There's no way that OSX will remain #2 as long as it requires Apple hardware to run it. There's just too many other people making machines that Linux or Windows can run on.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, Apple should stick with Apple hardware. I'm just saying that eventually they'll be pased by Linux in number of people using it.

But that's not really that bad. All other things being equal I think that Linux will mostly take away from Windows...the number of Mac users will stay pretty much the same. They'll just be two systems over them instead of one...but the same number of users above them. That's actually a good thing because people will actually have to think about what OS they want. It could translate into more Mac sales down the road. (Years from now, I mean.)

All I know is that to me.. it's Mac's versus everything else. I don't care about who squabbles for for big numbers with crappy computers. I just want Apple to keep making theirs.

I think Daring Fireball (who pens much more insghtful and well considered editorials than this site, no disrespect intended - hey I'm here aren't I?) handled part of this story very very well regarding Apple and licensing (it's not the same but very relevant).

There is a market of PC hardware that runs Windows and can also run Linux distributions. There is a different market of Mac hardware that can run Mac OS today (and also Linux BTW). The fact that Linux is growing is a measure of PC customer satisfaction with Windows, not Mac customer dissatisfaction with the Mac OS.

Also, I know a lot of people who have used Linux to "tire kick" but they don't really live on it on their desks (the analysts don't seem to have any measure that considers that). I also know a lot of people who have both Windows and Linux on the same PCs on different boot partitions (so the analysts may also be double counting here).

Last, what is a PC anymore? A lot of Linux use is for PC hardware that runs single-purpose solutions, like bank teller machines. I think that might be diluting Apple's marketshare and confusing this discussion. It's not that Apple is losing PC market share but rather that what once was a dumb terminal is now being included and counted.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I think Daring Fireball (who pens much more insghtful and well considered editorials than this site, no disrespect intended - hey I'm here aren't I?)

No disrespect taken; big world, lots of room for opinions, and all that...But heck, post a link! I'd like to read it.

Seriously, BTW, in case that came off wrong.

...should be spelled "Colombia", if you're referring to the South American country.

http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay

Linux fascinates me. It's development by programmers around the world is so unique that I find myself hoping that they blow Windows apart over the next 10 years. The first sign will be when MS releases a version of Office For Linux. Soon after Dull will feature Linux computers as their cheap offerings.

The challenge for Linux is to become more Mac like in terms of ease of use. When that happens you'll see more and more consumers moving to the platform, with more apps following.

This isn't going to going to impact Apple, in my opinion, but the cheapest computers on the retailers shelf. More and more PC users are looking at Macs and are impressed with what they see. I see this growth to continue, right along with Linux.

MS is the company with the greatest risks. XP SP2 still not available, Longhorn years off - and very hight hardware needs. That's where Linux is going to grow. Good on em.

http://daringfireball.net/ - good stuff

I think the biggest thing that will push Linux over the top is the advent of Web-based applications. Once apps are run over the net in Java (or whatever), it won't really matter what OS you're running, and Linux will be a really strong, viable choice by then.

Eventually, they'll get a solid GUI on top of Linux, and it'll be....well, it'll basically be OSX (GUI over UNIX plus misc. kernels).

Yeah, I know, it could be argued that it's the other way around as well, but that's the point--as you said, what's good for one is good for the other.

It's silly to argue about whether or not Linux has surpassed the Mac OS yet or not, because it *will*, sooner or later, due to sheer cost and hardware compatibility factors. That's not even the point, though--the point is that it's a GOOD thing, for the reasons you noted and more.

As an illustration, let's suppose that the fabled "market share" numbers played/play out like so (all numbers pulled out of my behind, but probably pretty close):

Five years ago: Windows 96%, Mac 3%, Linux <1% (?)

Today: Windows 95%, Mac 3%, Linux appx. 2% (?)

Five years from now: Windows 92%, Mac 4%, Linux 4%

Ten years from now: Windows 85%, Mac 6%, Linux 9%

...and so on. If a scenario like the above plays out, Linux would indeed have a 50% higher "market share" than the Mac OS, but Apple would still have doubled their current share to 6%.

Ultimately, we could see something like a 60/30/10% split between Windows/Linux/Mac...which would be perfectly fine with me as a Mac user!

I don't want to sound negative, but I've been hearing about how "Linux is going to blow Windows away" for a long time now. I've been hearing it for just as long as I've been hearing "Linux is close to having an interface as easy to use as Windows or Mac." This song-and-dance routine has been going on for years now, but for some reason everyone thinks it's a fresh topic because it goes quiet for 6-7 months then re-emerges for a couple of weeks on discussion boards like this.
Linux is a great platform, and there's nothing keeping it back technologically speaking. But I find it ironic that despite thousands of developers around the world working feverishly over revisions to the codebase for a decade, the interface STILL isn't up to snuff. What gives?
Like I said, there's nothing technologically wrong. There's some kind of psychological gap in play here that I can't entirely put my finger on. I think part of it has to do with the fact that the software is GPL, and that only computer geeks have been putting any time/resources into its development, thus leaving the developers unable and without incentive to understand the common consumer.
I guess my point in this is that there's no technological excuse for Linux's interface awkwardness at this date, and I'm unconvinced that anything will change as significantly as people think. Something should have happened long before now.

What a surprise!

Quote

Guest wrote:

I guess my point in this is that there's no technological excuse for Linux's interface awkwardness at this date, and I'm unconvinced that anything will change as significantly as people think. Something should have happened long before now.

I think it would help if the open-source community included some "muan engineers" (I think that's the term) to make a decent GUI. Basically, structure it like Apple, but in the open-source world.

They made UNIX user-friendly. No reason open sourcers can't do it for Linux. There just has to be a desire and probably a change in organizational structure.

The whole reason Linux is moving up in "market share" is not because it's taking away users from the Mac (I think we all know that), it's taking away users from Windows. So essentially dropping to #3 doesn't mean we're losing Mac users. Someday in the future, I'll bet Windows will lose its dominance to Linux, Macs will move up, and Windows will be #3. The future of OSes I hope will turn out like this - Linux for servers, enterprise, and low-cost systems, Macs for consumers and the creative market, and Windows for, well, Paul Thurrott.

What would splitting the market three ways do for apps? It might force developers to make even less apps for OSX.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Wow, MacObserver thinks Linux is "not ready"! What a surprise!

If by that you mean that we have high expectations of our operating systems, then we are guilty.

Seriously, though, I am a fan of Linux, and TMO is hosted, in part, on Linux boxes (it's a mixed environment of FreeBSD and Linux). I love Linux on the server side of thing, but think Mac OS X beats it hands down on the desktop.

As I have gone on record in the past to say, I also think that Linux's very strength, the open source community, is its biggest weakness for developing a compelling and excellent desktop GUI. There's no one to say "no" and "yes" when it counts, and for some things, a bit of top-down management is the only way to reach the best results.

That's also part of why I say thee is plenty of room in the world for Linux, the Mac, and Windows. Different people want different things out of their OSes.

Bryan's admission that TMO runs on Linux boxes is the funniest thing I've read all year. What's good for the geese in not good for the gander.

If even TMO concludes that Linux offers a better price/performance solution than Macs, enough said.

Reality breaks through the RDF and Linux is the winner.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:

If even TMO concludes that Linux offers a better price/performance solution than Macs, enough said.

Quote

Bryan wrote:

[I love Linux]...but think Mac OS X beats it hands down on the desktop.

For God's sake, at least try to make SOME sense with these posts. You usually have some sense of thought behind them. This one is just off the wall.

Sorry, if you don't see the irony in this. After years of fanboy cheerleading about the virtues of the Mac, TMO selects PCs to run its own site.

Don't do as I do, do as I say. Is there any shred of credibility left with TMO.

If PCs are good enough for TMO, they're good enough for me and you.

Here we go with the market share crap again. Hello?!?! Mac sales are UP. The thing you have to remember is Linux is NOT taking away sales of Macs. Linux is displacing Windows on X86 hardware. OSX might end up in the number 3 position. However, watch as Windows starts its downward spiral to the number 2 position.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:


If PCs are good enough for TMO, they're good enough for me and you.

Well next time I host a web page I'll keep that in mind.

Until then I'll take their advice that Macs are better desktop computers, because that's what I need.

I don't know what's so difficult about having tool A for job A and tool B for job B. It seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

You're right, I don't really see the irony in such an everyday concept.

I have a G5 at work and a home made Linux box at home. If you seriously think Linux isn't ready for the desktop it's because you either haven't tried the right options -- and there are many -- or you simply don't want it to be. Believe me, I've been a Mac user since '88 (when I traded in my //c for a Mac SE), and I still like the Mac. But a little time spent looking a screen shots and trying out preferences will show you there are several perfectly acceptable desktop Linux options. Gnome can be set up to look like a well-tweaked OS 9 installation, but with OS X-quality internals. KDE can be made to look like OS X in about 10 minutes. And once you have the task bar set up for either, you rarely have to even hit the menu button (just like OS X). I use an even simpler interface (Fluxbox) because, once you get down to it, a good interface disappears to let you at the applications. And Linux has options that beat both the other OSes for getting out of your way.

And I hate to bring this up, but Slackware Linux is more stable than OS X. My IT-department-maintained G5 crashes (always using a Microsoft application, but it freezes the whole screen), but my newbie-maintained Linux box never crashes. Never.

There are some issues, sure: drivers for the multitudes of x86 hardware, off-the-beaten-path applications, and so on. But the average person could install one of about a dozen Linux distrobutions, take about the same amount of time it took to switch from OS 9 to OS X getting used to things, and spend the next several years firing up Mozilla, OpenOffice, Totem and all the rest without ever looking back.

And make it scream on a $400 Dell.

Personally, I agree that Mac and Open Source are a great fit and a better bulwark against Wintel than either alone. But don't think that anyone who was willing to dedicate a weekend to surfing the Linux sites and doing a bare minimum of homework couldn't find Linux an perfectly acceptable alternative. It's too easy.

Have fun,

joe f.

I'm a Unix guy. I used to use dialer programs to connect to big iron Unix systems just so I could use them. I first started with Unix running MS Xenix on a 286 back in about 1991.

Every job I've had has been Unix related in some way, I've been in charge of *nix machines running SunOS/Solaris, Digital Unix/Tru64, AIX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, SuSE, Slackware, Mandrake and Red Hat.

None of these other Unix systems have a desktop that can compare to OS X. Previously I've mostly used Mandrake and Debian for my desktop operating system, but a couple of years ago I was given a PowerMac G4 400 as a workstation, I got hooked and bought myself a PowerBook G4, and since then I have had far fewer hassles than with Mandrake or Debian.

For me, fewer hassles on the desktop means more work done, more smiling, less swearing, and lower blood pressure.

No OS is perfect, but OS X makes a better remote control for someone who pulls the strings on a bunch of Unix machines than any other Unix system I've seen.

The bottomline is that Windoze is losing ground to both OSX and linux. But Apple keeps shooting itself on te foot by rejecting mac clones and not licensing its solutions to third parties. High quality will help retain a 5% share for ever but Apple looses so many opportunities to expand both OSX and PPC platform to different markets. Its stubborness to control everything scares developers and customers.
Nowdays many organizations and end users select inferior wintel machines from Dull or HP. The sad thing is that they have legitimate reasons doing it. The cost replacing failing "standard" ATX PSUs, damaged cases, displays etc is considerable less than what Apple could possible offer. Imagine living in Greece and struggling to find Mac support.

There are 2 places where Linux really scores over everything else. Firstly for the single-function server. I'm currently running three Dull blade-servers under Linux - they're our corporate DNS servers and do nothing-but-DNS, to the point where they don't have any graphical support installed. We administer them via ssh. They handle DNS for a few thousand domains and a slew of /16 IP allocations with ease, have redundant power-supplies/disks, and are basically "fit-and-forget" boxes.

Second place is the 'minimal workstation.' Again we use relatively low-spec hardware - the slowest/cheapest Pentium you can still buy new, the smallest amount of RAM/hard-drive, no CD drive] and cut-down functionality [basically a Web-browser and OpenOffice]. The users don't see that it's Linux, and don't care, they're just following a script anyway.

For both these applications Linux is ideal - stable, cheap, non-demanding. OS.X would be vast overkill even if it ran on some form of Apple bargain-basement hardware.

Remember: most businesses use computers in very humble and non-challenging ways, to carry out boring repetitive tasks. In these apllications OS.X is just so much fluff.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Remember: most businesses use computers in very humble and non-challenging ways, to carry out boring repetitive tasks. In these apllications OS.X is just so much fluff.

I think that is an excellent point. When I started my internship and started using the thinkpad at my desk, I was stunned out how smoothly it ran (XP Pro) and how much quicker it was than my desktop dell from college. I checked out the specs, and they're really not that impressive: 1133MHz, 256MB, 30GB hd, don't even know the graphics card, doesn't matter. IT keeps these things so lean because 95% of everyone here is only using lotus notes, word, and excel. Granted there are people in my dept. who do stuff for the website with illustrator and all that other jazz who may need buffed up computers and probably run lots of stuff into crashing or hanging up the computer from time to time, but for biz in general, OSX is "too much fluff"

Don't hate though, I'll be at home tonight on my powerbook with iTunes, iPhoto and GarageBand

Quote

Guest wrote:
But don't think that anyone who was willing to dedicate a weekend to surfing the Linux sites and doing a bare minimum of homework couldn't find Linux an perfectly acceptable alternative. It's too easy.

I personally don't think the masses are going to appreciate having to do this. They don't wanthomework; they want plug it in and play. And what takes 10 minutes for you will take days or weeks for them.

I believe one of the biggest reasons people don't buy Macs is a perceived lack of applications already installed on the system. I don't know how many people balk when I tell them their $800 eMac just shot up to over $1100 because they need to purchase Microsoft Office. It doesn't matter that if they go to Dell's website they'll find adding Office as an option ALSO increases the price; the PERCEPTION is that the software is included because it's installed when they get the machine and turn it on, all ready to go (or register and go anyway).

Also, compatible programs don't cut it for 90% of the clients I service. I loaded perfectly acceptable programs like Open Office and the like for clients, and they just get frustrated and confused. They want Office or nothing.

Until Mac resellers do a better job of bundling software, and until Linux gets real apps instead of freebie versions us geeks like to use (don't flame me; I know there are some real apps -- you know what I'm working at here ), both platforms will just fluctuate back and forth at the levels they are now.

And, personally, both Mac and Linux can stay at these levels for a long long time and be viable. Do a Google search on "macintosh market share myth" or some semblance thereof and see the doscussions of why Apple doesn't really need to increase market share, at least as perceived by the likes of IDG and Linux heads...

Quote

Guest wrote:
I have a G5 at work and a home made Linux box at home. If you seriously think Linux isn't ready for the desktop it's because you either haven't tried the right options -- and there are many -- or you simply don't want it to be.

I'm still waiting for Enlightenment to become usable without resorting to a terminal window to do most tasks. There may be more complete options ATM, but I believe E will be one of if not the best, once it becomes more-or-less full-featured.

Quote

There are some issues, sure: drivers for the multitudes of x86 hardware, off-the-beaten-path applications, and so on.

And for many, that is enough to declare Linux not ready for the desktop. Troubleshooting a Linux box can be a serious PITA sometimes. Then there is software such as Photoshop and Pro Tools - learning/using the GIMP and (insert Pro Tools alternative for Linux here) is not always an option.

Market share of systems sold and market share of systems used might clear things up. I've got to believe many of these Linux desktops are second machines. I have a mac desktop and a pc notebook. But I'm a mac user first and Apple will recieve far more of my computer spending $'s than Wintel, despite my notebook being counted in the MS market share.

My apologies, but I must feed the troll again: RC, I never said a darn thing about Linux having a better price/performance. Further more, we have never said that everyone should be hosting their servers on Mac OS X.

That means that both of your posts are pathetic and sad lies.

What I have said, for years now, is that "we [TMO]" like Linux, specifically on the serving side. I have also publicly said for years now that TMO was hosted on Linux and FreeBSD. This has its roots in the fact that when we first started out there were few Classic Mac shared server options, and this was several years before Mac OS X hit the market. That meant that all our early investments on the engines that run our site were built on Linux and FreeBSD.

If we were starting today, we'd host TMO on Xserves on OS X. As it is, we've been happy members of the Linux and FreeBSD communities for many, many years.

You won't find one word of anything I have publicly written or said that contradicts anything else on this issue, including everything in this article I wrote with Vern. You are welcome to try and produce such contradictions, though.

Again, your accusations are sad, pathetic, and you are specifically a liar. What's funnier about that is that you are all those things on my sufferance, but that just makes you all the more pathetic. Whatever you think your mission as the village idiot is, it failed long ago.

It is easy to make Linux and Apple PC's work together. Also, applications for Linux can usually be ported over to Apple. Also, more visibility for Linux will get the masses to really think about something different, some of these people will go to Apple.

I consider it more of a Linux and Apple Vs. Windows. However, I do not think more sales of Apple will really help Linux. Different dynamics.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I don't want to sound negative, but I've been hearing about how "Linux is going to blow Windows away" for a long time now. I've been hearing it for just as long as I've been hearing "Linux is close to having an interface as easy to use as Windows or Mac." This song-and-dance routine has been going on for years now, but for some reason everyone thinks it's a fresh topic because it goes quiet for 6-7 months then re-emerges for a couple of weeks on discussion boards like this.
Linux is a great platform, and there's nothing keeping it back technologically speaking. But I find it ironic that despite thousands of developers around the world working feverishly over revisions to the codebase for a decade, the interface STILL isn't up to snuff. What gives?
Like I said, there's nothing technologically wrong. There's some kind of psychological gap in play here that I can't entirely put my finger on. I think part of it has to do with the fact that the software is GPL, and that only computer geeks have been putting any time/resources into its development, thus leaving the developers unable and without incentive to understand the common consumer.
I guess my point in this is that there's no technological excuse for Linux's interface awkwardness at this date, and I'm unconvinced that anything will change as significantly as people think. Something should have happened long before now.

I just have one thing to say about that, take a look @ the looking glass project http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/ and then u'll see what the comunity is working on with our sun's friend

Both Apple MacOSX and Linux suffer a common problem of perceived differences of quality between applications that are built there versus applications built for Windows. For instance, someone mentioned the problem of OpenOffice and how people refused to use it if it wasn't Office. For 99.5% of users, OpenOffice is a sufficient replacement to Office. It offers enough feature parity that there just isn't a difference. But people will often perceive themselves to be in that .5% that it doesn't work for. I use OpenOffice ever day and a Linux Desktop. I work from Linux every single day all day. I have a Windows virtual machine for 1 application which does not run under Linux that I need a few times a week, and this application is supposed to be getting fixed to work with Linux (it is a java based app that has some broken java code). While I will admit to running one Windows application in Linux under Wine because there isn't an alternative yet for Linux that isn't really important.

For everything else I do Linux is a better fit for me. I have tried MacOSX and if my choice was MacOSX versus Windows XP, the Mac wins hands down.

Now the important thing to consider here is that both MacOSX and Linux are growing and likely they are growing due to waning quality of Microsoft products, and the continuingly mounting security flaws. Even with SP2 on XP, what you get is a watered down windows to protect you from yourself. You lose features to gain security. This isn't necessary in the UNIX world, because features can be gained while remaining secure. Anyway, I find that MacOSX is a nice system. The few times I have sat in front of it, I thought it was nice, a little cumbersome to administrate, but nice from a use perspective (the airport stuff is just a nightmare at times).

Anyway, fighting perception is the hardest thing to do, because no matter what, Microsoft has the lead in marketting, and has convinced a vast majority of computer users that its applications are just better, or necessary.

It is very common with Linux desktops to change browser identity strings because a number of sites operate under the inane idea that you need to run Internet Explorer to access them. With that in mind, a lot of people will set the browser identity to mimic some version of IE under Windows. No idea what the percentage of that is, but I wouldn't make any assumption that the number of hits on Google from Linux is really only about 1%.

As for desktop ease, I find such arguments to be silly. Ease of use is based on what you know. I have 7 computers, including a Mac with OS X and PCs with Windows and Linux installed. I don't find any one OS to be any "easier" than another, it depends on what you are trying to do. One thing I'm absolutely certain of is that neither Microsoft nor Apple produce an operating system that I can customize to my complete satisfaction and personal work habits. The same cannot be said of Linux because with it I don't have to fit it, it fits me.

Wehy do I get the feeling you haven't used a Linux desktop since Xaw3D was a significant widget set?

Mac at 4% and then 6%? Where are you getting these numbers from? Pulling them from thin air?

At a sustained 50% year over year growth rate on servers, you must be joking about the Linux share at 5 and 10 years. Or fearful of what it will do to Mac's share.

With the growth rates already documented over the last two years, and an ever improving desktop and server solutions, Linux share will only increase, at the same (50%+) growth rates, or faster. As the desktop apps get better, as Oracle finishes porting over their entire products to Linux, as businesses run Linux more and more on their backends, as they hire more and more Microsoft techs that also have Linux/Unix experience, as they hire more and more former Unix techs for their new Linux backends, the more likely, and at an increasing rate, does it become that they implement Linux on the desktop for their entire workforce. There is no client license cost, period. Linux running on the backend, with Linux clients running X and nothing more, is where the future is. Add OpenMosix to the mix, and you have companies running supercomputers on Linux, without having to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade.

Rock stability of Unix/Linux, plus a vastly superior cost model, guarantee Linux's near-immediate future dominance of the desktop.

What about Mac? Hopefully, Mac cuts into Windows as well. With a BSD base, Macs will co-exist well in a Linux environment. Those who use Macs for their superior skillset in graphics and other specialty areas will continue to use Macs, and the BSD base will help to lengthen the life of Macs as compared to what will become a Linux market eating away at Windows.

> That's also part of why I say thee is plenty of
> room in the world for Linux, the Mac, and Windows.
> Different people want different things out of
> their OSes.

If Mac users believe this is true, why the insistance that Linux needs a single, Mac-like desktop? I have my preference of KDE, for servers, I stay away from KDE and run windowmaker or XFce instead, and others have a preference of Gnome, among many other desktops. Red Hat bastardized Gnome to create their own desktop, and lost some fans in the process. The myth that one desktop is needed is exactly that, a myth. And thanks to the GPL, if one or a majority of companies, or one or a majority of developers attempted to create a single desktop and force it on everyone, independent developers would still be able to legally create a different desktop, and users from all over the globe would flock to that desktop if it were good.

The strength in Linux is the GPL. Because were it not for the GPL, Unix would still dominate in businesses, with Microsoft chipping away at the bottom end, and BSD would be at about the same market share where it's been stuck for years. And because of the GPL, users aren't stuck with a single desktop. Because Mac users are stuck with a single desktop doesn't make it right for Linux. Mac users may love their desktop, but it isn't 100% love, as I've seen Mac users blow away their OS X installations and install Linux on more than one occasion.

Luckily, Apple is content on their small market share, and is profitable. That will help ensure they're around for quite some time to come. The more competition, the better for all the operating systems, and for their users.

btw, as much as Mac users would like to put stock in the Google user numbers, I wouldn't put too much trust in them if I were you. Google is undercounting Linux (and possibly Mac, though I haven't checked this carefully), and overcounting Windows. I think this is good, so I haven't been posting this on boards, because it keeps Linux as a sleeper. When the stats get adjusted to true numbers, there are going to be some surprises. I suspect Microsoft is well aware of the problems with the Google stats, and have a far larger set of numbers to work with when it comes to market share. What are the problems? You have to carefully look at a server's logs, and look at each line of each hit, and look at how the browser, OS, and other info is categorized. There are a lot of hits from alternate operating systems, especially Linux, that are being categorized as IE on Windows. Due to the huge variations of OS's, browsers, and other variables, the numbers are not accurate at all, from my own testing on servers, and from manually parsing through logs and comparing it to popular apps that process the log hits. The errors in categorization are greater on browsers as compared to OS's, but the errors in both areas are large, and favor IE, and favor Windows, over other browsers and OS's. Don't take my word for it. Look at raw server logs you have access to, then look at how the software parses and categorizes the hits. Pay special attention to browser names, versions, OS names, versions, what apppear to be crawlers but are not, etc.

So how do they count the systems that are shipped with Windows and wind up with Linux? Answer is that they don't. In my house, we have 4 working computers, 2 dual boot with Debian Linux. (one is a laptop). that's 6 operating systems installed, 4 Win, 2 Lin. but, this is counted by studies like the ones cited here as 100% Windows. The Mac stats can be trusted because they get the numbers from Apple. The Win stats though are suspect. That means that the total 'market share' for Mac is probably low. For Linux it definitly is.
Even so, the real question isn't market share, it is total sales. Those are up for Apple. End of story.

Hi!

I am a Debian GNU/Linux developer, na d have been using Linux since 1992/93.

You could move to PowerPC Xserve running Debian GNU/Linux. I am finding that the applications under Debian all use exactly the same config files as for the i386 versions.

Another possiblity if you want 64 Bit for G5 Xserve would be YellowDog, which would perform far quicker than OS X on SMP - IBM are backing the kernel development for Power 4 and Power 5 (Power PC's 'big-daddy' CPUs), and the way the Power 5 is designed, are moving to Linux as their preferred platform for servers - this will show through.

Just bought a PowerBook g4 Brnad new as I love the hardware, and Mac OS X is good, but I am running Debian GNU Linux on the Powerbook because that is what I professionally use for development etc.

The way I think things will develop is that you will find Linux and Mac OSX working well together. I am involved in as startup, and as Linux and Mac OS X all use the same printing, file serving sofware, IP infrastructure under the hood, you can tell what I am going to encourage them to use for the office to reduce support costs... Both the OSes have a lot of synergy, and can work very well together on the LAN.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The bottomline is that Windoze is losing ground to both OSX and linux. But Apple keeps shooting itself on te foot by rejecting mac clones and not licensing its solutions to third parties. High quality will help retain a 5% share for ever but Apple looses so many opportunities to expand both OSX and PPC platform to different markets. Its stubborness to control everything scares developers and customers.

The concept of Apple licensing has been beaten to death. Everybody assumes this is a great idea because Microsoft is on a plethora of platforms from different manufacturers. The difference that everybody seems to miss is that Apple is, first and foremost, a HARDWARE company. The OS and all of the applications exist to sell the hardware. Microsoft is a software company, and multiple vendors is what keeps it alive.

Cloning nearly killed Apple in the 90s, because the clones didn't have to expend any money in the R&D arena. They just copied what Apple did, and did it cheaply (little or no overhead costs). Meanwhile, Apple had to design the motherboards as well as the OS. They were being undercut by the cheaper hardware. The clones would have eventually killed the very entity that gave them life.

I don't think any one OS should "win" the OS war. Different people have different tastes in operating system. I enjoy using Linux, my Mum enjoys using Windows XP and Greg at work enjoys Mac OS X and that is the way it should be. Every one of us enjoys our computer and thats the most important thing.

Quote

Billy K wrote:

Eventually, they'll get a solid GUI on top of Linux, and it'll be....well, it'll basically be OSX (GUI over UNIX plus misc. kernels).

'Eventually get a solid GUI'? You evidently haven't looked at KDE, XFce, or GNOME lately...

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Don't do as I do, do as I say. Is there any shred of credibility left with TMO.

LOL, coming from someone who is still afraid to use their real name. The TMO Staff is mature enough to attach their name to both their popular and unpopular opinions. Why aren't you? Of course most of us know the answer, but I'd like to get it straight from the Troll's mouth.

One thing I do like about this site is the fact that they DO call Apple to task on things when they are not right, rather than just act as an alternate source for Apple marketing releases. They don't get rude about it, but point out that (in their opinion) some things could be better.

And I haven't caught John or Bryan trolling Windows sites... at least not yet

Quote

AFCdtLoeb wrote:
What would splitting the market three ways do for apps? It might force developers to make even less apps for OSX.

I don't think so. The way apps are developed is already changing. Not all OS X apps need to be Cocoa native. They aren't even today.. In the future, we might have Three-OS Mono apps, and other such. Already, you can use Trolltech's fabulous Qt to develop for all three..

I have a short article proto of this at
http://luaforge.net/docman/view.php/21/28/Getting%20ready%20for%20the%20multi-os%20era%20(260704).pdf
if you care to read.

-ak

OS X is just RIPE to fail and become a non-contender

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
OS X is just RIPE to fail and become a non-contender

Care to elaborate?

"KDE can be made to look like OS X in about 10 minutes"

Right, and a cubic zirconium can be made to look like a diamond in the blink of an eye. Sheesh.

"I find that MacOSX is a nice system. The few times I have sat in front of it, I thought it was nice, a little cumbersome to administrate"

Yeah, clicking those checkboxes is a b!tch...So glad you think Mac OS X is "nice," though...

"It is very common with Linux desktops to change browser identity strings because a number of sites operate under the inane idea that you need to run Internet Explorer to access them. With that in mind, a lot of people will set the browser identity to mimic some version of IE under Windows."

And what makes you think this issue is any different for the Mac OS?

It is very simple to port between OSX and Linux because they are both UNIX with different libraries. FreeBSD, the father of OSX, with an extra 21 MB of code can run Linux applications flawlessly. Some industrious programmer could write an emulator for Linux to run OSX binaries.

Porting between MSWindows and any of the UNIX clones is much more difficult because of major differences in OS architecture. WINE has received the loving attention of a lot of good people, but is still not ready for prime time.

Paul Smith
semenbank@yahoo.com

I have tried open darwin, mac os 10.2.8, mac os 9, windows/98/xp/2000/me, and 20 odd types of linux on ppc and x86 i can conclude that linux is about on par performace wise to windows 2000/98 and mac os 10.2.8 is by far the slowest due to the prityness. In terms of ease of use the mac is actually more difficult to use day to day than gentoo linux, linux is more 'pure' as an os it doesn't try to hide behind a gui all the time and it lets you customise anything/everything from the gui to kernel. I like that alot macos x is nice its easy and simple perhaps too simple and in my opinion lacking in features compared to say a kde enviroment which of course you can make look like mac os just not behave the same. on the whole i like mac os in preferance for my mac because ppc linux isnt supported by anything and linux for my 'normal' x86 pc well there you go. This is what i think the market share is like based on experience:
Linux 2-3% mac 6-9% windows 90-2%
In order to make a bigger impact i think linux should have better multimedia players, eg better easier version of xmms which can compete with winamp, better gui but make it configureable (scaleable options) and more automatic hardware detection more flexability amung the mainstream distros eg mandrake & fredora