which developed have been ongoing for years. Clashing opinions have
recently heated up and received even greater exposure due to the One
Laptop per Child's XO vs. Intel's Classmate issues. (Two competing low
priced laptops intended for use by children in developing remote
areas.) XO choosing to use Linux and Classmate choosing to use Windows
has fueled the debate as if the OS created and marketed these laptops
themselves! The fundamental difference between these two systems is
Microsoft Windows is closed source while Linux is open source. Once
computer software is written it can be copied and reproduced at a very
low cost. Or the original source code can have a large commercial value
by keeping it hidden and treating it as a trade secret.
Closed source avoids duplication and reverse engineering and keeps
their competitive advantage by producing their product in a compiled
executable state. While open source allows for any user to view and
modify the source code. Engineers value the improvements to their
software made by the community of developers far more than their
competitive advantage.
There are a numerous points that are debated regularly including the
difference in the price of Windows and the lack there of for free
Linux. The counter argument is that both systems are expensive to
maintain.
Reliability is also largely debated being that Linux has a reputation
for fewer bugs than Windows. Linux is considered more stable than
Windows being that after installation far less problems are reported.
This is thought to be because Windows mistakes are hidden from everyone
but the programmers, whereas Linux is open to review from programmers
all over the world. Time pressure for release of the advertised closed
source product to meet a sales target is also thought to play a role in
the amount of error. Open source has no target to meet therefore the
software will only be released when finished. Customer support is
handled nicely by Microsoft however and the cost of maintenance in the
end is similar for both operating systems.
Design to incorporate multiple users has been debated being that Linux
is designed to be a system of multiple users where as Windows is
designed to handle one person at a time. Whether or not Linux will
become the dominant operating system is analyzed with attention to the
closing gap between the number of users of these two systems being
closely monitored.
Linux becoming the dominant system is highly unlikely being that
Microsoft can adapt to open-source methods if need be. That being said,
I do not believe that the passion behind this issue has to do with the
fear of change or with one system being better than the other. They
clearly both have their strengths and weaknesses and when competition
exists it is the choice of each consumer or purchaser to obtain the
product which will better meet their individual needs. There is not a
threat of either system monopolizing or becoming obsolete.
I believe the passion has to do with the fundamental issues themselves.
Free software that reflects a community of programmers expertise, input
and hard work vs. a commercial money hungry, profit seeking, source
code hiding, monster corporation. I believe that ideals, opinions on
corporations, the opinion that a system that values improvement above
the competitive advantage is better are being transferred to the debate
of Windows vs. Linux. The debate is an interesting one but perhaps the
simplicity of the matter has been overlooked. They are competitors.
They will compete and as consumers we will choose the better product to
meet our needs. And we as consumers benefit greatly from product
competition.
The comparison of Microsoft Windows and Linux and the debates which
developed have been ongoing for years. Clashing opinions have recently
heated up and received even greater exposure due to the XO vs.
Classmate issues. We as consumers should embrace this competition.
author:
I have an extensive background in Finance and Fiscal Procedure. I also have a web business where I offer Educational Computer Games. I am very interested in the product itself as well as the subject matter that it involves.
Please use the link above to visit us at The Software Spot!
Thank you, Allison Merlino
{ 2 comments... read them below or add one }
I can understand how this debate between Microsoft and Linux can be viewed as a just matter of operating systems battling for the marketplace. That is certainly part of the game. But the battle is really for the ecosystem. Microsoft wants to maintain and encourage interoperability through its monopoly. They deviate from this approach only when it serves their purpose or when they've been caught breaking the law.
A dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. This attribute applies to Microsoft as well which favors short term gains. When Microsoft goes unchallenged their products tend to get shoddy. Internet Explorer and Vista are good examples of what we could expect in a Microsoft only world.
Linux and Open Source represent an ecosystem based on standards, real ones, not the OOXML nonsense. Like the comparison between a democracy and a dictatorship, the democracy will take a little longer to get up to speed, but it will be a much better proposition for all involved in the long run. The world will change over to mostly Open Source. That's not an if, it's a when. Microsoft will fight this change with every dirty trick in their book. They might even try making an excellent product designed to put productivity into hands of their customers' instead of money into their stockholders' bank accounts. But they will come terribly close to ruin before they release their grip on the mind-set that put them in the top 100 richest companies in the world.
The Microsoft we know today will cease to be. Their replacement will be a true competitor. How do I know these things? I don't. I'm using my observations over the last 25 years as a guide. And those observations tell me the world will not stand by and watch their digital future confiscated by Microsoft.
What these open source advocates fail to address is how they can make money by offering everything for free. W/o a clear answer to that, they are not going to attract enough talent to develop serious software that often requires hundreds of sharp developers or more. Let's face it: software developers wanna money like everyone else. The more, the better. If they cannot, they'd lose interest and switch to a different industry. To me that's the fundamental reason FOSS hasn't taken off and IMO never will.
FOSS people talk about such concept as offering software for free and charge for support. Sounds good but doesn't hold up in the real world. If their software is really bug-free, easy to install w/ great document and all that, then who still pays for their support. People would like to cut cost at all chances. If they can avoid paying for support, they go for it, which screws the company making the software. Doesn't work that way.
Chances are FOSS software is not perfect (translate: not better than what M$ offers). And people who use it have to consult the software maker. They then realize they have to pay, and the amount is not cheap (anyone taking a car to a garage for repair remembers the staggering labor fee, right?). At that time, they'd look at it and think again, "Gee, at the end of the day is it really better than buying from M$?"
And think of this, what makes "open & free" automatically mean "good"? FOSS people certainly want you to believe that. But is it true? Google doesn't need to open source its search engine to be good, and won't any time soon. Can you find a FOSS search engine to beat Google? Apple doesn't open source its iPhone and it's darn good. Oracle doesn't open source its DB and they blow any open source DB out of water. So why does it become a problem when M$ is doing it? Can you really blame them for not willing to open source to lose competitive edges like the three guys above?
As you can see the proprietary guys like M$ are not as guilty as their haters accuse them of, and the FOSS people on the other hand promise too much to really walk the walk. In this society, you know sth is wrong when people start to talk about free lunch.
Post a Comment