George F. Rice's Profile

@27: "Linux will never be a main stream desktop OS as long as the current development model is used. You have hundreds of distro’s with thousands of great developers using a shotgun approach to desktop applications… And they quit (for the most part) when the app is 90% complete! I can’t tell you how many apps I’ve installed that were almost there, just needing a few more tweeks and it would be great! But they never come… Very frustrating! there is great waste in time and effort using the current OSS methodology!" Your comment is odd, to say the least. Most of the mainstream free and open source software is developed principally by *corporations*, not hobbyists. Linux is developed primarily by IBM and Red Hat; OpenOffice.org by Sun; FireFox by Mozilla; Python by Google; and so on. Are you asserting that IBM, Sun, and Google are incompetent to develop software? And are you really comfortable disagreeing with virtually the entirety of recent IT research? For example, Gartner Group recently stated that 80% of *proprietary* software products will rely on OSS project code by 2011 - yet you believe OSS methods are basically *incompetent*? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/092007-open-source-unavoidable.html Just curious, really. The FOSS software I use is of generally *much* higher quality than leading proprietary alternates (for the examples above: Windows, MS Office, IE 7, and Visual Basic, respectively), so I'm quite content with my choices (and Gartner's research ;-).

A better measure of Linux's installed base can be had via direct measurement, without the thoroughly discredited methodology of NetApp's "web browser reports" (which depends heavily on the websites selected to "measure" operating system accesses, among other problems). Canonical measured between 6 and 12 million unique IP addresses accessing their patch servers in 2007 (http://open.itworld.com/4917/071009ubuntu/page_1.html). Given that NAT allows multiple computers per IP address (I have 4 Ubuntu machines here), and some machines don't access update servers at all, 12 million is a reasonably good estimate of the worldwide Ubuntu installed base. Steve Ballmer announced last year the billionth Windows computer installation would occur in 2008 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/27/ballmer-says-windows-installed-base-will-top-a-billion-by-the-en/). Taking Microsoft at its word - and would they ever lie to you? ;-) - we're close to 1 billion total desktops today. Thus, Ubuntu has an installed base of about 1.2%. Similarly, Max Spevak of Fedora reported 2 million unique IPs accessing their patch servers in March 2007 (http://spevack.livejournal.com/11416.html). Similar logic yields about a 0.4% installed base for Fedora. I'd love to go on, except that I can't find similar measurements for OpenSuse, Mint, Mandriva, etc. - for which I'm a bit thankful, actually. :-) To slide into the overall installed base of Linux, we can wag that Ubuntu hold 33% of the Linux installed base (a common estimate, though I've seen no supporting data better than a NetApp like web analysis), which would put overall Linux base around 3.6%. This is consistent with Gartner Groups' estimate of about 4% worldwide installed base for all of the various Linux desktop distributions. Given that Gartner and IDC estimate that Apple is selling about 1 out of every 12-15 desktops today (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9043244&source=NLT_PM&nlid=8), a 7.3% installed base isn't unreasonable for all Macs combined. Gartner put their actual estimate slightly lower, but not enough to quibble. Since my personal interest is that the Microsoft monopoly begone, and none take its place, having double-digit installed bases for both Mac and Linux looks likely in the near future. I'm happy thus far. And congrats to Apple for its excellent marketing (I *love* the Mac / PC guy ads ;-) ).

on said, "To release iTunes for Linux, the source code would have to be revealed." Are you under the misconception that the GPL requires revelation of an application's source code if supported under a free OS like Linux? If so, please stand corrected - Linux remains fully compatible with proprietary binaries. (I'm ignoring the issue of whether proprietary binaries are in Apple's best interest here!) For example, Adobe releases Flash 9 for Linux, but the source code remains proprietary. The same is true for certain proprietary video device drivers. Apple can and should host iTunes on Linux, IMHO. They would give up no trade secrets and lose no source code, they would just expand their potential user base by another 4-5%. Just my 10 cents worth (in binary).

Thanks for the info, swisswuff. You reinforce a point I made back in #36 - that if the program you want to use is already available for Linux but not for Mac (as is increasingly common these days), then it's the *MAC* on which you must "download and compile all that source code". That doesn't make the MAC "hard to use", though - it's a bogus argument against Linux *OR* Mac. Two other recent ease-of-use stories which drive my increasing enthusiasm for Linux for "normal people". (1) I recently installed the final beta for the latest Ubuntu release, Dapper Drake, on one of my old $30 machines. I put the CD in the drive, restarted the machine... and in 30 seconds was *running Ubuntu*. I browsed the web, checked my email, launched an office program, and printed a short file. When I was convinced it was stable, I clicked "Install on Hard Drive" on the desktop, and *CONTINUED* to use the machine while it was installed on the disk. I probably lack imagination, but I really can't imagine an easier installation experience than that one - it was actually much faster than buying Windows *pre-installed* (with all of the "authorization" and configuration processes THAT requires!). Recommended. (2) My wife recently gave me a Nokia 770 handheld "Internet tablet", which runs a version of Linux called Maemo, for our anniversary (no, you CAN'T have her - she's MINE! :-) ). I expected to have a hard time getting some good software onto this new machine, and was thus pleasantly surprised when I had to (a) go to the applications page on the web, and (b) TAP the applications I wanted with the stylus from a list of about 100. They installed themselves and were immediately available for my use, not a reboot in sight. And this was a 1.0 product. Geesh, I'm starting to EXPECT Linux to be trivial to administer. It's still a bit of a geek toy (version 2.0 is coming this fall, I understand, to polish some of the rough edges). But I'm growing very fond of it. Palm 6 (also Linux based) may have a hard time winning me back when it ships in 2007. :-) *contented sigh* I also was surprised to read this in a press release on May 23: "Gizmo Project 2.0* is available immediately for Macintosh and Microsoft Windows computers and you can read the official release here. The Linux version is not yet available, but there's a good reason. The SIPphone Linux experts have been creating a version of Gizmo Project for Nokia's brilliant 770 Internet tablet." And Sun is officially partnering with Ubuntu to support the Sparc T1-based machines - a miracle at least as great as their adoption of CDE over OpenLook many years ago, and also greatly indicative of Linux' momentum. Yet, still no word from Apple on support for Linux. And still no word on money from me to Apple. Oh, well, time will tell.

> George, you say “Free + Proprietary = > Proprietary”—but this makes no sense. If freedom were about technology, I would agree with you 100%. But freedom is about the legal system - and in the USA, this equation isn't just a good idea (as the saying goes) - it's the law. Try this, maybe it will help. I decide to build a dedicated turnkey newspaper publishing system. As components I choose MySQL (free), OpenOffice.org (free), PHP (free), and Perl (free). I decide to deliver the turnkey system with Windows XP (proprietary). From a legal point of view, is this system - my product - free or proprietary? It's one or the other - not "80% free". If I decide to load all of the software onto a disk, and then image that disk 10,000 times without getting a LICENSE from Microsoft, I'll be getting a very irate cease-and-desist letter from Mssr. Gates' minions with a request for actual and punative damages - and rightfully so. So the PRODUCT that I'm selling is PROPRIETARY. And OS X, which includes Apple's proprietary components, is a PROPRIETARY product. Thus, Free + Proprietary = Proprietary. The analogy that you chose actually proves this point (I'm a history buff, as it turns out). In the dark days past, a person could NOT be of mixed race from a LEGAL standpoint, because the law had no mechanisms to handle mixed race. Similarly, the law does not now have any mechanisms to handle mixed free / proprietary software. If a product contains ANY proprietary software, then it is (legally) a proprietary product. I have no idea what this has to do with Apple supporting Linux (or not) with their proprietary products like iTunes, nor why you are so determined to claim a proprietary product is really sorta-free - unless you realize deep down that freedom is gaining mindshare and marketshare. In that case... well, I agree with your realization. :-) In any event, OS X and iTunes are both very nice proprietary products. But proprietary they are until Apple slaps a GPL sticker of ALL of their components (if indeed they own them all).

> find a Linux distro out there which has added > a proprietary graphics layer and window manager > on top of the Linux/GNU bundle LOL! Again spoken by a true fan of proprietary systems. Of the major distributions, 10 out of 10 supply the X graphics layer, and the Gnome or KDE (or both) window manager. All 3 are free, mature and very stable. So the answer would have to be, "*Why*???" Major distributions reference: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

> the market share figures of 0.30 percent > are AGGREGATE data—which combine the > server and workstation figures. 92.8% of all statistics are made up. Here’s some that aren’t. IDC stated that Linux desktop market share a couple of years back was 2.8%, while Apple's was 2.9%. Reference: http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020472,39118695,00.htm Subsequently, "IDC...reports that Linux became the number two desktop operating system in 2003." Apple "fell to the number 3 spot." Meanwhile, Gartner predicts desktop Linux market share will reach 7.5% by 2008. Reference: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35688.html IDC estimated in the same timeframe that Linux' server market share was 28.3%, climbing to 37.2% by 2008. I couldn't find a Mac server market share for some reason. Reference: http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P5013_0_6_0_C I think IDC and Gartner are pretty darned authoritative experts on market share. So let's drop the silly "0.3 percent for client and server" silliness. Again, I have nothing against OS X - just against blatant misinformation on Linux.

> One difficulty is the need to support different > distributions and at least provide it in .deb > & rpm formats. Really? I checked the actual download links for OpenOffice.org and FireFox, and both have downloadable packages for Windows, Mac, and "Linux x86". No mention of distributions or different file formats. (OOo also listed FreeBSD, Linux PPC, and a couple of Solarises... I mean Solarii... I mean... oh, what the heck IS the plural of Solaris, anyway?) Is Apple's software special in some way that it would CARE what distribution it was using? This sounds suspiciously analogous to "They would need to support Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP - it just costs too much!", except of course with Windows everyone already KNOWS better. > Plus it would have to deal with > dependencies on other installed packages. Only if it needed to be dependent on other installed packages (sorry to state the obvious). Other major players such as OOo and Firefox simply provide all of the non-standard packages themselves... which, come to think of it, is the standard Windows approach (ever wonder what all those DLLs are doing?). (Interestingly, the OOo site provides one package for all of Linux x86, but TWO for Windows. Does that mean that Linux is twice as standard? :-) )