Re: OSX will fail
> So why Hollywood seems to prefer Final
> Cut Pro/Mac than Adobe Premiere/Win or
> any Linux Solutions ?
> True there are also linux clusters for
> calculus but that is something you can
> do on ANY unix, if you have the software
> (MPI and PVM exist nearly for any OS)
Granted Linux has been weak on Multimedia and Graphics stuff. But its getting better. And while the studios could use any Unix for the cluster stuff, they dumped Unix and picked Linux. This says alot. Even SGI has seen the writing on the wall for IRIX. Some of those studios are even switching to Linux on their develop desktops. I'm not sure but I read something on the Lord of the Rings guys in NZ using Linux work stations :-)
> About Office, the compatibility was
> needed because there was no other way to
> get it before. true it's also one Apple
> switch reason but as i said which is
> needed more is interoperability and now
> you can achieve with OpenOffice.
True but Open Office also runs on Linux and Windows So you don't even need MS Office for interoperability. So why pick OSX? I gues what I don't see is the compelling reason to switch to mac from windows.
The mac interface has always been better than windows according to popular conception. Yet people have not switched. The fact that OSX is still better than windows (and I believe it is) is still the same as before. Still no reason to switch. The reasons people did not switch before still remain. Now if Apple switched to Intel that would be another story. But that would kill their hardware business.
> I don't remember Solaris or AIX have
But Solaris is not a desktop system. If it were not for servers where would Solaris be? Even Sun is not pushing it on the desktop. They are coming out with Linux instead. Solaris is completely dead on the desktop except for some very specialized uses and Linux will soon kill that off. Lets not even look at AIX on the desktop.
> yes, Apple is neither Sun, nor IBM, but
> i think they have some time before
> closing (some billions bank credits,
> little compare to Ms but sufficient)
Yes Apple probably is not going anywhere any time soon. But t thats the problem, they will just tread water, with no upside potential and plenty of downside. There will be little new adoption and potential for many defections. Thats my prediction. Check this out this time next year. Apple will ether have maintained its market share or lost some. Linux will have gained share. I predict!!
> Sow hy switch to OSX stay with Windows
> % All of the above you get with
> % why switch indeed?!!
> because MacOS X stands higher than
> windows, true UNIX based, and Mac
> but i think you don't believe me, do you
I believe you OSX is beter than windows but so was MacOS 8 & 9. People still did not switch. The problem for Apple is that its advantages are not compelling enough to over come its disadvantages. And its still hard to use if you are not familiar with it. A friend recently let me have their iBook with OSX on it for a day. I thought it looked good but was clunky and hard to use. Thats probably because it was unfamiliar, but still why would I switch to it? When I first switched to Linux I was fed up with windows and I had never heard of Linux before. I only had a vague notion of Free Software, but still I never thought of switching to macs, which I was very familiar with. Most people will I think take the same stance even with OSX.
> Get some consultant stuff and you see
> that TCO on Mac is lower than windows.
> don't speak about Linux
That may be true, but why go with a single vendor anyway on the basis of current TCO? Remember TCO is still a projection. Once Apple has you whats to prevent them from jacking up the cost on you? At least with Linux I can trust TCO calculations better, because I can compete much of the stuff in there e.g support, certainly hardware and even the software itself since switching distributions is much easier than switching OSes
> sorry but i have not seen many direct
> use of camera or video camera on Linux
> (or windows)
> there is much time where there is some
> kernel module or userland program to
> compile or install.
That is true but at least Linux is getting better in those regards. Those advantages of OSX and Windows are getting less compelling evryday and not more so. Even Wine is useful in that regard. I'm running my kids software under wine in Debian. Most of it doesn't work true, but She has good Debian stuff that she likes and enough of her favorites work to keep her happy for now. The thing is I'm sure the pile of stuff that does'nt work will get smaller and smaller as time passes. That enables me to stay with Linux rather than switch. Especially since I have other powerful reasons to stick with it (freedom)
> depends on what you do, writing or
> playing mp3 is fast & easy on every
> platform (except if you ask user to
> compile his soft), connecting the world
> more difficult (take a look to iSync
> which synchronizes your phone, Palm,
> IPod and Mac data in one button ...)
> In general MacOS X is as customisable as
> windows, if not more.
True, but thats not enough. The past has proved that.
> don't think so. but it will always be
> partial for anyone, some tech hints:
> UNIX base, IPv6 (not option), True RFC
> compliant IPSec (see freeswan doc for
> compliant info, or win one), easy
> integration with LDAP, Kerberos,
> Rendezvous, ...
> MacOS X is more open than Win or compare
> to Ms tech: kernel, Rendezvous, MPEG-4
> support, ...
Again I agree, but it doe not matter. Like you say in prior post ordinary users don't really care about those. They wont switch because of them.
> % I'm sorry for Apple but its too late
> % save themselves from the yawning
> % of bottomless irrelevancy.
> Apple Expo, France was one of the
> biggest ever seen and it is one of the
> biggest European show.
> wait and see ...
If Apple is to be the Unix desktop of the future, its real fight is against windows (ironically enough). And it ca'nt win there. OSX changes nothing. Its better than windows but that has not gotten it anywhere in the past. It will not now. Apple is quite killable by MS unlike Linux. At the same time Apple will still be squeezed by Linux and Windows in the market place.
Linux too must fight MS to be the Unix desktop of the future. But Linux has some key advantages. It makes both technical and business sense for enterprises. As it keeps getting better it will become more compelling on those counts. It runs on multiple hardware, it comes from multiple vendors, its supported by multiple businesses and it increasingly gets the job done. Thats good business sense. You are right that interoperability is what matters. But Linux gains as much from that as Apple.
I'll repeat my prediction Apple will either maintain desktop market share over the next year or lose it. Linux will gain substantially. And I 'm talking worldwide. Most of those countries considering Linux for the desktop, probably won't even look at OSX.
Re: OSX will fail
> Apple doesn't need Ms now, Apple is not
> in the bad position it was and
> alternatives are legion (like
> OpenOffice). Don't think Apple like a
Actually Apple does need MS. Apple faces the same problems for wide spread adoption as Linux - Windows/Office compatibility. Thats not obvious now because MS is supporting Apple. If they stopped, that would be painfully obvious. If Apple has the same issues interfacing with MS as Linux then the raison d'etre for Apple becomes very thin. What are you left with? A pretty interface. I don't think many enterprise users will go for that. Then there is the hardware issue. Where are you going to get your hardware .. um.. Apple. Well, just brilliant, now you have a possibliy windows compatible system with hardware from the same vendor. And you were complaining about MS? At least with them you could go to Dell, or HP/C or Gateway or IBM. Apple has an MS imposed glass ceiling and OSX does not break them out of it.
Linux on the other hand has the ability to do an end run around that barrier. Thats why the commercial interest is in Linux not OSX.
> All other systems have no support for Ms
> Office and for many of them, they live
> quiet good.
Yes, but Apple has to be profitable to survive. It can't just live "quite good" it has to make money. Unlike some of those other systems which can even survive as non profits!
> i think you don't see why OS X is
> different from Unix.
> there are people who search direct and
> best productivity without having hours
> to configure your app, searching howto
> or web for the information needed: in
> term of video, creativity, press, ...
Sow hy switch to OSX stay with Windows ! All of the above you get with Windows!! why switch indeed?!!
> Enterprise don't see any differences of
> resellers when they see productivity or
> so why there is still some Mainframe,
> SGI, and others in so many firms.
Too true! so why go with Apple when you already have a tool that does the job - Windows? After all in the Windows vs Linux setup you can switch because of lower costs and multiple vendors, so you can compete support and the product itself. You don't get that in the OSX vs Windows setup. So why look at OSX? The match up will always be Linux vs Windows`.
> You also don't see that on software
> side, even in opensource, there is not
> true interoperabilty on vertical
> sectors: for example medical patient
> folder, comptability, finance, ...
> It's better in 3D, 2D or Office, but
> there has always been many formats in
> these fields.
This still does not present any more opportunity for OSX than existed with the previous Apple OSes. They will still sell to their old customers. Few new ones.
> And what is GNU/Darwin which stands as
> *BSD in front of Linux, seems to you
> APSL has been recognized as free for
So what! Darwin IS NOT OSX!! Again Darwin IS NOT OSX!! and the fortunes of the two are NOT the same. Selling Darwin is not Apple's business, Selling OSX is. Apple will live or die on OSX not Darwin. Why should I get Darwin and run something else on it if my objective is to have things just work? I'll still have to fiddle and tinker and do all the stuff I do with Linux or FreeBSD. As a busness why would I get Darwin instead of OSX? I might as well get Linux if 'll go that route. Darwin may be free but the entire package is what counts. The system is only as free as its least free component and that is Apples GUI layer.
> Common family users have no interest in
> the underground of bash, /etc/passwd or
> others, they want something which "just
> works" out of the box and which they
> could modify easily.
> some Desktop Environment on Linux try to
> make it, but it's not so natural: using
> Linux without going under has no
> interest, i think and not so many users
> are ready to do it.
> these nifty Apps are what permits MacOS
> X user to do in 5 sec what you do in
> hours ...
I'm not sure what Apple users do in 5 seconds that takes me hours. My observation of them tells me that these "common family users", basically surf the web, write documents, play music, edit photos and do some simple spreadsheet stuff. None of which they can do any faster than I can on my Linux system. In fact I have noticed a disturbingly high level of confusion and ineptitude amongs many users of Windows and macs, I often have to help out work mates with problems on those systems. May be they stick to the simple stuff thats why they don't tinker as much. They use a stock system with little customization and only the programs that came with it. Well they are missing out.
> it depends a lot ....
> You have freedom for lower level like
> kernel, daemons, ...
> It may not be useful to have all
> did you truly modify much code in your
> systems ? are you a good hacker ?
> or do you ask for freedom just because
> it seems to be good ?
No I'm not a hacker and I don't modify the code (well except changing strings in Perl programs of PHP programs). But I benefit from other people doing so and from the multitude of dual free programs available. So what if you can get alot or even most of that in darwin (its not as much anyway), I already have it in Linux its not a reason to switch. After all the stuff that just working in OSX is the stock stuff. Under linux I can get the most obscure program I can find that does something I want, compile from source and run it and once I configure the stock stuff it just works. My Open Office just works, so does Gimp, Galeon, Evolution Xmms, XCDRoast, Gftp,Bluefish, Audacity, Nautilus, MultiGnome Terminal, LinNeighborhood, and GQ view. Thats my stock stuff. I had to install and configure some of it, but it just works. The rest I just play with, Apache, R, Videolan, Postnuke, MySQL etc I tinker a lot with them. I learn and its fun.
Bottom line. OSX stacks up poorly against XP. What does it have that XP does not? for those who don't care about the freedom dimension and just want it to work.
OSX also stacks up poorly against Linux because Linux users want more than a pretty face and just works. They like to tinker and they like to tinker and they like their freedom. A proprietary system controlled by a single vendor can never give them that.
I'm sorry for Apple but its too late to save themselves from the yawning chasm of bottomless irrelevancy.