Why Linux will win

[spiderbaby1958]

Happened upon this (http://enterprise-linux-it.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Linux-Reality-Outstrips-Linux-Myth&story_id=30934) a little while ago, and it blew a church door out through the back of my head. The really cool part is in the last few paragraphs:

The cell processor is fundamentally a grid-style super computer -- consisting of many small computers connected in a grid pattern so they can work together -- on one piece of silicon. Thus, all the major Unix variants, including Linux, will move easily into the new computing paradigm because they all support grid computing now. Microsoft's software products are, in contrast, almost wholly dependent on Intel's x86 architecture -- meaning PCs built using chips like the 8088 in the first IBM PC, itself derived as a downgrade from the original 1979 Intel 8086 processor.

In other words, Linux is poised to ride the next wave of CPU archetecture, and Windows is not.

Maybe it won't happen that way... this time. Maybe the Cell processor will go the way of the betamax-- but I think we can agree that x86 is not forever-- and if Windows is really that dependent on x86, avoiding the dustbin of history is going to be a big problem. Meanwhile, Linux has an army of developers who have already ported it to every conceivable architecture. Studying for the LPIC exams no longer seems like such a quixotic pursuit.

[devils night]

yea, if the cell is sucessful enough to replace the x86 cpu's. also note that there is now a windows 64-bit version now so it windows is not entirely dependent on intels CPU's

[spiderbaby1958]

I didn't know that; I took the article at its word.

Regardless, I do think it highlights a vulnerability that I wasn't aware of before. As new architectures arise, the Linux open source community will be able embrace them much more readily than the Microsoft corporate community. You can take that to the bank.

[Michgelsen]

No but it does say you need a whole new windows version for 64-bit CPU's.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by devils night
yea, if the cell is sucessful enough to replace the x86 cpu's.

Well, all I know is what I read in the article which says the cell processor is ten times faster. Now, if that's true, I think SOMEBODY is going to want to run that motherfucker. Also, note that cell was developed by IBM and SONY... that means huge corporate backing! But, let me say it again... if it isn't the cell processor, it'll be something else. If MS needs to develop a whole new OS for every new achitecture, it will be left behind sooner or later.

[Jay]

not likely, they bank pretty well, so writing new os' is not all that big of a deal.

[spiderbaby1958]

Yep, that's why Longhorn was released right on schedule

[bgesley]

Linux maybe get much more popular but I don't think it will effectively "win." Microsoft wouldn't just let Linux pass them by because they didn't barf out an OS for the cell processor. There will be huge demand for it simply because windows has the most recognizable UI since Apple. People just associate anything relating to computers to microsofts control over them.


And did anyone else find it funny that 4 of the 7 ads on that page were for Microsoft?

[Jay]

Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
Yep, that's why Longhorn was released right on schedule You are not taking into consideration the impact of longhorn as compared to a supporting a new archetecture. Longhorn is just another version of NT. No one I know at least is in any rush to have Longhorn out. New achetecture that is catching fire will have MS on top of it much quicker then you might think.

[spiderbaby1958]

True. I'm sure they'll come up with SOME sort of shoddy, bug-infested, insecure OS.

[shakey_snake]

[edit] mis...read...

[zootm]

Linux is a horrible, horrible piece of software. But they're never gonna finish HURD so we're stuck with it. I think FreeBSD might be more suited to Cell, though.

[gaekwad2]

I don't think it's similar, it's more like having a network (Beowulf Cluster?) in your box.

[spiderbaby1958]

Linux is not "a horrible piece of software". It's not even a piece of software. There are dozens of different Linuxes. Some are, admittedly, better than others.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by Michgelsen
No but it does say you need a whole new windows version for 64-bit CPU's.

Oh hohohoho-hehehe-hahaha! Please make him stop! It hurts when I laugh this hard.:D



I'm sending this using an AMD FX-64 running Windows XP. Its working just fine - thank you.

[bgesley]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Oh hohohoho-hehehe-hahaha! Please make him stop! It hurts when I laugh this hard.:D

I'm sending this using an AMD FX-64 running Windows XP. Its working just fine - thank you.

Except you're only using AMD's 32-bit emulation mode.... The only benefit you're getting from running a 32-bit windows on your AMD 64 is the improved core logic.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by bgesley

And did anyone else find it funny that 4 of the 7 ads on that page were for Microsoft?

You should check out:

http://www.justlinux.com

A great place to find Li information. More often than not, brought to you by you-know-who.

[Mattress]

I think you need to take into acocunt the economy of making the processor. If microsoft doesn't make an os that will run on that chip, then it is very likely that sony and IBM aren't going to be selling tons of them. and if they aren't selling tons of them then it very well may be that it is not cost effective for them to produce any of these chips.

Apple was recently screwed by this with the G5 processor until Microsoft bailed them out by deciding to make Xbox 2 run on the G5 architecture. so if only linux runs on some new processor, chances are, since very few people use linux, very few of these processors are going to be sold, therefore the technology may never really go very far because there is no market for it. Linux is still extremely user unfriendly and not many people are going to switch to linux just so they can run on some new faster processor.

something to keep in mind.

[bgesley]

Hmmm... interesting perspective but I don't believe thats how its going to pan out. Sure its true that hardware is only as useful as the software you run on it but I think that the cell processor is going to be popular in mobile computing as well. Since windows is putting its fingers into that it might as well for workstations

This cell processor IS going to be used for personal computing, servers, high-end game consoles (PS3), digital tvs, PDAs, cell phones, and hopefully things like the Oqo (www.oqo.com) will burst. Just about any technology you can think of the cell processor is going to have its place in it. Windows and Linux are just a fraction of where this processor is going to go. And considering the fact that this processor is going to be prevalent in so many technolgies thats its practically a no-brainer that microsoft will make an OS for it whether it be an OS for cell phones, PDAs, mp3 players, (which I'm surprised microsoft hasn't touched yet at least that I'm aware of) or even your run of the mill PC.

Linux might get more popular with servers because of its immediate ability to take advantage of grid computing, but when it comes to new technologies...its pretty slow.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by Mattress
I think you need to take into acocunt the economy of making the processor. If microsoft doesn't make an os that will run on that chip, then it is very likely that sony and IBM aren't going to be selling tons of them. and if they aren't selling tons of them then it very well may be that it is not cost effective for them to produce any of these chips.

Apple was recently screwed by this with the G5 processor until Microsoft bailed them out by deciding to make Xbox 2 run on the G5 architecture. so if only linux runs on some new processor, chances are, since very few people use linux, very few of these processors are going to be sold, therefore the technology may never really go very far because there is no market for it. Linux is still extremely user unfriendly and not many people are going to switch to linux just so they can run on some new faster processor.

something to keep in mind.

Linux is absolutely not "extremely user unfriendly"-- not anymore-- except. of course, that in order to run it, you generally have to install it. If you like, you can learn to run at the command line, and I reccommend that you do, it's very empowering-- but for nearly all of what a casual user uses a computer for, you now have the option of using the the same old point-and-click. Of course, you have a choice of desktop envrionments... so, if having a choice is your idea of "user-unfriendliness", than I guess you're screwed with Linux-- but let me tell you something, once you're used to the control you get with the Linux GUI and its multiple desktops, the Windows desktop seems like a chaotic mess!

In my opinion, the real turning point in Linux user-friendliness came last year with the new Debian installer. Even in the Linux community, most people aren't really aware of what has changed. Before the Debian installer, the paradox has been that the easiest Linux OS to maintain has also been the hardest to install. Debian solves the biggest problem with Linux-- installing applications-- with apt-get. Now it'seasy to get Debian, and once you've got Debian, you've got it made. I'm now connected to a repository of 15 thousand free software packages-- games, editors, office applications, libraries, graphical apps, scientific apps... and they are all a single command away. Dependancies are automatically calculated and installed. and apt-get even suggests additional software packages.

Anyway, if Linux still isn't user-friendly enough for you, just wait a while. Thousands of people are working on it. Since I started using Linux, a mere two and a half years ago, some of the developments have been pretty dramatic. My favorite example is the gui cd burner apps, which have gone from CD Roast (which I could never figure out) to X-CD-Toaster, (which I could barely figure out) to K3B (drag, drop, and click!) That's in two years-- a more dramatic change, in my opinion, than the change from Windows 3.1 to XP.

Also, you should be aware that outside of the United States, Linux is a lot more popular than it is here, especially, I am told, in Europe. Windows is American. Linux is international. Some of my best friends are Americans, but we're not exactly known for understanding (or caring about) the needs of the rest of the world.

Anyway, in spite of the provocative title that I gave this thread, I'm not sure that the cell processor is the "tipping point" that the author refers to-- but I am pretty sure that the tipping point will come, and well within my lifetime. It's better, it's faster (if you take the time to learn the cli) and it's cheaper... in fact, it's free!:up:

[Jay]

well, you really should see the dumbasses that took courses to learn windows, I really doubt that a linux transition is in store for Americans, at least not as long as Windows is "good enough". I, like you, would love to see a unix operating system take the market but I am not brason enough to believe it is easy nor in the forseeable future. Linux would start to really have to take great strides to beat out current windows software (bought or free) and then invent new kinds of software which is invaluable for many industries and not available for Windows.

[spiderbaby1958]

I dunno. I think it depends on how you define "foreseeable". I remember my first girlfriend (in 1979) telling me that she wanted to own her own computer, and me thinking she was nuts.

Predicting the future is a fool's game, and arguing about the future is for absolute morons. All I know is, I would love to have seen Bill Gates's face, when he learned that WalMart was selling pre-installed Linux computers!

[spiderbaby1958]

Of course, the biggest obstacle is ignorance. I can remember chatting with someone who got everything he knew about Linux from some "IT professionals" he knew. They were telling him that no one was supporting Linux (IBM notwithstanding) and that there were no "major organizations" using Linux (The United States Armed Forces notwithstanding.) They also told him that Linux might approach Windows for technical sophistication maybe fifteen years down the line (Stop it; you're killing me!)

If you're an "IT professional", and you don't know anything about Linux, you're going to spend a lot of time trying to convince yourself and everyone around you that Linux isn't worth knowing about. This sort of delusion will self-perpetuate for a while, but I'm thinking that eventually, these people could find themselves left behind.

A lot of people here speak of Microsoft supporting the cell processor as if it were simply a matter of willing it to happen, like all Bill Gates has to do is wave his mighty hand. Microsoft is powerful, but it isn't all powerful. I don't have a clear idea how much time, money, risk and resources such a move would involve... but I'm betting that no one else in here does either, not really. Maybe not even Gates himself knows.

I also love the way people are talking about a 10x faster processor as if it were something nobody's going to be interested in. Faster computers? No, thank you!

The Cell processor may be putting Microsoft on the horns of a dilemma. If they don't support the Cell processor, they may suppress it, but they also may be left behind by other technologies. They could also be seen as stifling innovation, which is not good PR. On the other hand, it they support it, that means they'll be competing with other operating systems that have a head start. They're playing catch-up. Either way, they're not setting the agenda any more. They can't be enjoying this.

[shakey_snake]

Firefox will tell us whether ignorance can be conquered with a superior product or not.

[bgesley]

Oh and I should point out that the cell processor really peaks in performance when its running on hardware designed for it. So that could be quite a hurdle it'll have to get over.

[Mattress]

Originally posted by bgesley
Oh and I should point out that the cell processor really peaks in performance when its running on hardware designed for it. So that could be quite a hurdle it'll have to get over. sounds like a similar problem that mac deals with.

thanks for the info about linux advances Spiderbaby, I'll have to check out debian if I ever get some spare time before I die.

[bgesley]

Well it hasn't hurt Dell computers.

[zootm]

Originally posted by bgesley
Except you're only using AMD's 32-bit emulation mode.... The only benefit you're getting from running a 32-bit windows on your AMD 64 is the improved core logic.
64-bit version of XP recently went gold though, it's based on Server 2003's base as well. I'm contemplating paying money for it.

[spiderbaby1958]

When we talk about foreseeable futures, neither Linux nor Windows shows any sign of going away. If the OS wars are about market dominance, Winows has the edge, and probably will for a long time. However, if the OS wars are about there being an alternative, about breaking the monopoly, it's all over, Linux has won. I believe that if there was no Linux, the state of the PC would be very different today, and we'd all suffer for it. I think that Microsoft would have probably shoved Palladium down our throats by now. They could have done whatever they want.

[zootm]

Windows has the edge technologically in a number of areas, and Linux in some others. I really don't see that changing any time soon.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by zootm
64-bit version of XP recently went gold though, it's based on Server 2003's base as well. I'm contemplating paying money for it.

I'm getting it in my MSDN subscription.:)

I've got a removable drive ready to go as soon as I get it.

[baafie]

Linux won't win because it supports X number of architechtures or Y number of obscure plugin components.

GNU/Linux will win because it's free - free as in free to use, share, change, sell, break, fix, and so on. All this gives GNU/Linux a huge community (including corporations!) backing with a large momentum, and with that all that is needed to make it exceed any proprietary alternative operating system.

[bgesley]

Linux hasn't won because of its freedom for several years now. I don't see that changing much.

[baafie]

Maybe you should look a little harder. GNU/Linux's market share is increasing rapidly in both server and desktop markets.

You might argue, "Hey, Linux hasn't won. Just look at me, I still run Windows." But whose fault is that, really? :D

*runs*

[bgesley]

:cry:

[Mattress]

reasons I don't use linux:
Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, After Effects, Premier, Dreamweaver, Flash, AutoCAD, 3DSmax, SoundForge

but who's fault is that really? :p

[baafie]

Yours, for not using Wine (or free alternatives) ;)

[bgesley]

Maybe he didn't want to be one of those Linux guys in denial. :p

[baafie]

In denial of Windows, you mean? :P

[Mattress]

Originally posted by baafie
Yours, for not using Wine (or free alternatives) ;) yes, becaues it's really worth my time to learn a new OS, learn how to use alternatives (like GIMP, which sucks compared to photoshop), or to run them under WINE when I'll probably get much better perfomance running the software under their native OS.

Gee golly, I sure do suck ass.

[baafie]

Originally posted by Mattress
yes, becaues it's really worth my time to learn a new OS, learn how to use alternatives (like GIMP, which sucks compared to photoshop), or to run them under WINE when I'll probably get much better perfomance running the software under their native OS.

Gee golly, I sure do suck ass.
Probably? I take it you are speculating. The Wine FAQ states that "Most apps run at roughly the same speed [as they would in windows].". Of course, if you do try alternatives, you'll have to put in some extra effort to figure out how to get the most out of them. Whether that extra effort is worth your time or not, is up to you, and what you think is important.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should switch to a GNU/Linux based operating system right this minute. I am saying that you should give it the benefit of the doubt and make up your mind for yourself instead of taking whatever somebody else says as "truth".

[Benski]

Windows dependent on the x86 platform?

How come Windows NT also runs on Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC?

(Yes, I know, Microsoft hasn't released a build for these platforms for a long time)

[spiderbaby1958]

Here's my experience: Linux is a pain in the ass to learn, and a joy to run.

I would add that 90 percent of the reasons why Linux is so much harder to learn have to do with cultural rather than technical reasons. By that I mean, when I was learning Windows, I was surrounded by people who used Windows, and living in a world where every computer had Windows preinstqalled on it. I submit that if Linux was as omnipresent as Windows, I wouldn't have had such a hard time for the first two years. But that's over, now I'm running Linux all the time, and for the rest of my life I'll be enjoying the flexibility, the security, the absense of spyware and adware, and the fact that all my software is both FREE and LEGAL, and also enjoying the fact that, in my opinion, the Gnome Desktop is better organized and much better looking than any Windows desktop that I've seen so far.

Currently, I don't run any Windows software, and there's only one application that I miss... a terrific text to speech program called "Read Please". There's a free command-line program called "Festival" that does the job, and that's recently been updated for a better sound, but it's still not as compelling as "READ PLEASE"

However, it's worth noting that many (perhaps most) people who run Linux also have a Windows partition that they boot for certain applications (usually games). I may install a Windows partition myself soon, so I can play "Worlds of War" with my daughter.

Whether you think Windows or Linux is better, it's hard to make a case that knowing how to run both operating systems isn't better than knowing how to run only one. The arguement that acquiring the knowledge to operate Linux is a waste of time is a pro-ignorance position that could be applied to learning a foreign language, or a musical instrument, or even learning how to read. I would submit that people who undertake and accomplish the painful task of learning any new discipline rarely regret it afterward.