Why doesn't someone do to Linux what Apple did for Unix?

[mamamia88]

People buy macs because they are well built and have a very usable version of Unix built for it. They basically took an os that was mostly used b people in universities learning about computers and built an os that anyone could use and sold it exclusively on their hardware. Well most of the work has already been done on linux. It wouldn't cost much at all for a corporation like dell or hp to make sure it worked properly on a specific set of hardware and sell it to consumers. Consumers just want something reliable that is well built and easy to use. Well if google can rely on linux certainly joe smoe can. So why hasn't anyone done this yet? There is no real money in the software for the hardware company anyway. But this could really set them apart from other oems and it might be appealing to a bunch of people who only see osx and windows as options. Sure they'd have to publish their changes but big whoop. The selling point isn't the os itself.

[LiamOS]

Market breakthrough at this stage is next to impossible.

Further, I'd argue that, as far as making UNIX all that Apple did, doing the same to Linux would give you exactly the same product.

[Statia]

People buy macs because they are well built and have a very usable version of Unix built for it. They basically took an os that was mostly used b people in universities learning about computers and built an os that anyone could use and sold it exclusively on their hardware. Well most of the work has already been done on linux. It wouldn't cost much at all for a corporation like dell or hp to make sure it worked properly on a specific set of hardware and sell it to consumers. Consumers just want something reliable that is well built and easy to use.

This has already happened. It is called Android.

[KiwiNZ]

People buy macs because they are well built and have a very usable version of Unix built for it. They basically took an os that was mostly used b people in universities learning about computers and built an os that anyone could use and sold it exclusively on their hardware. Well most of the work has already been done on linux. It wouldn't cost much at all for a corporation like dell or hp to make sure it worked properly on a specific set of hardware and sell it to consumers. Consumers just want something reliable that is well built and easy to use. Well if google can rely on linux certainly joe smoe can. So why hasn't anyone done this yet? There is no real money in the software for the hardware company anyway. But this could really set them apart from other oems and it might be appealing to a bunch of people who only see osx and windows as options. Sure they'd have to publish their changes but big whoop. The selling point isn't the os itself.

Firstly, One word compatibility.

Secondly, Apple is a Hardware company, software is a means to an end for them, so for anything like this to happen someone has to break through with market leading hardware that has mass market appeal in both consumer and enterprise markets.

Googles products are very market focused, either mobile or what ever ChromeOS is for,( that thing has me baffled) and cloud computing. Google is primarily a software company, hardware is a means to an end for them.

[mamamia88]

Market breakthrough at this stage is next to impossible.

Further, I'd argue that, as far as making UNIX all that Apple did, doing the same to Linux would give you exactly the same product.

I'd argue that we'd have the same product as we do right now just with an entry point for people who don't know enough to install it themselves or have people like us to do it for them.

[speedwell68]

Have you seen the price of a Mac vs a regular PC? Why would a company like Dell, for example, want develop a bespoke GNU/Linux based OS that won't have compatibility with every peripheral device out there and won't run every app the user already has? The development costs would be huge, for little return, as the end user would just buy the Windows based version that would work with their existing stuff and be cheaper. Also there would be the issue of after sale support, Dell or whoever, would have to open a whole new support arm worldwide and train the staff to support this new OS.

[bfmetcalf]

Actually...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/dell-releases-powerful-well-supported-linux-ultrabook/

Dell is doing an ultra book that is supposed to be very well supported...

[cprofitt]

Apple did not do anything for Unix in my mind. They needed an answer to a terrible string of OS releases. They bought NeXT (another Steve Jobs company) and utilized NeXT to create OS X.



Unlike its predecessor, OS X is a Unix-like operating system built on technology that had been developed at NeXT through the second half of the 1980s and up until Apple purchased the company in early 1997.

NeXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel and BSD, an implementation of Unix dating back to the 1970s. It featured an object-oriented programming framework based on the Objective-C language.

So, Apple did not do anything to Unix... the Mach Kernel and Unix saved Apple.

[KiwiNZ]

Apple did not do anything for Unix in my mind. They needed an answer to a terrible string of OS releases. They bought NeXT (another Steve Jobs company) and utilized NeXT to create OS X.



So, Apple did not do anything to Unix... the Mach Kernel and Unix saved Apple.

+1

However I would qualify that with 'the Mach Kernel, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Nextstep contributed to the savour of Apple'

[DuckHook]

Much as Linux enthusiasts (myself included) would like to see Linux take more market share, I'm afraid that at this point, it just ain't a-goin-ta-happin. The vast majority of people don't want bewilderment, intimidation or unsought choices in their lives, so the very power, versatility and features that make Linux attractive to the technical users are the ones that scare general users away. The problem isn't that a vendor hasn't tried to package a slick and seamless preconfigured combination of hardware and software. It's that there is no way in the Linux universe to force people into the comforting and reassuring confines of the jail that so many actually think of as the "virtue" of the proprietary space.

Take hardware. You can't install OSX on anything but Apple. Even if you somehow succeed, you know you are on your own and may even have abbrogated the terms of the Apple license. Linux is the diametrically opposite of this philosophy, not only allowing but positively encouraging you to install it on anything and everything. Linux's advantage, right? Not really, because that's not how people actually behave. The reality is, most users like the Apple straightjacket, even when they say they don't. This was Job's most significant insight: don't give people what they think they want; give them what they don't know they want--and don't give them anything else. As proof, look at some of the very responses on this forum. Not a day goes by without some frustrated user saying: "if Linux doesn't install/upgrade/function more seamlessly, I'm going back to (or, to buy a) Mac/Windows." It gets you nowhere pointing out to these people that one of the most compelling reasons most of them tried Linux in the first place was the possibility of doing things that the proprietary vendors don't allow them to do.

Linux cannot be painless and seamless. Giving you the right to have a choice means giving you the right to make mistakes, and so many of the problems that this forum deals with are the result of people making mistakes because they were permitted to choose. Consider what would happen if a Vendor did put together a slick and seamless hardware/software combination. The first thing users would do is download an alternate DE. Then they would try compiling a different kernel, or hacking the BIOS, or rooting the thing. The only way a vendor could assure continued "seamlessness" of his product would be to lock his system down so tightly that it ceases to be Linux. Or put another way, it would have to become proprietary, which is the absolute antithesis of what Linux is.

I suspect that Linux will continue to grow slowly in the coming years, but it won't ever become prevalent because it is versatile to the point of bewilderment, powerful to the point of intimidation and feature-rich to the point of overwhelming and unwelcome choice. For most people, these things are just scary.

[szymon_g]

So, Apple did not do anything to Unix..>

how is your printing going? or using anything with webkit?
truth is, that the Apple was the only firm that brought unix onto desks of "normal people". it's contribution into various parts of unix-related world are great.

[Bandit]

Have you seen the price of a Mac vs a regular PC? Why would a company like Dell, for example, want develop a bespoke GNU/Linux based OS that won't have compatibility with every peripheral device out there and won't run every app the user already has? The development costs would be huge, for little return, as the end user would just buy the Windows based version that would work with their existing stuff and be cheaper. Also there would be the issue of after sale support, Dell or whoever, would have to open a whole new support arm worldwide and train the staff to support this new OS.

Comparing a Mac to a PC is like comparing a BMW to a Ford. Sure they both can do the same things but you expect a little more refinement from your BMW that the Ford just doesnt market to.

Look at what the basic model Macs offer: SSD almost standard in all systems, most by default. Retina displays that offer twice the pixle density of regular displays, backlit keys on laptops that adjust brightness based on outside light. Power Plugs that attach to the laptop via a magnet so you never break the plug off in the system or damage it in anyway. And mostly solid Aluminum case construction that is very strong and lightweight compared to plastic. Ad last but not least a feature rich and extremely reliable operating system that has commercial backing tailored to your hardware.

PC you dont get that...

[rai4shu2]

People buy macs because they are well built and have a very usable version of Unix built for it. They basically took an os that was mostly used b people in universities learning about computers and built an os that anyone could use and sold it exclusively on their hardware. Well most of the work has already been done on linux. It wouldn't cost much at all for a corporation like dell or hp to make sure it worked properly on a specific set of hardware and sell it to consumers. Consumers just want something reliable that is well built and easy to use. Well if google can rely on linux certainly joe smoe can. So why hasn't anyone done this yet? There is no real money in the software for the hardware company anyway. But this could really set them apart from other oems and it might be appealing to a bunch of people who only see osx and windows as options. Sure they'd have to publish their changes but big whoop. The selling point isn't the os itself.

What a tidal wave of nonsense!

Macs are well built? :P

Macs are actually built on Mach + Unix + a bunch Mac stuff, not just Unix.

Universities mostly use Windows, not Unix. Unix is mostly used for stuff like old servers.

Actually, there were Mac clones for a while. Jobs shut that down because it wasn't profitable. Oddly enough, people weren't willing to pay 50% more for the same quality hardware.

Linux certainly has a lot of merit compared to Darwin. I'll give you that.

Dell and HP aren't able to print money the way Microsoft can. They rely on their deals with Microsoft, who in turn rely on their continuing illegal monopoly to bleed the industry dry.

Consumers aren't millionaires. They want something cheap. That's the bottom line.

Google can rely on Linux because they are technical experts (who can get around all the bugs in the hardware they use). Consumers are subjected to defective hardware that just barely works on Windows because the drivers provide workarounds and such.

There have been numerous Linux PC bundles offered, including from Dell. Why haven't you noticed?

No money in software? Why then do OEMs always pile on the junkware?

The selling point is third party software. The more ISVs, the more your hardware will sell. People couldn't care less about the hardware. They just want their games or productivity software to work. Good luck doing that with a Linux box.

[szymon_g]

Macs are actually built on Mach + Unix + a bunch Mac stuff, not just Unix.

unix is more an idea than product


Actually, there were Mac clones for a while. Jobs shut that down because it wasn't profitable. Oddly enough, people weren't willing to pay 50% more for the same quality hardware.
they were shut because they were breaking license of MacOSX (apparently)


Linux certainly has a lot of merit compared to Darwin. I'll give you that.

on desktop (where macosx is used, its absent on servers)? no, it doesn't. and who cares about Darwin alone, instead of Macosx?


their continuing illegal monopoly to bleed the industry dry.

have you got any proofs for backing your claims (especially about its illegality)? if no, shut up


Windows because the drivers provide workarounds and such.

... compared to linux, where everything works fine and out-of-the-box? bitch, please....


There have been numerous Linux PC bundles offered, including from Dell. Why haven't you noticed?

... so far dell's new xps is more expensive with linux than windows aboard.

[KiwiNZ]

What a tidal wave of nonsense!


Universities mostly use Windows, not Unix. Unix is mostly used for stuff like old servers.

.

what?

[mindaa]

Simple answer...

System 76

Plus what you are describing "make a linux computer" is basically a MAC, it has already been done

[Bandit]

what?

LOL I was thinking the same thing...

[cprofitt]

how is your printing going? or using anything with webkit?
truth is, that the Apple was the only firm that brought unix onto desks of "normal people". it's contribution into various parts of unix-related world are great.

Once again...

CUPS existed prior to Apple's OS X. Apple adopted it because it needed a way to print... Apple has worked on CUPS since 2007 when it hired the chief developer and purchased the source code. Apple did not create CUPS though... it, once again, got rescued by an Open Source project.


Michael Sweet, who owned Easy Software Products, started developing CUPS in 1997. The first public betas appeared in 1999. The original design of CUPS used the LPD protocol, but due to limitations in LPD and vendor incompatibilities, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) was chosen instead. CUPS was quickly adopted as the default printing system for several Linux distributions, including Red Hat Linux.[citation needed] In March 2002, Apple Inc. adopted CUPS as the printing system for Mac OS X 10.2. In February 2007, Apple Inc. hired chief developer Michael Sweet and purchased the CUPS source code. wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUPS)

Webkit was originally a KDE project. There was some bitter struggles surrounding it because Apple was being typical Apple and not very friendly to 'returning code to the open source community'.



The code that would become WebKit began in 1998 as the KDE’s HTML layout engine KHTML and KDE’s JavaScript engine (KJS). The WebKit project was started within Apple by Don Melton on 25 June 2001 as a fork of KHTML and KJS. Melton explained in an e-mail to KDE developers that KHTML and KJS allowed easier development than other available technologies by virtue of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed and standards-compliant. wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit)

Again, Apple use Open Source code to create an Apple product that they needed to succeed. Apple is, in my opinion, the biggest success story of a company that used Open Source to save itself. It is also the biggest reason to fear what some companies will due to open source code once they get their hands on it.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't expect Apple to contribute much to Open Source as it is not their corporate culture to do so and it is their decision to make. I do not agree with their stance but I do respect their right and freedom to take the stance they wish.

[cprofitt]

I don't expect Apple to contribute much to Open Source as it is not their corporate culture to do so and it is their decision to make. I do not agree with their stance but I do respect their right and freedom to take the stance they wish.


KiwiNZ: I agree it is there choice to make... it is also my choice to not buy any of their products in response to their choice.

[KiwiNZ]

KiwiNZ: I agree it is there choice to make... it is also my choice to not buy any of their products in response to their choice.

Absolutely

[mr john]

"Comparing a Mac to a PC is like comparing a BMW to a Ford. "

Nonsense. There are some PC's which are just as good if not better designed than macs. It just depends who the manufacturer is and what model the user has.

The great thing about the PC platform is that you can go cheap if you want to, or you can go high end. You're not limited to a small selection of main hardware. There's far more choice... Steve Jobs very cleverly tried to say that choice is fragmentation, but not all of us were fooled by that. And I for one will not be fooled by the BMW/Ferrari analogy that totally ignores the existence of high end PC's.

[Linuxisfast]

Apple did not do anything for Unix in my mind. They needed an answer to a terrible string of OS releases. They bought NeXT (another Steve Jobs company) and utilized NeXT to create OS X.



So, Apple did not do anything to Unix... the Mach Kernel and Unix saved Apple.

Correct all they did was to create a controlled market of hw/sw. If there is anything Apple can be credited with is marketing various devices under Apple name and making them highly successful among a certain crowd. Apple after daunting Power PC went for Intel and that exposed its hype in a sense. In PC world like LINUX its about choice and superior well designed hardware, motherboards and other peripherals which represent far better value and options that APPLE can never come close to.

[Aaron Christianson]

unix is more an idea than product
first and only on-topic statement in this thread that makes any sense.

UNIX proper is an ancient, proprietary operating system formerly owned by AT&T, developed at Bell Labs, semi-defunct when the US government broke up AT&T because they decided it was a monopoly. Today, UNIX is a brand name owned by the IEEE which is licensed to companies who adhere to the POSIX standard (aka: Single Unix Specification) and pay a boatload of money to use the name. Apple is one such company (OSX), HP is another (HP-UX), as well as IBM (AIX) and Oracle (Solaris).

Most of these are also "genetic" unicies, meaning that are decended from source code that was in the original UINX (though how much of that source is left is anyone's guess). The BSD's are also "genetic UNIX", though they are not licensed to use the UNIX name. Much of the underlying system of OSX, of course, is based heavily on FreeBSD (mostly userland, with a bit of kernel as well). While they are major contributors to FreeBSD, it's not like they have catapulted FreeBSD onto the mainstream market.

And then there is Linux and Minix, the clones with no relation (in terms of code) to the original Unix. However, from a philosophical standpoint, GNU/LInux, and FreeBSD to an even greater extent are much closer to the orginal UNIX than OSX. They tend to opt for programs that that "do one thing will", "work well together," and "handle text streams," the core tenants of UNIX philosophy. Linux and FreeBSD also retain a lot more of the UNIX culture among their users (to say nothing of their FSH). The IEEE actually offered to help the Linux community move to POSIX compliance and give them rights to the name UNIX for the nominal fee of $1 (or 1¢, I can never remember). However, nobody in the community was really interested, and Linus also had some things to say about certain parts of POSIX being "brain-dead."

OSX does have the GNU coreutils, so it does adhere to UNIX philosophy up to that point, but from there on, it's much more of a "walled garden" approach, which is more or less the opposite of UNIX. OSX also doesn't compile source code targeted at UNIX platforms nearly as well as Linux and the BSD's, and just forget about compiling OSX code on any other UNIX machine.

There are interviews out there with the fathers of UNIX (Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson and Rob Pike) where they all say they consider Linux to be UNIX for all practical purposes, and OSX as well. Eric Raymond has said similar things, though he is a bit more cynical than the others about OSX. One could argue that Linux is actually "more UNIX" than OSX is, thought they are certainly both functional UNIX systems by any estimation.

In any event, what Apple did for UNIX was dilute its values down to nothing and slap a nice GUI on it. Google has already done the same for Linux, though I'll admit that using the GNU coreutils on OSX is much more "home-like" than using busybox on Android. Course, busybox is infinitely better than anything you can do with iOS, as far as UNIX goes.

That isn't to say we shouldn't be thankful for the major contributions Google and Apple make to their UNIX-like upstreams, from which we all benefit on a daily basis.

/OSXvsUNIXrant

[JDShu]

Hah, a discussion on Apple using NeXT and no mention of BeOS? :P


I don't expect Apple to contribute much to Open Source as it is not their corporate culture to do so and it is their decision to make. I do not agree with their stance but I do respect their right and freedom to take the stance they wish.

To be fair, Apple does fund some very important open source projects. CUPS and LLVM come to mind.

[Paqman]

This has already happened. It is called Android.

And to a lesser extent, Chromebook.

[Aaron Christianson]

And to a lesser extent, Chromebook.
lesser in every possible sense.

[Paqman]

lesser in every possible sense.

Ragardless of what you think of the result, it's nice to see a big company putting resources behind a Linux system for the general consumer.

[forrestcupp]

This has already happened. It is called Android.

I can't believe you're the only one who said this, and nobody even commented on it, when it's the obvious answer. Android is a much better comparison to Apple's using Unix than System 76 or anything else.

Apple took some free parts of BSD, and then built the rest of their proprietary OS on top of it. Android took the free Linux kernel and built the rest of their so-called open source OS on top of it.

Android is to Linux what MacOS X is to BSD. As far as tying it to good hardware, like Apple, we have things like Samsung Galaxy S3 and Google Nexus. Nothing big has been done in PCs, but as far as mainstream, commercial OSs go, Android is the only viable direct comparison that you are seeking.

[Primefalcon]

errrm https://www.system76.com/

[mythic97]

No one rememberer UNIX because of OS X all that will happen is that maybe Microsoft <snip> and it being a flop who here uses a Chromebook? say yes at end of your post

Look this will show how going mainstream aint working and we will get more viruses and Linux is based of UNIX so technically Linux and OS X are half brothers.

just some food for thought

[Primefalcon]

Besides 100% honest I think there are more Linux machines in use out there than macs.... I do come across a lot of people using them....

Where apple is killing everyone is in their devices such as Ipods, Ipads and then with their music sales through Itunes

[tomdkat]

+1

However I would qualify that with 'the Mach Kernel, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Nextstep contributed to the savour of Apple'
+2

I think it's really cool that OS X incorporates Mach. I'm not sure of any other "mainstream" OS based on a microkernel. I believe the Linux kernel is still considered a monolithic kernel.

In any event, I also agree I don't think Apple really did anything "for" Unix. Yes, they make it well known OS X has UNIX at its core but NOT ONE Mac owner I personally know has ever said ANYTHING about UNIX when talking about their Mac. It's all about the UI and how cool the hardware looks.

A friend of mine had a NeXT workstation and I drooled every time I saw his machine.

Peace...

[Aaron Christianson]

Linux is based of UNIX so technically Linux and OS X are half brothers.
Linux is actually a clone of a clone Unix (minix being the first clone)... so Linux is like the modernized clone of OS X's adoptive gandfather.

That also happens to make a much more interesting premise for a book or film. I Think something similar was in Final Fantassy VII and Gundam Wing Seed

[sdowney717]

Google is the natural fit with Linux based OS. They have a ready made useful Linus OS already coded with many interested and dedicated programmers to draw on. Google has Android which is Linux based.
And Google has Chrome OS which I think will only get better as they keep developing it.

So I expect Google Chrome OS to slowly penetrate this market.
Expect more apps and efforts put into this OS.

Linux CE embedded is also on all sorts of devices, such as Netflix Blueray players. Linux is ruling right now. MS has inertia going for it regarding the desktop. But the desktop is becoming less relevant to how younger people use computers.

[sdowney717]

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Series-550-Chromebook-Wi-Fi/dp/B007Y8DJ22
lots of very positive feedback for this Chrome Book.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/assets/common/images/devices/samsung-s550/hero.png

[sdowney717]

So what version is chrome OS at now?
here is a review on ver 19 which brought much more of a desktop feel to the experience.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/29/chrome-os-review-version-19/

[sdowney717]

Android is the new MS Windows of OS's
http://www.zdnet.com/android-really-is-the-new-windows-7000007450/

Chrome Os and android may merge functionally.
http://www.zdnet.com/with-google-readying-its-own-nexus-chromebook-will-it-marry-chrome-os-to-android-7000007987/

Linux is taking over because why?
What is the real reason?

Partly the new PC for many people is the handheld computer, phone and browser all in one device.

[screaminj3sus]

Simple answer...

System 76

Plus what you are describing "make a linux computer" is basically a MAC, it has already been done

I'm not a huge mac fan, and I myself have a system76 laptop that I really like, but system76 + ubuntu really isn't close to the same level as apple hardware + osx yet...

[Statia]

I can't believe you're the only one who said this, and nobody even commented on it, when it's the obvious answer.

So did I :-)



Android took the free Linux kernel and built the rest of their so-called open source OS on top of it.
Google took the free Linux kernel and adapted it to work with (the rest of) Android (mobile hardware, Dalvik VM, GUI).
Their changes to the kernel have been given given back to the community, as specified by the GPL. As for the rest of Android, it is not open source and AFAIK Google has never pretended this.

[black veils]

Much as Linux enthusiasts (myself included) would like to see Linux take more market share, I'm afraid that at this point, it just ain't a-goin-ta-happin. The vast majority of people don't want bewilderment, intimidation or unsought choices in their lives, so the very power, versatility and features that make Linux attractive to the technical users are the ones that scare general users away. The problem isn't that a vendor hasn't tried to package a slick and seamless preconfigured combination of hardware and software. It's that there is no way in the Linux universe to force people into the comforting and reassuring confines of the jail that so many actually think of as the "virtue" of the proprietary space.

Take hardware. You can't install OSX on anything but Apple. Even if you somehow succeed, you know you are on your own and may even have abbrogated the terms of the Apple license. Linux is the diametrically opposite of this philosophy, not only allowing but positively encouraging you to install it on anything and everything. Linux's advantage, right? Not really, because that's not how people actually behave. The reality is, most users like the Apple straightjacket, even when they say they don't. This was Job's most significant insight: don't give people what they think they want; give them what they don't know they want--and don't give them anything else. As proof, look at some of the very responses on this forum. Not a day goes by without some frustrated user saying: "if Linux doesn't install/upgrade/function more seamlessly, I'm going back to (or, to buy a) Mac/Windows." It gets you nowhere pointing out to these people that one of the most compelling reasons most of them tried Linux in the first place was the possibility of doing things that the proprietary vendors don't allow them to do.

Linux cannot be painless and seamless. Giving you the right to have a choice means giving you the right to make mistakes, and so many of the problems that this forum deals with are the result of people making mistakes because they were permitted to choose. Consider what would happen if a Vendor did put together a slick and seamless hardware/software combination. The first thing users would do is download an alternate DE. Then they would try compiling a different kernel, or hacking the BIOS, or rooting the thing. The only way a vendor could assure continued "seamlessness" of his product would be to lock his system down so tightly that it ceases to be Linux. Or put another way, it would have to become proprietary, which is the absolute antithesis of what Linux is.

I suspect that Linux will continue to grow slowly in the coming years, but it won't ever become prevalent because it is versatile to the point of bewilderment, powerful to the point of intimidation and feature-rich to the point of overwhelming and unwelcome choice. For most people, these things are just scary.

i think you make good points. this is my perspective:

regarding the 3rd paragraph, i think it could be done. perhaps.. if the system was frozen-in-time, and updated as is, ie. locked down to an extent, then it would be 'friendly' to those less technically capable. there could be an on-off switch for this lock-down, for the more technically capable.

created using software which already exists, collecting apps for a full environment, and restricting what can be installed (in the locked method).

though i think things are fine as they are.

being realistic, the world is not going to change, people will stick with windows, because the world has adjusted to it, and the loyal hardware vendors etc, so its not easy to get suitable hardware support for linux systems.

the people who want something more/else, will be curious enough to find it eventually, and have fun.

the organisations, companies, and government agencies etc use linux systems if they want to, it is used in various locations.

so what needs to change? it is not realistic to think everything could.

[pompel9]

Comparing a Mac to a PC is like comparing a BMW to a Ford. Sure they both can do the same things but you expect a little more refinement from your BMW that the Ford just doesnt market to.

Look at what the basic model Macs offer: SSD almost standard in all systems, most by default. Retina displays that offer twice the pixle density of regular displays, backlit keys on laptops that adjust brightness based on outside light. Power Plugs that attach to the laptop via a magnet so you never break the plug off in the system or damage it in anyway. And mostly solid Aluminum case construction that is very strong and lightweight compared to plastic. Ad last but not least a feature rich and extremely reliable operating system that has commercial backing tailored to your hardware.

PC you dont get that...

I have never seen a mac with aluminum casing. All the ones I have seen is cheap plastic. It's overpriced for what you get.

I have tried various macs. All of them had troubles. Crashes and freez. And most important, now way to fix it yourself. You have to send the piece of crap into a specialized firm to repair it at outrages prices.

So, does that sound good?

[forrestcupp]

Google took the free Linux kernel and adapted it to work with (the rest of) Android (mobile hardware, Dalvik VM, GUI).
Their changes to the kernel have been given given back to the community, as specified by the GPL. As for the rest of Android, it is not open source and AFAIK Google has never pretended this.

As far as I know, Honeycomb was the only version that wasn't considered open source, and that was because they were trying to mix the phone and tablet platforms without people screwing it up. Other than that, I think they have all been considered open source. The reason I said "so-called" is because even though it's technically open source, it appears that Google doesn't give the community as much control as what FOSS devs are accustomed to.

[mamamia88]

I have never seen a mac with aluminum casing. All the ones I have seen is cheap plastic. It's overpriced for what you get.

I have tried various macs. All of them had troubles. Crashes and freez. And most important, now way to fix it yourself. You have to send the piece of crap into a specialized firm to repair it at outrages prices.

So, does that sound good?

you must not be looking hard enough. and i'm sure you can fix them yourself. they are basically the same as fixing any other pc laptop. just don't expect them to honor the warranty like any other hardware manufacturer if you open it up.

[KiwiNZ]

I have never seen a mac with aluminum casing. All the ones I have seen is cheap plastic. It's overpriced for what you get.

I have tried various macs. All of them had troubles. Crashes and freez. And most important, now way to fix it yourself. You have to send the piece of crap into a specialized firm to repair it at outrages prices.

So, does that sound good?

Except the now gone White MacBook they have been Aluminium for along time so you have not seen an up to date unit.

The company I have just purchased does Mac repairs, well can do Mac repairs, not a lot of demand for the service, (we do sell a lot of Macs) our repair rates are the same as for any other machine and are competitive with other repairers.

[mythic97]

Take a page from Google rip out root access ship with anti virus and make it fast

then don't make it internet only with 16gb memory ssd

then massive marketing and adverts

followed by massive education program

followed by a comparison of windows vs Linux

lastly release Linux

done

[Bandit]

I have never seen a mac with aluminum casing. All the ones I have seen is cheap plastic. It's overpriced for what you get.

I have tried various macs. All of them had troubles. Crashes and freez. And most important, now way to fix it yourself. You have to send the piece of crap into a specialized firm to repair it at outrages prices.

So, does that sound good?

So your saying you havent looked at a Mac in the past 10 to15 years?
They started moving to Aluminum casing just after 2000ish models.
Also they have become much easier to access to repair the units.
Admittingly a good youtube video on how to get into them can still be very useful, but this is normal with any compact designed item.
As far as warranty, a emachine from walmart is easy to get into, but warranty sticker voids warranty if you tear it to open the casing.
Thus being easy or hard to get into is not relavent to what does or does not void the warranty. At least in the case of Apple, they give you ways on most their machines to upgrade items without voiding the warranty on the rest of the system. Cant do that with most HP, Dell or eMachine's...

[Erik1984]

Much as Linux enthusiasts (myself included) would like to see Linux take more market share, I'm afraid that at this point, it just ain't a-goin-ta-happin. The vast majority of people don't want bewilderment, intimidation or unsought choices in their lives, so the very power, versatility and features that make Linux attractive to the technical users are the ones that scare general users away. The problem isn't that a vendor hasn't tried to package a slick and seamless preconfigured combination of hardware and software. It's that there is no way in the Linux universe to force people into the comforting and reassuring confines of the jail that so many actually think of as the "virtue" of the proprietary space.

Take hardware. You can't install OSX on anything but Apple. Even if you somehow succeed, you know you are on your own and may even have abbrogated the terms of the Apple license. Linux is the diametrically opposite of this philosophy, not only allowing but positively encouraging you to install it on anything and everything. Linux's advantage, right? Not really, because that's not how people actually behave. The reality is, most users like the Apple straightjacket, even when they say they don't. This was Job's most significant insight: don't give people what they think they want; give them what they don't know they want--and don't give them anything else. As proof, look at some of the very responses on this forum. Not a day goes by without some frustrated user saying: "if Linux doesn't install/upgrade/function more seamlessly, I'm going back to (or, to buy a) Mac/Windows." It gets you nowhere pointing out to these people that one of the most compelling reasons most of them tried Linux in the first place was the possibility of doing things that the proprietary vendors don't allow them to do.

Linux cannot be painless and seamless. Giving you the right to have a choice means giving you the right to make mistakes, and so many of the problems that this forum deals with are the result of people making mistakes because they were permitted to choose. Consider what would happen if a Vendor did put together a slick and seamless hardware/software combination. The first thing users would do is download an alternate DE. Then they would try compiling a different kernel, or hacking the BIOS, or rooting the thing. The only way a vendor could assure continued "seamlessness" of his product would be to lock his system down so tightly that it ceases to be Linux. Or put another way, it would have to become proprietary, which is the absolute antithesis of what Linux is.

I suspect that Linux will continue to grow slowly in the coming years, but it won't ever become prevalent because it is versatile to the point of bewilderment, powerful to the point of intimidation and feature-rich to the point of overwhelming and unwelcome choice. For most people, these things are just scary.

Well said! However I do not agree 100%. Ubuntu actually addresses some of the issues that you raise. Ubuntu has opened up Linux to a group of users that do not even know how to compile the kernel (actually I don't even know how to do that properly). Maybe even to people who don't know what a kernel is. Also it's clear that Canonical tries to protect users from messing up their system by limiting default customization options and removing things that are known not to work. Removing Unity 2D also fits in that picture. Easier to maintain, less options for the user.

I do share your 'pessimism' though, Ubuntu is trying but it will not be enough to bring Linux to the masses. Hopefully it will be enough to make Canonical profitable (or break even) and able to support Ubuntu for years to come.

[Statia]

As far as I know, Honeycomb was the only version that wasn't considered open source, and that was because they were trying to mix the phone and tablet platforms without people screwing it up. Other than that, I think they have all been considered open source.

I am happy to stand corrected.
But:

http://source.android.com/faqs.html#why-are-parts-of-android-developed-in-private



Why are parts of Android developed in private?

It typically takes over a year to bring a device to market, but of course device manufacturers want to ship the latest software they can. Developers, meanwhile, don't want to have to constantly track new versions of the platform when writing apps. Both groups experience a tension between shipping products, and not wanting to fall behind.
To address this, some parts of the next version of Android including the core platform APIs are developed in a private branch. These APIs constitute the next version of Android. Our aim is to focus attention on the current stable version of the Android source code, while we create the next version of the platform as driven by flagship Android devices. This allows developers and OEMs to focus on a single version without having to track unfinished future work just to keep up. Other parts of the Android system that aren't related to application compatibility are developed in the open, however. It's our intention to move more of these parts to open development over time.
(That is probably why you mentioned the "so called" opensourceness)

[dpny]

Much as Linux enthusiasts (myself included) would like to see Linux take more market share, I'm afraid that at this point, it just ain't a-goin-ta-happin. The vast majority of people don't want bewilderment, intimidation or unsought choices in their lives, so the very power, versatility and features that make Linux attractive to the technical users are the ones that scare general users away. The problem isn't that a vendor hasn't tried to package a slick and seamless preconfigured combination of hardware and software. It's that there is no way in the Linux universe to force people into the comforting and reassuring confines of the jail that so many actually think of as the "virtue" of the proprietary space.

Take hardware. You can't install OSX on anything but Apple. Even if you somehow succeed, you know you are on your own and may even have abbrogated the terms of the Apple license. Linux is the diametrically opposite of this philosophy, not only allowing but positively encouraging you to install it on anything and everything. Linux's advantage, right? Not really, because that's not how people actually behave. The reality is, most users like the Apple straightjacket, even when they say they don't. This was Job's most significant insight: don't give people what they think they want; give them what they don't know they want--and don't give them anything else. As proof, look at some of the very responses on this forum. Not a day goes by without some frustrated user saying: "if Linux doesn't install/upgrade/function more seamlessly, I'm going back to (or, to buy a) Mac/Windows." It gets you nowhere pointing out to these people that one of the most compelling reasons most of them tried Linux in the first place was the possibility of doing things that the proprietary vendors don't allow them to do.

Linux cannot be painless and seamless. Giving you the right to have a choice means giving you the right to make mistakes, and so many of the problems that this forum deals with are the result of people making mistakes because they were permitted to choose. Consider what would happen if a Vendor did put together a slick and seamless hardware/software combination. The first thing users would do is download an alternate DE. Then they would try compiling a different kernel, or hacking the BIOS, or rooting the thing. The only way a vendor could assure continued "seamlessness" of his product would be to lock his system down so tightly that it ceases to be Linux. Or put another way, it would have to become proprietary, which is the absolute antithesis of what Linux is.

I suspect that Linux will continue to grow slowly in the coming years, but it won't ever become prevalent because it is versatile to the point of bewilderment, powerful to the point of intimidation and feature-rich to the point of overwhelming and unwelcome choice. For most people, these things are just scary.

Well said. Thanks for that.

And I agree. The vast majority of computer users don't want to know anything about the insides of their machines. They want it to start up and work with as few problems as possible. There's nothing wrong with this: most people want their possessions to work this way. The percentage of people who like to tinker and code and play with their machines is tiny and always will be. There is a lot of veneration of hackers and coders and geeks in computer culture, but, like the veneration of sports stars or rock stars, it's something which looks strange from outside the community.

[forrestcupp]

I am happy to stand corrected.
But:

http://source.android.com/faqs.html#why-are-parts-of-android-developed-in-private


(That is probably why you mentioned the "so called" opensourceness)

Exactly. I don't even have a problem with the way they do it. But a lot of hardcore FOSS enthusiasts do.

[monkeybrain2012]

@OP

What would you want someone to do with linux a la Apple? Take a free system and turn it into a walled garden? That is called ripping off.

[KiwiNZ]

@OP

What would you want someone to do with linux a la Apple? Take a free system and turn it into a walled garden? That is called ripping off.

No, he was suggesting that someone take Linux desktop and turn it into a successful profitable business model that has mass market appeal and penetration.

[Jonny87]

Wow what a discussion, I just thought I'd add my 2 cents.

I'm inclined to agree with the OP, while not complete disagreeing with the points that others have made. I would like to see a company take linux, create (or modify an existing..) GUI that is stable and easy to use. You can keep the advance functionality there for those power users who want it via a terminal app, but limit it from the basic user to prevent them making changes the don't understand.

The fact that Linux is secure and has very low virus threat makes it very marketable as a base OS.

From what I've heard of the general public (non tech orientated people) in my experience is that more and more people are choosing Apple regardless of the high price tag. They see Apple as a system that is stable, reliable, user friendly, and just works.

I've lost count of the number of times I had someone comment on my Linux system saying that it's "Hard" to use or understand when their just trying to do simple task like web browsing. Really its not that its hard to use, its that its not their familiar Windows environment. They look at it and go, "Different!! Different!! I can't handle this!". And yet the apple GUI is completely different from Windows, yet people say that its easier to use. This because either they have head that its better than windows or that they have spent alot of money on it and so they want to learn how to use it. Linux should essentially be the same, they only need to take some time learn a different interface and their away. However this interface needs to be stable.

[TBABill]

While I agree that brining to the masses a hardware line and linux distro would be difficult, Google really has already done so. They were creative enough, whether you agree with their method, to deliver a cloud based Linux operating system on low end machines to capture a piece of the market currently and previously dominated by Windows. Apple already has the high end and MS has the rest. However, Google is pounding out sales of Chromebooks in quantities far exceeding expectations.

I own my first Chromebook, the Acer C7. I also own 3 MacBook Pro 13" models (all 2012 models) and I'm down to one dedicated laptop and one dedicated desktop for Linux and only one Windows machine in the house. My Chromebook is fast and it runs cool (temp). It's quiet, the touchpad is decent and the screen is nice. Other than lacking installed drivers and having to print via ePrint on my HP printer, I have no unaddressed needs on Chrome OS. In the event I run into one, I'll just grab a MacBook and get it done, then go back to my Chromebook. For $199, that's fully what I expected to do and I anticipated it only being a secondary computer, not my main machine.

Building a new hardware platform and creating a globally accepted distro would be on the scale of impossible for most companies. Most build either hardware or software, but seldom both. To do so beginning today with the market penetration of choices between Windows, Mac or taking one of those two choices' machines and running Linux on it....there are just too many easier options that a new startup would have to compete against. Best Buy is dying, you can't "touch" a computer at an online retailer and few others sell computers in stores (Staples, OfficeMax, WalMart). So you'd have to penetrate retail sales chains, build a superior product for a lower price and then market so massively to the entire world that expectations would be that company would have $Billions to invest in the venture.

Google is doing it right. They're a giant already and they're building their own ecosystem with Chromebooks by controlling the BIOS. Sure, we'd all love it to be wide open and ready for our Linux install, but the bottom line is they want you in their ecosystem. They want you using GMail, Google Docs, G+ and all their other apps. Just like Apple has done, they're closing in the system and doing a great job of making decent hardware, decent performance and decent expectations in their marketing. They aren't over-hyping the experience because it's not the full MS or Apple experience, but it's a darn good one for next to nothing for the consumer to pay.

I think Google will expand to more capable hardware and installable apps as the market demands increase for those things. Their OS is clean, easy and fast and once they adapt to consumer demand we may have a really great third choice (besides Linux).

[monkeybrain2012]

Wow what a discussion, I just thought I'd add my 2 cents.
I would like to see a company take linux, create (or modify an existing..) GUI that is stable and easy to use. You can keep the advance functionality there for those power users who want it via a terminal app, but limit it from the basic user to prevent them making changes the don't understand.
.

Isn't that what Canonical is doing with Ubuntu? I don't think Ubuntu is harder to use than Mac. The hardware compatibility issue has no solution unless Canonical (or some other companies) starts making and selling hardware as well (Chrome book?)

[silverhaze06]

But if they did that, it wouldn't be open source anymore and would cease to be a good OS.

[mips]

Problem is you have to work what upstream provides. If you take a snapshot and then build on it or fork it then you have to maintain compatibility with newer apps coming in.

Apple essentially took a snapshot of a few things and built upon that not worrying about what happens with future stuff as compatibility won't be an issue as they created their own development & build environment to function in a closed wall system.

[lz1dsb]

Wow... what a discussion indeed! :guitar:
What do you guys think about Open Hardware? It's still immature and more or less a hobby initiative, but wouldn't it be great if the mainstream hardware manufacturers start producing hardware which is open, so that making drivers that really work wouldn't be an issue for any OS. Than the Open Source could really take advantage of, well the open source ;)
It would be great, but I guess this wouldn't happen anytime soon...

[silverhaze06]

Wow... what a discussion indeed! :guitar:
What do you guys think about Open Hardware? It's still immature and more or less a hobby initiative, but wouldn't it be great if the mainstream hardware manufacturers start producing hardware which is open, so that making drivers that really work wouldn't be an issue for any OS. Than the Open Source could really take advantage of, well the open source ;)
It would be great, but I guess this wouldn't happen anytime soon...

It would be awesome. But I'm sure that makes too much sense for major computer manufacturers to ever start doing it.But we can only hope... [-o<

[lz1dsb]

It would be awesome. But I'm sure that makes too much sense for major computer manufacturers to ever start doing it.But we can only hope... [-o<
I agree. Only if the major manufacturers get into this wagon, it would make any difference. For now we could just praise such an awesome projects like Arduino and many others.
But I guess with correct policies in Europe, USA and the rest of the world, the governments could provide incentives for such manufacturers.
I think it's still ridiculous that in some institutions the .doc and the .xls format is requested for applications and other documents. WTF! Why? Isn't that the role of the government, to give you the freedom to use a document format, which is open and free, and than you can decide on which OS an on which Office suite you create it? I bit of topic, but I think it's also related...

[silverhaze06]

I agree. Only if the major manufacturers get into this wagon, it would make any difference. For now we could just praise such an awesome projects like Arduino and many others.
But I guess with correct policies in Europe, USA and the rest of the world, the governments could provide incentives for such manufacturers.
I think it's still ridiculous that in some institutions the .doc and the .xls format is requested for applications and other documents. WTF! Why? Isn't that the role of the government, to give you the freedom to use a document format, which is open and free, and than you can decide on which OS an on which Office suite you create it? I bit of topic, but I think it's also related...

Well when it comes to things like .doc and .xls files, getting the government involved in that would be kinda pointless, and a bit overkill. All microsoft office format documents work fine in linux with libre and open office.

[lz1dsb]

Well when it comes to things like .doc and .xls files, getting the government involved in that would be kinda pointless, and a bit overkill. All microsoft office format documents work fine in linux with libre and open office.
They work well, as long as you don't modify something. After you do this with LibreOffice or OpenOffice, you don't have any guarantee that the spacing will be in tact, or the text lined up.
Being forced to use a still closed document format sounds to me like a government policy which stimulates the monopoly. Because in order to be legal, I have to buy MS Office, and than, I can't run it on anything else besides Windows OS (well, the option with WINE is fine, but I'm not quite sure how legal is this). So in that respect... to communicate with your government, you have to use MS products!!!
It's like if they force you to sign all the documents, but you have to do it with a pen from a particular vendor...
So my point is, that the government's policies should stimulate the use of open document formats, which in turn could stimulate the open source software products used to create them.

[layers]

gaining more market share would bring up malware and more paid apps. no, i like it the way it is, outcasts

and dupnica is right, have you ever tried to format a report with pictures in libre, and then open it in word? just use windows for office and job programs, whats the problem?

[mamamia88]

But if they did that, it wouldn't be open source anymore and would cease to be a good OS.

well it would be open source still. you see hp/dell/etc have no reason to turn it closed source and they couldn't if they wanted too. they could turn their additions closed source but the base would still be open source. what incentive would they have to do it anyway? they aren't selling software they are selling hardware. i'm saying that they should do what apple did and take a technically sound os and put it on appealing hardware. you'd still be able to use it on other hardware just the appeal of this would be that they offer something other than windows that isn't a mac. maybe just maybe there are people out there who want the "just works" type of thingy who are growing tired of windows. i'm just saying maybe someone should give them a third reasonable option if they aren't technically inclined to install it themselves or just want some kind of warranty. it wouldn't take much effort at all to research the best hardware for linux compatability and maybe spend some time bug fixing. after that they would have a product that sets them apart without actually investing much money