Opinion: Open Letter to a Digital World
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/47536.htm
Well, it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside anyway. But I haven't used Windows at all for over 6 years and I guess I understand what he's talking about. The first PC I bought in 1996 was running Windows. From December 1998 to present I have used Linux exclusively on all of my computers. There have been entire years where I've not touched Windows systems. From that perspective I find using current Windows systems quite a shockingly bad experience.
(in)Security (in)Sanity
These past two months, in particular, friends and family have been asking me to help them salvage their Windows PCs. I seem to be viewed as "the computer" expert or perhaps a last resort. I've had more experience than I would wish upon my worst enemy "cleaning" trojans, viruses, etc from these systems. And, like the author of the article, it really shocks me just how bad Windows has become. As bad as you might think Windows is I'm here to tell you that it is much worse. If you think your Windows system is clean and safe I'm willing to bet that it is not. No combination of antivirus and spyware/adware removal tools I could find would protect any system other than Windows XP with Service Pack 2. XP SP2 is only marginally less problematic and the fixes in SP2 seem largely short-term. Windows 9x appears to be impossible to protect without total abandonment and removal of Microsoft software. All Windows systems prior to XP SP2 will soon follow because Microsoft will no longer provide security updates to them. This is clearly a forced upgrade strategy and I can't really blame Microsoft because upgrading is the best strategy. Those who won't upgrade probably don't bother to install security updates anyway. (Windows 2003 Server probably fairs the best of all Windows systems but its security policies prevent many Windows desktop programs from functioning properly or at all.)
Reasons
I've heard many reasons for why someone thinks they can't use Linux. A few have some merit. Many reasons given are excuses to justify the decision to stick with Windows. Fear of the unknown keeps many people frozen in place.
One reason a company might stay with Windows is that some run software they or a consultant has designed to rely on Microsoft technology. They have no business case for rewriting the software so they stay with Windows. When the business logic changes they might consider writing the replacement to run on Linux. But in some cases even these people are switching to Linux desktops. One can setup a single Windows Server system with Windows Terminal Services to run Windows applications. Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol, used by Windows Terminal Services, is fully supported by rdesktop on Linux providing stereo sound and true color video. If one is already paying for Windows Server and its user licenses then using Terminal Services means you can eliminate the extra (~$179/yr per CPU in XP contracts) cost of running Windows on each workstation. It cuts Windows upgrades, security, and support down to a single server machine. It also means that every user's desktop is available on any physical workstation. If their workstation catches fire they can walk across the room and pick up right where they left off without missing a keystroke.
Another reason is that a company might have in-house people who are actually qualified to maintain and administer Windows systems. And that can certainly work if the operating system and all software are kept current. But I think it is a frighteningly rare situation. And even experienced admins can easily get into a situation where they are spread too thin to deal with every incident.
But most of the reasons seem to revolve around empty assumptions like "there's no software." I suspect that belief comes from the fact that many Windows vendors don't openly support Linux. Debian Stable includes 9,157 applications. Many Linux systems are based on Debian. Source Forge hosts over 53,000 Free and Open Source applications that can run natively on Linux. That doesn't count proprietary applications from Linux software vendors. And it certainly doesn't count Java applications, Microsoft .Net applications, nor Windows applications that can be run on Linux. That doesn't even count most of the Free and Open Source applications available for Linux.
Maybe there are more Windows applications. Maybe they are better quality. Maybe. I don't know and I don't think anyone could possibly know. It is largely conjecture. Linux has been around longer than 32-bit Windows. UNIX systems have been 32-bit longer than any Windows systems, or really any mainstream consumer systems, have existed. Most 32-bit and 64-bit UNIX systems software can easily be made to run on Linux. In recent years there's been a lot of work on building alternatives to popular Windows software. And I think that gets a lot of the focus when people say no software exists for Linux. They look at only the programs which clone Windows software and then they proceed to grade it on how closely it resembles the Windows software it has cloned. I think that's a very narrow minded perspective. And I think this comes from people who have invested their time in learning what they call "tricks" instead of learning how to use the computer systems and software itself. When faced with a similar but slightly different program they freak because their bag of tricks no longer work.
But Really
Software support really isn't the issue for most people who do talk of using Linux desktops. It may be the cover story but it's not the issue. It's the complete lack of experience with using anything but Windows. Linux isn't Windows, it has never been designed with Windows in mind, it will never be like Windows, and most Linux users and developers consider that a good thing. This generates fear among people who have invested in learning Windows. Those coming to Linux without any deep ingrained Windows knowledge are unlikely to have any such issues.
On Inexpensive PCs
I believe that Steve Ballmer's $100 PC isn't far away. But I don't think it will be running Windows and I don't think it will be a PC. There's a growing market for inexpensive computers running inexpensive software. I hope that retailers like Walmart will lead the charge in coming years. Here's to hoping other major retailers stop cowering in the corner and test the waters with their own inexpensive Linux computers. The only way to make Linux popular with the masses is for retailers to sell good quality systems in physical brick and mortar stores.
My point there is that if a retailer bundles a reliable, inexpensive computer with a good assortment of decent software then people aren't going to care what OS it runs. Most people don't even know what an OS is. Most people I know blame "the computer" when something doesn't work instead of blaming Windows. Many have no clue what an operating system is, why they need one, how to install software, that they can install software, or they don't even know what software is. Many even think that if something didn't come with the computer they have to buy a new computer to add it. Nearly every Windows home PC I have seen is still in the factory configuration with the factory software. Many still show the "Welcome to Windows" tutorial screen at bootup. At the most, they might have installed AOL or MSN simply because someone walked them through installing it over the phone. And I strongly suspect these machines are in the factory config because people are afraid to install anything or even use the computer. They've probably had more than one occassion where the system blew up and their hardware vendor has instructed them to insert "The Big Red Disk" to reset it to factory defaults without explaining the consequences. After doing that once or twice would you ever entrust the computer to your precious family photos or financial records?
Labels: linux, windows
