When Will Apple Notice Linux?
One thing has always puzzled me about iTunes, why isn’t it available for Linux? Now, I don’t mean “why doesn’t it run on Linux” (because with some 3rd party emulation it will run just fine) but rather, “why doesn’t Apple support it?” It seems to me that Apple is missing out on a golden opportunity. The Linux market can be looked upon as an untapped market as far as media goes. You see, if you use Windows you have two choices for purchasing music online, Apple and then everybody else. If you are using a Mac then you just have one choice, Apple. But if you are using Linux, you don’t really have any choices to legally buy and download music do you? (to all of you Linux readers out there, if there is a service out there like that please let me know, I looked but didn’t find any)
If you use Linux, you are left out of the party. Now, I am quite sure that there are more than a few Linux users out there who enjoy listening to music on their computers. And, I am also willing to bet, that they don’t all go out and buy hundreds of CDs to get all of their favorite songs. Let us further assume that they aquire their music in somewhat less than legal means, shall we? If all of that is true, then you have market conditions that looked exactly like those that preceded the ITMS. And since iTunes and its Music Store have been very popular with the general public, why is there any reason to think it won’t be just as popular on the Linux side?
So, when I go to Apple’s site and click on their “download iTunes” link, I want to see three options, one for Mac, one for Windows and one for Linux. Of course, the ramifications of such a move would be tremendous, and I’m not just refering to buying songs, music videos or TV shows. If Apple were to make this move and port iTunes and Quicktime to Linux it would vastly improve Linux’s credibility.
That isn’t to say Linux isn’t credible, it is. But the fact remains that the main software companies out there don’t generally make software for Linux. Adobe doesn’t make any of its graphics tools (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.) for Linux. I think we can all forget about Microsoft doing anything to help Linux, regardless of how much money it might make them. Broderbund, Corel, Intuit, Blizzard, Seirra and the rest all don’t make Linux compatible products. Why?
Well, there are several reasons, but most of those excuses would disappear if the Linux community could just get one main player on board. If just one recognized Linux as a true player then chances are good the rest will follow. However, just about all of these software developers earn most of their money from applications that run on Microsoft operating systems. So they probably won’t be tripping over themselves to be the first to legitimize Linux. Because if they do there is always the chance that Microsoft might retaliate for such a move, and what company really wants to risk that? Or rather, which company could do it with the least negative reprecussions.
Apple is the logical choice. If they lead the way then the other players can rationalize it by saying “Well, Apple is hot and if they are supporting Linux maybe that is because they see something we don’t. Maybe we should get on-board.” And so if one comes then two will come and then three, then four, till most of the major players are realizing that money can be made selling their products to Linux users.
But wait, before you penguin lovers out there warm up your flamethrowers let me make this one thing clear. I am aware that there are plenty open-source applications that currently fill most of these needs. If you don’t want Photoshop, use GIMP. Don’t want MS Office, use OpenOffice. Don’t like iTunes, use X Multimedia System. Yes, there are free, open source alternatives to proprietary, closed source, actually-cost-money software. I am not disputing this. However I am saying that without the backing or support of the major software companies Linux on the desktop will never reach anything other than its current, uber-geek, niche market. To make it to the big time Linux needs mainstream applications. If for no other reason than to make the transition easier for new users. Instead of forcing them to use the tortured interface that is the GIMP why not let them use Photoshop, since that is what they are comfortable with? It might mean that fewer people use GIMP, but isn’t that an acceptable loss if more people use Linux?
There is, however, another small hurdle to jump before anything like this can happen and that is the philosophical barrier that exist for many Linux users. First, Linux is still seen as a kind of special club for all of the really smart computer users out there. Allowing Adobe & friends to play in their clubhouse kind of reduces the mystique of their little world. So, if the Linux community is really serious about expanding on the desktop then they are going to have to come to terms with the idea that a lot of non-technical, non-programming people will be using Linux. This brings me up to my second point, attitude.
There have been plenty of times that I have encountered the arrogance of the Linux community. It most often comes out as some version of this notion: “if you aren’t smart enougth to use Linux then maybe you should go back to Windows.” Another common attitude is linking “easy to use” with “selling out”. Making software easy to use requires that you limit the number of features, something most die hard Linux advocates are loath to do. And yet it is something that must be done if Linux really wants to reach the masses. So, if the penguin really does want to go mainstream then they are going to need the support of the major software companies and the current Linux user base has to be ready for the impact of the non-technical user. Ubuntu is on the right track as far as this latter point goes, but they still have a long, long way to go.
So, perhaps someone needs to buy Linus Torvalds a plane ticket to Cupertino, California. Who knows, maybe if he asked Steve Jobs nicely if he might consider making iTunes available to three operating systems instead of just two. And maybe then, finally, the ball can start rolling for the Desktop Linux.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
George, please. Overwhemling evidence that Linux is commercially viable? Is an example of this how in 2004 the Linux market share was 0.29 percent and rose a whopping 0.01 for the following year? Or just how do you define “commercially viable” anyway?
As you and others have so vigorously pointed out, this is an OS which is free of charge; it’s a simple download. So if this product were so commercially viable—AND FREE—why is its market share so low?
How low would a platform’s market share have to get before you would find other phrasing than “commercially viable”?
As for the free (as in speech) question, you REALLY should do yourself a favor and visit the Darwin web site. It has been freely available (in BOTH senses of the word) for several years—and on both the PPC and Intel platforms I might add. It is fully open source and the source code itself is freely available. (Just try getting the source code to any part of Windows.)
Your problem is that you keep talking about OS X as being not free when in fact 80 percent of it (if not more) is precisely that—FREE. Take away the proprietary GUI Apple added to Darwin and a proprietary file system, and basically you have a fully functioning operating system very much on par with Linux.
Here’s the link for the Darwin home page:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
On this page Apple gives full disclosure about its compliance to the licenses of open source and the terms of its participation in it. Apple also lists all the open source projects at the company. You can download the complete Darwin operating system from here and you can also download the source code.
Now in my book that’s pretty damn free—what do YOU call it?
If despite the foregoing you want to harp on the fact that OS X is not one hundred percent free, then I put it to you—find a Linux distro out there which has added a proprietary graphics layer and window manager on top of the Linux/GNU bundle—and yet which STILL is cimpletely free and open. Then you can talk. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you want another source independent from Apple, here it is:
http://www.opendarwin.org/
Maybe this will help to educate you a bit on precisely how open Apple truly is—not bad for a Fortune 500 corporation.
By the way, as an addendum let me clarify that I think no one suggests Linux is not commercially viable as a SERVER platform, and I don’t know anyone who counts Linux out as a possible player at the desktop level. I just don’t think it’s there yet—in spite of the strides it has made thus far.
Also, the market share figures of 0.30 percent are AGGREGATE data—which combine the server and workstation figures. The market share of Linux on the desktop is actually much lower yet.
Anyway, let’s remember how this whole thing got started—we are speculating as to whether Apple should throw its significant consumer savvy to the Linux platform and whether Linux itself is a viable player as a consumer desktop OS.
Others in this thread have spoken of apps like Open Office, GIMP, etc.—and I can run all these same apps under Darwin and OS X. So I feel I pretty much have the best of both worlds here. What value does Linux ADD to a person like me—again, at the desktop level?
> the market share figures of 0.30 percent
> are AGGREGATE data—which combine the
> server and workstation figures.
92.8% of all statistics are made up. Here’s some that aren’t.
IDC stated that Linux desktop market share a couple of years back was 2.8%, while Apple’s was 2.9%. Reference:
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020472,39118695,00.htm
Subsequently, “IDC...reports that Linux became the number two desktop operating system in 2003.” Apple “fell to the number 3 spot.” Meanwhile, Gartner predicts desktop Linux market share will reach 7.5% by 2008. Reference:
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35688.html
IDC estimated in the same timeframe that Linux’ server market share was 28.3%, climbing to 37.2% by 2008. I couldn’t find a Mac server market share for some reason. Reference:
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P5013_0_6_0_C
I think IDC and Gartner are pretty darned authoritative experts on market share. So let’s drop the silly “0.3 percent for client and server” silliness.
Again, I have nothing against OS X - just against blatant misinformation on Linux.
> Your problem is that you keep talking about
> OS X as being not free when in fact 80 percent
> of it (if not more) is precisely that—FREE.
> Take away the proprietary GUI Apple added
> to Darwin and a proprietary file system
We’ve covered this in 49 - remember?
Free + Proprietary = Proprietary
Feel “free” to pretend it isn’t so, but that license agreement that came with OS X is likely to get you in vewy big twouble with the wegal wabbits in Cupertino.
> find a Linux distro out there which has added
> a proprietary graphics layer and window manager
> on top of the Linux/GNU bundle
LOL! Again spoken by a true fan of proprietary systems. Of the major distributions, 10 out of 10 supply the X graphics layer, and the Gnome or KDE (or both) window manager. All 3 are free, mature and very stable. So the answer would have to be, “*Why*???”
Major distributions reference:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
Re: OS market share, I should mention that the most useless method with which to measure it is to collect self-reported web browser meta-data. Because of Microsoft’s dominance leading to a significant number of sites refusing to even attempt to load unless the browser reports a Microsoft OS, most Linux browsers… report a Microsoft OS.
Nobody in IT takes that data seriously. IDC and Gartner, though, they take VERY seriously with a lot of zeros on the check.
A 2.8% share may not be enough to entice iTunes to support Linux, as Rhapsody has, but at least we should know the market we ignore.
George, you say “Free + Proprietary = Proprietary”—but this makes no sense. I guess you still don’t understand that you can download Darwin as a separate, free-standing operating system in its own right. You can also download OS X. But I don’t accept your equation above anyway because of its all or nothing proposition. It reminds me of that old attitude that if someone’s racial make-up is 80 percent white and 20 percent black, then in historic racist America they were considered black—full stop.
My answer is that 80 percent white plus 20 percent black equals neither white NOR black. What it equals is this: 80 percent white and 20 percent black. And by the same reasoning, when 80 percent of OS X is free and 20 percent is proprietary, this does not translate into declaring OS X as proprietary. Instead, 80 percent of it still remains free. There is no escaping this.
Sure, Apple retains control. But then Torvolds retains control of the Linux kernel. If there is a component Torvolds does not want baked into the kernel, then it will simply not be baked into it. So tell me how this is “free.”
You say that all of the ten major Linux distros supply the X graphics layer and Gnome or KDE window managers. Well, OS X also supplies the X graphics layer as well, and while Gnome and KDE are not bundled with OS X, they are a free download to any OS X user who wants them.
So again I ask you—what does Linux ADD to your daily computing experience that you cannot have with OS X? Please name an X11-based application or a UNIX/GNU shell tool or script which you can run under Linux which you cannot run under OS X? Please advise me as to something you can do under Linux which you cannot do under OS X.
This is a fair question because I can think of numerous things I can do under OS X which I cannot do under Linux.
> George, you say “Free + Proprietary =
> Proprietary”—but this makes no sense.
If freedom were about technology, I would agree with you 100%. But freedom is about the legal system - and in the USA, this equation isn’t just a good idea (as the saying goes) - it’s the law.
Try this, maybe it will help. I decide to build a dedicated turnkey newspaper publishing system. As components I choose MySQL (free), OpenOffice.org (free), PHP (free), and Perl (free). I decide to deliver the turnkey system with Windows XP (proprietary).
From a legal point of view, is this system - my product - free or proprietary?
It’s one or the other - not “80% free”. If I decide to load all of the software onto a disk, and then image that disk 10,000 times without getting a LICENSE from Microsoft, I’ll be getting a very irate cease-and-desist letter from Mssr. Gates’ minions with a request for actual and punative damages - and rightfully so.
So the PRODUCT that I’m selling is PROPRIETARY. And OS X, which includes Apple’s proprietary components, is a PROPRIETARY product.
Thus, Free + Proprietary = Proprietary.
The analogy that you chose actually proves this point (I’m a history buff, as it turns out). In the dark days past, a person could NOT be of mixed race from a LEGAL standpoint, because the law had no mechanisms to handle mixed race.
Similarly, the law does not now have any mechanisms to handle mixed free / proprietary software. If a product contains ANY proprietary software, then it is (legally) a proprietary product.
I have no idea what this has to do with Apple supporting Linux (or not) with their proprietary products like iTunes, nor why you are so determined to claim a proprietary product is really sorta-free - unless you realize deep down that freedom is gaining mindshare and marketshare. In that case… well, I agree with your realization.
In any event, OS X and iTunes are both very nice proprietary products. But proprietary they are until Apple slaps a GPL sticker of ALL of their components (if indeed they own them all).
> Please name an X11-based application or a
> UNIX/GNU shell tool or script which you can
> run under Linux which you cannot run under OS X?
I’m tempted to point out the obvious answer, but I’ll refrain. Instead, I’ll assert that any FREE tool can POTENTIALLY be run under Mac OS X, Windows, Sun Solaris, Vax VMS, Palm OS, BeOS, AmigaDOS, AtariDOS, or the Timex Sinclair.
I list these to emphasize that the Mac’s ability to run free software is not a MAC virtue - it’s a FREE SOFTWARE virtue.
> Please advise me as to something you can do
> under Linux which you cannot do under OS X.
You seem highly determined to turn this into a Mac vs. Linux debate, which I think is childish (why do I care?). But I’ll answer your literal question (including the word “you”, which means me), since you are so persistent.
+ Run the OS on a left-over Windows box with a $30 market value.
+ Run the same OS on my desktop as I run on my PDA - and on my supercomputer cluster at work, too.
+ Run the same OS in a secure classified environment at work.
+ Study the complete source code to the entire environment in a college classroom, to understand how a modern operating system works.
+ Personally build the entire system from source code, with static linking, so that I KNOW the system has no dangling dynamic links that might cause problems later.
+ Give a copy to my mother, or my friends, or even send a copy to you to try out (if only you would).
+ Create a new product by slightly modifying (say) the user interface, then sell the new product on my web site without asking anyone’s permission or negotiating any license agreements.
I could go on, but maybe this is enough to show you that Mac OS X is not a viable alternative for me. For that reason, I would get a warm-and-fuzzy feeling to see Apple support my OS of choice with their non-OS products.
But if they don’t, it’s their loss. I’ll live. I’m sure of it.
I like to run the command-line software “mplayer” on my Mac, or on my Linux, to play back music. It feels much more down to earth, and it works flawlessly.
What you can do with Linux and with Mac OS X, is run software that requires a dual AMD Opteron 280 processor and 32 GB of RAM, on full 64-bit support. You can easily have your setup using KDE 3.5.1 which includes a “Finder” (Konqueror) that, for example, features fast and precise previews and thumbnails of raw postscript files. Depending on your Linux, you WILL get a roadmap that helps you channel expectations and plan ahead. And while you could bend over backwards to port some of that to a Mac, it’s not there. Apple is somewhere entirely different. Their line of G5s were basically set up with flawed logic boards, and some software still isn’t 64-bit. There’s currently not the faintest idea of a high end Intel Powermac - even though they could simply sell some Xeon Powermacs right there.
Sorry .. the first sentence of the second paragraph should read
What you can do with Linux and NOT with Mac OS X, is ...
run software that requires a dual AMD Opteron 280 processor and 32 GB of RAM
aah now you’re tuggin at my heart strings! When will apple notice AMD?! So much bang for such little buck - and as an added bonus, they’re not intel.
Thanks for the info, swisswuff. You reinforce a point I made back in #36 - that if the program you want to use is already available for Linux but not for Mac (as is increasingly common these days), then it’s the *MAC* on which you must “download and compile all that source code”. That doesn’t make the MAC “hard to use”, though - it’s a bogus argument against Linux *OR* Mac.
Two other recent ease-of-use stories which drive my increasing enthusiasm for Linux for “normal people”.
(1) I recently installed the final beta for the latest Ubuntu release, Dapper Drake, on one of my old $30 machines. I put the CD in the drive, restarted the machine… and in 30 seconds was *running Ubuntu*. I browsed the web, checked my email, launched an office program, and printed a short file. When I was convinced it was stable, I clicked “Install on Hard Drive” on the desktop, and *CONTINUED* to use the machine while it was installed on the disk.
I probably lack imagination, but I really can’t imagine an easier installation experience than that one - it was actually much faster than buying Windows *pre-installed* (with all of the “authorization” and configuration processes THAT requires!). Recommended.
(2) My wife recently gave me a Nokia 770 handheld “Internet tablet”, which runs a version of Linux called Maemo, for our anniversary (no, you CAN’T have her - she’s MINE!
). I expected to have a hard time getting some good software onto this new machine, and was thus pleasantly surprised when I had to (a) go to the applications page on the web, and (b) TAP the applications I wanted with the stylus from a list of about 100. They installed themselves and were immediately available for my use, not a reboot in sight.
And this was a 1.0 product. Geesh, I’m starting to EXPECT Linux to be trivial to administer.
It’s still a bit of a geek toy (version 2.0 is coming this fall, I understand, to polish some of the rough edges). But I’m growing very fond of it. Palm 6 (also Linux based) may have a hard time winning me back when it ships in 2007.
*contented sigh*
I also was surprised to read this in a press release on May 23: “Gizmo Project 2.0* is available immediately for Macintosh and Microsoft Windows computers and you can read the official release here. The Linux version is not yet available, but there’s a good reason. The SIPphone Linux experts have been creating a version of Gizmo Project for Nokia’s brilliant 770 Internet tablet.”
And Sun is officially partnering with Ubuntu to support the Sparc T1-based machines - a miracle at least as great as their adoption of CDE over OpenLook many years ago, and also greatly indicative of Linux’ momentum.
Yet, still no word from Apple on support for Linux. And still no word on money from me to Apple.
Oh, well, time will tell.
Yes… I’ve liked Mac OS X and Mac software since they first came out with MacPaint - but I’m far from being fixed on this one platform, because the hardware is painful and expensive.
Linux is free, PCs are cheap, AMD Opterons are ROARING, and you get a choice between Fujitsu Siemens, Sun, HP, and shops like Monarch Computer who will sell you very good, very powerful hardware for about half the price you pay for a mediocre G5. When you buy an Apple, you immediately replace the keyboard with a real one (I use IBM type M stuff with PS2>USB adapters), you immediately replace the mouse with a real one (I use Razer models) to begin with. Then I’d pay up to 400 bucks for an official Mac OS X release to run it on one of those “PC” computers - and Apple COULD have provided IBM with an OS X Server version for the high end PPC based server line of IBM, they COULD have adopted some AIX features for a revamped OS X to really bost it, and then added AMD and some higher end PPC processors such as the Power 5 to their collection of CPUs and offered a Universal Binary for OS X that would kick some major butt all over the industry.
So, Linux is pretty cool, and some of the KDE or Gnome features are already more intuitive and nicer than things on OS X. I recently caught myself cleaning up files under Konqueror/X11 on my Mac rather than using the Finder. I have recently successfully set up my WACOM INTUOS 3 on an AMD workstation under Linux; while you get to edit some text files there, you also have a choice of powerful tablet options not available on a Mac.
Currently, I’m seeing our Macs slowly becoming the nice-to-have still sleek looking GUI front ends that increasingly only get to do some kiddy crap such as play iTunes, read mails, run backups and look at some text or PDF files. All real stuff is slowly migrating to faster AND cheaper Windows / Linux PCs, and each new Linux version, each new Linux hardware driver, each new desktop system - KDE, GNOME - is better than the previous one already at a level that surpasses Windows or OS X. Yes, iPhoto is so so, but Menalto Gallery or Coppermine Gallery running on your php/web-server are far more useful in the long run - and while you can run that on OS X, you can run that also on Linux, with just about the same effort.
I know that they are not that big of a company, But Xara has ported their flagship product Xara Xtreme (sold for around 70 75 bucks i think) to linux for free. (I think they call it XaraLX)