Linux is coming: Is Apple going to be left behind?

[Crusader]

Noticed that Business Week is reporting that (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040213/bs_bw/b3871118mz063) desktop Linux installations will be overtaking Apple's Marketshare. Darn.

I really could use some good 20th Anniversary news right now... an aggressive plan to increase market-share would be nice. Being number 3 is not cool at all.

[ast3r3x]

You can't beat free.

[Scott]

It can only be good for Apple.

[hmurchison]

Linux, an open-source software package, has been steadily getting better and easier to use. It can be bought for moderate prices -- or downloaded from the Net for free. Sun Microsystems Inc.

Sure I'd love for this to be true but just because Linux has improving low-cost Office Suite software means nothing. The .doc format is still going to hold sway because of the investment in Microsoft Technology.

its StarOffice applications, a browser, and e-mail. The package sells for less than $100, while comparable Microsoft software for corporations costs more than $600.

$600? come'on. If you're going to write an article at least make it somewhat factual. NOBODY pays $600 for Office on the PC. Pehaps the Mac(lol) but not PC. My school sold me Office XP for 6 bucks.

Truth be told if Linux take a whack out of Microsoft that benefits Apple and anyone else vying for the top spot. Apples licensing is fairly cheap and offsets the premium in hardware. The only problem is getting your software into companies. Linux has been the darling of the IT industry but I'm hearing far too much talk. There's a large difference between "talking the talk...and walking the walk". Let's see Linux on the Desktop do a little "walking" first.

[Wrong Robot]

It's kind of sad how many many many PC users, when they get ultimately fed up with windows, their first thought is "well, I guess I'm going to move to linux now"

they never think "hey, maybe I should give apple a try"

[LoCash]

Linux came and went. We tried the whole linux as a desktop OS a while ago. This is just history repeating itself a whole lot quicker.

[DMBand0026]

Why not give Apple a try. Linux is way too hard for even the above average consumer user to use. Apple is the perfect solution. It's not free, but at least it doesn't suck like Linux.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by DMBand0026
Why not give Apple a try. Linux is way too hard for even the above average consumer user to use. Apple is the perfect solution. It's not free, but at least it doesn't suck like Linux.

gnu/linux doesn't suq. infact, its awesome. but i suspect the real reason most fed up windowsers go to gnu/linux is because it means they dont have to drop more cash on a new computer. when you consider the possibility that many windowsers went that way to escape apple pricing in the first place, its clear that they would continue with the least upfront cost.

[chych]

Because linux can be installed on existing hardware, i.e. cost = $0, that is why people do not consider the Mac (and lack of experience with the Mac to invest $$).

Personally I see linux's growth a good thing for Apple, for one reason, most of the linux users switched from windows (rarely from mac). Also, it seems that many linux users also get Macs due to the UI, and do not want to move back to windows. Finally, because of linux's growth, things like Office and other key programs become deWindowsfied and make it to linux, which in turn is trivial for a Mac version.

But hmm, I tried linux on my (free) laptop (debian), and promptly installed XP soon after... (is it that friggin hard to change the screen brightness and monitor resolution in linux? geez... these things are mandatory on a laptop that gets 45min battery life, and for presentations).

[Stoo]

Does the mess that is Linuxs' copy and paste behaviour(s) (application specific and the auotcopy selection in XWindows) annoy anyone else ?

[Francisco_G]

Good. Now it will be easier for those companies then to migrate to Mac OS X.

[a_greer]

imho, linux in its current form, will not work on the desk-top
non-geek people want/need a system that is universal, my winxp looks just like win xp / 2kpro at school, people want to be able to sit down at any terminla anywhere and have the same UI and software, and ease of use, :) sniker sniker :) nobody outside of geekdom wants to compile binary just to run office apps, untill a mac-like distro comes out, we will not see a mass linux rush outside of high security firms like wall street and defence contractors (who i hope cant touch windows under their military contract)

[alcimedes]

the bigger linux gets the better. that means more companies will be looking to design hardware, web pages, games etc. that use some kind of standard. OpenGL would be great if more people used it, but once DirectX got it's foot in the door, everyone else was screwed.

the less marketshare MS has the better. the more marketshare a fanatically opensource OS gets the better.

[billybobsky]

You also have to realize that apple could take advantage of this and move some of its programs towards being linux compatible which i would imagine would be a whole helluva lot easier than porting the same programs to windows.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Stoo
Does the mess that is Linuxs' copy and paste behaviour(s) (application specific and the auotcopy selection in XWindows) annoy anyone else ?

Not at all... why? Because there is no copy and paste problems between applications... Copy and past is included into most window managers and X itself... This way you can copy across applications and xterms without a problem...

Oh my setup, to copy a word I just highlight is with my mouse, draging the pointer from one side of the word to the other... That's all... Then to paste I just click my middle button where I want it... note that if you have a scroll wheel then pressing it down is your middle button. It's that easy! No right clicking then selecting copy/paste from a menu... I don't even look at my edit menu... it is just a two click opperation and I can highlight any text on any application even if it does not support copy/paste and I can paste it to any application including xterms...

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by a_greer
imho, linux in its current form, will not work on the desk-top
non-geek people want/need a system that is universal, my winxp looks just like win xp / 2kpro at school, people want to be able to sit down at any terminla anywhere and have the same UI and software, and ease of use, :) sniker sniker :) nobody outside of geekdom wants to compile binary just to run office apps, untill a mac-like distro comes out, we will not see a mass linux rush outside of high security firms like wall street and defence contractors (who i hope cant touch windows under their military contract)


What the hell are you talking about??? Many linux distros do not require you to compile a thing... they come with pre compiled packages that install with as little as one click...

And what do you mean "mac-like"??? Linux is very mac like... if the distro wants to be like that... The desktop environment Gnome is very "mac-like" that and add a bunch of GUI config tools like the ones red hat has then you have an easy to use desktop that is "mac-like"... But why copy? Linux can be anything you want to make it (os wise) so why make it like a mac? Users can feel confortable in a new environment as long as it is well plotted out...

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by DMBand0026
Why not give Apple a try. Linux is way too hard for even the above average consumer user to use. Apple is the perfect solution. It's not free, but at least it doesn't suck like Linux.

Question:
If things suck because it is too hard for the above average consumer then why is it overtaking Mac OSX?

Oh Yah... because it does not suck... and alot of people like it...
I myself love it... and I am not alone. The Linux community is huge and very friendly... And while the "above average consumer" (maybe you were refering to yourself) finds it way too hard, the above average consumer can pick up linux very fast, and be happy with the results from a small amount of work learning. God... what happend to the good feeling of computing DYI style?

[Stoo]

Not at all... why? Because there is no copy and paste problems between applications... Copy and past is included into most window managers and X itself... This way you can copy across applications and xterms without a problem...


Nothing except text copy + pastes
Autocopying the selected text is the real annoyance, especially if you want to paste over some text, (as is the way the copy buffer vanishes when text is deselected but I'm sure this can be fixed).
Applications don't treat the Mac/Win clipboard equivalent in a standard way (but it tends to be equivalent for packages from the same source)
The Gnome Window manager on Linux is the platform I have to use for development.

[Fluffy]

This could be good and bad for Apple. First the good: the desktop share is growing because of business and office, not because of home users. This means that there will be many people using linux at work and windows at home, which might allow them to start to think of computing as computing and not just "using Windows", opening them up to possible alternatives in the future. Also it gets them used to a unix environment which will translate well to the Macintosh ("Oh, it's unix. Yeah, I know how to use that").

The downside is that linux is an extraordinarily wretched user experience, compared both to the Mac and (to a lesser extent) Windows. If people begin to equate unix with linux, they may never consider the Mac, assuming that anything based on unix will have the same issues.

[Aquatic]

I don't think I've evern seen a single piece of software in a store for Linux. Might have seen a Linux distro once or twice in a Staples or something.

DMB is right Linux sucks for a desktop. And it always will. It's not a hard concept: no company = no support phone number to call, no number to call to buy software. Duh? Still more Linux anywhere is a good thing because it's an easy port to Mac and it's Not MS.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Stoo

Nothing except text copy + pastes
Autocopying the selected text is the real annoyance, especially if you want to paste over some text, (as is the way the copy buffer vanishes when text is deselected but I'm sure this can be fixed).
Applications don't treat the Mac/Win clipboard equivalent in a standard way (but it tends to be equivalent for packages from the same source)
The Gnome Window manager on Linux is the platform I have to use for development.


Well there is a program from KDE that acts as a clipboard and if you use KDE programs all you can copy and paste between them (programs like KOffice, Kwrite, K-anything) But Gnome is a little bland for this...

Also the copy buffer does not vanish when I deselect the text... It only gets replaced by the next highlight...

I guess that could be annoying if you want to paste over text... but I have no problem with just taking out the text to be replaced then doing the copy. I am not annoyed by it... but maybe you should write Gnome about it... the more people who suggest a change the quicker it will happen.

Which distro do you use with Gnome? I find that people like Gnome better if the distro writes GTK based GUI config tools for setting up everything and anything. I myself use Slackware Linux and dislike using Gnome because it sets a big contrast between using Linux on the desktop and configuring Linux within text files... So I use Windowmaker and KDE. Windowmaker because it is simple but it lacks a good WINGs based file manager so I use KDE to do some things...

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Aquatic
I don't think I've evern seen a single piece of software in a store for Linux. Might have seen a Linux distro once or twice in a Staples or something.

DMB is right Linux sucks for a desktop. And it always will. It's not a hard concept: no company = no support phone number to call, no number to call to buy software. Duh? Still more Linux anywhere is a good thing because it's an easy port to Mac and it's Not MS.

One) There is a company... in-fact many companies the provide support for Linux. Depending on the distro you may get free support for quite a bit of time after you buy a retail boxed Linux OS. Red Hat is a great example of this, they provide great support for their Linux distro. Suse is another. However if you don't feel like paying 1/8 of what Windows costs and download it for free then the linux community (sites like www.linuxquestions.org and many IRC rooms) provides all the support you need... who better to help you then die-hard zealots? (psst... if you want to get help quick just post that linux sucks because [place problem here] and people will rush to help you)

Two) Why would you need a number to buy software? All GPL software is free to download... and most of it is really good.

[a_greer]

there are several companys that backup and support linux
redhat
mandrake (not-so-big but still)
and big tech firms are buying/ using/reselling linux all the time

Ever heard of a quaint little company out of New York called IBM how many million/billion do they have riding on linux, not to mention a huge chunk of ibm's future

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Fluffy
--snip--
The downside is that linux is an extraordinarily wretched user experience, compared both to the Mac and (to a lesser extent) Windows. If people begin to equate unix with linux, they may never consider the Mac, assuming that anything based on unix will have the same issues.

True but linux is not that bad, experience wise, if the user is open to learning a new platform. The problem is that the average user expects Linux to do everything Windows can do out of the box, which some distros do, but this is not the main aspect of Linux... this takes a back seat to a server centric OS that requires a deep understanding of how the OS works, which is (no, really) one of Linux's strong points. I think Linux can do really well in the desktop arena if the average user gives many distros a chance and does not write off Linux after one bad run-in.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by a_greer

Ever heard of a quaint little company out of New York called IBM how many million/billion do they have riding on linux, not to mention a huge chunk of ibm's future

True... I am quite glad IBM has put so much weight behind Linux. The great outcomes are limitless...

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by \/\/ickes
True but linux is not that bad, experience wise, if the user is open to learning a new platform.

Ah, but I think you're talking about the user interface, which is really quite similar to Windows. I'm talking about things like font handling and rendering, consistency of UI across applications (not the UI itself), consistent drag&drop, consistent cut&paste, easy GUI-based networking and server setup... these things should just work, and work well. This isn't even mentioning things like advanced graphics compositing, systemwide color correction, web/mail/OS integration... all the things that make proprietary operating systems a joy to use. It really has nothing to do with learning the system.

I think Linux can do really well in the desktop arena if the average user gives many distros a chance and does not write off Linux after one bad run-in.

But that's just what the average user will never do. Downloading and installing open source software isn't something that average users are willing to do, free or not. Configuring their OS isn't something they're going to do. The first time they double click on a .doc file and openoffice mangles it (as it does most of the time) they're simply going to re-install Windows, not search the internet for a better doc translator. How do I play .wmv files? How do I play a .mov? I like Internet Explorer... where is it? How do I play flash files? How do I connect to the internet for God's sake... redhat certainly doesn't make it easy for an average user, but maybe the other distros are better I don't know.

I don't see Linux going anywhere in the home market.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Fluffy
Ah, but I think you're talking about the user interface, which is really quite similar to Windows. I'm talking about things like font handling and rendering, consistency of UI across applications (not the UI itself), consistent drag&drop, consistent cut&paste, easy GUI-based networking and server setup... these things should just work, and work well. This isn't even mentioning things like advanced graphics compositing, systemwide color correction, web/mail/OS integration... all the things that make proprietary operating systems a joy to use. It really has nothing to do with learning the system.

Font handeling and rendering is easly managed within desktop environments like KDE and Gnome... I think they do a great job at it too...

Consistency of UI across all apps can be done if you only use apps writen with the same tool kit... like GTK or Qt. Hell, KDE has almost every type of program you need written with Qt and all app's UIs change with the theme you set.

Consistency of cut and paste can be done in the same fashion. You will just need to stick with one WM.

Easy GUI-based networking and server setup can be found in such distros as Red Hat and Knoppix. Knoppix is a really good example of easy setup.

It does have to do with learning the OS... because the more you learn the better things get. Linux can be as uniform as you make it... which I think is one of it's stronger points.

Originally posted by Fluffy
But that's just what the average user will never do. Downloading and installing open source software isn't something that average users are willing to do, free or not. Configuring their OS isn't something they're going to do. The first time they double click on a .doc file and openoffice mangles it (as it does most of the time) they're simply going to re-install Windows, not search the internet for a better doc translator. How do I play .wmv files? How do I play a .mov? I like Internet Explorer... where is it? How do I play flash files? How do I connect to the internet for God's sake... redhat certainly doesn't make it easy for an average user, but maybe the other distros are better I don't know.

I don't see Linux going anywhere in the home market.


FYI Flash works in linux, but only in a browser/stand alone player. And with a little work Quicktime and WindowsMedia will play too... but the support is not great.

Anyway... Red Hat made it simple for me to connect to the net... (This is back when I used Red Hat 7) Red Hat has a bunch of GUI-based apps that get you online fast... Even faster if you use DHCP. I like the idea of the control you have over your system. The "it just works" idea, however great, leaves me wondering just how much control I have. Now I use Slackware... I config most things by editing text files... and following detailed HOWTOs. This gives me a fine control over my system and makem me feel like my computer does just what I tell it to. While this may not be what the average user wants in an OS... it makes me happy.

OOo my not do the best job at translating .doc files but a .doc file is from another program (closed source) on another OS...
But what if you start writing your docs using OOo... and the people who are reading them use OOo... well then you have a free (great) office environment that works just as good as MS Office. All this needs is a greater user base, which will come in time.

Linux will start to hit the office before it hits the home. And that may be sooner than you think.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Fluffy
I don't see Linux going anywhere in the home market.

This is often a problem when discussing this issue with people who's primary contact with computers is the home desktop. They make comparisons based on what they do with their machines (play games, visit multimedia websites, install bonzai buddy style spyware etc.)

This is a total irrelevance for the vast majority of office workers who use PC as glorified typewriters. They do three things: document viewing/editing, browse the web, and send/receive viruses, I mean emails. And that's the advanced users, I'm not even talking about the machines that run one single application 24/7 at a drive-thru window or in an ATM.

All of this is easily done with open source desktops (except the virus bit). Remember, the last thing corporate IT wants is you installing anything yourself.

And once Linux desktops become common in the workplace, it's crazy to think home users won't be next. I'd already suggest Linux for grandmothers who just want to email/browse.

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by \/\/ickes
Font handeling and rendering is easly managed within desktop environments like KDE and Gnome... I think they do a great job at it too...
...
Anyway... Red Hat made it simple for me to connect to the net... (This is back when I used Red Hat 7) Red Hat has a bunch of GUI-based apps that get you online fast... Even faster if you use DHCP.

I use Red Hat 9 at work, and actually do all my (work) coding on Linux, so I'm about as used to it as I'm going to get. The font handling and internet configuration are still atrocious. They still don't work right. Font rendering and metrics are terrible, and getting our RH9 box set up as a server and internet router (our sysadmin was laid off) was agonizing, and in the end I had to do it all through the command line on both the server and the clients because the GUI tools they provided were incomplete and just didn't work. Maybe I missed something, but I have better things to do than search the online forums for solutions to problems that should never arise in the first place. And since our office has begun migrating to the Mac, I won't have to deal with it for much longer.

I agree that for an office computer it might catch on a little bit, as long as you never try to interact with anyone who uses Windows or try to do anything other than typing, but frankly any normal user who tries to use it at home is going to be severely disappointed for pretty much anything they try to do. Telling them to try a different poorly designed open source app to solve every little problem just doesn't cut it. I wouldn't recommend it to any user for any purpose... Linux simply does nothing that Windows and the Mac don't do better. I've never understood why anyone would want to use it, and I still don't.

1337 haXoR sKiLz notwithstanding.

[Barto]

1) As many others have pointed out, the better Linux gets the better Mac OS X gets. Technology and applications developed for Linux gets merged into Mac OS X. The more developers use standard, cross-platform APIs the less money needed to port applications to Mac OS X... so hopefully more applications get ported.

2) Linux on the desktop is here and now. A fundamental shift has occured in Linux over the past couple of years, focusing on an improved and CONSISTENT desktop experience. Companies that can afford it like RedHat and Novell (with Ximian) modify all the disparate Linux applications to have the same look and feel. Other distros focus on having one desktop environment, either KDE or GNOME, where all the applications use the same APIs and interoperate. Dragging and dropping, copying and pasting, menu bar at the top,* same look and feel... You get a more limited selection of applications, but the applications you do use are far more consistent and user friendly in general. Sounds like another OS we are all familiar with.

So I think that no, Linux will not result in Mac OS X left behind. Remember, Mac OS X will always have something Linux does not: fantastic interoperability between hardware and software. Also, for the forseeable future, Mac OS X will remain the most technologically advanced OS... Apple simply dedicates more time developing the most cutting edge frameworks.

Barto

*Message to Microsoft: Where it belongs, fsckers!

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Barto
copying and pasting, menu bar at the top,*

*Message to Microsoft: Where it belongs, fsckers!

Ya know, I just don't understand for the life of me why windows has the File Edit View...etc. menus on EACH window.

that's just clutter, nothing about it makes even a little sense, not only is it clutter, but it's potentially more confusing for the computer challenged.

[Stoo]

I use Red Hat (at work). The copy and paste behaviour isn't Gnome's fault, it's just that it there isn't a global standard. One window manager doesn't provide all the applications I need (or the best apps for a given task). My preferred text editor is still xemacs ( I want vertical/horizontal splits in every app:)).

Font handeling and rendering is easly managed within desktop environments like KDE and Gnome... I think they do a great job at it too...

From a software developer's point of view of font handling, Gnome could do with better (i.e. actually some) developer documentation. I'm sure it does what I want it to, I just have to hut around a bit. Some of it's good, some just headings. (I can't comment on KDE as I haven't used it).

[fred_lj]

Originally posted by billybobsky
You also have to realize that apple could take advantage of this and move some of its programs towards being linux compatible which i would imagine would be a whole helluva lot easier than porting the same programs to windows.

Not much (if anything -- someone clarify) besides QuickTime/iTunes is ported to Windows now anyway.

[talksense101]

Linux is the next juggernaut. Apple better carve out it's niche better than what it has done in the past. With sleek and powerful hardware and the integerated suite of iLife applications, Apple has the edge for now in its own domain. Apple is dead the day they stop innovating and lucikly that hasn't happened for the past couple of decades.

[hack4ev3r]

Here are some mac like linux's based on kde 3.2

First Picture ( sort of reminds os9 but butifull ) (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2242-1.jpg)

Aqua Based machine (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2633-2.png)

Mandrake linux (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/8578-2.png)

a Theme but you can fix it to be exacly like os-x (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/9502-1.jpg)

[AsLan^]

I use Gentoo Linux on my desktop, the support forums are simply amazing. Any problem I ever had with configuration has been answered by those forums. I know some people don't have time to look up the answers for configuring computers but I think as the years go by and more and more people start regularly participating in forums the idea of an "open-source" tech support (like the AI Genius Bar, although lots of questions go unanswered there !) will be what people come to rely on. Most people hate having to go through the crap any kind of telephone support gives out, not to mention when a company denies that there actually is a problem and just reinstall your os from our system restore disks and it will all be fine etc. etc.

Gentoo has an awsome community and that's its real strength. Many enjoy the same community as Apple users, only Gentoo is free and can run on cheap PC hardware.

A word about KDE and Gnome... When I built my PC, first I installed Win XP because I knew how to do that then I went about installing Linux. After I finished installing Linux I went back to using Windows, which I thought was strange, so I decided to do an experiment. I set my bootloader to boot Linux automatically and decided to only use Linux for a weekend. Well after that weekend I kept using Linux and now it's actually irritating to have to load Windows (for my girlfriend or Korean input support). KDE and Gnome are just different from Windows and dont look so great "out of the box". With a little configuration they look fine and you really just stop noticing, of couse it's not the same as OS X but you pay a premium for that, but soon it may get close. I dont know if there is any kind of Quartz Extreme type x server in the works for Linux but if that comes about...well it's gonna be real ugly for Microsoft and Apple will have to keep on their toes.

Imagine being able to showcase a Linux desktop with the same amount of eye candy as OS X but it's on a PC and it's free !
Oh yeah and isn't Sun working on this now with that Looking Glass project of theirs...

[Joey]

How could Apple make sure they get in on this market and keep Linux from being the future OS of choice for the thrifty? This would seem to be an easy answer (and an idea that goes back a while).... port a version of X over to x86. Granted... one of the biggest benefits to running X on Apples hardware is the tight integration between the hardware and the OS... so the user experience on Apple hardware will likely be better for quite sometime... but I think an x86 port would be a real reasonable alternative to Windows. People could learn the OS on their current hardware... realize how much they like it... then go out and get one of those "cool" macs... Since they'll be familiar with the OS, they won't have to worry about going out to buy a new Mac and not knowing if they would be able to use it. I got my iBook as an alternative to a Windows notebook.... but I'm sure alot of people would rather just put a new OS on their current hardware... my PC notebook is a 2.6GHz P4.... most people won't go out an buy a new notebook when the one they have is more than powerful enough. And lets not forget that Microsoft made their $$ on their software.... not hardware... so as the movement to move away from Microsoft continues... it would be nice to have OS X placed to take advantage of that early on.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Ya know, I just don't understand for the life of me why windows has the File Edit View...etc. menus on EACH window.

that's just clutter, nothing about it makes even a little sense, not only is it clutter, but it's potentially more confusing for the computer challenged.

I believe it's because Apple would have sued them if they ripped off Apple too closely. Well, a combination of that and the fact that the guys at Microsoft had no real idea of the concepts behind what they were copying and it was mostly monkey see, monkey do.

Check out question 5 of the following quiz for more: http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by hack4ev3r
Here are some mac like linux's based on kde 3.2

First Picture ( sort of reminds os9 but butifull ) (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2242-1.jpg)

Aqua Based machine (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2633-2.png)

Mandrake linux (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/8578-2.png)

a Theme but you can fix it to be exacly like os-x (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/9502-1.jpg)

This is what I don't understand... why the hell do people keep moding their non-OSX desktops to look like OSX? I mean with linux it it not that bad (but I still don't like it) but some of the Windows themes make me want to puke. I like the aqua look but only if it is on Apple Hardware.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by AsLan^
I use Gentoo Linux on my desktop, the support forums are simply amazing. Any problem I ever had with configuration has been answered by those forums. I know some people don't have time to look up the answers for configuring computers but I think as the years go by and more and more people start regularly participating in forums the idea of an "open-source" tech support (like the AI Genius Bar, although lots of questions go unanswered there !) will be what people come to rely on. Most people hate having to go through the crap any kind of telephone support gives out, not to mention when a company denies that there actually is a problem and just reinstall your os from our system restore disks and it will all be fine etc. etc.

--snip-pa-de-snip-snip--

The Linux community is growing strong. I like the fact that you can talk to real people who are users just like you... It makes things much less frustrating when dealing with problems... Sometimes I just wanna tie a plastic bag around telephone support people... they just sit there with a "in case of this... then do this..." book and talk to you like a child. Don't get me wrong... to the average user this works fine... but for someone like me, phone support is when I have done all the text-book examples and want to get help from someone who knows what they are talking about.

A few weeks ago I called Bell Sympatico for some support (a client of mine could not get online because sockets were corrupted on a Win98 box that I was fixing) and after telling the support lady what I have done... and what I think the problem is she made me do it all over again, and told every step as if I was two. Anyway after over an hour doing "quick fixes" for her amusement she said that she would have to take me to the next level... I was transfered to level 2 tech support. There, another girl asked me one question and by my response she quickly started talking to me in geek so we could be on the same page without feeling like we were following a book... she also noted how refreshing it was to talk to someone without "dumbing it down". We even spent some time flurting over the phone (this brings to mind how some calls are recorded for evaluation) ... too bad she lived in St. John. Anyway, the problem was solved in less than ten minutes.

I know this system works for the average user but for me this was a headache that could have been over with less of my time used on doing "by the book quick fixes" The Linux community is easy to talk to and if you have a question that is a little more technical then your answers will be technical to the same respect. This gets the job done.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Fluffy
I use Red Hat 9 at work, and actually do all my (work) coding on Linux, so I'm about as used to it as I'm going to get. The font handling and internet configuration are still atrocious. They still don't work right. Font rendering and metrics are terrible, and getting our RH9 box set up as a server and internet router (our sysadmin was laid off) was agonizing, and in the end I had to do it all through the command line on both the server and the clients because the GUI tools they provided were incomplete and just didn't work. Maybe I missed something, but I have better things to do than search the online forums for solutions to problems that should never arise in the first place. And since our office has begun migrating to the Mac, I won't have to deal with it for much longer.

I agree that for an office computer it might catch on a little bit, as long as you never try to interact with anyone who uses Windows or try to do anything other than typing, but frankly any normal user who tries to use it at home is going to be severely disappointed for pretty much anything they try to do. Telling them to try a different poorly designed open source app to solve every little problem just doesn't cut it. I wouldn't recommend it to any user for any purpose... Linux simply does nothing that Windows and the Mac don't do better. I've never understood why anyone would want to use it, and I still don't.

1337 haXoR sKiLz notwithstanding.

Red Hat worked fine for me... well when it came to setting up my system and network. One thing you have to make do is install everything under the sun... some gui-based apps are just front-ends to command like apps so when the command line app is not there or missing one small part/lib then the gui-based app will not work.

Also, I would never want to fire a sysadmin... I have heard many horror stories about angry sysadmins doing dammage to the networks they were once paied to protect.

Linux interacts well with Windows computers... networking is smooth and easy to setup, printer sharing works well, and using the .doc file format is not that bad.

And as for the just typing comment... common man...
Linux can be used foe many if not all server jobs. Linux is not limited to just typing in the office...

[Aquatic]

One) There is a company... in-fact many companies the provide support for Linux.

\/\/ickes...Redhat stopped doing enduser Linux, they're the bellwhether. The companies that do exist for Linux are for servers and corporate users.

GPL software in general is not useful for Your Mom. Mozilla, Firefox, poisoned, a few other things end users will use are good, but the rest is geeky or serverside.

Besides, where's Office? No Office=no use.

However this article is actually an interesting counterpoint to that:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/13/HNlinuxoffice_1.html


But basically there was a "Linux" bubble sort of like the "dotcom" bubble. It didn't pop; rather it's slowly deflating. Linux hasn't changed much in 5 years so why hasn't its share surged? I don't believe the "desktop" numbers in many articles claiming it's surpassed Apple. I haven't seen a single computer with Linux on it in my life. Not even at Dartmouth which I live next to. I hear somewhere at URI it runs the mail or route or something. I'm sure it exists where we can't see it in server rooms, embedded, etc, but it is not and never will be a desktop OS. UNIX wasn't supposed to be either, I am still reeling at OS X it blows my mind.

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by \/\/ickes
And as for the just typing comment... common man...
Linux can be used foe many if not all server jobs. Linux is not limited to just typing in the office...

Sorry about that... I know Linux is a great server OS (less so than BSD IMO, but...) and I was always pretty ambivalent about it until I had to use it. Maybe it's the fact that I'm around people all day that believe that vi was created bit by bit in the fires of the forges of heaven by Jesus Himself; a power to be bestowed only upon those who are masters of the One True Unix and servants of the Open Source movement of God, etc. etc. and have developed a hatred of all things even remotely geekish.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Aquatic
\/\/ickes...Redhat stopped doing enduser Linux, they're the bellwhether. The companies that do exist for Linux are for servers and corporate users.


Aquatic, I know they did... old news. But they are still providing support for RH9 for now. There is also other support programs like Red Carpet that provide updated and support for Red Hat Linux.

So you are telling me that Suse (http://www.suse.com/us/) and MandrakeSoft (http://www.mandrakesoft.com/) don't provide support for their home distros? I think not.

Originally posted by Aquatic

GPL software in general is not useful for Your Mom. Mozilla, Firefox, poisoned, a few other things end users will use are good, but the rest is geeky or serverside.


I'm sorry but have you not see some of the OSS out in todays Linux? I guess not without seeing a computer running Linux. There is alot of end-user OSS that is non-geeky. Entire distros pride themselves on ease of use. You can't name one program that an end-user would use that Linux does not have an equal -- in both ease of use and functionality.

Originally posted by Aquatic

Besides, where's Office? No Office=no use.


If you need office that much...
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice/
However Open Office is great for such uses... as is KOffice, star office, abiword-gnumeric.

Originally posted by Aquatic

But basically there was a "Linux" bubble sort of like the "dotcom" bubble. It didn't pop; rather it's slowly deflating. Linux hasn't changed much in 5 years so why hasn't its share surged? I don't believe the "desktop" numbers in many articles claiming it's surpassed Apple. I haven't seen a single computer with Linux on it in my life. Not even at Dartmouth which I live next to. I hear somewhere at URI it runs the mail or route or something. I'm sure it exists where we can't see it in server rooms, embedded, etc, but it is not and never will be a desktop OS. UNIX wasn't supposed to be either, I am still reeling at OS X it blows my mind.


Unix was built to be a multi-user realtime OS. Max OSX is by far the best example of what you can do with a unix-like OS. While I myself don't use OSX (I don't own a Mac that can take it, with a little more RAM I'll be on my way) I do get a chance to look at it whenever I am at an Apple Reseller. I am very impressed with Apple on their great OS.

Anyway, if you have never "seen" a computer running Linux, maybe you give it a try. Knoppix is a live CD distro that works great for testing out Linux and demos. http://www.knoppix.org/ You will need a PC but knoppix runs right off the CD so a friend with a PC could let you use his.

----------------

In the end Linux will help Apple.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Fluffy
Sorry about that... I know Linux is a great server OS (less so than BSD IMO, but...) and I was always pretty ambivalent about it until I had to use it. Maybe it's the fact that I'm around people all day that believe that vi was created bit by bit in the fires of the forges of heaven by Jesus Himself; a power to be bestowed only upon those who are masters of the One True Unix and servants of the Open Source movement of God, etc. etc. and have developed a hatred of all things even remotely geekish.

:lol:

Yah I guess that can get annoying...

About three years ago when I first moved to Toronto, my friends told me to try a "Beef Patty" (deepfried beef in a patty form)... at first I told them that I might when I feel like it... then they pushed it, and pushed it, telling me how good it is and how I am missing out on the best snack food there is. So I snapped and told then "I will never eat a Beef Patty...ever!" To this day I have held true to that comment.

[\/\/ickes]

Ok so if any Mac user is thinking about Linux please read this...

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-pmac.html?ca=dgr-lnxw01LinuxMac

Some nice info for people with PPC hardware and an intrest in linux.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Aquatic
The companies that do exist for Linux are for servers and corporate users.

...

GPL software in general is not useful for Your Mom. Mozilla, Firefox, poisoned, a few other things end users will use are good, but the rest is geeky or serverside.

...

Linux hasn't changed much in 5 years so why hasn't its share surged?

These comments are frighteningly wrong, particularly the last one. I get the feeling it's been a while since you looked seriously at Linux and things have moved on. For example it is now the fastest growing desktop OS and has more desktop market share than the Mac (9+X), which means double or maybe triple the share of Mac OS X.

And 5 years progress has taken it from

http://images.mandrakesoft.com/img/scr/screen6.gif

to

http://images.lindows.com/screenshots/ss_sip_big.jpg

and the visual changes don't even begin to reflect the underlying structural changes that have been given priority.

If you don't have any other good reason to not like Linux (pathological hatred of geeks, allergic to the GPL, your brain simply can't handle the concept of something free being better than something you pay for, etc.) then you really need to reavaluate your opinion.

For more info you could start with these links:

A couple of end user Linux distribs:

* www.lindows.com (the cheesy flash advert-orials are worth a look)
* www.lycoris.com

Info about large amounts of end-user desktop software including browers, email clients, video players, audio players and editors, genealogy programs, etc.

* www.gnome.org
* www.kde.org
* http://www.ximian.com/products/desktop/

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
If you don't have any other good reason to not like Linux (pathological hatred of geeks, allergic to the GPL, your brain simply can't handle the concept of something free being better than something you pay for, etc.) then you really need to reavaluate your opinion.

In this case free is not better, regardless of the capacity of my brain. Linux has never been better than any of the other options, and I see no evidence that it ever will be. May I ask please what Linux does better than the Mac? How about Windows? I suspect the answer is "nothing".

The simple fact is that Linux will not make it into the home anytime soon, as it is unusable for the average user. Only when consumer computer companies fully drop windows in favor of Linux will it ever make any inroads; the vast and almost complete majority of home consumers will never choose linux when given other options.

[Amorph]

I'm happy to see Linux doing well. I wouldn't mind in the least if it took over a significant bulk of the Windows market, myself.

I also don't think it's ready for general desktop use. Sure, you can show me pretty screenshots, but those tell me jack-all about how usable it is in practice, or how consistent it is across applications, how easy it is to try something off the beaten path. To the extent that Linux maintains the old UNIX idea that consistency is fascism, Linux won't be much of a consumer OS. On the other hand, it has come far, and it might well be able to keep going. Having IBM hitched to the wagon doesn't hurt one bit.

It has arrived as a corporate desktop, however (after all, once you hitch IBM to the wagon, this is where you'll be taken). You can set it up on existing hardware, lock it down, and gain much more security, better performance, excellent networking, and a wide array of applications and RAD tools, and some limited capability to run Windows apps via WINE. This looks really attractive to companies fed up with 1) Windows licensing; 2) BSA strongarming; 3) Windows' nearly infinite susceptibility to hackers, viruses, worms, and trojans; 4) Windows' long term unreliability.

For the sake of us all, I would like to see Linux make aggressive inroads into business. It's much better suited to the task.

As for Apple, Linux's success will only help. One of the great fears ruling the market now is the fear of leaving the safe, familiar Windows sandbox. Linux makes the cost of leaving low (though not free), provides a number of immediate practical advantages, and, once adopted, it breaks the important psychological barrier that keeps people with the platform they know, whether they like it or not. Apple has a much better chance with people who've already switched once than they do with people who have only ever known Windows.

Clearly, it has not been lost on Apple that there are PowerBooks all over Linux and open source conferences. They're working on making OS X Linux compatible so that those interested can make the leap from Linux painlessly when they decide to get new hardware.

This is actually the first news I've gotten excited about as far as Apple gaining marketshare, because it reflects a radical change in the nature of the market back toward heterogeneity - toward people using the right tool for the job rather than defaulting to one safe choice.

I don't see Linux and OS X as adversarial at all. To the extent that they will be compatible, they will be able to seamlessly coexist, which means that people will be able to choose what they like or need without fear of being incompatible. This is a friendlier environment for people, for governments, for corporations; it's a more secure environment; and it's closer to realizing the ambition of the early pioneers, who would never have dreamed of introducing gratuitous incompatibilities to frustrate communications between machines - and between people.

Also, the more mission-critical and government installations run open source software and systems, the happier I am generally. Not just because I have an old soft spot for the idea of open source, but out of pragmatism. I still shudder at the thought that there are power plants running on Windows - and I wouldn't really sleep all that much better if they were running OS X, frankly. The sort of stability and security demanded for those applications requires either something commercial and costly like VMS, or something that requires a level of patience that commercial entities can't muster, like the stable releases of FreeBSD.

[Aquatic]

I don't see Linux and OS X as adversarial at all.

Me neither, I love OSS FireFox and Poisoned are two of my new fav apps. I just have been seeing a wave of Linux gushing in tech rags for 5 years now and it's annoying. Linux is not for Your Mom. stupider...that screenshot shows that Linux now looks like Windows. Congratulations? :\

OpenOffice and their ilk will never be 100%. They won't run Photoshop or EA games. Therefore they are not for consumers. People don't want to have to think so much about their computer. It's just an appliance.

For business, it's entirely different. Linux just needs to get their GUI straightened out, and standardize on ONE (kde, gnome, something) and have things like a working copy and paste. Amorph was very right about the "consistency is fascism" it's the best and worst part about Linux but the fact is, for anything beyond hobbyists and the embedded market which benefits from many different ways of doing things, standards are necessary.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Me neither, I love OSS FireFox and Poisoned are two of my new fav apps. I just have been seeing a wave of Linux gushing in tech rags for 5 years now and it's annoying. Linux is not for Your Mom. stupider...that screenshot shows that Linux now looks like Windows. Congratulations?

Given the right software and Linux can be for your Mom...

And please judge Linux based off of one screenshot. That Screenshot was taken from a distro/company called Lindows... Maybe you can't see it in their name but Lindows has set its sights on Windows users. Windows is the largest part of the market share, why not make something that looks like it so more people would feel confortable about using Linux? And, so what if Linux can look like Windows, it does not run like Windows, and that is the important fact.


Originally posted by Aquatic
OpenOffice and their ilk will never be 100%. They won't run Photoshop or EA games. Therefore they are not for consumers. People don't want to have to think so much about their computer. It's just an appliance.

OO is 100% standing alone... just becasue it is not perfect compatability wise to MS Office does not mean it is less than a great Office Suite.

Don't make me post that fscking link again... MS Office runs on Linux... really well too... so does Photoshop. But fu#k Photoshop, consumers are not the ones who should care about photoshop anyway... that is a prosumer app. The Gimp is just as powerful for consumer needs as Photoshop and it is free. However, if you need Photoshop, because you would die without it... Linux can still run it, using Cross Over Office.

IMO Computers are a tool... not an appliance.

Originally posted by Aquatic
For business, it's entirely different. Linux just needs to get their GUI straightened out, and standardize on ONE (kde, gnome, something) and have things like a working copy and paste. Amorph was very right about the "consistency is fascism" it's the best and worst part about Linux but the fact is, for anything beyond hobbyists and the embedded market which benefits from many different ways of doing things, standards are necessary.

Yah, like you would know... "I have never seen a computer running Linux." - Aquatic

Copy and paste does work. The choice in window manager is great... and while a standard in window managers might improve things I would not like to see our choice get cut.

Standards are neccessary, that is why Linux is conforming to them in many ways, and setting new standards at that.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Linux is not for Your Mom. stupider...that screenshot shows that Linux now looks like Windows. Congratulations? :\


Hmm. *You* claimed Linux hadn't changed in 5 years, and I showed that it quite visibly changed from looking worse than Windows 95 to looking as good as, if not better, than Windows XP.

And now your big critism is that it (or at least a consumer oriented distribution) looks like the desktop OS running on 95% of all computers (and used by 95% of all moms)? And you then have the cheek to complain that the Linux geeks aren't being pragmatic in their approach to taking over the desktop.

Why do these discussions always follow the same pattern of uniformed (and often cliched) bashing of Linux, followed by those critisms being proved factually wrong, followed by "well it's not as good as Mac OS X!"?

It comes down to whether you actually want to have an informed opinion on Linux (even just how it will affect your life as a Mac owner) or if you just want to talk trash so that people won't look down on your choice of OS?

[hack4ev3r]

Originally posted by hack4ev3r
Here are some mac like linux's based on kde 3.2

First Picture ( sort of reminds os9 but butifull ) (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2242-1.jpg)

Aqua Based machine (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/2633-2.png)

Mandrake linux (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/8578-2.png)

a Theme but you can fix it to be exacly like os-x (http://www.kde-look.org/content/pics/9502-1.jpg)


aham as u wrote in this page that it took mandrake 5 years? thats a gnome for mandrake it doesnt wanna be a mac os machine plus it was while os9 was out.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Fluffy
May I ask please what Linux does better than the Mac? How about Windows? I suspect the answer is "nothing".


* Runs on cheap x86 hardware that people already own better than Mac OS X.

* And has less security issues (viruses, trojans, spyware etc.) than Windows.

* Better at being free (and Free) than both.

That wasn't really difficult (and there are many more). For someone that works and codes on Red Hat you'd think you'd be able to name at least one thing, or at least one situation where Linux is better, even something esoteric like better filesystem journaling. Obviously not, though.

[SilentEchoes]

same amount of eye candy as OS X
What eyecandy?

I dont know if there is any kind of Quartz Extreme type x server in the works for Linux but if that comes about...well it's gonna be real ugly for Microsoft and Apple will have to keep on their toes.


Not gonna happen. Xfree86 is in a bit of a pinch (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/31/1337209&mode=thread&tid=104&tid=185&tid=189) :

Linux is just not ready to be a desktop OS no matter how hard it tries.

Also I think one should note if Linux is really gaining market-share I would be inclined think google would show *some* sign of this. Guess what? It doesn't..

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/jan04_pie.gif

http://we.is-a-geek.org/osshare1.gif

http://we.is-a-geek.org/osshare2.gif

[dfiler]

Ah... This thread brings back memories. *sniff* *sniff*

Did someone copy and paste the whole thing from a four year old archive?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
;)

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
* Runs on cheap x86 hardware that people already own better than Mac OS X.
* And has less security issues (viruses, trojans, spyware etc.) than Windows.
* Better at being free (and Free) than both.

Well the virus problem is certainly a well known advantage that all OSs have over Windows. But your other two are price related. You stated before that a free product could be better than one you pay for, implying that even after you remove price from the equation Linux was still better in some way, so your other two points are inadmissible. Price is not something an OS does better, it is external to it.

Note also that I wasn't interested in little things like "Oh, the TCP stack is more efficient" or "the Journaling is better". Those are irrelevant to the usability of the OS, and if that's the only kind of superiority that you can talk about than I think you've just proven that Linux is not ready for the home desktop. Superiority is instead related to how the user is empowered to perform production tasks. In the end a user wants to write a letter, or balance his checkbook, or play a game or write some code or do some 3d rendering or automate those processes through scripting. That's where Linux needs to make strides because that's where Linux falls on its face.

I must say that I'm disappointed with your response... I had hoped for something a little more substantive than the usual "but it's cheap!" mantra.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by SilentEchoes
[B]Not gonna happen. Xfree86 is in a bit of a pinch (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/31/1337209&mode=thread&tid=104&tid=185&tid=189)

You have absolutely no idea what that article is about, do you? You just think it sounds negative. Here's the post it's reporting on:


I'm very pleased to announce that a majority of the XFree86 core team
has voted in favour of my proposal to disband the core team.

I believe that this is an acknowlegement that the core team was no longer
representative of the active, experienced and skilled XFree86 developers,
or a place where technical discussion happens.

Happy New Year to all!

David

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Fluffy
Well the virus problem is certainly a well known advantage that all OSs have over Windows. But your other two are price related. You stated before that a free product could be better than one you pay for, implying that even after you remove price from the equation Linux was still better in some way, so your other two points are inadmissible. Price is not something an OS does better, it is external to it.

...

Note also that I wasn't interested in little things like "Oh, the TCP stack is more efficient" or "the Journaling is better". Those are irrelevant to the usability of the OS, and if that's the only kind of superiority that you can talk about than I think you've just proven that Linux is not ready for the home desktop.

...

I must say that I'm disappointed with your response... I had hoped for something a little more substantive than the usual "but it's cheap!" mantra.

So Linux's superior security record over Windows is "well known" and yet you're happy to challenge people to name one thing where Linux is better because you can't think of any? Seems like a bit of a contradiction.

...

Your telling me that doing the same thing for less money isn't better?

And anyway, the 'free' point was separate (and also mentioned 'Free' as in freedom, which you ignored).

The first point was about running on x86 hardware that people already own, which many proprietary operating systems do as well, even ones that cost more than Mac OS X. Many people would consider it a benefit regardless of cost savings e.g. Windows/Linux dual booters.

...

Oh, yeah I forgot consumers don't care about the speed of connecting their machines to LANs or the internet (TCP stack) or losing their data when the power dies and slow disk access (Journaling). Silly me!

And silly Lindows! They seem quite keen on advanced journalling: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_news_pressreleases_archives.php?id=93

...

But, as I said above, why is this becoming a "Linux is better than Mac OS X. No it's not. Yes it is" discussion. The pro-Linux people never start this kind of childish pissing match.

But for some reason people think that Linux will never become popular until it is 'better' than Mac OS X, an OS with 1% market share, (which even according to the Google piechart posted above, Linux has already equaled).

[JimDreamworx]

Is it really Linux that ends up as the desktop?
Isn't that the same as saying FreeBSD is the Mac OS X desktop?

More power to Linux running at the lowest level on the computer, but does anyone have any meaningful statistics on which desktop GUI that runs on Linux is in the lead?
From all accounts, it looks like Lindows is in the lead (as they have the greatest visibility and are sold at Wal-Mart).

[stupider...likeafox]

Technically, Lindows isn't a GUI, it's a distribution. One that is mostly just aesthetic changes to KDE on top of Debian plus subscription services and phone support for users. They also contribute most of the changes they develop back as open source so all the other distributions can pick them up.

Gnome versus KDE is often made out to be the big competing GUI 'problem', but they are actually competing desktops (both of which run on Mac OS X) and associated development environments. Programs built with one run under the other almost totally seamlessly (at least better than Java etc. on Mac OS X) and behind the scenes there is a heck of a lot of shared code at the lower level.

Also, whenever they need to interoperate at a higher level they create standards at freedesktop.org, which can then also be adopted by other groups such as GNUstep (which is a version of the original NeXT desktop environment), or even Mac OS X (though I don't think they have done so yet).

[Fluffy]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Your telling me that doing the same thing for less money isn't better?
If it did the same thing then maybe, but it doesn't. That's the entire argument as to why it isn't ready for the home!

Oh, yeah I forgot consumers don't care about the speed of connecting their machines to LANs or the internet (TCP stack) or losing their data when the power dies and slow disk access (Journaling). Silly me!
You're right they don't. As long as it works, regardless of the underlying technology, users don't care. Journaling exists under MacOS and Windows, and maybe it isn't quite as robust as on Linux (and maybe it is), but it simply doesn't matter. There is no practical or real world difference in day to day usability and operation.

The pro-Linux people never start this kind of childish pissing match.
Oh please. That's all the pro-Linux people ever do whenever anyone doubts that their precious OS might be ready for the home. Starry eyed delusions of the ultimate victory of the bazaar only go so far, and eventually people will actually have to use this thing, and it's just not ready.

But for some reason people think that Linux will never become popular until it is 'better' than Mac OS X, an OS with 1% market share, (which even according to the Google piechart posted above, Linux has already equaled).
No, Linux will never become popular until it is so much better at general tasks than Windows that people will want to switch. MacOS is already better than Windows (and has been for decades) and it still only has a 3% market share. Being better wasn't enough for the Mac, and it wouldn't be enough for Linux (even if it were better). By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.

[JimDreamworx]

Thanks for the summary ...fox - sometimes I feel the confusion that is going through these Linux desktops can be a bit - comes from being more entrenched in Mac that anything else for me.

Which is why I applaud what Lindows has done. Perhaps we need more "branding" in the desktops that run on Linux in order to have them more accepted and identified by consumers.

As an end user, I wouldn't want to repeat what you told me. Although it makes sense, I couldn't quote it verbatim. I'd want to be able to tell a vendor exactly what I want. Mac OS X and Aqua are branded, Windows and Longhorn and Luna are branded. Lindows is branded.

Are there any other complete desktops branded in Linux? Full distributions is what I think I mean. Something I can buy with a simple install CD or download instead of getting pieces here and there.

[Aquatic]

run under the other almost totally seamlessly

That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.

[\/\/ickes]

Hey JimDreamworx

There are many distro...

http://www.distrowatch.com/

Distro Watch is a website that keeps track of new distros and updated older ones... They have a next-to-compleat list of all the Linux distros out there.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by Aquatic
That applies to everything in Linux. It will never be unified and never be a desktop. And yes I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because Linux fanboise are delusional and for some weird reason the media is caught up in the Linux thing too. Linux probably has less than .1% desktop martkshare at least in the US. Elsewhere governments are putting it to good use. Actually I think the US should use Linux in more agencies to cut costs and virus/security problems.

Yah... I am not delusional. People like stupider...likeafox and myself are using straight fact and experience to fill our posts. You, however, you are just posting your opinion. I am not asking you to change your views on Linux, but I do ask you to be a little less dismissive when good points are posted. It seems as if you are only reading what you want to read.

That said, The media is caught up in Linux and that's a good thing. The more light that hits Linux the more interest people will have in it. The media is an important part of business, Apple knows how to use it well, and it is good to see Linux getting some attention.

[JimDreamworx]

Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows? I know of Red Hat, but I get the impression from them that I still have to build up what I want (ie. they have no standard desktop look and feel). Not that there is anything wrong in putting the pieces together, but I hope I am asking it the right way (from an end-user perspective) what I am looking for.

If I start using Lindows, then I would want to setup all hardware that I get to work with it (as opposed to buying necessary components and/or adding it pieces of software) and I guess I would have some expectations about this distribution. For example, each upgrade of OS X explained the minimum hardware requirements, but you could be assured that it would work with the newest hardware - I guess that's what happens when Apple controls "the whole widget". And Micro$oft has the resources to test their OS on everything (well, in theory).

This is where I see Linux not being ready for prime time. It seems that it is at the same place OS X 10.0 was - being ready for early adapters, but not something you would want to put into production as a replacement. Maybe it's these questions that might concern people who would readily switch to Linux.

Guess that's why I stay with Macs. Fear of things getting too involved. After all, isn't that the excuse Windoze folks use when confronted with integrating a Mac into a corporate environment? Fear of too much resources to set it up - even though we all know that it has to be one of the easiest platforms to add to any existing network.

[\/\/ickes]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows? I know of Red Hat, but I get the impression from them that I still have to build up what I want (ie. they have no standard desktop look and feel). Not that there is anything wrong in putting the pieces together, but I hope I am asking it the right way (from an end-user perspective) what I am looking for.


Well Red Hat does have a standard look and feel. It is called Bluecurve.

Take a look.
http://osnews.daemon.be/img/1842/redhat6.jpg

And with the link I gave you before just look down and to the right and you will see a list of distros, while this is just a list of distros used to visit the site you can see links to their sites and a bit of info about each one when you click on them.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Fluffy
By the way, I wonder where you get your 1% figure? The Mac (and by extension MacOS X, since that is all that can run on every Mac sold) has about 3% of the market by all accounts.

From Apple of course: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/06macosx.html

They claim that 40% of Mac users will be running OS X by the end of this quarter. The last time I checked the figures it was only a third (33%) and so I was calculating a third of 3% (from Google Zeitgeist) = 1% i.e. the same as Linux.

Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Thanks Wickes. Something like this is great for me. But again I address the branding. Is there anything out there as well-known as Lindows?


Lindows (http://www.lindows.com) , Lycoris (http://www. Lycoris.com) and Xandros (http://www. Xandros.com) are the consumer oriented desktop distributions but they all work best if you actually pay money for them. You can buy Lindows and Lycoris pre-installed at Walmart. Unfortunately they are all aimed at Windows switchers and so act a bit too much like Windows for my liking.

Suse (http://www.suse.org) is also available preinstalled at Walmart and while you can just run it as-is, with the addition of Ximian Desktop 2 (http://www.ximian.com/products/desktop/) you get a pretty kick ass enterprise desktop that is reasonably Mac-like (but not just in a cheesy rip-off way). Interestingly both Ximian and Suse were recently bought by Novell as part of a major Linux push within that company so I'm expecting big things from that department.

Note that Red Hat's Fedora Core 2 is due out next month, something I'm quite excited about (Core 1 was a bit muddled due to the transition from Red Hat). However, Fedora is far more hardcore about open source and so doesn't include things like Acrobat Reader, Shockwave/Flash plug-ins, or any mp3 support due to licensing issues. It's little niggles like these that will trip up beginners and that's why it's better to stick with the consumer focussed distribs that are built on top of the geek focussed ones.

[Fluffy]

Wait a minute, you said MacOS X has a 1% market share, not installed base. MacOS X has a 3% market share, and probably about a 2% installed base (due to the longer lifespan of a Mac vs x86 box). Multiplying an Apple installed base figure by a google web access statistic to get market share is ridiculous.

Besides, if LotD is really taking off then why has the google statistic for Linux been stuck at 1% since 2001? It would seem to me that if Linux were actually expanding on the desktop you'd get some kind of jump.

Going by the survey data linked in the original post Linux overtook Macs last year so by their measure there is 3 times as many Linux desktops as Mac OS X desktops
No. Last year all macs sold ran MacOS X solely, so by their measure the number of desktops between the two are basically equal. Or are you claiming that somehow, during the year in question, only 33% of Macs sold are now running MacOS X?

Come on, you're trying to compare one year of Linux sales to an aggregate average of 6 or seven years of Mac sales. It just doesn't work that way.

[JimDreamworx]

Getting a lot of good info about desktop distributions of Linux.

Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed? Specifically, I am thinking of things like ThinkFree Office and Gimp, but are there more? Games? PDA sync software? And how do these compare with "industry standards" that are out there?

For example, try submitting artwork if it is not in a Quark 4 format. Try talking to a graphic artists about anything other than PhotoShop. It's almost like talking to LAN Admins about Macs!

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Fluffy
Wait a minute, you said MacOS X has a 1% market share, not installed base. MacOS X has a 3% market share, and probably about a 2% installed base (due to the longer lifespan of a Mac vs x86 box). Multiplying an Apple installed base figure by a google web access statistic to get market share is ridiculous.


Okay, hold on, I'm confusing myself now. From the top:

Mac OS X now has a market share (percentage of desktops sold) of 3% which the original link claims Linux on the desktop matched and surpassed last year. So, according to them there will be more Linux Desktops sold this year than Macs, and will be selling twice as much within a couple of years.

(Here's an otherwise generally negative article on Linux that claims 2.8% Linux marketshare versus 3% Apple in 2002: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/01/22/linux.desktop.reut/index.html)

The Google figures concern installed base (if you assume all OS's are as likely to use Google) and claim 3% total for Macs (which happens to coincide with the generally accepted level) and 1% for Linux. Apple claims that nearly 40% of their installed base is running Mac OS X which gives 1%, the same as Linux.

So (without delving into the total lack of info behind these numbers) my math stands even if I got the terminology mixed up.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx

Now, from a consumer standpoint, are there any "branded" distributions of applications that do not require the end-user to compile the apps, or rely on libraries installed?


Yeah, Lindows has a software library called Click'n'Run which gives you some idea of the ease of use they're aiming at.

You can check out the range and prices here: http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_categories.php

[Fluffy]

Well your claim was that there are 3 times as many linux as MacOS X desktops in use, and that's what I'm disputing. In any event, it really doesn't matter. I disagree with your math, we'll leave it at that.

What I find interesting is that the article states that IDC is going to announce a 3.2% PC share for Linux, it didn't specifically say desktop share, nor whether that includes downloads and boxed red hat et. al sales or just boxes sold with linux pre-installed, etc. It will also be interesting to see whether that's worldwide (likely, due to China and other areas), or just US, and how they gathered info on whether those linux boxes will be used as actual desktops or not. The article is really quite vague on the specifics, but we'll have to wait and see.

Appearances to the contrary aside, I really do hope that Linux does well. I believe that the golden age of computing was in the late '80's with the Atari, Amiga, Mac and DOS/Windows all vying for supremacy. I just don't ever see it happening again. Linux on the desktop might hit 4 or 5 %, the Mac may someday hit 5%, but I fear that Windows is here to stay.