Comment Re:Microwho? What the f already (Score 1) 370
I love Linux and the BSD family. I have a special place in my computing heart for them, and I mean that. But my main machine is still a Windows machine, and there are a few good reasons for that.
Windows is coherent. I never have to worry about a dependency tree in Windows to be sure any given program will work. They just do. The only exceptions to that rule are free software apps ported over to Windows, like the GhostScript package I have. I never have to worry about library versions or which GCC build I'm running or whether I have everything set correctly in my /etc/[x]inetd.conf. I don't have to try and match up a Rubic's cube of prereq variables just so to run things.
Windows is simple. I turn my computer on, and it goes. If it gets unstable or crashes, I reboot. File permissions have never gotten in my way on my Windows machine. I have never had to start an Xterm session as root in order to use a priviledged port. I haven't ever even had to log in to my home windows machine in order to use it. I didn't have to choose and configure an Xserver and desktop manager to use my Windows desktop. I can install device drivers without recompiling my kernel or mucking with modules.
Windows is well supported. Nevermind Microsoft support; I have an OEM copy of Windows, they won't help me. I can run TONS of freeware on Windows. I can go to the computer store and buy almost any box of software in complete confidence that, barring hardware limitations, it'll run just fine at home. I can browse the web and actually SEE things like Flash. They're pretty. I can look at almost any kind of media that's out there, because almost without exception, there is a viewer for it written for Windows.
And as a result of most of the above, Windows is also the only really viable platform for gaming, which although I generally don't participate in, I like to think I could, and would probably enjoy it. Sadly, I don't have decent hardware, but that's another rant.
Bottom line: for the home user, there is Windows, there is MacOS X, or there is nothing. Linux is by many accounts not ready to take over the desktop, mine included.
What about the server room, or the work environment? Surely those are different, right? Yeah, they are. There's someone to administrate a work system and the network it sits on. No user ever has to take care of their own desktop box in any decently sized company; they have a net admin for that sort of thing. And there's more data-intensive stuff going on in the noise and heat behind the server room door than users will ever have to see.
So there really isn't any excuse to run Windows at work. Right? No. Think of this from the perspective of the network admin. Their company needs an app to do a certain thing. Guess which OS vendors supply that app for? Windows. Guess which company they get the most support from? Microsoft. Guess which OS has easier admin maintenance? Windows. Things like user accounts and services and network configs are always so much easier when the OS you run has integrated click-and-drag, point-and-drool interfaces to work on. Adminning is simpler on Windows.
Having said all that, I probably sound pretty pro-Microsoft. I promise, I'm not. But these are all considerable strengths the free software movement doesn't have. If we really want to take on the world, we can't kid ourselves, here. Free software and Linux are still lacking in a lot of places. There are still gaps to be filled and foundations to be shored up. But these are the darn good reasons for which many companies steadfastly refuse to give up Windows. These, and the fact that they can't afford the expertise it takes to admin a real system.
Windows is coherent. I never have to worry about a dependency tree in Windows to be sure any given program will work. They just do. The only exceptions to that rule are free software apps ported over to Windows, like the GhostScript package I have. I never have to worry about library versions or which GCC build I'm running or whether I have everything set correctly in my
Windows is simple. I turn my computer on, and it goes. If it gets unstable or crashes, I reboot. File permissions have never gotten in my way on my Windows machine. I have never had to start an Xterm session as root in order to use a priviledged port. I haven't ever even had to log in to my home windows machine in order to use it. I didn't have to choose and configure an Xserver and desktop manager to use my Windows desktop. I can install device drivers without recompiling my kernel or mucking with modules.
Windows is well supported. Nevermind Microsoft support; I have an OEM copy of Windows, they won't help me. I can run TONS of freeware on Windows. I can go to the computer store and buy almost any box of software in complete confidence that, barring hardware limitations, it'll run just fine at home. I can browse the web and actually SEE things like Flash. They're pretty. I can look at almost any kind of media that's out there, because almost without exception, there is a viewer for it written for Windows.
And as a result of most of the above, Windows is also the only really viable platform for gaming, which although I generally don't participate in, I like to think I could, and would probably enjoy it. Sadly, I don't have decent hardware, but that's another rant.
Bottom line: for the home user, there is Windows, there is MacOS X, or there is nothing. Linux is by many accounts not ready to take over the desktop, mine included.
What about the server room, or the work environment? Surely those are different, right? Yeah, they are. There's someone to administrate a work system and the network it sits on. No user ever has to take care of their own desktop box in any decently sized company; they have a net admin for that sort of thing. And there's more data-intensive stuff going on in the noise and heat behind the server room door than users will ever have to see.
So there really isn't any excuse to run Windows at work. Right? No. Think of this from the perspective of the network admin. Their company needs an app to do a certain thing. Guess which OS vendors supply that app for? Windows. Guess which company they get the most support from? Microsoft. Guess which OS has easier admin maintenance? Windows. Things like user accounts and services and network configs are always so much easier when the OS you run has integrated click-and-drag, point-and-drool interfaces to work on. Adminning is simpler on Windows.
Having said all that, I probably sound pretty pro-Microsoft. I promise, I'm not. But these are all considerable strengths the free software movement doesn't have. If we really want to take on the world, we can't kid ourselves, here. Free software and Linux are still lacking in a lot of places. There are still gaps to be filled and foundations to be shored up. But these are the darn good reasons for which many companies steadfastly refuse to give up Windows. These, and the fact that they can't afford the expertise it takes to admin a real system.
