|
I have trouble understanding why anyone would use Windows for anything other than a few, specialized graphics or other specialty programs.
Perhaps Windows users love viruses, high software costs, and all the rest of the fun that comes with using Microsoft's most popular proprietary program. I personally prefer Linux and other open-source software, and I think Windows users should be glad that a growing number of smart computer users share my preference for software freedom.
As you may have noticed, 2002 was the year Microsoft decided Linux was a major competitive threat. 2003 may be the year Microsoft reacts to that threat with more than rhetoric.
So far, most Microsoft attempts to keep users from moving from Windows to Linux have been laughable. No matter how many "analysts' reports" Microsoft sponsors that claim Linux and other open-source programs are more expensive and less secure than their proprietary products, smart business, government, and home-computer users are seeing the truth: In most server and many desktop situations, Linux and associated open source software packages are less costly to install and maintain than Windows, typically run more reliably and, as an added bonus, will run on less expensive hardware.
Perhaps 2003 will be the year Microsoft decides to actually compete with open source instead of just talking trash about it. We already see Microsoft offering enterprise customers better deals on some of its applications packages (notably Microsoft Office) than it did in the past because of competition from OpenOffice and its proprietary but amazingly inexpensive cousin, StarOffice.
At some point Microsoft may decide to give small businesses and individuals a similar break. If not, I'm sure a growing percentage of Windows users will try OpenOffice?the Windows version, like the Linux version, is a free download?and some of them will like it enough to use it as an alternative to Microsoft's product, especially people (and companies) who are suffering from the current recession and are watching their budgets more carefully than they once did.
As far as security, do you honestly believe Microsoft would suddenly be talking about "Trustworthy Computing" if not for competitive pressure from Linux and open source? So far, Microsoft's "security iniative" has been more talk than action, but this will probably start to change in 2003, especially on the server and enterprise application level.
Perhaps someday, Microsoft may even come out with versions of Outlook and Outlook Express that don't facilitate the spread of e-mail viruses and worms. As a Linux user, I am not directly affected by these nuisances, but I am rather tired of them sucking up bandwidth.
(Perhaps, while waiting for Microsoft to get its e-mail act together, Windows users should switch to open-source Mozilla, which has not only become a better browser than Internet Explorer but includes an excellent email program that automagically imports all your Outlook settings and files, but is immune to Outlook-spread viruses and worms.)
If some of these security holes get fixed, I might consider trying Windows. But the cost of replacing the open-source software I use every day with proprietary equivalents would be at least $2,000 right now, while the cost of a "productivity-software-included" Linux package typically retails for between $30 and $99, so Microsoft?and other major proprietary software vendors?will need to make radical changes in their pricing and licensing policies before I even think about testing their products.
Source: ExtremeTech
|
Threaded Mode
