[KLUG Advocacy] Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops

[Adam Williams]

>>But Macs are still only a good deal when compared with
>>higher-end PCs. 
>This is their market... thry're not interested in competing against the
>commodity PCs, only the upper-end units.

The iMacs are close to competing.  I think they are very short-sighted
if they don't value the bottom end.  If the bottom end is 75% of the
installed base, the bottom end achieves the ability to dictate standards
to the top end.  This very clearly favors Microsoft since they probably
own the vast majority of the bottom end.  From what I've seen, as one
moves up the food chain, one sees greater diversity.  But the pressure
felt by users of the ubiquitous bottom-end platform can be overwhelming.

>>And Apple is on a crazy
>>release cycle for OS X,  the Mac nut I know has purchased Mac OS X three
>>times since it came out,  so that has to be figured in.  
>>Plus the price of M$-Office for the Mac (the ones I saw came with Apple 
>>works).
>Not a strong selling point, even to Mac enthisiasts (and if there's a Mac
>buff here that wants to call me dead wrong, please... don't be shy! :)

Ok, but it does raise the initial cost significantly as many PC bundles
include Office (since Works went away).  Without exception, every Mac
I've met has Office on it. 

>>think the ongoing cost is still pretty high, and the upfront cost
>>difference is still hanging out between 300 and 400 dollars. 
>This is made up for rather quickly as Mac users extend their systems,
>if you think of the time and effort required (now, BILL out that time!)
>to add scanners, cameras, digitzers, and stuff of greater complexity to 
>Mac systems or a network, the price spread is made up for rather soon.
>This may be more than a little FUD, but it appears that the sell here
>is that Apples are easier to extend and add to, when compared to You-
>Know-What system. I've seen this sell in a couple of different forms, 
>from TV commercials to adds in commercial arts magazines.

And the commercials are great,  they really hit peoples frustration. 
And it is something to which Microsoft has no answer,  as there driver
model is fundamentally flawed. 

Fortunately this advantage applies to Linux, which is usually
plug-n-play, although maybe not to such a degree as the Mac.  These
commercials can work to our benefit as well.

>>I haven't used OS-X much, but the Mac people I know swear by it, rather than 
>>at it (OS 9).  I have used OS 9 units pretty extensively, and they make WfWg
>>look rock solid.
>I know the Mac buffs I've had contact with loved many of the earlier Mac 
>environments. I'll have to ask them about OS 9 in comparison.

They also seem oddly tolerant.  I know several Mac users, they
re-install OS 9 constantly (at least once a month).  They just kind of
shrugged it off.  Windows users are furious every time they have to
re-install, which is just an interesting phenomenon.  Might have
something to do with how difficult the installs are.

>>My personal beef with OS-X is that it isn't X.  One can't run apps
>>remotely.  The utility of ssh just dropped 90%....
>Sux, man! If Apple went to real honest-to-MIT-X, they would be in much
>better shape with the powah usahs, and no one else would be the wiser.

Exactly.

>>...and let people harness the incredible heap of X11 apps.
>This sword is double-edged, you know. There's a pile of X11 apps out there
>I wouldn't want my worst enemy to be made to use;

Absolutely.

>the diversity of UI's
>(CDE, OpenLook, Athena and other widget sets, KDE, Gnome, etcetera) and
>libaries to match... all this stuff is EXACTLY NLIKE what Apple wants to 

True,  but users would have the *option*, even if the rank-and-file
wouldn't accept that option.  It would help powah usahs accept the
platform.

>>>I can also understand why a large organization would go with Wintel vs. Mac.
>>>At that point, it's a question of driving unit costs down, and employing
>>>people who work full-time maintaining things.
>>The real issue with institutional use is IE.  And IE on the Mac is like
>>IE on Solaris, it isn't, really.  An IE only site usually means
>>IE-on-wintel only.  We have to use Windows in most places because the
>>companies we deal with run IE sites....
>This client-side dependence is the most dangerous thing, other than 
>something like Palladium.

Yep.  I remember two or three years ago when most of the news on
Slashdot, etc... seemed good.  One closed the browser with a warm fuzzy
optimism (or where those the benzene fumes from the new laser
printer?).  Not these days.