What is Digg?2 Comments
- raynevandunem, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1I think that those programmers who may work with open source but use Apple's computers and operating system are more into the "Unix" than the "open source"; at best, the most that they may apply the open source towards is the server and the occasional port of an X11-native application to OS X's Cocoa API, rather than the open source Linux desktop.
The impression among such programmers and maintainers is that Linux on the desktop pales in comparison to OS X on the desktop. Plus, the cool factor comes into play, saying that you are a geek who likes to get things done and avoid complexities (in this case, programming) rather than a geek who likes to tinker with the internals of a desktop' hardware and operating system (most commonly associated with Windows and Linux users).
I don't think that this stereotype will go away anytime soon (and it may become even more closely associated with desktop Linux users), but Ubuntu *might* - or might not - break that stereotype, or it might reach a similar goal or caliber as Mac OS X. That much has been made known by Mark Shuttleworth.
And then there's the fact that Apple sees itself as a software company that makes its own hardware (so whatever it is into at the moment, it functionally has almost full control and responsibility over their own actions), while Microsoft tries to apply itself and its products to as many hardware platforms as possible (Windows desktop, WinMo, WinServer, Windows Home Server, Windows CE, with the exception of their own Xbox 360) and Linux vendors (especially server and mobile) tend to apply their own distributions to specific, specialized and often political pigeonholes. This puts most Linux vendors in a different ballpark than Apple (and to a lesser extent, Microsoft) in that not only do most of the vendors do not make their own hardware to accompany their software offerings, but they also do not control the development of the software until it comes time to package the software for binary installation.
As a result, the Linux experience on the desktop (Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Sabayon, etc.) doesn't usually allow for the hardware to be built around the software's capabilities and deficiencies, even if the Linux distro is preinstalled (hence why Dell's Ubuntu-preinstalled systems not only look the same as the Windows-preinstalled desktops and laptops, but also have the same keyboard and keys as the Windows-preinstalled desktops and laptops). The Mac OS X experience, however, allows for the hardware to be built around the software's capabilities (if not deficiencies).
So, unfortunately, the fact that hardware isn't tailor-made for desktop Linux distributions or vice-versa is something that probably won't be overcome by any particular vendor of desktop Linux, not even by Canonical, for the near or foreseeable future. However, they can focus upon the greater emphasis of GUIs and graphically-intensive means of accomplishing tasks and functions in comparison to the command line, which is something that is being improved in further releases of desktop Linux distributions like Ubuntu. It may catch up with or even leapfrog Mac OS X in that regard.
However, that Apple, as a desktop hardware vendor that pushes Unix systems, gains from the visibility of programmers who create or port open source applications for OS X more than desktop Linux vendors like Canonical may be related to the above, or it may not. It has me wondering about what Apple has that desktop Linux vendors like Canonical don't. - tripzero, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1If you are an open source guy and use Apple products, do you really believe in open source? Honestly, there are plenty of laptops that are just as good (if not better) and probably cheaper than Apple laptops. Are you trying to prove that you are "trendy" by using Apple laptops? What is this phenomenon?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is