Dvorak Says Apple Move to Intel Will Harm Linux 1098
Deep Fried Geekboy writes "John C. Dvorak is pretty quick off the blocks with a response to the news that Apple intend to switch to Intel processors. Thankfully, he doesn't gloat about having called this one correctly, but says that the move is likely to hurt Linux, as OSS developers increasingly target the Mac. Since it now turns out that Dvorak was apparently not smoking crack when he predicted the Apple move, could he be right on this one too?"
More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Harm? yes.
Kill? no.
This is redundant, but you can't kill something that isn't tied to the ownership of a company. Just like HAM radio, Linux will be used by enthusiasts who still like using it for a long long time to come. Sure, some perhaps many people will switch to OS X86, many will not.
In the long run I think the Apple move to Intel will help non-windows people in
general by creating a more dominant force of alternative operating systems on th
e Intel platform. We all win out by having more choice and interoperability between operating systems. You have to admit, its all getting better.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, Mac owners will now be able to install standard x86 Linux distros along side OSX too.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac OS computers have always had a single menu bar. Mac window title bars do not have, and have never had menus in native Mac OS applications. The reason is user testing. Fitt's law states that the time to acquire a target - in this case the menu - is directly proportional to the distance from the mouse pointer to the target, and inversely proportional to the size of the target:
T = k distance/size where k is some per-user constant
This law has been backed up by numerous real user tests.
It turns out that there are 8 screen targets that are effectively infinite in size - the top, bottom, right and left sides, and the four corners. Why? Because they can be acquired by simply slamming the mouse in one of these 8 directions without regard for overshooting the target - it simply isn't possible to overshoot these 8 targets.
This means that the time to acquire the menu can be reduced to almost 0 if you put the menu in one of these 8 locations. The 4 corners are impractical - not enough area to present many menus. Since most roman scripts read left to right, top to bottom, this leaves only the top of the screen. The bottom would force the listing of the items in each menu in reverse order since you obviously want the most commonly used menu items first - they're faster to acquire that way.
Now notice how Windows gets this wrong.
1. Window title bars have menus. Some engineers at MS might have thought that this would make them easier to use - after all they're closer that way. But it turns out that menu acquisition time is longer for window menus than for a single screen top menu bar. This is why you do real user tests - users' perceptions of what is or might be faster are often counter-intuitively wrong.
2. The early versions of Windows had a task bar whose buttons did not extend to the bottom of the screen. This defeats the whole purpose of putting a click target on a screen edge - you can no longer acquire the target by simply slamming the mouse down to the bottom. You must slow down and make sure you don't overshoot the button's bottom on the task bar. You've now effectively pessimized click target acquisition - you've put the click target as far as possible from the center of the screen, but made it impossible to acquire by simply pushing the mouse all the way to the bottom.
I can't tell you how many Windows users insist nevertheless that window menus are faster - that's their perception. But when I time them with a stopwatch they're all surprised to learn that they actually acquire the menu faster on a Mac than on Windows.
Mac OS computers are objectively more usable because the Mac UI has always been based on real world user testing, not some engineers' notion of what would work best.
For more on the basics of usability see Bruce "Tog" Tognazini's site. [asktog.com]
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with testing is that you have to test the whole thing, not just the most critical part. That's why video card benchmarks are done almost exclusively with real-world games instead of benchmark tools thes
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac concept of the single menu bar at the top of the screen wasn't just about speed, it was also about space. Consider the old Macs and the screens they had. I think the SE had a resolution of 512x384, or something similarly small. On screens of that resolution, giving each window its own menubar takes up a significant proportion of space when you're working with more than one window.
Anyway, having things always at the same physical location on the screen makes it quicker for the user, even ignorin
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
But since the end user will have to do this himself, it will only happen with hackers.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. The "core OS" is much more than just Darwin. Quartz and Aqua are so important to the execution of any major "Mac application" that they too must be considered as part of the core. And obviously, they are not nearly Open Source.
If you didn't need the Graphics and UI stuff, you'd probably be better off running your applications on BSD or Linux, forgetting OS X.
already too late (Score:3, Interesting)
Very small chance of keeping it on Apple hw (Score:3, Interesting)
> Apple-branded hardware.
Three options here.
1. The new x86 Macs only run OS X. In this case there is zero change in new adoption and a slow bleed away since Apple will always be behind the tech curve. The PPC chip was their only ace in the hole, they run stock IDE drives, year old video cards, etc. Since they only introduce new hardware twice per year that also means that they will usually be six months to a year behind on the CPU.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.osnews.com/ [osnews.com]
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be *very* suprised if OSXX86 (heh) can't be made to run on standard PC hardware. It will be against the license, and it won't be plug and play, but I'm 99% sure it'll be possible.
Aqua and mathematica (Score:3, Interesting)
Mind you later there were drivers which came out which let you fake having a coprocessor so you wouldn't even have this limitation (though floating point math was still really really slow).
Not sure what this mean
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Informative)
You are ignoring the thing that makes it impossible. Supporting the x86 world is nearly impossible- just ask any Linux distro. Despite years of work on drivers there are still cheap webcams, wireless cards, dvd drives, sound cards, and other peripherals that won't work with Linux because there is no driver. Are you saying that every creator of all the x86 shit (including those that are out of business like Aureal) is going to create new drivers JUST for a new OS that will have a smaller percentage of the market than Linux has today? No. OSX on Dells are a fantasy. The magic of OSX works because the OS knows every piece of hardware it touches . There are only a few thousand MAC possiblities. The arrangement of parts in other x86 boxes can easily reach over a billion combinations. Apple isn't going to mess with that. People won't accept "buy OSX, and there is a small chance it will work!"
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, I have heard Phill Schiller open his trap more then once and end up eat his foot later. E.g. "We don't target the enterprise."
Can we say x-serve?
Apple may not bundle the device drivers with the OS. But that wont stop people.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
And for good reason! Apple's core advantage is that they control the entire experience--hardware and software. Though I run Windows XP 99% of the time, I can readily admit that Microsoft has a big challenge supporting thousands of different hardware configurations--motherboards, chipsets, videocards, peripherals. It costs a lot of money to do all this QA, and poorly designed third-party hardware and software can kill a system.
Apple would be foolish to give up this advantage! And if, while not supported, XP users by Apple brand laptops to run XP on, that won't hurt Apple!
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it's just a hidden extension, Windows won't have a problem running on "Mac" PC hardware; unless someone reverse engineers Tiger86 to fi
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
The company making the OS for IBM computers (Microsoft) had a direct interest in seeing to it that "IBM Clones" (as they were called back then) worked seamlessly with MS-DOS and Windows.
Apple owns both. They could, if they had to, continually update their OS to:
1. Detect knock-off ROMS and ignore them.
2. Re-flash the ROM periodically... possibly even crippling the "fake" ones.
3. Read motherboard serial numbers and phone home.
4. Any of a number of other options to render unauthorized clones useless.
This will make the task of reverse engineering the Apple ROM monumentally difficult. And what would a company get for doing so? A chance to bite in to a small piece of a very small pie (the Mac market.)
No chance of such a thing happening unless Macintosh market share suddenly baloons deep into double-digits... and even then, not much of a chance.
So long as Apple makes their margins on hardware, they are not going to let it happen.
Re:So it will run on standard hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
So, buy the Mac with the chip (or buy the haxored PCI card that emulates it) and get the shiny happy Aqua GUI.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, NeXT went from selling Computers with a BSD-based OS to selling just the OS for x86 computers. Steve Jobs was there, he saw how well that worked.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, you mean a Mach kernel with a BSD userspace, right? With a nice GUI written predominantly in ObjC? You know what architecture OS X is, don't you? (And which strange but wonderful C derivative is predominantly used on OS X?)
Can you put two+two together?
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Insightful)
( have been burned by a decision of Jobs to drop the Next).
I'm a regular OS X and linux user. The newest strategic
move of apple only confirms me to invest in my linux boxes.
For example, I don't yet see whether we will have to re buy
all the commercial software. It is also not clear, how well
Apple will do selling hardware from now on.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Funny)
No, NeXT acquired Apple.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
TW
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
So J. Random Luser isn't going to buy a $1000 Mac/x86 and a $400 Windows Longhorn package, particularly if burning OS X and loading Windows disqualifies you from Apple technical support and service. Which it probably would.
No, the only real advantage of Mac, regardless of processor, is integration between proprietary hardware (even if built up from commodity components) and OS X. So don't expect a swarm of switchers bringing their XP CDs.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey, it's missing the right mouse button."
Might help Linux on Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think both will happen. First, since you'll be able to dual-boot, people might dual-boot Mac and Windows now, and since that'll only be possible on a Mac, that means people might leave Dell for Apple.
However, I also think people are leaving Linux for Mac, but that has NOTHING to do with the chipset. It's been happening for a while since Apple switched to OSX. I'm living proof, buying a powerbook I never thought I'd own. But in a way, this will help linux too - I, as an Apple owner, can now put on whatever linux distro I want. Hell, talk about Nirvana - I can *triple* boot Mac, Linux, and Windows. Gives me dirty thoughts just thinking about it.
If there's on linux distro that's probably hurt by this, it's obviously Yellow Dog. Still, great effort all those years, guys.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Interesting)
e.g
3.2ghz Pentium 4 1GB ram 200GB HD PC $600
or
3.2ghz Pentium 4 512MB ram 120GB HD "Apple Mac" $999
I wonder which consumers will think is better value, up till now apple could pull the "but our hardware is magically fast even though it looks slow" trick.
One possibility is Intel reserve its true dual core (or some other new cpu) for apple only but then it will shoot itself in the foot considering AMD is already producing better CPUs.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is considering using Intel CPUs on a "Mac" Architecture...
Fact 2:
Linux is predominantly used on Intel/AMD chips on an "IBM PC" Architecture
How the two facts above lead to Dvorak saying that this would mean less development on Linux, I havent a clue.
Hey, have a look at this wookie called chewie
Re:More good than harm. (Score:4, Interesting)
Talking about companies as if they were people is bad enough. Talking about computer programs as if they were people is just absurd.
Re:More good than harm. (Score:3, Interesting)
Harm? How? Apple makes proprietary systems, composed of proprietary hardware and proprietary software. Now they'll switch from PowerPC to Intel CPUs - this doesn't mean they'll give up on their own hardware, just that they'll switch to a different supplier for one of the parts. So the question is not whether this can kill or harm Linux, but how this would have any effect at all for Linux.
Dvorak's idea is that people would now fork out the money to buy a Mac, then buy a license and install Win
Re:More good than harm. (Score:5, Informative)
Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:2)
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Why OS X on x86 won't kill Linux:
1. It's not free.
2. It's not that other free, either.
3. It won't run on a generic whitebox that you built from Newegg.
4. It probably won't run on those nice 1U rackmount servers you just bought from HP.
5. Loyalty. Loyal Mac users have taken Apple through all sorts of dark ages, but they aren't programmers. OTOH, most open source hackers are loyal Linux or BSD users, who aren't likely to switch.
6. It's not a real Unix. Of the tiny handful of Unix gurus I know who have switched, they have all switched on the desktop, not in the server room. As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications.
7. Netinfo. It's even worse than ncsd.
8. Cost. If you expect an Apple box to cost significantly less with a different processor, you're smoking crack.
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
Summary: We might see a blip in the desktop penetration of Linux, and possibly a fiery Clash of the Zealots, but that's about it.
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Curiously, Dvorak really did come up with a scoop this time -- if anything he _ought_ to be gloating, instead of using the news as a new opportunity to be stupid.
Dvorak was right, let's admit it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's be fair to this guy; he really had it right. And of course, as flame retardant, I have to state my Mac credentials: I am writing this from my dual-G5 Tiger box... I've never owned an Intel machine. But I'm glad and hopeful for this switch, although a bit worried at the same time.
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
First, let me state that I agree that Mac on Intel won't have a serious impact on Linux. Though I do think it could make a dent in Linux on the desktop (rather than your assesment of a "blip"). On to your points.
1-3: You got me. It isn't free and it won't run (supported) on generic x86 boxes (or even boxes from other large vendors).
4: It won't run on the rack-mounts you got from HP, but it will run on the rack-mounts you buy from Apple. I hear those guys are pretty nice, as well.
5: Loyalty has always kept these two camps intact. Agreed.
6: Define "real" Unix and then tell me why Mac OS X isn't Unix. In my experience, Mac OS X is just as much a flavor of Unix as Linux, Solaris, AIX or any of the BSDs. Sure, it does some things differently, but don't *all* flavors of Unix do some things differently. And in terms of stability, expandability, and playing nice with existing Unix software, it has been pretty good to me. I completely disagree with you.
7: Netinfo isn't great, but it's use is very limited in Panther and later (especially Tiger). In a networked environment, against authentication and directory servers (OS X Server, ActiveDirectory/MS, Kerberos/LDAP, etc.), NetInfo isn't used much at all on local machines. Again, OS X supports open standards and does it well.
8: It isn't free, and the hardware, while likely to come down a tad, IMO, will not be as cheap as commodity x86 boxes. But I do expect their prices to become more competitive with the "big boys" of the Wintel market (Dell, HP, etc.). If you are looking for rock-bottom prices, of course you don't go to a major provider like Dell or HP, do you? Then why would you go to Apple? Other than that, I see no reason they can't compete better with Dell and HP on their own turf.
9: I think you're jumping the gun on this one a bit. This transition is expected to take over two years, yet you are assuming Apple will stay with IA-32 indefinitely based off of their initial Universal Binray Programming Guidelines doc. ISn't that a tad presumptuous? I seriously doubt that by the time Apple get's their pro desktop lines migrated to Intel, they won't support 64 bit processors. We'll see though. Neither of us are mindreaders...
Taft
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Makes one wonder, what kind of game is Apple playing? It does not make much sense to withhold information from developers and say later "actually
Goes without saying that a 32bit-only x86 PowerMac would flop when you can buy a 64bit machine from any other vendor and have the Windows version of your image/video processing toolchain run faster/better.
Either way, it will suck for the short term and remains to be seen what the long term will bring.
Re:Marginal effect on Linux (Score:3, Funny)
It will. Trust me. I'm from Russia.
Doubt it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then how can anyone predict this will hurt the platform?
Re:Doubt it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh? Apple's been "moving closer toward commodity hardware" ever since the first revisions of the original Macintosh. If your definition of "commodity" means "used or made popular by PCs", then you're in for a shocker as today's Macs have:
* commodity memory
* commodity hard disks
* commodity optical drives
* commodity system bus (PCI)
* commodity video chipsets
* commodity peripheral buses (Firewire, USB)
Along with the mot
Intel != x86 (Score:2)
Oh and BTW - First Post. I think...
Re:Intel != x86 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Intel != x86 (Score:2)
can't be wrong all the time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:can't be wrong all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
OT -- Re:can't be wrong all the time (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is running minute slow:
The Two Clocks
Which is better, a clock that is right only once a year, or a clock that is right twice every day? 'The latter,' you reply, '"unquestionably.' Very good, now attend.
I have two clocks: one doesn't go at all, and the other loses a minute a day: which would you prefer? 'The losing one,' you answer, 'without a doubt.' Now observe: the one which loses a minute a day has to lose twelve hours, or seven hundred and twenty minutes before it is right again, conse
Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dvorak (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing Dvorak with Bob Metcalfe [infoworld.com]. Metcalfe is a respected commentator and accomplished industry pioneer who was wrong once ten years ago. Dvorak is a Linux-hating troll who is wrong most of the time.
I spoke too soon! (Score:2)
Check out his PC World column [pcmag.com], which is full of obnoxious gloating.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder can you install Xp on that machine...
Define "Harm" (Score:5, Insightful)
So by "hurt", there's no net change: Linux runs on Macs, and will in the future.
If Apple makes its Macs (say that three times fast) as closed as they are now, then Linux will have nothing to worry about. Linux succeeds, as one developer mentioned, because nothing runs faster than on commodity hardware running with LInux running with Apache. Linux succeeds because of its ability to work very well with open systems. Apple will be a niche player - maybe they'll grow if WINE should run well under OS X with an Intel processor (and I'm hoping so, if for no other reason than I can play Half Life on a Mac finally), but I don't think that Linux will be threatened by a locked hardware base.
If Apple, say 5 years from now, decides that it's going to let the machine hardware become the commodity item and focus on its "special" hardware (iPod, etc) and software (Final Cut Pro, iLife, etc), then Linux will still be unharmed. Even if Apple says "OK, we're still going to sell premium desktop machines at +$300 compared to the competition for quality - but you could always just buy a Dell and pay us $150 for OS 10.7 and we'll be happy, since that still means you'll buy our other software too and you're likely to someday make an official Apple machine your next purchase", Linux will not be "harmed", since Apple can't stop Linux from being made. Linux will proceed along its way.
If by "harmed" you mean market share, then he may have a point. If Apple lets OS X run on standard PC's, then I can see Linux desktop share either becoming stagnent or shifting about.
My personal bet is that if the latter happens (OS X on standard machines), within 10 years we'll see a 50% Windows, 30% OS X, and 15% Linux, 5% other varients in the desktop market - in the server market it may be much as it is now, maybe with OS X and Linux overtaking the bulk of the traditional Unix route.
So, "harm" to Linux? The truth, as you may learn, depends entirely upon a certain point of view. What I've described is just mine. I could be wrong.
I ain't no Linux zealot or fanboy (Score:5, Funny)
But even I know that Dvorak is an idiot. Like the cliche says, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
on Dvorak being right (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the move hurting Linux, maybe. But OSX has been hurting Linux on the desktop for a while as it is. Lots of hackers are switching; they get the power of the CLI when they want it, with no need to fuck around when they want to view video, plug in hardware and have it reliably work, etc.
his prediction was not quite correct (Score:5, Informative)
didn't Dvorak... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:didn't Dvorak... (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, and me without mod points today.
Thanks for posting the funniest thing I've read today!
Ummm... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
it doesn't work that way (Score:4, Insightful)
But he doesn't have a freakin' clue about open source development. It's not an either/or proposition. People will continue to write software that can be targeted to OS X and Linux and [insert favorite *NIX OS here].
Yes, it may hurt Linux on the desktop somewhat, if Apple's Intel-based hardware is cheap and/or running OS X on generic hardware isn't a big PITA. But that's no real skin off my potatos as long as it helps hurt M$.
Linux has a future with regards to openness (Score:2, Interesting)
Longhorn and Mac OS X ( Tiger, Leopard) may still have many more appealing features, but from a freedom and open use perspective, you better start looking at that Linux box.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Xmas in Hell (Score:2)
I appreciate reading his stuff, but I take his predictions with a grain of salt. He's very well informed and quite willing to disseminate his information. He's also usually pretty insightful, even if he isn't generally dead-on.
Looking forward, strategic consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a really interesting aspect of this Intel move is that now Apple has REALLY positioning itself square against Longhorn. The next release of the OS is due around the Longhorn release, and all the lower end macs like the Mini and iMac should be switched by then as well. So come time for Longhorn release will people buy Longhorn boxes or Apple boxes with a sort of "Longhorn" that's had almost two years of refinement, not to mention what's new in Leopard!
At first I didn't think the Intel switch was a good idea, now I'm kind of neutral. One thing I still find odd though - why Intel of all people? Why not AMD?
Now that is interesting, qill Apple drop GCC (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel's compiler from the start gives a sizable speedup compared to gcc...
I was thinking about that yesterday. I wonder, will APple drop GCC? Or spend time trying to improve it to the level of Intels compiler? The hopefull among us could wish that part of the Apple-Intel deal was asking Intel to provide some improvements to GCC. But that's wishful thinking and it would probably be easier just to switch to xcode.
The binary p
Re:Now that is interesting, qill Apple drop GCC (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember Apple is a business. The question is does it make "business" sense to spend time improving GCC. If the x86 switch is permanent, I would argue no (other than the other replier to this comment's statement on Objective C which would change this to a yes or maybe). The Intel compiler rocks for x86 and works fine, why waste resources on something that isn't core to the business.
I don't agree. (Score:5, Interesting)
People will be able to develop truly cross platform libraries more reliably, on which people will write applications which will work on all platforms. I find it exceedingly unlikely that a developer would choose to develop solely for apple, when for a little extra work they can cover Linux too.
I disagree with his slurs against open-office too. The bi-monthly preview versions of open-office 2.0 are very impressive, not only in terms of functionality but also in the quality of its interface. I'm sure there are arm-fulls of features present in Microsoft Office that are not there in open-office but do I really give a flying fuck?
It's not the total number of features that matters; it's whether the features I want to use are there that really counts. I'd bet that almost all of the Slashdot community have not used any of the new features in Microsoft Word since the release of Office 97. After Office 97 no real value was added to the office suite, so why should I have to upgrade every couple of years?
Microsoft force upgrades because you can't buy Office 97 licenses any more. When your company expands you have to get the brand-spanking-new licenses of office and then because of possibility of incompatibility between the two versions it becomes sensible to harmonize the licenses across your business and this invariably means buying loads of new licenses.
In contrast, Open-office has all the features I want to use and they're organized in an accessible way. I can always get an older copy of open office so the same expansion issues do not apply. I think if most companies could start over with their office suite, most would adopt open-office. What's stopping market penetration by open-office is the hidden cost of converting all the documents to the new format.
Simon.
Short term, the opposite. Long term? Depends. (Score:3, Insightful)
So in the short term, you end up with more projects that can be released under Mac & Linux.
In the long term... the key to success probably hinges on adaptation. If Linux distros continue on their own path with mixed up UIs, uneven standards, and so on, then the core audience won't grow as fast as if there's a consensus to make it appealing for newcomers.
I'm not saying 'Just make everything look like Mac', just that a succesful long term strategy probably involves watching and, when appropriate, adopting best practices from the similar OS that has a bigger marketshare.
He's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Apple's switch to Intel really doesn't change all that much unless you're a current Apple developer. Apple's hardware is not going to get significantly cheaper, their OS is not going to run on non-apple machines. There's still going to be just as much proprietary-ness in both their hardware and software as ever. They've been making general strides towards open source with OSX, but I don't think that's going to function any differently now that they're on x86.
A mac will still be a mac, and a PC will still be a PC, they'll just happen to have the same processor inside. Like they have the same hard drives and ram and lots of other stuff now. If Apple was opening up OSX to any old dell or emachines box, then maybe there'd be significant migration from Linux. If Apple was entirely open sourcing the whole of OSX, then maybe there'd be significant migration. But not because they're changing processors in their otherwise the same computers.
I was thinking the same thing (Score:4, Informative)
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about Linux/Unix users switching to Macs in droves [wired.com]. If that's true, I don't see how Apple switching to Intel based system will stop that switch. It will almost certainly make the switch even easier to make. Let's face it, with a Mac you get Unix AND a great GUI.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I the only one out there who doesn't really care for Apple's "great GUI"? I currently have the latest greatest dual proc. G5 with 4 GB of memory running Jaguar on my desktop sitting next to my vanilla Athlon running FC3. Guess which one gets used 99% of the time? I am a hard core Linux user from the start who cares most about three things: the terminal (gnome-terminal with tabs), the editor (vim/gvim) and whatever handles my personal key and mouse bindings (which is why I hate Metacity and stick with sawfish). I don't care if I have 64 bit rendered window borders with buttons that look stunningly like cough drops. Honestly, the only software I run regularly on the G5 is the Palm software which syncs up my Zire. It's broken in FC3 right now.
I got the G5 with grant money (I'm a meteorology professor/researcher) because I am interested in creating movies of renderings of my model data, and got the Final Cut Pro / Motion / DVD burner suite and it works fine. I also wanted to see how the IBM processor stacked up to the Athlon/Intel for large floating point model runs (now that seems to be less of an issue). But you can bet if those movie making apps ran under Linux, I wouldn't have bothered with the Mac.
Unless something much, much better comes along, I will probably run Linux as my primary "Desktop" and research OS until I retire in twenty-odd years.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you own a microwave oven? Once again, there are patents and copyright limitations covering it too.
Do you own a TV? Same thing.
Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant? What's so special about software that requires it to be "free" (as in speech and beer)?
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
With closed software however, you can't look under the hood (although it's legal under EU patent system to reverse-engineer) or modify as much as you want, simply because it isn't quite possible.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you realize that if the "Car" patent hadn't been slapped down as harmful to consummers in the 1900's that there would be only one manufacturer of cars, and that the Ford Assembly line would never have been invented?
Same for the TV! Look it up sometime when you are checking out the "car" patent.
Great analogy, for the opposite argument.
What's special about software is that is an attempt to get patents on the Concepts, otherwise a copyright would serve the purpose.
Re:I was thinking the same thing (Score:4, Informative)
Because software isn't a car. Software isn't a TV. Software isn't a microwave.
Software already has protection via copyright and trade secrets. Thanks to copyright, and the very nature of source code vs machine code, we can't see how closed software works. We can't modify it. We can't improve it. We can't learn from it. It's a black box, never to be opened. And thanks to patents we can't even make another piece of software that WORKS like the original.
My car might have patents but nobody owns the copyright to my car. My television might use a radical new form of electron gun but nobody will sue me for building my own TV. With patents I'm supposed to be able to see how the invention works; that's the balance that patents are supposed to provide. Where's that balance with software patents?
Books have copyrights but I don't see anybody claiming a patent for murder mysteries. Music can be copyrighted but nobody owns a patent on Rock Ballads. With copyright the original is supposed to pass into the public domain for the good of all humanity. With software copyright, where is the balance? The knowledge is still locked up in the source code which we NEVER SEE.
The software manufacturers are simply greedy; they want copyright protection AND patent protection AND trade secrets. They want copyright on the machine code and trade secrets for the source, so the public NEVER receives the intended balance. They want patents on the algorithms so nobody can compete, but if you can't see the code then how can you know when you infringe? Once again, where is the balance?
I'd like to see a simple rule applied here; software can have patent protection, or copyright protection, but not both. If you choose patents then you must publish your source code and in 20 years time it's in the public domain. If you choose copyright then you can keep the source code a secret but you can't enforce patents. That would go some way towards restoring the balance.
No more than Mac already is (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, the Mac is acting - and will continue to act - as a retarding factor to Linux desktop adoption. Essentially, if you don't like tweaking, MacOS X is "desktop Linux" available today, and with Microsoft Office, QuickTime and all the rest. In this respect, RH got it right by shifting focus from the hobbyist/home user desktop. Me, I enjoy the tweaking, and consider it a fair price to pay to avoid being locked into anyone's proprietary software, whether Microsoft or Apple. Each to their own though; I gather some people actually use computers to do their real job, strange as that might seem!
Of course, as MacOS X is more-or-less a UNIX, it can be argued that any retardation it causes Linux is balanced by the invigorating effect it gives to UNIX-like OSs like Linux.
I'm not going to suddenly switch (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows is insecure, plain and simple. You have no source code and there is all sorts of legacy code and other crap in there that you can't control. Except for the stupid licensing/activation it is a fine operating environment but I just can't trust it. That plus the lack of a nice scripting environment that Unix-like systems provide make it unusable as a primary OS.
OS X is slow, bloated, and somewhat insecure. The slow and bloated parts are just a problem with the design. BSD on Mach is wasteful and they do way too much object-oriented stuff that is inefficient (not that OO is bad, just their design which has Smalltalk-like issues). This goes way back the design of NextStep which had similar problems. As for the insecurity, it's the same problem I have with Windows. I don't have the source code to most of the system and there are is lot of legacy and convenience stuff in there that will eventually lead to insecurities just like on Windows (just wait and see when OS X is more pervasive). Although I trust it more than Windows, I can't live with its performance and that nagging insecurity feeling won't go away.
So I'm left with Linux. BSD is not an option because I need VMware to run Windows for development purposes. Linux can be a pain in the ass to work with but it is getting better and at least I have full control. For me this is mostly about security and performance. I know what's going on and can control all the details. This can be a huge pain and I try to mitigate the problem by using the proper tools but at least it lets me sleep at night. Also with Linux I can control what I run. I don't need an Aqua-like eye-candy system to do development on. I can chose to run GNOME, KDE, or something lightweight. I like that control because it keeps my system performance up in the places I need it (eg. I need to run VMware fast, I need to compile fast, etc.).
Non-developers have different needs of course.
Re:I'm not going to suddenly switch (Score:3, Interesting)
Err, you say you're a developer, but then you say things like this. The Mach/BSD issue is not the bottleneck. That Anandtech article was painfully innacurate and uninformed.
There are some bottlenecks in this region, but they are no
Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine if a car company came out with a nice new sedan. This sedan is VERY nice. How much would that sedan hurt the truck sales of a competing company? If the sedan is VERY nice, then it is sure to have an impact on auto sales in general, but since it is not a direct replacement for a truck, its impact on truck sales is going to be limited.
OSX is NOT a direct replacement for Linux. The reason is that it will not run on STANDARD HARDWARE. If Apple were to actually create a version that ran on generic PC's then someplace in hell some imps would be making a snowman. Apple will not create a version for standard PC's because Apple is Apple. If you know the history of the company then you know what I mean. If you don't know the history then explaining it will take too much time. There are many books that have been written about Apple and its history. If you want to know the details, read a couple of them.
The value of Linux is that it is FREE, and yes I mean as in BEER as well as in speech, and you don't have to buy funky proprietary hardware to run it. This is why it is found on servers all over the place, as well as on more and more desktops every day. OS-X is expensive, both in terms of the OS itself, and in terms of the proprietary hardware you have to shell out money for in order to run it. Proprietary solutions, even if they are superior, always have a very hard time competing with commodity solutions. This has been Apple's problem for the better part of 20 years now. It wasn't Microsoft as a software company that sank the Mac, it was the PC hardware industry whose products became ubiquitous. Microsoft simply rode the wave.
As for the development argument, how many Open Source projects are there out there which target the mac exclusively? Answer, very few. How many in fact support the Mac as an afterthought, if at all, because of all the funky things that Apple has done which make porting to it more difficult than porting to Solaris or some other mainstream version of Unix?
I really do get the idea sometimes that people like Dvorak are in the business of making proclamations like this just to get attention. If they're right even some of the time then they'll be able to create an audience and a paycheck doing it.
I have an alternate prediction for everyone. My prediction is this: The Open Source projects that benefit the Mac will usually benefit Linux and vice versa. There will be a few that are Mac-only, or Linux-only, but only in order to replicate some desired functionality that is already present on the other system. Most of the Open Source development that is done for OS-X will be in porting stuff from Linux to it, and in the creation of new projects that can be developed on both platforms simultaneously.
We already see this with FreeBSD where everything from Apache to zsh is up and running because the work of porting between FreeBSD and Linux is usually trivial and writing conditional code to support both platforms is even easier. There are a few packages that don't exist on both platforms, or which exist on one platform as a kludge, but these are the rare exceptions. Linux and OS-X don't have as much in common as Linux and FreeBSD do, but they are still similar enough that supporting both is not a herculean task the way it is with Unix and Windows. Development on OS-X will therefore be a net gain for Linux since most of the stuff that is developed for OS-X will be developed for Linux at the same time and vice versa.
Besides, there is no guarantee that Apple's move to Intel is going to increase sales. It may result in faster computers, but it takes a lot more than that to convince people to buy your funky hardware so they can run your funky os.
Linux has one strike against it in that it is not windows. It is able to overcome that because it is FREE and runs on standard hardware. Choosing Linux is not a commitment to Linux, it c
I don't understand why the CPU matters! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why will it make any difference at all if developers are telling their compilers to compile for x86 or PPC? The application-level code still has to be dealt with, and the CPU isn't even visible to most developers writing most applications, particularly the critical-mass open source stuff that the "masses" would have to adopt to make this turnabout happen.
I'm not happy with the Apple decision, but for reasons other than these.
Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX uses the XNU kernel, a development of the Mach kernel, with the BSD-UNIX personality hardcoded in. It doesn't have the performance characteristics of the BSD kernels at all. On top of this sits Aqua, as eye-candy intensive a GUI as any out there, which places heavy demands on chip performance. Switching to an inferior CPU isn't going to make it faster, even with the higher clock speeds in performance terms the switch is likely to be a wash.
OSX isn't going to outperform Windows on the same hardware by any stretch of the imagination. The switch may well enable Apple to improve their price/performance ratio, if as is rumoured this was prompted by difficulties getting the next generation of PPC chips at reasonable prices in reasonable quantitites, but expecting OSX to outperform any other system on the same hardware is pretty ludicrous. Unless he means to compare OSX today with Longtooth in 5 years or whenever it's finally released.
Why would a switch to x86 attract more developers? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Incidentally, the use of the word allow indicates to me that perhaps the hardware will be practically identical and artificial restrictions may be put in place to ensure the hardware is a genuine Apple box... then someone will hack OS X to run on generic PCs... and Apple will bludgeon them with the DMCA... I can hardly wait.)
Not crack, more like crystal meth. (Score:3, Insightful)
He predicted the shift, yes, but it didn't happen for the reasons he cites. Dvorak was overall ignorant to the inner workings of the Apple-IBM relationship that prompted this decision over the last year. Dvorak's reasoning is that he believes that Intel is a titan, and that monopolies are good, and that the market should reward them. Steve Jobs switched because he's playing hardball with is suppliers.
I think that this move will be more likely to help Linux than to hurt it. For one thing, this move makes x86-compiled Linux binaries more compatible with the x86-compiled OS X - therefore puts more Linux apps in reach of "casual" open source dabblers who are Mac-heads. Ultimately, this will more closely tie Linux with Mac Users, and vice versa. (not the non-technical subset of Mac users, but the hobbyist/power-user set). I *do* believe that cultivating WiNE for OS X, and other Linux x86 apps, are secretly part of this strategy. Partially to backfill the applications that the platform WILL lose, when it goes x86 - because face it, Adobe and Microsoft may be buying into this bullshit, but the reality is, most other ISV's are not going to recompile or put in the effort to port to x86. Particularly a lot of the shareware/freeware games and utilities (you may as well delete them now, and get used to their absence, they're gone).
I don't think that a whole lot of Linux users are switching to Apple because of the CPU. They're doing it because Apple supports Unix tools they're familliar with, in a much more powerful sensible and workable User Environment (OS X compared to Windows+SFU). This hardware change won't impact that AT ALL, unless there's a real price/performance difference betweem PPC Macs and Intel Macs (and I seriously doubt that, if anything, there will be a penalty in certain areas where the PPC Macs currently exel, like CD ripping, and MPEG encoding).
Above all, I doubt VERY MUCH that the PPC->Intel switch is intended to have an impact on the street-price of Apple systems. Jobs says this is purely about MHz ramping, and heat/power/performance capabilities. He's not going to put a celeron in the Mac Mini, and suddenly drop the price $200.
Linux-heads who are in love with cheap hardware, will stick with Wintel-compatible hardware, and run Linux.
And NO ONE, will run Linux on Apple-intel hardware. Because Apple-intel hardware will cost more than other brands of intel systems, and the features that make it WORTH more (nifty volume controls, sleep/wake/variable power/cooling management, color management etc) are tied into Mac OS X, and won't likely work as well with Unix.
The LOSERS here are Apple Customers who have legacy systems. Over the past 5 years or so, Apple has readily demonstrated their utter contempt for people not running the latest and greatest Apple hardware, by cutting off support for older hardware. Us PPC owners are going to be shit on a lot over the next few years.
Our only solace may be PPC Linux. That helps, not hurts Linux.
Waitaminute... OSX on x86??? (Score:3, Informative)
I was talking about that last night on IRC, and afaik x86 is limited to 32 bit architecture!
Why the heck would Apple, who's G5 is 64 bits switch to a 32 bit architecture?
Most likely they're going to use another Intel chip, like Itanium2 or something to come that runs 64 bits, not 32!
It doesn't make sense for them to DOWNGRADE their hardware. They'd be signing their death as a competitor for high end applications, which is what they are for most professional graphics and video applications.
Seriously people, think about it! Amd is 64 bits now, apart from the sempron line, and that's destined to disappear sometime in the future.
So yes, in my opinion Dvorak is smoking crack, because it's not OSX for x86! It's OSX for a non-x86, 64 bit Intel chip! Itanium2 might be it, or it might be something else, I haven't kept up with Intel's 64 bit attempts.
Also switching from the 64 bit PowerPC to a 64 bit Intel chip would seem more coding than switching to 32 bit, as they have OSX running on their older G4s and even G3s.
Remember that end of article about migrating to Intel? "It's going to be a lot of hard work"? It wouldn't be if they were switching to x86, Darwin runs fine on x86...
Doesn't someone else see the flaw here?
On User Interfaces (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring, for a moment, Dvorak's predictions for Linux's demise, he does have a very valid point that Linux/Gnome/KDE advocates seem to be missing:
The problem isn't isolated to Impress; KDE and Gome applications tend either to mimic Windows equivalents, or have UI's with far too many menus, toolbars, tabs, sidebars, bells, whistles, and fruit baskets. GUI concepts change dramatically between releases (Gnome's file browser, anyone?), and there seems to be little or no documentation for many applications.
Unix-oriented developers tend to be both intelligent and arrogant; the assumption is that if a program is good enough for a geek, it's good enough for everyone else, too.
That isn't to say that Windows applications are any more consistent; even Excel and Word have annoying differences in menus and options, and programs these days are a web of menus and options. To change a program's behavior (on Windows, KDE, or Gnome), do I look for "Preferences" or "Options" or "Settings" or "Configure" in the menus? Something so simple, and yet so inconsistent.
Being "right" doesn't always (or even usually) mean you'll succeed, and just because FOSS developers think they have the moral high ground doesn't mean users are going to flock to their door. KDE and Gnome need to give people a reason to use them, by providing more intuitive interfaces and a better understanding of user's needs.
Dvorak Makes Lucky Guess, Now A Prophet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having taken the time to RTFA, it's obvious to me he's making it up as he goes. Linux PPC work will will slack off as it's platform moves to legacy status, but otherwise a MacIntelosh won't make a bit of difference to Linux. Addressing his comments:
Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
Obviously harmful to the computer makers in general and to Microsoft: Assuming a Macx86 won't run Windows, the current market inertia will continue. A Mac will remain a nicely made boutique system. For developers, it ain't the CPU, it's the API.
x86 Competition: The rest of his piece assumes that there's a significant number of x86 developers who work with desktop Linux applications because it's the only non-MS game in town, and they'd love to get out from under the GPL if only they could. This is the fantasy of a (arguably) paid MS shill. So the people working on Open Office, Abi Word, GNU Cash, et al are going to drop everything and run to Apple's API because of an ENDIAN change? At least now we have solid proof Dvorak hasn't written a line of code since he last ran BASIC on a TRS-80.
Made On A Mac (tm)
Dvorak hates linux (Score:4, Interesting)
First, he spends about 2/3rds of the article trash-talking open source applications. They're not intuitive, he claims, and thus haven't been accepted much. Somehow macos is going to kill them (even though he claims they aren't accepted?)
But in the last third (last 4 paragraphs) is where he actually makes some arguements, instead of just trashing open source applications.
First, he makes two claims obviously false claims. First, source apps haven't targeted macos, but suddenly will. Simply wrong. Lots of open source apps have been ported to os-x. But even more rediculous is the notion that macos on intel support will be to the exclusion of linux support. Utterly stupid. There's a very strong established trend for multi-platform support on almost all major open source apps. Suddenly everyone's going to abandon gnu autoconfig, automake and libtool? Yeah, right!
Then in the 3rd to last paragraph, he talks about the GPL's "rigid license requirements". Ok, compared to BSD or public domain, maybe? But compared to Apple's macos? Or any other proprietary software. The GPL's source code release requirements are only "rigid" to one group of people... the proprietary software vendors, who would really, really like to appropriate all that free code, if only they themselves wouldn't have to play by the same rules.
But Dvorak claims everyone who's believed the GPL was a good idea in the past is suddenly going to see profit opportunity and abandon the GPL. Doesn't seem too likely. This is an old, well worn fear/unknown argument that seemed believable years ago when Red Hat, Caldera and others companies started selling, going public, etc. Hackers worldwide weren't suddenly overcome by greed then, seems unlikely now.
But the fear is really laid on thick in the last two paragraphs. Apple's going to benefit (probably), so somebody is necessarily going to suffer. Suddenly linux is going to have a new "enemy", and together Apple and Microsoft are going to destroy linux.
Yeah, like Microsoft hasn't already been trying as hard as they can? And Apple hasn't already been trying to draw people to macs as agressively as they know how? All of a sudden, because Apple's switching chips, BOTH Apple and Microsoft are going to try to attract new customers where they weren't before.
It's all so silly. If these are the best argument Dvorak can dream up for the impending doom of linux, open source and free software... well, I think those of us who use and depend on linux on a daily basis can sleep well tonight, without nightmares of fear, uncertainty and doubt whether the rest of the linux world suddenly shun linux in favor of macos when we awake in the morning.
Re:Dvorak again? (Score:5, Insightful)
One day you figure out he's been an idiot the whole time, and its too late to shut him up!
Re:Because he is correct! (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't help but wonder if this is a joke, but here goes anyway.
No, to call his grasp on the industry amazing is quite a stretch. For one thing, he wasn't really right. He predicted Apple would move to Itanium within 18 months, and that was over two years ago.
In any case, his latest prediction doesn't seem any more likely than most of his previous ones. This move by apple will have little direct effect on Linux at all. Please, people, get this through your heads: Apple is going to continue selling their computers at premium prices and not allow OS X to run on beige boxes. The only change will be a slight speed bump and maybe some slightly lower prices. Laptops will probably see the biggest benefit.
The point is, this will not change anything. People run Linux for a number of reasons, and one of them is the pricetag. Few people running Linux are thinking, "I would love to buy a Mac if only it were using the x86 architecture." They might think, "I would love to run OS X if only it would run on this computer I built," but that's not what's happening. At least not yet.
Sure, it might be a little easier to run Linux binaries on OS X x86, but it's easy enough to run your Linux programs on OS X now. The bottom line is that if you want a Mac, even after Apple has switched to Intel chips you'll have to shell out for Apple hardware and a largely proprietary OS.
Dvorak says things to get people to read his columns. Period.
Re:Because he is correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
If he thinks that it will hurt Linux as OSS developers focus on the Mac platform (now that it will be running on x86), well he's still not making much sense. If writing OSS apps for Mac will suddenly be easier, well writing apps that are cross-platform between Linux and Mac will be easier too.
We'll still have plenty of Linux users, and if some OSS developers decide to focus too much (in the viewpoint of Linux users) well, it's open source! The people who want that app on their platform can take the source and make it happen.
Writing apps in general will be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also worth noting is that it's going to help Linux adoption overall as largely the same frameworks are in use for producing Linux games as MacOS X games- the endianness issues, etc. make it more difficult.
Now, it really WILL be pretty much the same thing when you make a game port for one or the other- it's just a recompile away... I like that.
Re:Dvorak's (Current) Folly (Score:5, Informative)
You're half-right...
-- MacWorld [macworld.com]
Elsewhere they have said, of course, they're not going to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. So it seems that if you want to dual-boot Mac OS X and Windows, you'll have to buy a Mac. (Or wait for the inevitible hack.)
Intel Macs will not use OpenFirmware (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't mean they will run a standard BIOS. Surely they will not. But it looks an awful lot like they want their solution to be an Intel showboat.
Also, given the fact that we have Apple on record saying that they will do nothing to stop people from running Windows on their new macs, I think that they're going to stake their Different-ness more on the speed and quality of their engineering.