4 ms·

I wonder how many people who argued about Linux vs BSD in early 90s would have predicted that 20 years later, in the post-PC-era, these would be the two most po

I wonder how many people who argued about Linux vs BSD in early 90s would have predicted that 20 years later, in the post-PC-era, these would be the two most popular operating systems by far, backed by the two biggest post-Microsoft tech companies, Google and Apple.

heretohelp 14y ago
What's interesting is they're not really competing. BSD for desktops, Linux for servers. Not the split I would've guessed 10-13 years ago.
- dude_abides 14y ago
  My point was that Android is based on Linux and iOS on BSD. So the split really is BSD & Windows for desktops, Linux for servers, and BSD & Linux for phones. Who would have predicted this?
  - heretohelp 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure the only thing Windows can compete on, on the desktop, is price. That has to really suck. There are very few niches/users left that actually want Windows > Apple, and most of them begin with "gam" and end with "ing".
    - jonhendry 14y ago
      Except there it isn't so much Windows competing on price, as it is the hardware, which is a commodity. The way Microsoft prices Windows, at least at retail, and the way they segment their OS features for different markets, are really annoying and somewhat painful.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Windows still owns the enterprise. Active Directory / Group Policies still beat anything you can do with OS X, and IT groups have 10 years of experience they don't want to walk away from. But, users are pulling these organizations, kicking and screaming into a world in which everyone wants a MacBook Air/Pro. I really don't envy Microsoft.
      - eridius 14y ago
        Could you elaborate? I'm not particularly familiar with Active Directory, so what makes it so much better than using Open Directory on OS X? Wikipedia says Open Directory even has "Active Directory domain member support", whatever that is.
        Spooky23 14y ago
        There's almost no comparison. Open Directory is basically a ldap with MIT kerberos that can sort of integrate with AD. Most folks setup a hybrid (referred to as the "magic triangle") where you use AD for user auth and OD for computer policy stuff. It's not very robust, and Apple isn't exactly committed to the notion of server operating systems, so it doesn't get much love. You really need to buy a client app like ADmit Mac, or a server-side solution like Centrify to really work with Active Directory. AD itself is a really brilliant collection of software. Think of it as a fully integrated, smoothly operation bundle of LDAP, Kerberos and DNS -- it "just works". Coming from a Unix background, AD was amazing to me as there isn't any Unix equivalent at all, except maybe for the ancient NIS and NFS integrations. You get single sign on. Robust Access Controls. The ability to trust the identities of external organizations. A policy engine to do all sorts of management activities at various levels. Oh, and it allows you to easily build fault-tolerant deployments without much forethought.
        fein 14y ago
        The reason that AD is so needed is the ease of implementation with EVERYTHING, as long as its MS(ish) based. One AD account can auth a user to any service running on the company systems. For example, I work for a university as an applications dev; My local box login is the same for every VPN and additional university service that we use. Now, you can do this with OD, but it's not as easy as "built into all windows installations, set it once and forget it".
adventureful 14y ago
I think plenty of people in those segments believed those operating systems would be huge, but they missed by a mile when it came to the form. I remember arguing with slashdot Linux fanatics at the turn of the century, and they stubbornly believed that somehow magically Linux as it was at the time would go mainstream on the desktop and vanquish Windows. It was always an absurd premise. It almost always takes a paradigm shift to leave a big enough opening, and mobile provided that (the desktop still being ruled by Windows).
cturner 14y ago
I remember it being kind of the opposite to how you describe it. In the 80s and early 90s, unix enthusiasts could be smug about the rise of unix being inevitable. Maybe that wouldn't have been true of linux ppl. But unix systems didn't meet user needs, and unix got sent into the wilderness. Twenty years on, X-windows still shits me for the same reasons it did back then. Why is configuration so awkward? Why is the clipboard system so awful?

heretohelp 14y ago

What's interesting is they're not really competing. BSD for desktops, Linux for servers. Not the split I would've guessed 10-13 years ago.

dude_abides 14y ago
My point was that Android is based on Linux and iOS on BSD. So the split really is BSD & Windows for desktops, Linux for servers, and BSD & Linux for phones. Who would have predicted this?
- heretohelp 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure the only thing Windows can compete on, on the desktop, is price. That has to really suck. There are very few niches/users left that actually want Windows > Apple, and most of them begin with "gam" and end with "ing".
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    Except there it isn't so much Windows competing on price, as it is the hardware, which is a commodity. The way Microsoft prices Windows, at least at retail, and the way they segment their OS features for different markets, are really annoying and somewhat painful.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Windows still owns the enterprise. Active Directory / Group Policies still beat anything you can do with OS X, and IT groups have 10 years of experience they don't want to walk away from. But, users are pulling these organizations, kicking and screaming into a world in which everyone wants a MacBook Air/Pro. I really don't envy Microsoft.
    - eridius 14y ago
      Could you elaborate? I'm not particularly familiar with Active Directory, so what makes it so much better than using Open Directory on OS X? Wikipedia says Open Directory even has "Active Directory domain member support", whatever that is.
      - Spooky23 14y ago
        There's almost no comparison. Open Directory is basically a ldap with MIT kerberos that can sort of integrate with AD. Most folks setup a hybrid (referred to as the "magic triangle") where you use AD for user auth and OD for computer policy stuff. It's not very robust, and Apple isn't exactly committed to the notion of server operating systems, so it doesn't get much love. You really need to buy a client app like ADmit Mac, or a server-side solution like Centrify to really work with Active Directory. AD itself is a really brilliant collection of software. Think of it as a fully integrated, smoothly operation bundle of LDAP, Kerberos and DNS -- it "just works". Coming from a Unix background, AD was amazing to me as there isn't any Unix equivalent at all, except maybe for the ancient NIS and NFS integrations. You get single sign on. Robust Access Controls. The ability to trust the identities of external organizations. A policy engine to do all sorts of management activities at various levels. Oh, and it allows you to easily build fault-tolerant deployments without much forethought.
      - fein 14y ago
        The reason that AD is so needed is the ease of implementation with EVERYTHING, as long as its MS(ish) based. One AD account can auth a user to any service running on the company systems. For example, I work for a university as an applications dev; My local box login is the same for every VPN and additional university service that we use. Now, you can do this with OD, but it's not as easy as "built into all windows installations, set it once and forget it".

adventureful 14y ago

I think plenty of people in those segments believed those operating systems would be huge, but they missed by a mile when it came to the form. I remember arguing with slashdot Linux fanatics at the turn of the century, and they stubbornly believed that somehow magically Linux as it was at the time would go mainstream on the desktop and vanquish Windows. It was always an absurd premise. It almost always takes a paradigm shift to leave a big enough opening, and mobile provided that (the desktop still being ruled by Windows).

cturner 14y ago

I remember it being kind of the opposite to how you describe it. In the 80s and early 90s, unix enthusiasts could be smug about the rise of unix being inevitable. Maybe that wouldn't have been true of linux ppl. But unix systems didn't meet user needs, and unix got sent into the wilderness. Twenty years on, X-windows still shits me for the same reasons it did back then. Why is configuration so awkward? Why is the clipboard system so awful?