Operating Systems and Recent History

(I'm writing a periodic column for the Financial Times. Here's the one that appeared today.)

Early last week, Bill Gates demonstrated Microsoft’s next Windows desktop computer operating system at a conference for manufacturers of computer hardware. Later in the week Apple started selling its latest version of the Macintosh operating system, known as Mac OS X Tiger.

Although the Microsoft product is a long way from hitting the retail marketplace, Gates’s talk garnered lots of coverage in the trade and popular media. The timing, coming next to the Apple launch, was part of the reason; the media can not resist the Microsoft versus Apple story. But the Tiger release and Microsoft hypefest were only the latest engagements in a never-ending campaign for the hearts, minds and wallets of computer users. Their interests, not corporate power games, are why this matters.

Microsoft, for a variety of reasons, now holds a nearly unassailable monopoly on the desktop. Thankfully for the users of technology, however, innovation keeps coming from a variety of quarters.

How different, and how similar, the landscape looked a decade ago. While history rarely repeats itself in the fast-moving and frequently surprising technology sphere, it’s always worth looking back for perspective.

I well recall the avalanche of hyperbole from Microsoft and a then-adoring media when Windows 95 hit the market. I also remember how a Macintosh enthusiast came up with a lapel button at the time. It read: “Windows ‘95 = Macintosh ‘89”.

The notion had a strong element of truth. After all, in 1995, Windows was only belatedly catching up with the ease-of-use advances that had long been integral to the Mac operating system.

But the witty lapel button raised another question: If Windows 95 was just Mac 89, what had Apple done in the meantime? It was almost as fair to say that Mac 95 equalled Mac 89. Although the Mac hardware had advanced (as hardware does independently of software in any event), the company had not exactly maintained its innovative pace of software progress.

In fact, the most serious operating system competition for Microsoft in 1995 came from IBM’s OS/2, which was clearly superior to Windows 95 in many ways. IBM’s biggest problem was itself, as it was betrayed by an astonishing inability to sell a better product either to computer makers - who, to be fair, were being bludgeoned by the predatory Microsoft - or to independent software developers, without the support of whom no operating system can be successful in today’s world.

OS/2 faded. And as the 1990s progressed, Windows moved ahead of the pack in key ways. Not until Apple released OS X did it catch up architecturally with newer versions of Windows, even though in most ways the Mac has always been friendlier for the user.

One of the Mac’s biggest advantages in the new century has been the almost total absence of viruses and spyware on the platform in an era when the plague of malware has become a clear danger. Windows users surely wish they were so lucky. At the same time, Mac users, especially in corporate settings, often find themselves marginalised by software vendors and support personnel.

Linux? It’s coming along at a surprisingly fast pace. The open source software community has ardently improved the free operating systems to the point that it’s acceptable on the desktop for at least some uses. It’s not yet up to the proprietary competition for use by average folks, especially home users who want to do anything beyond basic computing applications.

Another shift may be more important: the move to the web. To the extent that the web is a computing platform in its own right, the system running the individual device loses importance. We are a considerable distance from total independence of this kind, but the trend is real.

It is far too early to know precisely what features Microsoft will include into the next version of Windows, supposedly to be sold next year. The company has already indicated it won’t keep some of its most tantalising promises.

With Tiger, Apple is plainly in the lead today. The built-in search function is getting rave reviews, among other performance boosts that keep the Mac ahead on ease of use. Mac loyalists should not get smug. Microsoft works hardest when it is lagging the competition.

For computer users, the back and forth is good news. Personal computers are cheaper than ever, but they remain too unreliable and difficult to use. Only competition - from commercial and non-commercial sources alike - can make a difference. It is doing so.

Comments

[Tom Bridge]

I'm a bit curious how computers are still "too difficult to use." What, right now, is too difficult?

[mcd]

First, I need to comment on the comment: "What, right now, is too difficult?"

The most difficult thing to do is move your data from one
computer to the next. You want to switch from Windows XP to Mac OS and all your email is in Outlook Express...
Hire a consultant.

You want to change blogging services and
all your archives are in blogspot.com. Hire a consultant.
Microsoft and Apple still levearge data capture as a business strategy... the weaker of the two seems to spend more effort on interoperability and mobility of
files... and historically they have been up or down in the hierarchy with respect to networking strength.

It's worth understanding that MS tends to get fat, dumb and lazy when they aren't chasing something.
Netscape fostered the intense investments in Internet Explorer... bye, bye netscape and IE just stopped improving (Hello Firefox...) hello IE 7.

OS X will push Longhorn to be better... There IS a reason why public policy folsk believe in the benefits
of antitrust laws. Consumers get better products when the incentive to compete exists.

Linux will give both MS and Apple significant incentive to keep at it... and that's the real benefit
of Linux. There just might be an option that doesn't lock up your email or document data. Wouldn't that be nice? Shouldn't that be public policy... no closed
data formats except for privacy reasons and then only
to encrypt... not to control users.

[Jeff]

Practically everything is too difficult. I know where you're coming from on this, Tom. You're looking for examples of things that are insurmountably difficult. You won't find many.

But practically everything is more difficult than it has to be. Practically everything could be easier.

I don't know what Dan was saying, but that's how I'd answer the question.

[Simon Pole]

I don't think this statement is accurate:

Linux ... It’s not yet up to the proprietary competition for use by average folks, especially home users who want to do anything beyond basic computing applications.

I suppose this hinges on what is considered a "basic computing" application, and what is not. Even if there is such a distinction, there are open source, Linux versions for all proprietary applications (I can't think of any that are missing). Examples:

Photoshop Grahics: The Gimp
Office/Powerpoint: Open Office, Abiword
Spreadsheet: Gnumeric
Browser: Firefox
E-Mail: Thunderbird/Kmail
Database: MySQL
WinAMP: xmms
Video player: Xine, MPlayer

(These, are all user-friendly GUI applications as well, suitable for home users).

The one area where there might be a deficiency is in the Outlook-calender sync area (though this is recognized and being worked on, and I think Evolution is almost there). However, PIMs are more a business application than one needed by home users.

The conclusion, Linux has reached the level of the proprietary competition for home users.

[Dan Gillmor]

Simon, here's a case in point to suggest this is wrong. To make my laptop go into standby mode, I had to edit a file by hand. No typical home user would have figured it out.

[Simon Pole]

Configuring by hand is a different issue than the availability of applications. Linux, I believe, has mature replacements for all the major applications.

Power managment, however, is an issue that is still needs tweaking under Linux. No doubt about it. Usability is certainly the next stage in moving Linux to the desktop for average users.

[Dan Gillmor]

There are quite a few apps I use routinely (such as my blog posting app) that have no comparable Linux equivalents, at least not that I know of. I do think (and said) it's coming along, though...

[Ran Talbott]

This is just a repeat of the predatory pre-announcement strategy MS has been using for over 15 years: "We swear we've learned how to Do It Right, so pleasepleaseple-e-ese put your plans to switch on hold, and just hang on until the next version. We promise it won't suck like the current one".

And, indeed, it doesn't: instead, it sucks in new and amazing ways that require users to learn/invent entirely new strategies to protect themselves from the effects of Microsoft's screw-ups.

If this continues, some crazed administrator, driven mad by years of endless patching that never quite makes his users' PCs safe to let loose on the net, will shoot Gates at one of his keynote speaker apperances, and make history as the first successful non-spousal use of the "Battered Wife Syndrome" defense...

[Ran Talbott]

"Linux has reached the level of the proprietary competition for home users."

For the "basics", yes. Indeed, Linux has been far superior to Windoze for the basic home emailing/netsurfing/term-paper-editing system for a while now.

But Dan was talking about use "beyond basic computing applications", and there are large areas where the equivalent Linux apps are inferior, more difficult to use, or even non-existent.

In many cases, they're still "good enough". Or cheap enough that lots of people would be willing to put up with their limitations/foibles.

But there are lots of "home users" with wants/needs that aren't met well, or at all, by the available Linux apps. It's true that Linux is fine for millions of home users, but it's questionable whether it's sufficient for "most", and "all" is still well into the future.

[Simon Pole]

I'm not sure what blog app you use. But two of the leading Linux kind are Word Press (for straight blogging -- and is currently giving Movable Type a run for its money) and Drupal, which is a full content management system (with blogs, forums, front pages -- used by Our Media). A third similar to Drupal is Geeklog (used by Groklaw).

Three vibrant open source choices. At this point in time, just as long as you know how to use a text editor, you can live in open source. (The future may already be here...)

[Simon Pole]

Ran wrote:

there are large areas where the equivalent Linux apps are inferior, more difficult to use, or even non-existent.

I don't believe this is true anymore. Just what areas are you talking about? You concede Linux is better in the basics (i.e. desktop apps). What else is there? Backroom server stuff? Linux has dominated this area for several years now.

Point out one area where Linux is not comprable to a proprietary app.

[Eric]

Mac OS X Tiger is a significant improvement on the already best OS out.

I have installed a lot of OSs, from Dos on, including some more exotics like NeXTSTEP, BeOS, several version of Linux. I've used more, including Solaris and others.

Linux is too hard to install for anyone but savvy computer users. Mac OS X by comparison can be insatlled by just about anyone. Windows is getting there, but you better hope they don't have a home network or wireless.

Gimp is no match for Photoshop - especially the just-released CS2. Its good for prepping images for the web, but if you're a professional, GIMP can not come close to supplanting Photoshop and it's integration with the other Adobe Apps.

Keynote is the best presentation app out, hands-down. Only on OS X. PowerPoint can't touch it for sophisticated graphics, use of alpha channels and the benefits of OS X's graphics.

There is no Acrobat Pro for Linux. And Acrobat is fast becoming the Postscript standard a lot of print shops prefer. (Acrobat IS Postscript.)

Windows has caught up in some important ways to Mac. Color calibration is finally there. But it's ugly, and it's interface is just horrendous.

It would be nice if Linux were actually able to take on Mac OS X and Windows. It simply can't for anyone other than highly skilled computer users when they have to support themselves.

[Del Miller]

I'm not sure I really understand how competition is supposed to make computers easier to use. I think that just the opposite is true.

If, say, Apple, could develop its OS without the pressure of including every compatibility in the world with Windows, then MacOS would be about half the size and contain about 10% the bugs (I estimate wildly here.)

Likewise, the metaphors of the major OSes are similar, as are the usage problem inherent, for the very same reasons. Microsoft's Longhorn UI looks like MacOS X because of competitive pressure. If there were less competition, perhaps Microsoft would feel more free to create an original--and more useable-- interface.

I'm not suggesting that a monopoly would somehow bring about a better computing experience, only that seeing competition as the engine driving computer simplicity seems to be off target.

If computers are going to become easier to use, then the OS manufacturers are going to have to generate some true innovation, rather than the copycat antithesis of innovation we see today. That isn't a function of external competition, but rather a problem related to the lack of vision and poor management within the companies.

[Davee]

As I recall from the Win 95 transition, the major reason for it's success over all others was that almost by default 80% of MS. DOS users when upgrading their computer at the time would chose to upgrade it to Win 95 without even considering other options. The remaining 20% were open to other options like OS/2 and Mac but wouldn't generally take them. And computers running DOS at the time were by far the most popular.

Personally, I think the most interesting developments recently are things like the google desktop search and web accelerator which create a new functionality layer of sorts... if they continue with that trend we'll end up with 'google services' that are a must have and innovate faster than redmond... I don't work for google, btw, I'm just watching all these developments with some appreciation and humor.

[Simon Willison]

"Point out one area where Linux is not comprable to a proprietary app."

Consumer level video editing. Show me a Linux app that compares with the iMovie/iDVD combination. It's not even on the horizon yet.

For basic email/browsing/word processing though Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) is finally becoming a viable option for regular users.

[Nollind Whachell]

competition = change = improvements (hopefully!)

Linux, while definitely a viable alternative, has a ways to go before it will get accepted by the mainstream average user. Who knows what the next year or so will bring though.

People are getting sick of technology plain and simple. While people are definitely getting empowered by machines they are also becoming slaves to them. Technology needs to work for the user and not the other way around. As Del remarked, "true innovation" is what we need. Unfortunately, in these troubled times, many companies are afraid of taking risks when, in fact, these are the perfect times to be taking them.

[Owen]

Nollind is absolutely right...users are tired of having to go hat in hand to an IT'er for help every time something in the information environment changes. They want their tools to accommodate their work preferences, not the other way 'round. The Mac goes a long way towards achieving the goal of the empowered user, but the mainstream is still stuck in the mid-20th century, and even Apple in its arrogance sometimes forgets the customer.

The key to a world that is truly technology-enabled is having a package - hardware, software, interfaces, the whole shebang - that is secure, stable, economical and doesn't require a technically oriented user to handle minor problems and changes. As it is, we too often serve the machines at least as much as they serve us. They may never reach the level of convenience, simplicity and reliability of an electric toaster, but so long as computers are designed by EEs for maintenance by techies, we'll continue to have a gap between potential and actual value added.

[rON]

> Personal computers are cheaper than ever, but they remain too unreliable and difficult to use.>

He must be using a windows thingy.

[Jeff Harrell]

At the risk of propagating the air of Linux-related defensiveness that's seeped into this discussion, a challenge was thrown down. The question was raised about applications — common, every-day applications — without Linux equivalents.

Please allow me to run through my dock from left to right.

1. iCal
2. iChat (note particularly the audio and video aspects of this)
3. Address Book (with interoperability with iCal, Mail and iChat)
3a. iSync (I don't actually have this in my dock; it runs on a schedule to sync my Address Book and iCal data everywhere, particularly my Bluetooth phone)
4. NetNewsWire
5. MarsEdit
6. iTunes
7. iPhoto
8. Photoshop (please don't say "Gimp"; it would just embarrass us both)
9. InDesign
10. InCopy (probably my most important application)
11. iMovie
12. iDVD
13. QuickTime Player Pro

These are just the applications I use regularly, or even every day. And frankly, I think I should throw the Finder in there, particularly now that it has really powerful features like Spotlight and smart folders and burn folders.

To my knowledge, there are no Linux equivalents out there for any of these. Hell, for a lot of them, there are no Windows equivalents! And these aren't highly specialized applications. They're general-use tools that I use all the time.

The gap between Linux and everything else is pretty shocking when you really think about it.

[ocracokewaves]

Having come from the Mac world to the Windows world this past fall, and to the Linux world one month later, I would agree that aside from video editing, there is nothing that I'm not comfortable doing in Linux. I have used both SUSE and Xandros. I found Xandros an easier install than Tiger which I have had to install on one machine twice already since my mail.app quit working on me. SUSE 9.3 with GNOME, the Open Office suite along with the Evolution e-mail package, all together make a very productive environment. The other nice thing about Linux is that I have done some really dumb things, and the systems that I am using seem to have been able to fix things without starting from scratch. When something goes wrong with a Mac, there is little you can do but start over. Of course a real problem on Windows would completely sink me. Having something like Firefox as a consistent platform on all of the operating systems that I am using is a real help as is all the work being done to make certain environments like Flickr and Typepad work well together. As things get better in better in the browser world, I don't really care what OS I'm using. Just think how far we have come, you can now take a picture, write and article to include with the picture and post it all to the web with no html skills and certainly no requirement for an expensive proprietary software package that would tie me to particularl company. I think we have come a long way.

[Simon Pole]

Jeff, I'm not trying to embarrass anyone. Just pointing out there are Linux replacements for all proprietary apps.

I wouldn't put down the GIMP. At this point it is a replacement for photoshop for the home user. It might not satisfy pros like you, but it does everything a home user would want it to do.

I believe almost all the apps you list are covered in my list of Linux equivalents in the above post. You should really take the time to explore the Linux apps out there. You don't state the functions of the apps you list, so I'm no sure exactly what they do. But from what I can tell, Linux does have mature replacemnts for all. They appear to be all point-and-click desktop functions such as CD burning, calenders, syncing etc. All of these have their equivalents in the KDE Linux desktop.

Someone above mentioned consumer level video editing. This exists in Linux as well. Check out Cinelerra.

Again, Linux has mature replacements for all important applications. So a statement like this just isn't true:

The gap between Linux and everything else is pretty shocking when you really think about it.

Jeff, you should explore Linux -- both it and the Apple OS share the same codebase -- Unix. You might find something you like.

[Ken]

It's an interesting time because it is now clear that MS is vulnerable. Linux more than Apple is causing this shift (thanks to a lot of open source developers and IBM's support).

MS still has a strong hold in the business world, but it's declining, thanks to Linux. In the consumer market "Bubba & Emmy Lou" go into Best Buy or CompUSA (or online to Dell) for a computer and they generally only see boxes with Windows installed. Even in CompUSA the Apple Section is hidden in the back corner.

Linux, and to a small degree Apple, will eat into the business section. Apple will grow in both the business sections because of the higher visibility it now has thanks to iPods (of all things) and Tiger. The ability of Linux to increase market share in the home, however, will be based on the ability to deliver a consumer level computer that is as easy & safe to use as a Mac - that should be the target. I believe that, at some point in the future, Linux will reach this target and also that China will play a part, especially when they flood the market with Linux computers that make Dell look expensive. You'll know when that happens as MS will deliver a Linux version of Office.

As for me, I'll stick with Macs. I'm too old to learn another OS and old memories of Windows are (fortunately) fading away.

[Owen]

Sorry for repeating myself, but for most USERS...those who think kernels are found on cobs and stacks are in libraries. Arcane details about fixes and distinctions -- so beloved and fervently debated by the cognoscenti -- are alien to their underlying desire. They don't want patches and tweaks...they just want the damn things to work and help them with their real life tasks.

[Brad]

I totally agree with the Mac89 = Mac95. As an owner of three macs previous to my current Powerbook, all of which ran the current OS's of that time, they all seemed very much the same.

I would also say that Apple's reputation has been on the rise lately on other software/hardware. Apart from the iPod, which of course has been a HUGE boost not only for Apple's shareholders, marketshare, and reputation, but for the overall image of the brand.

Please excuse the shameless plug for my blog above. As their resident tech guru, I track many blogs...Dan's is one of the best out there. Here's to my appreciation.

[Jeff Harrell]

Simon, I'm sorry, but if you think Gimp can do what Photoshop does, then you must not know very much about what Photoshop does.

But let's not focus on that. Let's run down the list again.

1. What's the Linux equivalent of iCal? It has to support calendar sharing via the Internet, and integrate with an address book utility.

2. Where's the video- and audio-communication tool for Linux that can replace iChat?

3. Where's the system-wide address book utility? It has to support vCard input and LDAP servers, and it has to work seamlessly with my mail, chat and calendar programs.

3a. I've never heard of anything like a sync solution for Linux. Here's how it works: Every so often (I have it set to do it daily) my computer syncs my address book and calendar with my mobile phone over Bluetooth, entirely without my involvement.

4. NetNewsWire is a feed reader. It includes smart feeds so I can group feed data by content, and it allows me to automatically download podcasts into iTunes for syncing to my iPod.

5. MarsEdit is my blog-posting application.

6. Everybody knows what iTunes is. The only equivalent on Windows is iTunes for Windows. There is, as far as I know, no equivalent on Linux.

7. iPhoto is for organizing and storing photos. When I plug a camera in, the contents are automatically downloaded to iPhoto and put in a set called a "film roll." I can use the roll as a contact sheet to select and annotate pictures, which store themselves in smart albums.

8. We've covered this one already.

9. InDesign is a document-creation application. If you know what QuarkXPress is, it's like QuarkXPress, only it doesn't suck.

10. InCopy is a writer's tool. It's kind of like a word processor, only without all the formatting nonsense. It outputs XML and a format that can be placed directly into InDesign.

11. iMovie is a video editing tool. It works with all kinds of compressed video, from stuff for mobile phones to HDTV, because it's based on QuickTime. Cinelerra isn't in the same world, because it's bewilderingly hard to use. It might compare to Final Cut Express, were it not for the fact that it lacks basic features that Final Cut Express users take for granted. (Yes, guys, DVE is a pretty important tool.)

12. iDVD is a DVD-authoring tool.

13. QuickTime Player Pro is a movie encoder that supports any codec with a QuickTime component, which is every useful codec in the world.

Not only are there no Linux equivalents for these tools; there aren't even Linux approximations for most of them.

And I'm sorry, Simon, but although Mac OS X evolved from Unix, it's got about as much in common with Unix as Windows XP has with VMS. I would sooner chew off my arm than go back to the Bad Old Days of Unix, and that's coming from a former SGI consultant who used an IRIX workstation every day for five years between 1997 and 2002.

I find it interesting that so many Linux adherents have immersed themselves so deeply in that culture that they've completely lost sight of the actual current state of the art. They're not shocked by the gap between Linux and the Mac because they're not even aware of it. I find that very interesting.

[Robert "kebernet" Cooper]

Dan: It was almost as fair to say that Mac 95 equalled Mac 89. Although the Mac hardware had advanced (as hardware does independently of software in any event), the company had not exactly maintained its innovative pace of software progress.

I think that is a bit unfair. Apple really was trying, but they had several abortive efforts for their "Next Generation" OS before OSX. The Taligent project with IBM failed to deliver a revolutionary PPC OS across both vendors. The Rhapsody project made it as far as a developer demo or two, but never really got there. Really the thing that got them there was the absorbtion of NeXT. Which brings me to...

Jeff Harrel: And I'm sorry, Simon, but although Mac OS X evolved from Unix, it's got about as much in common with Unix as Windows XP has with VMS. I would sooner chew off my arm than go back to the Bad Old Days of Unix, and that's coming from a former SGI consultant who used an IRIX workstation every day for five years between 1997 and 2002.

As someone who cut his teeth in college on a NeXT machine in 1992-96 and has been in the UNIX world ever since, I can tell you that Mac OSX is so close to NeXTStep is isn't even funny. Hell, most of the Cocoa API never even bothered renaming the NS_* classes. The NetInfo service is upgraded, but still functionally the same as NeXT's.

If by "Not like Unix" you mean "Not based on X11", that is fair, but about as far as you can go. It is certainly very similar to NeXTStep and AIX in terms of operation and configuration. Really the display layer is about the only thing that is really a sea change from any of the other *NIXes. However, a comparison of WindowsXP to VMS is like saying "They both use SMB, so they are the same". In either comparison you are only comparing one service level between two operating systems. OSX is still a BSD in pretty much every way. Yeah, it has some nice user tools, it has a nice distributed configuration manager and it hides a lot of things from the user and in the .app directory structure, but that is about it.

[MacSmiley]

"They may never reach the level of convenience, simplicity and reliability of an electric toaster, but so long as computers are designed by EEs for maintenance by techies, we'll continue to have a gap between potential and actual value added."

I won't argue with this point, but it's evident you guys haven't bought a toaster in the recent past. The one I bought 6 months ago won't let you pop up the toast with the handle/lever thingee anymore. You've got to push an electronic CANCEL button !!

This does not bode well for computers, toasters, or for the simplicity camp in general.

[Robert "kebernet" Cooper]

1. What's the Linux equivalent of iCal? It has to support calendar sharing via the Internet, and integrate with an address book utility.

3. Where's the system-wide address book utility? It has to support vCard input and LDAP servers, and it has to work seamlessly with my mail, chat and calendar programs.

And if you want to compare applications, I would point out that there are all kinds of shared address books across Linux. Kontact and the KDE suite, Evolution, GAIM, Beagle, etc all share a common address book, that supported iCal/CalDAV years before Apple.

[Simon Pole]

Thanks for the response Jeff. You are right about the difficulty of comparisons. Everyone's in their own little silo. In regards to GIMP. You're right. I don't know what Photoshop does. But I think its accurate to say GIMP is good enough for home users. There are those who straddle the border between amateur and professional (common enough these days). That may be a different issue.

I'll give Linux replacements for your list (thanks again for providing it).

1. iCal -- I believe this functionality is now provided by Oracle Calendar for Linux.

2. iChat -- GnomeMeeting

3. System-wide address book -- Evolution

3a. Bluetooth sync -- present in Linux. Requires configuring.

4. Newsreaders -- Akregator -- the KDE newsreader.

5. Blog client -- Blogtk

6. iTunes -- PyMusique

7. Photo organizing -- digiKam

8. Photoshop -- the GIMP

9. inDesign -- Scribus

10. inCopy -- this is almost a part of inDesign, so I'm not really sure if its should be a separate app. Content can be prepared for Scribus with Open Office, Abiword (or from the console with Emacs/Latex)

11. Video Edit - Cinelerra or Kino, otherwise its highend studio-type stuff. (You're right , Linux needs better video editing for home consumers).

12. iDVD - dvdstyler

13. movie encoder -- MPlayer

Thanks again for giving me the chance to respond. I think the only place you can say Linux legitimately falls down in regards to home-use apps is possibly in video editing. Even then, the app exists, it just might not be that easy to use.

[Robert "kebernet" Cooper]

3a. Bluetooth sync -- present in Linux. Requires configuring.

Well, (a) Use Fedora and you don't have to configure your OS :P, (b) Personally in addition to using MultiSync I also keep a Sync4J SyncML server up. I can actually remote sync my phone to the office LDAP or my home machines over GPRS without ever even needing the Bluetooth.

6. iTunes -- PyMusique
I much preferr JuK myself.

[Wangden Kelsang]

To the people who ask what, beyond basic applications, is missing on Linux, I say Professional Graphics and Design applications.

As someone else pointed out, GIMP can't compete with Photoshop for professional work outside the web. And then there are InDesign, Quark Xpress, Illustrator, and Acrobat Pro. Other than Xpress, I rely on all of them for my graphic design work, and there just aren't good enough equivalents on Linux yet.

Keep in mind that this is professional graphics work, not home use. What home user is going to spend $1000 - $1500 on graphics software anyway?

[mac]

"Microsoft works hardest when it is lagging the competition."

That's because they need to see where to go next. We all know they need to follow the true innovator...

[Jeff Harrell]

Frankly, Simon, your laundry-list only served to confirm my theory that you're coming at this from a position of profound ignorance. There is nothing wrong with that; ignorance is a natural state of being. But it is a handicap.

Oracle Calendar is a server-based enterprise system that requires vast amounts of time and labor to configure, and oh by the way, it happens to require Oracle, for crying out loud. The only thing it has in common with iCal is that both programs — if you can call a massive client-server solution like Oracle Calendar a "program" — deal with calendars. Beyond that, the two aren't even in the same galaxy.

Here's how I use my Mac for day-to-day contact management (a very important part of my job):

An e-mail from a contact comes in. Maybe it has a business card attached; most of the time it doesn't. I use the "Add sender to address book" command. The sender becomes a card in my address book. As I get more information, I add it to the card. Phone numbers get automatically synced to my phone. Chat addresses automatically show up in iChat. All incoming messages are automatically associated with that card, of course, but so are all file attachments and calendar events. I can find them later with Spotlight by choosing the "Spotlight" action menu item from the Address Book card. My e-mails, chat transcripts, files and calendar events are all relationally linked to my Address Book, with absolutely no configuration or set-up on my part whatsoever.

That's, like, thing one in modern desktop computing. To suggest that the Linux equivalent is a mish-mash of amateurish programs that don't work together tied to a massive enterprise database that costs five figures and takes a certified genius to set up and maintain is … well, I don't mean to be rude, but it's downright laughable.

This is why people who understand both Linux and the Mac see a vast, almost unimaginable difference between them. When somebody comes along and says, "Gee, Linux is just like the Mac now," all it really proves is that the speaker, though well-meaning, lacks some pretty important pieces of the puzzle.

[Simon Pole]

Okay, remove Oracle calender, put in Evolution. You're the man.

I see your "vast, unimaginable difference" -- and I quake.

[Ran Talbott]

"You concede Linux is better in the basics (i.e. desktop apps)."

No, what I said is that Linux is a better _system_ than Windoze for people who only need the "core" basic applications like net access and simple document creation. That doesn't necessarily mean that the apps, themselves are better. Some are (e,g,, the Exploder vs almost any browser more sophisticated than lynx), some aren't (e.g., openoffice, which, while far more than merely "sufficient" for the home user, will probably never have the polish and speed of the MS products).

"What else is there?"

Surely you jest. You need to get out less, and spend some time surfing the web to see some of the weird and wonderful things people are doing with their PCs. Everything from geneology to knitting patterns to music composition to astronomical imaging. Sometimes the Linux apps available for those interests are better, sometimes not as good, and sometimes nonexistent. Just as in the days of real OS/2-vs-Windoze competition, users interested in the non-MS choice need to do their homework, to make sure that the hardware or applications they want are supported.

"Point out one area where Linux is not comprable to a proprietary app."

That's easy: "consumer-grade" navigation and mapping. While apps like Roadmap and GPSDrive are remarkable achievements, I'm sure their authors would be among the first to admit that they'd get hammered in head-to-head competition with the Windoze apps in which publishers have invested 10-100 times the effort. There just plain isn't any Linux app that can do either the automated trip routing or turn-by-turn directions available for Windoze. And the apps I've tried so far (with one rather lame exception) won't even install under WINE, much less run.

The same is true of topo maps. Despite the fact that the USGS has elimintated the "proprietary data" problem for Americans by making it freely available. If you want topographic displays on your Linux PC, you have to climb the learning curve of the not-very-user-friendly researcher-oriented GIS tools.

I'm sure you'll find others whose personal interests just aren't supported in the Linux world. As with shopping for the latest USB gadgets, the Windoze user has the luxury of being able to _assume_ that the required software is out there.

[Simon Pole]

Ran, you make a good point. Linux will only have arrived on the desktop when those types of programs you mention begin to be ported. (As Linux only has about 7% of the desktop, last time I looked, this day is probably a long way off). They will only be ported when Linux is as easy to use as Windows. (Though, I'm willing to bet you could probably find an open source equivalent for each of them in varying states of development).

I suppose this was actually the point of the mention of Linux in the column -- that it is the home, niche software that is not yet viable on Linux. I hadn't actually thought of that, which is probably a geekocentric way of thinking. Food for thought...

[Jeff Harrell]

Man, I would LOVE to know where you get those "seven percent" figures. Whenever somebody quotes a figure like that, they usually follow it up with something fuzzy like, "Well, since Linux isn't actually SOLD there's no way to track unit shipments, so we have to totally pull a number out of our ear. I know a bunch of guys who use it, so let's say seven percent."

If Linux has more than two percent of the market for general-purpose computers — not servers; companies like Google that deploy vast numbers of disposable Linux computers throw that number completely out of whack — I'll eat my hat.

(Regarding your second-to-last comment, Simon, you are admittedly coming at this discussion from a position of near-perfect naïveté. I would suggest that you tone down the arrogance a bit when dealing with matters of which you are almost entirely ignorant. Important note: There's nothing wrong with ignorance. But there's a problem with the refusal to acknowledge it.)

[A fellow Mac user]

Said Jeff:

"I would suggest that you tone down the arrogance a bit when dealing with matters of which you are almost entirely ignorant."

You would truly do well to follow your own advice, my friend.

[Dan Birchall]

Simon was quick to point out that the GIMP is comparable to Photoshop. I'd certainly agree, as someone who stopped using Photoshop around version 4 in favor of GIMP, and didn't get Photoshop again until CS.

But mentioning CS brings up another point: if GIMP is the Photoshop-alike, where are the comparable apps for Illustrator, InDesign, and GoLive? I've seen a couple open-source projects start that intended to compete with Illustrator. I'm not familiar with any open-source page-layout and publishing applications (perhaps a GUI front end to LaTeX?) or click-n-drool open-source web design applications.

I'm an old-school "we didn't HAVE tools back in 1994, sonny!" type, and use "vi" in my PowerBook's Terminal to do my HTML coding, but I don't see someone less geeky being able to get a friendly integrated set of GUI apps for creative design and print/web publishing like the Adobe Creative Suite, on Linux.

[Simon Pole]

Dan, checkout out Scribus. It goes along way in that regard.

[Nollind Whachell]

Sometimes too many options can be just as confusing and frustrating as too little options. Technology as a whole needs to start evolving to the state that it disappears and gets out of the way of the person using it. Until that happens, people will still be complaining about technology because it is still in front of their face. When design evolves the use of technology to the point that you forget your are using it, then in effect it has disappeared.

Comparing this to operating systems, I would rate Linux lowest, Windows the middle of the road and OS X the highest (although still not perfect). Linux I find still too much in your face but this could easily be changed with a good designer or group of designers (with FireFox being a great example of this approach). Windows while easier to use, still doesn't get out of your way enough. And finally OS X which has to be the best attempt so far. I'm primarily a Windows user but when I got to try OS X last year, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and ease of use of it because it just got out of my way and let me focus on my work. It sounds like an easy thing to do but simplicity is often times quite a difficult thing to achieve.

[Steve]

Just a few comments...

1) I've heard a few references to installing Linux being easier than installing Mac OS (specifically Tiger). While I've tinkered with a few Linux distrobutions in the past, I don't claim to be an expert on all of them. Could someone please explain how installing any OS actually, is easier than installing Tiger? Personally, having installed various Windows, Linux and Mac OS's, I don't understand the basis of this comment.

2) While there are a few rough approximations for Linux apps to Windows/Mac apps, in most cases, they are very weak. OpenOffice is making good strides in terms of file formats, etc. but it's not quite a replacement for MS Office. The Gimp, while an interesting graphics tool is not even remotely the same as Photoshop. Someone said that for home users, it's good enough (or something to that effect). Well, most home users, aren't spending $600 for an app like this. They'll likely stick with something like PS elemements, etc. Even there, the GIMP has basic filters and can possibly satisify some web based usage, but is completely unsuitable for print or really anything professional for that matter.

That said, Linux is a fine OS. If compared to the Mac, it's fine compared to the Mac OS at the Darwin level (and below). However, modern OS's have layers and services above that level and this is where Linux is currently weak. Further, choice is good, but the Linux community really needs to standardize on one desktop GUI and move forward with that one GUI. Developers need this sort of standardization.

Steve

[cooper]

Photoshop-alike, where are the comparable apps for Illustrator, InDesign, and GoLive

Those would be Inkscape (or Karbon14), Scribus and QuantaPlus respectively.

[cooper]

Man, I would LOVE to know where you get those "seven percent" figures. Whenever somebody quotes a figure like that, they usually follow it up with something fuzzy like, "Well, since Linux isn't actually SOLD there's no way to track unit shipments, so we have to totally pull a number out of our ear. I know a bunch of guys who use it, so let's say seven percent."

Those are figures from the OEMs! I know people don't realize it, but the number of computers sold at best buy is insignifigant. Sun, Intel and a number of large tech companies, not to mention more and more government offices around the world are moving to Linux desktops. It doesn't take many companies of that scale to change to move a percentage point or to. And as much as I love Mac OSX, Boeing isn't going to be moving to Mac anytime soon.

[Stan Krute]

There are two things that would greatly
benefit Real Users:

[1] Ability to easily automate anything a user
does in an OS

[2] Ability to easily synchronize information between different computers.

It was nice to see that the latest Mac OS pays some attention to [1].

Perhaps the MS acquisition of Groove will lead them to do some work on [2].

Unfortunately for MS, Jim Allchin has a bad track record as an OS visionary.

-- stan