Sounds like Tom is a bit pumped up from an Apple conference. Sure, if you don't mind proprietary software on closed (and expensive) hardware, use OS X. But if you like freedom and value for your money, and hate vendor lock-in, why would you ditch Windows for just another proprietary system?

i think perhaps tom has swallowed a little too much of the apple kool aid. apple "unix" isn't a universal tool. it ISN't as flexible, and as configurable as linux is and can be. after the wreched train wreck that is windows vista debuts, and flops, there will be a void, and i expect novell linux, or ubuntu, or some other well funded and well thought out distribution to step up.

I would tend to disagree with this prediction. Keep in mind, that's exactly what it is. Unless Apple releases OS X Server for use on non-Apple hardware, it won't gain any measurable lead over Linux based solutions. People can customize servers of all shapes and sizes with Linux, from the low end firewall running off of an AMD Geode, to a high end rendering farm using Itaniums or a cluster. Apple, unfortunately, does not have that flexibility due to it's hardware lock-in. On the client side, the problem is the same. Linux will probably always be the second place contender w/ Microsoft Windows Server editions unless Apple adds a higher advantage to using their software/hardware instead.

Secondly, Linux has made some amazing advancements in the desktop design. Xgl and the compiz window manager has allowed for an amazing looking and functional laptop that even the previews of OS X 10.5 can't compete with. Hell, Apple is JUST BEGINNING to use virtual desktop's called "spaces". You can't tell me it's revolutionary that after 5 years of running on a Unix base that they are just now implementing virtual desktops? C'mon now. Apple still has a long ways to go. They also need to start open sourcing more of their OS so that developers can grow more into their OS.

HAHAHAHA

As far as current patterning it the industry this my seem likely to some, but as of right now I am working on a plan to bring Linux into the mainstream so everyone can enjoy it. Soon a new Linux will change the face of the OS market forever...

Watch my blog
Hacking Penguins if your interested in further information on this project.

The MacIntosh is dead; the new MacIntel runs Windows XP and Vista next year: there are almost no applications for OS/X on Intel.

Apple has tried to sell servers since 1990 or before and never gained a noticable market share.

Linux has been steadily taking market share away from Unix; it doesn't look like it will beat Microsoft anytime soon.

Lets not forget your next article entitled "DOS is making a comback"...Doesn't Infoworld screen these people before they let them write asinine articles like this??

apple to beat out linux in the server space... whatever...

This guy's nuts! If you read this article, it will say that closed source software is dangerous:
http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/202229

I don't think Apple has a shot at taking over Linux. Sun's Unix is way ahead of theirs!

Unix Manufacturers have all been destroyed, or had to signifigantly redesign their strategy to co-exist with Linux.

What is special about Apple UNIX that will make it different than any other UNIX. The Unices that reamin in popular use today are Made by Sun, IBM or HP, and for the most part only work on Hardware that you bought at the same place. OpenSolaris is the only True Unix exception. Even Apple Unix will still work this way. Even if Apple unix is as free as Linux, it will start as an underdog, working against the marketshare and mindshare.

Sun and IBM have superb support, can only assume HP is doing well also. Is Apple support going to be better? Will it be better on price? No, wait these are the areas where Linux is winning as well. If you need support, you can buy it from a variety of sources, or you can save money and skip on support and licensing costs.

What about performance. The old Unices have performance down pat, Linux has performance mostly figured out, but Apple's OS X performance is lackluster where servers need it (thread creation is were they hurt most). Performance is certainly not what will change. Even if they fix their performance issues they will likely have the same limitations other Unix-like OSs.

Stability, is stability Apple will do better. Even if Apple unix never crashed, it would be equally stable as the Unix-like OSs already mentioned.

If Apple wants to enter the server market in a big way, they will need to do something truly special. Something that isn't listed here. Even then, once they do their special thing the only way it will stem the tide of Linux is if NO open source group can muster something silimar.

Please don't say Commercial Unix is coming back, it probably isn't, and Free Linux is making that more certain every day.

http://www.freetechsupport.us

The article gets most of the facts more or less reight, but the conclusions are totally wrong.
E.g. Apple will be the most sold Unix, but that is because it will be used for desktops. Linux on the other hand will be sold as server solutions. If you configure things right (think thin client) there are really no need to pay for client sid Linux.You could just as well use some free version.

I also think that an increased Apple market precense will help Linux rather than kill it. People will get used to the concept, that an operating system is something you can chose and it may not be windows. Now people buy windows because they think that it is an integral part of the computer.

Another thing, nobody in their right mind, is going to run an Apple server more than once.
The performance is a joke. There are no way to make disk snapshots (at least not in 10.3 we are running) meaning that you can't make and validate proper backups on a running system like you can on most other unixlike systems including Linux.

Adding disks is a PITA, due to lack of abstraction layers between logical and physical disc. Then there is the multithreading problems, MacOS is not what you want to have on your server if you run mm massively multithreaded applications that is common in many database and web based systems.

Finally, the Apple support really stinks. It's OK as long as your problem concerns the GUI, but when it comes to CLI stuff the can't or won't help you.
To make things worse most of the MacOS-X application stack are open source programs, but Apple constantly tinkers with them, so that functionality that existe in other OSes get lost or changed, or even implemented differently. This means that it is much harder to get support from the open source community for such apps.

Macs are good desktops that's about it. However Linux is very close behind. In the last two years the Linux desktop have evolved tremendously fast, and will continue to do so in years to come. If you look at the current Novell/Suse desktop and compare it with Red Hat 4.2 from a few years ago you will see how fast it have evolved. In a year or so all Linux distros will be as usable as Novell, and a few distros will be far ahead. Just like Novell is ahead of the Red Hat desktop today.

After working a while with modern Linux desktop Apple doesn't seam quite so wonderful anymore. I have cought myself longing back to Linux several times. One example why is it so hard to resize windows in MacOS, and it really should be capital punishment for inventing stuff like drawers.

All in all, I really don't see much threat to Linux from Apple.

Speaking of kool-aid ("Oh Yeah!"), did any of the above commenters actually READ the article? Just based on Apple's laptop sales, factory installed OS X will of course eventually trump factory installed Linux... Server sales can never compete with consumer sales (unit wise)and that is where, I think, he muddies the point. Are we talking strictly enterprise servers or all machines? Besides most people I know buy cheap hardware and do their best to force the custom apps (usu Red Hat binary rpms... grr) onto freshly installed linux of their devotion (I like the hassle and pain of gentoo myself). In my experience these "cheapo", windows-taxed servers must account for a higher _volume_ of new sales than the factory linux (or maybe even Windows, discounting the endless number of Exchange servers).

But then again how many of you directly manage internal support of user systems rather than the network and it's apps? Yeah, I thought so. How many of you have USED an OS X server as to manage OS X clients for remote management, system update/apps pushing, and automated data backup? No again? Try it. Then try any other user management system (Windows, Novell/SUSE, whatever) and see if it measures up with ease of use and support costs from the users. Hardware driver issues alone... yeesh. In my opinion, the only system that seems close is the new Sun Ray thin clients over fiber to IBM big iron. Who the heck could possibly afford that?!

Apple overtaking on factory linux in enterprise _desktop_ and user support-type servers isn't a prediction, it is already happening. As for big custom apps, Oracle, backup systems controllers, samba shares, IDS, gateways and the like are so obviously a better choice for linux. But those units will be fairly small in numbercompared to Apple's enterprise desktop + enterprise servers. Now just Xserves in the server room versus brand X x86 2u boxes w/linux... probably not. But just having one Xserve in the server room to manage Apple laptops is relative heaven. Better security, stability, ease of use. Cost is at least in the same ball park. No brainer for my preference (bean-counters willing).

My biggest worry is that companies will use Apple's friendliness to plug-and-play the desktops and some of the first tier of servers the user sees as and excuse to cut back on qualified network admins and support staff. Bad idea, but that seems to be the way of things anyway. At least with Apple the average enterprise user stands a chance supporting their own network apps.

Apple on the desktop and network app server. MS on the evil Exchange servers until they can be hauled off and drowned in a mud puddle. Linux for everything else (misc servers, big iron, cell phones, tivo... ;)

PS. No Kool-Aid here. I'm a gentoo fanboy, and dream of a totally custom image for users on MacBooks, hardened and locked down tight. (Just say NO to trojan screensaver .exes of "fluffy kittens" flooding your network because the secretary is gullible). Same for the servers.

PPS. WTF does virtual desktops have to do with any of this? You even could install one on an ancient NeXT box if you really wanted to... But most users are just confused by it, and my servers only get X11 if they really need it much less the need for VD on them. Save your surfing for your local machine. Lot easier to have multiple X11 or SSH sessions on your own desktop!

OS X is never going to be a big player in the OS market until & unless Apple releases a port for regular PC's
I wouldn't be so fast to write Linux off. Linux has & is maturing nicely and is a replacement for Windows in most things already.
If more ISV's port to Linux then asoption will grow

Once again the Apple fantasy abounds.

Apples x86 hardware has the temporary advantage, but the larger x86 market has the economies of scale that will very rapidly (in 6 months to 1 year) put apple back behind the 8 ball pricewise and performance wise.

The only way apple is affordable is by purchasing their slotless, limited expansion iMacs. The x86 tower macs retain the $1000.00 price delta over comperable systems.

AS far as Apple's gaining ground - show me the major business that is converting to Apple hardware! The few major businesses that were using apple converted to x86 architecture long ago. And the fact that Apple now has x86 hardware that (for the moment) is fairly high performance, isnt going to change anything because in the end apple has ZERO credability in the enterprise space.

The only way that I can see apple getting any where near Mr. Yagers predictions would be to create a generic x86 version of OS X. Then things might get interesting.

As it stands now, I can get more for my money running generic x86 Hardware with either Linux or Windows, and run both at the same time using VMWare!

What are you smoking? There are many reasons you are totally wrong.

1. The Linux kernel smacks OS X around like a wet fish in the area of performance. This is a really huge deal because emphasis today is on performance per watt and square foot (data center density). Look at all the work Google has done there. If they have to have 10 times as many servers because Apple's kernel sucks, do you think it would be a wise business decision for them (or anyone else that really needs computing power) to make?

2. Linux is an open standard and open solution. "Linux" itself is just a kernel, but GNU/Linux is the whole software stack. And anyone can use it to build a product, so you get companies like HP, IBM, SGI, Intel, AMD, Oracle, Novell, Red Hat all involved in the collaborative development of *one* operating system. (Don't believe me? Subscribe to linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org and see who is posting). Apple, by contrast, is just Apple - one company that was on the verge of going totally bust. Linux will win precisely because it isn't a business but rather a social and economics movement.

Because there are also thousands of people working on the Linux kernel, while Apple only has their engineers working on theirs, think of who will be making technical progress too.

3. Linux is the most portable operating system on the planet. It runs on well over 20 different CPU architectures and supports more hardware out of the box than any other OS. Apple and their OS have always worked because they specify the hardware. So your assertion that Apple will become a GENERAL PURPOSE server platform is insane, because they don't have the drivers they need to support anything but Apple.

4. Check the TOP 500 supercomputer list (top 500 fastest supercomputing sites in the World). Linux runs over 75% of these systems, including #1 and many others on the top 10. Get back to me when Mach can scale.

5. Linux already runs on big iron like IBM s/390 mainframes, which run ultra-mission-critical systems.

Linux is about as general purpose you can get. It runs on everything from cell phones to supercomputers.

OS X is a really crummy attempt to glue BSD to Mach and build a desktop operating system out of it. Some people find it pretty, but in reality it's actually quite slow and very useless as a server.

The biggest threats to Linux in the server market are Microsoft and Sun, and Linux has already been giving both companies a SERIOUS run for their money. In fact, it was LINUX that took over the commercial UNIX market. What makes you think Apple will succeed in that? Steve Jobs? Give me a break.

I will start by saying, I like Apple. I like OS X. I like GNU/Linux.

I understand that the author is pro-Mac, but this article is not biased. It is just misleading. It is hard to guage any share of GNU/Linux simply because it is not a conventional over-the-counter operating system. It is hardly ever sold over the counter or pre-installed on hardware, yet it controls a massive share of the worlds internet servers. Of course you can say that Apple will overtake Linux in the amount of server systems shipped with it pre-insatlled, because Linux doesn't work like that. Alot of the time Linux is installed on hardware post-shipment.

I may not have explained myself correctly, but to say that Apple is going to bury Linux is like saying that chickens are going to wage war with dolphins or comparing apples to a rock. It makes not sense.

2 cents.

True Apple has many passive users but Linux has many developers and administrators who gradually drive it forward. It's an economic reality that no cost Linux will slowly (decades) become the dominate OS for both servers and desktops. Hence, Microsoft's paranoia.

I think Tom has begun to believe technology salesmen. You'ld think that anyone who has been around for the last 200 "some company is going to take over the world" pitches would be a bit more jaded. But, in the real world, there is no change.
Not long ago, before Apple saw the light, it would have been perfectly valid to say that Microsoft by itself has all the claims in this article covered. It was and is the "most popular" "factory installed"
blah, blah, blah. In fact, the great majority of Linux machines came with Windows "factory installed". With their sweetheart deals and exclusionary licensing and offers you can't refuse, maybe _all_ machines will come with the products of the monopoly contaminating their hard drives. How do you think things will go when people figure out that Apple's machines are just a very expensive PC? They all make pretty good Linux boxes.

The press hasn't figured out yet that the IT world doesn't like, doesn't trust and doesn't use Mac.

OSX hasn't changed that and never will.

Linux _is_ OpenSource
IBM, Novell, Sun, Sony, Matsushita, Motorola, Lenovo _is_ supporting OpenSource
thus:
IBM, Novell, Sun, Sony, Matsushita, Motorola, Lenovo _is_ supporting Linux

IBM, Novell, Sun, Sony, Matsushita, Motorola, Lenovo _is_ big companies
thus:
L:nux _is_ supported by big companies

Total value of IBM, Novell, Sun, Sony, Matsushita, Motorola, Lenovo _is_ bigger than Apple Corp.
thus:
Linux total value _is_ bigger than Apple Corp.

Play the logic game.

I find it interesting that no evidence is provided for the views held in this article. It is a prediction based on... what, exactly? True or false, I call this bad journalism.

Doesn't Microsoft own a big bite of Apple?

Apple UNIX will benefit from all those MS marketing dollars as preferred UNIX clone status, so in the proprietary market place it might possibly win out over Linux.

The question then is "Are there any proprietary versions of Linux out there to fullfill the prediction". At the last count I think SCO had the only one and that may not last depending on the outcome of their PIPE fairy funded litigation.

All the other versions are distributed under the non proprietary Open Source license, backed up in one way or another by free or paid for services, just like MS and Apple are.

So the answer has to be yes for proprietary versions of linux.

None of us in the business world can afford the downside of static products anymore. We need rapid innovation and methods to interoperate with all our hardware platforms, from mainframes to grids to handhelds to communications to machines to robots.

The question becomes can Apple deliver a cost effective homogenous system in the next five years? I don't think so.

ROFLMAO

asinine

There is an interesting caveat in this article:

"By mid-2008, Apple’s sales of systems with factory-installed Apple UNIX will exceed the total combined sales of x86 systems factory-shipped with commercial Linux. At the end of the decade, we’ll find that Apple UNIX has overtaken commercial Linux as the second most popular general client and server computing platform behind Windows."

Commercial Linux. Factory Shipped. What Yager seems to be doing is comparing 2 very divergent distribution models. It may be possible (but unlikely IMHO) that Apple UNIX does exactly what he says, namely surpass factory shipped, commercial Linux sales. But what that doesn't take in to account, though, are free downloads which constitute the bulk of Linux installations.

So, Yager may be right in his assertion, but I'd be quite surprised if we saw Apple UNIX surpass Linux (in general) in terms of the number of installations. I'd be willing to bet that Linux will probably eclipse Apple UNIX in that regard.

I think Apple is going to be eating into sales of Windows far more than Linux.

Linux OSes are filling a need and addressing a market (especially developing markets overseas) that Mac is not anywhere near, and I doubt they would want to touch.

Linux will thrive wherever a commodity OS is needed.

I think Apple is a wonderful platform, the problem as stated is the lock in with the OS and Hardware. On the client side I think it will come down to the cheapest solution. Soon it won't matter what the client runs. In the client role, a web browser and the ability to connect to a server for other resources will be the main requirement. As it stands now Linux will without a doubt be the number one choice for that.

As far as the server goes, I think administrators, small businesses, and corporations will start to realize that a server does not need all the features of a desktop. The command line goes a long way on the server end, making what Mac OS sever has to offer not worth it. Why tie up server resources with GUI's and other eye candy?

One may just be better off using freeBSD or Linux from the command line for server use and set it up to interface with any client, Linux, Windows, BSD, Mac OS, or even cell phones. Just my opinion.

My two cents.

I like Apple stuff. But it is expensive, and there are not very many applications for it. I have used it on the job in the past. I am doing this on a Windows PC at home kuz its cheep.

Steve Jobs is a megalomaniac.
If he had any real business sense he would market OS-X as a stand alone product (in addition to his plastic boxes) to run on the MILLIONS of Intel boxes already out there on consumers desks. The value and appeal of OS-X is on the consumer desk top, not the enterprise desktop, and definately not at the industrial server level.
But he is an idiot, so Bill Gates not to worry.
I Jobs does not change his business model, he will never bother the Redmond Empire.

Linux has the potential to slowly take over the desktop. It will do this by migrating from the server farm, to the enterprise, to industrial desktop, to the consumer desktop - getting better, faster, and easier to use as it goes.

My two attempts to migrate from Windows to Linux (SUSE 8 & 9) were frustrating and ultimately unsuccessful. The OS was slow, clunky, and as soon as I wanted to do something other than write or do spreadsheets, I had to go fish in a book or the internet for some stupid file that I did not know I needed, could not install in the right place and did not know how to access once it was there.

Okay so I'm stupid. But I'm not alone. Until Linux can work for people like me it will NEVER make a dent in the evil empire of B.G. - or Apple - even though I would like it to.

Thanks for the information Chase Venters; well documented.

This is a very misleading article, where the author bases his assertion on a couple of points that are correct, but by themselves do not explain the overall technical and business environment. This type of argument is clearly aimed at people who have not much more than a superficial understanding of computing and the computer industry. In the process, he also contradicts himself. To wit:

"... Linux is, as a colleague helpfully reminded me, a kernel, not an application platform. Linux is a backplane for device drivers, file systems, protocol stacks and low-level programming interfaces. It is a substructure for application services. The Linux kernel is mature, consistently implemented, commercial quality and familiar. It crosses architectural boundaries cleanly. It bulks up and strips down in the time it takes to recompile. Linux\'s greatest strength is that no matter how many products use the trademark in their titles, there is exactly one Linux. It\'s a standard."

--- Gee, why would IT decision-makers and commercial mass-market computer manufacturers want to waste their time with that, when they can deal with proprietary OS developers such as Apple and Microsoft? The author actually un-does his own argument, by pointing out what a great foundation Linux is. The operating system is, after all, the foundation of all other software in the stack. So yes, it IS indeed an application platform. He probably means that it isn't an application development tool (several good ones are available for Linux.)

----------------------------------

"There will be more money than ever to be made with Linux, but sales won\'t derive from a model fashioned to compete with Windows and OS X. Microsoft and Apple will be the top-seeded fighters in general client and server computing platforms."

- and -

"General purpose servers will still play a powerful role, one I\'ll flesh out. But don\'t get rankled by my prediction that Linux is going underground. It will thrive there."

--- First he states that Windows and Mac OS X will overtake Linux as servers, then he states Linux will thrive "underground" in the general-purpose server market.

----------------------------------

"... There will be more money than ever to be made with Linux, but sales won\'t derive from a model fashioned to compete with Windows and OS X."

--- That sentence is where he really undoes his assertion. He really is trying to compare apples to penguins. And, given recent developments with the Linux desktop (i.e. SLED 10) and Lenovo, even this assertion may turn out to be completely wrong. I do agree that at this point, Apple could run away with the consumer market. Personally, what happens in that market doesn't concern me. However, there are a score of formidable companies (Lenovo, Sony, Novell, HP and others) that DO care about that market, and have the resources to push Linux onto the consumer desktop. Even Apple's new partner Intel has recently released the drivers for their video chipsets as open-source. If Intel sees a greater opportunity in the consumer Linux market, then they will play both sides of the fence, supplying technology to both Apple and the Linux vendors. After all, Intel wants only to sell their technology (as they should), and doesn't really care about what operating system is used to deliver their technology.

When you see this kind of article, you know for certain that someone is really frightened.

Cheers,

Adrien Lamothe

Apples computers do what everyone else's does. If they keep their price low there is every reason to expect that once again they could capture a large market share, but I think GREED will kill them off, just like greed and high prices almost did in the 90's.

They haven't figured it out yet.
Neither has Microsoft.

Yager knew his article's title would yield a backlash, which is why he spent most of it explaining what he really meant. Unfortunately, most of the folks (not all, obviously) who've reacted here probably only read the title. Even so, although I've enjoyed Yager's articles in the past, I have to say that this one is kinda dumb. That's because, instead of explaining and bolstering his prediction, he spends most of the time explaining that he isn't saying Linux is dead. "Buried" means "underground", not "dead" in this headline.

I'm sure the title got a lot of folks to read it, but it would have been more interesting to hear why Yager thinks his prediction will come to pass.

Incidentally, to the guy who complained that this is bad journalism, you're confusing journalism with news writing. Yager's column is opinion, not news. Like anyone else in this country, he's free to say whatever he thinks. He isn't documenting an event, person, place, or thing.... which is what a news story is supposed to do.

And finally to all you bigots who like to write Apple and OS X off every chance you get... get a life, or at least stay educated. OS X is evolving rapidly, and you simply can't judge it by how 10.3 functions, for example. If you haven't used 10.4.5 or later, you haven't really used OS X, so what makes you think your opinion of it is worth sharing?

This issue of proprietary hardware is also getting boring. One of the virtues of Apple's product is that you have one company making the whole package, rather than several companies pointing fingers at each other. To me, that's precisely the argument IT shops make when arguing for their Microsoft stacks, yet they see no contradiction in complaining about Apple... even though it's the software rather than the hardware that really matters.

Apple's hardware is getting pretty close to being commodity hardware, but it's also really well made... like Sun's, only about 90% cheaper. And its server licensing model is the best value on the market. If you want to use open source software for file, print, email, etc., you'd be hard pressed to find an easier, more affordable, and more convenient package on the market than Apple's XServe line. Put an XServe farm together with Apple's incredibly cheap SAN, Raid, and Grid solutions, and you simply can't touch it.... even with Linux.

Of course, you have to be willing to look at it first.

Cheers,
Leland

Is Tom putting any real money on this? If so, I want a piece of the action. This is a real long shot. I have worked in the server business for 10 years, and I have yet to hear Apple mentioned once!

I think Tom is overlooking something.

Personally I think OSX and Linux will function in synergy.

With all respect for the FOSS community, when it comes to the desktop what comes to mind is "It's not as (fill in the blank) as Windows, and GNU Linux is always playing catchup to Windows. Please note this is a perception, not necessarily reality. Windows, likewise is always playing catchup to the Mac. They are trying to put stuff in Vista, the Mac had years ago, and by the time Vista comes out, what the Mac will look like, I haven't the faintest idea.

Mac security is on about the same level as Linux, and fifty million times better than Windows.

When people want a plug in machine that won't blow up all the time the Mac is a good choice.

But what Tom is overlooking is a trend I've noticed in the GNU Linux world, and that is known as the LIVE CD. What this does is put everything in memory, and run from there. There is an extension of this being adopted of the diskless PC, with GNU Linux loaded via the network. This is being developed to facilitate providing computing resources for low income "markets". This is something the Mac is not aimed at.

There is another item. Has Tom tried Open Office on the Intel Mac? The key to this working is X11 on the Mac. More and more stuff developed for Linux will be ported to the Mac.

The Mac and GNU Linux have a long partnership developing.

As much as I like Apple they are no different than MS in that it's all about vendor lock in for them. This may be acceptable to microsofties but to the rest of the *nix world it isn't. I suspect that OS X server will continue to plod along at a snails pace like it is now and that OS X will gain some mroe popularity, as will linux, after the nightmare known as Vista debuts.

It is unfortunate that technology journalists are writers first and technical experts second. It is more unfortunate that their editors are equally uninformed. It is obvious from the responses contained herein that those disconnected from the day to day technical aspects of user support, system configuration and system administration are unwise to opine about things for which they have a very limited perspective.

Microsoft has also called Linux "just a kernel." How ridiculous is that? No one anywhere these days with a brain views Linux as "just a kernel." The term "Linux" refers to the entire body of applications that come with the kernel. This combination has made Linux the fastest-rising star in server operating systems in the 21st century.

I've been deploying Linux servers exclusively for over eight years now to small businesses. They do nearly anything and everything these days. They do it faster and better with less processing power. They don't require constant tinkering or reboots. They behave nicely with all types of desktop clients and they can replace desktop software in conjunction with LAMP, Java and Ajax, among other things. They are easy to maintain and administer with an endless array of web-based as well as traditional, terminal-based administration tools. Deploy these systems properly, sit back, and watch your users smile.

The desktop is old. The WAN is where the future is. Linux as a server is uniquely poised to rule that roost. OS X as a server? Get real. OS X is a GUI. Pretty to look at, easy to use, but with no market shared, no massive combined functionality, a botched internal configuration, and no one really interested. Those who proclaim that OS X will ever dominate anything in the server realm, and for the reasons I've also outlined, the desktop realm, are spitting in the wind.

Yager has turned into just another Apple-cult-boy and therefore has lost all credibilty on any computer related subject, not to mention that he also has lost all relevancy. Time for Infoworld to find a new columnist.

Tom is an idiot on 2 counts:

1.) since linux is free, how do you expect to reach "revenue levels" set by apple? Duh.

2.) number of factory preinstalled linux installations? Most linux installs happen in this manner:
- buy a PC with windows preinstalled
- remove windows
- install linux distro of choice
- optionally install windows on dual boot for games that Cedega doesn't support yet.

So yeah, Tom, how was the weather on Moon the past 10 years?

Those of you who haven't evaluated SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 (SLED 10) are in for a real surprise. Apple's claim to the best desktop user interface is about to evaporate. What Novell (mostly the Zimian people they acquired) has done with the SLED 10 GNOME desktop is spectacular. It has the "dashboard" effects. It has a feature called "live preview" that lets you scroll through miniature renditions of all your open windows, rendered to perfection (including any videos that may be playing.) Perhaps the best feature is the ability to rotate the entire desktop in three dimensions. You can drag a movie between two of the desktops, then slightly rotate the work environment and watch the movie play as it hugs the vertex between the two desktops.

Novell supposedly has only been working on this for six months, which means they are just getting warmed up. The new desktop is also very stable and has a user-friendly way of finding and running applications. They opted to forego use of a docking area (ala Mac OS X and KDE) in favor of a panel in the lower left corner that opens when the user clicks on the "Computer" icon. They did this to attract Windows users. Some of the minor eye candy is missing (such as translucent mouse-over effects on window frame buttons.) Novell did the important stuff first, the rest is sure to follow.

Novell has cut a deal with RealNetworks, to use a CODEC that supports WMA format, which will be included in SLED 10's RealPlayer and Helix Banshee. Banshee also allows users to burn MP3s to CDs.

Linux has much less to worry about in the server space as Apple now does in the desktop segment. Once SLED 10 is ported to systems based on IBM's new CBE (Cell Broadband Engine), it may very well be "game, set and match".

This is not to marginalize Apple, who has done a wonderful job with Mac OS X. Apple employs a lot of very talented folks, who are capable of all sorts of magic.

Leland writes:

"Apple's hardware is getting pretty close to being commodity hardware, but it's also really well made... like Sun's, only about 90% cheaper."

Have you priced the low- and mid-range Sunfire boxes lately? Cheaper than Apple's servers, I believe, and they run Linux or Solaris. We love them.

As for the "get everything from one vendor" argument, no-one I know is willing to pay Apple's hardware premium for servers. And most people realize that the evil twin of "one vendor to blame" is "one vendor to lock you in."

Maybe OS X is a nice desktop. But it's not *that* special. Our sales and marketing people get along just fine on Ubuntu, and seem quite productive.

who is this moron?

I think most people missed the point, and yes he is playing with your head, Mac sales are up for home use, and preinstalled linux not large. Most of the intel machines I've dealt with were home built from parts, no preinstalled software. Remember the $99 computer at Frye's? Not many of those anymore. I work in a lan wan wireless network over a large area, the server of choice was a 1U mac server, but not allowed since it wasn't a Dell, which are now falling apart regularly. The logic behind the Mac, same as the Sun boxes used. 1 IT from a central office can recover the system from power or network failures. Loose a raid drive on the Dell, and watch it all crash. Loose the power on a locked un attended cabinet until the UPS dies, the Sun is up, the Dell is lost, when power is restored. Some times it isn't the speed, it is that it always works, no matter what you do to it. As to future Mac sales, how many will never run OSX since all they wanted was a better VIAO Sony? PS this is written on one of the last 17" Powerbooks sold from Apple.com. I am not impressed with the intel books, but I hear they run World of Warcraft faster.. I have different needs,

I agree with his predictions.
I think Apple systems will far exceed Linux systems in the revenue stakes.
Debian is really coming along now, and Ubuntu will always be free.
In fact I would go so far as to say Debian will earn infinitely less in commercial revenue than Apple. (n/0)

I have been using Desktop linux for at least 5 years now and from what I've seen and experienced, I assume that by 2012 (i.e. in five years) Linux-Desktop will have around 10 % of the desktop market, if not even more.

What part of free doesn't he understand?

Apple OS/X (UNIX) will go the way of IBM OS/2. Remember OS/2? For its day slick, quick, reliable, user friendly and definitely better than Windows 3. So what happened? You pretty much had to buy your computer from IBM to use OS/2. It was designed to sell IBM PCs. What does OS X on Intel look like? Like OS/2. It's designed to sell Apple hardware. Unless Jobs gets some real humility, bye, bye OS X.

He has a good point. As much as I love tweaking LInux my small business clients don't.

Linux will thrive in the big business arena where there is enough highly trained Linux admins to exploit the platform. It isn't so in the small to mid-size business world.

The only way Linux could over run OSx is by having more Ubuntu type distros really packing in power and ease of installing, implement and tweaking. Red Hat will stay with its squad of devotees and Suse will try to be the all-around distro.

The debate over free and cheaper is steril in my point of view. I see too many business people who rather spend money on name brand (with poor customer service) and installing bloated SUV type OS instead of leaner ones.

The problem is not one of software quality, it's one of public culture. Business people, expecially in the small business league don't understand LInux and it might be a little bit less expensive than Windows but they do not understand it. At least with Microsoft, they feel the company will be there tomorrow. Yeah, I tried explaining all that to them and how that company robs them blind. People are just not educated enough to understand Linux.

If Apple continues its improvements the way it has and keeps on innovating, Tom Yager has a good point. We'll see...

The thing to remember about Apple is it drove its own proprietary standards (hardware, software and protocols) into the 1980s market for personal computers and was successful. All of the mini-computer makers (DEC, Wang, Prime, Data General) of that era were in retreat with their proprietary architectures and disappeared by the late 1990s.

Apple, especially since 1984, has been a freak of nature...building and selling proprietary hardware and software and charging top dollar. Their appeal has historically been limited to a small segment of personal computer users willing to pay the price to get what they like. Not a lot different than someone who wants to spend $3K on an "Alienware" (Dell) system. Nothing wrong with any of that except Apple is not going to "take over the world" and reduce Linux to an embedded OS by offering a proprietary product.

And despite some previous inclinations to support a competitive "hardware reference" platform for Macintosh, Apple is all about lock-in to their stuff. Jobs would have it no other way. In fact, he was the one who cancelled the Apple effort to go for broader (non-Apple) hardware support when he returned to Apple from Next.

That said, will OS X win out over Linux? Only in Mr. Yager's imagination I'm afraid. Those of us who don't need or want expensive proprietary hardware and software choices for our computing tasks will continue to choose Linux and OSS.

I dont agree with this guy while in some areas Apple UNIX may prove to be a better choice. The broad spectrum says other wise and I highly doubt Apple can cut their prices low enough to the level at which linux is at, and i damn sure know MS cant or wont. So its really going to come down to say wahts cheaper and better wouldnt you say and really only time will tell...Predictions are like opinions there just that. Also this guy probably doesnt have all the facts only what Apple has stuffed into his head so of course hes going to try and raise Apple up in the air ;P

In 1979 Apple ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal stating unequivocally that you could run 32 users off an Apple II+. You're gonna trust these clowns with the family jewels? Get a grip. Proprietary OSes are moribund. Oh, they'll twitch a bit more and company stocks will soar and flop, but at the end of the century Windows, OS X and their descendents will be like tooth powder and sealing wax; quaint oddities from a bygone era.

This is just plain stupid. The only real setbacks for desktop linux these days are lacking commersial applications and drivers. Both are a result of microsofts vendor lock in.

If mac ever where to be successfull, hardware vendors would have to wake up, Apple runs a very limited selection and their only hope would be to fuel up the linux alternative. We could also expect more commersial applications being ported to the unix platform, thus run on both osx and linux.

In other words, linux is the joker. If osx would ever beat windows, linux would be less alienated, thus more attractive. And as linux is more network friendly, has a myriad of free applications and the strongest community around, they would rise and shine.

Company backing, such as the one from novel would further boost the gui side of linux, a side wich is already promising, with exciting desktop solutions such as enlightenment dr17.

Get back to your medication and throw away that ipod tom. Its affecting your work.

I agree with the comment in the article that Linux will thrive underground. After all, the best place for something to take ROOT is underground (bad pun definitely intended). Due to its open source background and extremely versitile/portable kernel, it is the perfect low-cost, high-performance solution for the embedded market. Additionally, with the efforts of many thousands of users and developers worldwide, it will only continue to grow and improve. Our desktops may continue along the Windows/OSX path because of familiarity and habit (at least for the forseeable future), but the devices that truly power our lives will almost certianly have the heart of a Penguin.

The battle for the desktop or the server will not be won or lost within the confines of a single nation. Outside of the U.S., the Mac's market share is negligible. In most of the world, open source software is enjoying a meteoric rise in popularity. It will continue to do so and, if they don't wake up, U.S. businesses will simply be left behind.

I would urge Mr. Yager to leave the John C. Dvorak journalism to John C. He's more accomplished in the genre.

IS this guy for real?

Nobody said that Apple can't gain share in the server marketplace because of their horrible thread queue that may as well crash the machine when 50 or 60 queries start to be executed and passed back and forth through Apache. They have been aware of it for three years and have not even admitted its existence.

The article wouldn't have been so crappy if references to server were deleted. Now for the responses:
Those of us who don't want a fancy desktop are a miniscule part of the marketplace so that argument is bogus. The OS isn't what is expensive, it's the machine. So THAT argument is bogus. OS2 Warp crapped out because the development consortium broke up AND it never got market share. That argument is bogus. People who say there aren't many applications for OS X are truly insane and must NEVER have lived on planet earth. It wasn't even true when the old OS9 stuff was used. It was probably a secret poster from ZDNet. :-))

Tim Pleiman is right.

I dont think so that will ever happen.
Look at the logical side..
First MACs are costly...
Secondly most of the top vendors support Linux (NATIVELY) so there is no question that IT Managers would be using Apple MACs in their DataCentres.
I think it would be very difficult for Apple UNIX to even surpass the MS Windows(how many Games does release for MACs?).... and you are talking about that it might beat Linux
Another thing is that Linux is not just a Kernel(atleast not now). It comes with a number of hefty FREE Softwares.
Get real...Apple's MAC might be easy to use but it is not SERVER stuff.
Another thing is that I surely agree with Dave H. and Adrien Lamothe.

I have read the article in full, so don't crucify me as someone who doesn't read.
Product launches and conferences of that sort are designed to make people all fuzzy - it is part of the conversion process - like a get-rich-quick scheme.
Linux won't ever be pre-installed to any great degree, simply from Microsoft's deals with the vendors, plus if you install "Linux", you aren't installing just the kernel, but the whole GNU/Linux/KDE,X,Gnome platform plus software. Given there are so many distros, how would any vendor choose which one.
Linux is a movement, not a business. Whether it reaches wide acceptance, no-one really knows. What I do know is that I've only sat on one Mac in the last 10 years, and that was by luck (good or bad, I don't know). Yeah, easy to use, but why do they have to sell hardware AND software. No wonder Microsoft dominates them. Some other idiot can make the hardware, make the software that runs on mainstream hardware, market it well, and watch the $$s roll in. Doesn't even matter about stability or security, because people (other than the geek population) are too conservative and too ingrained with Pop Culture mentality to try changing.

I think slightly different. The main thing in my point of view is that microsoft will loose share in the total marketplace. Apple could be the 'stronguest' second force? Maybe. But the main thing is that i'll never move all my servers back into a closed/partially closed solution. The main thing is not the price but the capacity to change it whenever you want/need.
I remember all the headeache and waste of time with proprietary stuff in servers that are not our core bussiness but that we need it on air (like mail, authentication, proxy, firewall).
The other thing is that real free software stimulates new ideas, improvements that apple or microsoft alone just can't handle with velocity.

The statements made by the author are at best provocative. And, they are presented without significant reference to the data, informtion or reasoning that led him to conclusions that are not consistent with trends that have been developing over the last 3 to 5 years. while I recognize that a "blog" is an opportunity to make unsupported statements that are at best speculation, I think the technical is better served by a presentation of the data that led to the conclusions presented.

The Author must be dreaming of Apple taking over all other systems. when he looks back into the same article after a month it will be surprising :). People can understand why Mach arch was kept like that when pc arch is getting popularity. Accepting Apple is more mistake ( i would call sin ) than Microsoft. It would be more serious vendor locking

Please, did Tom fall off his stool....

Windows and MacOSX are dead in the water OS,
do the facts:

1. MS knows the Open Source ( FREE ) will take over, Linux will become more unified as a standard.

2. MacOS has its good points, BUT, since its has gone the Intel way (the Dark Side) its just a over price PC, that running a closed end OS, like Windows.. ( I even heard they are going to try to borrow some of KDE 4 componets )

You have numeral governments all over the world dumping Windows OS in favor of Linux (Duh?)

eg: DOS, Amgia, CP/M, OS/2 all great in there days, however... they could not keep up with the world demands. ( Bug Fixes ) Security Updates, ..etc.

Cheer's

--

A useful article could have compared proprietory and FLOSS business models, or predicted future mindshare.
A prediction that conventional Apple will earn more sales dollars than FLOSS Gnu/Linux is mere spin.

^^ "Drive-By Media" Looking for attention!

I guess he got it this time, but how many take this guy seriously from now on?

First, there was proprietary software on proprietary hardware. Apple products sold well, because they were competing on equal footing.

Then, commodity hardware happened. IBM made a _business_ error, but by doing so made history.

So we had proprietary software on commodity hardware. Apple tried to compete with gnarly hardware, but proprietary hardware. Apple's market share fell into the toilet and has never recovered.

Next, commodity software happened. Linux, and to a lesser degree the BSDs, did for software what IBM had done for hardware: Opened the doors to direct competition in terms of tools.

Now there isn't one or two "operating systems", there are many. There isn't one or two "user environments", there are dozens. There aren't just a few "distributions", there are _hundreds_.

Yet Apple continues to try to compete with proprietary software on proprietary hardware. For those specific applications and people which they best serve, Apple continues to have a market share. But outside of that limited area, Apple is nearly unknown.

As long as Apple continues to offer only proprietary software on their own proprietary hardware, Apple will continue to be a niche player. They may fill that need very well, and I wish Apple every success in serving their customers. I will simply never be one of them.

I think you're correct? Linux is based on FREE open source software, not commertial sale OS's. The community support and IT supported server and business Linux systems will flourish even more than today. That doesn't take away from Apple or Windows, but does perpetuate Linux in the Comunity of users, hackers, geeks, and people like me who just want a system that doesn't require constant cleaning to prevent uncontrolled growth, delousing of spyware and viruses, and defragging to keep the speed up. I seriosly think a greater explanation of your thoughts would have prevented all the negative feedback you got. Perhaps your editors shouldn't be so stingy with space?

Simply put if an OS has the like of IBM, NOVELL and
a bit player like Sun supporting Linux directly or indirectly, how can this be the case, Tom?

There is enough critical mass moving Linux into mainstream corp America if only for the lower cost model.

Tivo is an example of embedded Linux, but that is an area where it WILL be used not a DESTINATION or an end.

Like Al would say to Tim Allen on "Home Improvement" show: "I dont think, so Tom"!

"At Google, everything anywhere that can plug into a socket is Linux." - Guido Van Rossum - Inventor of Python, now a Google programmer.

In every Server room that hosts mission critical applications and services lies a Unix or a Linux Server. Windows XP compared to Linux is like comparing a set of Fisher-Price Toys to a Master Tool Kit. At least with the Tool kit you can build something, where as with the Fisher-Price toys you have to wait until one is made and then buy it, hopefully it's not a choke hazard.

Interesting point of view, I suppose. One of my best friends is a mac user and regularly bores me with his avid predictions of Apple's future dominance.

Apple is not a computer company, it makes cute consumer devices and has a nice little sideline in computers for metrosexuals.

How on earth the writer thinks that computer users would swap one closed environment (Windows) for another (Mac) is utterly beyond me. Mac got caned by Microsoft in the 1990's because Microsoft encouraged anyone to build machines to run its O/S, while Apple greedily (and foolishly as it turned out) wanted to own it all.

Sure, the new Mac O/S is absolutely awesome... but nah... the world has moved on. The real danger to Mac is that Metrosexuals will buy the machines, because they're so darned hawt, then run all their Windows apps on them.

Meanwhile, bolsted by the massive support from the community coupled with the investment from major players like IBM, Oracle, HP et al, Linux will continue its more or less steady march into the mainstream.

Apple might be able to make inroads against Windows and a small portion of Linux for desktop-only users.

Apple might be able to make inroads against Windows for simplified server environments - SOHO file server for a lawyer

Apple will not be able to successfully compete against the data warehouse environments where UNIX is king. It's not accessable enough for that. You can't configure it accurately enough.

His prediction about Linux rocking the house on embedded systems is possible. But none of this will be at the expense of other Linux markets (home, desktop, server farms).

Where Apple wins hands down today is in the notebook market. Not desktop, but notebook. They have a great match of hardware/software for that market space and in there they do a great job.

If Linux actually could focus on one platform for notebooks, and get one set of vendors to cooperate, they could compete in the notebook market too. But today there's always a good chance that some of what you expect to be able to do on a notebook will never work under any linux distro.

I don't think that his prediction is accurate. Linux is "just a kernel", but I think he is referring to the larger GNU/Linux throughout most of the article.

Who needs more proprietary DRM-infested crap?

Using the same arguement, I know that Palm OS sales already exceed both Linux and OS/X sales combined. What is he trying to predict? Makes no sense to me.

Considering Dr. Deyo's background on this subject, speculation without backup by technical fact is indeed of no great substance. The fact of the matter is that only a thorough assessment of the case would lead to any clear conclusion.