4 ms·

I really hope that the threat of Apple switching to ARM causes Intel to push Linux as an alternative to OSX. I'm not holding my breath, but I can only hope.

chucknelson 14y ago
While some Linux distributions have come a long way, I still don't think this will happen any time soon. The ease of use is still far behind OS X and Windows in my opinion. Granted, I've only used Ubuntu (12.04 LTS mostly), but that's one of the most user-friendly distributions I think.
- bornhuetter 14y ago
  For the average user, I think Windows and OS X are easier to use than current Linux distributions, but for a developer Ubuntu is getting pretty good. I disliked Unity at first, but it's really starting to grow on me - especially after using Ubuntu Tweak to change a few things I didn't like. There are some great shortcut keys, like Super-W, Super-S and Crtl-Alt-Arrow to switch between workspaces and windows, that I think are as good as OS X gestures. And the package manager is superior in many ways to the App Store and the Windows 8 Store. Intel have done a good job so far of kicking OEMs into shape over ultrabooks - and manufacturers are finally starting to get it. If they were to make a similar push for linux based developer laptops, where all the drivers work properly, I could see it potentially being very good for the industry.
  - DeepDuh 14y ago
    What you describe sounds good and makes me want to try it as well in the future (there's stuff in OSX, mostly of the recently introduced sort, that really grinds my gears). Then again, I will probably still miss things like Spotlight, Quicklook, Mail.app, PDF print / cut / paste / manipulate with Preview + iWorks too much. How is Ubuntu coming along with such features nowadays? At least in Kubuntu I find that stuff still abysmal.
tedunangst 14y ago
Intel has supported Linux for a long time. There's an intel compiler for Linux but not for osx...
- octopus 14y ago
  Sure it is, Intel has a C++ and a Fortran compilers for OSX ...
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Oops, my bad. They definitely give top billing to windows and Linux. http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers I was basing my remark off googles page summary, which doesn't mention osx.
mdasen 14y ago
Linux is unlikely to be an alternative to OS X (for most users). The key is in looking at why most users decide to buy an OS X machine. Many people on here probably bought one because it provides a decent nix style OS with normal command line interface and the ability to run the things they use for development in much the same way as their Linux deployments. However, that isn't the majority of OS X users. The majority of OS X users probably bought it because it felt more like a consumer electronic device than their Windows computer did. Apple's integration between the hardware and software means that things like trackpad drivers, sleep mode, ambient light sensors, etc. all just work nicely and smoothly. Many PC manufacturers offer features thinking that a feature is just a boolean: it has it or it doesn't have it. For example, a friend of mine has a Sony laptop with a backlit keyboard - just like my MacBook. Except that, in practice, it isn't like my MacBook. Either the light sensor is faulty or it doesn't use one, but it doesn't change the backlight brightness automatically. When you manually change the brightness, sometimes a box on the screen comes up showing you raising and lowering it and sometimes it doesn't. The same can be said for the WiFi helpers that companies seem to install to manage the WiFi: they feel cheap and poorly executed. So, for many users, a MacBook is more like buying a consumer electronic where you feel like it's been manufactured as a cohesive product a little more than the Windows environment where it feels like an OS on top of hardware with the pieces supporting hardware specific functionality created hastily and poorly. If Intel pushes Linux as an alternative, it could help Linux along for those wishing they had a Windows with a nix development environment (which is what I think you mean when you say "alternative to OS X"). It's unlikely to create something that most OS X users would want since mainstream Linux would mean the same hastily made pieces to do hardware specific things. Even look at Android. It's great, but what does everyone complain about: the ways in which manufacturers customize it to make themselves seem different from everyone else. -- In terms of the likelihood that Intel will do this, I think it's highly unlikely. You talk about Apple (potentially) switching to ARM and Intel losing that. However, if Intel pours money into Linux to make it a better OS than it is today, that isn't helping Intel's case. Linux can transition to ARM a lot easier than OS X can. Most Linux software is open-source meaning that even if the original maintainer is gone, someone else can recompile the software. For OS X and Windows, it would be a lot harder for them to transition processor architectures since they would need developers to do that work or provide a translation layer like Apple did moving to Intel. Making Linux the best OS out there would only make it easier for people to leave Intel processors. With OS X and Windows, Intel has a certain amount of lock-in. It's growing smaller, but there's a lot more lock-in than with Linux. Ultimately, Intel has to compete to make a processor that people want.
dmorgan 14y ago
>I really hope that the threat of Apple switching to ARM causes Intel to push Linux as an alternative to OSX. And what exactly would that achieve? It's not as if consumers listen to Intel about what OS to buy. There is a way for Linux to matter as an alternative to OS X (and Windows) and that is for it to get more like OS X (or Windows): Intel, Google or some player(s), could hire an experienced project manager guy, and a 100-200 person team, plus QA testing and documentation writers. Preferably most of the core team would be the top volunteers at their specific projects. The then should spends some in the range of a billion a year for a couple of years, and fix EVERY pain point Linux has for consumers, especially multimedia use which is crap (e.g, a Joe guy trying to make a 5 minute video of his holidays). They should also use all that money to influence design decisions in a "benevolent dictatorship" manner, so that we finally have things like long term binary AND driver stability and third party apps for Linux.
Someone 14y ago
I would think the threat of Windows moving to ARM is much bigger. Microsoft already announce an ARM version of Windows 8, and there is more revenue to lose there for Intel. However, I doubt Intel will start pushing Linux in response. The strategy of building more power efficient x86 CPUs seems more logical.

chucknelson 14y ago

While some Linux distributions have come a long way, I still don't think this will happen any time soon. The ease of use is still far behind OS X and Windows in my opinion. Granted, I've only used Ubuntu (12.04 LTS mostly), but that's one of the most user-friendly distributions I think.

bornhuetter 14y ago
For the average user, I think Windows and OS X are easier to use than current Linux distributions, but for a developer Ubuntu is getting pretty good. I disliked Unity at first, but it's really starting to grow on me - especially after using Ubuntu Tweak to change a few things I didn't like. There are some great shortcut keys, like Super-W, Super-S and Crtl-Alt-Arrow to switch between workspaces and windows, that I think are as good as OS X gestures. And the package manager is superior in many ways to the App Store and the Windows 8 Store. Intel have done a good job so far of kicking OEMs into shape over ultrabooks - and manufacturers are finally starting to get it. If they were to make a similar push for linux based developer laptops, where all the drivers work properly, I could see it potentially being very good for the industry.
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  What you describe sounds good and makes me want to try it as well in the future (there's stuff in OSX, mostly of the recently introduced sort, that really grinds my gears). Then again, I will probably still miss things like Spotlight, Quicklook, Mail.app, PDF print / cut / paste / manipulate with Preview + iWorks too much. How is Ubuntu coming along with such features nowadays? At least in Kubuntu I find that stuff still abysmal.

tedunangst 14y ago

Intel has supported Linux for a long time. There's an intel compiler for Linux but not for osx...

octopus 14y ago
Sure it is, Intel has a C++ and a Fortran compilers for OSX ...
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Oops, my bad. They definitely give top billing to windows and Linux. http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers http://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-compilers I was basing my remark off googles page summary, which doesn't mention osx.

mdasen 14y ago

Linux is unlikely to be an alternative to OS X (for most users). The key is in looking at why most users decide to buy an OS X machine. Many people on here probably bought one because it provides a decent nix style OS with normal command line interface and the ability to run the things they use for development in much the same way as their Linux deployments. However, that isn't the majority of OS X users. The majority of OS X users probably bought it because it felt more like a consumer electronic device than their Windows computer did. Apple's integration between the hardware and software means that things like trackpad drivers, sleep mode, ambient light sensors, etc. all just work nicely and smoothly. Many PC manufacturers offer features thinking that a feature is just a boolean: it has it or it doesn't have it. For example, a friend of mine has a Sony laptop with a backlit keyboard - just like my MacBook. Except that, in practice, it isn't like my MacBook. Either the light sensor is faulty or it doesn't use one, but it doesn't change the backlight brightness automatically. When you manually change the brightness, sometimes a box on the screen comes up showing you raising and lowering it and sometimes it doesn't. The same can be said for the WiFi helpers that companies seem to install to manage the WiFi: they feel cheap and poorly executed. So, for many users, a MacBook is more like buying a consumer electronic where you feel like it's been manufactured as a cohesive product a little more than the Windows environment where it feels like an OS on top of hardware with the pieces supporting hardware specific functionality created hastily and poorly. If Intel pushes Linux as an alternative, it could help Linux along for those wishing they had a Windows with a nix development environment (which is what I think you mean when you say "alternative to OS X"). It's unlikely to create something that most OS X users would want since mainstream Linux would mean the same hastily made pieces to do hardware specific things. Even look at Android. It's great, but what does everyone complain about: the ways in which manufacturers customize it to make themselves seem different from everyone else. -- In terms of the likelihood that Intel will do this, I think it's highly unlikely. You talk about Apple (potentially) switching to ARM and Intel losing that. However, if Intel pours money into Linux to make it a better OS than it is today, that isn't helping Intel's case. Linux can transition to ARM a lot easier than OS X can. Most Linux software is open-source meaning that even if the original maintainer is gone, someone else can recompile the software. For OS X and Windows, it would be a lot harder for them to transition processor architectures since they would need developers to do that work or provide a translation layer like Apple did moving to Intel. Making Linux the best OS out there would only make it easier for people to leave Intel processors. With OS X and Windows, Intel has a certain amount of lock-in. It's growing smaller, but there's a lot more lock-in than with Linux. Ultimately, Intel has to compete to make a processor that people want.

dmorgan 14y ago

>I really hope that the threat of Apple switching to ARM causes Intel to push Linux as an alternative to OSX. And what exactly would that achieve? It's not as if consumers listen to Intel about what OS to buy. There is a way for Linux to matter as an alternative to OS X (and Windows) and that is for it to get more like OS X (or Windows): Intel, Google or some player(s), could hire an experienced project manager guy, and a 100-200 person team, plus QA testing and documentation writers. Preferably most of the core team would be the top volunteers at their specific projects. The then should spends some in the range of a billion a year for a couple of years, and fix EVERY pain point Linux has for consumers, especially multimedia use which is crap (e.g, a Joe guy trying to make a 5 minute video of his holidays). They should also use all that money to influence design decisions in a "benevolent dictatorship" manner, so that we finally have things like long term binary AND driver stability and third party apps for Linux.

Someone 14y ago

I would think the threat of Windows moving to ARM is much bigger. Microsoft already announce an ARM version of Windows 8, and there is more revenue to lose there for Intel. However, I doubt Intel will start pushing Linux in response. The strategy of building more power efficient x86 CPUs seems more logical.