Journal: Windows vs. Linux, XVII:

Okay, this is almost as old as the fork/spoon debate (Cambells chunky soup, for those who missed the reference), but I feel it is a debate worth having.

Linux is for angry, bitter coders in army surplus camouflage pants and anoraks, who drink too much coffee and think llamas are the new monkeys, and people who like star-trek and wish life was more like star-trek.

Windows is for people who really really really want to be able to send smiley faces to their friends after school, or people who really really really like the idea of their computer becoming a cathouse for malicious software, or who shouldn't be allowed sharp objects.

Yah, shurr it's a generalisation, but with grounding in truth.

[truth] My bosses at work asked me if their computer was getting hacked, because they got the message "Other users are logged into this computer. Are you sure you want to shut down?" [/truth]

As amusing as the above comparison is, it raises a point. They are paranoid about spyware, adware, malware, viruses, but not sufficiently versed in the nuances of the internets, that they can decipher the mass of input they'll get when they ask the great Google "How do I tell if my PC is sick?" They feel safe with Windows because it is a big name that they recognize, it reassures them with constant updates and reminders, and tells them that as long as they install the latest hotfixes and defrag their computer once a week, everything will be fine. They're going with safety in numbers and ignoring tall poppy syndrome, to put it simply. So many users chose Windows because it is an obvious choice, and it goes out of its' way to make things easy for people (some say too easy, and that's a fair point too, but this is not the time nor place). It comes with basic protection, and enough jargon to instill confidence in above protection and for many people who DON'T want to devote countless hours trawling the ShieldsUp forums for the latest malware scares, that's enough.

The computer may be the vertex of the pie-chart of life for many of us, but for others, people who don't have time to constantly watch over an anemic baby (A computer is a lot like an anemic baby. Think about it) all this stuff about webclick tracking cookies and google-pumping is an unnecessary hassle. It's the same reason some people buy Dell computers, while others put spinners on their CPUfans.

It's the same reason some people drink Coke, some people drink Pepsi and some people drink LA Ice, even though it's not good, because they don't want people to think they're consumerists. And, yes, fine. Some people drink Bawls, because they're leet. I said it. Happy?

As far as I can work out, there will always be a mainstream, and an alternative. This is true for almost every facet of existence that I have examined (about six). Most (But not all) of the time, the mainstream is a larger category than the alternative. The mainstream becomes the mainstream because the majority digs it for some reason or other (no, this lesson in sociology (sic) isn't necessary, but in order for me to keep this train of thought on the tracks, I have to start from the bottom.) because it's easy to use/eat/pick up/look at/interact with/other. The alternative consists of people who don't like doing things the easy way, are contrary and elitist, or are unlucky enough to be genuine individuals. These people usually don't live long, as the mainstream rejects them and the elitists make their lives a misery. Windows is the majority. People like Windows. It is friendly, and tells them that everything is ok, and will always be ok, if you keep clicking the button that says ok. It is a way of getting the job done, that is designed to be as accessible to as many people as possible and like systems designed for broad access, it loses nuance, subtlety and becomes a giant toddler made of stone, rampaging through the city, roaring "AWWW, PRETTY! MIIIIINE!" Linux is the opposite of this. A special system for special people, people who care about their computers, who want their computers to be happy and healthy and safe, and will attack anyone who harms their computer, physically or digitally. Or they'll just hit you with a keyboard. These two groups will invariably conflict. The mainstreamers will feel that the alternatives are being silly because the mainstream way of doing things is obviously so much better, or why would all these people be doing it? The alternatives will resent the mainstream for their social currency and ease of conversation, and will be prickly and resentful.

I'm going to finish this rant later (or never) because I want to sleep.

[/rant]