Fundamentally, why Linux?

If you truly enjoy working with computers, Linux is the operating system of your dreams. It is more fun than any other computer operating system around. However, the reason why Linux is truly revolutionary is that it is Open Software. Our science and technology works owing to the free availability of information and peer review. Would you fly a plane that was based on proprietary science and unreviewed design, a plane at the internals of which nobody but the manufacturer could look? Then, why would you trust a closed, unreviewed, proprietary operating system? Linux is ideally suited for a mission-critical application.

Making horseshoes was once a closely guarded trade secret. Science and technology exploded 500 years ago thanks to sharing the knowledge by the means of printing. In the early days of printing, many of those who dared to share were assassinated for revealing "trade secrets". Linux is for the computer age what Gutenberg was for writing. Hopefully there will be no assassinations this time :-) .

Is Linux for me?

Only you can answer this question. Linux is a mature, powerful and extremely versatile UNIX-like operating system. The power and versatility come with a price--you may need to be computer-literate in order to set-up and maintain Linux. Linux is relatively easy to use once the operating system and applications are set up properly. So, your mother will also be able to use Linux, if you set up an easy graphical account for her and put the proper icons/menus on her GUI desktop.? Linux is secure, so your mother will not be able to damage the system no matter how hard she tries--unless it's with a hammer :-) .

Linux is quite different from MS Windows, so do not expect that if you can get around MS Windows, Linux will be obvious to you. You may need to learn. On the other hand, if you come from UNIX, Linux will be easy for you. If you don't know much about computers or you don't enjoy them, chances are Linux administration is not for you. If you don't know your hardware, Linux installation may be a challenge for you.

Linux is difficult for newbies.

This may be true.? But the question is: do you really want to learn it??? None of the authors has any computing science background, yet we use Linux every day and we love it.

What are the benefits of Linux?

Linux can give you:

o A modern, very stable, multi-user, multitasking environment on your inexpensive PC hardware, at no (or almost no) monetary cost for the software. Linux is a rich and powerful platform--don't think of it as a "poor people" operating system.? Out-of-box Linux has as much capability as MS Windows NT with $5000 in software add-ons, is more stable, and requires less powerful hardware for comparable tasks.

o Unsurpassed computing power, portability, and flexibility.? A Linux cluster recently (April 1999) beat a Cray supercomputer in a standard benchmark.? Linux is VERY standard--it is essentially a POSIX compliant UNIX.? (Yes, Linux is a best-of-the-breed UNIX. The word "UNIX" is not used in conjunction with Linux because "UNIX" is a registered trademark.) Linux is most popular on Intel-based PCs (price), but it runs very well on numerous other hardware platforms, from toy-like to mainframes.

o A truly great learning platform. If you are a parent, you should be really glad your daughter/son does Linux--s/he will surely learn something of lasting value.? If you are a teacher, you should consider the installation of Linux at your school.

o Excellent networking capability built into your operating system. You think you don't need a network? Once you try home networking, you will never be able to live without it!? What about connecting the two or more computers that you have at home and sharing your hard drives, CDROM(s), sound card(s), modem, printer(s), etc.? What about browsing the net on two or more machines at the same time using a single Internet connection? What about playing a game with your son over your home network? Even your old 386 with Win3.11 may become useful again when connected to your Linux Pentium server and when it is able to use your network resources. All necessary networking software comes with standard Linux, free, just setup is required. And it is not a second-gear shareware--it is exactly the same software that runs most of the Internet (the Apache software runs more than 50% of all Internet web servers and Sendmail touches some 70% of all e-mail). The pleasure of home networking is something I was able to discover only owing to Linux.

o Connectivity to Microsoft, Novel, and Apple proprietary networking. Reading/writing to your DOS/MS Windows and other disk formats. This includes "transparent" use of data stored on the MS Windows partition of your hard drive(s).

o Dozens of excellent and free, general-interest applications.

o Hundreds of specialized applications built by researchers around the world (astronomy, information technology, chemistry, physics, engineering, linguistics, biology, ...). In many fields, Linux seems like "the only" operating system in existence. The software in this category is typically not very easy to use, but if you want the power, it is the best software that humanity has in these areas. Doubtful? Have a look at: http://SAL.KachinaTech.COM/Z/2/index.shtml for examples.

o Thousands of free applets, tools, and smaller programs. "Small is beautiful" goes well with Linux philosophy.

o Scores of top-of-the line commercial programs including WordPerfect and all the big databases (e.g., Oracle, Sybase, but no Microsoft's).? Many (most?) of these are offered free for developers and for personal use.

o State-of-art development platform with many best-of-the-kind programming languages and tools coming free with the operating system. Access to all the operating system source codes, if you require it, is also free.

o Freedom from viruses, software manufacturer "features", invasion of privacy,? forced upgrades, licensing and marketing schemes, high software prices, and pirating. How is this?? Linux has no viruses because it is too secure an operating system for the viruses to spread with any degree of efficiency. The rest follows from the open-source and non-commercial nature of Linux.

o The operating platform that is guaranteed "here-to-stay". Since Linux is not owned, it cannot possibly be put out of business. The Linux General Public License (GPL) insures that development and support will be provided as long as there are Linux users.

o A platform which will technically develop at a rapid pace. This is insured by the modern, open-software development model which Linux implements:? "build-on-the-back-of the-previous-developer" and? "peer-review-your-code"? (as opposed to the anachronistic closed-software model: "always-start-from-scratch" and "nobody-will-see-my-code"). Even if the current "Linux hype" died out, Linux will develop as it did before the media hype started. Open source development does have its peculiarities: the development appears rather slow (vertically) but it proceeds on a very wide front, dangerous security bugs are fixed almost upon discovery, there are typically several alternatives for a program of similar functionality.

If you wanted to learn first-hand about the General Public License, check these famous GNU documents:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TheGNUsystem

The license under which Linux is distributed is probably the most important part of it. Other important open-source projects include science and law, no kidding :), although the lawyers seem to be working to change this :(

To get a flavour of the value of Linux, here are some prices for commercial software as listed at www.amazon.com.? All prices are in $USA, as listed on 2001-02-03, with discounts. Roughly equivalent Linux software is included on almost any Linux CD (but with no restrictions on the number of clients).? In addition, the hardware for Linux is MUCH cheaper, since Linux can run all services on a single server.
Microsoft Windows 2000 Server (5-client)--$848.99; Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server (5-client)--$1,279.99; Microsoft Outlook 2000 (1-client)--$94.99; Systems Management Server 2.0 (10-Cals)--$994.99; Proxy Server 2.0--$886.99; Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (5-client)--$1,229.99; Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (1-user License)--$4,443.99; Microsoft BackOffice Small Business Server 4.5 NT (Add-On 5-CAL)--$264.99;? Windows NT Server Prod Upgrade From BackOffice SBS Small Bus Server (25-client)--$558.99; Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server Upgrade (25-client)--$3,121.99;? Microsoft FrontPage 2000--$129.99; Microsoft Internet Security and Acceleration Server --$664.99;? Site Server Commerce 3.0 (25-client)--$4,092.99; Visual C++ 6.0 Professional Edition with Plus Pack--$525.99; Microsoft Visual Basic Enterprise 6.0 with Plus Pack--$1,128.99;? Microsoft Visual Sourcesafe 6.0 CD--$469.99; Microsoft Office 2000 Standard (1-client)--$384.99; Adobe Photoshop 6.0--$551.99; Microsoft Plus Game Pack--$19.99.

The word "free" has two quite different meanings in the English language, and it sometimes leads to misconceptions about the free nature of Linux. These two meanings follow the Latin adjective "liber" and the adverb "gratis", and they are often illustrated with the phrases "free speech" and "free (of charge) beer".? Most Linux software is free in both senses, but it is the first one which is essential to Linux.

What are the differences between Linux and UNIX?

Command-line-wise, almost none, although this has been changing (for better or worse). Linux has a much larger market appeal and following than any commercial UNIX.? GUI-wise there are also no major differences--Linux, as most other UNICES, uses an X-Windowing system.

The major differences:
- Linux is free, while many UNICES (this is supposed to be plural of UNIX), cost A LOT.? Same about applications--many good applications are available on Linux free.? Even the same commercial application (if you wanted to buy one) typically costs much more for a commercial UNIX than for Linux.
- Linux runs on many hardware platforms, the commodity Intel-x86/IBM-spec personal computers being the most prominent. A typical UNIX is proprietary-hardware-bonded (and this hardware tends to be much more expensive than normal PC).
- With Linux, you are in charge of your computer, whereas on most UNICES you are typically confined to be an "l-user" (some administrators pronounce it "loser").
- Linux feels very much like DOS/Win in the 80s/early 90s, but is much sturdier and richer, while a typical UNIX account feels like a mainframe from the 60s/70s.
-? Some UNICES may be more mature in certain areas (for example, security, some engineering applications, better support of cutting-edge hardware). Linux is more for an average Joe who wants to run his own small server or engineering workstation.

What are the differences between Linux and MS Windows?

Mouse-click-wise, almost none, once Linux is properly installed.? Linux installation can be a challenge though, whereas MS Windows comes pre-installed with your computer.

The major differences:
- Linux is free, while MS Windows costs money. Same for applications.
- With Linux, you are unlikely to violate any licence agreement, all the software is happily yours. With MS Windows you likely already violate all kinds of licenses and you could be pronounced a computer pirate if only a smart lawyer was after you (don't worry, most likely none is after you).
- MS Windows tries to be the "lowest-common-denominator" operating system? (for better or worse), whereas Linux is built for more sophisticated, feature hungry computer users (for better or worse).
- Windows is based on DOS, Linux is based on UNIX. Windows Graphical User Interface (GUI) is based on Microsoft-own specifications. Linux GUI is based on industry-standard X-Windows.
- Linux beats Windows hands down on network features, and as a development platform. MS Windows desktop has a more polished appearance.
- Linux is more feature-rich than you could imagine. Heard on the Internet: "Two big products came from the University of California: UNIX and LSD. And I don't think it's a coincidence."

I don't believe in free software, etc.

And do you believe in the Internet? The Internet and Linux share underlying ideas and have common roots. Do you remember the disbelief about the Internet a few years ago, the endless, seemingly unbeatable arguments that free Internet cannot exist? "Who pays for that, anyway?"

The reality is simple.? Cooperation and good will can benefit many at the same time: your gain is not my loss. Internet works fine and is expanding at a rapid pace. So does Linux.

Here is an opinion of IBM executive: "The reason we are so excited about Linux is we believe Linux can do for applications what the Internet did for networks" (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-17-001-04-PS-EL).

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

Brett Bazant wrote in LinuxToday (http://linuxtoday.com/cgi-bin/showtb.pl?tbsn=12450&sn=5418):

The economic paradigm which makes this true depends upon scarcity of resources. Software resources are only scarce because we all keep software proprietary and secret. But not Linux! When I give you my software, it may create an opportunity cost for me, but I get to keep it even after I've given it to you. It is a free lunch only rivalled in history by the loaves and the fishes.

I need high security. With commercial software, I can sue them if things go wrong.

Don't count on suing. Things go wrong on many MS Windows NT machines every day, and there are no damages awarded by courts.? Read your MS Windows license agreement to find out that there is no guarantee whatsoever that ANYTHING will work. Trying to sue would be a waste of your money.

Linux? also provides no guarantees, although it is far more secure than any version of MS Windows.? If you are really security-sensitive , you can use high-security tools built by companies that rely on the availability of the source code to design and test their security features (e.g., Kryptokom in Germany provides high security firewalls).? The "security in obscurity" implemented in MS Windows has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a naive approach.

Here is a quote from David Kastrup, Research Engineer, Bochum, Germany (after the "Internet Week", http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW19990329S0050):

"Risk aversion is what dictates you use Linux and other open products, rather than NT. The risks with NT are entirely out of your control, and there is nobody you could sue if anything goes wrong. Why people still believe the myth that Windows in any form offers any bit of accountability "more" than Linux remains a complete riddle to me."

I need standards. Big software corporations (Microsoft)? provide standards.

Perhaps that's what people would expect from large corporations, but the reality is rather different.? Once, big companies loved inventing nuts that could be undone only by their own service shops. Did these nuts become standard? Hardly. They didn't because there was no public benefit involved, and they couldn't because they were patented. Luckily, now we have open and free standards for nuts.

An example from the computer field.? The "standard" MS Word file format has changed numerous times over the recent years. This keeps happening probably for a good business reason:? as soon as other companies "reverse-engineer" the current Word format,? Microsoft changes it. There are even sub-formats (a MS "fast-save" anybody?). It is also completely closed--Microsoft does not publish the specifications. How can the user benefit from this in a longer term?

Xavier Basora? (http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/XavierBasora/XavierBasora47.html):
"... Microsoft's standards are both proprietary and arbitrary- the stealth incompatibility of Office 97 file formats with older versions of Office or the subversion of Open standards like XML with proprietary extensions that require Internet Explorer 5, MS Active server and so on, are sober reminders of what the company does to a market."

Wesley Parish (http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/WesleyParis/WesleyParish10.html):
"... Microsoft's monopoly doesn't guarantee that your current MS Office will work with any previous or future MS Office. This is in spite of any number of Microsoft apologists arguing that the benefit of Microsoft's monopoly has been a standard for productivity applications."

To add to the confusion,? companies typically do not "standardize" on file formats but on applications that are supposed to produce them. It is like standardizing on a manufacturer of nuts instead of on nuts. How is this supposed to work if the file manufacturer keeps changing the specification to drive their sales?

Ted Clark (http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-29-004-06-OP-MR-0010):
"We need standardized, open file formats so that users can exchange documents between platforms. The actual word processing software used to generate these documents shouldn't even be an issue."

There are a few text/document oriented file formats that are quite definitely more standard than MS Word file format:? ASCII, XML, HTML, SGML, LaTeX, TEX, PostScript, pdf, dvi ...? and all of them have excellent support under Linux. The MS Word file format can be also read/written very well under Linux by Word Perfect, Star Office, Applixware, etc. to cover your today's needs. Advanced, "universal", open-source document formats (XML-based) are rapidly developing so watch us :)) The story is similar with other proprietary computing "standards" (*.giff vs. *.png anyone?).

Linux, by its very nature, is based on true, published and free standards because "open source" makes the full specifications available to everybody (competitors or not). I think the urge for open standards is the very driving force behind Linux. Some people feel that they cannot affort to trust their algorithms and data to a commercial entity, let alone one that repeatedly showed to be totally untrustworthy.

Have a look at a draft of this Argentinian law for a taste of the future. It sounds like the Argentinian were the first to decide that their public records cannot be held hostage by a commercial entity: (source: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/28/010216.shtml): "Artice 6: From the date established by the Executive Power on, Public National Organizations mentioned in article 1 of this law, will not be allowed to use programs that store data in non-public format, or with licenses which ..." [are not free].

There is a general perception in the Linux community that there is a very serious problem with standards, and this problem is completely ignored and even aggravated by people who are paid to take care of it.

This includes standards for "static" data, as well as knowledge embedded in computer codes. If you write a computer program that is supposed to store any kind of know-how, you may be well-advised to: (1) select a completely open-standard base, and? (2) keep it simple. This way, you are guranteed to protect what is yours. These days, it will almost certainly include some pieces which are encased in a "typical" Linux distribution (some have been ported to other platforms as well). For examples, have a look at Perl, php, python, and Linux C libraries.

MS Windows popularity insures that it is "here to stay".

This is likely true. Nintendo is probably also "here to stay". However, I like computing so I choose a computer with a powerful operating system, not a lowest-common-denominator piece designed for "everybody".

Linux is quite positively here-to-stay because of its open-source nature (Linux cannot possibly be put out-of-business).? It is a standard selected for countless projects that are not going to go away, and some of them are quite "mission-critical". Try the International Space Station, for which Linux is the operating system (http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue59/3024.html).

Plus, never underestimate the strength of the Linux community.

But LINUX may fork into many different systems ...

This is a typical argument of the type spread by those specializing in the marketing tactics known as? "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (FUD) [about the competing product].

"Forking" in this context means "branching a computer program", so as to create parallel "subversions" of the program, and consequently fragment Linux.

There is very little (if any) evidence of harmful forking of any software that constitutes the typical Linux distribution. Where forking did occur, it has always turned beneficial. Quite possibly, this is because although there are no artificial barriers to fork software under Linux, there are also no artificial barriers to merge the best pieces back.

The theoretical background on how forking software can be good for its development might have been actually given quite some time ago by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), with his concept of dialectic development. E.g., in "Phenomenology of Spirit", Hegel concludes: "... the schism incipient in a party, which seems a misfortune, expresses its fortune rather."

Linux is a cult

The Linux community has repeatedly been labeled "religous zealots" by journalists whose well-established computer magazines received massive feedback? after they had published highly unfair artiticles on Linux.? So yes, the Linux community is numerous, well educutated, and willing to express their opinions. And many computer journalists/magazines know that Linux means less money for them (users pay less for their use of computers while expecting more). Does this explain the "zealots"?

Face it, you salespeople pretending to be journalists. How many words on Linux did your PC Magazine (or whatever) publish by 1999-01-01? Wasn't Linux at least an interesting technology by that time? It surely was, yet you selected to keep your readership in the dark, selling your journalistic integrity for money. And then, after Linux has surfaced in the mainstream (non-computer) media, you keep writing misleading articles about it saying "yah, but it will/cannot ...." whatever (trying the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" tactics to kill it). And adding "Microsoft is already ...", continuing to write about the MS vaporware and the future paradise in the face of the increasingly unstable, pricey, architecturarly unsound computer platform, whose greatest achievement has been exhorting unheard-of-before money by denying interoperatibility, and killing any existing or proposed standard (by "embracing" and then proprietary-extending it).? Whom do you serve? Surely not your readers.

I worded it pretty strongly. Am I a zealot? Or am I just trying to voice my disapproval for the self-serving actions of the computer "powers-that-be"?

You think "self-serving" is ok in business? How pathetic your business must be!? I always thought that business was a social contract in which we exchange good values, for a mutual benefit.? As I read history, societies use to hang / gillotine / electrocute those members who really persisted in their self-serving business. Well, times have changed. A bit for the better, a bit for the worse :)))

The total cost of ownership (TCO) of Linux is high

Nobody really knows how to count the "total cost of ownership", right?? So a good lawyer + accountant can prove whatever point they are paid to make.

Let me try a simple estimate of how much is the total cost of ownership of MS Windows. Let's add the fortunes accumulated by all the MS Windows software makers. Add all the salaries of all generic Windows programmers, consultants, support and training personnel, IT management,? etc. Now, add the losses customers must surely have suffered while the software corporations were twisting each other's arms so as to achieve their current monopolistic status. Divide this figure by the number of years (whatever timeframe you selected), and the number of MS Windows users (only in the countries in which software is normally paid for).? Here is the TCO of MS Windows. However you count it, it will be many thousands of good US dollars per average joe per year. You didn't pay that much money? Well, you must have, it has just been hidden from you.

How much did Linux cost? Hardly anything. Number of users is much lower, too, but you will be hard pressed to come up with $10 per user per year.

Yet, in my opinion, the total cost is not what matters the most. What value did I receive for my money?? You would have to calculate the total value of ownership (TVO?), then subtract it from the total cost of ownership (TCO) to obtain the "net benefit".

I guess accountants only talk about the TCO for software "necessary for doing business", and thus skip the issue of value and benefit. There is no value in their normal commercial software, it is just the necessity for doing business these days.? Well, Linux satisfies my computing necessities at zero monetary cost, and the personal pleasure and learning value is just great.

Linux is idealistic "dreaming"; it is business that rules the world nowadays

Think of Linux as a consortium.? A few businesses get together to address a common need or problem.? They may chip in some money, hire a technical leader, or otherwise cooperate to make Linux address their requirement. The solution is totally theirs for keeps, and it does not have to cost a lot--they can re-use the pre-existing Linux software pieces. In the process they may bypass a corporation which perhaps turned suckers on them, or a dishonest consultant--only too many of those in the software business. The parties may even cooperate to overcome the advantage that a big "industry leader" may have and use against their interests.

Linux is an end-product of activities of many such loose "consortiums" formed either by companies or individuals, who "scratch their needs". So Linux is a business, but it is not necessary about selling software--it is about access to reasonably-priced software that truly matches your need.

Linux sux etc.

Then do not use Linux. You are not doing anybody a favor by using Linux. GNU/Linux is free and powerful software, but only for those who like or need it. There are alternative operating systems for you to choose from and they may better match your requirements.

In this context, it maybe worthwhile to briefly summarize Linux strengths and weaknesses: Linux is owned by its fans (your piece of ownership comes free with your free subscription to the fan club), definitely very powerful and feature-rich, highly configurable, as flexible as you want it to be (comes with complexity), low on the cost of hardware, comes with any networking bell-and-whistle known to man, requires a computer literate administrator, some essential desktop applications are still quite a bit behind commercial offerings on other platforms (e.g., spreadsheet and word processing), a number of excellent end-user applications come "standard" and free with the operating system, graphical user interface is very nice but still not as polished as Apple or MS offerings, Linux is highly standard (UNIX, POSIX), open file formats used all along, thousands of programs available for free download (although the ease of use and quality of these varies vastly). And most of all, Linux is enjoyable!