Every morning, before I’m ready to spend eight hours working at my desk, I spend roughly twenty minutes reading the latest articles on Linux. I like to keep abreast of the latest Linux/Open Source news. It’s not uncommon to come across a lot of great articles on the subject; many of the articles are positive; many discuss complications that arose from using a particular distribution, the idiosyncrasies of using one operating system over another. What’s unfortunately just as common as these well-written discussions on Linux are aggravating articles that ask the question, “Is Linux ready?”

It isn’t only generic PC magazines or Windows-based media that question the validity of Linux; I’ve found the same question asked by Linux and Open Source magazines. What’s the reason this question is asked so often? I’m not sure. Some would argue that it boils down to the occasional proprietary driver that can’t be found on Linux, the lack of commonly found software, and the overall dominance of Windows. But wait, does that really make sense?

Missing drivers can be a problem with Linux. However, aren’t they often a problem with Windows as well? Microsoft Windows, which inspires hardware manufacturers to bend over backwards to make their products compatible with the operating system, is often lacking driver support. Windows Vista has notoriously lacked driver support for older hardware, forcing consumers who upgraded to the new operating system to either downgrade or buy new hardware. And really, how often has a Linux user really found his or herself having a lot of difficulty running hardware? I recently installed the latest version of Ubuntu on my PC, which recognized all of my hardware; I only needed to install the 3D-graphics driver for my video card, which Ubuntu was only too pleased to provide for me through the package manager; on Windows, I would have installed the same driver with the disc the manufacturer provided. Maybe the driver support isn’t really such an issue after all.

What about the lack of software on Linux? When I hear this argument, I laugh. Has anyone ever really considered the software that comes with Windows out of the box? What does the actual operating system provide to you? It isn’t an impressive array of software, I know that much. Even if you spent the extra money for Microsoft Office, how much software do you really get? With Linux, free of charge, you’re provided with a full suite of software; since the open source community is ingrained with Linux, the number of applications one can install is seemingly limitless. Need a substitute for Microsoft Office? There’s OpenOffice.org. Need a great graphical editing tool? There’s GIMP. Need to run an HTTP server? There’s Apache. Need a full-fledged SQL-driven database server? There’s MySQL. Just need the basics like e-mail, instant messenger, and a browser? Every distribution is going to provide this, free of charge. Even if there’s a product you really love that doesn’t come for Linux, there’s always Wine (or Crossover), an application built specifically to run your favorite Windows-only software on your Linux desktop. So, is it really lack of software that’s preventing Linux from being “ready”?

Is it Windows’ overwhelming dominance that’s preventing Linux from being “ready”? I’ve heard this argument before several times. Since Windows is so dominant, how can Linux compete? This is such a bizarre argument. How come Apple never receives this criticism, which falls only slightly higher in market share than Linux? Sure, I’m first to admit that Windows’ market share does make it more difficult for Linux; software developers want their software used, so they’re first to run to Windows; hardware developers want their hardware used, and so on, ad infinitum. This doesn’t reflect on the operating system though; if a software developer chooses to make its software available for Windows only, that’s no fault on the part of the Linux distributor. This is where people confuse popularity with readiness, and really if what they said were even true, then Linux is bottle-necked in an irreversible Catch-22; if the only way to become ready is to be popular, but the only way to be popular is to be ready, how could Linux ever achieve this miraculous transformation?

The truth of the matter is, in my humble opinion, Linux is often more ready than Windows. It comes with a better suite of software, and the amount of additional, free software that can be installed on the operating system is incredibly huge and growing rapidly. The operating system itself is light weight; I’ve installed it on several old Windows machines to bring them back to life; Windows is a bloated, buggy system that drains the life out of any hardware. Linux is better, faster, stronger; it’s the bionic man of operating systems.

So, what really prevents Linux from being “ready” in people’s minds? Marketing, or really, the complete lack of it. Who hasn’t been inundated with advertising for Windows or the Mac OS on the web, on television, in newspapers, and in magazines? Who hasn’t walked into a PC store and found every single computer running Windows? In fact, how many people think the word “PC” means “Windows-based Personal Computer”? And how many people, who have heard anything about Linux, have only heard the typical fear, uncertainty, and doubt that are churned from the mouths of Microsoft and Windows-proponents everywhere? Unfortunately, the Linux community is under the impression that building a more secure, faster, more lightweight, superior operating system is all it takes to gain market share. It’s not true by any means. Plain and simply, the world is run by advertising. Sure, larger PC sellers, like Dell, sell Linux now, but if you're not aware of that fact, or you're not sure what Linux is, try and find it on the Dell website; it's not even remotely clear. There aren't any television, magazine, or newspapers ads in America for Linux; at least, none that I’ve ever seen.

The real question shouldn’t be “Is Linux Ready?” Linux has been ready for some time. The more I use Windows, especially the newer Vista operating system, the more I believe that, if anything, Windows isn’t ready and probably hasn’t been for some time. The real question should be “Why isn’t Linux on my TV?”

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Comments (3)

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

---