Apple's Intel Desktop Move Threatens Linux Desktop, Longhorn
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
June 7, 2005
Opinion: And if the Linux desktop wants to play, it had better get a lot better, a lot faster.
Linux desktop and Longhorn developers suddenly have something in common: They should be worried, very worried, about Mac OS X coming to Intel processors.
The Mac community is in an uproar over Apple moving the Mac to Intel processors, but it's the Linux desktop and Longhorn programmers who should be reaching for the aspirin.
Mac OS X is not only the best desktop interface for Unix-style operating systems, it's the best desktop interface around—period.
I've always known Mac OS X could run on Intel processors. Way back in 1993, I reviewed NeXTStep, one of Mac OS X's ancestors, on a 66MHz 486DX2 with 32MB of RAM for PC Magazine. If NeXTStep could run on that, there was never any question in my mind that Mac OS X could run on today's Intel hardware.
Indeed, as I've pointed out, Mac OS X's foundation operating system, Darwin, is already there. And, my boss, Matthew Rothenberg, and a buddy of his reported almost three years ago that Apple was working on a Mac OS X port called "Marklar."
eWEEK.com Special Report: Apple's Switch to IntelWhat that means for everyone else in the desktop picture is that they need to get better and they need to do it now.
Was it any coincidence that Apple CEO Steve Jobs makes it sound like we'll see Mac OS X on Intel before we'll see Longhorn? I think not!
To even have a chance to make Longhorn's late 2006 deadline, Microsoft has been cutting out features like WinFS (Windows File System) and changing its fundamental infrastructure so that it will no longer be built on .Net Framework. Microsoft is as vulnerable as it has ever been on the desktop.
Microsoft has been giving Linux desktop vendors their shot at the big time. Jobs saw the same thing.
So now Linux desktop vendors need to get their act together in a hurry if they're going to make anything of their chance. If the Linux community wants to play a major role on the desktop, it needs to get products out now that can challenge the Mac OS X desktop.
For starters, that means getting all their efforts behind one desktop. They can't afford to waste time and energy working on both KDE and GNOME. Pick one, and get on with it (my choice: KDE). Stop the whining over which is better. Here's the simple truth, troops: Mac OS X is better, a lot better, than either one. Either the Linux desktop gets its act together in the coming year, or it will never become more than a niche operating system.
You know what else? If you're a Linux developer and you've been spending time on, say, porting Linux to the prehistoric z80 processor or writing device drivers for the long obsolete ESDI (Enhanced Small Device Interface), maybe you should consider spending your time on something that's more productive.
I'm not the only one to make that argument. Ulrich Drepper, a Red Hat developer, makes the same argument in his blog. The only difference between us is that I believe refocusing the Linux community's energy is critical.
Now Linux desktop developers do hold a few cards in their hands.
For starters, Linux has a lot more drivers for the x86 platform than Apple and friends have. But I wouldn't count on that ace too much. The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on FreeBSD. No, the BSD operating systems don't have as many developers as Linux, but their best people are the equal of Linux's best.
Now, more then ever, the major Linux distributors—Novell/SuSE and Red Hat—need to talk to the hardware vendors. If they can't get them to build Linux drivers, they need to give them a full-court press to at least open their APIs so that the Linux open-source community can do what it does best and develop the drivers themselves.
The Linux desktop also has more desktop applications for the x86 platform than Mac OS does. OK, so you will be able to run legacy PowerPC applications on x86 PCs with "dynamic binary translation." I've seen this kind of emulation many times before. Even the best—Digital's FX!32 translator for the Alpha a few years back for my money—doesn't give you much bang for your processor buck.
VT is still a work in progress, but it's built on technology from VMWare, and that company has already shown with products like VM Workstation 5 that it knows how to build virtual machines that don't sacrifice performance for compatibility.
If I sound a little harsh, well, tough. The Linux desktop community has to make a decision—and has to make it now. Do you want to become a fanboy operating system like AmigaOS on the desktop, or do you want to fight it out with Apple and Microsoft for control of the desktop?
It's your decision now. Choose wisely.
|
