Why users see Linux as the future instead of OS X???
I should note that I never tried any version of Linux and I may never get to use it when I get an iBook with OS X.
What impressed me is that a copy of Red Hat Linux costs $CDN 99.99 and it is lower than Windows ($1000 and up), which makes me wonder.
I fail to understand why computer users want Linux as the "Windows Killer" instead of OS X? The only advantage I see is that it is very open-ended like Unix and users and programmers would create any number of Linux versions they want.
I know that it has a GUI system but I don't understand why anyone would try to reach "rocket scientist" level to study and use it. OS X combines the Unix kernal and it's pioneered GUI system that can perform the sophistication of Linux with easier user functions found in MacOS.
But I may never use Linux since I was exposed to the MacOS at an early age and I'm not going to waste my time to study Linux/Unix Lite stuff if I can find the same stuff when I get to use OS X.
Wish that all M$ employees get assassinated but people see this as illegal and no one has guts to stop M$ if the public hates them so bad.
At least Linux is popular to the poorer countries as they go by the cheap instead of Windows for an OS. Wish that Apple could do the same.
What impressed me is that a copy of Red Hat Linux costs $CDN 99.99 and it is lower than Windows ($1000 and up), which makes me wonder.
I fail to understand why computer users want Linux as the "Windows Killer" instead of OS X? The only advantage I see is that it is very open-ended like Unix and users and programmers would create any number of Linux versions they want.
I know that it has a GUI system but I don't understand why anyone would try to reach "rocket scientist" level to study and use it. OS X combines the Unix kernal and it's pioneered GUI system that can perform the sophistication of Linux with easier user functions found in MacOS.
But I may never use Linux since I was exposed to the MacOS at an early age and I'm not going to waste my time to study Linux/Unix Lite stuff if I can find the same stuff when I get to use OS X.
Wish that all M$ employees get assassinated but people see this as illegal and no one has guts to stop M$ if the public hates them so bad.
At least Linux is popular to the poorer countries as they go by the cheap instead of Windows for an OS. Wish that Apple could do the same.
Comments
the fact that it literally costs them no money can sway a lot of people towards it. many people's reasons against ms are monetary [not necessarily that people are poor, but they like <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html"; target="_blank">free software</a>].
(OTOH, if they're coming from the Wintel world, they're probably used to spending that much time anyway...
If someone has an x86 box, then even a $50 CD set from Red Hat is cheaper than Windows... and a heck of a lot cheaper than $1k+ for a Mac.
If you have an investment in x86 hardware, then you lose a lot of it in the move to MacOS X, but very little in moving to Linux. Of course, at some point the cost of your time exceeds the cost of the hardware, but most people don't notice the slow erosion of their life, so they are happy to give it up to save some up front cash. *shrug* Every person has their balance point for that decision.
<strong>What impressed me is that a copy of Red Hat Linux costs $CDN 99.99 and it is lower than Windows ($1000 and up), which makes me wonder.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
$1000 and up? Realistically it's ~$93 and up.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: Spiffster ]</p>
I think could be a hit because everything is free, but that is also its vice (no big company working on it). That's the reason why I don't think it will ever grow out of the geek stage. Its nice and all being free, but there isn't a big company like apple or *gasp* M$ to push it.
<strong>I think could be a hit because everything is free, but that is also its vice (no big company working on it). That's the reason why I don't think it will ever grow out of the geek stage. Its nice and all being free, but there isn't a big company like apple or *gasp* M$ to push it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To understand the impact of Linux one must understand why open source has become the biggest threat to any proprietary software giant, as well as understanding the the psychology of the NGU. Twenty years from now we won't even have a "total OS solution"--one MUST understand this.
Could you imagine walking into a department store and having only two items of each product to choose from? Two TVs, two microwave ovens, etc... three generations from now (my great great grandchildren) they aren't going to be standing for two or three operating systems. The next phase in personal computing will be the "generic" portal, or a quick-load OS that can be switched as easily as putting a DVD in a player (or whatever, you get the point). The seeds have been planted, the wheels are in motion, and the rest is inevitable.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
With linux, your current hardware doesn't look so old. Its more stable (very stable) and absolutely free to download and you don't have to enter into license agreements that force you to pay large amounts of money just so you can save 3 yrs down the road.
My .02
<strong>
I think could be a hit because everything is free, but that is also its vice (no big company working on it). That's the reason why I don't think it will ever grow out of the geek stage. Its nice and all being free, but there isn't a big company like apple or *gasp* M$ to push it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is not true. IBM is pushing redhat linux like crazy. Unless you work in a true IT department you don't see this. Four years ago we had absolutely *ZERO* linux servers. We were strickly a Window's and corportate Unix shop (HP-UX, AIX). And our Managers liked it that way.
[Enter the new world]
Within the last year IBM has started shipping a lot of their servers with red-hat. Within the last year we have incorporated 4 new business class servers running red-hat. Were talking Shark here, multiple lpars, clustering, TSM SANS backups over gigabit....and management is starting to take notice. No hickups. NONE!!!
It all starts with large corps. And trickles down from there. Blast me if you want, but linux is the future.
<strong>
It all starts with large corps. And trickles down from there. Blast me if you want, but linux is the future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have used Unix at work, but not linux. Unix for servers and engineers I can understand. But what about general office work? I would think a good GUI is very useful. Will linux have one that can compete with OS X? Just wondering.
PS: something else I like to say: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
I have used Unix at work, but not linux. Unix for servers and engineers I can understand. But what about general office work? I would think a good GUI is very useful. Will linux have one that can compete with OS X? Just wondering.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMHO depends on who's buying? Joe Hacker at home or IT department.
Most IT departments have a fickle, like us, locking XP down so the end user can't screw up the machine and cost us more work. Who cares what kinda experience it gives them. All we care about is giving the user an email icon and whatever apps that dept. uses. I mean isn't that what end users at work need anyway? Just the damn icons to do their job? Thats why linux is attractive to IT departments. It can be tailored in many different ways.
So I guess it depends on what you are asking. "Will Linux have a GUI that can compete" like looks wise? or can it do the job for a lot less money on equipment already paid for?
I see this as a very good sign for Apple, with acceptance of PPC hardware into mainstream business, the similarities of Linux and OS X, an assured supply of competitive PPC processors, and the need for more Unix based applications for business. The assurance of PPC processors is because IBM will need these to stay competitive with Intel. IBM may also do their own version of Linux, with an OS/2 like interface? They are using Red Hat because it is convenient now. If this takes off, they can do their own.
<strong>The assurance of PPC processors is because IBM will need these to stay competitive with Intel. IBM may also do their own version of Linux, with an OS/2 like interface?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well IBM already has AIX for enterprise servers, but it runs on their RISC chips, which they are very very very proud of and does a SUPER job as a server OS. In my mind its the best enterprise version of Unix next to HP-UX. For the desktop, well maybe but I doubt it. I would rather see a RISC chip that could handle OSX.
These toolkits are incompatible. They are licensed differently, they look differently (sure, you can theme them to look nearly the same, as RedHat does it), they behave differently. You can't share clipboards without a tool that will translate it. Write a GUI app and you'll have to decide for a toolkit and against all others.
Whenever I launch X11, I'm glad OS X allows me to use Quartz / Aqua instead - for most apps, anyway.
<strong>Linux as a desktop OS will never be as good as Windows or Mac OS. The typical window server you'll use is X11. With that, you'll have the choice between 20+ different window managers, multiple desktops (KDE, GNOME being the most popular) and - and here's the problem - multiple Toolkits (Qt, Motif, GTK and others).
These toolkits are incompatible. They are licensed differently, they look differently (sure, you can theme them to look nearly the same, as RedHat does it), they behave differently. You can't share clipboards without a tool that will translate it. Write a GUI app and you'll have to decide for a toolkit and against all others.
Whenever I launch X11, I'm glad OS X allows me to use Quartz / Aqua instead - for most apps, anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what you're saying here perhaps is that we need GUIs that are easy to use? Is there any way we can have a stable back end with Linux and an interchangable front end GUI?
I'm trying to figure this out... please help, a few questions:
1. With Linux, what exactly is shared across all distributions? Just the kernel?
2. At which point to decisions have to be made that affect "GUI" branching, that is, at which stage do things start to become differenciated? The toolboxes?
Hopefully Linux users can see what I'm getting at... thanks in advance for help.
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
Linux is just the kernel. However, it almost always comes standard in a UNIX-type package.
[quote]2. At which point to decisions have to be made that affect "GUI" branching, that is, at which stage do things start to become differenciated? The toolboxes?<hr></blockquote>
Since Linux doesn't provide any GUI functionality itself, everything is theoretically up for grabs. Most often though, Linux comes with the X Window System and things diverge from there, since X alone isn't a full GUI.
There are multiple possible starting points for new standards, but since X is so established, most efforts would probably start from there. The Blue Eyed OS project, for instance, intends to recreate the BeOS GUI on top of X.