Is Windows “Dumbed Down”?
|Many Linux fanatics criticize Windows and Macintosh as been designed
for idiots who do not want to learn
about their computers, and who are too lazy
to do set their computer up. It is more accurate to say that the Macintosh
and Windows are designed to be so easy to use
that not much training is needed.
Consider automobiles to understand this concept. The automobiles we have today are much easier to operate than the automobiles of the 1920's. Today we have electric starters, automatic transmissions, power brakes, and automatic chokes. Also, the manual transmissions of today are easier to use, and today's cars require much less maintenance.
Linux fanatics might complain that automobiles are designed for idiots who do not want to learn anything about their car, and for idiots who are too lazy to perform work on their car. But a more accurate description is that cars have become so advanced that we no longer need to learn much about cars in order to use one. Today, even a child can drive one.
Young children with no computer skills can turn on a Macintosh and perform useful tasks without much training. Windows is almost as easy to use. However, Linux is so stupid that the users must learn about operating systems and then help Linux function.
It is easy to create software that requires a lots of training and configuration;
it takes talent and lots of effort to produce software that is easy to
Linux is not ready for the publicA computer is just one product in our lives. We also have automobiles, refrigerators, telephones, washing machines, and kitchen appliances.
A person who is excited by automobiles will gladly spend hours each week learning about his car and performing maintenance on it. A person who enjoys cooking will gladly spend hours with his kitchen appliances. And some people enjoy spending hours each week with Linux.
However, the common person is no more fascinated by a computer than he is by a refrigerator. Most people merely want to use a refrigerator, not learn how they operate or spend time configuring them.
To a Linux fanatic, spending an hour downloading a new Linux version and struggling to install it is an hour of entertainment. To a person who loves automobiles, spending an hour installing a new carburetor is an hour of pleasure. To a person who loves collecting stamps, maintaining a stamp collection for an hour is an hour of recreation. But to most of us, configuring Linux, installing carburetors, and maintaining a stamp collection is as much fun as cleaning the toilet. Life is short, and most of us prefer to spend our time on something other than configuring our operating system.
Most of us do not want to spend
our time making our computer function properly. Rather, we simply want
to turn on, use it, and then turn it off.
How Linux could become a successLinux could be a success if the open source people did not have an angry attitude towards commercial software. Many of the open source people are fighting a war against commercial software. The most extreme of them will not tolerate any commercial software.
The open source movement is full of hypocrisy. They claim to be a movement for freedom, but many of them refuse to provide people with the freedom to purchase commercial software.
If the open source people would develop applications that the commercial businesses are not developing, such as for niche markets, then the open source people would be contributing valuable software to the world. Or, if the open source people were developing truly superior applications, then the world would benefit.
However, the exact opposite is happening. The open source people are copycats who watch what the commercial software developers do, and then they try to duplicate it. Their intent is not to make better software for the world; rather, their intent is to avoid purchasing software. The most extreme open source people are trying to drive commercial software developers out of business by duplicating commercial software programs so that people will be able to avoid purchasing commercial software.
The open source people are also like beggars. They beg IBM, Sun Microsystems, Adobe, and other commercial software developers for financial assistance, for applications to be released as open source, and for companies to release their proprietary formats.
Rather than working with commercial software developers and making the world a nicer place, the open source people are fighting with commercial software developers. The open source people complain that Microsoft is fighting with open source, but I would say the open source people started this fight, and the open source people are continuing it.
The lack of leadership in the open source movement contributes to this problem because there is nobody providing guidance or advice to any of the people who support open source software. For example, nobody tells the millions of teenage kids to quit the idiotic remarks, such as “Windose Suckx” and “Linux Rulz!”.
Linux; a rapidly falling star
Linux is (or was) hot. Very hot!For years we have been hearing Linux users boast that Linux is superior to Windows. Many of us have been waiting impatiently for the day when Linux would be ready for the public, at which point we could replace Windows.
When Borland announced in 1999 that they would develop a compiler for Linux, I expected to convert my Windows software to Linux, perhaps in 2001. I told many people who were complaining about Windows that they needn't worry; that soon Linux will be available. I had never tried Linux; I was merely assuming that Linux fanatics were honest, intelligent, and responsible people who could be trusted.
Near the end of 2000 enthusiasm for Linux was at a very high level. Magazines and newspapers occasionally carried a happy articles about how it was growing in popularity, and how it may be the operating system of the future. Even PC Magazine carried an article in November of 2000 which started with: “Linux is hot. Very hot.”
Unfortunately, during that same year Linux CDs started to appear in ordinary bookstores and computer stores. This implied that Linux was ready for the common person. I use the word “unfortunately” because Linux is not yet ready for the public.
Many of the people who purchased those Linux CDs were disappointed. One reason is that Linux does not support as much hardware as Windows, so rather than reduce hardware incompatibility problems, Linux gave them even more problems. Also, there is not much software available for Linux, and almost all of it is inferior to the Windows' versions. Therefore, rather than provide better software which runs better, Linux gave them a lousy selection of inferior software.
Many of the people who bought Linux CDs ended up deleting Linux after several frustrating weeks. These people then became sources of sad stories about Linux. When they discussed Linux with their friends, they criticized it as inferior to Windows. Some of them wrote newspaper articles, exposing millions of people to these sad stories. Slowly the enthusiasm for Linux diminished.
By February 2001 it began to appear as if there would soon be so few
people interested in Linux that I would have no reason to convert my software
to Linux. I felt like complaining to the Linux community, but who do I
complain to? There is no Linux organization to accept suggestions or complaints.
Whose decision was it to release Linux?Today if we find an article about Linux in the common newspapers and magazines it is likely to be full of criticism and complaints. Some Linux supporters respond to the complaints with insults, but Linux is simply not ready to replace Windows for the public. The decision to put Linux into retail stores in the year 2000 may go down in history as one of the dumbest marketing decisions.
The Linux users have been misrepresenting
themselves and Linux for many years. Their incessant boasting that Linux
is superior to Windows has given a lot of people false hopes and expectations.
If a corporation promoted their products in this manner, it would be considered
either a scam or a marketing
Compare Linux to Sun, QNX, and FreeBSDSun has a version of Solaris that runs on IBM compatible PCs. Sun could brag that they have a superior replacement to Windows. However, Sun honestly admits that Solaris is lacking drivers for hardware, and they admit that Solaris is lacking in applications. Sun is not so foolish as to put Solaris in retail stores and pretend that they have a superior alternative to Windows for Joe Public.
By comparison, Linux people have the arrogance (or immaturity, or whatever their problem) to release software for sale to the public that would not even qualify as a beta test.
The Linux community is doing a terrible job of managing their project.
If an auto company put a car on the market that was as incomplete as Linux,
I bet Ralph Nader would file a lawsuit.
Linux people do not know what “Customer Service” meansThe Linux community is so convinced of the superiority of Linux that it did not occur to anybody to stand up and yell,
“Wait a minute! We cannot put Linux in retail stores yet! It’s not ready the public! Are you guys crazy? People will get mad at us!”
Many conversations on Linux newsgroups (and many of their responses to me) are like this:
Eric: “Why do the fonts look so bad?”
Eric: “How come the LinuxCar doesn't have an electric starter?”
Eric: “Why doesn't Linux support my monitor?”
Eric: “Why doesn't the LinuxCar have tires?”
Is Linux suppose to be a replacement for Windows?There is no leadership in the Linux community so everybody is free to be a Linux leader. Not surprisingly, each of them says something different.
In a recent article at zdnet the author says:
“If you believe what you read on Slashdot, we're rapidly approaching a desktop Linux revolution.”However, many Linux users disagree with Slashdot. Most opinions on the purpose of Linux fall into one of the following four categories. I included a few actual quotes as representative of that category.
1) Linux is for poor people and poor nations“Linux is not intended to be a replacement for windows. It's developed to give poor college students (and why not others?) a free unix environment.”2) Linux is macho GeekWare, not SissyWare“Actually I don't even wish linux to become an alternative to windows. Windows focuses on user friendliness for users who don't want to learn their system ...”“But I don't want it to be easy... I want it to set my skills on a hard test.”3) Linux is not a replacement for Windows“...it is not Windows clone, and it is not designed to be a replacement. ““I don't think anyone in the Linux community cares if Linux catches on or not to replace windows or not.”“Here in Sweden we don't have Linux in the PC-stores.”4) Linux is (or will soon be) a replacement to Windows
Linux users may not care whether “outsiders” such as myself understand what is going on with Linux, but it gives the Linux community an aura of chaos and confusion. Every other product has a purpose; what is the problem with Linux? Who wants to do business with such a flaky community?
Bob Russo, when he worked at VA Linux, made a remark that many companies do not want to place large orders with VA Linux. Rather, they feel safer with IBM or Dell. (see Linuxgram article)
I have a feeling that IBM, Dell, and other companies are making more
money from Linux than all the Linux companies combined. Will this trend
continue? Will Linux companies lay off employees while IBM and Dell bring
in large profits from Linux?
Kids without adults supervisionThe Linux community believes in anarchy; they want everybody to be free to do as they please. By comparison, IBM and Sun have leadership, and they decide what will said about their products.
Anybody can self-appoint himself as “Linux Spokeman” and say anything they please about Linux. There is no true leader to tell anybody to shut up.
The Linux community behaves like a bunch of children in need of adult
supervision. The Linux community needs a leader who can decide what Linux
is and what its goals are. Is Linux a replacement
to Windows? If
fooling the public into thinking it is! If it is
a Windows replacement, do not claim
it can replace Windows until it actually can!
“Quit blaming us! It aint our fault!”When I complain about the retail sales of Linux, the lack of drivers, etc, I am told by Linux fanatics that the Linux developers do not sell Linux; it is the distributors of the Linux CDs who do that. I am told to blame the CD distributors, not the Linux community. No matter what I say, the Linux people find a way to shift the blame to somebody else.
Imagine that you decide to start a bakery to provide free bread to the public. You call your bread “LinuxBread”. But your ovens are not finished, so your LinuxBread is raw in the center. However, you allow college kids and anybody else to pick up loaves of bread for free and do whatever they want with them. Imagine some kids put your bread into the back of trucks where the loaves get dirty and wet, while other kids decide that we want butter on our bread so they put butter on for us. The kids then boast that this wonderful LinuxBread is better than other breads, and they sell loaves to the public. After a few months of such abuse, people will be complaining about LinuxBread. Whose fault will it be?
Every manufacturer should review the performance of the retailers of their products. The reputation of a product is partly due to those retailers. Furthermore, when a company allows retailers to distribute an unfinished product, they are asking for trouble. Linux people have no understanding of how to operate a businesses.
Note the quote a few paragraphs above that states:
“Here in Sweden we don't have Linux in the PC-stores.”If the guy who emailed that remark to me is correct, the Linux community in Sweden may be more intelligent than the Linux community in America. I suggest the Americans ask themselves why other nations are not selling Linux to the public.
If Linux eventually becomes a success, I think it will be due mainly to the Europeans. If Linux was an American phenomenon, I think the Americans would have ruined it by now.
You and I can start a Linux companyYou and I can download Linux for free and put it on a CD with whatever other software we please. We could then refer to it as “Linux” and sell it. We do not have to get approval or authorization to become a Linux company. We could even add our own buggy software to the CD.
By January 2001, some of the Linux Internet sites were estimating that there were about 100 different variations of Linux available.
Imagine IBM behaving like this. Imagine that IBM is developing a new
operating system, OS2004. OS2004 is
expected to be finished in 2004, but you and I can download it for free
right now and put it on CDs with any other software we please, and then
we can sell the CDs under the name “IBM OS2004”. Imagine IBM not caring
what anybody does with their unfinished software.
Can one operating system satisfy everybody?Some Linux supporters insist that Linux cannot possibly satisfy Windows users because Windows users are lazy idiots who want software to be easy to use, whereas Linux people want “power”. An analogy with cars may help to explain this concept. A car designed for racing will not satisfy the common consumer who is looking for a comfortable, reliable passenger car. It is not possible to design a car that excels as both a race car and a passenger car.
Likewise, designing software for one purpose means that it will be less ideal for other purposes. However, it is entirely possible to design an operating system to satisfy the majority of people.
At the core of Linux is a text based, command line operating system.
We can put any interface on top of that core. For example, Microsoft could
put a Windows-like interface on top of it, making Linux appear to be Windows.
The Macintosh developers could put a Mac interface on top of it, making
Linux appeared to be a Macintosh. KDE and Gnome could give Linux a still
different interface. The macho Linux geeks could avoid all interfaces and
use only the command line.
Note: I received an email with the following technical correction:
Unfortunately, providing such flexibility to Linux requires a lot of
thinking and planning, but there is no leadership
in the Linux community.
Is Linux really free?
Is television free?It is not possible to pick out the individual people who pay the costs of television, but we could say that consumers as a group are paying for television when they purchase products. For example, when you purchase an automobile a portion of the price goes to television advertisements. Of the money spent on advertisements, a portion of it pays for the costs of television.
Thousands of companies advertise on television. When you purchase a product of service from any of those companies, you are helping to support television.
Television is not free; rather, it is paid for in an indirect manner by advertising. The television companies could eliminate advertising by charging consumers a monthly fee for television. This would actually be less expensive overall because, for one reason, the television companies would no longer need to hire people to manage the advertising. In other words, paying for television directly would be more efficient, resulting in a lower overall cost. It would also eliminate advertising.
Of course, eliminating advertising requires we create alternative methods
for companies to get product information out to the public, but we can
easily devise alternative methods if we want to. So why do we continue
supporting television through advertising when it is more efficient to
send consumers a monthly bill? I think the reason is that the majority
of people cannot fully comprehend the concept that television is not free.
Is Linux any more free than television?There are many companies that give a portion of their profits to an open source software project. For example, there is a company in Norway (ie, TrollTech) that sells software at a high price. A portion of their profits goes towards supporting the development of the KDE software. Caldera and SuSE also support some KDE work. The KDE software is described by Linux fanatics as “free”, but it is not truly free. While some (or most) of the KDE developers are working on their own time at their own expense, a few are being funded indirectly by customers of TrollTech, SuSE, Caldera, and possibly other companies.
Many Linux people claim that StarOffice from Sun Microsystems is free. Sure, we can get StarOffice for free on the Internet, but the customers of Sun paid for that software indirectly by purchasing products from Sun. Those customers provided Sun with enough profit to allow Sun to purchase StarOffice from another company and develop it further.
You may think that because you do not buy Sun computers that you are not helping to fund the development of Sun software. But that is incorrect. For example, at the University near me are many Sun computers. Some of those computers were paid for by money that came from government grants. When a Sun computer is purchased from money that comes from a government grant, then every taxpayer is helping to support the development of Sun software.
Likewise, when IBM releases software for free, the customers of IBM (and their customers, and so on) paid for that software indirectly. NASA and some school teachers provide free software, also, but they are being paid a salary by society. Unless they're creating their software in their spare time, it is not free.
Dell Computer invested $2 million in Andy Hertzfeld's company (Eazel). This means the customers of Dell Computer are helping to support the open source movement.
You and I are indirectly paying for most Linux related software. This money could be spent on other projects, such as improving other software. We must ask ourselves if Linux is worth the expense. What will we gain by spending this money on Linux? Are we going to get a better operating system and better applications than what we already have?
The world already has lots of lousy software. Unless Linux is
on the path to becoming a superior operating system, the world is foolish
to waste money on it. Linux and its applications have a long way to go
before they can replace Windows. A lot more time and money must be spent
on the development of Linux. Unless the Linux developers are serious about
making Linux into a superior replacement for Windows, we should stop
Beggar-ware aint free softwareMany open source web sites are begging for donations. These people have the attitude that it is wrong for Microsoft to sell software, but it is OK to offer software for free and then beg for money.
If everybody in the world followed the open source concept, we would all get free software...as long as a lot of us routinely donated money to software developers. Would this make a better world compared to what we have now? How does this give us free software?
I bet a lot of Linux supporters will respond:
“The software will be free to the people who cannot afford to donate money; the weathly people will fund the development.”
There is only one pot of money in a free enterprise system, and it belongs to all people who work for a living. Free enterprise allows us to grab different amounts of money from that pot, and the USA allows people to grab billions for themselves, but nothing is free in this system. Everybody who works is contributing to everything, directly and indirectly.
Andy Hertzfeld and his company, EazelEazel is an example of how unrealistic the free software concept is. They wanted to join the open source and free software movement, so they raised millions of dollars to fund the development of an open source file manager. But by May of 2001 Eazel was out of money, and they could not find any more investors, so they closed.
It is amusing to consider that Eazel was hoping to charge users a $4 per month fee for their open source software. How is paying a monthy fee better than buying software from Microsoft?
I suggest the customers, stockholders, and employees of Dell Computer,
Sun Microsystems, IBM, etc, ask themselves if the millions of dollars they
are putting into open source is doing us any good. Can't we find better
ways to spend money?
Software today is too complex for open sourceThe open source concept was somewhat practical in 1981. At that time software was so simplistic that one person in his spare time could produce an application. He could easily afford to give it to the world for free.
Today however, consumers are demanding software that requires tens of thousands of hours of hard work. Nobody can produce such complex applications in their spare time. Rather, consumers must support teams of full-time programmers for several years.
By 2010 consumers will be demanding software that is even more complex
than what we have today. The $4 per month fee that Eazel dreams of may
be enough to fund the development of one application today,
but it will not be enough to fund an application of the future.
Therefore, Andy will be dreaming of more than $4 per month in 2010.
How is software free when we pay a monthly fee?The open source fanatics titillate people with offers of free software, but then they beg for donations, and some are dreaming of monthly fees. Most of us use more than one application, so if we paid a monthly fee for each application, we could pay as much or more for the free software as we pay for non-free software.
There is no way to provide software
for free. Software requires a lot of time and effort, and there is no way
to get around the issue that those computer programmers must
be provided with food, homes, electricity, etc, while they develop
the software. Somehow you and I must contribute
to the support of those programmers.
Why must I explain that Linux is not free?Why is it that Linux supporters cannot comprehend this concept that almost nothing in life is free? Why must I explain to them that television is not free, and that KDE is not free?
Initially I assumed that most of the Linux fanatics were teenagers and
college students who were simply naive, but many college
teachers and other adults are promoting this fallacy
that Linux is free. How do we explain those adults? I will explain one
Open source people have an incentive to make lousy software
“For normal professional work, my rate is US$ 180 per hour or part thereof, plus expenses.”
However, a few hours with a consultant will waste more money than the free software saved. It is better to purchase software that doesn't need as much maintenance. This is one reason so many companies are spending money on Solaris and AIX rather than struggling with free software.
The complaining by Linux fanatics that Windows is for idiots could be
because they are afraid that if Linux becomes as easy to use as Windows,
then nobody would hire them at high hourly rates.
Are O'Reilly and Associates hypocrites?O'Reilly and Associates publishes books, holds conferences, and — until 6 Mar 2001 — they developed software. O'Reilly no longer wants to make software, but they continue to sell the software they already created.
Tim O'Reilly promotes Linux, free software, and open source software, but take a look at the high prices of their software: http://software.oreilly.com/
O'Reilly promotes free and open source software for other
people. Also, they do not offer
books on the Internet for free, nor do they offer paper copies of their
books at non-profit rates. If you want to read their books on the Internet
you have to pay a minimum monthly fee of $9.95. Isn't this what we call
Who profits from conventions?On July 23-27, 2001 there was an “O'Reilly Open Source Convention” that helps people to learn about open source. The fees are complex, but it appears that a person will spend hundreds of dollars per day to learn how to make free software.
Did O'Reilly hold the conference for free or at non-profit rates? If not, why do they get to profit from it while software developers are suppose to work for free?
During the 1970's Reverend Sun Myung Moon formed the Unification Church in which people worked for free while Reverend Moon made lots of money from their efforts. O'Reilly and Associates encourages computer programmers to work for free while O'Reilly sells software, books, and conferences at a profit.
If Linux was so easy to use that nobody need to buy books or go to conventions
to learn about it, profits at O'Reilly would drop. They profit from the
Linux news may soon be expensiveLinuxGram.com is threatening to stop their free service; they want $100 per year from everybody who wants to read their reports. But all they provide are a few extremely biased reports that promote Linux and open source software. Imagine Microsoft charging $100 per year to read a few biased reports that promote Microsoft software!
Does Microsoft overcharge us?
It's all about eliminating what Hertzfeld and others call the "operating system tax" now stifling the computer industry.
Why didn't Apple Computer become popular? I think the reason was that the Apple executives were so greedy that they kept the price too high. A report I saw claimed that the top Apple executive was the highest paid person on the planet in the early 1990's.
The high prices of Apple computers caused most of us to purchase IBM compatible computers instead. Today Apple Computer is struggling to survive. Did Microsoft ruin Apple Computer? No. The greedy Apple executives are Apple's worst enemy.
IBM certainly could have sold more copies of OS/2 if they had offered
it at the same or lower price as Windows. But they offered it at a significantly
Can anybody make software for a lower price than Microsoft?Some nations, such as China, have such low labor rates that they could produce software at a very low price, but nobody can make software for free. The Linux people cannot produce software for free, nor can they produce software for less money than what Microsoft can produce it for.
If a particular application requires 10,000 hours of programming time, it doesn't matter whether RedHat is paying for that programming time or whether Microsoft is paying for it. The costs will be the same to all companies. The promises from the Linux people that we will get free software are absurd, and it makes them look like idiots.
If Linux were to become a success on the desktop, Microsoft could produce
Linux CDs and applications for the same price that the Linux companies
produce them. Linux companies cannot
produce CDs or software for less money than Microsoft. European companies
are in an even worse situation because they must pay European wages, and
they must pay European rates for electricity, rent, and other supplies.
A lot of “Linux software” was given to the Linux peopleThe open source community hasn't created much of anything of value. StarOffice is often held up as a great example of the free software that comes with Linux, but Sun donated that software to the open source people. Sun, SGI, IBM, and other companies donated some of the best software that the open source have.
If the open source concept worked, the Linux fanatics would be able
to produce their own software. Instead we find them behaving like “The
Ex-Wives From Hell” who forever need financial support and donations of
software, and who are so stupid that
they hold up StarOffice and other software as examples of how open source
A Thrift Store of unwanted softwareTake away StarOffice, Netscape, and all the other "Linux software" that was created by conventional corporations and what remains? Mostly junk, that's what.
Open source software is so crummy that it must be offered for free because nobody would buy it. Even GIMP, which is one of the best open source applications, would not sell against Corel Photo-Paint, Adobe Photoshop, or other conventional applications.
Installing Linux on your computer and then looking thru all the open
source software in an attempt to find something useful is as frustrating
as sifting thru the junk at a thrift store. The reason is that open source
is a failure; it cannot provide the
complex applications we want.
Will it be easy to replace Windows with Linux?
However, replacing Windows is not going to be easy. Switching the world to Linux is not as simple as switching channels on a TV set. Employees have to spend time installing Linux on the hard disk of each computer, and then they would have to spend time installing applications.
After all the new Linux software has been installed, the employees would have to spend some time becoming accustomed to the new software. During this phase, which could stretch to months, they will be less productive.
Next consider that some data files would need to be converted to a different format, such as accounting records, databases, and documents. A lot of time would have to be spent deciding which files on the hard disks (and backup disks) need to be converted, and then time must be spent figuring out how to convert them, and then time must be spent converting them.
Next consider that most software (especially engineering and industrial) is not yet available for Linux, so time would have to be spent identifying the computers that cannot be converted to Linux. This can be difficult because some software interacts with or uses modules from other companies. And some computers cannot be converted because Linux cannot support all computer hardware.
To summarize this, from the point of view of a business, switching to Linux involves diverting a lot of time and money from productive activities, and many (or most?) computers will have to remain with Windows, creating a mix of Linux and Windows. Why would any company choose to do such a thing? What advantage would Linux provide to compensate for the trouble? Unfortunately, there is no advantage to switching to Linux as of 2001.
Home users will also resist switching to Linux for the same reasons.
Linux must be superior to WindowsLinux will not replace Windows simply because it is as good as Windows; rather, Linux and Linux applications must have a significant advantage over Windows, and Linux must support more hardware. But as of today, Linux and its applications are inferior as far as most people are concerned, and support for hardware is inferior.
Linux may be superior to Windows in 2002, but Windows will have improved also, and so the end result may be that Linux remains inferior. Linux and Windows are in a race, and Windows is farther ahead.
If Linux is inferior, why is Linux being installed on Internet servers? Is Linux truly superior to Windows 2000, Unix, QNX, IBM's AIX, FreeBSD, or Solaris? No; rather, Linux is popular merely because:
1) It is “free”. That is, Linux is popular with companies on a tight budget because it has a lower initial cost than the superior Solaris and AIX.
What do we need Linux for?
What do we gain by putting Linux on our Internet server?If a company selects Linux for their Internet server, what will they gain compared to selecting FreeBSD, Solaris, or AIX? According to the people who have tried to all these different systems, Linux provides no advantage. FreeBSD is just as “free“ as Linux, and some Linux fanatics admit that FreeBSD is better than Linux as an Internet server. And Linux cannot manage the large servers, as can Solaris and AIX.
So there is no advantage in using
Linux. The people who put Linux on servers do so simply because of their
attraction to Linux, not because they made a wise business decision.
What do we gain by putting a Linux on our desktop computer?I certainly don't need to tell you that Linux provides no advantage at all on the desktop. Linux is more stable than Windows, but it has so many disadvantages that most of us prefer to avoid it. FreeBSD is also more stable than Windows. (Actually, every operating system is more stable than Windows!)
We don't need LinuxLinux is not providing the world with anything that we do not already have. We already have better operating systems than Linux, and FreeBSD is just as “free” as Linux. Open source software is also failing to provide us with the software we want.
We could make the excuse that Linux and the open source movement have simply not had enough time to catch up with other software. But then I must bring up the point I made at the beginning of this document, which is: if Linux is not ready, why are they hyping it as a superior operating system? Why is it for sale in retail stores? Why are they not honest with us?
If a conventional company released a product that was inferior to all others while boasting that it is the best, would you have sympathy for them if their business failed? Why should we have sympathy for Linux and open source people?
Linux and open source people are not a true organization. Rather, a bunch of individuals scattered around the world are doing and saying whatever they please. They are creating hundreds of variations of Unix and Linux, and they are deceiving people into believing that their particular variation is superior to other operating systems. Why should we put up with this nonsense or encourage it?
If the Linux people want us to take them seriously, they should shut
up for a few years while they finish the development of Linux, and when
they truly have a superior operating system they can contact us. But they
do not want to keep quiet; they believe they already have a truly superior
operating system. They behave like children.
Do not encourage open sourceI can accept an open source operating system because operating systems are critical to our world today and Microsoft is not behaving properly. But we should not encourage this open source movement for applications. Rather, we should encourage people to put a lot of time and effort into developing better software, and that requires we provide financial support for computer programmers.