Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple and Windows Will Force Linux Underground

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Aug 30, 2006 08:25 AM
from the still-neat-on-the-server-right dept.
Operating Systems Software Linux
eastbayted writes "Tom Yager at InfoWorld predicts: 'At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.' That's not a gloom-and-doom omen for the ever-popular Linux kernel, though, he stresses. While Apple and Microsoft will grapple for dominance of client and server spaces, Linux will be 'the de facto choice for embedded solutions.' And by 'embedded,' Yager means 'specialized.' With a push of a button and a flip of switch, he predicts, you'll be able to create a configured database and a mated J2EE server — all thanks to Linux."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Apple and Windows Will Force Linux Underground 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Not really (Score:5, Funny)

    by 2.7182 (819680) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:27AM (#16006757)
    Linux was designed for the cheapskate, to download as much free porn as possible. Nothing stops porn, and the need for people to have it for free. Not to mention free software - the two are the yin and yang of the internet.

  • Embedded. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HugePedlar (900427) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:28AM (#16006769) Homepage
    Well, whatever may or may not happen on the desktop, I sure would rather see Linux dominating the embedded market than Windows or Apple. The whole concept of embedded Windows seems ugly to me - like dressing up a nightclub bouncer in a pixie costume.

  • Except for the fact (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:29AM (#16006776)
    OSX is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.
    OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows.

    OSX isn't a serious solution.

    -bms20

    • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fistfullast33l (819270) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:42AM (#16006879) Homepage Journal
      Not to mention that you have a hardware lock-in because Apple probably won't support you if you use hardware other than what they sell. Add to that the expense of purchasing an Apple versus a Dell server and I think this is a gigantic laugh of an article. Plus, now that Apple is using Intel hardware, the whole maintence argument that Apple parts last longer is out the window.

      If you want to talk about Apple on the desktop versus Linux then I'd listen to the argument, but in the server world you can't compete. I really just wanted to respond to this article with a gigantic Simpson-esque "HA HA".
      • I really just wanted to respond to this article with a gigantic Simpson-esque "HA HA".

        Indeed - it's ridiculous. You notice the weasel way they have to qualify things as well:

        By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux.

        That could mean that 90% of x86 systems will be bare bones by 2008, as OEMs will choose their own version of linux to install ;-)

      • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Funny)

        by Prof.Phreak (584152) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:12AM (#16007099) Homepage
        ...but but but... they're so cute. The server may not be fast (nor cheap)---in fact, it may not even work at all---but it will be the cutest server in the whole datacenter (the one and only reason why people like Apple).

      • Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Insightful)

        by soft_guy (534437) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:16AM (#16007133)
        Not to mention that you have a hardware lock-in because Apple probably won't support you if you use hardware other than what they sell.

        There's no "probably" to it. Why would Apple support something they didn't sell? They don't qualify MacOS X to run on anything but their own hardware. This is not to desparage Apple - it is their business model.

        Oh, you do realize that the entire article is just a troll to get Mac fans and Linux fans angry at each other, right? There is no factual basis for this arguments presented in the article at all.

        • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Informative)

          by hector_uk (882132) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:26AM (#16007215)
          yes, of cource i'm the flaimbait when the parent is the one with many outraged responces due to his FUD, and it's entirely my fault for pointing out that he's posting completely incorrect information http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html [barefeats.com] OS X is faster than windows http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/opinion/dellmacpro followup/index.php [macworld.com] Macs are in general cheaper or about the same price as equally configured pc's, though this is a hard thing to do if you put some work in to find a truly equally specced machine apples come out cheaper. and the argument about reliable hardware is moot, apple has not switched manufacturers, they still use asus and foxconn, they still use the same high quality pcb and they design all their own motherboards the same as before, the only difference is they order the cpu and chipset from intel instead of IBM/motorola. Some of those things may of been true of apple 10 years ago, but people need to open their eyes and quit with the blind faith, I run OS X windows and linux and each has their advantages, to label OS X a bloated toy thats not a real option is naive.

        • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ScriptedReplay (908196) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:50AM (#16007409)
          I know you're just flamming, but hey, you made my morning laugh. So ...

          try actually configuring an equal dell to any mac and it'll come up more or it'll have a serious disadvantage, like a laptop being 2" thick with a 45 min battery life, try acctually checking the facts before posting apple flaimbait as the mac pro and soon to be released xserve are very economic choices.


          What's that about laptops again? the GP was talking servers, are you running your servers on MacBooks? And speaking of facts-checking, do show me a 4P+ XServe, please. I'll not even ask for heavy-hitter systems with almost everything being hot-pluggable. Yeah, XServe is a very economic choice - if money is your main concern.

          And to justify my 4P request - the hot thing nowadays is server virtualisation (you know, more efficient use of resources and all that jazz) and 4P-8P systems are just what the doctor ordered. Running ... you guessed it, not OSX (Linux and Solaris, most typically)

          apple has always been reasonably priced they just appear expensive due to the face they don't do the low end tower which best buy flogs for $299

          Again, you seem slightly confused about what server hardware is. Let me fix that for you: "Apple does flog low-end servers (well, they will as soon as they start shipping xserves) at $2999". The funny thing is, Linux is making a killing in that market and Apple has nothing to stop it.

            • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Combatjuan (693131) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:47AM (#16007377)
              Read his/her post carefully. First, he didn't say that Apples do last longer, but rather that some have made that argument. Second, the switch to Intel involves a great deal more hardware than a single chip. Intel chips go on Intel compatible motherboards. I can't quote any statistics on hardware failure rates but between the CPU and some part of the motherboard, I'd guess you have a pretty high percentage of desktop computer hardware failure rates. But he is not making that argument, others have. So once again, in answer to your question:

              Do you REALLY think that since they changed CPUs, their quality is going to suffer? That changing CPUs magically makes their RAM (for example) worse than it was with PPC?

              I would guess that your parent poster would answer 'No. I don't think that. But those who would make that argument, have a much weaker argument to make.' But that's just my guess. The point is, settle down and be graceful with the posts of other people.

              -Combatjuan

    • Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jeppe Salvesen (101622) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:50AM (#16006950)
      Vendor lock-in is something I'm willing to live with as long as the alternatives are insufficient - and there is an alternative. I'd like the choice to be between OSX and Linux. I quite like my MacBook. It's easy to use, it looks good, it performs well for its price. While I do Linux development at work, I like to have an enjoyable experience at home.

      Slower than Linux or Windows? I'd like to see those numbers, please!

      As for serious, by what standard? I'd readily admit I would not recommend running OSX on servers unless OSX adds geniune value (as it might in a Mac-based business).

      In my world, Linux is best for backend. OSX is best for front-end. (while Windows is probably best at the standard business desktop)

      • Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Informative)

        by Erwos (553607) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:00AM (#16007011)
        "Slower than Linux or Windows? I'd like to see those numbers, please!"

        MacOS X has infamously bad threading, which makes it an absolute dog for many important server apps. Anandtech, what I regard as one of the most trustworthy hardware sites on the Internet, has an article outlining the problems:
        http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p =1 [anandtech.com]

        Unless MacOS X for Intel has gotten miraculous improvements in this area, and I'm not aware it has, you'd be an absolute fool to use MacOS X for any server apps requiring high performance threading.

        -Erwos

      • Re:Except for the fact (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ricotest (807136) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:49AM (#16007396)
        While I do Linux development at work, I like to have an enjoyable experience at home.
        As I recent migrant from Windows to Ubuntu - I found Linux to be far more enjoyable than my iBook (or Windows) ever was. And this is not a grab for karma, I have more than enough already. Just look at the stuff modern Linux has:
        • XGL/Compiz - more impressive than OS X, although admittedly in alpha.
        • Screensavers - (don't laugh, apparently new computer users spend a lot of time messing with these) xscreensaver comes with dozens of impressive, customisable screensavers.
        • Installation - on Ubuntu, almost everything installs with one click of the mouse, with browsable game/app libraries.
        • Game support is a little lower than OS X but neither are worth mentioning compared to Windows.
        • Takes the better parts of OS X (Expose, Spotlight/Beagle) and drops the ones I personally dislike (Dock, Finder)
        • Unique apps like Amarok, which is more enjoyable to use than iTunes; Tomboy, etc.
        Plus if you're into development and compiling stuff yourself, you get the rewards that come with that as well. I was a long-time Windows user, and I've tried a whole bunch of distros that were completely horrible to use, or bug-ridden, or bad at detecting my hardware. But I really believe that desktop Linux is beginning to emerge now, and it's actually becoming that can be used by your average consumer (if it weren't for MP3/etc. licensing restrictions). Apple will always have the lead in music/video/graphic production, but for desktop use, Linux is rapidly catching up to OS X, and considering the price difference, I don't see the scenario in TFA happening.

    • Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ElleyKitten (715519) <kittensunrise@gma i l . c om> on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:54AM (#16006974) Journal
      OSX is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.
      Most people get into a vendor lock-in solution without knowing or caring. The only people who wouldn't consider OSX because of vender lock-in have already switched to Linux (or BSD, or whatever)

      OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows.
      Yeah, and if companies can save money on technical staff by having an OS that's more user friendly, they'll do that. That means more to most businesses than benchmarks.

      OSX isn't a serious solution.
      OSX is a potential solution to anyone using Windows who doesn't like it. It's more secure, more stable, and doesn't require the technical retraining (or rehiring) that a migration to Linux would. Sure, some people and companies require more power and freedom than OSX has, but many don't. As OSX becomes more popular for personal use, it will become more popular for business use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        OSX is a potential solution to anyone using Windows who doesn't like it. It's more secure, more stable, and doesn't require the technical retraining (or rehiring) that a migration to Linux would.

        I don't think this is true at all. OSX is different enough from windows that your usual run-of-the-mill Windows admin would go crazy trying to admin it. Even the usually desktop admin stuff is so different than windows, not even getting into the differences in server administration. Notice i'm saying it's dif
    • I often read about vendor lock in, and wonder if people actually realise what they are saying.

      ANY choice made in IT means some kind of lock-in. If I go all OSS I lock myself into something else. Of course one could argue that with OSS you can alwais "fix or change it yourself", but then again, most companies and users do not want to do that, they want to use functionality. By chosing OSS you lock yourself into that path, which is effectively no different from the vendor path.

      Sometimes it can me more cost effective to do this, sometimes the option with "evil vendor lock in" is actually more cost effective.

      The longer I am in IT the more just pick the tool for the fucntion. looking at the staff available, strategy of the company etc..

      Vendor lock in as such is a myth, there is alwais a path that's being closed with every choice of tool...

      To be honest, in a lot of cases MS actually provides a good sollution...

    • '..fact'?? Dude... you forgot the fact(s)... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:03AM (#16007032)
      Weeee... another troll.... Who modded this up?

      OSX is a vendor lock-in solution, and not many people like that.

      It's still more Open Source [macosforge.org] than Windows.

      OSX is substantially slower on most benchmarks than Linux and Windows.

      On the server?
      On the destkop?
      Care to elaborate?
      Links perhaps?

      OSX isn't a serious solution.

      Really?!?! Based on all the facts you provided I suppose we will have to believe you!

    • Re:Except for the fact (Score:5, Funny)

      by Luscious868 (679143) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:20AM (#16007171)
      Cars are a vendor lock in solution, and not many people like that. Cars are slower than flying. Cars aren't a serious solution.

  • overtaking linux at whose expense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kabloom (755503) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:30AM (#16006783) Homepage
    Apple UNIX will overtake Linux at the expense of whose market share? Windows? or Linux?

    And have they figured out how to count Linux installations yet? (A very hard problem since you can just download Linux off the internet for free, so there are many more ways to get it)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jellomizer (103300) *
      Well Market share is a poor judge for Linux anyways. Almost everyone uses Linux every day (Google). Just because it is not installed on your Puney little computer doesn't mean people are not using it, as more and more services that were once installed on Computers as application become web services the need for Server based OSs will expand (Like Linux) and PCs will be more and more religated to smarter then average dumb terminal, where the "Application is hosted somewhere else" and the PC handles all the g

    • Linux install count : (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alexhs (877055) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:21AM (#16007175) Homepage Journal
      It's written right here in the summary : commercial Linux.

      So you just have to ask Redhat, Mandriva, Suse... without any consideration for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo and others...

      Worthless if you ask me. I wonder if Apple hasn't already more market share than combined commercial Linux distributions (in units) (*). And the end of the decade is in four years. Big deal.

      Now IMHO, the whole author opinion is worthless...

      (*) From what appears in some web hits statistics

  • skewed vision? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Recovering Hater (833107) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:31AM (#16006789)
    I can't help but think this guy got all hyped up because of an Apple conference and just had to gush over it in print. Not to sound flamish or trollish, but what he fails to take into account is that Linux is seldom sold pre-installed. People generally buy the machine they want and then install linux post purchase. It is short sighted to only take sales into account when comparing OS use.

    • Re:skewed vision? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:48AM (#16006932) Homepage Journal
      It is short sighted to only take sales into account when comparing OS use.

      Absolutely. Sales data!=Market share.

      And just to bring that point home, OS X fans believe OS X's share of the market is rising because Mac sales are rising. One does not lead to the other.

      Everyone I know who's 'switched' to a mac has bought it expressly to run windows. Sad, but true.

  • My prediction (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:32AM (#16006793)
    In the year 2010, all of the worlds money will be replaced by toilet paper. "Stay lonely" will be the new "goodbye". Apple pie is no longer American, being bought out by the Canadians. Google releases new TattooSense, paying people to get chest-and-back tattoos of ads. George Bush, in a hostile take over, becomes King of the Planet and enslaves all of humanity. He uses his new slave army to move Mt. Everest -- mumbling something about proving an interviewer wrong. Donkey Kong is brought back to life, only to be shot three days later after going nuts in a barrel factory.

    ADD rocks.

  • Not following the "logic". (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:34AM (#16006806)
    Despite the way most professional and commercial buyers see it, Linux is, as a colleague helpfully reminded me, a kernel, not an application platform. Linux is a backplane for device drivers, file systems, protocol stacks and low-level programming interfaces. It is a substructure for application services.
    And that is different from any other OS ... how?

    Apple's UNIX (who knows what it'll be called by then) will overtake commercial Linux in rate of revenue growth by the end of 2007. By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. At the end of the decade, we'll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows.
    Why?

    You're making "predictions" without explaining the "logic" behind them. Why will all those countries / governments / cities currently deploying Linux drop it?

    If they don't drop it, why will other ones go with Apple?

    I believe Big Software vendors such as IBM and Oracle will use Linux to give unwieldy enterprise solutions the George Jetson treatment: Push a button, you've got an enterprise database, configured, loaded with sample data and listening for connections. Want a J2EE server with that? Flip this switch, it'll unpack itself, sniff out that database you installed and mate with it.
    And this will fail to drive Linux adoption ... why?

    If anything, that would seem to me to be something that would drive Linux adoption.

  • Current Commercial Investments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Falconwmua (537564) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:34AM (#16006809)
    Considering the number of enterprise companies that have invested in Linux and do exert some influence over kernel development(IBM, Oracle) and I don't see Apple letting Dell, HP, or IBM build XServes I don't see this happening. Does Apple make a good, stable product? Yes. Is their client (desktop version) more user friendly than Windows or Linux at this point? Yes (I use all 3, Macbook being less than a month). Will Apple carve out a decent chunk in a few different markets? I hope so but I don't see them moving linux out of the data center.
  • Hahahahahahahahahaah ahahah hahhah hahahah ha ......

  • O RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:38AM (#16006842)
    From TFA:
    ...there is exactly one Linux. It's a standard....
    ...I believe ... IBM and Oracle will use Linux to ... Push a button, you've got an enterprise database...

    Have you ever tried to get Oracle running on anything but Red Hat? When are we going to face the fact that Linux distros are different from each other? When I say "I run Linux" I've really said something as vague as (here comes the car analogy) "I drive a car" (as opposed to "I drive an Oldsmobile"). When people pick on "Linux" what are they really picking on?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pyite (140350)
      Have you ever tried to get Oracle running on anything but Red Hat?

      A little while ago, I would have agreed that Oracle has the most unfriendly installation ever. But look at the Oracle Express product. Here's how I installed it:

      apt-get install oracle-xe

      I'm not kidding, either. Check it out here [oracle.com]. (The article applies to Kubuntu, I think, but I installed it on vanilla debian just fine)

  • Reality Check: No change here. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oz0ne (13272) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:42AM (#16006884) Homepage
    Linux *is* underground for all intents and purposes. Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of Linux. If they're not in IT, web design, or a related field chances are they have not.

    Ask a bloke on the street if they've heard of windows, or apple. Even if they don't own a computer, they probably have.

    Linux has made great strides in the past 10 years, but let's not confuse what it is. Linux is the survivalist to windows' soccer mom.

  • I too can be a short-term futurist! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Laxitive (10360) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:46AM (#16006912) Journal
    In the future, no-one will wear pants! The pantsaphogia virus, to be engineered by terrorists in 1999, will leave us all restricted to wearing breezy summer dresses or short-shorts.

    In the future, the only colors allowed will be those based on citrus. This will be mandated by the Tangerine Council world government, headquartered in Morocco. In an effort to reintroduce all the beautiful colors of the world into human products, scientists will genetically engineer strains of lemon with tunable 48-bit color, with the exception of mauve, and there will be much rejoicing.

    In the future, spammers will form a revolutionary movement to fight for their right to speech, and incite a rebellion. The rebellion will be crushed mercilessly, but create the foundations for the great Spam Wars of 2015.

    That's all for now.

    -Laxitive

  • Developing world? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jschottm (317343) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:46AM (#16006916)
    As the second and third world countries continue to develop, they will increasingly use computers. Apple's market strategy cannot support that need - a company whose main desktop starts at $2500 just can't work in a country where the average worker makes that in a year. Even a Mac Mini is far beyond the reach of most people and companies in that area. On the other hand, those people will be far more likely to use recycled low-end x86 systems and inexpensive RISC systems (China's homegrown chip springs to mind) and the OS of choice on those systems will be Windows (quite likely pirated), Linux, or xBSD. That will create both a huge user and developer base for Linux.

    The article also fails to explain why companies such as IBM and HP, who've invested much in the server side of Linux, would just walk away from that investment. I'm sure that IBM consultants will sell Apple products in the times where they are the exclusive fit for the need, but they can't control or steer Apple's direction the way they can Linux, which is one reason they push it so hard.

  • Duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaptainZapp (182233) * on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:47AM (#16006918) Homepage
    Apple's UNIX (who knows what it'll be called by then) will overtake commercial Linux in rate of revenue growth by the end of 2007.

    Well duh, Apple OSX (or whatever it's called by then) costs 100$. Ubuntu Linux (for example) is free as in gratis. How many Ubuntu licenses do you have to sell to reach the revenue of one "Apple Unix" license?

    By mid-2008, Apple's sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux.

    That's very well possible, since there are hardly any systems (specifically in the Desktop realm) which come pre-installed with Linx. Usually you flatten the hard disk of a Windows taxed box, or you build from scratch if you want to run Linux.

    You sir are either dim, dishonest or just a plain old idiot.

  • US-centric outlook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by non (130182) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:49AM (#16006945) Homepage Journal
    His opinion only reflects corporate/consumer use in the US. In the rest of the world Linux use is growing at the expense of Windows.

  • This is YOUR fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shaneh0 (624603) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:08AM (#16007076)
    I've been a slashdotter for a long time. Not a beginner, but certainly not a newbie. Check out my number.

    When I found this place I didn't even know how to SAY linux. I said it "LINE-ix."

    Over the past 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of predictions about linux breaking into the home market. A million reasons have been given, and later, a million excuses.

    I use linux lightly in my (development) job. I'm occassionaly tasked to do website stuff and all of our webservers run LAMP.

    I enjoy using it. Partly because I'm an elitist prick who likes things that other people don't know much about. Also because it's sort of straight-forward. Things are a heirarchy, not an unorganized collection of windows, tabs, dialogs, and buttons.

    I enjoy windows, as well. I make a living developing windows software. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.

    My point in this is not to make 1000 people hate me. My point is that SOMEONE needs to do to linux what NeXT/Apple has done to BSD.

    Yes, I know that Linux has shells, but these are after-thoughts. They don't come close to the experience of OSX or even Windows XP.

    If all the OSS guys HATE microsoft so much, and they think Microsoft sucks so badly, then why the hell can't they build an OS that is actually able to beat windows at its own game?

    The strength of Linux is in it's stable and secure kernel and low-level "plumbing." The same as BSD. An OS that includes a "Windows" experience on top of this solid foundation would for teh first time attract real attention and a real user base.

    I know this isn't easy, but look at all the time you've had. People slam MSFT for taking 6 years to put out a consumer OS. How is it better to take six years to NOT put out a consumer OS?

    Right now Linux is like a Hamm Radio. Adored by hobbyists but foreign to the public. Everyone has a radio, but it's closed-source. They can't tinker with it. They can't do much at all, except press its buttons and turn its dials. The Hamm operators know that their setup is superior, but that's a fact that's lost on the population as a whole.

    I would LOVE to have a real alternative to Windows. But I don't. Maybe I never will, at least not in the form of linux. But the way people grasp linux with religious fervor makes me wonder why they don't do what it takes to actually build it into a windows-killer.

    Maybe linux-devs and linux-fans really don't want to supplant Windows. As crazy as that sounds, I think it has some merit. What I'm suggesting is that you work to "dumb down" linux a bit. Build a linux that appeals to the novice. But I think the linux camp is waiting for the novices to "smarten up" and adopt linux. I just don't think that's ever going to happen.

    Before you slam me, understand that I'm advocating linux. Yes, I'm criticizing the Linux community, but I'm doing it because I (somewhat) agree with the goals of that community.

    I would love to see a world where Windows has a 75% market share.

    • Re:This is YOUR fault (Score:4, Informative)

      by Random Walk (252043) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @11:33AM (#16008327)
      And there is absolutely no question in my mind that for the huge portion of users, Windows is a superior platform to Linux. If for no other reason then it's actually USABLE by mortals.

      I've yet to see any 'mere mortal' who really can USE Windows without guidance from some friend or relative that happens to know a bit more than this 'mere mortal'. I think it's quite telling that people choose Windows over Mac because they are afraid of problems, and feel more comfortable with an OS that is used by more people (and thus the chance of finding a helpful hand is higher).

      I'm not trying to argue that Linux would be more usable, but I think the usability argument is a joke.

  • What's that when it's at home? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Wednesday August 30 2006, @09:09AM (#16007084) Journal
    And by "embedded," Yager means "specialized." With a push of a button and a flip of switch, he predicts you'll be able to create a configured database and a mated J2EE server -- all thanks to Linux."
    I've done a bit of embedded work myself. Driving hardware from microcontrollers, communicating via SPI ports, sampling A to D comverters, even hacking small linux boxes. And in all that time I've never had a need for a database mated with a J2EE server. In fact, despite playing with embedded systems, 20 years programming experience and currently being a Linux developer, I have no idea what such a beast is. Since when did "embedded" come to mean something that sounds like the kind of weenie stuff ecommerce people might use?

    • Re:Is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)

      by eln (21727) * on Wednesday August 30 2006, @08:44AM (#16006904) Homepage
      Well, it's bad in that it's based on fiction. First of all, Linux was not "made" for the embedded market, because the embedded market didn't really exist in any meaningful way when Linux was created. Linux happens to do well in embedded devices because it's so highly customizable (without cumbersome licensing costs).

      He also mentions the idea of "embedded" Oracle and IBM databases. While this idea might work in a limited capacity for small businesses, it just doesn't fly for the enterprise clients, which are those companies' bread and butter. Enterprise clients wants to customize EVERYTHING. Trying to sell them a push-button cookie cutter solution just isn't going to fly. It's been tried, and it hasn't worked. You sell them a cookie cutter solution, and by the time you're done making everything just the way they want it, it would have been far cheaper and easier to just start out building a customized solution to begin with.

      As for Apple taking over in the server space, I haven't seen anything to indicate that. No one I know even mentions Apple as a general server solution, much less gives any serious thought to it. Where I work now, we have tens of thousands of servers, 90% of which are running Linux. The remainder are running Solaris and HP-UX, with a very small number running other proprietary Unix-based systems or Windows. None of them are Apples.

      Also, all of our systems are sold to us without an OS, and we install our own custom images on to them, so they wouldn't show up in pre-installed system sales. I would imagine most data centers and large hosting environments would be doing the same thing.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.