George F. Rice's Profile

  • http://drgeorge.org
  • Feb 05, 2008
  • 25
  • 0

Latest comments made by: George F. Rice

  • @27: "Linux will never be a main stream desktop OS as long as the current development model is used. You have hundreds of distro’s with thousands of great developers using a shotgun approach to desktop applications… And they quit (for the most part) when the app is 90% complete! I can’t tell you how many apps I’ve installed that were almost there, just needing a few more tweeks and it would be great! But they never come… Very frustrating! there is great waste in time and effort using the current OSS methodology!" Your comment is odd, to say the least. Most of the mainstream free and open source software is developed principally by *corporations*, not hobbyists. Linux is developed primarily by IBM and Red Hat; OpenOffice.org by Sun; FireFox by Mozilla; Python by Google; and so on. Are you asserting that IBM, Sun, and Google are incompetent to develop software? And are you really comfortable disagreeing with virtually the entirety of recent IT research? For example, Gartner Group recently stated that 80% of *proprietary* software products will rely on OSS project code by 2011 - yet you believe OSS methods are basically *incompetent*? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/092007-open-source-unavoidable.html Just curious, really. The FOSS software I use is of generally *much* higher quality than leading proprietary alternates (for the examples above: Windows, MS Office, IE 7, and Visual Basic, respectively), so I'm quite content with my choices (and Gartner's research ;-).
    George F. Rice had this to say on Feb 05, 2008 Posts: 25
    Apple is Killing Linux on the Desktop
  • Good points. It's strange to see Apple ignoring Linux despite its current rapid growth in the market: + Note the rapid introduction of new Linux-based ultra-portables such as the Nokia tablets (already 3rd generation), OLPC XO (assuming they get their shipping snafus resolved), Asus EeePC, and the upcoming Cloudbook; + Linux is featured in a number of recent mobile phone platform announcements, such as Android from Google, two competing standards groups that include major phone players such as DoCoMo and Motorola, and dark horses such as OpenMoko and Access (nee Palm, which has already shipped a free PalmOS 5 emulator for Nokia 8xx tablets); + The top two PC makers are now shipping Linux pre-installed on a growing and (by their own reports) successful line of traditional laptops and desktops; and + IBM's recent first-time announcement that "Linux is ready for the corporate desktop", porting their business solutions en masse this year. OS X, Air and the iPhone are nice products all, but Apple alone can't meet all users' needs. You really have to wonder if Apple is missing out on a significant opportunity by repeatedly ignoring a growing market segment.
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 27, 2008 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • A better measure of Linux's installed base can be had via direct measurement, without the thoroughly discredited methodology of NetApp's "web browser reports" (which depends heavily on the websites selected to "measure" operating system accesses, among other problems). Canonical measured between 6 and 12 million unique IP addresses accessing their patch servers in 2007 (http://open.itworld.com/4917/071009ubuntu/page_1.html). Given that NAT allows multiple computers per IP address (I have 4 Ubuntu machines here), and some machines don't access update servers at all, 12 million is a reasonably good estimate of the worldwide Ubuntu installed base. Steve Ballmer announced last year the billionth Windows computer installation would occur in 2008 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/27/ballmer-says-windows-installed-base-will-top-a-billion-by-the-en/). Taking Microsoft at its word - and would they ever lie to you? ;-) - we're close to 1 billion total desktops today. Thus, Ubuntu has an installed base of about 1.2%. Similarly, Max Spevak of Fedora reported 2 million unique IPs accessing their patch servers in March 2007 (http://spevack.livejournal.com/11416.html). Similar logic yields about a 0.4% installed base for Fedora. I'd love to go on, except that I can't find similar measurements for OpenSuse, Mint, Mandriva, etc. - for which I'm a bit thankful, actually. :-) To slide into the overall installed base of Linux, we can wag that Ubuntu hold 33% of the Linux installed base (a common estimate, though I've seen no supporting data better than a NetApp like web analysis), which would put overall Linux base around 3.6%. This is consistent with Gartner Groups' estimate of about 4% worldwide installed base for all of the various Linux desktop distributions. Given that Gartner and IDC estimate that Apple is selling about 1 out of every 12-15 desktops today (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9043244&source=NLT_PM&nlid=8), a 7.3% installed base isn't unreasonable for all Macs combined. Gartner put their actual estimate slightly lower, but not enough to quibble. Since my personal interest is that the Microsoft monopoly begone, and none take its place, having double-digit installed bases for both Mac and Linux looks likely in the near future. I'm happy thus far. And congrats to Apple for its excellent marketing (I *love* the Mac / PC guy ads ;-) ).
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 05, 2008 Posts: 25
    Apple is Killing Linux on the Desktop
  • Michael Robertson, founder of the Linux company Linspire and the music company MP3.com, has offered to fund the port of iTunes to Linux (presumably under non-disclosure) in his response to Jobs' infamous DRM challenge here: http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=231
    George F. Rice had this to say on Feb 16, 2007 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • on said, "To release iTunes for Linux, the source code would have to be revealed." Are you under the misconception that the GPL requires revelation of an application's source code if supported under a free OS like Linux? If so, please stand corrected - Linux remains fully compatible with proprietary binaries. (I'm ignoring the issue of whether proprietary binaries are in Apple's best interest here!) For example, Adobe releases Flash 9 for Linux, but the source code remains proprietary. The same is true for certain proprietary video device drivers. Apple can and should host iTunes on Linux, IMHO. They would give up no trade secrets and lose no source code, they would just expand their potential user base by another 4-5%. Just my 10 cents worth (in binary).
    George F. Rice had this to say on Feb 16, 2007 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • Daniel, back on January 11, you wrote: > 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. On July 27 (above), you wrote: > [OpenDarwin] offered nothing of value to > anybody, so it eventually ran out of steam. I'm unable to reconcile these two statements - either OpenDarwin demonstrated Apple's openness such that I should consider it the equivalent of Linux (in terms of freedom) and switch, or it was totally worthless. Could you clarify which? This isn't intended as a flame; when I read of OpenDarwin's death, I immediately recalled our earlier discussion, and sought out AppleMatters specifically to request your perspective. It was already written here. I just can't understand what you wrote, unless you had a change of heart since January. Thanks in advance for any insight.
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jul 28, 2006 Posts: 25
    OpenDarwin Dies a Lonely Death
  • 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.
    George F. Rice had this to say on May 30, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • > 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. :-)
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 15, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice 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).
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 15, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • 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 F. Rice had this to say on Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • > 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
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice 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.
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • > 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.
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • > Notice that Mozilla has tested Firefox on only > ONE Linux distro. Oh, I'll readily concede that a tightly controlled proprietary universe such as Apple's - where all platform hardware and software is legally required to come from a single source - is necessarily easier to test against than free-as-in-speech software, or even against Windows' widely varied universe. (Of course, Linux kernel 2.2.14 or higher covers darned near every Linux in the wild today (the current version is 2.6.15). In practice, I've loaded FireFox on a variety of distributions and never had a problem.) But you missed my point entirely. Apple can cover over 90% of the desktop Linux market with a *single* release, and that makes more sense than to "support different distributions and at least provide it in .deb & rpm formats", as Mike suggested. It makes SO much more sense that most major open source application releases (I just picked two of the biggest to illustrate) take that approach. One commercial iTunes competitor who understands this is Rhapsody for Linux (http://www.real.com). They offer one download that supports ALL distros of significance. (Of course, Add Applications -> Sound & Video -> Real Player is even easier, but again I digress.) Ultimately Apple has to make a business decision whether to support Linux. Since I don't use iTunes, I don't care. But I care very much when folks make obsolete assertions that imply Linux is not commercially viable despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 10, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • > One difficulty is the need to support different > distributions and at least provide it in .deb > & rpm formats. Really? I checked the actual download links for OpenOffice.org and FireFox, and both have downloadable packages for Windows, Mac, and "Linux x86". No mention of distributions or different file formats. (OOo also listed FreeBSD, Linux PPC, and a couple of Solarises... I mean Solarii... I mean... oh, what the heck IS the plural of Solaris, anyway?) Is Apple's software special in some way that it would CARE what distribution it was using? This sounds suspiciously analogous to "They would need to support Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP - it just costs too much!", except of course with Windows everyone already KNOWS better. > Plus it would have to deal with > dependencies on other installed packages. Only if it needed to be dependent on other installed packages (sorry to state the obvious). Other major players such as OOo and Firefox simply provide all of the non-standard packages themselves... which, come to think of it, is the standard Windows approach (ever wonder what all those DLLs are doing?). (Interestingly, the OOo site provides one package for all of Linux x86, but TWO for Windows. Does that mean that Linux is twice as standard? :-) )
    George F. Rice had this to say on Jan 10, 2006 Posts: 25
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?