OS X is more appealing to enterprises as a desktop operating system than ever before and although it is unlikely to take market share away from Windows, the Mac could reduce the number of Linux-based desktops, according to research group Gartner. In a report published by Gartner this week titled Enterprise Mac Clients Remain Limited, but Apple’s Appeal is Growing, analysts Michael Silver, Neil MacDonald, Ray Wagner and Brian Prentice, said that administrators will most likely have to prepare for more Mac systems in their environment even though OS X is “not a suitable enterprise wide platform”. Ars weighs in on the issue as well.
I would think so. At least, it’s more appealing to me because of the games available like C&C Generals.
It’s certainly easier to use. Drag the app to the HD to install, move it to the trash to uninstall. Myself, I like the Mac install/uninstall system more than the Windows way of doing things.
Mac’s are a bit expensive, to me anyway. Overall, while I wouldn’t mind having a Mac over a Linux computer, Linux is catching up. Slowly but surely. I’ve personally enjoyed watching Linux grow over the years.
I don’t have a problem with either one. They both have their ups and downs. I’m just glad we have a choice of OS.
Drag the app to the HD to install, move it to the trash to uninstall. Myself, I like the Mac install/uninstall system more than the Windows way of doing things.
I’ve often read praise for the ease of software installation in OS X. For the last week though, I’ve been setting up an old G4 (10.4 installed) and I’ve found it often requires jumping through a ridiculous amount of hoops. Especially with driver installation, I’ve run into two or three situations where the install process is: download a SIT file, it gets automatically decompressed after download (with no indication where the files are actually decompressed to – I had to run a search the first time), then you have a DMG file to double-click, it mounts, and there’s an install wizard inside it (oh pardon me, install “assistant”).
I can’t for the life of me figure out why I couldn’t have simply just downloaded the binary for the installer in the first place – or a SIT file simply containing the installer. I don’t see what advantage the additional packaging of the disk image adds (especially when in many cases, the apps themselves are further “packaged” within a bundle). I’ve also seen situations, with people who don’t fully understand the concept of disk images, where they don’t realize they should move the app to their Applications folder and end up running apps directly from the DMG all the time.
Well to be fair, drivers are a bit of a special case. And there are still a few idiots who package an installer inside a disk image inside an archive.
Apple has a standard package installer. Place that in a disk image. Please.
Cannot help a wry smile at this. Surely the whole thing about OSX was, it avoided Driver Hell by being specially designed for its hardware as one integrated whole….Now we have a guy installing it on a Mac, and what does he complain about?
Drivers!
“Cannot help a wry smile at this. Surely the whole thing about OSX was, it avoided Driver Hell by being specially designed for its hardware as one integrated whole….Now we have a guy installing it on a Mac, and what does he complain about?
Drivers!”
To be fair, I’ve been using OS X since the public betas, and have never had an issue installing a driver. Of course I’ve probably only ever installed 3 drivers during that time. Since (as you point out) the drivers for bluetooth, usb2, fw400, fw800, video, network, wifi, modem etc are all supplied as an integral part of the OS and set themselves up automatically.
The users that will leave GNULinux for Mac OS are uses that don’t value the freedoms/less annoying headarches associated with using free software.
It’s their choice, but I’m sure they will regret it somewhere down the track.
haha… yeah, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I’m no big fan of apple, but dorks like you annoy me as much as overhyped steve jobs jizm.
I do feel good.
I use GNULinux to up my productivity everyday,
So up yours.
So do I. I also happen to use MS and a bunch of embedded speciality solutions. It’s really about the right tool for the right job.
If you really want to get into a pissing match, let me ask you where linux stands in industrial control software. Where is linux in the real time market? Where is linux in the office market?
Linux is a rad tool and runs on my personal desktop at home, but when it comes down to it, FSF and GNU don’t own nothin’ and there are better solutions out there in a lot of markets that linux hasn’t even scratched the surface on.
when it comes down to it, FSF and GNU don’t own nothin’
Fujitsu, Dell, and Gateway don’t “own” PC technology either; nor do Penguin or Collins “own” paper technology. All five companies manage to be profitable nonetheless. There’s a lesson their that proprietary software companies don’t want to learn, and the sooner they do (or it bites them in the ass if they don’t), the better.
What do games have to do with enterprise use?
Well, you do know that MCSE means Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert?
You do realize that you can install applications the same way in GNU/Linux? Not to mention that you can install applications in many other equally simple ways.
OS X isn’t the only OS to have AppFolders, you know. Nor the first OS to have it
The Windows way of installing applications isn’t that bad. It’s the lack of a framework for installing, uninstalling and updating installed applications that is the major issue.
The Windows way of installing applications isn’t that bad. It’s the lack of a framework for installing, uninstalling and updating installed applications that is the major issue.
The windows installer is the standardized way to install, update and remove applications via .msi files.
The standard has been there for a few years and is in heavy use.
No no no. You didn’t grasp what I wrote.
.MSI is a poor attempt at such a framework and is not really a standard, since too many developers don’t care about it – which they should, btw.
What I meant with updating was a framework where the application could subscribe to an “Update Service”, which would connect to a server (possible On Demand), and fetch information about new updates for the application. At the moment this is something the developer must implement in one of many ways, since Windows does not offer such functionality.
What I meant was the option to start “Add/Remove Applications” and click on a button called “Update All Applications” and the Update Service would download all updates and (possibly depending on user settings) install them.
Windows does not support such functionality at the moment, unfortunately. Managing updates on the Windows platform can only be done manually at the moment. If you’re lucky the application has it’s own “Check for updates” functionality, but a framework for this is severely lacking.
I hope I made my point clearer.
No no no. You didn’t grasp what I wrote.
Yes I did. You said there was no standard on windows for installing/updating or removing an application.
I pointed out that there is a standard, that the standard dosen’t do things in the way you want does not make it any less of a standard.
.MSI is a poor attempt at such a framework and is not really a standard, since too many developers don’t care about it – which they should, btw.
As time goes on I’ve seen less and less apps that rely on anything other than .msi files. If its an enterprise enviroment then they are heavily used.
What I meant with updating was a framework where the application could subscribe to an “Update Service”, which would connect to a server (possible On Demand), and fetch information about new updates for the application. At the moment this is something the developer must implement in one of many ways, since Windows does not offer such functionality.
For home use I’m not sure I see the point, but ClickOnce is available for developers to use.
Enterprise deployments are handled with SMS and the updates are pushed to clients, there is no reason to check for them.
What I meant was the option to start “Add/Remove Applications” and click on a button called “Update All Applications” and the Update Service would download all updates and (possibly depending on user settings) install them.
Might be interesting, I guess I don’t see it as something really needed but I’m also the kind of guy who rarely updates anything unless there is a security or major usability improvement I feel is important.
I hope I made my point clearer.
Yeah I follow what you are saying, thanks for the posts!
No, you didn’t grasp what I meant, because MSI does not allow for easy updating, when updating means “automatically download and install all updates”.
It is true MSI can be used for updating an installation, but only if you manually download the updated installation program, or if the program itself contains a “check for updates” option.
It still leaves Windows without a framework for updating installations. It does support manually updating installed applications, but I clearly meant automatically updating installed applications, and MSI does not support that.
ClickOnce is not even closed to what I propose. It is not even remotely connected to what I propose. I want a central application, where all the 100+ programs installed can be updated automatically for one particular machine. Of course such a solution would be good for a home user. Why should Average Joe have to spend 18 hours trying to accomplish a stupid “find ’em, download ’em and install ’em” task?
Updating installed applications should be doable by opening “Add/Remove Applications” and click on a button called “Update All”. Quite like the update all function in Firefox, when you want to update all your themes/extensions.
The ClickOnce solution is not all related to what I propose. Besides that ClickOnce is inferior to at least a gazillion other solutions. And overengineered btw.
The updating service is necessary for home use if the applications are to contact the server. There can be no automatic update through “Add/Remove Applications” without that service. It is just as relevant at home, as the indexing service is (and Desktop Search is very relevant).
Security fixes and major bugfixes are quite common for many applications. But it’s a hell to update them on Windows due to the virtually non-existent package managing.
I used a Mac the other day and… it’s a lot less cool than it used to be. Mac OSX was definately king of the user interface for a long time.
However, Linux has caught up and even Windows has caught up, which is amazing.
It’s time for Apple to really innovate again, instead of the tiny incremental updates it has been selling.
The barbarians are at the gate Apple, what are you going to do?
um, Expose?
Although Expose was an Apple innovation, Linux has that now.
There is an Expose clone in Compiz and there is also Kompose for KDE Desktops.
I have seen a couple of free Windows apps that do the Compose thing as well.
Expose! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
In my opinion, Expose-eqsue task switching is 10x better than alt+Tab.
It looks cool and is actually functional.
I don’t use either.
“It looks cool”? What the hell use is that?
I use it a lot. So we’re all different. The nice thing is that it’s there, it’s optional to use it if you want and saves some of us the time to sift through 50 windows to find the right one. It’s in fact an incredibly nice way to drag’n’drop information between applications, or to check on a progress bar buried behind everything, or to check quickly how many windows you have open in a specific application.
It’s not like it’s the only way to switch apps in OSX.
Edited 2006-12-10 09:29
And one of the main reasons behind that assessment I think has to do with the predictability and uniformity that comes with attention to details.
I feel recently that one of the major over sights of Linux desktop distros tends to be attention to centralized management and support tools. While with historically capable of multiuser support, projects like LTSP, Stateless Linux as well as Remote Desktop Support tools beyond the VNC protocol, Directory Authentication capabilities are given second class consideration and effort.
“Gartner said that as the penetration of OS X increases, it is unlikely to mean less Windows PCs: “In many instances, Macs are replacing Unix and Linux workstations, rather than Windows PCs”. OS X is a unix-based system.”
Can’t see many “real” UNIX workstation users going to OSX (or Windows) without a fight. People should stop comparing OSX to UNIX/Linux/BSD. OSX is like pulling fingernails at the terminal. Just not reality. These authors should actually speak to real UNIX users.
Nice try. OS X *is* BSD.
Well, BSD with a few additions. Though on my Mac I tend to have a fullscreen terminal window up most of the time, so it’s harder to tell the difference.
… to enterprises, it should have been added. Nothing like a good but misleading title. And see below for more.
In the mean time, I can’t resist some plagiarism; one comment on Ars Technica said:
…read the title of the article [which was: “OS X to steal desktop from Linux”] and thought: “OS X is going to use Gnome or KDE? For the love of $DEITY why?!”
:p
So basically what Michael, Neil, Ray and Brian are saying is that Windows will be around on the desktop, but Unix and Linux workstations will see competition from Apple. Now in daily usage most people don’t equate “workstation” with “desktop”, so this makes the heading even more misleading. Good job, ZDnet, ArsT. (not)
Well, OS X is *n*x, and we all knew that the *n*xes are each others’ competition, and that OS X has a smooth interface and is quite an able system. Stunning observation indeed. It’s actually good for (FLOSS) *n*xes to face Apple’s competition. I can’t see how it would not improve *n*x.
In the mean time I still hope that your average workstation user can see beyond the interface. OS X is powerful, but it is not more powerful than most other *n*xes, not to mention all the OSS advantagees clichés that I don’t think I have to explain here.
Today, people buy a PC. The only thing they ask is how much memory or GHz it got. The question of what OS it runs never gets asked. People are not even aware of the concept that you could run something other than windows.
Once people start ask themselves this question, they will start to compare various options and make informed decisions on what OS to use. This is good for Linux.
Today, people buy a PC. The only thing they ask is how much memory or GHz it got. The question of what OS it runs never gets asked. People are not even aware of the concept that you could run something other than windows.
Yes, but the case here is actually workstations running Unix-like systems, that supposedly face Apple/OS X competition.
Of course workstations may be desktops, but usually the computer business distinguishes the idea of a “workstation” (high end, SCSI, Xeon/Opteron, multi core, well.. heavy stuff) from a simple “desktop” (often still running Win2k on an overloaded PII).
I do hope that the people working with the former machines have some kind of an idea of what operating system is running on it.
Why do you think that people are going to ask themselves about the OS they are running ?
They would only if there was a serious problem with OS, which is not the case. Windows are not perfect, but they work more or less.
There is a perception problem within Linux community. People, consumers, 99% and more of them, are using computer to achieve some goals. The computer itself is
not a goal. They WILL NOT admire the elegant system architecture, I/O subsystem, etc. They will never be aware of the very existence of it. On the other hand, an extra click in user interface is going to annoy them.
You, Linux people, have to make a choice, better sooner
or later. You have to decide if you want to have OS
for yourself (Linux community) or for everybody else.
Once you make that decision, it is going to be much easier, and you will be focused to your goals.
DG
Though this article gives brief mention that Gartner thinks OSX might take enterprise desktop share from Linux, it never explains *why*. In fact, the article spends most of its time discussing why OSX is still not ready for mainstream enterprise use. This article is almost completely worthless.
Aside from the flamewar between OSX and Linux fanboys this article will likely cause, why would OSAlert even bother linking it?
Edit for clarification: “this article” refers to the ZDNet article, not the Ars one.
Edited 2006-12-08 22:56
Aside from the flamewar between OSX and Linux fanboys this article will likely cause, why would OSAlert even bother linking it?
It’s pretty difficult I guess to understand that there’s a reason why I linked to the Ars story as well.
Oh well.
“Macs are replacing Unix and Linux workstations…” ???
How come, you can install OSX on machines currently running UNIX and/or Linux? Didn’t know that.
Or does it mean someone already running UNIX and/or Linux is going to trash their computers just to “replace” them
with OSX box. That’s bulls#it?
Gartner, Gartner, did you know you’re talking rubbish?!?!
Although I like OSX it is still overpriced ( or at least it’s not something affordable to me ) and that’s why I’m happy with my four Linux machines ( Fedora 5/6,Mint-Linux,Xandros Business and PSLinuxOS)
Anyway I have no doubt Mac is becoming more and more attractive to MS defectors and I’m sending them my best wishes.
May be you haven’t noticed, but a healthy IT department has something called a ‘lifecycle’ that means that a one point the Sun/SGI/whatever workstation gets scrapped. At that point there will be another buy decision.
You depend on ‘cheap’ linux machines, but for companies that are long used to buying high-end workstations from the likes of Sun, the Apple workstation line might be quite compelling from a cost point of view.
I do agree that Gartner is quite nonsensical. While a cross-licensed OSX might seem very compelling for competitors, it will probably be very hard on the hardware sales and thus the end of Apple.
I am a die-hard Linux user but I totally agree with this assertion. I agree that that OSX or any Unix grab of market share from Windows is good for Linux because open standards and open protocols (like NFS) that are common in any Unix system allow you to mix and match operating systems without having to reverse engineer critical enterprise applications.
That said, I gave up hoping long ago that Apple would try to compete for market share against Microsoft. OSX is one of the most beautiful works of art known to man but Apple is a chronic underchiever when it comes to OS market share and this Gartner report hits the nail on the head. Microsoft prospers because it has thousands of enablers like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc.
No single company, yes not even Microsoft has the resources to control all the hardware and software that everyone needs on the desktop but Steve Jobs either lacks the vision to see this or he is such a Scrooge that he would rather die in the “glory” of his 3% market share than let some other supplier prosper by sharing the wealth in a much larger potential market.
“OSX is one of the most beautiful works of art known to man”
Dude, you got to visit an art museum.
I am a Linux `and` OS X user. Linux at home and OS X at work. OS X blends right into the McSoft environment `extremely` well. I interact with my Oracle servers, a blend of true *nix, Linux and Wincrap, without any issues all the time.
Installing and removing programs is a breeze. Just like it is in Linux. It’s not hard to remove a stray preference file within the system or user file.
I am `extremely` impressed with OS X server. Once you understand the tools and the workflow it is a sheer pleasure to work with. My hope is OS X captures a larger market share over time.
It would be nice if Apple did drop their prices on the lower-end Macs a little but this may still be due to market and economics. I’ve given up on buying new.
The failure to license OS X to third-party hardware vendors means companies would have to rely solely on Apple Computer, which does not gel with IT purchasing practices
Really?
‘Cause where I work, yeah, there’s variety in the server room: Dell PowerEdges, an Apple G4 tower, a few Gateways, and the Sun “mini fridge” and “pizza boxes”.
But on the floor and for staff? There’s 200+ of the same computer all running the same OS, with (minor variations notwithstanding) the same software packages.
True, we could switch from “Goatway” to “Dull”, but that’s like switching from wintermint to peppermint in terms of hardware.
We’re just as locked in to a single solution as if we would be if we had nothing but Apples.
—
And, no, until there are Linux native versions of OmniPage Pro, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Acrobat, etc. etc. etc., Linux is not an option.
huh?
I work for a company that supports linux, mac, and windows. The mundane backend and warehouse management is all linux, the office nerds all use microsoft, and the marketing folks have their shiny plastic macs. Some of the specialty folks have both MS and Linux or OSX at their disposal.
IT teams that have a clue will integrate and target specific users with specific solutions and don’t allow themselves to get locked in to anything specific. It’s all about the bottom line. Who has the cheapest solution that meets our needs?
Any large scale business knows better than to invest all their resources in one solution that they’ll never get out of.
Businesses that don’t ‘take care of number 1’ are prone to failure. Putting all your eggs in one basket is very risky and any large scale business knows better.
If you are waiting for Photoshop on Linux, you might want to try Pixel from http://www.kanzelsberger.com
.
How can Mac’s replace Linux desktops when there are no Linux desktops ?
November 2006
————–
Mac: 5,39%
Linux: 0,37%
Link: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&…
.
Geez even WindowsME has more market than Linux, talking about humilliation.
Edited 2006-12-09 04:10
I am not using Linux any more, but, to be honest, the majority sites (76%) polled were pay-per-click sites. Linux users are capable of various kinds of stupidities, but they are less likely to click advertisments.
But, Linux desktop share is small and it is going to be even smaller. That’s because Linux people want to preserve the “purity” and the “GNU/Freedom”. Spoiled consumer do not understand higher values….
DG
Edited: removed
Edited 2006-12-09 15:49
Web stats are not an accurate measure of market share, and should not be used as such.
http://www.analog.cx/docs/webworks.html
IDC estimates the number of Linux desktops at somewhere between 3 and 6%, which places it in the same range as Mac OSX.
It’s from Tom so don’t take it seriously
It’s from Tom so don’t take it seriously
Who’s Tom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom
.
By the way. Microsoft Windows has lost a little over 1% in market share in 2006. Hasn’t it ? Is this the first bending in a curve that will bend more and more – concave ?
.
I think that Apple would like to stay as is right now because they think that If they do a mistake while they are large they would not be able to recover from it. So, being large gives you strength, but being small gives you manuverability.
There is no doubt that Apple hardware is expensive, especially for the middle to low end, while very cheap for the workstations which in my opinion is where enterprises might be interested if not save on.
Linux on the otherhand is trying now and in the past 10 years to increase funtionality while raiding its byproduct, namely the bugs. They lack more projects to make it a complete solution. Let me give an example of my 6 years experience with KDE and GNOME, I have never encountered less than 1 GUI crash every weak, and once every 2 months samba goes kookoo, and my distros are the “enterprise” labelled ones RHEL, SLED, Xandros Pro, mandriva corporate. So, I like to call most of linux distros as beta quality Software. And when you use non enterprise labeled distros you can call the quality as alpha. Of course, you might not notice these things if you don’t push your system to the limit or you don’t do much with your system.
OSX especially 10.4.8 is now super fast on commodity machines running even Pentium 4, It could beat any windows, linux distro hands down; but the story is different with opensolaris 5.11.52B which is very close from OSX 10.4.8. And Strangley, I couldn’t find GNOME and its tools crash on solaris as in the case of other linux distros.
Finally, yes OSX is so much appealing, windows way less with the doggy vista, while opensolaris is so promising.
Sounds like PEBKAC to me.
… on what you value.
I switched back to Linux from Mac for 2 reasons
1. I noticed that if I wanted to do anything more on the Mac than write a letter or so, suddenly the famous user-friendliness was gone out of the window, and I found myself mucking about in the depths of the Mac system, trying to make things work – reminded me of the years I spent with a certain OS from Redmond … no big difference. And if I have to muck around, then I prefer do it with an open system – which leads to point two:
2. don’t want to get locked in again into a proprietary system.
And the Mac is not that great, either, neither soft- nor hardware-wise, so no big regrets. I’ll keep my 2 Macs for the time being, though – maybe some use can be found for them.
1. Exactly how did “the famous user-friendliness” go “out the window”? What exactly went wrong between opening the Applications folder, double-clicking your word processor of choice, and typing your letter? Do elaborate.
2. As a former avid GNU/Linux user (Slackware for what its worth) since returned to the Windows platform (and in addition, MacOS), I’ve decided that OSX offers me all the Unix I could want or care for. It offers me development tools, good audio/visual support, a good user experience, perfect driver support, and most importantly, it gets the job done with a minimum amount of p*ssf*arting around. In the end of the day, I just want to get work done, perhaps enjoy a bit of music and watch a film, and then step away from the computer for the rest.
Windows fills in for everything else when I have a need to do .NET development or run Windows only software.
With all of the above covered, I have no compelling reason to devote my precious disk-space or free time to setting up and installing GNU/Linux. Yes it’s Free. Yes its cool… but so what?
This is why I can also see GNU/Linux losing out in the Desktop/Workstation-front. It offers no competitive advantage over MacOS or Windows that businesses or end-users will really care about.
“1. I noticed that if I wanted to do anything more on the Mac than write a letter or so, suddenly the famous user-friendliness was gone out of the window, and I found myself mucking about in the depths of the Mac system, trying to make things work ”
That is very true. I am lucky enough to have years of experience with almost every OS out there except OS X.
And yet when I started using OS X, a few months ago, I found myself googling a lot in order to make things work.
Quite often extra apps are needed in order to get some basic functionality that you took for granted in Linux or Windows.
i have to agree to a certain extent, i think osx is a very nice os, but definitly lacking in some areas. Now that i am used to it, it is not so bad, but it took a few months to really get used to it. I am coming from the linux/bsd world and i find myself in the terminal all the time on osx simply because it is the only way to make osx do what i want it do do (unless i pay a bunch of money for a crippled app). I hope all that changes, but quite simply, osx is not made for the power user, if you are a geek you are ok and if you are very unexperienced you are ok
but if you are somewhere in the middle, you will have problems.
I agree, good points.
You put it better than I could – that was my experience, too, and so I prefer to brave the difficulties of Linux; at least there people are glad, and help, if someone tries to understand a bit –
quite unlike the proprietary world, where you have to be happy with the few crumbs the software firms decide to feed you.
I personally love OS x and it’s interface also spotlight as from a user perspective is 10 times better than beagle, which I will note under gnome does not index installed KDE apps, by default and that is as of SUSE 10.2.
Also OS X is like anything other than MS takes some getting used to Windows users will say the same thing about linux. OSX is really a best of both worlds IMHO and will enable will be more appealing to ordinary computer users. I think often we place or technical feeling in the discussion and forget that you have mom and pops, and people who have no desire to learn Linux and it’s alternatives.
Say what you want but photoshop, Indesign, office, quickbooks, quicken, Adobe Standard, Dreamweaver are must have applications and in some respect considered industry standard. In some cases alternative just don’t cut it.
Therefore OSX is more appealing
I use both. I have two linux desktops. I have a MacBook. If Linux was as easy to use on the laptop, I would probably have it there too. No need to flame me, I have tried a variety of Linux flavors on a number of laptops and each is a compromise. The OS on the MacBook is amazing. It is so robust it is quickly becoming my primary computer. I like the UI of OSX, but there are some annoyances. I cannot customize it the way I do my KDE desktops, but it is a laptop. The fonts are so much better than most Linux’s that my eyes have been very thankful. Compatability is better to. I have no desire to replace my Linux desktops, but I do understand someone wanting to. But, I cannot do with OSX what I can with Linux: relace the OS on boxes that no longer function properly. I do not see Apple stealing from Linux. I see Linux and Apple as the barbarians at the gates of MS. Even MS recognizes this…witness the agreement with Novel. They have officially acknowledged the presence of Linux….hmmm, wonder why? They know what we know. Most people aren’t willing to replace their hardware just to free themselves from the MS stranglehold. I have noticed that a number of small businesses are moving to Ubuntu, Novel, and even Apple. The trend has begun. It will continue. Apple and Linux are simply different flavors of the same pie. Why should Apple change its way of doing things? They seem to be very successful as of late. They have my business. So does Linux. Why not use both? Why not use the OS that serves the purpose best?
Today computers are becoming like refrigerators. People don’t want to play with the refrigerator itself. They want to play with the food inside the refrigerator. The content.
Linux, and majority of Linux users, are for the most, only interested in the refrigerator itself. Linux is a mistake on the desktop. Very few are really interested. Sorry to say.
Some get bored with the colour or the shape of their refrigerators. These might buy a Mac, as the Mac is a whole-product and a brand. Windows is also a product, but only as long as it is ON the computer at birth. Very few are interested in the “sub-components” (Windows is not a product). In the future Microsoft WILL go the Apple route, they will simply have to. But at the present they can’t. But eventually they will, – as soon as they can.
Components are out! “Cheap” and “discount-concepts” are also out. Products and brands are the future. Price will matter less and less.
Who do your call ?
Edited 2006-12-09 01:01
Hi,Umbra,
sorry to say that but I think you’re wrong.
I think we are witnessing a counter culture era in computing ( sort of computing 60’s) where there are no authorities , no rules/policies and standards one has to comply with in order to get most they can get with what they have (already) at their disposal with what they have.
Linux is mistake on the desktop. OMG, how wrong you are!?! Linux is the ONLY desktop ( KDE in my case) where I can do what I want to do with my CPU/GPU without being disrupted by salvos of Flash crap embeded in each and every WEB site you’re visiting regularly ( including idiotic GoToMyPC green monkey dancer at OSAlert.com).
“Products and brands are the future”.One more mistake!
I don’t want brands and product.
I’M NOT BLIND nor an IDIOT who needs help from BIG BROTHER or STINKY SARGENT to WALK me through cyberspace( remember IE defaulted to http://www.msn.com
mailto opening Outlook Express etc.)
They should call those reports, “brown papers”, instead of, “white papers”.
Apple has done a great job by grabbing as much open source as it could. Their interface is great. One thing i could never understand is how one could compare OSX with Linux or for that matter WindowZe. OSX is useful only if it is installed on the hardware that is sold by Apple. Linux, is general purpose. You take any make of Inter/AMD hardware you can run Linux and have all the features. There are different software vendors with different Linux desktop flavors. Unfortunately, there is no hardware vendor who could stand behind Linux desktop and exploit all the new eye candy (compiz/beryl etc) that Linux desktop provides. Well, these things can’t be necessarily considered by elite Gartner folks.
I have a G3 iBook as my primary computer, running OS 10.3.9. It still works fine, but is a bit slow for anything but web browsing.
I am planning to buy something new in the next six months. I *could* save some money and get a Toshiba 1.6 GHz Core Duo laptop, 15″ screen and DL DVD-RW for $699 sooner than later, or wait and get a MacBook with a smaller screen, but 2 GHz Core 2 Duo for $1299 a little later.
Because of the OS, I’m probably going to wait and get the MacBook. I don’t want to spend much time in Windows except for games, so I would be mostly in Linux or BSD. Though I like them, and can get around pretty well, I would prefer to spend my computing time in OS X. Yes, I’ll still be working in the terminal, and running X11 apps in either one, and booting in Windows on occasion. But regardless of the desktop/window manager I choose, I don’t think I can match OS X’s ease of use.
Edited 2006-12-09 02:57
oooh it’s Gartner “research” again ..
In other news, Gartner reports Puppies are Cute.
What does he mean by the Mac can have legal problems with the default applications? Last time I looked almost all vendors like Dell send PC’s with a bunch of junk on them. But no enterprise uses the OEM install of Windows. You wipe the machines and install your custom built image. And you would do the same thing with your Macs.
NOT. These consulting firms are only out for themselves. I am not saying that Mac OS X does not have more mass appeal than linux, but I am saying don’t take ANYthing Gartner says unless you take it with a grain of salt.
Apple should indeed license OSX to a very select and carefully choosen group of hardware vendors.
more appealing than MacOSX
Well unlike most of the users I was introduced to the terminal through OS X, and did not have much difficulty moving to Linux. OS X is closer to linux than windows would ever be. I use fedora core 6 at my office and oS X at home, linux has come a long way in terms of ease of use, applications, usability. There is no competition between linux or OS X, it’s like comparing apple’s and oranges. There are a lot of things apple could learn from the linux world and implement in OS X and vice-versa.
Can someone explain to me why something as simple as playing an MP3 file under Linux requires me to edit text files?
You installed a distribution, that is several years old?
You like to do it the hard way instead?
You followed an obsolete howto?
I don’t know a modern distribution, where you have to edit a text file for that.
Yes, when you have to add a repository to download mp3 pluggins, them you have to edit a text file, the file of repositories.
No, mainstream distributions provide a graphical tool for that task.
For example on ubuntu you click a single checkbox to have access to mp3 codecs.
Other distributions even provide codecs out of the box.
“Can you tell me why I have to edit an address bar line to go to a webpage?”
Your argument makes about as much sense (and implies as much negativity and difficulty) as the above – i.e. none.
You can do this graphically, through Synaptic or Adept.
Please stop your anti-Linux FUD.
Can someone explain to me why something as simple as playing an MP3 file under Linux requires me to edit text files?
You don’t. Not in Ubuntu/Kubuntu at least.
Yes, wtf is this guy smoking.
You just need to install codecs that can play the formats you want. Like on Windows.
By default, most free distros can only play open formats (Ogg types usually).
But there’s no need to change configurations, the codecs automatically register with the software when they’re installed (like on Windows).
In 1999 Gartner predicted that Linux would never go anywhere. Gartner called Linux the “Hype du jour” amongst other things. One of Garter’s report was titled “Will Linux Be Viable Competition for Windows Desktops”. There were a few reports dismissing Linux as a serious thing.
The funny thing is that at the same time IDC published a study showing Linux as the fastest-growing server operating environment…
Not all market research firms are equal. Gartner and Yankee do not have a track record of good predictions and independence. Remember Microsoft’s paid research about Window v Linux TCO?
Edited 2006-12-09 13:31
In 1999 Gartner predicted that Linux would never go anywhere…
Gartner was referring to Linux on the desktop. And they were right. Linux has not gained appreciable market share in that space.
I would choose MAC only if I could have more freedom of choice with hardware. I am running FreeBSD, and MAC is BSD, too, so there is no problem with it.
As I understand, the chances of running MAC OSX on plain PC are zero. One can’t even buy MAC OSX without MAC machine, right ?
How about hardware upgrades ? New, faster, CPU, new motherboard, larger HD, better graphic card ? The choice
of components is limitted. Am I wrong ?
DG
I don’t believe that MAC could reduce the number of Linux desktop instalations. Linux desktop share is very small,
and people who run them don’t do it because it is appealing to the consumers.
Linux could do well in the office, if there are no special requirements.
DG
Linux needs to bed a more market driven platform since there is nothing groundbreaking new in Linux as a concept. Linux is all about old news.
a) Apple did the unthinkable (at that time) -> made computers usable for the commons, as a concept
b) Microsoft did the unthinkable (at that time) -> separated the software (OS) from the hardware, as a concept.
a1) Despite this groundbreaking thinking, the CEO of Apple was fired when the company was not performing. Yes, Steve Jobs was fired. This was done to secure Apple’s long term survival in the market, and also for the terribly-important STOCK MARKET. One can argue if this was a correct decision, but it was a decision, made in the interest of the whole company and it’s shareholders.
b1) Even Bill Gates is now on his way out as a CEO/Chairman for Microsoft. This is a market-force-driven thing. This is done to secure Microsoft survival in the market and in the STOCK MARKET. One can argue if this is a correct decision, but this is a decision made in the interest of the whole company and it’s shareholders.
The market rules.
Linux has none of this. Linux continues no matter what. No matter if anyone is using it or not, or if anyone cares. No matter if it is good or bad. It just continues and continues and continues. But – what really need to happen to Linux right now is that someone is made responsible for it’s total failure in some areas like the desktop market – AND GET’s FIRED ! Otherwise Linux will continue to be a waste of time for all of us. But this will probably never happen as no one can be fired or made responsible. They are all as unfireable as the mistakes in Linux itself. It just continues.
Edited 2006-12-09 14:59
Otherwise Linux will continue to be a waste of time for all of us.
Believe it or not but there are quite a few who like to use linux on a regular basis and find it most suitable for the desktop.
That’s not the point of the post you replied, please read it again.
The thing is Mac OS only runs on Macs. I could see if Mac OS ran on anything then it would for sure hold the #2 spot and move up in the #2 spot. But Linux runs on anything including Macs.
Also OLPC will increase the amount of users using Linux compared to Mac OS.
Really the only thing Killing Linux and any other OS in the Enterprise is lack of applications. Exchange is the mail system of choice. Even through there is an evolution plugin for exchange it doesn’t work as well as outlook.
So far nether Apple or Red Hat / Novell have come out with a well marketed end to end solution.
The other thing that companies have not even come close to on Mac and Linux is Novell like domain directory services for printing, filesharing, policy management, scripting and group policies. Microsoft took this market from Banyan and Novell (Mainly because they had the server side but MS controled the desktop)
Xandros is the only company that has taken this on for linux but they are such a bit player. Their ideas are great though. Make your management tools look like the Windows MMC. Create domains out the box, be able to add Linux and Windows machine to the domains, scripting, security. Can use Outlook if you want to and connect to the Scalix, exchange drop in.
Even Apple doesn’t have this.
Anyway we will see how things go!
Though I don’t own a Mac (I work on Windows and have fun on both Linux and Windows), I suppose Gartner is mostly right, and the reason is the availability of popular proprietary applications for Mac platform. Like it or not, formulation of a task to be performed in the real world can include specific formats and technologies which may or may not be properly available on Linux.
I am a long time user and contributor I frequently work on a projects called vtiger. someone made a valid point that I am a community user both agree with and support. We all say linux is this great system and we want end user acceptance but when someone like Novell makes a move to bring more adoption we tear them down.
The point made by the guy is that “We have to decide if we want Linux for the community or the end users” Until that OS X is more appealing and has grown to be soemthing I recommend more to my customers on the desktop.
We all say linux is this great system and we want end user acceptance but when someone like Novell makes a move to bring more adoption we tear them down.
Remains to be seen.Perhaps MS has calculated a convenent with Novell would divide the community.Well i still get my ebuilds updated so i guess MS hasn’t succeded.Who knows how things are going to be like in one or two years?I guess Novell!=linux_community as MS has thought.
“We have to decide if we want Linux for the community or the end users”
Why should we?
And isn’t it one and the same?
Does Gartner ever do anything that’s not sensational?
I have OpenSuSE a distro used for desktop use, it still lacks a one click install. I understand, the linux geeks freak & say go back to windows. Well the reason we came to linux is cause of the stable & secure OS it is. Thank god PC-BSD came out, I plan to go to that.
“[Mac OS is] not hideously ugly” – nice unbiased article, there then.
give us an open source OS that is designed from top to bottom, UI to kernel, with usability in mind from the beginning and you’ll see an OS that will take off. That’s why Firefox is so successful because it is easy and open source.
But I just don’t see linux or mac really taking off because they are both missing the key factor of the other.
… for environmental issues.
Apple is not doing a great job in this field, and if modern companies want to have a nice profile, environmentally speaking, they might want to avoid Apple’s hardware products until they change their policies drastically.
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/
There are other corporations doing an exceptionally bad job here, but Apple is one of the worst, surpassed only by Lenovo, Motorola and Acer (among those listed, of course).
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/g…
for environmental issues.
Apple is not doing a great job in this field, and if modern companies want to have a nice profile, environmentally speaking, they might want to avoid Apple’s hardware products until they change their policies drastically.
Perhaps we should all go back to the Middle Ages.Because everything is affected eventually by something that causes pollution one way or another.
>> for environmental issues.
Apple is not doing a great job in this field, and if modern companies want to have a nice profile, environmentally speaking, they might want to avoid Apple’s hardware products until they change their policies drastically.
> Perhaps we should all go back to the Middle Ages.Because everything is affected eventually by something that causes pollution one way or another.
That’s not the point. All I was referring to is the fact that, unfortunately, Apple is doing a much worse job than quite a few other companies. Take for example PVCs or brominated flame retardants – these are quite hazardous and can simply be avoided/replaced with alternatives. That has nothing to do with “going back to the Middle Ages”.
http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html
(BTW, in the Middle Ages, biological warfare was already practiced so it wouldn’t be thát idyllic either. Think of the plague that was literally catapulted into sieged cities; and what about medieval urban sewer rats crawling all over the place?
)
The point is, while present technological advances also decrease damage to the environment, Apple is leaping behind in this field, while trying to present itself as innovative. Just think of how much cleaner car engines have become. Should we have stopped that progress sometime in the 1950s?
Dude, the 60’s are so over.
Oh yeah.. walk into any apple store and you can see all the corporate ‘nix users in there buying iBookpros to replace their Linux laptops. This is crap!!!!!! When I purchased my iBook.. There was a nice(:P~~) lady from Ford motor co Buying an Alu Powerbook. Her biggest concern: Would it run Open Office?? People do occasionally go from ‘nix to osX.. but not corporate. That is a home user phenomenon. While i use OS X.. i have not at all rubbished my desktop running Uboingo. IF osx was freely available for open hardware.. Nah.. its NOT going to happen
Actually it may be more appealing, is it free software? If it is then I am suddenly VERY interested!