Windows was introduced by
Microsoft in 1983, and has
been the dominant Operating
System available for the PC
since the early-nineties. As
such, Microsoft has enjoyed
great financial success, and
Windows has had many years
and incredible fiscal
resources to evolve to meet
the demands of the mass-
market. There is an
staggeringly rich set of
features here, from very
explicit, step-by-step user
interfaces for the first time
computer user, to powerful
interfaces for the computer
professional, and everything
in between. By contrast, Linux
achieved notoriety a bit later,
in the mid-nineties, with a
distribution known as
Redhat, and although Linux
was built on more mature,
stable underpinnings (Unix),
it did not enjoy nearly the
same marketing or
development budget that
Microsoft threw behind
Windows. In fact, the
developers of Linux are
commonly credited as
founding the Open Source
Software movement, which is
the idea that software can be
made better through the free
sharing of its source code. In
this philosophy,
programmers often volunteer
their time to develop
software for free, as was
done with Linux, and Linux is
still available for free in its
more basic forms. Companies
like Redhat only make money
by "packaging" Linux with
printed documentation, extra
software utilities, and setup
wizards designed to make
the installation of Linux and
its subsequent software
packages easier. Even so, the
amount of money they are
able to generate this way is
paltry compared to the
wealth of Microsoft (which
makes most company's
financials look paltry).
Because of this, the
marketing behind Linux has
been miniscule compared to
that of Windows, and its lack
of acceptance among less
technical users reflects this. A
large reason is because
Windows has established a
very deeply-ingrained (and
some have argued unfairly
controlling) relationship with
PC hardware manufacturers,
ensuring that almost every
new PC ships with Windows
installed from day one. Given
that they must satisfy the
demands (though perhaps
less than perfectly) of the
majority of novice computer
users, and add to that the
amount of time and money
that Windows has enjoyed to
make itself accessible to these
users, and it is easy to see
why Windows is generally
regarded as superior to Linux
in the area of accessibility to
novices. There are graphic
user interfaces (abbreviated
as GUI) present for almost
everything you could want to
do, and there is almost
always more than one way to
do it. In fact, one common
criticism of Windows is that
so many features have been
layered on top of one another
over the years, that it has
become an overly-
complicated, almost
labyrinthine user experience.
By contrast, some may find
Linux to be more streamlined;
however, there are still many
equivalent features in
Windows for which Linux
does not provide a GUI, and
the user is forced to type
textual instructions into a
command-line interface, or
shell. While many power
users consider this a plus, it is
unrealistic to demand this of
novice computer users, and
novice users should bear this
strongly in mind. All this
being said, Linux still shines
brilliantly in some areas that
Windows seems to
consistently flounder.
Because the underlying
architecture of Linux is more
mature, stable, and secure
than Windows, Linux
"crashes" and "freezes"
significantly less often, and
can run continuously without
problems for months or even
years without being
"rebooted". In addition, Linux
does not suffer from the
same security flaws as
Windows, and your chances
of contracting a virus, a
worm, or some other form of
predatory software is much
lower. On an more subjective
note, I suspect that given the
same time and monetary
advantages as Windows,
Linux might have easily
developed into a superior
operating system in every
regard.
As it stands today, they each
have pros and cons. Windows
is widely accepted
everywhere, boasts an
enormous plethora of GUIs,
and has millions of software
packages that run under it.
But it is buggier, less secure,
and sometimes feels
cavernous. Linux is solid and
smooth running, and feels
more stream-lined to many.
But what technical users call
stream-lined, novices may
interpret as spare, and
sometimes barren or just
plain missin. There are also
fewer software packages
available for it currently,
though many of those that
are available are free. As time
goes by, and the Open
Software Community
develops more for Linux,
these differences will shrink,
but until there is financially
powerful, unifying force
(company) behind Linux, this
author thinks it is doubtful
they will go away all together. Share on Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment