Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Does Ubuntu have the “Guts” to beat Apple?

Filed under
Ubuntu

Recently I've been thinking about the comments made a while back by Mark Shuttleworth that he wants to push the linux interface to be on par with Apple's Mac OS X. This statement made me relive an old thought that maybe the great Steve Jobs picked the wrong open source guts to put a proprietary GUI on.

Apples strategy was brilliant, take the benefits of an open source operating system and wrap Apples legendary, beautiful, ease of use proprietary GUI on top of it. But is having a BSD looters style license keeping it from obtaining the growth or popularity that GNU/Linux has and continues to enjoy since the GPL license style is much more give and receive.

Its made me wonder quite often if Apples OS X is destined to wither away due to its license style because it doesn't benefit everyone. Where as Ubuntu's GNU/Linux guts will continue to develop and flourish due to its GPL licensing.

rest here




Please...

I can't comment on the page of the post, so I'll post here. First, let me say that I love Linux and use it daily.

Ubuntu will never be what Apple is. Apple is a very savvy company that actually develops wonderful products that people line up to pay a premium for. Ubuntu doesn't develop much at all. In fact, most of their development is merely backporting Debian stuff. There is no innovation on the part of Ubuntu. Ubuntu's rise wasn't magical at all. Ubuntu took Debian and released it in an easy to install form, whereas Debian was still a long installation process that required some knowledge about your system. Ubuntu, then, gave it away freely, which is something many other distros weren't doing at the time. Also, they came along at the right time: Red Hat stopped selling their home desktop distro and aligned themselves with Fedora, which still isn't in the same league as Red Hat was in terms of quality and stability, SuSE was bought by Novell and angered Linux users, Mandrake, long known for shooting itself in the foot with its customer base, angered it's users by pushing them into the Mandrake Club, and other, once popular, distros were going the way of the dodo bird (Corel, Libranet).

So why all this fuss about Ubuntu? Why do users continue to think so highly of it? It's not a bad distro at all. I've used it in the past, and occasionally download the latest release to run in Virtualbox. However, they simply aren't even on the same playing field as a company like Apple.

As for Apple's license, I have no idea why this is something that would hold Apple back. Why would it? What does a BSD license on the OS parts have anything to do with 3rd party development? What makes an OS popular is the applications it runs. Apple has wonderful apps like iWork and iLife, not to mention very nice high end apps from Apple, Filemaker, Adobe, and others that are very popular. Don't get me wrong, I like using GPL'd applications like Gimp, Inkscape, and other OSS apps like OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird, and others. However, they don't have the same polish Apple puts on their stuff and even some of them will never be what others want them to be because those developers fear the Redmond Taliban.

re: Please

Nicely put, and doesn't your argument work as well for Microsoft as it does for Apple?

It always puzzles me the animosity towards Microsoft when Apple gets a free pass. When it comes to CLOSED SOURCE or PROPRIETARY GOODS - Apple far and away beats Microsoft, as does Apple's practice of shutting out any hint of competition or infringement.

So why isn't Apple the Mini Me along side of Microsoft's Dr. Evil?

I agree, but Apple sees

I agree, but Apple sees itself as a hardware company. The software is simply the lure to bring in hardware buyers. Their approach is to completely integrate your gadget life with their Macintosh computers. This approach is evident through the relatively inexpensive software they produce. iLife and iWork are a bargain on the proprietary landscape, the high end software like Apeture and Final Cut are relative bargains in their field, and even the OS is a bargain compared to the price of Windows. If they let clone makers in, they would have a difficult time making a profit. In reality, they're nothing like Microsoft, who's almost completely a software company with an accessories and gadget side business.

Personally, it's a ways off for me, but I anticipate buying an iMac and dual booting Linux on it. I'll never leave Linux... Smile

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Barbie the Debian Developer

Some people may have seen recently that the Barbie series has a rather sexist book out about Barbie the Computer Engineer. Fortunately, there’s a way to improve this by making your own version. Thus, I made a short version about Barbie the Debian Developer and init system packager. Read more

Automotive Grade Linux Adds Industry Partners for Open Source Cars

Cars may still not be the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Linux and open source, but the Linux Foundation's Automotive Grade Linux (AGL) project continues to expand. This week, it announced three new members, bringing the total number of industry partners and academic collaborators to 46. Read more

Kubuntu CI: the replacement for Project Neon

Many years ago Ubuntu had a plan for Grumpy Groundhog, a version of Ubuntu which was made from daily packages of free software development versions. This never happened but Kubuntu has long provided Project Neon (and later Project Neon 5) which used launchpad to build all of KDE Software Compilation and make weekly installable images. This is great for developers who want to check their software works in a final distribution or want to develop against the latest libraries without having to compile them, but it didn't help us packagers much because the packaging was monolithic and unrelated to the packages we use in Kubuntu real. Read more

How SanDisk is Becoming an Open Source Player

Earlier this year SanDisk committed to becoming an open source player, created an open source strategy office and joined the Linux Foundation. Since then, the flash storage company has begun contributing to open source projects in the three main areas of its business: mobile, enterprise and hyperscale computing, and consumer products, said Nithya Ruff, director of the open source strategy office at SanDisk in an online presentation yesterday. Read more