I'd be lying if I said I didn't have to download anything from the Internet after having installed it. Of course I download stuff, I do it all the time. I have to download the entire Linux distribution in the first place, since I never bought one. But the bottom line is this: I CAN use my computer for my everyday work (writing documents, presentations, spreadsheets and programming) if I install a standard distribution of Linux (one CD is usually enough) on my computer. However, if I use Windows, I either need to buy the extra stuff or download it from the Internet, since none of it really comes included on the CD.
This article is not about pointing the finger, but isn't it a little strange that Windows creates a hollow shell for your "useable" software and charge you money for it, while Linux distributions come fully packed with all sorts of candy from the very beginning, and it's free from the start? I'll leave it to the reader to go figure.
But how about usability then?
Isn't Windows more usable when it's all set? Well, I used to think so too, but after having installed Windows on my machine again, I'd have to say I doubt it. It pretty much comes down to what distro you use. I'll go for Debian when this is over, because it offers me the best mix of control and general usability. If you try out one of the major distros, meaning SuSE, Mandrake or Fedora Core, I think you'll find it easy enough to manage and use your computer. With tools like Yast, up2date (or yum, when someone fixes a nice GUI for it) and Drake-tools, you can browse and search large repositories for applications and updates to install. You can even update your entire world, including kernel and userland. With Windows, there is the auto update tool, which pretty much works in the same way, but it only maintains your system as far as security updates and applications included in the Windows suite (eg, Internet Explorer). To maintain your other applications is your headache, not theirs.
As for using the computer on an everyday basis, Linux (or Linux applications rather) still has some way to go. OpenOffice.org is a killer, but the kick-ass spreadsheets with the kick-ass formulas are still done in Excel. Gimp and its relatives are great, but Adobe and its competitors on the Windows market still have a tight grip here. Same goes for most large and complex applications like AutoCAD, who's still in the lead. Most other applications, like Internet browsers, mail clients, IMs, databases, blablabla are equally strong in the Linux department.
Hardware?
Yes and No. Windows in itself actually supports less hardware than Linux (the kernel). But in practice, windows supports more hardware, since most hardware manufacturers include a CD with their products with drivers and installation guides for Windows. This is slowly changing, more and more manufacturers include drivers for Linux, but the progress is slow. However, as we can see, my main concern was to get my graphics card and my WinTV board working. With Linux it worked to some degree, but with Windows it didn't work at all, it didn't even know what kind of device it was until I installed the drivers (this is true even for WinXP).
Conclusion?
Windows is a good product. For everyday use it's stable (although not too secure, as we've seen) and easy to use. But Microsoft is a heavy colossus, and it moves too slowly to keep up with today's development speed. Technologies like .NET will continue to shake the market to its foundations, but that is not enough to keep the actual users satisfied. I believe that lots of companies hold on to Microsoft merely because there are tons of custom-built applications out there that runs on Windows that are needed to keep the business floating. But we can see more and more users in the Linux communities, companies and governments decide to switch to Linux, despite the effort and initial costs it involves. Personally I would love to see the market switching to Linux today, but it's a big operation, and it will take time and effort from those who decide to do so. Microsoft supporters keep giving us the "Linux is actually more expensive" argument, and I believe that this is a bunch of crap. Sure, initially there will be costs for education, time spent on installing, upgrading and maintaining a new system, but in the end there will be a positive economical effect. Why? Because logically, nothing can be cheaper than what's free, right?
I'm not a Linux zealot, I use Microsoft products myself, but I enjoy it so much more when I get to work with Linux. I can even change the looks of my desktop as I desire, for free! =o)
About the author
Kristofer "Jalle" Jarl is nearly 26 years old, almost grown up, but far from mature. This Master of Science wishes he could spend more time on the snowboard or with a guitar on his lap than he spends on calculating signal strengths and qualities for a large telephone service provider. Someday he may even try to do something big with his own little firm, which for now lies sleeping somewhere in a box in his new apartment.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
- "Win Vs Linux, Page 1/2"
- "Win Vs Linux, Page 1/2"
