Yesterdays blog post regarding the whole Windows 7 will crush Linux thing turned out to be something that got a bit of a response from Ron Barrett. I do appreciate the link…even if I’m an angry Mac person. I mean, after all, the site is called Steamd for a reason. Ron does make a couple of very valid points in his response though.
First, he admits that he does have a bit of a bias towards Microsoft products. After all, that’s what he makes his money on. However, he is quick to point out that that does not mean that he favors Microsoft as a company.
I give Redmond’s software the thumbs-up when I think it deserves it.
Honestly, I’m the same way about Apple. Just because I use a Mac doesn’t mean that I’m automatically part of the Apple parthenon of holy Mac users. Sorry, no angry cult in my corner. I use products that I feel are well designed and meet my needs. Apple’s product just happen to fit my needs much better than others.
Secondly, Ron points out that he does have a good amount of experience with Linux desktops: Ubuntu 8.04, Fedora 8, and RHEL 5 specifically. That’s good to hear since it wouldn’t make much sense to argue about something one has no experience with.
To my way of thinking, this makes me operating-system agnostic, so when I say, “Wow” to Windows 7, it’s a response that comes from direct experience.
The problem is that your experience is from a much different perspective than your average user. My experience comes from using each of these operating systems in many different ways. I’ve used every version of Windows since Windows 95 came out. I’ve experience Linux early on and have kept an eye on it till about 4 years ago when I started actually using it for web production purposes. Since then I’ve used various versions of Ubuntu and SUSE for both work and home. I’ve administrated Windows server and desktop environments and spent the better part of five years doing that. I supported a total of about 80 employees in a virtually 100% Windows environment. The only computer that wasn’t Windows was one server running a desktop version of OpenSUSE for the company intranet.
In the end though, I switched to Macs. Why? Because I felt Microsoft has lost their way and found a combination of Linux and Macs to be a far better solution.
What I learned from my days of IT administration is that the point of view of your average user is much different than how folks like Ron and I view technology. Most users are not nearly as educated or as techie as us. As such, many users view a computer as an obstacle to getting what they want done. They don’t care about which OS is better than the other. They just want something that allows them to accomplish their tasks in the easiest way possible.
What’s interesting is that Ron links over to a subsection of an article entitled 12 Reasons Why Windows is Better Than Linux For Non-Techies. Here’s the two items of that subsection:
“4) Configuring desktops and settings. Desktop,network,control panel and screen saver all the setting is little different as compare to windows so in the first look most of the non-techies get confused on how to configure their desktop.
“5) Installing Software. This is the most confusing and difficult thing for non-techie because software installation is totally different in linux as compare to windows.We have to install from sources rather than just running a setup files.”
I can argue both of these points quite easily. First though…
About a month ago, one of my wife’s best friends calls me and tells me that her parents computer is having problems. Her mom brings the computer by for me to look at. The moment I boot it up, I see the problem. It had Windows 98 on it and needed to be reinstalled. No way was I going to let her mom walk out with an OS that is no longer supported.
The only option she had was to buy another computer, which she honestly didn’t have a whole lot of money to do that with. I recommended that she get a Mac but she honestly couldn’t afford it and didn’t want to spend a whole lot of money on another computer. As it turns out though I did have a spare desktop computer I could sell her. Problem was that it was an older computer and didn’t have a Windows XP license associated with it. So it was either she pay an extra $150 for a Windows XP license or allow me to put Ubuntu on it. We chose the later option.
After setting the computer up, I spent the better part of an hour walking both her and her husband on getting around in Ubuntu. Keep in mind that these are folks that don’t know much about computers. They don’t know anything about keeping antivirus software up to date let alone what viruses actually are and how one can get them. All they do is surf the net, check their email, and do a little word processing now and then. Having a Windows computer would only cause problems for them because, unlike the techie that knows well enough not to do certain things, these are users who don’t know any better. As such, an OS like Ubuntu is a much safer bet. It’s clean, easy to operate, lets them do the stuff they want to do, and is safe and secure without them having to know a whole lot.
The good news is that she hasn’t called me at all since I set the computer up for her. It’s a testament that Linux can indeed be a highly viable solution for those whose needs are simple and don’t require specific software.
Now, with that in mind, let’s talk a bit about those two arguments…
When it comes to configuring desktops and settings, every operating system is indeed a little different. But that doesn’t matter much if the interface is well designed and obvious. I showed the folks above how to do things like change their background, screensaver, and such and they weren’t confused at all. In fact, they both said it looked very simple. And this is coming from two people who don’t know Jack about the difference between Windows and Linux.
As far as software installation goes, yes, it’s different between Windows and Linux. Two different approaches to the same problem. I could argue that the need to run setup files is more confusing. After all, it’s much simpler in Ubuntu to update software than it is in Windows. A novice user on Windows would have to understand the concepts of how to download a setup file, run it, install the software, and then delete the setup file. On Ubuntu, all they have to know is how to work one application that allows them to install and/or update the software on their computer. Again, I showed this very thing to the folks I talked about above. It’s all about how you approach it.
The argument that somehow Linux is harder to use, more confusing, and more difficult to use is moot at best. It just depends on what it is that you’re using the computer for. I’ve proven this several times, not just with the folks above. Not everyone is a good fit for Linux but for those who are it’s a great solution.
As Ron points out at the end of his post “diversity is what makes this industry awesome”. But to say that Windows 7 will put the Linux desktop to rest is a bold statement. I believe there’s room for both.
One thing I’ve learned though is that design matters. The true test is how the design of both operating systems will change in the future. I honestly believe that Microsoft is in a downward slope with the design of their OS. With Ubuntu and other Linux distros, I’m seeing steady improvements to both the Gnome and KDE interfaces. Linux likely won’t take over the world and definitely won’t put a serious dent in Microsoft’s desktop market share, it’ll still prove to be a viable alternative for some individuals and businesses. Guess we’ll see how it pans out.