Linux to Over take Apple on Desktop

[suselinux]

go here to read the whole article at Business week

note the article is really about MS dropping IE for Mac.


Long maligned as a desktop nonstarter, Linux should pass Apple in market share for desktop operating systems on computers sold in the coming year. That means from 7% to 10% of all PCs shipped won't bear the Windows icon.


Cool eh?

(not because were pushing out Apple but because were pushing Windows off the PC)

Mac OSX is still great

[solo]

quote:
 Linux should pass Apple in market share for desktop operating systems on computers sold in the coming year. That means from 7% to 10% of all PCs shipped won't bear the Windows icon.

Where are they getting their numbers?? I don't know any OEMs other than Walmart.com and Tiger Direct that ship PCs with Linux preloaded.  Perhaps this is from requests? That would be an awful lot of requests.

This is very shocking. I knew Linux was close to Apple in desktop PCs but *damn*. *if* this is true, another aspect of why MS is scared suddenly popped up in my head.

[Faust]

No offense guys but if Apple was GPL I would hate to see this happen.  As it is...  they do seem to have an easier to use product which I think should give them around 95% of the desktop share in a fair world.  The 5% of us that want a system slightly harder to use but with more geeky toggles can stick with Linux.  Not BSD.  I really dislike the BSD license...  Considering that Apple is still proprietary I must instead say : ha ha! may be unfair but we're beating you! [sticks out tongue]  

[Faust]

Except of course the sample spaces here would have been very small.  Coupled with the difficulty of accurately analysing something when you cant see sales figures, I would take this with a pinch of salt.

[SAJChurchey]

Of course Apple isn't worried about the loss of IE.  They have Safari 1.0 which is a much more superior browser.

I really respect the artistic work that Apple does w/ OS X and their hardware, but I will always be a Linux user at heart.

I agree that Linux is going to be the OS that takes out M$, but hopefully Apple will back up the battles.

[Laukev7]

quote:  Considering that Apple is still proprietary

What are you talking about? Apple is not proprietary. Mac OS X is; Darwin and Rendezvous are not. Besides, there is nothing wrong with proprietary stuff. If Apple was to give away their GUI, they'd be sure to be overthrown in no time.

[flap]

Yes it is. Darwin isn't free software. And even if it were, this one piece of software being free (which it isn't) wouldn't invalidate the statement "Apple['s software] is still proprietary"

And there is something very wrong with proprietary software.

[Laukev7]

You always seem to turn up whenever anyone discusses of free software, don't you, flap.

So, you believe that Darwin isn't free because Stallman says so? Didn't you chide me for basing morality on written laws before?

 

quote: And there is something very wrong with proprietary software.

No. You cannot force a company to divulge secrets if it doesn't want to.

[flap]

Who mentioned stallman? The APSL is not a free software licence, and Darwin is not free software. The source is available, but you can't really do anything with it without Apple's permission.

 

quote:You cannot force a company to divulge secrets if it doesn't want to.

No, not if they don't want to distribute the software at all and keep it private. But if they do publish it then they should be forced to divulge the source code.

[Laukev7]

quote: The APSL is not a free software licence, and Darwin is not free software.

According to whom?

 

quote: No, not if they don't want to distribute the software at all and keep it private. But if they do publish it then they should be forced to divulge the source code.

I have never seen a restautant divulge recipies with their customers' orders, and neither should they if they do not want to. Same goes for software.

[Pantso]

Well, to tell the honest truth, Darwin is certainly not Free Software, since it isn't licensed under the General Public License or any other license approved by the Free Software Foundation (LGPL etc). I would like to see Darwin GPL'd since the BSD subsystem under OS X is truly excellent.

However, I don't have any objection to what Apple is doing since I care less about looking at things that strictly and more about the software side of things. I like to be open-minded and look at the long term consequences for OS X users as well. Did you by any chance look at the Fink, Darwin and Gentoo merge? Or the upcoming Gentoo OS X port?

And before you say anything hasty, let me remind you that I'm an FSF Associated Member, and I also run a site on Free and Open Source Software. I just choose not to be that narrow-minded.    

[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]

[Laukev7]

Well said, Panos. I am not against open source, and there are many advantages to this approach. However, I think that not everything should be given away. What irks me is the dogmatic attitude adopted by many FSF and Linux proponents who think that any other approach is immoral.

The APSL may not be a 'free' licence by the FSF definition, but it has been amended over the years, and it is certainly not a proprietary licence.

[flap]

The APSL is a perfect example of the limitations of an "Open Source" licence i.e. you can look at the source, but that's pretty much it. You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission, and you can't even really privately modify your own system as the licence requires you to make any modifications public. Its only point is that people might be able to find bugs and tell Apple about them, effectively doing their work for them. This in itself is fine - but the community gets nothing in return.

It's certainly not Free by any definition (except perhaps cost) and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Basically, the Open Source-ness of APSL covered code is useless, and the fact that only the kernel is covered by the licence anyway adds insult to injury.

[Laukev7]

quote: You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission

This has been amended.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

 

quote: It's certainly not Free by any definition

But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).

 

quote: and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software.

No one made that claim. The point is that not every company can afford to release their software under a free licence.

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:

But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).

I'm gonna have to agree with Laukev on this one.  Proprietary software is not bad.  Free Software is not bad.  Companies should not be forced to divulge their source code, period.  People (and companies) have right, and no one should be able to take them away.

Also, I had never though of losing IE as a worry, as the title of that article states.

[ June 28, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]