OS X and the x86 Whitebox

This article gave me a thought (why the article made /. today when it was published two weeks ago, I have no idea). I don't think Apple will (or should for that matter) just release OSX for generic x86. They have a lot of benefits as it is now to controlling both the hardware and the OS. The can optimize to their exact setup and they don't have to worry about buggy third party drivers (which is one of Windows biggest stability problems) or supporting a billion random devices. Also important to Apple is that they can control the design of all OS X products. Apple surely doesn't want to be in the OS business and releasing OS X for any x86 would put them in that business. BUT, what if say 12 months or so after they work the bugs out of the Intel switch, they let a very select OEM or two produce a pre-approved and vetted non-Apple Mac. It would have to be a high end company that understands quality and design. Names like Dell don't strike me as plausible, as they'd lose their sweet Windows licensing deal. Maybe someone like AlienWare would be ideal though. I've not heard any specific rumors on this front, but wouldn't it be interesting? Apple would get to chip away at the Windows market share, make some additional money on OS X and broaden their reach while still getting to maintain a good amount of control on the quality and aesthetics of the hardware the OS X runs on.
–jeremy
Apple, Intel

OSCON Bound

A little late (my procrastination once again astounds), but I am indeed OSCON bound. LinuxQuestions.org is once again a proud OSCON sponsor. If you'll be attending and would like to meet for whatever reason, drop me a line. See you in Portland.
–jeremy

Are Windows Users Are Idiots?

According to this article, Windows users are idiots. I have to disagree, for a couple of reasons. First, I'd have to say that lacking knowledge about a computer in no way makes you an idiot. I'm sure there are plenty of geniuses that are completely computer illiterate. But it goes beyond that. People are lazy – it's a fact of life. Most people don't want to have to understand computers. I don't blame them really. The problem is that 1) Windows comes insecure by default, 2) Windows comes preinstalled on almost every desktop machines sold and 3) Windows makes it too easy to not have to learn anything to change those defaults. There is no user education. The outcome is an army of spam spewing zombies. I think it's our responsibility, as the 10% of people who want to and do understand computers really well, to lead the other 90% in the right direction. Don't just tell someone “Oh yeah, Windows sucks” – that makes you look like an idiot IMHO. Explain to them why installing Linux or buying a Mac is in their best interest. Make them understand. They don't need to be able to compile a kernel or write a device driver. They need to be educated on why the alternatives are superior. Belittling them helps no one.
—jeremy

A Brief Look into LQ Visitors

LQ is in the “pretty big, but not huge” category, as far as web sites go (ie. 10M views a month < LQ < 100M views a month). While many members are extremely new to Linux, the average visitor is certainly more technical than the average visitor at most sites. After all, they are taking the time to research Linux. I thought it would be interesting to give people an idea of who visits a site like LQ – what OS are they using, what browser? The following data is from the last month or so:

As you can see, on LQ, Windows only has slightly above half of the OS share. That puts us way outside the normal for typical non-technical sites. But notice how much of a lead FF/Mozilla has. That goes to show that regardless of what platform people are using, their browser of choice is often FF/Mozilla. A good example of this is Mac. Mac comes with Safari but just under half of the Mac users seem to be using FF (The number of people who use Mac and don't use one of Safari or FF is very small). Note that unknown for the OS is either a spider or an occasional RSS reader that doesn't report it. A lot of interesting info can be gleaned from those two tables, but I'll leave some of the fun up to you ;)
–jeremy
Linux, Windows, Apple, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, Opera, Konqueror

More Linux on the Desktop Musings

Looks like this blog post by Asa got Slashdotted. I talked to Asa in depth about this at Gnomedex a couple of weeks ago. I actually discussed that conversation a bit during the most recent episode of LQ Radio. As I said there, I have to agree with some of what Asa said. Of course, as you may have guessed, I don't agree with all of it. But I do think that when someone like Asa, who clearly not only gets Open Source but promotes it for a living, talks about something like this we should all listen. Application and driver support aside (note: I know these are both huge issues, but they are not technical ones per se and not on topic with the point I'd like to make. I don't want anyone to think I am minimizing them though), I'd say that Linux is almost as ready for the desktop as Windows is. The issue that many people have is that it is different, not better or worse. They don't want to take the time to learn is one problem I see, which is fine – but if they remember far enough back they had to learn Windows too. It's just that they know it now. They have an investemnt in time that makes them averse to change. Another complaint I see is that Linux is too hard to install. This one could not be more incorrect. Linux is easier to install than Windows. Most Windows users have never installed it though, since it came with their computer. For some reason I think they just assume it must be easy. If I sat my dad down with a computer and a Windows install disk, a working installation wouldn't come out of it (and he's a smart guy, just not necessarily computer savvy). Another issue I see talked about is that to get anything done you have to edit all these text files. First, I don't think this is true any longer, although it certainly once was. While I prefer to do things command line, almost all of it can be done through a GUI tool. The thing that gets me though, is that most things that you would have to drop down to a CLI to do, would require a registry edit in Windows. Which one of those is easier?? At least with Linux you have a choice.
Now, don't take this as I don't think Linux has a long way to go – it does. Asa and others bring up some very solid points and I could definitely add to the list. Some Linux advocates seem to have blinder on in this regard, and that's bad for everyone. In the end though, I think some people give Windows way more credit for being easy than it deserves. Windows seems to have created a legion of “Power Users” that know how to do a couple things in the GUI or make a couple of registry edits, without really knowing what they are doing and why they are doing it. Linux does require you to learn a little more, but the reward is a more solid, more stable system that is logical in design and efficient in operations. Once you understand the underlying paradigm, everything just makes sense. Even after a long time of Windows use, a ton of things make no sense to me. I mutter, “you can't do what?” to the Windows admins more than they'd like to admit. I'd like to think of the initial learning curve in Linux sort of like having a permit. Without that step, having a drivers license would be much more dangerous. That's probably why such a high percentage of Windows machine get compromised.
–jeremy
Gnomedex, Linux, Windows, Mozilla, desktop

Fun with Compiler Optimization Flags

I thought I'd comment on something in this article (which I blogged about yesterday) that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Apple/Intel/IBM debate. Here's a snippet from the article:
So why didn't Apple take any of these offers? Was it performance, as Jobs claimed in his keynote? Here's something that may blow your mind. When Apple compiles OS X on the 970, they use -Os. That's right: they optimize for size, not for performance. So even though Apple talked a lot of smack about having a first-class 64-bit RISC workstation chip under the hood of their towers, in the end they were more concerned about OS X's bulging memory requirements than they were about The Snappy(TM).
The above statement isn't entirely correct. Speed and size are not diametrically opposed in this case. When it comes to kernel and OS level code, compiling with -Os can actually produce faster code than say -O2 or -O3; especially on architectures with a relatively small amount of L2 cache. Basically, being able to keep core code in the cache gets you more performance than loop unrolling and the other fun that comes with -O{2|3}. The Fedora/Red Hat kernel team did a bunch of benchmarking on this, and the Fedora kernel is now compiled with -Os.
–jeremy