Despite the positive buzz generated by Windows 7, it is only a matter of time before Linux takes its rightful place at the top of the operating-system pile, says Jack Wallen.
Microsoft's failings are finally catching up with it and will cause the once-unstoppable juggernaut to cede to Linux. A key event was 14 September, 2000, when Microsoft set a tiny snowball rolling with the release of the deeply flawed Windows Me. That snowball has been gaining momentum, despite some ups and downs along the way — XP was an up, for example.
In many respects, the public mood has already shifted against the operating system that was once considered the heart of personal computing. Here are 10 reasons why that shift has taken place:
1. Inconsistent Windows releases
One of the things you can always count on is that you cannot count on new Microsoft operating systems to be reliable.
Let's look at the individual releases:
- Windows 95: Revolutionised personal computing
- Windows 98: Attempted to improve on Windows 95, but failed miserably
- Windows Me: A joke, plain and simple
- Windows NT: Attempted to bring enterprise-level seriousness to the operating system. Would have succeeded had it not taken Stephen Hawking-like intelligence to get it working
- Windows XP: Brought life back to the failing Windows operating system; not since Windows 95 had the operating system seemed this simple.
- Windows Vista: See Windows Me
With this in mind, what do we expect from Windows 7? Not much, in my view.
2. Consistent Linux releases
Contrasting with those problems with Windows versions, the various Linux distributions have been far more consistent. Of course, there have been a few dips along the way — Fedora 9 was one of them. But for the most part, the climb for Linux has been steadily upward.
Nearly every Linux distribution has improved with age. And this improvement is not limited to the kernel. Look at how desktops, end-user software, servers, security and admin tools have all improved over time. Once could easily argue that KDE 4 is an example of a sharp decrease in improvement. However, if you look at how quickly KDE 4 has improved from 4.0 to 4.3 you can see nothing but gains. This observation holds true for applications and systems across the board with Linux.
3. Continuing Windows price hikes
Recently, I have had a number of long-time Microsoft administrators asking my advice on solid replacements for Exchange. The reason? Microsoft changed its licensing for Exchange.
Now anyone who logs on to an Exchange server must have a licence. You have 100 employees, including administrators, who need to log on to Exchange? Pay up. This charging really starts to mount up when your company has 500-plus Exchange licences.
The very idea of making such a significant change to licences is particularly ridiculous given the state of the economy. Companies worldwide are having to scale back. And like ExxonMobil celebrating record profits amid the catastrophe known as Hurricane Katrina, Microsoft creating such a cost barrier while the globe is facing serious recession is reprehensible.
4. Consistent Linux costs
Again, in contrast to the previous point, the cost of open-source software licences has remained the same — zero. When those administrators come to me asking for open-source replacements for Exchange, I point them to EGroupware and Open-Xchange. Both are outstanding groupware tools that offer an even larger feature set than their Microsoft equivalent. Both applications are reliable, scalable, secure and free.
The only outlay you will have with either application is for the hardware to install them on. And with both packages, there is no limit to the number of users.
5. Windows hardware incompatibility
Microsoft Vista was a nightmare for hardware compatibility. Not only was Vista incompatible with numerous peripherals, it took supercomputer-level iron to run the operating system.
Clearly, this was a boon to Intel, which stood to make a pretty penny from the operating system. Intel knew some of the public would be shelling out for new hardware, and the new hardware would cost more because...
Talkback
"it is only a matter of time before Linux takes its rightful place at the top of the operating-system pile"
I wish it was true, but I've been hearing that same sentence for the last 14 years. Sorry. Not gonna happen.
No matter how hard we (Open Source users/Developers) try, the world keeps turning and the home/corporate (desktops) world runs mostly on Windows and Mac OS. Although the server market is alredy well dominated by BSD and Linux, and there, Linux IS on top of the pile :)
-Karl
Nice theory. Personally, I like Linux. But I don't let that blind me to the reality that I'm highly atypical of the average user.
You're right that will take a tremendous effort for MS to prise users away from the most stable, most widespread, and most compatible OS the company's ever made.
But will the answer be Linux? I doubt it. I think your theory works better in greenfield sites, like the developing world.
In reality, most users don't buy the OS, it comes with the hardware - especially those working in large corporations. And all their apps work with XP.
Here, there are too many apps that people use and are familiar with to let that happen in a hurry. Most users don't know about the OS - or even what one of those is.
All they care about is that their apps work. So they'll not be willingly be led down the garden path of Windows Vista or 7 - as we know from experience, make it too different, and users will dig their heels in. What's not broken won't be fixed - especially in these straitened times when hardware upgrades will be postponed, both in end-users' homes and in corporates.
It's also worth bearing in mind that a firm such as MS would rather give windows away than see it die. Just in my view.
There was a time when Bill Gates said (yes, he really did) that in the future the hardware would be free and we would only pay for the software.
I don't disagree with your general surmisation that Windows will be around for a long time. However consider these system inputs.
What happens when a new netbook costs under £50? How much Windows (OS and software) can you buy with that? Only Linux can supply the OEM manufacturers with the OS and viable software at zero cost.
If so, Linux interfaces (of all sorts) will become a great deal more familiar to a much larger number of users, shifting the critical mass incrementally towards a Linux tipping point. The more people that use 'non-Windows' (Mac OS, Linux, iPhone, Palm Pre, Android), the smaller the number of people that are afraid to stop using Windows becomes. At some point, most people will be comfortable with a non-Windows OS.
In the end, it all boils down to Moore's Law and economics; it's very very hard to compete with free, even for a well-entrenched incumbent like Microsoft. And the platform favoured most by Moore's Law and economics is Linux, as it maximally leverages the cost advantages they introduce to the market.
A lot of people in the IT Professional realm and even some consumers consider Windows 2000 Professional to be Microsoft's best Windows release to date. The fact that you skipped it shows that you are biased in your views. In what way was Windows 98 a dud? It was a well received update to Windows 95 that generated the mid-night madness buzz similarly to its predecessor. Yes, there were some hiccups with shutdown issues, but it still innovated introducing the major successful Internet Explorer 4, Windows Update, improved navigation and DVD hardware support to mention just a few. The only release of Windows I can think of not being Microsoft's best work to date is Windows ME. Then again, it wasn't as bad as some would thing. It also innovated, introducing technologies like System Restore, File Compression, multimedia features like Windows Movie Maker and an improved HTML help system.
Windows Vista is not a failure either, I look at it similarly to Windows 2000 which introduced major stability improvements to carry the Windows platform forward, releases such as Windows XP benefited from that engineering tremendously and its success is a testament to that. Windows Vista did a reset in areas such as security, furthered stability, improved subsystems for graphics and communications that developers will take advantage for the next 10 to 15 years and will begin to reap with Windows 7. Unfortunately, the reset from August of 2004 kind of built up a negative reputation. The ambitions of it were not well thought out, they were noble though. It was just too much on one plate, being built on Windows XP's code base. Third party developers got frustrated with the many changes during development and didn't start doing any heavy lifting until the product was actually released.
This left a negative impression on early adopters of the OS in early 2007. A lot which was resolved in the first 6 months, but first impressions last. With the 24/7 news cycle, blogs and forums it kinda fanned the flames that further damaged Vista's image. This would not have happened in 2001, because the level of exposure did not exist then, the Windows enthusiast mania was not at its present height. All of these things affected Vista. But does it mean the OS is bad? Nope, absolutely not. Windows 7 has changed this and the early rave reviews are a good sign. As for Linux, you say it has been consistent, well, I don't consider over 200 distributions, incompatibility with a wide range of hardware and software, lack of support from the industry, complexity in setup, package management, two different GUI environments, with different UI philosophies as being consistent, more like sporadic.
So, before you discredit Windows and predict its demise, just remember, its probably the OS that gave you your job right now and its the same platform that has built this lucrative industry so many of us take for granted.
You say: <i>"So, before you discredit Windows and predict its demise, just remember, its probably the OS that gave you your job right now and its the same platform that has built this lucrative industry so many of us take for granted."</i>
Dude, you must either be young, or have no idea of the history of our industry.
As someone who has been programming computers for over 30 years, I can tell you that it was not Windows which made the IT industry lucrative. It wasn't Windows which made personal computers possible, nor made possible most IT industry workers' salaries, even over the past 15 years when it has dominated the desktop market.
And just as the IT industry was lucrative and successful <i>before</i> Microsoft's 'takeover', so it will continue to be once Microsoft is dethroned.
Yes, Microsoft, by being an OEM operating system vendor which supplied a platform standardisation layer to any number of PC makers, has had a hand in expanding the market for PCs. It wasn't the first to do this however. Digital Research, Inc., did it with CP/M.
Regardless, whatever Microsoft did to expand the market for PCs in the 90s, they're now retarding it with their monopolisation and licence cost practices. What the world needs now is a zero-cost, friction-free platform standardisation layer; a platform whose licence precludes proprietarisation and thus balkanisation, and without the risk of yet another monopolist taking the industry by the throat: in short, the industry needs Linux.
Rather than enlightening us with your input, I think what you're doing instead is giving us an example of this distorted myopia which seems prevalent among many Windows users who haven't experienced a breadth of alternate platforms across a multitude of years.
And after reading: "The only release of Windows I can think of not being Microsoft's best work to date is Windows ME. Then again, it wasn't as bad as some would thing."
And that's as far as I read!
We all know the kind of crap ME was, with two, three or more! crashs/resets per day.
Only one thing is stopping me changing - lack of a driver for my mobile broadband modem, a pretty ordinary Huawei.
I for one would change over tomorrow to Linux however, and this is where I feel its going to lose out, is the public's reticence to make change, Particularly when they are faced with can I run programme X,Y,Z on Linux or do I need to re buy all my existing programmes.
The advertising that MS do is tumultuous in comparison to Linux. Do the general public even know it exists.
Maybe Linux and they may well do this, ought to publish a list of the programmes that will run on the Operating System. That way you would be able to see exactly what you where getting.
"2010 is SOOO going to be the year of the Linux desktop, for sure! Okay, okay, maybe it'll be 2011... Or 2012. Or... Well, you get the point."
Really, are people still seriously reading this "Linux is going to trump Windows" stuff in 2009? This is *really* getting old and history has proven over and over again that predictions regarding this issue have been consistently and completely wrong (an we all know why; give it a rest).
In reality, there wont be a "Year of the Linux Desktop", just as there was no "Year of the Windows Desktop".
All that will happen will be a broad 'encroachment' of Linux on more and more devices, web-tablets, MIBs, netbooks, smart-phones and low-cost PCs - enough to make most users comfortable with a non-Windows UI.
In time, this encroachment will constitute the bulk of the computing devices out there.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
I agree that linux definitely has a place in the greenfield sites, particularly Africa. This is because a lot of the hardware being used out there are the developed worlds throw aways. Linux obviously does not need power hungry PC's to operate, its a quality product and to break into thirdworld countries in a big way would stand linux in good stead for the future.
You really pick and choose your "facts"
Your list of windows 7 features for instance
"Windows 7: OS X-like docking; multi-touch screen; mapping application similar to Google Earth; hypervisor virtualisation; location-aware apps; user-access control improvements; sidebar removal"
Mapping application similar to Google Earth ? What are you talking about ? Microsoft already hae a virtual earth app and maps online, this is complete nonsense.
OSX-like docking
If you had actually used Win 7 you would know that its an enhanced taskbar not a dock rip.
Sidebar removal
Like most novices you don't seem to realise that you can remoe the sidebar in vista and just run gadgets on your desktop.
User Access control improvements
Would this be homegroups ? I think simple networking with database style librarys merits a better explaination
You don't mention graphics exceleration, Win 7 (like snow leopard) will be able to use the graphics card to offload ALOT more processing and not just direct x, When will Fedora be offering this ?
This is the most biased bit of uninformed nonsense I have ever read you obviously have an axe to grind and don't back up your article with any real facts. You prove your complete lack of knowledge about the Os industry as a whole with hilarious quotes like
"Windows XP: Brought life back to the failing Windows operating system; not since Windows 95 had the operating system seemed this simple"
Everyone hated XP, it was bloated compared to 98 and really its only selling point was how bad 98 & ME was, most big corporate clients waited 4 or 5 years before deploying it really didn't become fully stable or even half way secure until SP2, it funny how quickly supposed experts memory becomes when they try to rubbish Vista.
What 4thletter said is absolutely true, this is a very biased article.
You mention fedora improving boot time but say nothing about the boot time improvements made in 7. You don't mention the sleep-resume time improvements.
And all the security enhancements and DirectAccess..... ZDNet shouldn't allow such articles.
I am an employee and a consumer - in the first capacity I would like open source as long as some of the savings ended up in my pay cheque, as a consumer I am even more in favour of open source - not just open source software, but open source Music, Videos, TV........ahh an this illustrates the first part of my argument. Creating software is as creative as writing a symphony or warbling a pop song - at the end of the day we are all wanting to make financial capital out of what we create. So even though it is open source somehow the developers have to be paid.
However putting financial considerations aside I will observe that one of the failings of Windows releases is that they come in a range of different versions. When I started to explore linux (and I do use it partly at home) I was faced with what seemed a bigger choice in Linux flavours than there was software to run on them. If the Linux world want to beat Windows out of existance then pull together and develop ONE GOOD SYSTEM that that has enough flexibility to be deployed in different ways. Draw on the good features (and there are many) of other systems like Windows and OSX as far as copyright and patents will allow. My ideal Linux would provide the following:-
1) Easy installation and set up with no need for the inexperienced end user to ever even know that console and command lines exist. Those things should be there, as they are in Windows, but not essential to normal use
2) Make it more glossy and attractive to use - Ubuntu is getting there
3) Make programme installation as easy as double clicking a file and developing a single system would mean all install programmes should work
4) Get all the hardware drivers written - you cant expect hardware companies to write them all free of charge, particularly for legacy hardware - a big issue I suspect because in many cases they also wont make the code available
5) Persuade the user forums to give answers in plain english - maybe what is needed are plain english forums and others for the techies
6) Accept that the majority of consumers are motivated on cost alone - for example boot up times dont bother me as I leave my computer on 24/7 - most consumers are comfortable with windows and just want it for free - so to mainstream linux you have to find ways to woo these people away.
7) If I set a system up and run it please dont ask me for my admin password every time I want to change something or add a programme
8) dont expect me to "mount drives" and the like - I just expect them to be there automatically however they are formatted
NOW FOR THE ULTIMATE EDITION
What really would turn people on would be an operating system which could run most windows, MAC and linux software using emulators invisible to the end user - ie double click a windows installation file and Linux automatically loads an appropriate emulator and runs it. Make sure that these emulations can run 90% of windows based games
Plus all the Gimmicks and Gizmo's for those who like them - Microsoft and Apple know that a lot of users like to show off flashy new toys and there are precious few of these in linux
This post has been removed by a moderator.