Subj : unix's VS windoz
To   : All
From : Warren Hrach
Date : Thu Dec 06 2001 01:47 am

This artical is written by David S. Jackson for comments and suggestions. He 
has published UNIX/Linux articals in the past in the local San Diego, CA 
Computer Edge free magazine.  It is 99.99% M$ and Mac oriented. He asks for 
suggestions on where to post besides Comp. Edge. also. Direct all comments etc 
to 'dsj@sylvester.dsj.net'.

                         UNIX vs. Windows



   When I say "UNIX", I really mean any of the open source UNIX-like

projects out there, including Linux. But most people have only heard of

Linux, according to my informal polls. These same polls of mine tell me

that most people use Windows because "that's what's already installed on

their computers." I see my job as the one who points to and explains users'

alternatives to the Microsoft juggernaut.

   Fortunately, it's still mostly a free marketplace. Even though the DOJ

has been largely unable or unwilling to out lawyer Microsoft, you can still

get more computing power for less money if you make educated decisions

about your computer and software purchases.

   I think most experienced users of both operating systems would share

the opinion that UNIX-like operating systems are more stable than

Windows operating systems. UNIX-like systems don't need to be rebooted

so often. They require less "fixing" once they've been configured properly.

They generally require less hardware. They're more secure, owing to their

open architecture, their source codes being audited for security flaws, and

their fundamental design paradigms. They are more scalable both to large

as well as small implementations, generally speaking. So why is Windows

so popular and why don't more people use a UNIX-like operating system?

   In my opinion, it's because Microsoft is a master of marketing. They

know that only a very small minority of people have the technical expertise

to even understand the differences between UNIX-like systems and

Windows. They know that if they can simply put their OS out in front of

as many people as possible, through whatever means necessary, they will

have already captured the hearts and minds of the marketplace. Making

their product technically superior has not been necessary. As the world

becomes increasingly dependent upon Microsoft's products, the company is

able to extract more and more dollars for fewer and fewer goods and

services. This type of power is typically called monopoly power. (See your

nearest Economics textbook for a more accurate description.)

   The user's main challenge, then, is to become educated enough to make

his or her own decisions and not simply follow the dictates of Microsoft and

their clever marketing. This is clearly a case of when knowing less will cost

you quite a lot more. Education about operating systems equals dollars

saved in the operating system marketplace.

   We're at a point now where Microsoft has grown about as large as it



                                   1




can through normal marketing strategies. (Ie, when you buy one product

and you pay once license fee.) In order to support their current size and

grow further, they have to get clever again and conjure up new ways of

capturing revenue. And, this is what they are expert at_creating new

streams of revenue. For example, Windows XP is enforcing their licensing

in new ways. You may only reinstall a copy of XP a limited number of

times on your home hardware before you must prove that you actually own

the license. And you're actually leasing your copy of XP rather than buying

it. (See http://www.fullfont.com/xplicensing.htm for more information.)

These represent fundamental changes in how operating systems are bought

by consumers.

   Adopting An Alternative. There are almost inumerable applications

where you can use UNIX-like operating systems more effectively and

economically than Windows operating systems. In fact, I would say the

only times it makes sense to use a Windows operating system instead of a

free UNIX-like operating system is for special applications where

UNIX/Linux applications don't exist. Or, where you're forced to use a

proprietary document format that only Microsoft supports.

   This last point, proprietary document formats, has been what has held

Linux/UNIX back up until now. It's also one of the strongest tools

Microsoft has used to maintain their marketplace influence. Microsoft

Office has been ubiquitous in the workplace. Most people are completely

hypnotized that no other legitimate file formats exist than those supported

under Microsoft Office. Of course, this is by design on Microsoft's part.

(Microsoft has also been trying to extend its market power onto the web by

forcing web design tools to support only Microsft-based browsers and

protocols. This move toward exclusivity is probably also at the heart of it's

Dot Net technology. This maneuver was also underlined in the Halloween

documents from several years ago. See

www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html.)

   But this incompatibility of competing file formats is largely a myth.

There are non-microsoft tools that support Microsoft file formats. And you

don't need to marry Microsoft in order to use commonplace applications

like word processing, spreadsheets, and various presentation formats. While

it's convenient in the short run to settle on Microsoft as a one-stop

shopping place, you wind up paying a huge, Faustian-type price over the

long haul for this choice.

   The Back Office. As servers go, there is little that cannot be done



                                   2




with UNIX-like operating systems. These are machines that must simply

operate without complaint and be trusted to continuously do so. UNIX and

Linux are great at this. Naturally, Microsoft has tried to leverage their

strength in the desktop arena into the back room server by making their

proprietary desktop protocols, such as Exchange and Outlook integrated

scheduling, be supported only through their server technologies. Again, it's

brilliance in how to capture revenue streams. But, by removing yourself

from dependence on these proprietary protocols and replacing them with

open protocols, such as good old SMTP, HTTP, or SSL, you can

accomplish more work for less money.

   Instead of deploying an Exchange server, why not deploy a similar

implementation over secure HTTP? You avoid the cost of dealing with

Microsoft and gain host of alternative avenues of support available from the

open source community.

   The Desktop. Sometimes, there is no software alternative to Windows

software. Examples are childrens' edutainment games (however, see

linux4kids.org), do-it-yourself household software, certain audio/visual file

formats, such as Sorenson MPEG support, and others. If you are committed

to one or more of these applications, or similar unsupported niches, you'll

need Windows or a Mac to do your job. But, really, the vast majority of

work often does not include these software niches. For common web surfing

or email reading or office work, you can easily use open source equivalents.

   Most often, you can adopt a two-computer solution, or even a dual-boot

or multi-plexing solution. You can run Windows on those few occasions

when only Windows will do, and you can run a UNIX clone the rest of the

time. I normally have several computers in my office that I switch between

as suits my needs at the moment. Normally, there is a computer running

Windows I can use if I have to. It's rare that I cannot accomplish

something with a free UNIX OS, though. For me, the only thing I can't yet

do with a Freenix OS is let my daughter play certain edutainment games.

   Some userland tools for *nix are less developed than their Windows

counterparts. But the chances are very good that whatever product

category you've wanted probably exists now for some form of *nix.

Everything from technical analysis and stock trading software to animation

or music composition. If you haven't looked in a while, check out

www.linuxapps.com.

   There are some Outlook clones out there (without the security

weaknesses, hopefully): Evolution



                                   3




(http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/evolution.shtml), TradeXCH

(http://www.bynari.net/Support/Downloadable_User_Manuals/TradeXCH_Press/body_tr
*
 *adexch_press.html),

and Aethera (www.thekompany.com/projects/aethera/), to name a few.

   Openoffice.org and www.gnome.org/gnome-office/ will provide more

information on two possible substitute office application suites. Koffice

(www.koffice.org) also provides a full suite of applications, but they don't

promise Microsoft compatability yet. You can also check out Applixware

(www.vistasource.com/products/axware/). I've had very good luck with

that in the past.

   Un-Microsofting Yourself. Of course, it would make far more sense

to not use proprietary formats for filetypes you use frequently. It would be

better to use open file formats so that your chances of being stranded with

an unsupported format are fewer. That's my biggest complaint with

Microsoft formats. Once they have you hooked into their file formats, they

change the format, forcing you to upgrade to their latest version of Office.

It becomes apparent after time that capturing more of your money was the

primary reason for the upgrade. It makes much more sense to adopt some

sort of open format, such as SGML, where documents can be reused and

output into multiple formats or media when required.

   The costs of moving more jobs to a UNIX-like operating system often

can be offset with benefits of avoiding common Windows problems. No

more viruses, no more forced upgrades, no more $200 tech-support calls

that still don't answer your questions. Many more benefits accrue that save

many dollars over time.

   Perhaps the largest cost of migration is the anxiety of doing something

unfamiliar. Changing the way you currently do things forces real costs in

production and on morale. But, when you consider that most computer

users have become used to rebooting computers more often than they refil

their coffee cups, that they believe viruses and worms are "just part of life",

that they expect to pay large amounts of money for inadequate technical

support, and that they just have to accept whatever inconveniences and

costs Microsoft sees fit to inflict, it's clear that users have already learned
*
 * a

lot. One company has already trained most all of us to adopt their own

Kafka-esque vision of computing. If we can be trained to use broken and

expensive Microsoft products, surely we can be trained to use products that

cost less and perform better.

   In conclusion, you are the master of your computing destiny if you want

to be. If you don't want to be in control, Microsoft is eager to control your



                                   4




destiny for you.



End

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-3
 * Origin: Ocean Beach CA, ob.darktech.org:8080 (1:202/745)

.