This week I’m speaking at the Desktop Linux Summit in San Diego on why the PC OEMs don’t, and probably never will, fully support Linux on the desktop. This is somewhat of a deja vu for me since a decade ago my team made a similar presentation at IBM on OS/2 and why it wouldn’t beat Windows in its time. Now, as it was then, the core of the argument wasn’t the technology, the strength of Microsoft, or anything, really, outside IBM’s control.
Although I have begun to respect many of the articles written by Mr. Enderle, I think that he misses the point with Linux, which is an open-source project -- not an organization, much less a corporation. Because of it's "free" nature, Linux continues to be a forum of the latest technology and innovation, and I don't believe it will be gone any time soon. I doubt it will ever replace Windows, but will, as Apple has continued to do, remain a competitive thorn in Microsoft's side, forcing the giant corporation to keep on it's toes and produce better product. As technology advances, it becomes easier to install and use Linux (ex: Mandriva), and just as easy to dual-boot with Windows (something few OS's could ever do before Linux, but now look at Mac!), which makes transitioning easier. I doubt any PC vendors will ever sell a major Linux desktop line, but, like music downloads, it will continue to gain "underground" popularity.
Apple doesn't need Market Share, they do very well it the .5 or 5% what ever it is this week. They are not trying to be a commodity they are trying to be something that people like to use. You may have your reasons for not using an apple but you can't argue that the people who use it not only tolerate them or like them they love them. Oh by the way check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/ I would bet that after you learn it you would develop code faster with it and better code than you do with Visual Studio. Don't take my word for it ask somebody that knows both. To answer your last question as to why you would develop for Mac the answer is people are doing amazing and fun things with their macs they like them and people won't give them up.
The paradigm of tune-the-OS-and-load-it-to-the-HD is dead.. and Linux will kill it. Why should there be a vulnearble, rewritable, hackable, hard drive with the Holy of Holies, the OS? Because Windows requires it. Sure, a HD can be used for *storage*... but LiveCD distros of Linux (shining example, Chubby Puppy) allow updating a Live DVDR. When you install a new app, the DVDR is updated. Ditto for configuration changes, wallpaper changes, whatever. When all the tracks fill up on that DVDR, Chubby Puppy will copy everything to a new DVDR, omitting the transient changes since overwritten (well, sent to data heaven by removing those tracks from the index). Were I Joe CloneDealer or Suzie SmallOEM, I see no reason not to Divorce Bill and ship a PC with two DVDR drives; drive two facilitates that periodic recreation of the OS+apps disc, as well as storing Your Precious Stuff (e.g., Paul Anka's cover of SMELLS LIKE TEEN SPIRIT) and other data. Now, with virus-proofed, worm-proofed PCs booting from a known, safe, reliable OS disc, what happens to your support burden then? Riddle me that, Redmond.<p> Oh, you also add a new revenue stream by selling This Week's New, Improved LiveDVD with your Distro Du Jour to your established customer base. Whoops, lookit the time, gotta run.. time to install a reclaimed 1GHz/1GM-RAM/noHD PC into my fave luncheon spot, and spread The Tux one step further. And, see www.freegeek.org for another little mindbending idea.
You say: Windows is free to the OEMs. In fact, not only is it free, but Microsoft, in effect, pays them to take it. Regardless of the cost, Windows is a logical choice, and a straight pass. Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) Latest News about Dell pays about $80 for it and typically charges about $80 for it. If Windows is free (as well as being paid to be taken??) why are the OEM's paying $80 for it? Surely you mean heavily discounted?
A similar thought about why Apple OS X will never have more than 5% market share: What Apple MUST do is create an environment for software developers to write applications for OS X. Just consider the enormous effort that Microsoft has put into Visual Studio, as well as the effort it has made to get 3rd-party developers to write add-ons for Visual Studio. Nothing Apple has done is even close to this effort. And Boot Camp won't help. Why would a software developer write for OS X, when they know a Windows-based app will run just fine on a Mac with Boot Camp.
Rob Enderle excellent summation tells only half of the story. So far, there is not a single brilliant Linux application that would tempt anyone to switch. So far, advocates of the Linux GUIs and office software can only boast that they emulate MS Windows and Office. Where's that? The field is wide open for a stunning new writer's word processor, for starters. (And everyone writes.) Brief spec: keyboard everything (but better than WordStar), built-in writer's database/clipboard collector and reerence manager, brilliant file management. Where's the creativity in Linux apps? The trouble with Linux is, it's trying hard to be equal to Windows - and just as dull.
This article is all well and good as long as someone doesn't replace the basic hardware platform with something a lot better. Remember that 32 bit computing has been around since the early '80s, and has only maintained its place on the PC curtesy of the Windows monopoly which has tied its OS to the 8086 architecture. Even the old Intel 32 bit chip had to add 128bit registers to perform the MMX magic, and now there are several general purpose computing chips available running other OSes that are 64 and even 128bit. This larger instruction word, like with MMX, lets software writers add sophisticated human interface functions, address more memory, and execute complex instructions in less cycles. These parameters are required for speech, writing and 3D recognition, all areas of a useful interface that have been somewhat restricted on the Wintel PC, which afterall is optimised to perform business functions. Linux is opened ended in its application focus as can be seen in its use on the Mars Rovers, Blue Gene supercomputers, real time sound mixers, development workstations and business desktops. One can even run a quite adequate windowed version off a single floppy disk on an Intel Pentium 1 PC. It also gets ported to most new general purpose computing chips. This will give it a definate edge if users do shift to new hardware. Virtualisation will still let them run their old software. But the main reason that users will shift to new hardware and subsequently a different OS, will be new interface paradigms and increased automation which will alter their functions away from desktop centric tasks. The level of automation requiring little or no user input using a *Nix computer has always been significantly more than a MS one. It is probably more to do with the old fear that computers would take over and control us, rather than good business sense, that makes some peoples prefer the much dumber MS type of solution. It also makes lots of work, a factor when executive salaries are based on the number of employees under them. This will all change as companies realise that their major costs are administrative overheads rather than production ones. To conclude, I agree, as I believe the days of the desktop OS are numbered, but in the meantime it's not going to do you any harm to dual boot, and learn how to automate many of your own tasks.
Loading ...
Why Linux May Never Be a True Desktop OS
Posted by: Rob Enderle April 24, 2006 05:00 AMThis week I’m speaking at the Desktop Linux Summit in San Diego on why the PC OEMs don’t, and probably never will, fully support Linux on the desktop. This is somewhat of a deja vu for me since a decade ago my team made a similar presentation at IBM on OS/2 and why it wouldn’t beat Windows in its time. Now, as it was then, the core of the argument wasn’t the technology, the strength of Microsoft, or anything, really, outside IBM’s control.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/
I would bet that after you learn it you would develop code faster with it and better code than you do with Visual Studio. Don't take my word for it ask somebody that knows both. To answer your last question as to why you would develop for Mac the answer is people are doing amazing and fun things with their macs they like them and people won't give them up.
Why should there be a vulnearble, rewritable, hackable, hard drive with the Holy of Holies, the OS? Because Windows requires it.
Sure, a HD can be used for *storage*... but LiveCD distros of Linux (shining example, Chubby Puppy) allow updating a Live DVDR. When you install a new app, the DVDR is updated. Ditto for configuration changes, wallpaper changes, whatever.
When all the tracks fill up on that DVDR, Chubby Puppy will copy everything to a new DVDR, omitting the transient changes since overwritten (well, sent to data heaven by removing those tracks from the index).
Were I Joe CloneDealer or Suzie SmallOEM, I see no reason not to Divorce Bill and ship a PC with two DVDR drives; drive two facilitates that periodic recreation of the OS+apps disc, as well as storing Your Precious Stuff (e.g., Paul Anka's cover of SMELLS LIKE TEEN SPIRIT) and other data.
Now, with virus-proofed, worm-proofed PCs booting from a known, safe, reliable OS disc, what happens to your support burden then? Riddle me that, Redmond.<p>
Oh, you also add a new revenue stream by selling This Week's New, Improved LiveDVD with your Distro Du Jour to your established customer base.
Whoops, lookit the time, gotta run.. time to install a reclaimed 1GHz/1GM-RAM/noHD PC into my fave luncheon spot, and spread The Tux one step further.
And, see www.freegeek.org for another little mindbending idea.
Windows is free to the OEMs. In fact, not only is it free, but Microsoft, in effect, pays them to take it. Regardless of the cost, Windows is a logical choice, and a straight pass. Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) Latest News about Dell pays about $80 for it and typically charges about $80 for it.
If Windows is free (as well as being paid to be taken??) why are the OEM's paying $80 for it? Surely you mean heavily discounted?
What Apple MUST do is create an environment for software developers to write applications for OS X. Just consider the enormous effort that Microsoft has put into Visual Studio, as well as the effort it has made to get 3rd-party developers to write add-ons for Visual Studio. Nothing Apple has done is even close to this effort.
And Boot Camp won't help. Why would a software developer write for OS X, when they know a Windows-based app will run just fine on a Mac with Boot Camp.
Remember that 32 bit computing has been around since the early '80s, and has only maintained its place on the PC curtesy of the Windows monopoly which has tied its OS to the 8086 architecture.
Even the old Intel 32 bit chip had to add 128bit registers to perform the MMX magic, and now there are several general purpose computing chips available running other OSes that are 64 and even 128bit.
This larger instruction word, like with MMX, lets software writers add sophisticated human interface functions, address more memory, and execute complex instructions in less cycles. These parameters are required for speech, writing and 3D recognition, all areas of a useful interface that have been somewhat restricted on the Wintel PC, which afterall is optimised to perform business functions.
Linux is opened ended in its application focus as can be seen in its use on the Mars Rovers, Blue Gene supercomputers, real time sound mixers, development workstations and business desktops. One can even run a quite adequate windowed version off a single floppy disk on an Intel Pentium 1 PC.
It also gets ported to most new general purpose computing chips. This will give it a definate edge if users do shift to new hardware. Virtualisation will still let them run their old software.
But the main reason that users will shift to new hardware and subsequently a different OS, will be new interface paradigms and increased automation which will alter their functions away from desktop centric tasks.
The level of automation requiring little or no user input using a *Nix computer has always been significantly more than a MS one. It is probably more to do with the old fear that computers would take over and control us, rather than good business sense, that makes some peoples prefer the much dumber MS type of solution. It also makes lots of work, a factor when executive salaries are based on the number of employees under them.
This will all change as companies realise that their major costs are administrative overheads rather than production ones.
To conclude, I agree, as I believe the days of the desktop OS are numbered, but in the meantime it's not going to do you any harm to dual boot, and learn how to automate many of your own tasks.