Patrick’s Rants

In a shot across the bow, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes writes on his ZDnet blog,

“It’s pretty sad, but beyond a certain small segment of computer users, you can’t give Linux away.”¹

Hughs may have had some interesting views, but the time it takes each page to load makes me glad I have multiple tabs in Firefox. On page three Hughs issues the challenge, “name me five bits of hardware that lists Linux as a supported system on the box.” He goes on to claim that he doesn’t remember buying anything that claims Linux support. When I shop for hardware that has to work with Linux, I look for standards compliant hardware. If it works with a published standard it will usually work with Linux. With Windows you have to look for your specific version on the box. There is no “standard” in Windows.

He then goes on,

“it’s worse for software. Anyone making the leap from Windows to Linux has to start from scratch with regards to applications. That’s a much bigger undertaking than the Linux community gives credit for. Having to come up with an alternative for every application you use is a big job.”

I used to think that too. Take my desktop as an example. I still run Windows on it - 98se at that. I can’t upgrade to a newer version of Windows because of a legacy piece of software and the attached legacy hardware that hangs off of it - my circa 1995 fax machine. I know that I can’t switch to Linux either, this doesn’t work with Linux - at least I haven’t tried. Recently, I had a large number of blue screens causing me to have to hard boot the machine. You know what I’m talking about, application something or other caused a fault at address such and such, click OK. 150 clicks later and the damned error is still there. Hit Ctrl+Alt+Del to try to kill whatever application it is that’s hanging and the screen turns blue - such and such is not responding. Hit any key to return or Ctrl+Alt+Del to reboot now. Hitting return or even the three finger salute does nothing except flash black then back to blue. You have to hit the power button. Nothing else works. As the computer boots up Windows is happy to tell me that I can avoid the scandisk screen if I just shutdown properly. I, of course, yell at the screen that if Windows would just let me shut down properly I just might. So my desktop gets rebooted fairly often whether it needs it or not².

Lately, I’ve been thinking that there are only three programs - or groups of programs - keeping me on Windows. I’m exploring the virtual machine software to see what it will take to get me running Linux full time with a virtual Windows install for the 30 minutes or so a week that I actually need Windows for. That’s for a slightly later article.

Point number 4

“4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
Linux users rave about the fact that under Linux you can dispense with the GUI and go back to the command line (even I like the power offered by the command line). But let’s face it, we “command line fans” are in the minority. For those old enough to remember DOS, most are glad than those days are over, for others bought up on Windows, it’s hard to explain the benefits of a command driven interface.”

This is so true. If you were a DOS command line commando or even just had to use the DOS command line you might be glad that those days are over. What if you are a Unix command line commando? In that case the Windows command line pales. By the way, there are still still plenty of graphical interfaces for those who prefer them. He’s actually taking this argument backwards, but that’s OK. For those of use who really like the power of the command line but are stuck in Windows we can use Cygwin. Now the argument’s properly rounded out.

The response by Dave Gutteridge is intriguing enough to make sense: Windows is Free. Maybe it’s not really free, but the perception is that it is because it comes on nearly every PC that is sold today and that copies of Windows are pervasive enough that you can get it installed without having to pay for your copy/license.

Gutteridge takes Kingsley-Hughes’ points and responds

“All the above reasons have some truth in them, but consider how the price comparison makes those points seem so much worse.”

Argument 1: Linux relies too heavily on the command line.

“Take the point that Linux relies too heavily on command line interface. I would probably pay 200 dollars for a nice graphical interface instead of having to run my computer at the command line all the time. But would I pay 200 dollars instead of using an interface that had nice graphics 99% of the time, and a command line for the occasional configuration? I think I’d rather spend that 200 bucks on something else, like maybe a new MP3 player. Throw in the fact that every few years I’ll have to spend another hundred bucks or so on upgrades, and I’ll handle the 1% of command line time. When you add in the fact that I might, just maybe, be making a one-for-one trade of blue error screens for command line issues, then I’m definitely leaning towards not spending 200 bucks.”

Gutteridge’s arguments stand up for themselves, so I won’t go into everything that he writes, you can read that for yourselves but consider this:

“Keep in mind that when you’re saying that Windows is worth 200 dollars more than Linux, you’re saying the differences are worth that much, not the whole thing. So if you can check your email on both, surf the web on both, listen to music on both, do spreadsheets on both, but only play 3D computer games on Windows, then what you’re saying is that 3D computer games alone are worth 200 dollars to you. That may be fair enough in the case of playing games. I know gamers who would gladly pay 200 dollars more for the right gaming environment. But once I had someone tell me that they didn’t want to switch to Linux because their printer model wasn’t supported. Their printer was a little older and would have been easy to upgrade to a newer, Linux compatible model, for about 120 dollars. So, they were effectively trying to claim that they would rather pay 200 dollars in order to save themselves from paying 120 dollars. Which is obviously a claim that can only be made by a sane person if they’re really bad at math, or their copy of Windows wasn’t actually 200 dollars.”

In my office we use software that requires Windows because the company has not yet created a version that works on anything but Windows. The network is simple enough: we use K12LTSP on the server, thin clients (standard PCs with the hardrives unplugged), and a Microsoft Windows Terminal Server. The Windows machine costs a lot more to run. There is the license for the base server operating system, CALs (client access licenses) that dictate how many machines can connect and talk to the server, Terminal Service client licenses and in some cases even another Windows license on the machine that doesn’t even have Windows on it - for the privilege of running the terminal services client. Jumping through all of these hoops is enough to drive me crazy. Gutterridge again:

“All the security measures when one installs legitimate software makes a user feel like they’re being punished for being good, the same way moviegoers who go to the theatres feel like they’re not the ones who should be sitting through warnings not to download movies.”

With Linux it’s plug into the network and push the power button. With Windows it’s server software, Client Access Licenses, Terminal Service Licenses, and workstation licenses (even if the workstation doesn’t “directly” use Windows) I think we have close to $8000.00 worth of licensing on 1 computer. The rest of our network, including the cost of two servers, the firewall, the cabling, multiple laptops, half a dozen workstations and our printers may not add up to the price of the software that we have to pay for to allow us to install the software that we actually make money from: accounting and tax preparation.³

I’ve read some interesting thoughts in response to Gutteridge’s article none of which will come to pass until Linux starts pounding Microsoft a lot harder. The first would involve changing the licensing to allow free home installations, but that companies would continue paying for their licenses (and that might remove the many confusing and different versions of each Windows releases - it would be home or corporate with maybe a soho version. Hmm, that’s still three versions but maybe the names would be less confusing) Another possible licensing scheme is to follow the movie industry. No, not release a bunch of crap and wonder why no one wants to see it although one could argue that’s already the case. Instead bring the price down for everyone. Then the incentive to “steal”⁴ software would be far lower than it is today.

Bottom line for me though, is that Windows isn’t free and I would change everything I have to Linux today if I could still run the three programs that I need to run. Linux also doesn’t suck.

1. I did finally get to page two to read it. Too bad there are only a few paragraphs before he moves on to page three which is taking an equally long time to load. Of course page load time should in no way influence your perception that his information is bogus.
2. When the blue screen forces me to hard boot it.
3. Actually, we had to add another fax/printer recently so we might have as much in hardware as we do in software, but it took three years to have as much invested in hardware as we had to have in software before we could even start business
4. It’s actually illegal copying, not stealing since Microsoft still has their software. It’s stealing if you grab the box from the shelf and put it in your pocket, not if you burn it. It’s like the Last Comic Standing where the comedian said he wouldn’t steal a DVD in the store but would take a burned copy from a friend. He also said he wouldn’t steal a car but if he was offered a burned copy of his buddy’s new car he would take it.

If you are as frustrated as I was with page load times, check out the google cache:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3