| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director)Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director)Posted Jan 9, 2006 15:30 UTC (Mon) by pontus (subscriber, #3701)Parent article: Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director)
I think the resurgence of Apple will help open the door for alternatives to Windows, and when people start thinking, they will discover that Linux offers great features at a very attractive price.
(Log in to post comments)
Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director) Posted Jan 9, 2006 16:01 UTC (Mon) by ordonnateur (guest, #6652) [Link] OSX has proved that Unix can look pretty on a desktop. The revival of Apple's fortunes has come mostly from the iPod. With OSX on Intel processors the price premium of Apple v Windows becomes more transparent. So in the long run. Apples resurgence paves the way for libre alternatives.
Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director) Posted Jan 9, 2006 20:19 UTC (Mon) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] Please. OSX is not Unix. *KDE* and *GNOME* prove that Unix/Linux/BSD can make a pretty desktop. Actually, you can argue that Xorg is now an irreplaceable part of that thanks to Composite and related technologies (maybe XGL in the future).
Trends and Predictions for 2006 (IT-Director) Posted Jan 12, 2006 6:26 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Most of what we think of as Unix was developed as part of BSD. From a technical point of view, BSD is Unix, GNU/Linux might as well mean "Thanks to the Linux kernel, GNU's Now Unix". As for BSD, it isn't really even right to call it a Unix clone: SCO's Unix is basically a BSD clone. The development flowed from Berkeley to New Jersey more than vice versa.Only the trademark stands in the way of just saying so. So yes, OS/X runs on a Unix base.
|
|
||||||||||||