Why choose Linux or NT

[Christopher Reid Palmer <reid@pconline.com>]

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Ryberg, Nicholas wrote:

> Forgive me, Brent, but I'm cutting out our conversation altogether - not
> out of censorship, but consideration for those who don't have the
> time/bandwidth to deal with long, un-necessarily quoted emails.

I wish more people would follow your lead on this.


> I have to confess that I got ticked because of the general statement "No
> I have a dual p3 500 at work and NT still isn't tolerable." from Jon
> Schewe.  I interpreted this to mean that the performance was poor,
> rather than perhaps other issues affecting Jon's opinion.  I was, quite
> frankly, astounded by the statement.

It's less astounding of a statement if you figure that Jon was speaking in
relative terms. I bet even NT is fast on a machine like that -- but
probably not as repsonsive as Linux on the same machine. That's a general,
widely observed trend.

Even NT backers implicitly admit it. What's the wisdom dispensed in e.g.
*Windows NT Magazine*? -- One process per box, or even *one process per
cluster*. Think about that. At my work we routinely run 4+ servers per box
(unless you want to count Apache serving 150 sites as 150 'processes'...)
and we count uptimes in months. Load average rarely tops 0.5. These are
run-of-the-mill commodity boxes, PII, SCSI, 128MB RAM.

That's a night-and-day difference, and I suspect that's what Jon was
getting at.


> As far as comparing apples to apples (or Apples to IBMs in the old
> days), I think that from a user's point of view, it doesn't really
> matter what the O/S is... as long as it performs invisibly without
> crashing.

I agree. So why are you defending Windows NT, of all systems?

Please don't think I'm attacking you; I just don't get it.


> I grant that the installation programs provided by Red Hat, Caldera and
> other distros are VERY user friendly, but it still takes a technically
> experienced person to fix problems like LAN connectivity.

It takes a technically experienced person to solve problems like LAN
connectivity, regardless of the OS. TCP/IP is TCP/IP, and that's that. A
few badly-laid out dialog boxes aren't going to turn my dad into a network
engineer.


> The user interfaces provided by KDE, Gnome, et al, are wonderful!  I've
> used the first two, and realized how far MS Win has to go...

In what ways are GNOME and/or KDE better than Windows? For their stated
purposes, I think Win32 has it all over the other two (if only because
it's more mature -- I have full faith that GNOME and KDE can overtake
Win32 in under 3 years).

> However, and here's the kicker, there's not a really solid reason for a
> common user to switch over to Linux from MS other than Linux is A) neat,
> or B) an alternative to MS. MS is expensive, takes up way, way too much
> space on the hard drive, BUT it works.

A and B are great reasons to choose Linux, as are other reasons like
efficiency (see above).

They're all meaningless compared to the real reason to choose Linux,
though: freedom.

Sure, TeX's UI may be a bit unusual; sure, AbiWord isn't ready for prime
time (yet). But if you write your doctoral thesis using one of the free
products, you aren't locking away your work in a format that will be
unreadable unless the reader has a specific kind of computer running very 
specific, very expensive (and very buggy) software. You aren't embedding a
unique serial number trackable by the software vendor into your thesis.

And you aren't sending your advisor a macro virus...


> Finally, I realize that my biggest mistake is preaching to the choir of a
> different religion, to mangle a metaphor.

Actually, you're not. By espousing practicality before freedom, you are in  
accord with many people here. And everyone will agree that Windows is 
often the practical choice (on those rare occasions that it *is* a 
choice). Many people are choosing Linux for valid but ultimately
wrong-headed reasons.


> I would guess that the general computer, programming and O/S expertise
> of all of you is considerably deeper than the average schmo using Word
> and Excel.  It's not a problem for you to recompile the kernel.
> Personally, I wouldn't know what the hell I was doing!  I would more
> than likely render Linux unusable.

Here you're touching on an important corrolary to freedom: accessibility.
It isn't free in a pragmatic, every day sense if it's esoteric. There are
still bits of Linux systems that are esoteric (but then, there are bits of
Windows systems that are esoteric, too).

That's why I'm always harping on usability issues. Once you've got the
freedom part secured, accessibility is your next task. GNOME and KDE can
provide that in the near term in specific contexts, but ultimately they
are fourth-hand implementations of an idea whose time has passed (the
desktop metaphor).


> So, more power to you, but when it comes to actually getting work done, I
> have to rely on MS. 

I guess it depends on what your work is... my pretty new laptop is useless
to me until I get Linux on it. I can't do my work in Windows; it just
doesn't have the functionality I require.

No one could blame you for your choice, of course. But when Adobe goes out
of business, all your artwork will be locked up in a dead format. When MS
gets the forcible upgrade thing going again in another three years, you'll
have to pony up another $500 just to keep typing. When DigiDesign cancels
their two-track audio editor product, your songs will be squelched.

Freedom is the ultimate practical choice.


--
  Christopher Reid Palmer : http://www.innerfireworks.com/