2010-2020: Mac, Windows, Linux. Eh, same thing.

[murderslastcrow]

I dunno' if it's just me, but it seems like, soon enough, the only real difference people will notice between these Operating Systems is that Macs have nice hardware and Linux is free.

Here are my reasons for this (it just seems logical). We all know Mac, Windows, and Linux do basically the same things- media, internet, 3d rendering, games, documents, etc.

Now, the main arguments with Linux THESE DAYS is hardly about hardware support, due to significant improvement, but almost entirely about, "I can't do what I used to do in Windows." You know, people abusing Wine and not clicking on the Add/Remove button at all.

However, Wine has already experienced tremendous success, and will keep improving to the point that, I believe, drivers alone will be the last issue to wrap up. I mean, I use all of my 3d and game development programs from Windows with great speed and stability with Wine already. As far as most, other than "I must play every Windows game"rs, and "I have an iPod touch"ers, the compatibility in Wine already eliminates the need for Windows whatsoever.

For Windows, we have portable or co-op Linux. Portable Ubuntu was released recently using 8.10. This way, we can already use Linux and Windows together without all of the excess from a traditional virtualized environment.

So, in my theory, we'll assume that by 2015, Wine is at a state where everyone's most commonly used programs are Platinum rating. I'm not encouraging abuse of Wine, but for some people with niche programs it's just going to happen if the option's available.

So, how would Microsoft and Apple combat the soon quite obvious benefits of using Linux, beyond compatibility? You know, extremely low system footprint, stability, speed, amazing interfaces, the ability to customize every part of the GUI (not to mention OS), ease of installation, ease of software installation, ease of backup, excessive processor support, built-in security...

Well, if we're talking about Microsoft, they'll likely attempt what they're known for. When the competition wails on you, try to catch up and copy them.

However, even if Microsoft gets an alternative for compiz, (the most obvious benefit to newcomers to Linux), it will be nowhere near as extensible, open, or resource-light.

So basically, Linux is already on the edge of innovation in computing. If all Microsoft and Apple can do is copy Linux and keep the price tag, and you can do everything you want with platform-agnostic programs anyway, what will keep Linux from growing explosively over the upcoming decade?

I mean, isn't it obvious that people will just stop caring what commercial OS vendors can come up with, since it will be available to them for free anyway?

I think that the main groups staying with these companies will be hardcore fanboiz/galz, and people who are just plain obsessed with DOS and need its insecurities. And for them, I'm sure ReactOS or something like it will come around and give us an acceptable Win32 clone, anyway.

So, I want you guys' opinions. What are the big things standing in the way of this seemingly obvious prediction of the next decade in computing? I don't want to sound overzealous or like some sort of oversupportive biggot. I'm just wondering what will prevent Joe-shmoe from resurrecting his old hardware or getting a cheap Linux machine in the future?

Do you think Microsoft and Apple have some big trump cards up their sleeves they're just getting ready to spoil open-source-fun with?

[monsterstack]

I think proprietary software manufacturers are very scared of free software projects, with few exceptions. One of them I would think is Adobe's Photoshop, which is doing rather well, still, and that's due to its very fine reputation. As for Microsoft, I think we'll be seeing more attempts to subvert free software coming from them for quite a while. The big thing now is interoperability and write-once-run-anywhere style apps and open standards. That sort of thing is anathema to Microsoft's business method, and they will fight it. You see it via bundling: Windows+Office+Exchange go together very nicely, for instance. We saw it back when half of the web didn't render properly in Netscape. You see it now with Microsoft's refusal to implement ODF properly, and how they forced through their OOXML spec instead. Linux will carry on getting better and better, but nobody should expect free and open ideals to get any easier to adhere to any time soon.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Actually linux still has a bright future considering, in fact it might have a better chance of being a mainstream OS in the long run then windows or Mac.
The reason?
Linux innovation is always on the move, almost each day brings something new and bold to the linux experience.

[pastalavista]

The Open Source movement lacks the driving force of commerce. People who want to make money from their coding prowess will always have the initiative locked into some proprietary deal. The status-conscious consumer will always prefer something they pay for (even though they don't actually own it) over something free. Capitalism and consumerism are not conducive to the proliferation of open source software. It would take an extreme economic crash to fully afford Gnu-Linux the appreciation it deserves.

[murderslastcrow]

I think you just hit one of the big things in the back of my head on this one. The idea that Linux just doesn't have a commercial presence. I mean, there's nothing I can think of that's quite like Linux in terms of quality-price ratio. It's like air. That's certainly an idea most people can't wrap their heads around.

However, I think that gives those that wish to spread Linux in any capacity, advertisers or users, the responsibility to show why you would want Linux if it did cost as much as Windows 7 or Snow Leopard.

I certainly think that, once someone sees Linux in use and how capable it is, they will definitely be glad to find out it's free. But, in the end, people can buy whatever product they want. And they tend to, with uninformed decisions based purely on marketing (the iPod, for instance. Still no ogg or avi support after how long?). Just need to make Linux more accessible. Give out Linux PCs to poor communities, something like that. XD

Does anyone have a hypothetical solution for the commerce-oriented issue other than, "break the economy?"

[thisllub]

In 5 years time computing will be very different.
There is no better example of how innovation drives a market than the iPhone.
Before 2010 the PC will be phone sized (smaller is pointless as the human head won't be shrinking any time soon) and connected via wireless to input devices and screens.
There is a mountain of UI development in the way of making this work and the economics of it will mean that Apple and Microsoft will release these devices before the open source community will.

[monsterstack]

I think you just hit one of the big things in the back of my head on this one. The idea that Linux just doesn't have a commercial presence. I mean, there's nothing I can think of that's quite like Linux in terms of quality-price ratio. It's like air. That's certainly an idea most people can't wrap their heads around.

However, I think that gives those that wish to spread Linux in any capacity, advertisers or users, the responsibility to show why you would want Linux if it did cost as much as Windows 7 or Snow Leopard.

I certainly think that, once someone sees Linux in use and how capable it is, they will definitely be glad to find out it's free. But, in the end, people can buy whatever product they want. And they tend to, with uninformed decisions based purely on marketing (the iPod, for instance. Still no ogg or avi support after how long?). Just need to make Linux more accessible. Give out Linux PCs to poor communities, something like that. XD

Does anyone have a hypothetical solution for the commerce-oriented issue other than, "break the economy?"

Yes. All these things about consumer choice and brand identity and what have you are a non-starter for the desktop market. It is only managers who care that they must buy something with a unique brand-identity and choice-facilitated corporate blah blah. Real people don't care about any of that stuff as far as operating systems are concerned, for one very important reason that everybody always misses. People don't buy operating systems. They buy computers. Put Linux on desktop machines, and have them in the shops alongside the Windows machines. People will buy them. Word of mouth is the strongest form of advertising, which is why companies spend so many millions trying to fabricate it. Having Linux machines in the shops, available to all, will generate enough word-of-mouth all on its own. People will still feel the buzz of consumer achievement because they just dropped a bunch of money on the computer itself.

[MikeTheC]

F/OSS itself requires some degree of central leadership. Until that happens, it will not appear as a credible choice for most of the "average typical" computer users out there.

[ade234uk]

Exactly. Ubuntu does everything Windows did and better minus of course a couple of games. Ubuntu has actually come to my rescue too, in my day to day job as well.

[Delever]

From development POV: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1013518

[koshatnik]

I dunno' if it's just me, but it seems like, soon enough, the only real difference people will notice between these Operating Systems is that Macs have nice hardware and Linux is free.

Here are my reasons for this (it just seems logical). We all know Mac, Windows, and Linux do basically the same things- media, internet, 3d rendering, games, documents, etc.

Now, the main arguments with Linux THESE DAYS is hardly about hardware support, due to significant improvement, but almost entirely about, "I can't do what I used to do in Windows." You know, people abusing Wine and not clicking on the Add/Remove button at all.

However, Wine has already experienced tremendous success, and will keep improving to the point that, I believe, drivers alone will be the last issue to wrap up. I mean, I use all of my 3d and game development programs from Windows with great speed and stability with Wine already. As far as most, other than "I must play every Windows game"rs, and "I have an iPod touch"ers, the compatibility in Wine already eliminates the need for Windows whatsoever.

For Windows, we have portable or co-op Linux. Portable Ubuntu was released recently using 8.10. This way, we can already use Linux and Windows together without all of the excess from a traditional virtualized environment.

So, in my theory, we'll assume that by 2015, Wine is at a state where everyone's most commonly used programs are Platinum rating. I'm not encouraging abuse of Wine, but for some people with niche programs it's just going to happen if the option's available.

So, how would Microsoft and Apple combat the soon quite obvious benefits of using Linux, beyond compatibility? You know, extremely low system footprint, stability, speed, amazing interfaces, the ability to customize every part of the GUI (not to mention OS), ease of installation, ease of software installation, ease of backup, excessive processor support, built-in security...

Well, if we're talking about Microsoft, they'll likely attempt what they're known for. When the competition wails on you, try to catch up and copy them.

However, even if Microsoft gets an alternative for compiz, (the most obvious benefit to newcomers to Linux), it will be nowhere near as extensible, open, or resource-light.

So basically, Linux is already on the edge of innovation in computing. If all Microsoft and Apple can do is copy Linux and keep the price tag, and you can do everything you want with platform-agnostic programs anyway, what will keep Linux from growing explosively over the upcoming decade?

I mean, isn't it obvious that people will just stop caring what commercial OS vendors can come up with, since it will be available to them for free anyway?

I think that the main groups staying with these companies will be hardcore fanboiz/galz, and people who are just plain obsessed with DOS and need its insecurities. And for them, I'm sure ReactOS or something like it will come around and give us an acceptable Win32 clone, anyway.

So, I want you guys' opinions. What are the big things standing in the way of this seemingly obvious prediction of the next decade in computing? I don't want to sound overzealous or like some sort of oversupportive biggot. I'm just wondering what will prevent Joe-shmoe from resurrecting his old hardware or getting a cheap Linux machine in the future?

Do you think Microsoft and Apple have some big trump cards up their sleeves they're just getting ready to spoil open-source-fun with?

I'm amazed by the amount of threads this topic generates, but also by the naievety alot of the time of people that actually think that an OS matters. OS's are like games consoles - it doesnt matter how great the games console is, how whizzy the hardware, how amazing the control system is, or how nice it looks, if it doesnt have any decent games, its worthless.

Exactly the same with an OS, but replace games with critical apps. It doesnt matter what shiny baubles an OS has, if it doesnt have big time apps supported by big time players, no one will use it, no matter how good the OS is.

Windows is buggy, virus prone, riddled with insecurity, crashes alot, has a poor filesystem, plagued with registry problems, and needs to be reinstalled every 6 months otherwise it clogs and falls over, is a hardware hog and uses resources poorly. Those are just a few of its problems. However, it doesnt matter, because it has the support of big time apps makers. Therefore, windows=best OS for the desktop.

End of argument. Apple are small fry in comparision.

[jespdj]

Actually linux still has a bright future considering, in fact it might have a better chance of being a mainstream OS in the long run then windows or Mac.
The reason?
Linux innovation is always on the move, almost each day brings something new and bold to the linux experience.
I think that innovation alone is not enough to attract the masses to Linux on the desktop and to make it a success.

Sure, geeks want something innovative, new and bold every day, but the average user barely knows what an operating system is and just wants the computer to work.

Also, the reason why Windows is so dominant is certainly not because it's such an innovative or technically high quality OS. It's because Microsoft managed to sell it to the whole world.

Sales is always going to be a weak point for Linux, simply because there is not one big company that sells it like Microsoft or Apple sell their OSes.

[praveesh]

I think the microsoft will go for a court sue against wine . Even if they didn't success , a court sue is enough to leak out all the money the wine project has (remember the story of lindows os).

[praveesh]

Sure, geeks want something innovative, new and bold every day, but the average user barely knows what an operating system is and just wants the computer to work.

linux is built not for an average joe but for a geek . Just read this ("http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm"/)

[danbuter]

If ubuntu gets too big, Microsoft will just sue it for Mono.



;)

[Tipped OuT]

Exactly. Ubuntu does everything Windows did and better minus of course a couple of games. Ubuntu has actually come to my rescue too, in my day to day job as well.

A couple of games? Pshhh. :P

[infestor]

I'm amazed by the amount of threads this topic generates, but also by the naievety alot of the time of people that actually think that an OS matters. OS's are like games consoles - it doesnt matter how great the games console is, how whizzy the hardware, how amazing the control system is, or how nice it looks, if it doesnt have any decent games, its worthless.

Exactly the same with an OS, but replace games with critical apps. It doesnt matter what shiny baubles an OS has, if it doesnt have big time apps supported by big time players, no one will use it, no matter how good the OS is.

Windows is buggy, virus prone, riddled with insecurity, crashes alot, has a poor filesystem, plagued with registry problems, and needs to be reinstalled every 6 months otherwise it clogs and falls over, is a hardware hog and uses resources poorly. Those are just a few of its problems. However, it doesnt matter, because it has the support of big time apps makers. Therefore, windows=best OS for the desktop.

End of argument. Apple are small fry in comparision.

exactly, that is the turn-point.

let's say i wanna game my *** off and bought 2 pcs of ati radeon hd 4770 to play GTA 4. if i dont use the damn windows all of it is grabage. also same goes for CAD/CAMs and many more apps.

in a world where capitalism has total domination and people lack consciousness it is ultra hard for free software to nourish, no matter how perfect it is.

[billgoldberg]

In 5 years time computing will be very different.
There is no better example of how innovation drives a market than the iPhone.
Before 2010 the PC will be phone sized (smaller is pointless as the human head won't be shrinking any time soon) and connected via wireless to input devices and screens.
There is a mountain of UI development in the way of making this work and the economics of it will mean that Apple and Microsoft will release these devices before the open source community will.

I don't believe that for one second.

There could be a market for those kind of computers (also see the recent netbook hype) but it will not replace normal computers.

[mynameinc]

I don't believe that for one second.

There could be a market for those kind of computers (also see the recent netbook hype) but it will not replace normal computers.
The netbook hype will die. I wouldn't sacrifice space over speed/power, and many other people won't either. I suspect a lot of netbook buyers will regret their purchase. 60% of netbook owners never take their netbook out of their house.

To the poster who thinks it isn't, speed and power is decreased in a netbook. The fastest netbook processor I can find is a 1.66 GHz, and my four year old Dell Inspiron 1501 has 2 GHz. The largest amount of RAM is 2.5GiB, this computer has 874.8MiB, not including Swap space and my Dell Diagnostics partitions (if that uses any RAM).

By the way, when Microsoft is threatened by Linux, their developers will download Ubuntu, tweak the themes, copyright it, and sell it as "Windows GNU".

[murderslastcrow]

On the subject of portable computing, my N810 has gotten overwhelmingly positive feedback from joe-shmoe, especially in comparison to the iPhone. Every time I bring up Midori with flash there's a wow (which is sad), but VNC Viewers really blow peoples' minds. The Gigabyte, AIGO, etc., I think that Linux has already shown its worth in the area of portable computing. Apple and Microsoft have already been beat to the chase in that regard.

Remember, however, despite my naivety I was saying that, hypothetically, Wine can run any useful program used in Windows. And we all know that if Microsoft sues any Linux distro outright vs. the Wine project itself, it will only spur motivation for coders and make the average computer user wonder, "oh, what's so BAD about Linux that Microsoft sees it as a threat, anyway?"

And we all know what people do when they hear something is illegal in the digital realm. (they do it, extensively) Not Linux users, per se, just according to many private polls on the subject of piracy and whatnot.

Tricking people into using Linux because it sounds illegal. Hah, that'll be the day. Anyway, I totally agree that, for most average people, the programs used are what's important. However, Apple has gotten enough market-share to be seen as desirable, regardless of it's lack of 'compatibility'.

So, in a sense, as long as we start having more Linux vendors here like they do in Europe and Asia, selling them in stores, the sheer 'wow' factor of compiz, coupled with a few discreet facts (no viruses, incredible security, SPEED, customizability, etc.) would definitely start to win a lot of people over.

After all, there's no knowing how many people use Linux, but according to the numbers we're already sure of, it's already quite a substantial amount. And that's assuming no one burns an ISO or uses it on more than one computer, and so on.

And, we all know that when people start to use something, and really love it, they stop caring about the old system. (Mac users love it, even though they have no idea of compatibility) There's also the argument for partial and primary Linux users. Sure, they may keep Windows on a partition, but they prefer Linux for MOST TASKS, and it's certainly not hard to accomplish 'playing around casually with Linux'. Try to do the same with Windows and you'll meet confusing tutorials coupled with a very shoddy LiveCD experience. XD And the need to reinstall GRUB in some cases.

Anyway, now that we've got a nice dose of reality, along with another nice dose of unrealistic optimism, I want to know-

What do you think you'll be using in five years time, as an OS? And how would you rate your satisfaction with Linux (1-10) and WHY?

[k2t0f12d]

in a world where capitalism has total domination and people lack consciousness it is ultra hard for free software to nourish, no matter how perfect it is.Free software does not conflict with nor is it the logical opposite of capital or any other "ism".

[handy]

Cloud (computing).

[jprophet420]

I love linix, love it. But what you're talking about isn't going to happen, and heres why:

While linux is open source, you have to use 'illegal' software to get the good stuff to run. All those files I use in wine to play games, microsoft owns. Everything with non-free in the name you wont be able to run if the owner decides to make it so. thats like almost ALL of your multimedia apps. If hundreds of millions of people start using it, thats exactly what will happen.

[dragos240]

I love linix, love it. But what you're talking about isn't going to happen, and heres why:

While linux is open source, you have to use 'illegal' software to get the good stuff to run. All those files I use in wine to play games, microsoft owns. Everything with non-free in the name you wont be able to run if the owner decides to make it so. thats like almost ALL of your multimedia apps. If hundreds of millions of people start using it, thats exactly what will happen.

What type of illegal software?

[jprophet420]

What type of illegal software?
the kind I just mentioned.

[murderslastcrow]

As for Wine, if the goals are reached the .dlls you need will be made up for, re-implemented, meaning that only illegal fonts should be the issue, and I'm sure they could load alternate fonts in eventuality. However, I agree- mp3 encoding, DVD encoding, Windows video and audio formats, etc. are all 'illegal' for us to use, to some degree. I just hope that, when that time comes (if anyone bothers to get into copyright at that time) that it won't take long to come up with alternative codecs and the such, just as we've done for video drivers for so long.

While embracing open source software and free licensing, free and open source for everything, sure it's not going to be easy to go without some of those technologies you'd find in Windows, if you are switching.

However, it's not particularly hard to do, and I think most people who use Linux primarily aren't all that frustrated when they can't do the impossible with things like Wine. Mac users take pride in incompatibility, for heaven's sake. XD

[thisllub]

I don't believe that for one second.

There could be a market for those kind of computers (also see the recent netbook hype) but it will not replace normal computers.

I meant 2020.
A computer will be the size of a phone run at least a week between charges, connect to every household device and your car.

Computers aren't finished yet, not by a long way.
Until they are truly mature there will be plenty of money to be made.

[bratcula]

Windows gives developers access to a huge number of users.

It gives users access to a huge number of applications.

LInux can't match both of those right now.

So Windows stays ahead.

[Freckletoe]

The 'central leadership' has started to begin with Mark Shuttleworth wanting to talk with Novell, Red Hat, and Linspire about having similar release schedules.

On topic, there's no question that Macs do the job best in terms of graphic design, music creation, video production. So if you were into anything remotely like those, than you get a Mac, no questions. But if you're just an average joe then you have the choice: Windows or Windoze? Oh, but wait, while at the Dell store you come across this thing called 'Ubuntu'! Now it's Windows or Ubuntu.

So recently Dell has been selling several of its models with Ubuntu 8.04 (or 7.04 if you wish) and to tell you the truth I think that more companies will catch on because the idea of actually paying less for an ubuntu version (keep in mind with a windows computer you pay for the OS too) it's slightly cheaper than a windows equivalant. It just makes sense! I wanna see more computer companies selling their computerss with Ubuntu (or linux in general i guess, I don't really care) on them! That, I believe that this is the future of Linux.

Edit: Apparently Acer's selling their stuff with Moblin Linux on them.

[CJ Master]

Freckle, they're not going to do it because it's cheaper. They purches licenses for $5 each. That's not going to impact anything long-term.

[Freckletoe]

I was talking about the consumer.

[JDShu]

Actually, the news of Red Hat's increasing stock prices implies that more companies might be switching than we think. And it does make sense for small businesses at the moment.

Inertia is the big reason that Windows is likely to be dominant for a while yet for desktops. Theres just no reason for the average user to switch since everybody else uses Windows. To them, "don't fix what ain't broke" and really to them, nothing is broken!

[mamamia88]

i think as time goes on it really won't matter what os you are using as they will all incorporate the best features of the competition so in a way you are right

[Giant Speck]

I think the microsoft will go for a court sue against wine . Even if they didn't success , a court sue is enough to leak out all the money the wine project has (remember the story of lindows os).

Wine has been around for fifteen years and Microsoft hasn't done much to confront it other than scanning for Wine configuration keys to prevent updates to programs running in Wine.