Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Threat to Linux with Apple and Intel Deal

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-needs-em dept.

Linux 534

LnxPhreak writes "Gundeep Hora of has a new editorial up that discusses why Apple and Intel's partnership is not a threat to Linux. The column weighs in on different points equally. From the article: 'However, that doesn't mean it's the end of Linux. In fact, it shouldn't even threaten Linux by any means. Linux has more than a few things that go in its favor, at least for the time being. The idea of open-source software is an amazing one. The fact that Linux isn't much of a commercialized operating system, and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself. The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah (0, Troll)

Uppity Nigger (889082) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815883)

It's hard to threaten something with no marketshare.

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815923)

Must it be commercial to have market share?

Re:Yeah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816055)

Grandparent is talking about Apple not having market share.

Re:Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816123)

If what you say is true, the comment should have said "It's hard for something with no market share to threaten anything", since the original article is about Apple's move to Intel hardware threatening Linux.

Re:Yeah (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816146)

And yet, it is easy enough for them to aquire shares. Part of that is by buying programs out there (think of where many of the top graphics programs have gone lately). Likewise, by making it possibly to easily move about, they may aquire more.

Of course, I wonder if Jobs has not simply decided to sell to Intel. It makes a lot of sense.

Seriously, why do people think in terms of THREAT? (2, Insightful)

gorim (700913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815907)

The only way anything can be a threat to Linux is if it is better.

There can only be fear if one does not think Linux is up to it. In which case, surely the Linux community has strength to solve such problems ?

Or not ?

If there was ever a real threat to Linux, it would be any legal challenges to licenses or intellectual property issues squeezing out such good and useful ideas a breathing oxygen or using a keyboard to type a useful program.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE (5, Insightful)

bodester17 (892112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815957)

The real threat to Linux is harware manufactorers purposely making devices that only work on windows and not supporting linux at all.

Which raises a question in my mind: (4, Interesting)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816211)

If manufacturer Z makes drivers for product y for OSX on Intel (which is of course based on Darwin), does that have any impact on Intel drivers for Linux for y?

If a driver is available for Darwin, even if it is a closed binary, could a layer be built to make it work on Linux, since Darwin is open source?

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE (2, Interesting)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816001)

A bigger threat would be an open source version of solaris that runs on x86 [] .

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE (1)

Enoch Lockwood (889602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816039)

What possible advantage would such a system have over Linux? Linux supports, for instance, much more hardware than Solaris.

Re:Seriously, why do people think in terms of THRE (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816068)

When it comes down to it I'll admit that mac os x has many areas where it has superiorities over linux, but as a linux user I just can't see anywhere that linux isn't better in the end.

So no I don't think there's a threat at all, but a complement.

Freud on Linux Zealots (5, Insightful)

parvenu74 (310712) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816131)

The Linux community gauges everything in terms of fear and threat. "Microsoft is a threat." "Mac OS is not a threat." "Don't fear the Penguins."

This fixation on fear could be explained though. Do you really think Linux Zealots were jocks in high school? It's more likely they were geeky moma's boys for whom interaction with the outside world was all about fear. Fear of getting physicallly beaten. Fear of having their lunch money stolen. Fear of still being a virgin when they turn 30. Fear of someone undermining what they thought was a brilliant post on /.

Some have come to grips with this fear but other have not. Instead, these latter types act out against their fear through aggression in the form of first-person-shooter video games and flame wars. They engage in anti-social activites like reading books about fantasy and magic, dreaming of worlds and cosmologies where they can be wizards, powerful warriors, magicians, and other important people. Occassionally they commune with other Linux zealots for a game of D&D but this form of real human interaction is rare.

Linux zealots need to realize that there is no reason for their fragile psyche. They are people with many wonderful qualities. They are good enough, smart enough, and darnit, (some) people like them. Why can't we all just get along without worrying about what threatens us? Hmmm?

Re:Freud on Linux Zealots (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816243)

Threat?! If anything Apple has always been the careful adopter of safe and stable technology. Apple basically confirmed x86 as the safe and stable processor type of the future. Which linux is already a beneficiary...

Got Grammar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815909)

I'm sorry, but there are too many grammatical errors in that article. Maybe he had a point somewhere, but when my head hurts reading I am going to stop reading.

You know what? (4, Interesting)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815914)

Nobody knows anything. My guess is, in ten years time, there will still be a current version of the Mac OS, a current version of Windows, and a current version of Linux.

The only one there's a real question about is Mac OS.

In 20 years? Who knows. I'd put money on Linux, even if only maintained by a few hobbyists. I'd wager that there *won't* be a version of Windows that has much in common with the current Windows. And if there is a Mac OS it will probably still be running on top of something like Darwin.

Re:You know what? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816101)

20 years from now??? I so hope we are not still running nothing but Unix and Unix wannabes?
Sure it "may" have a posix layer but I hope that some progress has been made by then. Maybe something like Plan 9.

Re:You know what? (3, Funny)

Boss Sauce (655550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816115) ten years time, there will still be a current version of the Mac OS, a current version of Windows, and a current version of Linux.

Yep, and most people will be running ten year old versions of Windows.

Re:You know what? (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816132)

Linux will outlast them all or morph into something else. Either that or a good OSS replacement for its shortcomings will arise.

Re:You know what? (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816175)

In 20 year's time, computers will be running Human v2.3.

Re:You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816227)

You were almost right. In ten years, there will be a current version of the Mac OS and a current version of Windows, but those who choose to use it will still be stuck with the current version of Linux.

There hasn't been a major release of Linux since 2.4. Everything since has just been tweaks and new (i.e., old but repackaged) UIs.

Linux is dead already. It just doesn't know it yet.

agreed... (2, Insightful)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815919)

and let's not forget when OS X was announced, since it was 'based' on FreeBSD everyone was saying THAT was the end of Linux on the desktop, and if anything it's gotten stronger. DISCLAIMER: I own two macs; one runs Linux, and 3 linux boxes; one is my main workstation - So in the end, we all win! ;)


Re:agreed... (2, Interesting)

Incongruity (70416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816147)

It seems to me the only clear looser in this deal is Microsoft -- why? because it's going to be relatively easy for people to develop for OS Xi and Linux (it has been already but now it'll be even more so) with less of the hassle of supporting Windows. For the moderate run, I believe OS X will strengthen the OSS community -- development for linux helps OS X and OS X development, in some cases, helps linux inasmuch as ports of non-cocoa apps are pretty easy. Sure Apple is a very closed source shop for much of what it does, but even they are giving some small amount back to the open source world and their OS encourages a lot more of the same -- all of that is more than Microsoft, to be sure -- and Microsoft said it themselves..."developers, developers, developers" get the developers to develop and you'll get the user base. But hey, this is just my opinion...I can't wait to see what the future holds.

Hello... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815921)

...and welcome to last week.

Re:Hello... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815989)

" ...and welcome to last week."

No kidding...old news. I'd say it's more like Back To The Future.

Yes Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815929)

With Windows and Mac OS X fighting it out for x86 dominance, this is the perfect time for Linux to slip in unnoticed and take over the desktop market!!!

Re:Yes Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816065)

You're stupid. You don't just slip in unnoticed.

"Hmm... how did this OS get on my computer?"

Linux will only become main stream when:
1) Linux becomes easier to use (install/uninstall/update software) or
2) Everyone suddenly becomes computer savvy.

Both items are very unlikely to happen anytime soon.

it is the end! (4, Funny)

matt me (850665) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815931)

Apple and Intel are two major corporations producing green-house gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water) than contribute to global warming - this is going to melt the ice caps, destroying penguins' natural habitat - the antartic, and Tux will die...

Re:it is the end! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815997)

Sounds like you're saying they're cows.

One word - iLife (1)

Cycline3 (678496) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815936)

One word - iLife. OS X can hold it's own. Linux is cool and so is OS X. Free is good, but I'd rather pay up if I get the better experience. Cheaper isn't always better.

Re:One word - iLife (1)

bodester17 (892112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816037)

I think the whole "you get what you pay for" idea still applies to computers. And it always will. A world of completly opensource software and OSs is a dream that will never be realized.

Re:One word - iLife (1)

pfunked (892117) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816107)

Cheaper isn't always better

Nor is it always the point. If I find a great use for a feature in iLife, can I give a copy to a friend? If it lacks a feature, can I roll it myself?

Re:One word - iLife (1)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816209)

Pay as in money? Or pay as in time? After all, time is money...

Yes, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815937)

...will it run Linux? ^_^

Linux has more than a few things that go in its... (3, Funny)

Caspian (99221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815938)

...wait, did the SlashDot editors just use "its" correctly?

Holy shit. First Apple switches to Intel, then Sarge is released, and now this? I think Hell has officially frozen over now. ;)

no. (4, Informative)

Cryptnotic (154382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816081)

That phrase was cut and pasted verbatim from the linked article.

Re:Linux has more than a few things that go in its (1)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816169)

I just checked the weather channel, and although Hell is in the midst of a cold snap it hasn't quite frozen over just yet.

Re:Linux has more than a few things that go in its (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816185)

What? its harder than it's made out to be.

No threat? *whew!* (1)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815947)

Here I thought for a moment that Apple switching to Intel could threaten Linux [] . Glad to see that the fear was unjustified. Whew.

Re:No threat? *whew!* (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816006)

Glad to see that the fear was unjustified.

You already know that. I already know that.

Go try to explain it to Capt. Oblivious.


Free software (5, Insightful)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815949)

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.'" Actually, they don't, because the majority of the computer public truly believe that Microsoft Windows and Office comes free with the PC. Most new Macs come with OS X and iLife free. Despite being true or not true, this is the perception out there.

Re:Free software (1)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816186)

If there was ever a comment to be modded "Insightful" it's the parent post. The simple fact is that when an average computer user goes to buy a computer whether it be a Mac or a PC, the OS is already on it. The cost of the OS and apps bundled with it is essentially "hidden". Other than maybe automatic upgrades for the version of the OS initially installed, most computer users won't ever upgrade the OS of the machine, so the OS *is* free as far as the majority of the public is concerned. A case could be made of the advantages of free apps and open formats, but not really for the OS itself, because it's *already* "free".

Re:Free software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816233)

Here's some fun for you. Next time someone mentions that Windows was free, ask them how billg managed to become the richest man in the world by giving things away. Should be entertaining watching their head a splode...

This might start a firestorm but: (4, Insightful)

blake3737 (839993) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815950)

IT seems to me unless you have hardcore certified geeks in your company, linux will cost you a lot in consultants. A lot of people can easily set up a windows or Mac box, but as for linux, it requires a more savvy end user. a LOT more savy.

Linux/OSS will be boosted by this (0, Troll)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815951)

Apple abandons Motorola and PPC based platforms, and guess what happens? kajillions of customers will feel shafted, as they've already been each time Apple has made a new MacOS that's incompatible with the previous ones.

Net result: Linux will be installed on those soon-to-be-unsupported machines, and the user base will grow.

So all in all, I think Apple is doing the F/OSS movement a great service by demonstrating exactly why F/OSS is needed.

Interesting point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816256)

Why the hell would it be modded troll??

My thoughts (3, Informative)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815952)

I doubt Linux will be significantly hurt by Apple's move. But, there is always the potential that OS X adoption could slow Linux adoption in the desktop arena. One the server side I would expect Linux to keep gaining ground. But since OS X is Unix and provides a more unified platform in comparison to Linux as a desktop solution there is always the potential that Linux adoption could slow in specific areas.

But remember, everyone is still specualting and until we have Intel based Macs shipping no one has any clue what is going to happen....

Re:My thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816134)

Apple on Intel won't slow Linux desktop adoption. If anything, it will loosen the stranglehold Microsoft has on the desktop, and that will *help* open it to Linux. Anything that displaces Windows or Microsoft applications helps Linux in the end.

Re:My thoughts (2, Insightful)

fbg111 (529550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816183)

But, there is always the potential that OS X adoption could slow Linux adoption in the desktop arena.

No it won't. If anything slows Linux's desktop adoption, it's Linux, not OS X. In general, people who buy Macs are not the same ones who install Linux, Jamie Zawinski [] and /. OS hackers not withstanding. OS X has the easiest most user-friendly interface and driver support and it "just works". Linux is like the Millenium Falcon and requires owners to actually enjoy hacking it. There is not much overlap between markets for these two products, on the desktop.

Fundamentally different approaches (3, Insightful)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815963)

I would have thought this was pretty obvious by looking at the approaches of the two camps. Linux goes out of its way to support as much hardware as possible, even obscure and lesser-used devices. Apple support their own specifically designed & built platforms. There's a total polarity on the two approaches to the underlying platform, and of course the two can co-exist well, as there are needs/uses for both these approaches in today's computing environment.

Re:Fundamentally different approaches (1)

protoshoggoth (588994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816153)

...and that one paragraph states matters and makes its point much more clearly and effectively than the somewhat aimless article. It may be obvious, true, but if it needs to be stated for some reason you've nailed it.

OS X "emulation" (5, Interesting)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815969)

I know that this isn't the best place for this comment, but I want opinions on this:

With Apple moving to x86, what are the chances of a full-speed emulator for linux, similar to WINE (yeah, WINE is not an emulator, blah blah blah)?

I would think (not being a hardcore programmer, just a web monkey) that it would be easier to implement a translation layer for Carbon/Cocoa (whatever its called now) due to the unix roots of OS X (and that there is probably a fair amount of documentation available for this). A translation for Aqua (to gtk or whatever) may also be necessary, but I don't know much about the whole setup.

After all, X works on OS X.

The reason I ask is this: if a near full speed MINE (MINE is not an emulator....) could be developed, it would open up a lot of applications (photoshop) to the linux user. I could see this scenario being smoother than the WINE situation, and providing a better interface. I could also see it really helping linux.

As for the Apple switch, I am surprised they did it, but if anything this will help linux. I think that those saying it will hurt linux are way off-base on this one.

Re:OS X "emulation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816103)

It already exists: MOL (Mac On Linux). Requires a copy of the OS, but whatever.

Re:OS X "emulation" (1)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816224)

I would think you would see a whole operating system in a window like win4lin, long before you see a wine type of API mapping. But both are doable. It has taken a long time to get wine to where its at, and it's still a long way from perfect. One of the things apple is doing is changing long standing POSIX API's especially the networking API's. Tiger has just about destroyed Fink, gnome isn't compiling, there aren't any KDE packages in stable. The problem with mapping API's is they are a moving target.

Threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815970)

I never understood why Apple's decision would affect Linux at all. After all, why do people choose Linux?

Is the price of their hardware going to change?
Is it going to be easier to run Mac OS X on generic hardware?
Has the TCO for Mac vs. Linux in the enterprise changed?

It seems to me with Windows and OS X, you invest in the software/hardware. With Linux, you invest in people.
On a large scale deployment, it seems to me the latter is going to beat the former. Compare Google using authentic
Windows/Mac versus Linux.

At home, why do geeks run Linux? Is it because it's cheaper? Is it because it's what they use at work?

If for any other reason, it seems to be they probably would have considered Mac already anyway. I suppose the only argument would be that it would be easier to dual-boot Windows+OS X. Is that true? Do most Mac users want to dual boot, or run Windows in some sort of VM?

Another thing Linux has on it's side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815985)

is that it actually runs on PCs.

Apple is NOT going to run on standard off-the-shelf
computers and this means it's still a proprietary hardware platform, Intel-based or not.

What? Logic? (2, Insightful)

Ygorl (688307) | more than 9 years ago | (#12815987)

"The second point of interest is the driver support that currently favors Linux." ...because some companies are starting to think about fooling around with Linux support? That's supposed to be better than the current support for Windows or Mac?

"without too many hassles?" WTF? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12815988)

They've got to be kidding...Linux is the undisputed HASSLE OS.

It's got nothing but hassles - you guys read what jwz said on his blog - you have to tweak everything - you cant make it run decently (for any given combination of chipset/video-card) w/o text-editing multiple configuration files...MANUALLY.

Ease of Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816000)

From TFA: ...and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself...

Sorry, but comparing Linux and Apple ease of use and coming to this conclusion is pure pollyannish optimism.

If you want to get work done, rather than work on the tools that will allow you to get work done, Apple is very attractive. Linux less so.

maybe (1)

aixou (756713) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816007)

It may not be a direct threat to the OSS paradigm, but it certainly is a threat to companies that commercialize and fund many projects.

But this all depends on how strict Apple will be wrt OS X running on commodity hardware.
If OS X is allowed to run on commodity, or even just non Apple hardware (such as Dell's "Lexus" line of PCs), you can bet that companies like Mandriva, SuSE, and Linspire would be hurt. Corporate adoption would be even that more difficult, as companies would probably prefer to dual-boot Leopard and Longhorn than touch Linux on the desktop.

Maybe if the community weren't so focused on practical/relative benefits of OSS (such as "speed" and "slickness"), and instead focused on the real and absolute benefits ( "open source"/"free", non-reliance on a single vendor), it would be much easier to weather these storms.

Oh well. In any case, the next two years are going to be damn interesting. Hell, the next two months are probably going to be damn interesting, as we slowly find out more details as to how Apple plans to attack the x86 platform.

Cost of Apple/Intel Machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816012)

Has anyone seen a quote from any Apple execs saying how much an Apple/Intel Mac might cost? I ask because if the Intel Mac still costs roughly 2500$, I don't see it being much of a threat to any other arch/OS any more than PPC/OSX is now.

(yeah .. I probably missed the price revelation)

Re:Cost of Apple/Intel Machine? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816126)

Even a PPC Mac is significantly less that $2500. Where are you getting pricing from?

Re:Cost of Apple/Intel Machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816154)

I know you can get a mac mini for $500. and a Dual G5 for less than that also. I guess the average(of the four base models) is about $2,250. Guess i should have rounded down to 2,000 instead of up. Still doesn't answer my question.

Trusted Computing (1)

saur2004 (801688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816018)

What happens when software engineers are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement just so their software will run on the hardware? MS and OSX engineers, just shrug and say not a problem. (sarcasm) Who cares what GPL engineers think, when they cant release the pertenant source code.

No I do think there is a threat.

A v L (1)

robpoe (578975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816019)

I couldn't imagine using Apple OSx for my web servers. However, I could imagine myself sitting at a shiny macintosh..

However, I develop a M$ application in *horror* Access */horror* so I'm kinda sorta stuck on M$ winders...

I do believe that with OSx making inroads as it is, it should kick the KDE/Gnome/whatever developers to copy^H^H^H^H modify their code and make the environment similar or equal to the usability of the Macintosh.

Until your average Joe can use Linux, it won't be "The Killer" way to compute. Only the unwashed masses will use it on their desktop.

In the server room? Heck yeah Linux me up..

Huh? (1)

suresk (816773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816021)

The threat is that people will dual-boot Windows and OS X? Yeah, who needs Linux when you can instead run 2 expensive, closed-source Operating Systems? (Well, ok, OS X is more open than Windows)

Hard to tell (2, Insightful)

Hyksos (595814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816024)

I really think that Apple's move to x86 is such a bold move that it really is hard to tell what exactly is going to happen on the market. I think I've heard "experts" cover every possible scenario, and one of them has to be right, I guess! But really, we just have to lean back and watch Jobs' handywork as it unfolds.

This is getting old (3, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816028)

First Dvorak jumps in with his usual troll, and now we get J. Random Reporter from some cool tech site telling us why he's wrong?

I'll make my own prediction: I think Apple's move to Intel spells a short-term rise and long-term fall of Linux for PowerPC ;-)

Seriously, it's just not THAT sweeping a move. Let Apple have its fun, and more power to them taking over the desktop market from Microsoft. I'd certainly rather have to occasionally use a Mac at work than Windows.

Why would it be a threat? (1)

McSnickered (67307) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816040)

Disclaimer - I didn't RTFA. But why would it be considered a threat to Linux? And if it were a threat - who cares? I don't get the premise of the thread.

Linux runs fine on PPC and didn't seem to threaten OS X - I don't see why the reverse would be any different. And anyway, people are going to run that which best suits their needs and tastes, and I would guess that there are more Linux desktop users now than Apple users. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it's like saying that Apples may threaten Oranges now that states other than Washington produce them. We can eat one, the other, or both depending on our tastes.

Re:Why would it be a threat? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816237)

You obviously don't understand. The world is black and white. There are only winners and losers. There can be only one!!

What is this guy smoking? (1)

BrainSurgeon (875819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816042)

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.

I have to completely disagree with that statement. Mac has 3% of the OS market share [] compared to Linux at 1%.

OSS has been in the mainstream going on about 5 years now and both Windows and Apple have competed great including the fact the OSS is "free".

hard time competing?? (1)

mr_gerbik (122036) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816046)

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.'

Yeah I mean, who uses Windows?! Their market share is only like 95%, they totally can't compete with Linux!

It's not a threat to Linux, but it is to Windows (5, Interesting)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816051)

I don't know why everyone sees this as a threat to Linux. It's a real threat to Windows. If Apple sticks to only allowing OsX to run on Apple hardware, and is successful in marketing the advantages of a *nix system, then people are going to want something similar. Microsoft can't provide that (the *nix advantages). However, Linux can.

Apple's premium priced OsX on premium priced Intel systems positions Linux as the poor man's version of OsX on regular Intel systems. Apple, doesn't loose anything (they only allow OsX on their own equipment), however Microsoft easily could.

enought with the stupid threats... (1)

super_ogg (620337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816058)

We've beat this subject to death. Linux will die on it's own accord. Stop wasting post space with this Apple/Intel deal. Really. Do we care that much? This must have been the sixth post.

Flash breaking news. Michael Jordan says Linux will be affected. And in other news, Barbara Streisand says Intel is making a mistake. And in other news, Joe useless says Apple is making the deal of a life time.

Come on, this is enough.

In an entirely unrelated story (2, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816064)

""No Threat to Linux with Apple and Intel Deal""

In an entirely unrelated story Titanic says that the iceberg is no threat.

admission vs ownership (2, Insightful)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816070)

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one

Everytime some Linux zealot repeats the myth that Linux is without cost, it's another blow to the collective credibilty of the Open Source Software movement.

While Linux may have a zero or near-zero cost of admission, the continued ownership is not without cost. Either a company is going to pay maintenance fees to someone like RedHat to be able to keep their systems patched, or they are going to be paying for talent in-house or renting talent via consultants to keep their systems patched. Or they are going to run unpatched and venture the risks (knowningly, or not) present in the forms of the bugs and security exploits and eventual incompatibilities that present themselves down the line and have to deal with those costs.

We run not quite a dozen boxes with Linux on them at my employer, and we are paying for maintenance for all but 2 of them. And those two are test/development platforms that management would chose to live without if it came to that. Not because the OS weren't on maintenance, but because they were free and running on semi-obsolete hardware.

stupid (1)

sim82 (836928) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816071)

I can no longer hear all that stupid talk about linux dying because of this or that.

Get it: linux has not died 14 years ago, when exactly one person used it. And it will surely not die today, with millions of people using/developing it. Regardless of what apple, intel, microsoft or the maintainer of xscreensaver are doing (well maybe the uspto or epo matter, but ...). As long as _I_ am allowed to use it, I don't give a damn.

OS X is a bigger threat to Windows than to Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816080)

I'm not gonna switch my linux box to OS X, but I am going to recommend it to my Windows using friends and especially my mom. And I think Im not alone here. People who are not clueles can still run Linux and the people who need easy but secure solution instead of Windows are first to switch to Macs.

... i remember this (1)

da_guy2 (887308) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816091)

Ya of corse i said the same thing a couple days ago and got reamed by the moderators. go figure

How does he define "advantage"? (1)

SassyDave (557868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816096)

The fact that ... you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage

That does not sound like much of an advantage.

Depends on how you measure the "hurt" (1)

RiotNrrd (35077) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816105)

If you want to say that the new x86 Macs running OSX will hurt the Linux Desktop "Market Share" then you might be right. For every hard-core linux fanatic there are probably about 10 casual linux desktop users that might switch to OS X.

Development wise I think that it will be a different story. Kernel hackers are going to keep hacking the linux kernel because, as far as open kernels go, it's got the best game in town.

Application developers will probably pay a bit closer attention to cross-platform compatibility which will *grow* the Apple/Linux desktop app space.

I don't own a Mac and I haven't actually had the chance to poke around inside of one but isn't there a lot of overlap in OSS application software?

Hits the nail on the head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816108)

The idea of running a system that costs absolutely nothing on the software side is a powerful one, and Windows and Mac OS X would have a difficult time competing against that.

Absolutely true -- an under-emphasized observation that explains why Apple and Microsoft make up such a small percentage of installed systems.

Wait. What? (1)

superdan2k (135614) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816118)

"...and you can accomplish day-to-day tasks without too many hassles is an advantage in itself."

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'too many', I guess.

I'm not posting this as flamebait -- I just avoid Linux like the plague because it's a major pain in the ass to get set up and running.

Mac OS X, on the other hand, works out-of-the-box, and hasn't been the headache that Linux was. (And with Apache, PHP, Ruby, and Perl all preinstalled, why do I need Linux?)

Re:Wait. What? (1)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816241)

Mac OS X works out of the box because you buy it preinstalled on a new computer.

If you want Linux to "work out of the box" then you can also buy it preinstalled on a new computer from one of the multitude of Linux vendors out there. It will work just as easily as a Mac. And you will save money and you will have a choice of more software.

The fact that Linux has the additional advantage to work on older machines should not be construed as a weakness -- preinstalled Linux is just as easy as preinstalled OS X.

Collective sigh of relief... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816125)

A collective sigh of relief sweeps across the land, as all is well again in Linuxville...

Tried a Mac (0, Troll)

codepunk (167897) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816130)

Hey I am a huge linux user but hey work had a obsolete mac they gave me so I loaded osx on it and test drove it. Well I quickly realized it is pretty much like loading up windows. You load it up and log in and you are greeted with a brain dead box with no software on it. Well unless you really enjoy using safari or the wonderful version of IE that it ships with. I have come very accustomed to loading a machine, logging in and being instantly productive with all the software I possibly need.... no thanks I prefer to own my software.

Why it should be hurt in any way? (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816140)

Jobs already said that MacOS X will NOT run on ordinary PCs, so why it should hurt linux if instead of having PPCs Macintosh computers will have Intels.

Too many people are thinking like Mac OS X has been ported to PCs, this is wrong, the Mac platform isn't dead, and it didn't change at all for the user perspective, it just uses other technologies under the hood, nothing more.

Yes, OSS is an amazing idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816143)

The idea of open-source software is an amazing one.

It's the execution that often leaves a bit to be desired.

Why would it be? (1)

Dekks (808541) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816161)

The article seems rather pointless and smacks of journalistic hackery, one could of easily written an article saying "Monkeys no threat to Elephants!", that is to say while they are both OS's that may share some marketspace, they really don't interact much and aren't a threat to each other whatsoever.

A genuine threat to Linux is a good thing (2, Insightful)

leereyno (32197) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816165)

Whether something is a theat to Linux or not will only matter to those whose preference for it is based upon something other than the objective merits of the system.

If something better than Linux comes along and Linux takes the back seat, how is that a bad thing?

Now I'm not saying that OS-X is better, or that it is worse. I'm just saying that it doesn't matter.

I think that a lot of people are afraid that something will happen to Linux akin to the things that have happened to superior products in the past that were defeated by inferior alternatives.

Luckily the market segment in which Linux dominates is one where technical merit really does matter most. The only way that something can displace Linux is if it is truly better, and if that happens, how is it a bad thing?


Non-price competition, anyone? (1)

stevejsmith (614145) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816173)

Uh, it's called non-price competition (marketing, brand recognition, ...quality?) and it's often more powerful than price competition, especially when price is negligible in the long-term within a certain range (if you spend $3000 on a workstation, does it matter all that much whether you spend $200 on an OS or nothing?). Clearly Windows hasn't had all that difficult of a time competing with Linux, considering it's pre-installed on approximately 100.0000% of consumer x86 PCs.

linux ppc? (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816187)

The thing that im more worried about is waning support for linux ppc. When I got my ibook, I assumed that the increasing population of ppc machines would mean that over time, support for linux on ppc would increase. It seems to me that if all of apples new machines are going to be built on x86, then linux ppc will once again become more of a niche hobbyist thing, as opposed to a serious architecture.

Enough with editorials and opinions already.... (1)

tktk (540564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816197)

Apple switching to Intel is the best thing to happen to tech analysts. Everyone's getting page hits.

Cringley must be going through bricks of crack given his recent output.

The worse thing is that there's no end in sight. A good writer, or Cringely, can feed the flames until MacIntels actually come out and then keep it going to for a long long time.

Mac as a workstation, Linux on the server (1)

nostriluu (138310) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816204)

Everyone I know who uses a Mac still uses Linux on their servers. The reasons should be obvious, Apple offers a better user experience while the history and economics (and probably performance) of Linux on the server are better. Unless Apple starts focusing on server performance and cost effectiveness, I don't see this changing, and there'll continue to be an exchange of workstation and server software between the two, which will be free and open source. :)

Linux IS dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816205)

It just hasn't realized it yet. LONG LIVE OS X!!

On Slashdot (1)

Approaching.sanity (889047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816210)

It seems that Linux can do no wrong

What if this really is the magic bullet guys? I love OSX, I love modding my machine.

I love OSS, but come on this idea is beyond amazing.

What is the panic about? (4, Insightful)

deinol (210478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816214)

People don't use Mac OS because they happen to have a Mac Computer sitting around. They use it because they choose to. Someone has to specifically go out and buy a Mac. Even if that Mac ends up having an intel processor, it's not going to be just any old PC that can run Mac OS.

Different operating systems serve the needs and preferences of different people. What hardware it runs on is really secondary. Certainly one of the appeals of Linux is that if that toaster has a processor in it, someone will port linux to it. Just because they can. Mac or Windows are never going to be that kind of OS.

I like what they've done with OS X. It's a nice tool. I like using debian for certain types of servers. I like mandrake for certain kinds of workstations. I still use windows for other types of workstations. They all serve different functions. But when I build a machine, I hardly worry about the specific hardware involved unless that is a requirement for the machine (like needing that hot nvidia graphics card for... um, computational fluid dynamics.. yeah.)

Life goes on, let's go live it.

Day to day tasks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12816216)

yeah right.

any environment that requires users to dick around with multiple different config files, all with their own syntax, just to do something as commonplace as connect a computer to a Windows network for sharing files is not ready for Day To Day tasks.

wake us up when setting up and maintaining a Linux system doesn't take more time than you spend actually doing what you need it to do.

For whatever happens in the future... (1)

nibtib (885293) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816242)

I'm burning the original linux kernel [] source-code, plus Sarge on CDs right now, and I'm sticking them inside a time capsule (old cardboard box), together with a couple of metal bars and burying it on my backyard.

The Good News is.... (1)

richman555 (675100) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816247)

The good news here is that Microsoft has alot more competition these days between Linux and Apple. Choice is a good thing.

tipping the nerd point (1)

xeeazgk (850506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12816251)

honestly folks, the days of nerds ruling the computer market are coming to an end... back when it was only nerds who had a computer, it was only our nerd issues that drove the sales of comptuers and software. Classic mac os was too closed off for the early computer user/geeks. So DOS/Windows won the race... Now, things have changed. EVERYONE needs a computer. From the mailboy to the CEO, computers are part of almost every job. So... what's happened? People want to buy something that works better.... (OS X). Nerds... will always use what they like and that's linux, for now. Apple's about to pull and end run around M$ and OSX's unix roots are good news for linux... Until someone fixes an interface to run as smooth as OSX for linux, it won't be popular with anyone but nerds. I mean, I have to enter all my own MIME settings in Gnome... how the hell am I going to tell my mom how to do that? But really, OSX is already there and nerds are happy enough with linux as-is, so I doubt the gui will ever catch up. Not to mention that Apple is able to make such a smooth experience because it has unusual control over the hardware. Just my $0.02.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?