royong
04-05-2006, 12:57
KEVIN SHOCKEY
Editor in Chief of TUX
http://www.tuxmagazine.com
Issue number 13, May 2006
Linux’s Fundamental Difference
Examining the core reasons why Linux is different from Microsoft Windows.
My wife and I played host to a senior executive from a major nonprofit recently, and as I was explaining what I was working on, he asked a question that stumped me. It was really a simple question, but I had never heard it put in quite this way. After telling him that I was working on a magazine focused on Linux and explaining that it was an alternative to Microsoft Windows, he asked, “What is the fundamental difference from Windows?” Obviously, many things immediately jumped to my mind. Well, I thought, it is typically cheaper, it is more secure, it provides more freedom, it suffers from fewer virus attacks, and it is supported by an active and knowledgeable community. However, I didn’t really feel comfortable with any of these, or anything else I could think of on the spot. Although all of those reasons are important, I didn’t think this nontechnical, attention-deficit-challenged senior executive would get these overly technical reasons. Plus, I also believed that it was the combination of all of them, plus others that made Linux fundamentally different. To make matters more confusing, I knew from working with senior executives before that their tolerance for jargon and patience in hearing “the point” meant my answer needed to be simple and short. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer, right? Unfortunately, I muddled through with an answer that I ended up not being happy with, and vowed to boil down the many reasons to one fundamental difference. I did much better when explaining OpenOffice.org. When he asked why should his company consider OpenOffice.org, I said, “It’s free!”, which seemed to get his attention. It was also something he immediately could understand. As the weeks went by after my encounter, I kept thinking about the one fundamental difference between Linux and Windows. Finally, after significant subconscious processing, it became clear. For me, the fundamental difference (and I believe the most profound) difference is...control. After a long trend where makers of software assumed more control over our desktops and applications, I believe that free and open-source software, especially Linux, restores control back to us, the owners of those desktops. Stepping back, the wider perspective of control also allows me to include the many other important benefits within one larger single difference. By encompassing all of the other reasons why Linux is different, control suffices to keep the answer short. However, then I have to fit the other major reasons under the umbrella of control.
CONTROL OVER COSTS
With low or no licensing costs, we can get Linux, use it as much as we want, and even share it with our friends. In addition, because the total cost of ownership is lower as well, we have greater control over the upwardly spiraling costs of proprietary software.
CONTROL OVER HARDWARE
With numerous distributions available, Linux provides more control over implementing an operating system and software that meets our needs, while still using our existing hardware infrastructure. We can expect to implement new versions of our favorite distributions, or even choose a replacement distribution, and reasonably expect to avoid upgrading our hardware to make the new version work. This also helps control our costs.
CONTROL OVER SUPPORT
In my opinion, less support available for Linux and open source is the biggest myth ever. Linux and open source have two sources of support that proprietary software cannot match. First, if you have the desire, you can access the original source programs and provide your own support. Want to know why a piece of code is failing? What not debug it yourself? Second, between a large community of supporters and developers, nearly all projects have extremely talented and dedicated resources ready to help. One of those community members even might be the engineer who actually wrote that particular piece of code. Compare that with wasting your time on first and second tier support, waiting to talk to an engineer— who, when you finally contact that engineer, says she can’t help you because she was unable to replicate the error in her laboratory. Everyone knows that if one can’t replicate the error, one can’t fix it!
CONTROL OVER VIRUSES
For the time being, Linux enjoys relative immunity from viruses, spyware, adware and malware. This is partly because most everyone follows standard security practices and runs Linux with a user account and not the superuser root account. And, it also is partly due to the amazing process inherent in developing open-source software that permits developers, testers and users (the community) to examine the source code and find more errors, which also allows the community to patch emerging security vulnerabilities more quickly.
CONTROL OVER FUNCTIONALITY
If you are not happy with how Linux does something, and you have either the ability or the motivation to contribute to make it work differently, then you have control over the functionality of Linux. Because of the General Public License, you have the right to modify the original Linux source programs. If you desire, you can obtain all of the original source programs and create a copy of Linux just for you, your company or your country. And, also because of the GPL, no one ever can take that away from you. Put in those terms, it is easy to see why Brazil and China want to use Linux so extensively.
CONTROL OVER THE SOFTWARE
Because Linux is available only by agreeing to the end-user license agreement, the General Public License guarantees that Linux will always be available to us. No entity can prevent our access to Linux
and the source code for Linux. Many useful and important software applications are no longer available to us because the owner of the software did not release the software into the public domain prior to
going out of business.
Considering it in this way, it is easy to see why the main difference between Linux and Windows is control. The more freedom we receive with Linux ultimately means more control. With Linux, we are in complete control of our computers; we’ll decide what to run and when to upgrade. We’ll modify our computers by writing or fixing programs if we are able, and we’ll choose when to upgrade our hardware and gain even more security from attack. For those of us that have suffered by having someone else control our computers, the control Linux affords is refreshing and liberating.
Editor in Chief of TUX
http://www.tuxmagazine.com
Issue number 13, May 2006
Linux’s Fundamental Difference
Examining the core reasons why Linux is different from Microsoft Windows.
My wife and I played host to a senior executive from a major nonprofit recently, and as I was explaining what I was working on, he asked a question that stumped me. It was really a simple question, but I had never heard it put in quite this way. After telling him that I was working on a magazine focused on Linux and explaining that it was an alternative to Microsoft Windows, he asked, “What is the fundamental difference from Windows?” Obviously, many things immediately jumped to my mind. Well, I thought, it is typically cheaper, it is more secure, it provides more freedom, it suffers from fewer virus attacks, and it is supported by an active and knowledgeable community. However, I didn’t really feel comfortable with any of these, or anything else I could think of on the spot. Although all of those reasons are important, I didn’t think this nontechnical, attention-deficit-challenged senior executive would get these overly technical reasons. Plus, I also believed that it was the combination of all of them, plus others that made Linux fundamentally different. To make matters more confusing, I knew from working with senior executives before that their tolerance for jargon and patience in hearing “the point” meant my answer needed to be simple and short. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer, right? Unfortunately, I muddled through with an answer that I ended up not being happy with, and vowed to boil down the many reasons to one fundamental difference. I did much better when explaining OpenOffice.org. When he asked why should his company consider OpenOffice.org, I said, “It’s free!”, which seemed to get his attention. It was also something he immediately could understand. As the weeks went by after my encounter, I kept thinking about the one fundamental difference between Linux and Windows. Finally, after significant subconscious processing, it became clear. For me, the fundamental difference (and I believe the most profound) difference is...control. After a long trend where makers of software assumed more control over our desktops and applications, I believe that free and open-source software, especially Linux, restores control back to us, the owners of those desktops. Stepping back, the wider perspective of control also allows me to include the many other important benefits within one larger single difference. By encompassing all of the other reasons why Linux is different, control suffices to keep the answer short. However, then I have to fit the other major reasons under the umbrella of control.
CONTROL OVER COSTS
With low or no licensing costs, we can get Linux, use it as much as we want, and even share it with our friends. In addition, because the total cost of ownership is lower as well, we have greater control over the upwardly spiraling costs of proprietary software.
CONTROL OVER HARDWARE
With numerous distributions available, Linux provides more control over implementing an operating system and software that meets our needs, while still using our existing hardware infrastructure. We can expect to implement new versions of our favorite distributions, or even choose a replacement distribution, and reasonably expect to avoid upgrading our hardware to make the new version work. This also helps control our costs.
CONTROL OVER SUPPORT
In my opinion, less support available for Linux and open source is the biggest myth ever. Linux and open source have two sources of support that proprietary software cannot match. First, if you have the desire, you can access the original source programs and provide your own support. Want to know why a piece of code is failing? What not debug it yourself? Second, between a large community of supporters and developers, nearly all projects have extremely talented and dedicated resources ready to help. One of those community members even might be the engineer who actually wrote that particular piece of code. Compare that with wasting your time on first and second tier support, waiting to talk to an engineer— who, when you finally contact that engineer, says she can’t help you because she was unable to replicate the error in her laboratory. Everyone knows that if one can’t replicate the error, one can’t fix it!
CONTROL OVER VIRUSES
For the time being, Linux enjoys relative immunity from viruses, spyware, adware and malware. This is partly because most everyone follows standard security practices and runs Linux with a user account and not the superuser root account. And, it also is partly due to the amazing process inherent in developing open-source software that permits developers, testers and users (the community) to examine the source code and find more errors, which also allows the community to patch emerging security vulnerabilities more quickly.
CONTROL OVER FUNCTIONALITY
If you are not happy with how Linux does something, and you have either the ability or the motivation to contribute to make it work differently, then you have control over the functionality of Linux. Because of the General Public License, you have the right to modify the original Linux source programs. If you desire, you can obtain all of the original source programs and create a copy of Linux just for you, your company or your country. And, also because of the GPL, no one ever can take that away from you. Put in those terms, it is easy to see why Brazil and China want to use Linux so extensively.
CONTROL OVER THE SOFTWARE
Because Linux is available only by agreeing to the end-user license agreement, the General Public License guarantees that Linux will always be available to us. No entity can prevent our access to Linux
and the source code for Linux. Many useful and important software applications are no longer available to us because the owner of the software did not release the software into the public domain prior to
going out of business.
Considering it in this way, it is easy to see why the main difference between Linux and Windows is control. The more freedom we receive with Linux ultimately means more control. With Linux, we are in complete control of our computers; we’ll decide what to run and when to upgrade. We’ll modify our computers by writing or fixing programs if we are able, and we’ll choose when to upgrade our hardware and gain even more security from attack. For those of us that have suffered by having someone else control our computers, the control Linux affords is refreshing and liberating.