(This post was inspired by the Popular Operating Systems thread on this forum.)

If you spend any time on the Internet, and if you're interested in computers, you'll frequently come across the "Windows vs. Linux" debate (or, as is more commonly the case, arguments and hostilities). I've been using Windows since version 3.1 and Linux and/or Unix for almost 10 years, so I think I'm a little qualified to add my two cents' worth.

At the risk of being labeled a heretic by both camps (although it is true, sadly, that the Linux/Unix camp is more likely to react that way), I'm going to say that neither is either better nor worse, any more than a Ford is better than a Chevy, and that arguing about operating systems is about as productive (and silly) as arguing about cars. Each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses.

I also apologize in advance to the more technically-inclined members of the forum for stating my views in plain English, without resorting to a lot of technobabble. Although this section of the forum deals with computers, the forum itself is, indeed, a religious forum, and computers are not its main purpose.

The biggest thing Windows has going against it is its poor security. It has inherited its DNA, if you will, from MS-DOS, which in turn got it from CP/M, neither of which were meant to be anything more than single-user operating systems. In other words, if you had a computer and kept important files on it, anybody else could sit down at your computer and access those files. While it's rue that improvements have been made over the years, the Windows kernel itself--the core components of the operating system--is still, essentially, a single-user design.

Another thing Windows has going against it is its very success. As was pointed out elsewhere in another thread, the very ubiquity of Windows--powering as it does some 90+% of personal computers--makes it worth the time and effort one has to invest to attack it.

Linux/Unix, on the other hand, were designed from the ground up to be multi-user, multi-tasking operating systems. In plain English, this means that controls and safeguards were built in to the kernel to provide user and data security. This design feature alone makes either of these operating systems--while not completely secure--far more secure than Windows. This, coupled with the fact that very few Linux/Unix systems are in use by home users, makes either system a less desirable target for miscreants.

One of Windows' greatest strengths, on the other hand, was the fact that it was designed, as was the Macintosh, to make computers easier to use by the average user. In this, it has succeeded admirably.

One of the biggest criticisms of Linux/Unix in general and Linux in particular is this: "It's a hobbyist's operating system. It was never intended to be used by the masses." Well, I've got some shocking news for you: neither were microcomputers in the first place! They were originally designed, built and used by hobbyists. (For more on this, see Freiberger and Swaine's excellent Fire in the Valley--an account of the beginnings of Silicon Valley and the personal computer.)

But over time, thanks largely to the use of subversive tactics by hobbyists, microcomputers have become an indispensable part of the American business landscape. And they have been extremely successful at home, too.

I'm not going to claim that the same thing is going to happen with Linux. But neither will I accept the argument that Linux won't succeed because it's "for hobbyists."

And given the endless cycle of critical patches and updates for Windows, largely to fix problems that never should have been there in the first place, and the need for third-party security solutions such as firewall, anti-virus and ad-blocking software, an increasingly larger segment home users is looking towards Linux.

I wonder how many loyal, dedicated Windows fans are aware that when the long-heralded, long-delayed Vista is finally released, it won't run on the majority of home machines? That's right, folks--your trusty computer that is perfectly fine with 95, ME or even XP will in likelihood choke on Vista. Your system doesn't have the hardware resources Vista demands.

On the other hand, I've had no problem running Linux on an old 386 laptop--one that could barely handle Windows 95.

Microsoft's approach to software design has always been to throw more hardware at it. "Memory's cheap; we don't need to optimize our code." "Hard drives are huge--who cares if the operating system takes up 2 gigabytes?"

Yes, it's true: hardware is cheap these days. Memory is cheap--by itself. Hard drives are cheap--by themselves. But 1 Gb of RAM plus a new hard drive plus paying someone to install them properly all add up.

And that's not even to mention the cost of purchasing Windows:

Vista Home Basic: $199.00 Upgrade: $99.00
Vista Home Premium: $239.00 Upgrade: $159.00
Vista Business: $299.00 Upgrade: $199.00
Vista Ultimate: $399.00 Upgrade $259.00

Linux purchasing price? Oh, you can buy it, if you like. But most people just download it from the internet. No charge that way. If you do buy it, you're not really buying Linux; Linux is free. What you're paying for is technical support.

And there's nothing wrong with paying for technical support. But you can also get high-quality free technical support from the Linux online community.

Minimum Vista configuration: 800-MHz processor, 512 Mb RAM. 40 Gb hard drive, with 15 Gb available. DVD drive.

Vista Premium configuration: 1 GHz processor, 1 Gb RAM. Hard drive & DVD drive are the same. But your machine must also be Windows Aero-capable, and have 128Mb RAM on your graphics card.

And system hardware for Linux? Processor: Intel: Pentium 1-4 or Xeon; AMD: Duron, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Athlon 64, Sempron or Opteron. Speed is not crucial.
RAM? 256 MB minimum (512 MB recommended).
Drive space: 500 MB of disk space (800 MB to 2 GB often required when including a basic set of applications)

If you've got the hardware, Vista may be what you're looking for. But if not, or if you've got an older system lying around the house or office that you're not using, you might want to take a serious look at Linux.

So what do I use?

Both, actually. My Compaq Presario laptop runs the Windows XP it came with. My Toshiba Satellite laptop runs PCLinuxOS (PCLOS). I used to use Ubuntu on the Toshiba, but wanted to see if thre was a distribution that might be a little more friendly to folks considering a move from Windows. I found it in PCLOS, a halfway-house for Windows.

And why? Because I like learning new stuff. Because there is some software that, while available for Linux, isn't quite as good as the same thing for Windows. And vice versa. I have a few Linux programs that are far superior to their Windows counterparts. I use the better tool for the task at hand.

I feel more secure with Linux when I'm online. And I don't have a window popping up every week or so telling me that I've got to upgrade my system.

But Windows Live Writer beats anything Linux has for blogging. Photoshop is still better than the Gimp. But Open Office does (almost) everything MS Office will do, plus it will output to Adobe PDF format.

To be fair, Open Office is also available for Windows. But Quanta+ isn't, and it will do anything MS FrontPage will do, and it's free.

Free vs. Open Source

A lot of confusion has grown up around "free software" and "open source software." Is there a difference? There's a huge difference.

"Free software" generally means "free" as in "free beer." That is, it's yours for the asking. No charge. Gratis. But it often comes with restrictions on how you may use it. You can't sell it. You can't include it on a CD of free software and charge for the CD.

"Open source software" also means "free," but free as in "freedom." Not only is the program free, but the source code--the program instructions themselves-are also available for free. Have a program that you think is pretty neat, but could be improved? Are you a programmer? Then download the source code and make your improvements. With one catch: if you make changes and distribute those changes, you must include your own source code as well. You generally can't sell Open Source software depending on the license it's released under), but if you put it on a CD with other programs--or all by itself--you can generally charge a reasonable amount for the CD and postage.

Next: Software Availability

__________________
Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control;
these three alone lead one to sovereign power.
Tennyson