Blah blah blah. It doesn't matter who's number two as long as the marketshare comes from MS rather than Apple (and I'm sure it is because you'd have to be insane to go to Linux if you've already got a Mac, especially one that runs OS X). What I would love is for more plularity in the market just so that application developers move towards open-standards.
Developers have two choices when it comes to dealing with a market with more than 1 large player: proprietary stuff that limits potential customers or open-standard stuff that makes adoption that much easier. IMHO of course.
The willful, and sadly it is exactly that, ignorance of the Mac crowd when it comes to open source operating systems is shocking to behold.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that I (and many other Mac users) are ignorant concerning open source operating systems. I've been programming long before "open source" became a trendy term (we "open sourced" code long before the term was coined).
I'm intimately aware of the intricacies of an operating system, and I maintain Unix servers of a few flavors on a daily basis.
However, when it comes to actually getting work done, I prefer an operating system that gets out of my way, and just "works". It really seems to me that many people who are in love with Linux don't understand that people actually want to get work done on their computers... and don't consider recompiling kernels, editing .conf files, and the like to be anything but an obstacle to getting work done.
I'm not about to go out and buy a kit car that I have to work under the hood on every time I want to drive to work any more than I'm willing go use a "free" operating system that requires more attention than the highest-maintenance girlfriend I've ever had. And I'm willing to pay for an operating system that works right out of the box.
My time is worth more than the $129 it costs to buy Mac OS X -- and I'm one of the technically experienced people who *could* handle the hassles that using Linux entails. Most people not only don't have technical experience necessary to use Linux, but also no desire as well. Read that last part again -- it isn't ignorance, it is apathy regarding an OS that requires tweaking and tuning to do much of anything.
I promise you that if Linux ever gets it act together and offers a truly good user experience, it will succeed on the desktop. However, it isn't even close right now, and no amount of advocacy or thinly veiled insults will change that.
I'm also a bit skeptical of whether Linux will ever get the direction it needs. The pluralistic nature of Linux is nice from some perspectives, but a truism remains: design by committee simply does not work. I can install literally dozens of different window manager for Linux, all of them a bit different, and frankly, all of them suck. I'd rather use Windows XP.
Okay now...let's be clear about something. When the 3% number is quoted...it is refering to CURRENT SALES SHARE. There is another number which is often ignored and confused with this "current sales share", and that is "installed base share". This would be the percentage of total machines purchased to date. Apple's share of the market when measured this way looks more like 7-10%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
don't be silly
Apple's marketshare--no matter how you measure it--is below 5% in some cases 3% is pushing it...
face it we are a niche...a very small and influential niche...but still not all that important in the grand scheme of things...
...for now anyway... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Read that last part again -- it isn't ignorance, it is apathy regarding an OS that requires tweaking and tuning to do much of anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
While what I wrote was (mildly) insulting, I wasn't accusing anyone of ignorance in the sense of stupidity.
I emphasised 'willful', and 'willful ignorance' means, in this context, very much the same as 'apathy'. Another poster called it 'indifference', thinking he was disagreeing with me, justifying this stance by claiming that Mac OS X was better.
I happen to agree that Mac OS X is better but is that going to mean that it's user share will skyrocket over the next decade? No.
With say 5million on OS X out of 25million mac users, and call the Apple marketshare 5%, then that's 1% of the total market. Apple predicts this will double this year, but the market is growing faster than Apple's share so less than 2% next year and probably no way to ever beat 3%.
----
Mac users are so dismissive of Linux they haven't even taken the time to examine it and dismissing something without first understanding it is hardly a smart move. In fact half the arguments made against it apply to Mac OS X.
"The BSD userland code is only 'free' if your time is worth nothing."
Someone dismissed it as a geek's toy which is interesting as Tim O'reilly (www.oreilly.com) claims the reason he has high hopes for Mac OS X is because, wait for it..., yes, because it makes an excellent toy for all the alpha-geeks. Why do you think Jordan Hubbard asked Apple to employ him? What made Dave Hyatt decide to wrap Gecko in a Cocoa wrapper?
------
Let me clarify that when I talk of ignorance I am not referring to learning the technical skills of a command line guru. Being a technical person (geek, programmer, superuser, whatever...) has nothing to do with your ability to grasp the true significance of open source software.
Most of the interesting stuff to do with open source/Linux is in the domain of economics. It is a disruptive technology which by the definition starts by taking the business that you least want, at the low margin fringes and underperforms in the key sectors (end user desktops in this case, though each branch of computing has it's own).
A disruptive technology is a technology or innovation "that results in worse product performance, at least in the near-term...[It] brings to the market a very different value proposition than had been available previously...Products that are based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use. [But, they generally] underperform established products in mainstream markets." (Christensen, 1997, p.xv)Â*
Note that when he says 'simpler' he means 'does less'
The key point is that Linux has already done the disruptive technology thing once. The post I replied to graciously conceded that Linux was a good server but was emphatic that it would never make it on the desktop.
Does anyone remember when people used to say that it would never make it as a server OS? And note that at the time, it was not the best by a great margin, was lacking in many respects and dismissed by many as a toy.
Something about Linux gave it the ability to challenge the Server OS vendor's and do well. It started with the business that no-one else could be bothered to fight for and now it looks like it will be basically the only unix left standing when the dust settles.
Similar stories are told (or will be) in high-performance computing clusters, embedded apps, handhelds, watches(!), network appliances etc.
It's ironic that we Mac users talk about how easy it is to get work done, 'right-out-of-the-box' ease of use, and that we don't have to tinker with it all the time, yet we are easily the most adamant about our Platform more than any other. Though Linux and Windoze are a headache waiting to happen, we beat our own heads too the wall arguing on our own. heh
I think the future of linux isn't in the desktop world as it is in the server world. Microsoft and Linux UI programmers are watching apple like a hawk, though apple markets itself strangely they have the best UI over all others. In the corporate world linux may will be on a deskop, with ease of use, but its mainstay we all know is embedded systems and servers, which outclass any other OS including OSX. Windows is going to turn into what I think will be an interconnected client OS where everything is a service, and every service has a fee. I think OS X is going to thrive with its ease of use, and unbridaled UI. The future looks bright if you ask me.
<strong>Will history repeat itself on the desktop? I think so</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think not; in fact, I think you're touched to even entertain the idea that ANY Linux distro today is remotely comparable to Mac OS X, or any version of Windows in terms of ease of use.
I'd sooner recommend Windows 3.1 than any Linux distro for the average computer user (read: the vast majority of the desktop market).
Here is a trivial example. Let's say you want to install some fonts to use with AbiWord. Here's how you do it:
.....
AbiWord supports TrueType fonts in GNU/Linux. However your system must already have a properly configured TrueType font server. To find out how to configure your font server to use TrueType fonts, or how to install a separate TrueType font server, please read the LDP Font HOWTO.
In particular the section Making Fonts Available to X.
Please also refer to the "Customizing Fonts for Unix in AbiWord" Document.
Be aware that fonts will only appear in AbiWord if they exist in or are symlinked to the AbiWord fonts directory: /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts
Certain font names are critical to the operation of AbiWord, notably "Times New Roman". If you want to use Microsoft's core fonts in AbiWord and the core fonts are already properly installed in a separate directory, such as (this is just an example): /usr/share/fonts/MSCoreFonts
Then to make those fonts available to AbiWord, delete or move the current fonts in /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts and type (as root): ln -s /usr/share/fonts/MSCoreFonts/* /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts If the fonts are already properly installed it doesn't appear necessary to update the fonts.dir and fonts.scale files (i.e. they can be left as symlinks). AbiWord should now detect the Microsoft core fonts. If you want to know how to install Microsoft's core fonts, which are freely available and redistributable with certain restrictions, download them from here: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/truetype/fontpack/"; target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/truetype/fontpack/</a>;
Once all the TrueType fonts are extracted into a (separate) directory of your choosing you just (this explanation may be Redhat 6.2+ specific):
(a) execute ttmkfdir (the True Type make font directory)
(b) execute "chkfontpath --add (directory of the fonts)", or edit /etc/X11/fs/config manually.
(c) Optional: Put the Microsoft core fonts at the top of the directories list in /etc/X11/fs/config.
Then restart the font server: /etc/rc.d/init.d/xfs restart The Microsoft core fonts will now be properly installed and you can make the fonts available to AbiWord by symlinking as explained above.
....
Please note that these directions don't even cover installing and configuring the TT font server that you need in order to use them. That's another few pages of complex (for the average user) procedures.
This is but one example of many. All I can say is "yeah, right!"
<strong>Something about Linux gave it the ability to challenge the Server OS vendor's and do well. It started with the business that no-one else could be bothered to fight for and now it looks like it will be basically the only unix left standing when the dust settles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Linux is an OS by geeks, for geeks -- and there's nothing wrong with an OS that serves that tinkerer market niche. There is some great server software, there's no doubt -- but it requires a good bit of knowledge/skill to set up and properly configure. There is also generally no UI other than a .conf file or three.
The same is not true on the desktop application front. The software out there for the end user is utter garbage compared to alternatives for Mac OS X/Windows. GIMP vs. Photoshop? AbiWord vs. Microsoft Word? Please.
And that doesn't even get into the nightmares the average user would have doing basic things with the OS, like installing fonts. This isn't to say that Linux *couldn't* be decent for the average user, but as of today, it is far, far from that goal. Linux has had close to a decade to build its user base, then Mac OS X comes along and overnight is the #1 Unix-based operating system. Doesn't that say something?
Im confused about this whole linux to become #2.Your simple minded consumer would never waste their time with linux would they??? God I think I would use windows over linux any day. Last time i used Linux it drove me insane, everything was such a hassle....
Linux has been about to "dethrone Microsoft" for about as long as Apple has been "going out of business."
Linux for servers is great. But on the desktop its a complete joke. You can do exactly 0 with it. Mac OS X is everything Linux wanted to do and be, just done right.
<strong>Linux has been about to "dethrone Microsoft" for about as long as Apple has been "going out of business."
Linux for servers is great. But on the desktop its a complete joke. You can do exactly 0 with it. Mac OS X is everything Linux wanted to do and be, just done right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well Said!!!!!!!! Clears up the rest of the crap about Linux! (Sorry I really am no fan of Linux Detrhoning MS etc)
<strong>Im confused about this whole linux to become #2.Your simple minded consumer would never waste their time with linux would they??? God I think I would use windows over linux any day. Last time i used Linux it drove me insane, everything was such a hassle....</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I mentioned, I could actually see it happening, but primarily because China and India (the world's two most populous nations) are embracing Linux in a big way (both because of the cost, the access to source code, and because then they are not subject to any license restrictions imposed by Windows/Mac OS)
Linux has had close to a decade to build its user base, then Mac OS X comes along and overnight is the #1 Unix-based operating system. Doesn't that say something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does it say that building an end-user desktop OS on an open source unix base is not only possible, but a very good idea?
That average users can use such a system and be totally unaware that they are running Unix?
That complex open source software, like Apache and Samba and CUPS, can be added to an operating system (totally unchanged from the standard distribution) and be used by your mom to serve webpages, share files and print?
And anyway, I thought the stat was that Apple was the biggest supplier of Unix based OSs, which is a very different thing.
I read an estimate of Linux users at 18million which is behind Apple as a whole but ties OS 9 and dwarfs OS X.
This isn't limited to desktop usage obviously, Apple estimated Mac OS X as 3 times more popular than Linux on the desktop this time last year, which means MS was about 300 times more popular than Linux on the desktop.
----
You can give a hundred examples of things that are hard to do right now on Linux. Watching DVDs is one area that springs to mind, but many desktops are not used to do these things and for them it simply will not matter. Linux has always known how to pick its battles and there are easy wins out there and Linux will appear on these desktops first.
You know the ones, running Windows 95 or 98, with IE 4 on them. Used regularly but never once updated or administered in any way. Or the legions of machines in offices and universities that are managed by a hired staff, where they go out of their way to stop you installing fonts and messing around with the system.
Linux is nibbling around the edges right now, but with every bite it takes, it becomes stronger and gains greater mindshare. Desktops used in public libraries, high school or college labs, work machines for secretaries and other users that need little more than email, browser and Word. All of these are areas where Linux offers key benefits and there is money to be made. That money is attracting a rag tag army of small time entrepreneurs as well as big business.
Would you honestly be more surprised if a state government switched to all OS X desktops or all Red Hat?
Someone recently commented: What is the Michael Dell of tomorrow thinking about moving into right now? Where are the exciting market opportunities? The answer is Linux.
You talk about the uptake in India, China and other nations, but fail to mention that governments across Europe are moving to Linux and open standards.
This is earth shattering stuff yet it is dismissed with a bit of hand waving. Just try and imagine what you would think if thinksecret announced that countries with a combined population of 2 Billion had commited to using Mac OS X exclusively.
Parting thougt, two dumbed down end user versions of Linux, no kernel recompiles necessary:
<strong>I happen to agree that Mac OS X is better but is that going to mean that it's user share will skyrocket over the next decade? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the key diagram from crossing the chasm by Geoffrey A. Moore.
In my humble opinion, for many interesting reasons
Linux == Evil Knievel
and he is currently getting up the speed to make the jump. If you read <a href="http://www.testing.com/writings/reviews/moore-chasm.html"; target="_blank">the definitions</a> that accompany the diagram, I think you will agree that Mac OS X, despite being (or possibly because it is) a technical virtuoso piece is struggling to make it across the chasm.
Think of all the OS 9 users, especially in institutional settings that are pragmatic and conservative by their nature. When they jump will it be Mac OS X or Win XP?
In fact the whole switcher campaign is about making that transition. It is certainly creating mindshare but the people that I know are changing in droves are the geeks and techs, the people who enjoy getting their computer to work and then go and post about it on internet forums. us
But we are not the mainstream, though we claim that our OS of choice is the best for that mainstream because of ease of use. This is like when people claimed OS 9 was easy to use and forgot that for ordinary people ease of use == not crashing all the time. Today we don't crash but need to remember that for the mainstream ease of use == things like:
working on current hardware (x86)
being the same as what they use at work/school.
being what everyone else is using.
Not being the best never stopped MSFT, why should it hold Linux back?
Does it say that building an end-user desktop OS on an open source unix base is not only possible, but a very good idea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you know how to do it right, many ideas can be good. If you only know how to copy cool stuff from other, well, then not.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>That average users can use such a system and be totally unaware that they are running Unix?
That complex open source software, like Apache and Samba and CUPS, can be added to an operating system (totally unchanged from the standard distribution) and be used by your mom to serve webpages, share files and print?
And anyway, I thought the stat was that Apple was the biggest supplier of Unix based OSs, which is a very different thing.
I read an estimate of Linux users at 18million which is behind Apple as a whole but ties OS 9 and dwarfs OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah, there are many cheapskates out there. I have bought a lot of SuSE Linux versionf, from 4.4. I uninstalled each after a few days.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Someone recently commented: What is the Michael Dell of tomorrow thinking about moving into right now? Where are the exciting market opportunities? The answer is Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah if you have the monetary resources of a big software company to do QA, to hire quality developers and visionaries who can help you turn Linux into something big.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
You talk about the uptake in India, China and other nations, but fail to mention that governments across Europe are moving to Linux and open standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah, because it's _cheap_. MS is expensive. Goverments can afford to port their software to Linux. They have the time and money to thrain their "users". And they save money with Linux in the long term. Does that say anything about Linux on the desktop? No.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
This is earth shattering stuff yet it is dismissed with a bit of hand waving. Just try and imagine what you would think if thinksecret announced that countries with a combined population of 2 Billion had commited to using Mac OS X exclusively.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not earth shattering, it's economics.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Parting thougt, two dumbed down end user versions of Linux, no kernel recompiles necessary:</strong><hr></blockquote>
So do they allow me to plug in my USB digital camera, download the pictures in my images folder or plug in my USB scanner to scan in my family photos? Do they have a "share this internet connection" button? Can I read the Word files a customer sends me from his OfficeXP? Can I use Outlook as I do at work? I guess not. So I can surf the net, great, now how do I get that Shockwave to work again...
So do they allow me to plug in my USB digital camera, download the pictures in my images folder or plug in my USB scanner to scan in my family photos? Do they have a "share this internet connection" button? Can I read the Word files a customer sends me from his OfficeXP? Can I use Outlook as I do at work? I guess not. So I can surf the net, great, now how do I get that Shockwave to work again...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Erm.. yes, yes and yes, don't know, yes, you can use a Ximian client to connect to an Outlook server (can you do that on OS X?). So it looks like you guessed wrong.
edit: I missed out a yes, now fixed
Funnily enough, my co-worker did both of the first two on his new Red Hat 8 install right out the box. Don't get me wrong, he's a geek but even he was actually surprised that it worked out of the box as he hadn't ran Linux for a while but I had to fork out money to get the same scanner to work on Mac OS X.
How can you acknowledge that you can surf the net (using Mozilla, Phoenix or new, improved Konqueror) and yet claim that Shockwave is the deal-breaker? What kind of priorities do you have? What priorities do you think people in general have?
If you couldn't shop at Amazon, or view damn near every website, or access your bank then, okay, but Shockwave? And how is this different than me saying that you can't use all the Windows Media Player codecs on Mac OS X? What is your point?
I plainly stated that Linux wasn't better but that wouldn't stop it, just as it didn't stop MSFT and that economics, not technology would lead to its mass adoption globally.
You just posted that Linux isn't better but that economics would lead to it's mass adoption globally.
So does that tell us anything about Linux on the desktop. Yes!
Everyone in this forum bitches about how expensive Macs are, but when an alternative cheaper than Wintel comes along you call the users cheapskates, as if that will stop them switching. I suppose it would be hard to be an OS snob if the hoi polloi were using Macs so count your blessings.
How can you acknowledge that you can surf the net (using Mozilla, Phoenix or new, improved Konqueror) and yet claim that Shockwave is the deal-breaker? What kind of priorities do you have? What priorities do you think people in general have?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty much what Moki said - that stuff _works_. You wont be able to sell it as a desktop if all of a sudden people lose functionality they were used to before. I wont change my priorities for the software, the software should change for me.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
If you couldn't shop at Amazon, or view damn near every website, or access your bank then, okay, but Shockwave? And how is this different than me saying that you can't use all the Windows Media Player codecs on Mac OS X? What is your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, my point? I can't use shockwave. I like stuff like Habbohotel, for example. I like me plugging in my USB scanner (any kind of scanner) and using it. Not searching the web to find out that "I have an exotic brand that is not supported". Unless you want to ignore the point, which is fine by me.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
By the way, the claim that open source software can only copy stuff is pure BS, but I don't want to get into it here as it really isn't relevent to the main point but have you heard of these guys <a href="http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm</a>; or <a href="http://www.eazel.com"; target="_blank">www.eazel.com</a> (now sadly defunct, and at least 5 of the team members are working on Safari).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not pure BS, and there is a reaon to that - in order to be really innovative, you have to spend a lot of time researching and trying stuff out. Normally you have time when someone pays you for the work. OpenSource software like the Linux desktop is made by people in their spare time. If someone comes along with an idea they say "Well, code it yourself them! I will only code stuff I like or need, not implement some whacky ideas of a run-by user!"
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
You just posted that Linux isn't better but that economics would lead to it's mass adoption globally.
So does that tell us anything about Linux on the desktop. Yes!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, what does it tell us? It tells us about price/performance, nothing more. Not mass adoption globally, but where it can be used instead of Windows/MacOS.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Everyone in this forum bitches about how expensive Macs are, but when an alternative cheaper than Wintel comes along you call the users cheapskates, as if that will stop them switching. I suppose it would be hard to be an OS snob if the hoi polloi were using Macs so count your blessings.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not an OS snob, maybe you are. It's not only the OS (but you fail to understand that argumenr, brought forward by many others already).
I like to plug my computer in, plug in peripherals and know it will work. I like to do work with my computer, and not set it up. I bought Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, DreamWeaver, etc. for a reason - because I do graphics design. I can not do that on a Linux machine. I can not do any typography. I can surf websites and send mail, if I get my machine to connect trough my Windows server at all. Windows and MacOS allow me to DO work. If you do stuff that can be done with Linux - great! You have a way to cut costs and work with a free system. I can not, and many other people can not and what Linux advocates fail to see is that the "Desktop" IS NOT KDE 3.x, it's a whole bunch of factors that make a system usable for a Desktop Computer.
Linux is great, yada yada, marketshare, free speach all you want if it doesn't cut it for me I don't care. And the same goes for Joe User, but unlike myself Joe User will only try Linux once and decide it's no good - I've been trying it on and off all the time, but even for me it doesn't work. My priorities are my thing and you are not the one to decide whether I depend even on only ONE shockwave website or not. You may be able to make cutbacks to use Linux, but I am not, nor are many others.
At the very moment microsoft would release a free as in beer version of Windows the marketshare of Linux would dissapear in a puffy cloud.
Microsoft already released a free as in beer version of their OS, it's called rampant piracy (though I prefer 'copyright infringement') and it's a way of life in India and China. Which are the two countries that are going to be adopting Linux in droves. A paradox?
Your argument has no logic to it. You're a graphic designer and you can't do that with Linux, therefore it won't become a player in the desktop OS market.
You assume that Joe and Jane Desktop are with you on that one, but they couldn't use Photoshop even if they wanted to. iPhoto and Photoshop Elements are far more important to that crowd.
And your hardware arguments are bizarre. Did you miss the last two years of bitching, whining, pissing and moaning that accompanied the lack of drivers on Mac OS X? There is a thread right now called iScan bemoaning the lack of support for scanners.
[quote]No it's not pure BS, and there is a reaon to that - in order to be really innovative, you have to spend a lot of time researching and trying stuff out. Normally you have time when someone pays you for the work. OpenSource software like the Linux desktop is made by people in their spare time. If someone comes along with an idea they say "Well, code it yourself them! I will only code stuff I like or need, not implement some whacky ideas of a run-by user!"
<hr></blockquote>
This is just so misinformed it's not true, where do you get these ideas from. The Gnome desktop is used by Sun Microsystems for Solaris and Linux, they pay the developers, sponsor internationalization and run user interface testing programs. It's not a bunch of cowboys, sitting at home in their underwear. Have you heard of IBM by any chance?
Your on an Apple forum for heaven's sake. Darwin is open source, so why are you such a fan of an operating system built on OSS, how can you trust the rendering and javascript in Safari?
How will they ever get the bugs fixed if those lazy, good-for-nothing open source programmers decide that they can't be bothered?
Without open source software, Mac OS X would be nothing, it would not even exist. To attack open source software is to bash the platform you are championing. Even the closed source parts like Cocoa Gui which is based on the OpenStep standard and Mail, iCal, iSync are built on standards developed for open source software.
Without open source software there would be no internet, and where would that leave your vaunted shockwave supporting browsers.
-------
I'm not trying to tell you what OS to run, and I'm baffled that you think I am. If someone said that all professional graphics designers would be better off on Linux then I would laugh at them.
But I am talking about adoption overall, around the world, at work, at home, newbies and power users, institutions and individuals and Linux will make an impact on the desktop in all those areas, though some more than others. It will do so by being cheaper, freer, more flexilble and in some cases just plain better than the alternative.
But we're obviously talking at cross purposes when you can say that price/performance is irrelevant.
Comments
Developers have two choices when it comes to dealing with a market with more than 1 large player: proprietary stuff that limits potential customers or open-standard stuff that makes adoption that much easier. IMHO of course.
<strong>
The willful, and sadly it is exactly that, ignorance of the Mac crowd when it comes to open source operating systems is shocking to behold.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that I (and many other Mac users) are ignorant concerning open source operating systems. I've been programming long before "open source" became a trendy term (we "open sourced" code long before the term was coined).
I'm intimately aware of the intricacies of an operating system, and I maintain Unix servers of a few flavors on a daily basis.
However, when it comes to actually getting work done, I prefer an operating system that gets out of my way, and just "works". It really seems to me that many people who are in love with Linux don't understand that people actually want to get work done on their computers... and don't consider recompiling kernels, editing .conf files, and the like to be anything but an obstacle to getting work done.
I'm not about to go out and buy a kit car that I have to work under the hood on every time I want to drive to work any more than I'm willing go use a "free" operating system that requires more attention than the highest-maintenance girlfriend I've ever had. And I'm willing to pay for an operating system that works right out of the box.
My time is worth more than the $129 it costs to buy Mac OS X -- and I'm one of the technically experienced people who *could* handle the hassles that using Linux entails. Most people not only don't have technical experience necessary to use Linux, but also no desire as well. Read that last part again -- it isn't ignorance, it is apathy regarding an OS that requires tweaking and tuning to do much of anything.
I promise you that if Linux ever gets it act together and offers a truly good user experience, it will succeed on the desktop. However, it isn't even close right now, and no amount of advocacy or thinly veiled insults will change that.
I'm also a bit skeptical of whether Linux will ever get the direction it needs. The pluralistic nature of Linux is nice from some perspectives, but a truism remains: design by committee simply does not work. I can install literally dozens of different window manager for Linux, all of them a bit different, and frankly, all of them suck. I'd rather use Windows XP.
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>
Okay now...let's be clear about something. When the 3% number is quoted...it is refering to CURRENT SALES SHARE. There is another number which is often ignored and confused with this "current sales share", and that is "installed base share". This would be the percentage of total machines purchased to date. Apple's share of the market when measured this way looks more like 7-10%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
don't be silly
Apple's marketshare--no matter how you measure it--is below 5% in some cases 3% is pushing it...
face it we are a niche...a very small and influential niche...but still not all that important in the grand scheme of things...
...for now anyway... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Read that last part again -- it isn't ignorance, it is apathy regarding an OS that requires tweaking and tuning to do much of anything.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
While what I wrote was (mildly) insulting, I wasn't accusing anyone of ignorance in the sense of stupidity.
I emphasised 'willful', and 'willful ignorance' means, in this context, very much the same as 'apathy'. Another poster called it 'indifference', thinking he was disagreeing with me, justifying this stance by claiming that Mac OS X was better.
I happen to agree that Mac OS X is better but is that going to mean that it's user share will skyrocket over the next decade? No.
With say 5million on OS X out of 25million mac users, and call the Apple marketshare 5%, then that's 1% of the total market. Apple predicts this will double this year, but the market is growing faster than Apple's share so less than 2% next year and probably no way to ever beat 3%.
----
Mac users are so dismissive of Linux they haven't even taken the time to examine it and dismissing something without first understanding it is hardly a smart move. In fact half the arguments made against it apply to Mac OS X.
"The BSD userland code is only 'free' if your time is worth nothing."
Someone dismissed it as a geek's toy which is interesting as Tim O'reilly (www.oreilly.com) claims the reason he has high hopes for Mac OS X is because, wait for it..., yes, because it makes an excellent toy for all the alpha-geeks. Why do you think Jordan Hubbard asked Apple to employ him? What made Dave Hyatt decide to wrap Gecko in a Cocoa wrapper?
------
Let me clarify that when I talk of ignorance I am not referring to learning the technical skills of a command line guru. Being a technical person (geek, programmer, superuser, whatever...) has nothing to do with your ability to grasp the true significance of open source software.
Most of the interesting stuff to do with open source/Linux is in the domain of economics. It is a disruptive technology which by the definition starts by taking the business that you least want, at the low margin fringes and underperforms in the key sectors (end user desktops in this case, though each branch of computing has it's own).
from: <a href="http://www.fourthwavegroup.com/fwg/lexicon/1802w.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.fourthwavegroup.com/fwg/lexicon/1802w.htm</a>;
A disruptive technology is a technology or innovation "that results in worse product performance, at least in the near-term...[It] brings to the market a very different value proposition than had been available previously...Products that are based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use. [But, they generally] underperform established products in mainstream markets." (Christensen, 1997, p.xv)Â*
Note that when he says 'simpler' he means 'does less'
The key point is that Linux has already done the disruptive technology thing once. The post I replied to graciously conceded that Linux was a good server but was emphatic that it would never make it on the desktop.
Does anyone remember when people used to say that it would never make it as a server OS? And note that at the time, it was not the best by a great margin, was lacking in many respects and dismissed by many as a toy.
Something about Linux gave it the ability to challenge the Server OS vendor's and do well. It started with the business that no-one else could be bothered to fight for and now it looks like it will be basically the only unix left standing when the dust settles.
Similar stories are told (or will be) in high-performance computing clusters, embedded apps, handhelds, watches(!), network appliances etc.
Will history repeat itself on the desktop? I think so, but it might not, there are many other factors, not least MSFT's influence. However, dismissing the possibility on the basis of what are little more than clichés and second-hand opinions seems to be the party line for the average Mac fan.
I think the future of linux isn't in the desktop world as it is in the server world. Microsoft and Linux UI programmers are watching apple like a hawk, though apple markets itself strangely they have the best UI over all others. In the corporate world linux may will be on a deskop, with ease of use, but its mainstay we all know is embedded systems and servers, which outclass any other OS including OSX. Windows is going to turn into what I think will be an interconnected client OS where everything is a service, and every service has a fee. I think OS X is going to thrive with its ease of use, and unbridaled UI. The future looks bright if you ask me.
<strong>Will history repeat itself on the desktop? I think so</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think not; in fact, I think you're touched to even entertain the idea that ANY Linux distro today is remotely comparable to Mac OS X, or any version of Windows in terms of ease of use.
I'd sooner recommend Windows 3.1 than any Linux distro for the average computer user (read: the vast majority of the desktop market).
Here is a trivial example. Let's say you want to install some fonts to use with AbiWord. Here's how you do it:
.....
AbiWord supports TrueType fonts in GNU/Linux. However your system must already have a properly configured TrueType font server. To find out how to configure your font server to use TrueType fonts, or how to install a separate TrueType font server, please read the LDP Font HOWTO.
In particular the section Making Fonts Available to X.
Please also refer to the "Customizing Fonts for Unix in AbiWord" Document.
Be aware that fonts will only appear in AbiWord if they exist in or are symlinked to the AbiWord fonts directory: /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts
Certain font names are critical to the operation of AbiWord, notably "Times New Roman". If you want to use Microsoft's core fonts in AbiWord and the core fonts are already properly installed in a separate directory, such as (this is just an example): /usr/share/fonts/MSCoreFonts
Then to make those fonts available to AbiWord, delete or move the current fonts in /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts and type (as root): ln -s /usr/share/fonts/MSCoreFonts/* /usr/share/AbiSuite/fonts If the fonts are already properly installed it doesn't appear necessary to update the fonts.dir and fonts.scale files (i.e. they can be left as symlinks). AbiWord should now detect the Microsoft core fonts. If you want to know how to install Microsoft's core fonts, which are freely available and redistributable with certain restrictions, download them from here: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/truetype/fontpack/"; target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/truetype/fontpack/</a>;
Microsoft stipulates you can only distribute the fonts as Windows executables. It is fortunate that decoding these executables is possible under Linux: <a href="http://www.kyz.uklinux.net/cabextract.php3"; target="_blank">http://www.kyz.uklinux.net/cabextract.php3</a>;
Once all the TrueType fonts are extracted into a (separate) directory of your choosing you just (this explanation may be Redhat 6.2+ specific):
(a) execute ttmkfdir (the True Type make font directory)
(b) execute "chkfontpath --add (directory of the fonts)", or edit /etc/X11/fs/config manually.
(c) Optional: Put the Microsoft core fonts at the top of the directories list in /etc/X11/fs/config.
Then restart the font server: /etc/rc.d/init.d/xfs restart The Microsoft core fonts will now be properly installed and you can make the fonts available to AbiWord by symlinking as explained above.
....
Please note that these directions don't even cover installing and configuring the TT font server that you need in order to use them. That's another few pages of complex (for the average user) procedures.
This is but one example of many. All I can say is "yeah, right!"
[ 01-11-2003: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>Something about Linux gave it the ability to challenge the Server OS vendor's and do well. It started with the business that no-one else could be bothered to fight for and now it looks like it will be basically the only unix left standing when the dust settles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Linux is an OS by geeks, for geeks -- and there's nothing wrong with an OS that serves that tinkerer market niche. There is some great server software, there's no doubt -- but it requires a good bit of knowledge/skill to set up and properly configure. There is also generally no UI other than a .conf file or three.
The same is not true on the desktop application front. The software out there for the end user is utter garbage compared to alternatives for Mac OS X/Windows. GIMP vs. Photoshop? AbiWord vs. Microsoft Word? Please.
And that doesn't even get into the nightmares the average user would have doing basic things with the OS, like installing fonts. This isn't to say that Linux *couldn't* be decent for the average user, but as of today, it is far, far from that goal. Linux has had close to a decade to build its user base, then Mac OS X comes along and overnight is the #1 Unix-based operating system. Doesn't that say something?
Linux for servers is great. But on the desktop its a complete joke. You can do exactly 0 with it. Mac OS X is everything Linux wanted to do and be, just done right.
<strong>Linux has been about to "dethrone Microsoft" for about as long as Apple has been "going out of business."
Linux for servers is great. But on the desktop its a complete joke. You can do exactly 0 with it. Mac OS X is everything Linux wanted to do and be, just done right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well Said!!!!!!!! Clears up the rest of the crap about Linux! (Sorry
<strong>Im confused about this whole linux to become #2.Your simple minded consumer would never waste their time with linux would they??? God I think I would use windows over linux any day. Last time i used Linux it drove me insane, everything was such a hassle....</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I mentioned, I could actually see it happening, but primarily because China and India (the world's two most populous nations) are embracing Linux in a big way (both because of the cost, the access to source code, and because then they are not subject to any license restrictions imposed by Windows/Mac OS)
<strong>
Linux has had close to a decade to build its user base, then Mac OS X comes along and overnight is the #1 Unix-based operating system. Doesn't that say something?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does it say that building an end-user desktop OS on an open source unix base is not only possible, but a very good idea?
That average users can use such a system and be totally unaware that they are running Unix?
That complex open source software, like Apache and Samba and CUPS, can be added to an operating system (totally unchanged from the standard distribution) and be used by your mom to serve webpages, share files and print?
And anyway, I thought the stat was that Apple was the biggest supplier of Unix based OSs, which is a very different thing.
I read an estimate of Linux users at 18million which is behind Apple as a whole but ties OS 9 and dwarfs OS X.
This isn't limited to desktop usage obviously, Apple estimated Mac OS X as 3 times more popular than Linux on the desktop this time last year, which means MS was about 300 times more popular than Linux on the desktop.
----
You can give a hundred examples of things that are hard to do right now on Linux. Watching DVDs is one area that springs to mind, but many desktops are not used to do these things and for them it simply will not matter. Linux has always known how to pick its battles and there are easy wins out there and Linux will appear on these desktops first.
You know the ones, running Windows 95 or 98, with IE 4 on them. Used regularly but never once updated or administered in any way. Or the legions of machines in offices and universities that are managed by a hired staff, where they go out of their way to stop you installing fonts and messing around with the system.
Linux is nibbling around the edges right now, but with every bite it takes, it becomes stronger and gains greater mindshare. Desktops used in public libraries, high school or college labs, work machines for secretaries and other users that need little more than email, browser and Word. All of these are areas where Linux offers key benefits and there is money to be made. That money is attracting a rag tag army of small time entrepreneurs as well as big business.
Would you honestly be more surprised if a state government switched to all OS X desktops or all Red Hat?
Someone recently commented: What is the Michael Dell of tomorrow thinking about moving into right now? Where are the exciting market opportunities? The answer is Linux.
You talk about the uptake in India, China and other nations, but fail to mention that governments across Europe are moving to Linux and open standards.
This is earth shattering stuff yet it is dismissed with a bit of hand waving. Just try and imagine what you would think if thinksecret announced that countries with a combined population of 2 Billion had commited to using Mac OS X exclusively.
Parting thougt, two dumbed down end user versions of Linux, no kernel recompiles necessary:
<a href="http://www.lycoris.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.lycoris.com/</a>;
<a href="http://www.lindows.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.lindows.com/</a>;
<strong>I happen to agree that Mac OS X is better but is that going to mean that it's user share will skyrocket over the next decade? No.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know?
This is the key diagram from crossing the chasm by Geoffrey A. Moore.
In my humble opinion, for many interesting reasons
Linux == Evil Knievel
and he is currently getting up the speed to make the jump. If you read <a href="http://www.testing.com/writings/reviews/moore-chasm.html"; target="_blank">the definitions</a> that accompany the diagram, I think you will agree that Mac OS X, despite being (or possibly because it is) a technical virtuoso piece is struggling to make it across the chasm.
Think of all the OS 9 users, especially in institutional settings that are pragmatic and conservative by their nature. When they jump will it be Mac OS X or Win XP?
In fact the whole switcher campaign is about making that transition. It is certainly creating mindshare but the people that I know are changing in droves are the geeks and techs, the people who enjoy getting their computer to work and then go and post about it on internet forums. us
But we are not the mainstream, though we claim that our OS of choice is the best for that mainstream because of ease of use. This is like when people claimed OS 9 was easy to use and forgot that for ordinary people ease of use == not crashing all the time. Today we don't crash but need to remember that for the mainstream ease of use == things like:
working on current hardware (x86)
being the same as what they use at work/school.
being what everyone else is using.
Not being the best never stopped MSFT, why should it hold Linux back?
<strong>
Does it say that building an end-user desktop OS on an open source unix base is not only possible, but a very good idea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you know how to do it right, many ideas can be good. If you only know how to copy cool stuff from other, well, then not.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>That average users can use such a system and be totally unaware that they are running Unix?
That complex open source software, like Apache and Samba and CUPS, can be added to an operating system (totally unchanged from the standard distribution) and be used by your mom to serve webpages, share files and print?
And anyway, I thought the stat was that Apple was the biggest supplier of Unix based OSs, which is a very different thing.
I read an estimate of Linux users at 18million which is behind Apple as a whole but ties OS 9 and dwarfs OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah, there are many cheapskates out there. I have bought a lot of SuSE Linux versionf, from 4.4. I uninstalled each after a few days.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Someone recently commented: What is the Michael Dell of tomorrow thinking about moving into right now? Where are the exciting market opportunities? The answer is Linux.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah if you have the monetary resources of a big software company to do QA, to hire quality developers and visionaries who can help you turn Linux into something big.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
You talk about the uptake in India, China and other nations, but fail to mention that governments across Europe are moving to Linux and open standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yah, because it's _cheap_. MS is expensive. Goverments can afford to port their software to Linux. They have the time and money to thrain their "users". And they save money with Linux in the long term. Does that say anything about Linux on the desktop? No.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
This is earth shattering stuff yet it is dismissed with a bit of hand waving. Just try and imagine what you would think if thinksecret announced that countries with a combined population of 2 Billion had commited to using Mac OS X exclusively.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not earth shattering, it's economics.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Parting thougt, two dumbed down end user versions of Linux, no kernel recompiles necessary:</strong><hr></blockquote>
So do they allow me to plug in my USB digital camera, download the pictures in my images folder or plug in my USB scanner to scan in my family photos? Do they have a "share this internet connection" button? Can I read the Word files a customer sends me from his OfficeXP? Can I use Outlook as I do at work? I guess not. So I can surf the net, great, now how do I get that Shockwave to work again...
<strong>
So do they allow me to plug in my USB digital camera, download the pictures in my images folder or plug in my USB scanner to scan in my family photos? Do they have a "share this internet connection" button? Can I read the Word files a customer sends me from his OfficeXP? Can I use Outlook as I do at work? I guess not. So I can surf the net, great, now how do I get that Shockwave to work again...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Erm.. yes, yes and yes, don't know, yes, you can use a Ximian client to connect to an Outlook server (can you do that on OS X?). So it looks like you guessed wrong.
edit: I missed out a yes, now fixed
Funnily enough, my co-worker did both of the first two on his new Red Hat 8 install right out the box. Don't get me wrong, he's a geek but even he was actually surprised that it worked out of the box as he hadn't ran Linux for a while but I had to fork out money to get the same scanner to work on Mac OS X.
How can you acknowledge that you can surf the net (using Mozilla, Phoenix or new, improved Konqueror) and yet claim that Shockwave is the deal-breaker? What kind of priorities do you have? What priorities do you think people in general have?
If you couldn't shop at Amazon, or view damn near every website, or access your bank then, okay, but Shockwave? And how is this different than me saying that you can't use all the Windows Media Player codecs on Mac OS X? What is your point?
By the way, the claim that open source software can only copy stuff is pure BS, but I don't want to get into it here as it really isn't relevent to the main point but have you heard of these guys <a href="http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm</a>; or <a href="http://www.eazel.com"; target="_blank">www.eazel.com</a> (now sadly defunct, and at least 5 of the team members are working on Safari).
I plainly stated that Linux wasn't better but that wouldn't stop it, just as it didn't stop MSFT and that economics, not technology would lead to its mass adoption globally.
You just posted that Linux isn't better but that economics would lead to it's mass adoption globally.
So does that tell us anything about Linux on the desktop. Yes!
Everyone in this forum bitches about how expensive Macs are, but when an alternative cheaper than Wintel comes along you call the users cheapskates, as if that will stop them switching. I suppose it would be hard to be an OS snob if the hoi polloi were using Macs so count your blessings.
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
How can you acknowledge that you can surf the net (using Mozilla, Phoenix or new, improved Konqueror) and yet claim that Shockwave is the deal-breaker? What kind of priorities do you have? What priorities do you think people in general have?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty much what Moki said - that stuff _works_. You wont be able to sell it as a desktop if all of a sudden people lose functionality they were used to before. I wont change my priorities for the software, the software should change for me.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
If you couldn't shop at Amazon, or view damn near every website, or access your bank then, okay, but Shockwave? And how is this different than me saying that you can't use all the Windows Media Player codecs on Mac OS X? What is your point?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, my point? I can't use shockwave. I like stuff like Habbohotel, for example. I like me plugging in my USB scanner (any kind of scanner) and using it. Not searching the web to find out that "I have an exotic brand that is not supported". Unless you want to ignore the point, which is fine by me.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
By the way, the claim that open source software can only copy stuff is pure BS, but I don't want to get into it here as it really isn't relevent to the main point but have you heard of these guys <a href="http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm</a>; or <a href="http://www.eazel.com"; target="_blank">www.eazel.com</a> (now sadly defunct, and at least 5 of the team members are working on Safari).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's not pure BS, and there is a reaon to that - in order to be really innovative, you have to spend a lot of time researching and trying stuff out. Normally you have time when someone pays you for the work. OpenSource software like the Linux desktop is made by people in their spare time. If someone comes along with an idea they say "Well, code it yourself them! I will only code stuff I like or need, not implement some whacky ideas of a run-by user!"
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
You just posted that Linux isn't better but that economics would lead to it's mass adoption globally.
So does that tell us anything about Linux on the desktop. Yes!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, what does it tell us? It tells us about price/performance, nothing more. Not mass adoption globally, but where it can be used instead of Windows/MacOS.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>
Everyone in this forum bitches about how expensive Macs are, but when an alternative cheaper than Wintel comes along you call the users cheapskates, as if that will stop them switching. I suppose it would be hard to be an OS snob if the hoi polloi were using Macs so count your blessings.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not an OS snob, maybe you are. It's not only the OS (but you fail to understand that argumenr, brought forward by many others already).
I like to plug my computer in, plug in peripherals and know it will work. I like to do work with my computer, and not set it up. I bought Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, DreamWeaver, etc. for a reason - because I do graphics design. I can not do that on a Linux machine. I can not do any typography. I can surf websites and send mail, if I get my machine to connect trough my Windows server at all. Windows and MacOS allow me to DO work. If you do stuff that can be done with Linux - great! You have a way to cut costs and work with a free system. I can not, and many other people can not and what Linux advocates fail to see is that the "Desktop" IS NOT KDE 3.x, it's a whole bunch of factors that make a system usable for a Desktop Computer.
Linux is great, yada yada, marketshare, free speach all you want if it doesn't cut it for me I don't care. And the same goes for Joe User, but unlike myself Joe User will only try Linux once and decide it's no good - I've been trying it on and off all the time, but even for me it doesn't work. My priorities are my thing and you are not the one to decide whether I depend even on only ONE shockwave website or not. You may be able to make cutbacks to use Linux, but I am not, nor are many others.
At the very moment microsoft would release a free as in beer version of Windows the marketshare of Linux would dissapear in a puffy cloud.
Your argument has no logic to it. You're a graphic designer and you can't do that with Linux, therefore it won't become a player in the desktop OS market.
You assume that Joe and Jane Desktop are with you on that one, but they couldn't use Photoshop even if they wanted to. iPhoto and Photoshop Elements are far more important to that crowd.
And your hardware arguments are bizarre. Did you miss the last two years of bitching, whining, pissing and moaning that accompanied the lack of drivers on Mac OS X? There is a thread right now called iScan bemoaning the lack of support for scanners.
[quote]No it's not pure BS, and there is a reaon to that - in order to be really innovative, you have to spend a lot of time researching and trying stuff out. Normally you have time when someone pays you for the work. OpenSource software like the Linux desktop is made by people in their spare time. If someone comes along with an idea they say "Well, code it yourself them! I will only code stuff I like or need, not implement some whacky ideas of a run-by user!"
<hr></blockquote>
This is just so misinformed it's not true, where do you get these ideas from. The Gnome desktop is used by Sun Microsystems for Solaris and Linux, they pay the developers, sponsor internationalization and run user interface testing programs. It's not a bunch of cowboys, sitting at home in their underwear. Have you heard of IBM by any chance?
Your on an Apple forum for heaven's sake. Darwin is open source, so why are you such a fan of an operating system built on OSS, how can you trust the rendering and javascript in Safari?
How will they ever get the bugs fixed if those lazy, good-for-nothing open source programmers decide that they can't be bothered?
Without open source software, Mac OS X would be nothing, it would not even exist. To attack open source software is to bash the platform you are championing. Even the closed source parts like Cocoa Gui which is based on the OpenStep standard and Mail, iCal, iSync are built on standards developed for open source software.
Without open source software there would be no internet, and where would that leave your vaunted shockwave supporting browsers.
-------
I'm not trying to tell you what OS to run, and I'm baffled that you think I am. If someone said that all professional graphics designers would be better off on Linux then I would laugh at them.
But I am talking about adoption overall, around the world, at work, at home, newbies and power users, institutions and individuals and Linux will make an impact on the desktop in all those areas, though some more than others. It will do so by being cheaper, freer, more flexilble and in some cases just plain better than the alternative.
But we're obviously talking at cross purposes when you can say that price/performance is irrelevant.