of the bad ones: he knows how to bring out the creative energy in people, and how to transform that energy into great products that people want. If there was no Steve Jobs, Apple would be just another mindless computer maker, another Dell or HP, and the Mac OS would be a buggy, slow, messy piece of junk just like Windows. But it isn't, because Apple knows how to meld all this into products that a) are technologically sound and b) succeed in the real world of commercial software and hardware.
What I have just written may offend many Linux people, and for that I am sorry. But some people perhaps need to change their thinking around a little. As much as I admire the Linux movement, Linux will never be a household item, or embraced by people who are more interested in using their computers in creative ways and less interested in tinkering with them, unless the changes I mentioned above happen. Does that make sense?
Somebody needs to step up to the mike and say: "This is the way forward. Let's create products for a mass market, products that people will care about and use in their everyday life!"
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
However you also say you have stopped moderating. Please, please, please next time you get some points, use them. What slashdot needs is more moderators who have a realistic idea of what the system should be used for. This means not just modding down crap you disagree with, but modding up really good posts to make them more prominent and also to make the posters of decent contributions feel appreciated.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No and there is why (Score:3, Insightful)
I run OS X, Kubuntu, and WinXP daily.
I've been running it since version 10.0. It was pretty rough at first, but has really stabilized and continued to advance at a good pace. In fact, it is my OS of choice for applications, all other factors being equal. I don't loath it at all. More generically, I know literally a hundred or more engineers who have switched from Linux or a BSD in the last few years and only one who switched back and these are users with a choice of what they want to use for their daily work developing software for Linux and BSD based appliances.
I've had my fair share of feature requests go unfulfilled, but all the actual bugs I filed in OS X have been fixed and I don't have a contract with Apple. Adobe is another story, but that is unrelated to the platform. I have the same problem with their Windows and Linux software.
I'd say their strength is in their ability to make major changes that break things for the sake of advancing their platform and scrupulous user testing.
They have read only support for OOXML, while TextEdit reads and writes ODF, seems pretty useful to me. They never closed DAAP because they never opened it in the first place. Some people reverse engineered it and things broke when it changed.
I'd argue both of those are situational items that are contributed to by flaws in Linux. The first, is contributed to by Linux's commercial software unfriendly package management. Linux distros are varied and don't all use the same package manager or libraries, don't have support for software registration or software updates from a Website maintained by the distributor, who won't put it in a repository for technical and legal reasons. The second problem, user base, is partly because Linux does not do a very good job of catering to normal users, maintaining it's focus on current users who are mostly power users and CLI fans.
I'd also argue that while Linux is technologically ahead in a few ways, it is technologically behind in a lot of ways that matter to normal desktop users. There is no drag and drop package install/uninstall. Installed applications aren't easily portable. There are no OS X style system services. ZeroConf has not been ubiquitously integrated into standard applications. All of these (along with a good expose clone) are things I miss while using Linux.
I've been a desktop Linux user for years, but in my opinion it is falling behind rather than catching up. I've also seen some serious brain drain as Linux desktop user/developers move to OS X and stop contributing to Linux desktop efforts. There is hope, but OS X does seem to be a serious detriment to desktop Linux, even if it is not intentional on the part of Apple.
Linux is going where Apple can't follow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:my rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scientists are buying macs in droves (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of ways to program obviously. I am very happy on my mac with gcc and my text editor. I also use Maple, Matlab, OCAML, Povray and other software and it all works great for me. I am not sure what problems you had, because I clearly can't imagine all possible programming scenarios on the mac, but then again, neither can you apparently.
Re:Scientists are buying macs in droves (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
Costs might be on par if you try to make the closest specification comparison possible, especially if you take the effort to price out a custom configuration.
However, these kinds of comparisons are flawed because they pit one brand's products (Apple) against some other arbitrarily chosen product line in an attempt to make one side look better, usually Apple. And if you want something less than 5lbs, something smaller than 13.3", or something bigger than 13.3" for less than $1,999, you won't find any luck with Apple without going for used / refurbished products.
Re:my rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Exactly. Keep in mind since most people are not and will not ever be programmers I fully expect these kinds of numbers.
I work for a very geeky company. Development is our bread and butter, and we're doing it pretty well based on the past couple of annual reports and analyst forecasts.
EVERY SINGLE ALPHA GEEK in the company has moved to using a Mac in the past 18 months. Every single one of them had to fight hard against an official "Windows desktops" policy set by HR in order to get permission to use a Mac.
If you don't like Macs, fine. But don't say "programmers don't like Macs", because in my recent experience programmers prefer them over every possible alternative.
Re:This is false. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're willing to pay extra for the Apple experience or whatever, fine, that's cool. But let's not pretend Macs are at price parity when they're not. Nothing Apple sells is at price parity with comparable products from other vendors.
Before buying my MacBook Pro I compared it to similarly configured Dell and HP laptops. While the HP was similarly priced the Dell was about $200 more than the MBP. If I had bought the Dell I would have paid extra, money I could not afford.
FalconRe:Scientists are buying macs in droves (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been saying this for a couple of years now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I write embedded code for a living, mostly on small devices like set-top boxes and mobile phones and the like. I do it all on the Mac. The toolchains that I use are all portable, and build nicely on the mac, so I can choose between Mac and Linux freely.
I choose the mac. Why? Because I need to get the work done, not fiddle with the OS. I don't have time to try to bang out a new xorg.conf to support that second monitor. On the mac, you plug it in, and poof, up it comes. Don't even need a reboot. I don't have time to find out why when I close the laptop, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to get wireless working. I don't want to deal with the details needed to get a VPN working.
Sure, Linux is great, I code for it all the time. But when my personal productivity drops by using it, the love affair ends. I'm in the real world competing with other engineers, I don't have time to fix my tools.
My thoughts... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. One Desktop environment
2. One main distribution
3. One main package management system
4. Reduce the duplication of Linux based applications. If all developers get behind one application, it means it will be better produced. Splintered development gives great choice, at the cost of quality code imho.
5. Better UI - Linux is still far to geeky to use, even though the likes of Ubuntu has made great strides (and many other distributions as well).
6. Popular software MUST run on Linux. Photoshop, Office, autocad, quicken, Dreamweaver are the big ones.
7. More hardware manufacturers MUST write quality drivers for Linux natively
8. More games developers MUST port their games to run natively on Linux, without performance drops.
9. The kernel development team MUST start to improve the Linux kernel for the desktop users, and not corporate business. The 2.6 kernel has seen the Linux kernel developers playing slaves to the corporate interest, at the cost of desktop users imho.
10. A stable API, one that is NOT constantly changing from distribution to distribution, or over the years. I can pretty much install a 98 based application on XP, MOST Linux applications circa that period would NOT install on a modern Linux system.
11. Whilst Linux installers are VERY good these days, when you're talking partitioning, you're asking for much trouble with the average user, which leads me to my next, and final point...
12. Linux MUST get a far larger share of OEM manufacturers...
Things that will NOT change, and that will always hamper Linux...
1. Unreasonable copyright terms (by terms I mean length of copyright ownership)
2. Software patents, which are ALL blatantly illegal.
3. Microsoft corporate sponsorship of US government officials
You may disagree with me, but I think in the long run, history will prove me 100% correct in each and every point. The sad thing is that the vast majority of Linux geeks are so far up themselves, and so far in denial, that they'll never admit the above points. And that is another MAJOR weakness imho.
I'm being bluntly honest here, because I'd LOVE to see Linux become mainstream, and have these applications running on it etc. I'd love to see the Microsoft monopoly broken. I'd love to see Free Software become widely accepted, and the ideals of the FSF appreciated and understood by the majority of the populace.
But, as the parent article says, it'll never happen. Apple, even for the many areas that I dislike it, has a very good idea of what its customers want, and how to deliver that to them. It has the support of 3rd party applications, games developers (not as strong as it should be I admit) and hardware device driver developers. It's sexy, easy to install and maintain and most importantly, easy to use. Apple hardware is now as powerful as Intel based hardware, and the cost of Apple hardware has plummeted. True, it is still more expensive than PC based hardware, but not by a huge margin that many Windows geeks would like to imply.
That's my 2.2c worth, inc. GST.
Dave
Re:my rebuttal (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if my long cherished plans to do some extensive traveling come to fruition this year, I will be looking at lightweight kit. The Asus sub looks like a real gem. Apple is expected to be announcing a semi-sub notebook. Again, I don't need it, but if you've ever done a lot of travel you know how beneficial it can be to shed even a couple of pounds and/or have a smaller form factor. Flash based storage should also be more rugged than a conventional spinning platter hard drive.
You sound like you've gotten yourself a fine computer and operating system, even if you are a dirty smelly freetard hippy, and not a cool, trendy, latte sipping* Macasshole like myself. If you're happy, that's all that matters. Just try and take a shower once in a while, OK? It's considerate to others.
Regardless, I don't think that either OS X or any particular Linux distro are going to be the real challengers to Vista. Judging from all the stories I've been hearing and reading, most Vista users are upgrading to XP in droves. When we look back 365 days from now, I predict that we'll be calling 2008 the year of XP on the desktop. =)
(*Note: I'm really more of the regular coffee guzzling type than a latte sipper.)
Wrong, wrong wrong. (Score:0, Insightful)
You are totally wrong in every way. This should be obvious to anyone who has been on slashdot for any length of time, so I'm always surprised when I see someone who doesn't quite understand the key feature of linux. Next's interface wasn't that special, it was nice. Yipee. OSX's is a candy cane version of that. Personally, I think its ugly and clumsey. But thats all opinion, isn't it? But what isn't opinion, is that Apple isn't going to save you from any evil, because it has no better plans for you then MS does. Put briefly, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are both dictators cut from the exact same cloth.
Whenever I see someone who is so obviously proud of their Mac ownership ("Look at me! I think DIFFERENT") its incredibly sad -- the truth of the matter is that you buy an Apple, you are just a slave to a different master. Hell, you can't even choose what computer to run OSX on. A victory for OSX is a victory for Steve Jobs and no one else on this world.
Apple users are a little bit too old to be buying into the fairy tale vision of Steve Jobs. So you don't like any of Linux's interfaces, and don't care to write your own (and who would blame you really).. you can't stand windows, and you like OSX. So you suck it up and fork out the tons of cash required to buy an Apple. So far you are just fine -- right up until you start ranting on the Internet about how Steve Jobs is going you save the world and make the lambs lie down with the lions. Thats just plain delusional. You can use your OS because you like the interface, but this rubbish about the Benevolent Dictator Steve Jobs is such utter rot, I am tired of hearing this nonsense and I'm sure anyone who actually has a clue is tired of it too.
Re:Scientists are buying macs in droves (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux losing to OS X (Score:2, Insightful)