On Wednesday 25 June 2003 12:53 am, LeaAnne Kolp wrote: > After reading a Mac users post regarding Linux vs Mac on the desktop, I'm > faced with > countless questions. > > ---------- > "1). I thought Linux had passed it already, but perhaps I'm confusing it > with > some other statistic." > > Please post a reference link. I'm not too sure on what metric you'd use to > compare Linux > vs. Mac on the desktop. Sales? Downloads? Registered Users?
I don't really have a reference link. I had been reading ZDnet articles and saw things about more linux servers and things than ever before and merely presumed that they had already passed the Mac. > > 2). OSX is based on the mach kernal, a modular derivitive created by CMU and > as such is not necessarily linux, but very close. > > "Darwin uses a monolithic kernel based on FreeBSD 4.4 and the OSF/mk Mach 3, > combining BSD's POSIX support with the fine-grained multithreading and > real-time > performance of Mach." > > ( ref: http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/darwin.html ) Well, I had originally read about the Mach kernel in a book on linux. In this book, it described the Mach kernel as being "layered" or modular. Hence, the reason for my description. However, I saw this as putting me to task to answer you. Here is a link I found that describes what I was talking about: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel I won't go into much detail since you can read it for yourself, but if you follow the links back to CMU you'll find that the Mach kernel is the basis for most of what you mentioned. You'll also find that the kernel is broken down into a "microkernel" and then small servers on top of that. Any time you have to start passing messages or making calls, depending on how you look at it, to servers that in turn must pass messages or calls onto other servers and the microkernel, it is inherently slower than a kernel where it just does it. > > "Were Apple to be on the > ball enough (and there's presedence to prove otherwise) they could very well > capitalize on the linux movement by making their desktop envrionment run on > linux installations and dropping the mach kernel." > > Apple is a hardware company. Yes, and they are software as well. One of the things they don't talk about much is that they also have a "red box" version of OSX. It is Mac OS for Intel chips. I read several articles a year or so ago on ZDnet where analysts were saying that Apple should get out of the hardware business and focus on software. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but were they to move the OS to run on Intel and run on linux, they could conceivably do just that. Even just release the Intel version would help accomplish that. > > "but it will never match a straight kernel." > > I assume you mean Monolithic kernel like linux uses when you say 'straight > kernel.' The > way I understand it, the Monolithic kernel is an all-in-one controlling > kernel and the Mac > kernel breaks every system function into bits called "servers." Yes, I was fumbling for words a bit when I wrote that. I did mean monolithic. Yes, a monolithic kernel is an all in one kernel. Whereas, the Mach kernel is supposed to be a layered or a server based kernel which consists of a microkernel and then layers or servers on top of that. > > Can someone explain in more detail how Apple has accomplished both?? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by how Apple accomplishes both. > > "3).Their niche seems to be graphics as it always has been." > > How about Music production? Or the Biotech industry? There are plenty of > others... Yes, there's music production, Biotech is iffy at best. I was working for a company that made a DNA analysis application that was originally only for the mac. They too had gone to a Windows version and were actually looking at phasing out their Mac version because more and more biotech companies were running windows. Even the companies that make machines that read DNA were hooking them to macs and have switched to using windows. All, I'm saying is that Steve Jobs has said before that Apple would be in a niche market rather than trying to compete with MS. In fact, they sort of have to because MS invested some money in Apple a couple of years ago. They said at the time it was with no strings attached, but is that really true? I doubt it. > > "Until Adobe makes a version of photoshop to run under linux, there will be > a > need to run Mac." > > I don't think Adobe's software availability solely directs Apple's future. I > purchased an > Apple because I wanted something that would work right out of the box. And > continue to > work every time I use it. Time is money and for every hour I spend fiddling > with Linux > when I should be working is potential money being taken out of my pocket. Agreed, but again, Apple is staying in a niche market and while Photoshop wouldn't make or break Apple, were Adobe to say they will no longer produce software for the mac, it would seriously affect Apple. In fact, when Apple first started making their comeback, Adobe had mulled over pulling out of the Mac market and somehow Steve Jobs talked them out of it. Even he said that it would be disastrous for them to pull out. > > "That and the video work that can be done quite easily on the Mac." > > Not knowing anything about this, I spoke with my boss, who has 20+ years in > video > production and editing experience. He said "Avid" machines are the defacto > standard, > and that the Mac isn't used. Furthermore, he said that the major Hollywood > studios use > equipment that the Mac just can't touch performance-wise. Yes, but I wasn't talking about professional video production. I was referring to the at home use, of things like iMovie and such which from what I've seen are a big hit. I could be totally wrong about that, but I have seen a number of people say that they tried to transfer their DV to windows and fought with it and fought with it, and gave up and went to Mac and plug it in and it just worked. > > "Yes, I know there are programs that run under windows, but I haven't as > of yet seen anything comparable on the Linux side. I'm sure someone will > immediately point out just such a program, but until it gets to be well > known, the Mac will still be the platform of choice for video and graphics." > > Very narrow minded view. I strongly disagree. I have over 10 years experience on the mac doing programming. I've seen how corporate America and companies in other countries tend to shy away from the Mac. It does not meet their needs or it doesn't have the software they need or there's no one who can write custom software for them. I know this part especially well because its how I've made my living. So then there's the home user market. In order to stay in a niche market and to thrive they must be great at their niche. Which the niche seems to be video and graphics. Graphics it always has been since the Mac went color. > > 4). I saw the writing on the wall as it were over a year ago. > > Please explain. What writing on the wall? OS improvements? A full BSD based > system > with ease of use? Thats about as strange as saying you had a Ferrari and you > saw that > they were going to faster race-proven engines and that's why you jumped ship > and > bought a Ford Mustang. There's nothing wrong with either of them but to > "jump ship" > because one is improving is asanine. No, as I stated above I worked for a company that is in the biotech field and they were considering dropping their mac version because many of the companies that they sold software to were increasingly asking for windows and only windows. The companies that make the DNA reading machines (and before you start, I realize there is a whole lot more to biotech than simply reading DNA, its just an indicator.) were hooking them to macs and are now hooking them to PCs running windows. Plus the company I worked for was looking to start another project that the server portion of it would be either windows or Linux and that there would be clients first for windows and maybe linux and if there was enough interest also Mac. Plus the company I worked at before that was continually saying that they may not produce their mac version any more. They made software for school libraries and they came out with a windows version and then later came out with a Mac version, which I worked on, and then they were forever saying that they might do one more release but they think they're going to shelve it because even schools weren't running Macs like they used to be. No the writing on the wall at this point is not that I don't see the Mac a viable platform to work on, but rather I see it as a home platform mostly. After all, even their market share has declined. At one point they made up almost 10% now they seem to be barely holding onto 5%. I saw linux as up and coming and for once in my life I wanted to be ahead of the curve. > > "That's part of the reason for jumping ship on Mac and trying my hand at > Linux. Don't get > me wrong," > > I don't understand. Please explain. > In a nutshell, here's the way I see it. I love the Mac, I would love for it to go big time and maybe even beat out windows. I don't see that happening. For reasons I've explained above, I see them forever being in a niche market. A market that doesn't seem to be expanding much at all. Add to that the economy and Mac programming projects have been dwindling. The OS might be getting better, but the corporate interest in it has not. Conversely, interest in linux has been on the rise. To use your analogy, its not owning a Ferrari and switching to ford mustang I'm advocating. It's being a mechanic and being able to work on Ferrari and wanting to switch to something new and possibly up and coming because there would be more of a need for my skills. Partly because the number of Ferrari dealerships is declining and the cost of Ferrari's is going way up. Tom Williams
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
