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

Citrix and Google partner to bring native enterprise features to Chromebooks

Chromebooks are making inroads into the education sector, and a push is coming for the enterprise with new native Chrome capabilities from Citrix. Google and Citrix have announced Citrix Receiver for Chrome, a native app for the Chromebook which has direct access to the system resources, including printing, audio, and video. To provide the security needed for the enterprise, the new Citrix app assigns a unique Receiver ID to each device for monitoring, seamless Clipboard integration across remote and local applications, end user experience monitoring with HDX Insight, and direct SSL connections. Read more

Is Open Source an Open Invitation to Hack Webmail Encryption?

While the open source approach to software development has proven its value over and over again, the idea of opening up the code for security features to anyone with eyeballs still creates anxiety in some circles. Such worries are ill-founded, though. One concern about opening up security code to anyone is that anyone will include the NSA, which has a habit of discovering vulnerabilities and sitting on them so it can exploit them at a later time. Such discoveries shouldn't be a cause of concern, argued Phil Zimmermann, creator of PGP, the encryption scheme Yahoo and Google will be using for their webmail. Read more

Changing times, busy times and why Google will save Usenet.

Linux however has succeeded by way of form factors diversifying. Be it Android phones or tablets there is a big shift with the mainstream consumer in terms of what devices they want and here Linux has excelled. In 2008 my decision remove my Microsoft dependency was for reasons of the control they had on the desktop, the practices alleged against them and the dubious tactics some of their advocates used to promote the products. I also wholeheartedly agree with the ethos of FOSS which was another contributory factor. Today, my feelings about FOSS have not changed, there are caveats to my opinions of FOSS (especially in gaming) but I’ve covered that before in other articles. Today I avoid Microsoft not because I feel the need to make a stand against its behaviour, its because I don’t need them. I support Microsoft being a “choice” in the market as I support user freedom, but as for what Microsoft can offer me (regardless of its past) there is nothing. Read more

Eltechs Debuts x86 Crossover Platform for ARM Tablets, Mini-PCs

The product, called ExaGear Desktop, runs x86 operating systems on top of hardware devices using ARMv7 CPUs. That's significant because x86 software, which is the kind that runs natively on most computing platforms today, does not generally work on ARM hardware unless software developers undertake the considerable effort of porting it. Since few are likely to do that, having a way to run x86 applications on ARM devices is likely to become increasingly important as more ARM-based tablets and portable computers come to market. That said, the ExaGear Desktop, which Eltechs plans to make available next month, currently has some steep limitations. First, it only supports Ubuntu Linux. And while Eltechs said support for additional Linux distributions is forthcoming, there's no indication the product will be able to run x86 builds of Windows on ARM hardware, a feat that is likely to be in much greater demand than Linux compatibility. Read more