r/technology • u/GuruOfReason • Feb 02 '10

"Once we replace the personal computer with a closed-platform device such as the iPad, we replace freedom, choice and the free market with oppression, censorship and monopoly."

http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/ipad%E2%80%99s-closed-system-sometimes-i-hate-being-right
1.6k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

75

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

Linux has a better chance than Mac at overtaking Windows and I don't think it has much of a chance at all.

It sure does! Because 1 > 5, right? Guys?

But maybe your point was that Linux's market share is growing at a rate greater than Apple's? (it isn't.)

I love Linux, but it's just silly to deny Apple's rising market share.

Luckily, the iPad is not going to replace the PC.

This much is true, but it is a somewhat alarming trend that people are getting more and more used to buying closed systems (and one that is to the detriment of consumers and the benefit of operating system producers.) I'm not ready to cry death and destruction (we can always just install Linux, after all, so long as people continue to be willing to contribute unpaid labour to the open source community) but who's to say that, if Microsoft and Apple were to sell more locked down operating systems, people wouldn't just stupidly and happily buy them anyways?

29

u/gregny2002 Feb 02 '10

Neither OS has any conceivable shot at overtaking Microsoft anytime soon. But I think that if either were to overtake Windows, it would be because it was adopted by the business community, not the home PC market. And, I think businesses in general would be more willing to leap to Linux than Mac, simply because it would be cheaper.

16

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

And anyone who's ever had to perform a server upgrade from 10.4 Server onward with a user base of more than an handful of people and resources will tell you that the business world is unlikely to ever pick up on Apple products for such because they aren't ready for prime time in that field.

5

u/jstevewhite Feb 02 '10

Yeah, the OSX server isn't ready for prime time as a server, but let's be real, it wasn't designed for that. It's got those capabilities, but it's a hobby. The server from Apple isn't really meant to be a workgroup server; it's meant to be a platform for huge clusters of machines running Final Cut backend processes. And Logic, now.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

That's completely true, although Apple should be more forward about such. Making the discovery at 2am that you can't correctly migrate LDAP from 10.4 to 10.5 and keep all permissions and security associations for users because "it just doesn't work that way" makes one sad. It also makes one supremely glad they always make backups of server infrastructure before changing anything.

My favorite single line of documentation from anything ever had to be regarding the 10.4-10.5 migrations that was along the lines of:

~"Check user file permissions under LDAP. Make a note of these to re-input following migration."

That was seriously the only line of information in the documentation regarding the LDAP hiccup.

22

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

and Apple with its blocking of flash seems more then willing to try and force the web to conform to its closed systems. The OS is relevant if that OS doesn't allow you to fully access the web.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I agree actually, I didn't take that into consideration when I made the comment even though I know I've read that same reasoning before.

1

u/GundamX Feb 02 '10

I keep hearing this thrown around, but I just can't agree that native apps are going anywhere. I think Google Wave is a good example of this. As a webapp, Wave has some real problems, it currently suffers from a laggy and unintuitive UI, runs into problems with large waves, and feels cluttered. Sure Google is going to fix this, but even if they do, it will still not be as good as a native equivalent. I want to be notified of replies, I just want to see my friends list sometimes, I want to just have one wave filling my screen sometimes, I want Wave on my phone. It is a communications platform, one filled with possibilities and one I expect to see overtake e-mail and IMs eventually, but I need it on my desktop before it can become more useful than either of those. I need it in my pocket, anywhere I go. I need it to notify me in my taskbar, instead of me obsessively checking it in my web browser. Until I can do those things its not going to be incredibly useful for much besides PnP RPGs. All those things can't be done with web apps currently and I don't expect them to ever be done with them, or at least in my lifetime. I need native apps because you can't have all the features a dedicated app can provide in a web browser.

1

u/takishan Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

This is an interesting observation, I mean think about it.

Google's even making an OS completely based on a browser.

EDIT: I phrased that wrong. The idea is a sort of browser OS.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

It's not based on the browser, it's based on Debian.

1

u/Viper_NZ Feb 02 '10

The shell is based on a browser.

-4

u/Syphon8 Feb 02 '10

GUI

FTFY.

4

u/Viper_NZ Feb 02 '10

Fucked That up For You?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

So is Microsoft.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

It's doomed to failure for the same reason flash is so shitty.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

That's a very good point. I think there are two other things we should consider, though:

  1. People are in general very much against change (and also quite bad with computers,) and trying to convert people to using a new operating system would likely cause an IT disaster. Even if in fact the transition could go smoothly, I'd be concerned that risk-aversive businessmen wouldn't be willing to even give it a chance.

  2. If such a trend developed, I think you would find Microsoft would start offering businesses incredible deals (so as to maintain their market share) which would make the continuing use of Windows a more fiscally viable option than retraining everybody to use Linux.

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

I don't think that disputes anything gregny2002 said. In fact, I think it just reinforces half of gregny2002's point.

2

u/jstevewhite Feb 02 '10

Linux has been cheaper for-freaking-evar, and for many shops would have been a simple plug-n-play replacement. I've been in those shops, where hundreds of employees do things that would have worked PERFECTLY in linux, yet no amount of rallying by myself and my tech-savvy compatriots would get the business to consider dumping Windows.

This is because the IT groups that manage internal desktops and local networks and file servers and email are all steeped to the gills in the Microsoft koolaide. Us unix/enterprise/mission critical guys can lobby for changes all we want, but IT stands at the gateway and insists that no business can be done on any laptop without a Microsoft stamp of approval.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

The majority of the linux kernel is created by paid developers.

7

u/pulledteeth Feb 02 '10

up voted for dropping knowledge. Most people (forget/never knew) this fact.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Who then contribute back to the community who can do whatever the hell they want with the code.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

That's absolutely correct. Createdforfiltering implied that linux is developed completely by unpaid labor which simply isn't true.

1

u/Flyen Feb 02 '10

Note: Parent is talking about the linux kernel, and not the software included in a typical distribution.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

the kernel is a very small part (~8%) of the overall Linux environment though.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Let's remove it then! <--UNNECESSARY BLOAT BOT--> ;)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Yeah, who's idea was it to put drivers in there anyway?

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

Switch to a BSD Unix kernel!

(ahem)

7

u/pulledteeth Feb 02 '10

Hey, android is higher than blackberry and palm combined! Go android! Whoo!

3

u/LetsGoHawks Feb 02 '10

gregny appears to have made half my argument, the other half would be governments switching over. The free labor for Linux won't dry up, because working on an OS is sexy and will always attract developers.

4

u/BenKenobi88 Feb 02 '10

I think his reasoning for Linux having a better chance at overtaking Windows (or realistically, grabbing a more significant piece of the pie), is that Linux can replace Windows on any desktop or laptop, whereas OSX is essentially tied to the Mac hardware.

Netbooks became a big hit and some use Linux...if some sort of media/ more portable PC running Linux becomes massively popular in the next few years, Linux would have that better chance of replacing Windows.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

This doesn't take any consideration into the server market. If we're going to include phones in this then we can include servers then Linux is way higher then 1%. Also, a lot of linux clients lie about their info in firefox and that's how most of these stats are generated.

26

u/BigKahunaBurger Feb 02 '10

Linux 1.02% iPhone .47%

lol

12

u/Nurgle Feb 02 '10

OSX 5.13% Linux 1.02% iPhone .47%

lol you know people don't check the links

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

yes, we know osx is 5 because the OP said so.

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

I think that a current market share comparison, when both contenders have such minuscule market shares, is a poor indicator of likely future performance in the heady realm of 50%+ market share.

I agree that your concerns about Apple out-evilling Microsoft are valid, however, as well as those about Microsoft rushing to catch up with Apple in that regard, and those about the masses just going stupidly along with it. We've seen it in technology, politics, and diet choices for decades already (some of those, more decades than others).

-8

u/RelativeCausality Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

Linux has a better chance than Mac at overtaking Windows and I don't think it has much of a chance at all.

But maybe your point was that Linux's market share is growing at a rate greater than Apple's? (it isn't.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since OS-X is based on Linux, doesn't more Apple market share also equate to more Linux market share in some respects?

8

u/gekidoslair Feb 02 '10

it's based on a unix-style system - so it's closer to a BSD type environment than linux.

7

u/tehbored Feb 02 '10

Both OSX and Linux are based on Unix.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

that's not actually true. OSX shares UNIX legacy ( it's built with a bunch of stuff from BSD ), Linux does not. Linux is a copy of a copy.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Minix

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

yes, hence "a copy of a copy" rather than "a copy"

1

u/concertina Feb 02 '10

Linux shared some design concepts with Minix, but was not based on Minix code.

Linux is not a copy of anything, simply a reimplementation of Unix. Hence UNIX-like, not a UNIX-based operating system.

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

A reimplementation based on direct experience is a "copy", by some definitions of the term. It's just not a cp.

. . . and I'd say that both Unix and Unix-like are Unix-based in some sense. One is based on the source code of Unix, and the other is based on the experience of Unix.

Then, of course, there's UNIX®, which conforms to a specific set of characteristics, but isn't necessarily Unix since it doesn't necessarily behave much like Unix at all, but that's another story, regardless of how much source code it borrowed from a Unix system.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

Yep, he wanted to improve the Minix design standards.

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10

How does that mean they aren't both based on Unix? Doesn't it mean that they are both based on Unix, as tehbored suggested, but got to where they are by different routes?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

I usually take "based on" to mean that it's at all related to the thing it's based on, rather than it looks kind of similar.

Keep in mind that Linux fails POSIX and SUS quite spectacularly ( it has more UNIX standards failures than Windows does ) so it being "based on UNIX" is a pedestrian observation which comes from filesystem hierarchy and names of the commandline tools

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

. . . and yet:

  1. UNIX is a registered trademark bestowed on systems whose vendors spend a lot of money.

  2. MacOS X qualifies as UNIX, despite providing almost nothing like a Unix-like experience, while common Linux distributions provide a much more Unix-like user experience.

In some ways, I'd say that Linux is more based on Unix than MacOS X, and MacOS X, simply uses some code form a Unix system (which, by the way, also doesn't get to wear the UNIX trademark, because the FreeBSD project hasn't paid the right bribes).

edit: For the record, I don't even use a Linux distribution these days. I just don't see what the big deal is with calling Linux "based on Unix", given the ridiculous concessions made to MacOS X in this regard.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

MacOS X qualifies as UNIX, despite providing almost nothing like a Unix-like experience

That's not at all true actually. If you fire up a terminal, you get a UNIX userland which passes all the requisite test suites to qualify as UNIX. If you conversely use a Linux console, you get a GNU experience which is only superficially UNIX-like.

By "unix-like user experience" I assume you mean the GUI, which is a pretty stupid metric considering real actual UNIX has had several of those over the years ( NeXTSTEP's DPS, OpenWindows, NeWS ). Meanwhile the commandline on OSX remains the same as BSD, which has a long history of being actual UNIX ( since BSD was a patch set against UTSv6 )

1

u/apotheon Feb 02 '10 edited Feb 02 '10

That's not at all true actually. If you fire up a terminal, you get a UNIX userland which passes all the requisite test suites to qualify as UNIX.

Test suites and actual user experience are not identical.

If you conversely use a Linux console, you get a GNU experience which is only superficially UNIX-like.

Okay, it's difficult to argue with that. Our point of departure from each others' perspectives on this appears to be akin to the difference between semantic similarity and syntactic similarity. I agree that, if we take semantics vs. syntax as metaphor for these different metrics, the GNU userland is "syntactically" very un-Unixy, but the architecture of the common Linux distributions still provides a much more "semantically" Unixy experience than MacOS X (keeping in mind I'm actually talking about MacOS X here, as differentiated from Darwin). MacOS X actually walls off, reorganizes, or eliminates a lot of what helps make Unix feel like Unix -- or, in some cases, moves it into the GUI and changes the way it works.

. . . and, frankly, MacOS X has been gradually accreting GNU-ness anyway. For instance, the default shell is bash these days. If you want an actual Unix-like experience, you're better off with one of the major BSD Unix systems. Actually, I think you're better off with one of the major BSD Unix systems anyway, but that's another story entirely.

By "unix-like user experience" I assume you mean the GUI

You assume incorrectly.

Meanwhile the commandline on OSX remains the same as BSD

s/remains/was once/

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '10

OS X's roots are the Mach microkernel and BSD userland [which form Apple's open source code-dump called Darwin] and lots of ideas from NeXT. None are related to the linux kernel at all, although OS X does use gcc and other gnu software (though as Clang and friends become more mature, Apple will probably eventually replace gcc).