“Linux has made some excellent advances in making itself more consumer friendly, but it cannot directly compete with the Mac OS or Windows yet. Also, while there are plenty of applications available for Linux, few consumer-oriented app makers produce apps for Linux. The Mac’s app base is smaller than that of Windows, but it is far more robust than Linux’s base, and apps are key.” Read the rest of the editorial at MacObserver. Also, “Who’s Losing Most Desktops to Linux, Apple or Microsoft?” LinuxWorld discusses on the other side.
Mac OS vs. Linux: Who’s #2? The Mac Observer & LinuxWorld Spins
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Why doesn’t he backup his premises with data or credible sources?
He says Linux doesn’t have a robust base compared to Macintosh. Where did he derive that postulation from? He says Linux wouldn’t overtake Macintosh’s market share in America, Europe and Japan in the next “several” years. How does he draw this conclusion? How does he define “several years?”
It’s a weak article.
The overall point is that in the developing world, Linux’s ascendancy to being the #2 platform is all but assured, and in some markets it could eventually even supplant Windows as the #1 OS. We don’t think it will happen as fast as some folks seem to think, but it will eventually happen.
Aside from this, I don’t think there’s anything these articles say, that hasn’t already been argued & thrashed about on OSNews.
He says Linux doesn’t have a robust base compared to Macintosh. Where did he derive that postulation from?
Probably the same way most of us who have derived that: almost all programs that run on Linux, also run on Macintosh with a relatively easy porting job (see: Fink project), but the converse is not true.
In particular, Microsoft Office will run on every standard Mac distribution, but on precious few standard Linux distributions. And then there’s the games. And then there’s desktop publishing software. And then there’s…
Sure, such things exist to a greater or lesser extent, but most are not IMHO as robust as on a Mac.
Actually, last Wednesday Linux just losed me as a user over to Apple…
I won’t regret it!
It’s not that Linux is bad, just OS X is better
Probably the same way most of us who have derived that: almost all programs that run on Linux, also run on Macintosh with a relatively easy porting job (see: Fink project), but the converse is not true.
That’s false. The fink project supports a little over 4000 Linux software projects. Linux has over 15 000 open(free) software packages, not mentioning proprietary and closed source packages. And even so, many of the packages in fink are broken or work erratically on OS X. You are better off using Linux than using an awful lot of those software on OS X. Also these packages aren’t ported they just run natively via X11 protocol available on OS X.
In particular, Microsoft Office will run on every standard Mac distribution, but on precious few standard Linux distributions. And then there’s the games. And then there’s desktop publishing software. And then there’s
Games have never been Macs strong point. Desktop publishing software aren’t lacking on Linux either.
GNU/Linux and MS-Windows have better chances of being adopted in Developing nations. Not because they are better or easier to use than Mac OS *, but because the x86 hardware is easier to come by than PPC hardware.
I don’t think that MS, or Apple have much to worry about in terms off being knocked off by Open Source Operating Systems. Since most people who use these Open Sourced Operating Sytems use them because they are cheap (free), easy to tailor for their own use, and at times more stable/secure than comercial offerings.
PS: This topic will probably explode into a Mac-zealots v. Linux-zealots.
Right now, I think you are in the “noise” area, where both Linux and Apple are slugging it out over a small number of percentage points of market share to determine who is number 2.
However, this may point out a long term problem for Apple…that being that while they do have better commercial application support *for now*, if a commercial developer has to stretch limited resources for development, are they going to continue to develop for the Apple architecture, when they can dual boot or easily run in an emulator an x86 environment to develop for Windows and Linux.
If Apple loses that (and *especially* if Microsoft were to either offer Microsoft Office for Linux or pull the plug on Apple development), then it may begin their long expected downward spiral.
The next five years should be interesting for both Linux and Apple…we’ll see where things end up then.
I use the Apple iBook and Suse on my desktop. Using the two in combination gives me some very powerful tools. Microsoft loses for me.
MacOS is more expensive and doesn’t run on all the cheap hardware Linux is available for. So unless Apple somehow increases the rate they are gaining market share it is not unlikely that they will be found on less desktops than Linux in the near future.
Though I doubt we’ll be seeing more Linux desktops than MacOS here in the US anytime soon. Unless schools suddenly adopt cheap PC/Linux solutions and find other ways to cut costs while improving education. But that is so unlikely.
I have a Mac and I use it often. The biggest problem with the Mac is the office suite. Yes there is an X-11 version of Open Office but it’s at least 2 or more years old. With out MS office the Mac has nothing. (And MS Office for Mac is pricy)
If you look at real numbers you can see that sales of Macs have gone way down. So where are those users going? Well we know for a fact that the biggest base of Mac users are us geeks. So what does a geek do when they want cutting edge yet they don’t want to pay and arm and leg? You go to Linux or BSD.
Apple has priced it’s self out of the market. Yes the Mac OS to me is the better OS out of Linux, and Windows it costs too darn much and you have no choice. At least with MS you can use XP home if you want Windows and it costs less then the Mac OS X (Not including the cost of the hardware that is no better or faster then X86 hardware at this point)
Linux has over 15 000 open(free) software packages, not mentioning proprietary and closed source packages.
Correct — but I didn’t say all of them had been ported, did I? I said they were a relatively easy port. That would, therefore, include these proprietary and closed source packages: if the companies owning them want to port them, it’s a relatively easy port. For example, Matlab was ported to OSX in this manner.
Also these packages aren’t ported they just run natively via X11 protocol available on OS X.
Errrrr… Precisely how does that make them not ported? I could say the very same about these packages: they’re not ported to Linux they just run natively via X11 protocol. After all, a number of these 15,000 applications were originally developed for BSD, or completely different OS’s even.
I mean aside from Mac and Linux zealots who would make ridiculous statements based on this kind of thing, “Like OMG Linux/Mac R WiLL B3at W!nd0rz!”
Sure being able to say you’re in second place is nice, however it doesn’t seem like a big deal when 2nd place is a touch above 3rd and you’re 90%+ under 1st. Sure Linux has made great strides and in that sense, yes it’s a big deal; however there’s no point in making two underdogs fight each other.
If you look at real numbers you can see that sales of Macs have gone way down. So where are those users going?
Eh, what? Don’t you read the news?
http://www.macnn.com/news/25467
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/15/BUGQM7LEEM1…
In the US, up 4% from 1 yr ago
In Europe, up 33% from 1 yr ago
Apple saw the largest increases in unit shipments of its PowerBooks and Power Macs, shipping 220,000 (37% from year-ago quarter) and 173,000 (30% increase), respectively. Apple saw a small decline in iMac shipments with just over 243,000 shipped in the quarter, a decrease of 15% from the year-ago quarter.
How is this “way down”?!?
This is a big deal for Linux, not OSX. Linux still needs to fix a few things before its ready for prime time, but if it already is in 2nd place in its present condition it means it has a chance at getting a very significant percentage of the total market share in the next few years unless its competition becomes more competitive.
The competition Apple and Microsoft feel from Linux won’t slow down. Actually it will be increasing as more end users gain access to the software, help fix bugs, recommend improvements, etc. Eventually it will be the best desktop software available, except for OSX, of course.
And even so, many of the packages in fink are broken or work erratically on OS X.
Well said. I recently got my first Apple (the newest generation powerbook) and have been extremely happy with the purchase. It’s a rock solid machine and is better in every way than the XP-powered Dell laptop it was replacing.
However, I still run Gentoo on desktop Intel based machine because I still love Linux. I have Fink loaded on my Powerbook but it doesn’t come close to the stability and smoothness of the Linux packages on my Gentoo box.
I devote about equal time to my OS X Powerbook and my Gentoo desktop and find that they complement each other nicely. In the end, I’m I hope to see both Linux and the Mac grow in desktop market share.
Correct — but I didn’t say all of them had been ported, did I? I said they were a relatively easy port. That would, therefore, include these proprietary and closed source packages: if the companies owning them want to port them, it’s a relatively easy port. For example, Matlab was ported to OSX in this manner.
You said almost all Linux software runs on Macintosh with relatively easy porting and then you provided fink as an example. Again, that isn’t correct. There’s no porting involved if you are talking about packages that run on X11.
These packages that run on X11, aren’t native to Mac. Only applications that have been adjusted to run natively on OS X, via Aqua/Quartz, can be described as being ported. Photoshop, or Microsoft Office can be described as applications that have been ported to OS X and work natively on it. Even though Photoshop or Microsoft Office work on Linux via Wine, I wouldn’t go as far as calling them ports to Linux.
Errrrr… Precisely how does that make them not ported? I could say the very same about these packages: they’re not ported to Linux they just run natively via X11 protocol. After all, a number of these 15,000 applications were originally developed for BSD, or completely different OS’s even.
Ugh…these packages where designed to work on X11 protocol but not on Aqua/Quartz. X11 is the de facto standard on Linux, *BSDs and many Unix. That’s not the case for Jaguar or Panther(Or the Macintosh platform in general) whose native Window system is Aqua/Quartz. In fact, X11 was provided as an optional package in OS X, because it will be almost impossible to port all these 15000 packages available natively on Linux, or the *BSDs, to Aqua/quartz and hence OS X.
Porting X apps natively to Aqua/Quartz is not trivial. However, ugly hacks exist to make many apps that run on Linux inherit Aqua’s look via X of course.
Finally, many Linux applications are designed to be open or free or cross platform. Macintosh apps, on the other hand, aren’t. iTunes is an exception.
There’s no porting involved if you are talking about packages that run on X11.
IMHO, if an app is tweaked and recompiled on another system so that it runs without emulating OS calls, then it’s ported. Hence, fink apps are ports. If you disagree with this, take it up with the fink project, since they also call it porting: http://fink.sourceforge.net/ we “port” it
So, IMHO, to say that the apps aren’t ported, because they don’t run “native” Aqua, is a straw man.
Mystilleef said: Porting X apps natively to Aqua/Quartz is not trivial. However, ugly hacks exist to make many apps that run on Linux inherit Aqua’s look via X of course.
I don’t know why both Mac OS and Linux advocates are so hell bent on claiming the prized position of being the first loser…
Mystilleef also said: Only applications that have been adjusted to run natively on OS X, via Aqua/Quartz, can be described as being ported. As I point out, fink disagrees with you.
“The Fink project wants to bring the full world of Unix Open Source software to Darwin and Mac OS X. We modify Unix software so that it compiles and runs on Mac OS X (“port” it) and make it available for download as a coherent distribution. Fink uses Debian tools like dpkg and apt-get to provide powerful binary package management.”
“port” as in not really, but
Recompiling software for OS X is no different that recompiling software for FreeBSD or Linux. Even if all these platform use X11, you still have to recompile the packages for the different platforms and OSes. That isn’t porting.
There are few projects that have been natively ported from Linux to OS X, Xchat Aqua comes to mind. Now that is a port of Xchat. You can go by the Fink’s project loose definition, but I don’t agree with it.
I’m not going to argue any further over the definition of a port, because it is irrelevant to main issues in question. Hardly many Linux applications run natively on OS X. And many of the ones that run through X11 are not as robust, mature and stable as the ones that run on Linux.
“I don’t know why both Mac OS and Linux advocates are so hell bent on claiming the prized position of being the first loser…”
M$ must be getting desperate if they are willing to arrange some windows ‘professionals’ to start ‘bashing’ Apple and Linux.
I see the OS ‘war’ not so much as a war between OSX and Linux, but more as a war between good OS’s and a bad OS (only based on a monopoly which will vanish) or open vs propriety (standards), with other words OSX and Linux do have a common enemy, united we will stand, divided we will fall.
As for ‘dependancy’ on Office; Apple only needs one (more) year to come with something like excell. (There are already very good third party word alternatives). For now they choose not to, but they are determined to break any M$ stronghold.
Recompiling software for OS X is no different that recompiling software for FreeBSD or Linux. Even if all these platform use X11, you still have to recompile the packages for the different platforms and OSes. That isn’t porting.
The FreeBSD Ports tree would beg to differ.
The best thing I believe for everyone is to see Apple and Linux developers work closer together instead of competing. After all the Linux community is well known for sharing ideas and code with each other. Apple in some respects has advantages over Linux while Linux has some advantages over Apple. Working together would strengthen not only Apple’s software development but also Linux software. Commercial distributors such as Novell (SuSE Linux) and Red Hat (Red Hat Linux) would then be even stronger to compete with Microsoft. We may not agree on everything but I’m sure most Linux users and Mac users do agree on who we would like to see fail and that is Gates and his monopolistic empire.
OSX market = US, Japan, some parts of Europe.
Linux market = the whole planet.
OSX hardware = PPC
Linux Hardware PPC,PC,Solaris, etc.
OSX price = several $$$.
Linux price = some $$$, may be free.
I could go on, but this looks obvious.
Linux is destinated to be #2.
many say that the option to run linux apps in osX is great.
but that was the ting that made me switch back to linux again.
dont get me wrong osX is a realynice operating system.
I begun running the rootless xserver for my favorrite apps but i did feel that the enviroments didnt blend nicley.
so i started to run xfree from the console so i easely could switch betwen the aqua and xfree enviroment but then xfree was painfully slow. so i started to dualboot linux and osx and after a few months i hadnt booted in to osX once then i sold my mac and got a pc forlinux instead
Contrary to what Apple and many others would have you believe…a “simple recompile” is seldom all that is necessary to get non-trivial apps to run on Mac OS X.
There are too many subtle differences, such as shared library handling, API calls, availability and locations of certain libraries/headers/files. If it were really always a matter of a simple “./configure && make && make install” do you honestly think something like fink would be necessary, or that OpenOffice.org would be strugling to release a binary of their latest version for Mac OS X?
So anyway…I would say that getting an application that was originally written for another platform to work natively is porting by definition. Thus, the fruits of the fink projects labor are ports as far as I’m concerned.
By the logic that something hasn’t truly been ported unless it uses the native GUI toolkit, OpenOffice and Mozilla aren’t truly ported to any platform (even Windows), since they implement their own custom GUI toolkit that is consistent across all platforms.
—-
To be more on-topic the very fact that we are having this converstaion bodes extremely well for Linux and extremely poorly for Apple.
Simple: use MacOS X (using PearPC) and Windows (Bochs, Qemu, Vmware) on Linux 🙂 You can still run M$ Office using Codeweavers Crossover Office.
You will have all the freedom and power of linux, all the propietary applications from Mac and Windows and all of it running on cheap hardware (PC).
I have a Pentium IV 3.0GHz PC (mounted by me from several parts) running all these applications on linux.
check out real.com
RealNetworks seems like a whole new company. I remember hating real media formats, even after getting them to work well within Linux. But now I’m looking forward to experiencing their new products and technologies. Cooperation is a good thing, IMO.
First of all I wonder who cares about market share? Why not just use operating system that you like!
Personally, I’ve been Linux user for loong loong time (I don’t use Windows at all), I don’t use Linux because I’d hate Microsoft. I use Linux because I love Unix(+alike) systems and I work with Linux/Solaris at work too.
Recently, I ordered, guess what, a Mac! Nice, creamy 12″ iBook. Why? Well, because it has an operating system which has it’s roots in FreeBSD. Pretty nice also that I can use all my favourite “Linux” (gnu/open source) software on it too.
So far all my workpals who run Linux, also like Macs alot, because of the very nice OS. My opinion is that where Windows loses, OS X and Linux play very well together and I enjoy using both of them alot.
Real Networks has been working cooperatively with Novell (SuSE Linux) and Red Hat (Red Hat Linux/Fedora) for quite some time. Real Player 10 Gold and Helix Player are now completed and offered for free on Linux. I haven’t got a chance to test Real Player 10 Gold to verify if it includes the universal codec player that is offered in the Windows version. If it does it would make sense why Novell is making plans to implement both players as an option in future distributions.
Other “working together” developments is the news I heard that the developers of SuSE Linux are working on improving the 3D drivers package for customers. At present the package “fetchnvidia” allows auto-installation of NVIDIA 3D drivers but in the near future should include support for ATI drivers. This would ease the issue surrounding end user difficulty installing graphics drivers from the Terminal.
I really believe that Linux is coming close to the critcal mass. As an OSX user I don’t have any problem with Linux becoming bigger than OSX, it will be far easier for Apple to gain market share when the breakthrough of Linux is a fact. Apple does have a premium that comes with a price, and most don’t need/want the premium, it is their choice.
See for yourself…
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
Edgar
First, you have to look at trends. MacOS is stagnant or growing slowly at best. Linux is growing fast. Linux has the momentum. Second, Microsoft perceives Linux as a threat, not MacOS. That says enough to me.
I don’t understand how you can say OS X is “stagnant or growing slowly” at best?
Are you serious? Have you seen OS X’s evolution from 10.0 to 10.4 [beta]?
Microsoft perceives Linux as a threat because they are starting to populate in their x86 world.
Because Microsoft says Linux is a threat, that’s “enough for you” to justify your position about Apple/Mac/OS X?
:X
MacOS has been designed by highly creatively people in olden days with a very high imagination. but Open source developers like KDE , GNOME are just copying the Mac OS and Windows appearances and put a conference to speak whether their softwares(copied) are better or Mac OS better ???
is it honest to compare like this ???
be creative.. and dont copy ideas which are the main souls for softwares and even if u do then dont compare and hurt the original Creators !!!!
even though many may shout at me, this is the TRUTH!!!
I am an expert Mac user who also finds Linux an excelent alternatinve to Mac. I think Linux is even better in some ways because it can also run on inferior hardware (i.e. x86 crap). I don’t see how a flame war could erupt here because Mac users and Linux users are in the same boat together; WE ALL HATE WINDOWS. I’d say we should rate the OSes this way: Windoze #1, Mac #1.5 and Linux #1.5. 1.5 + 1.5 = 3 :>)
Agreed. OSX and Linux share a common base- Unix. We also share a common opponent. Windows.
“The FreeBSD Ports tree would beg to differ.”
FreeBSD uses X11 as default GUI. OSX does not, but it is an option.
Compare that with a Windows 95 application in Windows XP Luna theme. Compare it with a QT application in a GNOME environment. Sure it works, but it just doesn’t work the same as the rest. It works different. It is like having 10 ducks with 9 white and 1 black. Some have a problem with it, some don’t.
I do agree that when it runs native without a form of emulation, that it is a port, but when you compare X11 as optional last-resort way for MacOSX then why isn’t WINE the same for x86 OSes like Linux/x86? Where do you draw the line: when it got succesfully compiled and runs on & for TARGET_OS or when it succesfully runs on TARGET_OS without a form of emulation of a CPU or architecture?
As for the #2, i do not really care. I hope that both proprietary applications as well as FLOSS applications -including software like games- will be more and more available for both OSes as i see the current power vacuum of a monoculture as a bad thing. My wish is let there be co-operation.
Apple loses that (and *especially* if Microsoft were to either offer Microsoft Office for Linux or pull the plug on Apple development), then it may begin their long expected downward spiral.
Eerily similiar to:
For years, TV critics, such as yours truly, Kent Brockman, have waited impatiently for cracks to appear in the show’s hilarious facade. Yesterday, our prays were finally answered…
You are expecting Apple to fall because you didn’t choose it? What is the compelling reason for the millions who did choose Apple to downgrade to a shareware only world?
I’ve used Linux. It’s OK, and I’m glad for it’s success; but saying something is good enough is a far cry from saying it’s better, or as good as. ‘Good enough’ was the war-cry of the Windows user for a decade, so I’ve seen this before. I know that desktop Linux has the potential to become huge. It is good enough for many.
Linux breaking Microsoft’s stranglehold would be a good thing, as it would ensure standards would be observed. I’m all for it.
But why do you think a profitable company like Apple would then have to disappear. What would compel Mac users to give up quality applications like Motion and Final Cut Pro? You would have to define what group of users is better served by some app on Linux that’s not available for Mac.
Mac has many of the major programs available for Windows,
including Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Quicken, etc.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/
plus thousands of Unix apps like:
Apache, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Perl, every other scripting language, gnuplot, graphviz, Ploticus, R; and tons more.
Just because it’s not on Fink doesn’t mean it won’t compile. Some programs don’t need any help compiling on OS X.
I understand that everyone isn’t willing to spend a little more; but once you’re in, it’s a great place to be.
Bottom line, Apple survived a Windows monopoly. That implies it will also survive a Linux majority.
“Mac users and Linux users are in the same boat together; WE ALL HATE WINDOWS”
bullshit. talking as user of both mentioned systems, i don’t hate windows. how can i hate something that i don’t even use (or have used much)? i use both because they resemble unix, with resembles the best of operating systems, in my opinion. not everyone cares about “ms is evil” crapflaming.
For those asking why the #2 position is important, it’s because of inertia. Traditionally, top application developers have only been willing to develop for two platforms, and economic considerations setting managerial policy dictates that it be the two ‘most popular’ platforms. Thus some are concerned that if Mac OS X becomes #3, application developers will simply start ignoring Mac OS X completely. Where closed data formats are the rule rather than the exception, and where copyright protections have been expanded, this leads to the ultimate conclusion that the Macintosh platform would cease to be either sustainable or viable, causing the platform to be obsoleted.
However, the people working at Apple are not stupid. I have no doubt they are perfectly well aware of this scenario, and the manoeuvres they have been making over the past five years are a testimony to this. A brief rundown of these follows.
(1) As has previously been pointed out, the underpinnings of Mac OS X (Darwin) go some way to allowing portability for packages designed to run on other BSDs or on Linux distributions. Obviously the present situation is sub-optimal, however each major release of Mac OS X has made the Darwin environment more ‘up-to-date’ and ‘closer’ to other BSDs and Linux distributions, in terms of packages and capabilities. This is evidenced by the ‘easier’ time that Fink has had with package porting and patching from 10.1 through 10.3, and the fact that projects such as Gentoo for Mac OS X are not only possible, but well received. I have no doubt that Apple will continue on this trajectory to make it as easy as possible for ‘Linux-based’ packages to be ported and maintained under Mac OS X.
(2) Apple has come a long way from ‘the bad old days’ in providing options for developers, with compilers and interpreters for many different languages, free development tools and documentation, and including all of this with every copy of Mac OS X. Again, there is room for improvement, particularly in the area of documentation. I also feel Apple would do well to make Qt available for developers to use to produce both commercial and open-source applications, and offer it alongside Carbon, Cocoa and Java as a method to create applications for the graphical environment. Trolltech could protect their profits by making the license non-inclusive of distributing applications for Windows without buying an ‘upgraded’ license (at least for the moment), and Apple would be able to offer their own APIs in addition to the existing Qt ones to allow developers to take advantage of specific features within the Mac OS X environment.
(3) Apple has been working to use ‘standard’ formats for files and ‘standard’ communications protocols within the Mac OS X environment (which obviously extends to Darwin in most all cases, given the way Mac OS X is designed), in some cases inventing them. Not all of the formats and protocols they use are free as in beer, but very few of them are closed or undocumented. Some, like the formerly-named Rendezvous, are now being used in Linux distributions and BSDs. This is to pre-empt the development of standards that are either closed, or are open but ‘restricted’ in a way that would leave Mac OS X users out, whether deliberately or accidentally. Yep, there could be a lot more done here too, but the work done to date has not been insignificant.
(4) Apple obviously wants to be able to offer Mac OS X as a platform on which you can do everything you can do under Linux distributions or BSDs, plus all manner of extra things. This is where the body of ‘native’ commercial and non-commercial applications that run under Mac OS X, as well as the applications that Apple develops in-house, come in. In the same vein, Mac OS X is meant to be seen as ‘smooth’ and ‘cool’ in the features that it includes.
(5) Apple has been including technologies in the Mac OS X environment that were previously the domain of big software developers. Witness the upcoming “Core Image” and “Core Video” as prime examples. ‘Low-end’ developers will be able to take advantage of these to develop applications on-par with those of the big software developers, but without the same level of support or QA, and with the limitation of being able to use them only in the Mac OS X environment. I see this as insurance against big software developers pulling out of the Mac OS X market, although including these technologies at the system level may antagonise them and make them more likely to do so!
(6) Apple has gone some distance in restoring the ‘easy to use’ reputation of Mac OS X since their initial misadventures with 10.0 and 10.1, but without changing that many of the paradigms that applied to traditional Mac OS. Whether this is a good thing or not is entirely subjective, but I have no doubt its’ helped them keep some ‘older’ customers they otherwise would not have kept.
(7) Combining elements of all the above, Apple has been appealing somewhat to ‘desktop hobbyists’ and ‘computer professionals’. Where you see PowerBooks appearing these days speaks for itself on this point (although they are not necessarily running Mac OS X, since you can of course run Linux distributions on Apple hardware).
Some additional points of interest:
– The continued availability of Virtual PC – and other emulators – is helpful to Apple in the same way that WINE/Bochs/etc. are helpful to Linux distribution vendors.
– Apple has been essentially quiet on the point of the GPL, but the GPL nevertheless remains a mostly political obstacle to commercial application deployment on Linux distributions. Apple is able to side-step this issue with Darwin and Mac OS X, while still offering a very similar environment.
– Apple has made very little of their history with UNIX-like systems (selling AIX servers, “Project Star Trek” and MkLinux, to name the highlights), although this goes back quite a way. This may or may not have helped establish their credentials for Mac OS X, but has probably had some influence in the way they have ‘done’ Mac OS X.
I also have no doubt that Apple realises their chances of beating Microsoft at their own ‘marketshare’ game are negligible. These manoeuvres are I believe designed to set Apple up to be relevant in a world where Linux distributions, BSDs, and other UNIX-like systems are the rule rather than the exception. They are also I believe designed to help Apple take home a much bigger share of the ‘desktop’ pie.
Whether Apple will be able to pull it off depends on how ‘complete’ these manoeuvres are, how far along Apple has come transitioning their hardware offerings to utilise ‘current’ technologies based around current & future IBM PowerPC offerings, how pricey their hardware offerings are at the time, how well they market the Mac OS X platform, and how well they have been able to sort out their supply chains.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Of course Linux will be #2 in the future because of the price. Linux can run on old computer.
I find it futile a war Linux vs Mac.
If I had money I would have a second machine so I can run applications like Corel Draw and Photoshop (my client base) on a Mac and not on shitty Windows or emulators.
Also would be cool to have cuBase on a Mac.
But my main machine would be a Linux, cos I am a programmer and find it Linux just too much fun.
Also there is the community thing about it – you have an OS that could be developed/enhance by YOU.
Macs are for really rich people.
But i belong to the World.
“MacOS has been designed by highly creatively people in olden days with a very high imagination. but Open source developers like KDE , GNOME are just copying the Mac OS and Windows appearances and put a conference to speak whether their softwares(copied) are better or Mac OS better ???”
Are you serious? KDE kicks the snot out of WindowsXP and OSX. Yet, you claim it’s ‘copying?’ I hate the OSX GUI. It really just sucks and isn’t easy to use or anything. The only thing I even remotely like about it is Expose. KDE, on the other hand, is beautiful and well designed. And so, you must understand, not everyone is sitting around drooling over OSX and waiting for all of those evil open source advocates to go away. 😉 Some people, believe it or not, really do like KDE or GNOME better than your precious OSX.
Looks are very subjective. I personally think KDE is ugly, I hate it and OSX is much more polished (I’d also rather take GNOME over KDE) but that’s just my opinion. Other people’s opinions may differ and that’s just fine. Some people even prefer *gasp* older or other operating systems.