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:
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.
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...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.
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.
However Open Office is great for such uses... as is KOffice, star office, abiword-gnumeric.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
Info about large amounts of end-user desktop software including browers, email clients, video players, audio players and editors, genealogy programs, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 :
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..
* 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.
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!
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).
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).
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).
Comments
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/...xoffice_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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerwork...lnxw01LinuxMac
Some nice info for people with PPC hardware and an intrest in linux.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by hack4ev3r
Here are some mac like linux's based on kde 3.2
First Picture ( sort of reminds os9 but butifull )
Aqua Based machine
Mandrake linux
a Theme but you can fix it to be exacly like os-x
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.
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.
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 :
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..
Did someone copy and paste the whole thing from a four year old archive?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
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.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
[B]Not gonna happen. Xfree86 is in a bit of a pinch
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
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_...ives.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).
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).
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).