Re: Why?!

[Kent West <westk@heir.acu.edu>]

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Charles Collicutt wrote:

> Hi,
>    Thanks to everyone that replied to my e-mail. I think my main problem
> is that I try to compile too many things that I could just get as an
> older, less optimised .deb file, also I started using linux at school where
> I wasn't root and so all the big things were managed for me and I got used
> to compiling my own software to store in my /home dir. To answer some of
> your questions: yes, I am a developer (not professionally) but I can get
> compilers for Windows from school so their cost doesn't bother me :) And I
> do know the difference between Open Source and shareware, I was
> questioning whether the fact something is open source or not is relevant
> to an average home user. Some of you are obviously lucky enough to have
> many computers where networking - and therefore Linux - is viable. I have
> one desktop with no networking other than PPP to my ISP. You claim that
> linux is more configurable and that the disadvantage of Windows' nice GUI
> is that you lose the ability to configure it. I'd say this works both
> ways: you, as linux users, find linux more configurable but I others that
> I know of find Windows easier easier to configure - simply because they
> are more used to the other OS. Windows is as configurable as Linux, you
> just have to know different methods. I'm sorry that some of you have had
> such problems with Windows, if I'd had similar problems then I agree that
> linux would easily seem better. However, I have not had those problems (my
> copy of Win95 was not preinstalled, I installed it myself without errors). 
> I think that if I didn't enjoy playing games so much (more to the point:
> don't intend to develop games) then I'd choose linux over Windows easily.
> However, since I do need a Win95 partition anyway (to play games and to
> develop them - no companies to my knowledge develop games for linux) I'm
> not sure I should have a Linux partition as well.
> 
> I started this e-mail with the intention of saying that I would wipe my
> partially broken linux system and reinstall Debian from CD, but now I'm
> not so sure any more... I'm getting an upgrade this Christmas which would
> be perfectly capable of coping with Windows bloatware....
> I'm going to wait a bit longer before I make up my mind, but the
> temptation to let the Winborg empire assimilate me is getting stronger -
> which is a shame because you guys are a hell of a lot nicer than your
> average Windows luser :) If anyone can think of an excellent way to save
> my soul please let me know...
> 
> 

I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents....

I also have found Linux to be a difficult experience. At times I too
wonder why I don't return to the familiar landscape of MS-Windows. But as
a tech support person at a university, I get a lot of experience repairing
WinX machines that have been broken by their users, and I have to transfer
files for them when they get a new PC, which is a MAJOR pain on a Windows
box. It's a times like these that I want to get as far away from Windows
as I can.

Last night, I helped a man get his mouse working again. Just a simply
mouse driver issue (why it died in the first place is a mystery). By the
time I was finished I had had to reboot the machine no less than 11 times.
Somewhere along the way, whatever killed the mouse also took out the video
driver and the sound card driver. I finally ran out of time, and had to 
leave the machine for now with no sound, even though I replaced the sound
drivers and the Device Manager says everything is just fine.

I get EXTREMELY tired of waiting for reboots just because I've updated to
the newest Netscape, or WordPerfect, or video driver.

Sure, for one user on one machine, such as yourself, reboots may be a
minor irritant. But as a tech support person who has to sit through 20
or 40 reboots a day, it's mighty tiresome.

There are a host of other reasons to dislike Windows, such as
instability, and another of my pet peeves, file incompatibility. When Win
3.1 came out, offices learned to use Schedule+. Then Windows95 came out
with a new version of Schedule+. Of course, one person in the office
upgraded, and all of a sudden no one could access his schedule anymore. So
the boss declared that everyone would upgrade to Windows95. Uh oh, now
they need more drive space and more RAM. Oops, even with that, the
machines are still too slow. New machines for everyone. (See the $'s
flying by?) Then the new machines came with Word 5. But some people don't
want to give up their WordPerfect. "Tough," says the boss. "You have to
use Word." Then someone upgrades to Office95. Uh oh, file incompatibility
again. "Okay, everyone upgrade to Office 95. Oh, and I like this new
Exchange client, Outlook, so we need to upgrade everyone to it also. Oh,
it requires an Exchange Server? No problem, we can spend the $300 so
everyone can still share calendars (which we used to do for free). Oh, we
need a server machine to run the Exchange Server on (ka-ching, that'll be
$2000). And we need an NT Server license (ka-ching, $500). And we need
client licenses so our PCs can attach to the NT Server (ka-ching, $80).
And we need client licenses so our PCs can attach to the Exchange Server
(ka-ching, $50). And we need a server administrator and a database
administrator to make it work (ka-ching ka-ching, $35000/year). There, now
we're all happy." Then the NT server needs to be rebooted 3 times a week.
Then comes Office97. Uh oh, file incompatibility. "Okay, everyone, upgrade
to Office97. (ka-ching, ka-ching)" Then comes the service packs for
Office97. Uh oh, file incompatibility. "Okay, everyone, upgrade to Service
Pac... what? Microsoft has recalled the Service Pack? Oh, they've released
a fixed Service Pack, but they've called it by the same name?! Oh, well,
at least we know we're getting out money's worth."

Now, when Office2000 or Windows2000 comes out, and one person in the
office upgrades, what sound do you think you're going to hear (hint, it
sounds like "ka-ching")?

It's things like this that are driving me and my fellow technicians away
from Microsoft and other closed-source "solutions".

As others have said, Linux is not ready for the average Joe User at home.
But technicians like myself are going to move our clients over to the
vastly superior platform (from a support perspective) over the next couple
of years. Those clients will want the same thing at home that they have at
work (and they're gonna want Linux games). Pretty soon, the world will be
running Linux.

The reason you're running Linux now is not that it's easier for you, or
faster, or more stable. The reason you're running Linux is because you
instinctively know that the world is shifting that direction, and you're
just getting a head start on the rest of the crowd.

 -- 
Kent West
kent.west@infotech.acu.edu
KC5ENO - Amateur Radio: When all else fails.
Linux - Finally! A real OS for the Intel PC!
"Life is an ongoing classroom." - Capt. James T. Kirk, "Dreadnought"