In the Windows Vista thread Paul started another Windows/Linux discussion and there is one point I expected him to make that I would like to answer here. One of the most common complaints about linux is that it doesn't run application X. "How can I use it if I can't run X?"
Well, I gave it some thought and here is my feeling. First of all, let's clarify one thing. Applications are not like snow flakes - no two are alike. There are lots of applications that do roughly the same thing. If you don't like Ms Office there is StarOffice, OpenOffice, Word Perfect etc. It's just not true that "if I can't run application X then I'm doomed because it has all the functions I need". Of course, it may be the case that X does things in a more efficient way and using Y would take you longer and make it more of a pain. But if you *are* contemplating a change, then obviously things won't be exactly the same as they are now. If you buy a new house, the new kitchen won't be a carbon copy of your current kitchen will it.
To the meat of the issue. What I think is a fundamental error in thinking is "since linux doesn't run X, there's something wrong with it, it's not as good as Windows". This is where I think the user has to accept some responsibility. To give a sufficiently contrived example.. if you buy a car from Ford that only runs on gasoline from BP, is it fair to blame Shell for that? Does this make Ford evil? You could say that, they are limiting your freedom of choice. But did you not still give them your money? It's like the iPod example we talked about. If you buy songs on iTunes, you can only play them on iTunes or the iPod. You cannot play them in linux because of DRM. Apple have signed a deal with the recording industry that limits the user's freedom to use media they have purchased in any software/device they might want to, that's a bad thing. But did the user not choose to enter into this contract (unwittingly most likely)? Companies always try to screw consumers, that's why consumers have to be aware of what they're dealing with.
If you base your whole business on one application that only runs on Windows, that's your fault. If Windows stops supporting it and your application suddenly stops working in Windows Vista, you're the only one with a problem. Or if the company abandons the product, again you're screwed. It's called vendor lock-in, you assume that a company will continue making decisions in your favor. So if you say "without application X I'm unable to run my business at a profit", that's your problem, isn't it?
But this doesn't in any way mean that linux isn't capable enough to run the same applications. To give you an example, one of the areas where linux lags behind is professional audio production. All the best known products are Windows/Mac only. So a bunch of audio professionals who like linux and would like to use it for work decided to fix the problem. This isn't my field, so I don't know what the demands are. But today you can take Ubuntu Linux and install a full suite of professional audio production tools (again I can't tell how 'good' they are, but they are created by the people who need to use them) and have a fully functional system. For instance, when you're recording you don't want your computer to suddenly lag and mess up the recording, so there are kernel patches that guarantee a response time in milliseconds to events. This gives you a technical guarantee that your computer will not exceed a certain latency and thus you can be sure that you can record without this concern. The same idea is used in embedded devices, medical devices etc, systems that require a certain response time. Now tell me, can you achieve the same in Windows? I don't know Windows internals, but my guess would be a big fat no.
Like I said in the other thread, there are solutions if you want to find them. There was an article on newsforge.com a few months ago about a publishing house that switched their entire business infrastructure to linux. Now publishing is still a Windows/Mac stronghold. But they spent time looking for linux based solutions and they found them. I bet they had to replace just about every single application they were using, but apparently it was worth it. Of course, this would only be possible as long as there are sufficient alternatives to use.
Finally, I sympathize with people who don't have a choice. I hear all the time that "we use Windows at work, I'm stuck". And that's understandable, there's nothing you can do. If you own the business, obviously you have a lot more power to change how things are.
Well, I gave it some thought and here is my feeling. First of all, let's clarify one thing. Applications are not like snow flakes - no two are alike. There are lots of applications that do roughly the same thing. If you don't like Ms Office there is StarOffice, OpenOffice, Word Perfect etc. It's just not true that "if I can't run application X then I'm doomed because it has all the functions I need". Of course, it may be the case that X does things in a more efficient way and using Y would take you longer and make it more of a pain. But if you *are* contemplating a change, then obviously things won't be exactly the same as they are now. If you buy a new house, the new kitchen won't be a carbon copy of your current kitchen will it.
To the meat of the issue. What I think is a fundamental error in thinking is "since linux doesn't run X, there's something wrong with it, it's not as good as Windows". This is where I think the user has to accept some responsibility. To give a sufficiently contrived example.. if you buy a car from Ford that only runs on gasoline from BP, is it fair to blame Shell for that? Does this make Ford evil? You could say that, they are limiting your freedom of choice. But did you not still give them your money? It's like the iPod example we talked about. If you buy songs on iTunes, you can only play them on iTunes or the iPod. You cannot play them in linux because of DRM. Apple have signed a deal with the recording industry that limits the user's freedom to use media they have purchased in any software/device they might want to, that's a bad thing. But did the user not choose to enter into this contract (unwittingly most likely)? Companies always try to screw consumers, that's why consumers have to be aware of what they're dealing with.
If you base your whole business on one application that only runs on Windows, that's your fault. If Windows stops supporting it and your application suddenly stops working in Windows Vista, you're the only one with a problem. Or if the company abandons the product, again you're screwed. It's called vendor lock-in, you assume that a company will continue making decisions in your favor. So if you say "without application X I'm unable to run my business at a profit", that's your problem, isn't it?
But this doesn't in any way mean that linux isn't capable enough to run the same applications. To give you an example, one of the areas where linux lags behind is professional audio production. All the best known products are Windows/Mac only. So a bunch of audio professionals who like linux and would like to use it for work decided to fix the problem. This isn't my field, so I don't know what the demands are. But today you can take Ubuntu Linux and install a full suite of professional audio production tools (again I can't tell how 'good' they are, but they are created by the people who need to use them) and have a fully functional system. For instance, when you're recording you don't want your computer to suddenly lag and mess up the recording, so there are kernel patches that guarantee a response time in milliseconds to events. This gives you a technical guarantee that your computer will not exceed a certain latency and thus you can be sure that you can record without this concern. The same idea is used in embedded devices, medical devices etc, systems that require a certain response time. Now tell me, can you achieve the same in Windows? I don't know Windows internals, but my guess would be a big fat no.
Like I said in the other thread, there are solutions if you want to find them. There was an article on newsforge.com a few months ago about a publishing house that switched their entire business infrastructure to linux. Now publishing is still a Windows/Mac stronghold. But they spent time looking for linux based solutions and they found them. I bet they had to replace just about every single application they were using, but apparently it was worth it. Of course, this would only be possible as long as there are sufficient alternatives to use.
Finally, I sympathize with people who don't have a choice. I hear all the time that "we use Windows at work, I'm stuck". And that's understandable, there's nothing you can do. If you own the business, obviously you have a lot more power to change how things are.
