| Why Linux? Reasons and Benchmarks to Measure
Changing the status quo requires effort. And peopole aren't going to expend effort without a good reason. Changing operating systems is a change, and rquires a huge effort. What kind of reasons would prompt such a huge effort?
This is an important question, because you shouldn't do this on a lark. You need to define what your goals are, what you think you're going to accomplish, and then after you make the switch, determine if you actually accomplished those goals. As an old friend of mine used to say, "What gets measured gets done."
So let's look at why peole are unhappy with Microsoft and proprietary software in general, and moving to Linux and Open Source software.
1. Cost
General philosophy:
Proprietary software is very expensive. By their very nature, proprietary software manufacturers attempt to develop a monopoly so that they can charge as high a price as possible. For example, it appears that Microsoft is attempting to change to to a subscription-based model and increasingly restrictive licensing terms. As a result, it's going to get more expensive to use Microsoft software in the future. There are lots of fine alternatives in the Linux world that are either free or considerably less expensive than the comparable packages in Windows. Customers see this, and are adding Open Source software, including Linux, to their approved list of software packages.
Let's face it. dollars are scarce. When it all comes down to it, most people percieve that dollars are the scarcest of resources. I don't necessarily agree, but that's just me - most people are willing to trade a few hours to save a few bucks. As a result, they're happy to work a few weekends if they will save some money.
Linux and OS have low price tags. And many people percieve that the intangible costs - time to install and maintain - are so hard to quantify, and feel that it's a tossup if Windows or Linux takes more time to maintain. Each camp rolls out study after study talking about TCO and whatnot - the bottom line is that many people feel that this 'cost' is six of one, half dozen of the other. And all other things (costs) being equal, the size of the check that they have to write out is clearly much lower with Linux and other open source solutions.
Specific example:
My file and Web servers are both running NT4. Microsoft has announced that they’ll be cutting off support in a year, so I’m going to have to upgrade. But Windows 2000 isn’t available, so I have to move to XP. I can’t afford the move to Windows XP. To upgrade all of the machines in my house will cost about $5,000. For what? To “stay current”? No noticeable new functionality, other than “schemes” and supposedly better plug and play? Not worth it? To upgrade to Office 2002 will cost another $2,500. For what? Again, no functionality that I or anyone in my extended corporate reach or in my family needs.
Benchmarks to measure:
Dollars spent, time spent installing, time spent maintaining.
2. Security
General philosophy:
Brian Valentine, senior vice-president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development, told the Microsoft Windows Server .net developer conference in Seattle, USA, on Sept. 5, 2002: "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
You've all had to deal with both having to fix the numerous security holes (when was the last time a month passed when you didn't have to install a new security patch to plug a hole deemed "critical"?) in every major Microsoft software product as well as deal with the results of these holes, such viruses spread by others.
And it often takes them weeks, if not months, for them to issue a fix - if they'll admit to the hole at all. By contrast, holes in Open Source software are routinely patched within 24 hours of discovery. Additionally, Open Source software is generally less open to security holes because of the 'many eyes' aspect of development. 'nuf said. Customers see this, and are adding Open Source software or using Open Source as an alternative to proprietary software.
Open source software is less of a target because it's not as attractive a target. Windows users are easy prey while Linux ussers aren't. Yes, this may change down the road, but that's a "may" - we won't know for years - until unknowledgable Linux desktop users who have exposed machines are numerous. In the meantime, we have a very real problem with Windows users being targeted right now.
There are generally fewer bugs in open source software, due to the 'many eyes' aspect of open source development.
Bugs are never hidden or fixes postponed due to political or marketing reasons.
Specific example:
Brian Livingston's December 6, 2002 article in Infoworld described a very realistic scenario whereby a Windows system patched to fix a huge security hole caused by a problem with MDAC 2.6 or earlier (which is installed on just about all Windows machines) can still be exploited. If you view a web site or receive an email specifically constructed, your 'safe' version of MDAC will be overwritten by the unsafe version - and this will happen automatically - without you knowing about it - if you ever checked the box that says "Always trust content from Microsoft" during a download.
Well, if you checked that box - you're hosed - the unsafe version of MDAC is still has a legitimate digital signature from Microsoft, and so will get installed. So now Microsoft recommends that you make sure you have no trusted publishers, including Microsoft.
So are we to trust them, or not? I'm confused.
Benchmark to measure:
How many times in the next 12 months do you have to take proactive action in order to secure your Windows systems? Your Linux systems? How many times in the next 12 months do you have to take reactive measures as a result of Windows security holes? As a result of Linux security holes?
3. Privacy.
Recent Microsoft EULAs (such as for SP3 for Windows 2000) give them to right to install software on your machine, disable software on your machine, and perform other functions, without notifying you first or giving you any choice in the matter. The definition of 'software' is worded such that it could extend to any type of binary data on the machine. I have signed non-disclosure agreements with some of my customers that hold me responsible for not allowing access to confidential software and data of their that I have temporarily installed in my computer in order to do work for them. The Microsoft EULAs prevent me from doing so.
Benchmark to measure:
Which software publishers or hardware manufacturers require you to agree to such a requirement in the next 12 months? How many of them are Windows-centric? How many are Linux-centric?
4. Licensing.
Microsoft's software licenses have become increasingly restrictive, requiring additional licenses for multiple machines used by a single person or in a single home. That is certainly their right. By contrast, however, you can download and install a single copy of any open source software on any number of machines without payment.
Benchmark to measure:
How many licenses do you have to acquire in order to fully cover your software usage on your Windows network? On your Linux network?
5. Freedom and choice.
With Linux, you have your choice of software. Which distribution? There are literally hundreds. Which graphical user interface and window manager? Again, you choose. Which Internet browser? You can decide for yourself. Which office suite? It's up to you. What about development tools? You can pick among many. With proprietary software, such as Microsoft Windows, you have to use what they allow you to use.
Benchmark to measure:
How often are you required to install software that you don't want to install because it's required as part of another software package's installation? How often do you have the choice of two or more roughly equivalent packages, and the operating system provider doesn't bias their offerings towards one of them?
6. Bloated software
Each of the machines here has at least a Pentium III processor, 256 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard disk, and yet it still takes 2 minutes to boot a machine, 10 seconds to load a one page Word document, and 7 seconds for a blank Internet Explorer window to appear. There’s no appreciable gain in performance from the 8 MHz PC AT I bought in 1984.
I’m tired of having to buy new machines every 18 months just so I can do the same operations I could do ten years ago.
Benchmark to measure:
How often do you have to buy new machines to run the latest version of software available even though that software doesn't provide any significant additional benefits?
7. Open Data Formats.
Since the 1950's, proprietary software vendors have used proprietary data formats to lock you into using their products and to make it difficult to switch to another product. An offshoot of this behavior is that your data is now held in a format controlled by one company. As any consultant who has had their sugar daddy client suddenly up and disappear on them will tell you, it's simply stupid business to put all your eggs in one basket. This makes it all the more important for you to move your data out of a proprietary data format and into a format that can be easily read by a variety of software products manufactured by multiple vendors.
Benchmark to measure:
If the manufacturer of a particular software package you use suddenly went out of business, would you be significantly harmed because your data was locked up in a proprietary format, or would you be able to use your data with a different manufacturer's package?
8. Trust.
Trust is a completely subjective quality, and it's completely your call. Do you trust proprietary manufacturers whose only goal is profit, at the expense of their customes? Microsoft has repeatedly been convicted of crimes. Many companies have are looking at Open Source software as an alternative to companies in whom they've lost their trust.
9. "I hate Microsoft"
And...
And one very stupid reason for moving to Linux: Because you hate Microsoft. Face it, it's a bad reason. Supposed you hated Coca-Cola because they fired you, your brother, and two uncles. Would you drink Pepsi, even though you liked the taste of Coke much better? Hardly. You might organize a boycott of Coca-Cola's offices or file a lawsuit, but to stop using their products, which you find better than the competition, just because of personal animosity, is a poor reason. If you run into a company that's evaluating or moving to Linux for this reason, it's time for you to find a more rational customer.
Angel  |
Linear Mode
Similar Threads 
