Eduardo Flores

Opinion: Five REAL reasons NOT to use Linux

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has an article on Linux-Watch named "Opinion: Five reasons NOT to use Linux". Ironical as it is, the irony turns over and a less fanatic view on Linux (he starts stating that he loves Linux and mentioning every device he uses than runs it) unveils that those five reasons are pretty real:


Reason number one: Linux is too complicated

SV:
Even with the KDE and GNOME graphical windowing interfaces, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit a configuration file.

Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.

EF:
It's true: it's very likely you have to both use a command line and edit a configuration file. I've installed several versions of Linux over the years and always have to do it. Of course only after a more less extensive search on documentation on what to do. And I've known a lot of people using Windows that have never needed to use the registry. Does an average computer user need to know how to edit a .conf file?


Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up

SV:
It's true. After all, with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account.

Gosh, that's hard.

On the other hand, with Windows, all you have to do is put in a CD or DVD, do all the above, and then immediately download all the available patches. After all, Symantec has found that an unpatched Windows PC connected to the Internet will last only a few hours before being compromised.

Unpatched Linux systems? Oh, they last months, but what's the fun of that?

EF:
First, I'm not a expert Linux user or developer, and I'm not on the Linux world certainly (should I be?) but I've never heard about those distributions. Should an average user make an extensive investigation on all Linux distros to find which is the best for his use, and expect it to be of an easy install? As I've mentioned earlier: on almost all the installations of Linux I've done (slackware, redhat, suse, ...) I've found problems more commonly regarding drivers. And it's not that those problems could not be solved, it's just that it takes an extra effort, maybe even too much for, again, an average user.

Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications

SV:

Really now. I mean, most Linux systems only come with secure Web browsers, like Firefox; e-mail clients, like Evolution; IM clients, like GAIM; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0; Web page editors, like Nvu; and on, and on, and...

Microsoft, on the other hand, gives you Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, the most popular Web browser and e-mail client around -- even though they do have a few little, teeny-weeny problems. Of course, Windows also has an IM-client, Windows Messenger, which, come to think of it, has also had some problems.

And, Microsoft also has Microsoft Office, which -- oh wait, you don't get that with the operating system, do you? You also don't get a Web page editor either, do you?

Well, still, with Windows you get so many more choices of software, don't you? Like Lotus 1-2... oh really? I didn't know that. Or, WordPerfect... oh, pretty much dead too.

Still, so long as you want to run Microsoft programs at Microsoft prices, Windows is the operating system for you!

EF:

Go to any software store, or browse the web searching for software. Think on any app: Is something similar available, easy to install, stable, for your XYZ Linux distribution? Would you need to recompile, install dependecies, configure,...?

Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure

SV:

If Microsoft says so, it has to be true! So what, if you can scarcely go a week without reading about yet another major Windows security problem in our sister publication, eWEEK.com's security section! Who would you rather believe -- Microsoft, or your own eyes?

EF:

Pretty lame argument. Almost everybody is recognizing that, even if there still exists a lot of work to do, MS has done a good job. For Linux patches? do this exercise: try to maintain a Suse installation always up-to-date, even using their supplied tools.

Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive

SV:

Are you calling Microsoft a liar? Those nasty Linux companies, like Red Hat or Novell/SUSE charge you a fee for support. Others, like Linspire sell you the product. How dare they, when you can download free, fully-functional versions of almost all the Linux distributions.

Your computer, on the other hand, almost certainly came with Windows pre-installed! For free!

Oh wait, it's not free? Windows' actually makes up a large percentage of your PC's price?

Hmmm. Well, still, it's already on there, and it has everything you need.

Right? Of course, right!

Except, of course, you might still want to buy an anti-viral program (Norton Anti-Virus: $40), anti-spyware software (McAfee Anti-Spyware: $25); and a full-featured firewall (Zone Alarm Pro: $35). But, hey, who needs those when you have a secure operating system like Windows!

EF:

If you are talking about money, give a try to the TOC analisys, even if it's made by MS, specially if you are a company looking for the best alternative. At least, it's pretty obvious that to determine the real cost is not easy and that the cost benefits of Linux are not out of discussion.

posted by EduardoFlores @ 11:41 AM