Quite a few distributions of the Linux desktop are close to becoming products that can successfully compete against Microsoft Windows. And it's about time. The last thing we need is an economy dependent upon proprietary tools to perform common computer functions. Linux systems are evolving at a rapid rate and can be expected to provide the first universal (non-proprietary) operating system and tool assortment for the average desktop user.
If you haven't tried a recent Linux distribution, you will be pleasantly surprised at its evolution. Installing SuSE 7.3, Red Hat 7.2, Mandrake 8.1, Lycoris DesktopLX or Caldera 3.1 is as easy as installing Windows. Recent Linux distributions, with the KDE and GNOME desktops, are so user-friendly that one might ask who needs Microsoft Windows? Each system can be installed without harming Windows. Thus a user can experiment with Linux while using Windows. I support disseminating Linux as freely as AOL does its CDs.
Unfortunately, many computer users are unaware of the extent to which they are "jerked around" by companies that sell a license restricting the freedom to use their software. To paraphrase open-source advocate Richard Stallman, freedom includes the right to use the software as you want, the right to study how it works, the right to improve it and the right to disseminate the product and improvements to others. In this regard, Linux promises to provide the freedom we need.
Recent announcements by Sun Microsystems, regarding its expanded support for the open-source community and its decision to provide its own Linux distribution, are welcome news.
Hurdles to overcome
Yet while Linux is moving in the right direction, it's not there yet. Microsoft has certain advantages:
- Hardware components: Most PC hardware comes with drivers for Microsoft operating systems due to the widespread belief that PCs always run on Windows.
- Software: Most third-party software (games, audio-visual media, applications, utilities) for the desktop is compatible with one or more Microsoft operating systems.
- Microsoft Office is currently the de facto standard for office programs, because competitors have done more to imitate it than to develop an improved solution.
Linux developers must realise certain features that should be omitted or "turned off" on office network systems for reasons of security and system integrity are essential for the gamer, home and small office user.
In a nutshell, the Linux community must develop both a quality GUI system for configuring hardware and a standardised system for installing and removing software. Developers must be persuaded to provide Linux drivers, especially for "Winmodems," and to port their software products to Linux.
Tidying up the office suite
You might be interested in:
For many, office suites like Microsoft Office become limiting rather than empowering. Notwithstanding some improvements, each upgrade produces more clutter, with features that are unused or work poorly. At the same time, needed features are missing.
Currently, over a dozen offices suites are competing unnecessarily, as each follows the same self-limiting approach. To increase productivity, we need better tools than have been developed by integrating such applications as Word, Access, Excel or Outlook. Instead of continuing to add new tools to each application, which then becomes increasingly complex and unwieldy, I advocate a paradigm shift:
Let's completely modularise each tool function (such as layout, fonts, kerning, textures, linking, math and tables) and make each a separate interactive GUI tool. Like an erector set, applications could be constructed for specific needs. And like hammers, saws, wrenches and screwdrivers in the physical realm, such tools are easier to utilise than large factories (or contemporary application programs).
As these tools become refined through open-source development, proprietary vendors will be less able to hold us hostage. Moreover tools can be added as needed, which would mean we wouldn't be required to scrap and replace our entire shop.
Users (many spend as many hours on a computer as programmers) waste billions of hours annually with proprietary software. With closed-source systems, users are stuck with programs and upgrades they cannot change. Beyond that, developers can make what a person learns about an application obsolete with the next upgrade.
No one would buy a car with a welded-shut hood, yet we continue to buy software that way. The Microsoft approach limits a user to available software. With Linux, a user can grow. If a tool is missing or awkward, someone can get under the hood and fix the problem.
Two paths are before us. One leads to increasing proprietary control, protectionist measures and legal threats, while the other leads to open source, freedom and accelerated innovation. I, of course, choose the latter because it is "win-win." Vital innovation, new markets and vastly improved customer service win the vote readily over the purveyors of proprietary hoarding.
Don Soegaard a graduate of U.C. Berkeley, is an engineer with a specialisation in operations research who runs the "Linux will prevail" Web site.
Linkedin 
RSS Feeds 
Newsletters 
Alerts
Linux may well prevail eventually but .... it's still got a long way to go. The vast majority of users just want to click'n'go - they do NOT want to have to configure a system.
Maybe if a PC was supplied with Linux pre-loaded and configured and loading a new program meant insert CD and click on OK and all the software they want to run would run on Linux, maybe then Linux would stand a chance of prevailing.
Until then, no matter how many people cry out that Linux will prevail, they're still just a lonely voice crying in the wilderness. The rest of the world (some 98% of users!) will just carry on windowing because for them, it's simple and it works.