There are dozens of operating systems to choose from, especially for the Intel x86 line. But why, given all of these choices, would anyone be foolhardy enough to use Linux?
by Matt Welsh
Reprinted from Linux Journal, Issue 5, September 1994
When asked why I prefer Linux as my operating system of choice, I usually relate the following anecdote. One dark and stormy night, I was up very late working on my (brace yourselves) MS-DOS system. More than likely, I was busy muttering obscenities at whoever decided to use backslashes as a pathname delimiter, or something along those lines. But thats beside the point.
To make things worse, I was in Deep Hack Mode - that mysterious and frightening state of consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread. In this state, the hackers psyche engages, more or less, in a direct biofeedback relationship with the machine. Input is received via a crude optoisolator interface - the monitor and output transmitted by an even more crude tactile mechanism which runs at around a few characters per second, with a rather large frequency of error and packet retransmission. It s all very primitive, but I am saving up to have an ethernet transceiver installed in my skull. Nevertheless, very few phenomena can pull someone out of Deep Hack Mode, with two noted exceptions: being stuck by lightning, or worse, your computer being struck by lightning.
Believe it or not, this is exactly what happened. I'm innocently typing away, when suddenly the machine blows up in a shower of sparks. Waving away a cloud of smoke, I look up, and am blinded by a bright, white light. It's God. No, not Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, but God. In a booming voice, He says: THIS IS A SIGN. USE LINUX, THE FREE UNIX SYSTEM FOR THE 386. And rattles off the address of an FTP site where I can download the FAQ. It was amazing! (Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. I wonder if He has a full newsfeed?)
Apart from divine mandate, however, it may not be so obvious why someone might prefer Linux over the myriad of other operating systems out there, including commercial versions of Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). In fact, there seem to be many reasons not to use Linux. What s going on here? Mass psychosis? Are the thousands of Linux users simply crazy? Are they lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of reliable, well-engineered commercial software?
While I won't discount the possibility of insanity (although I, for one, am completely sane), there are several probable explanations. The most clear-cut of these is religious extremism. As x86-based machine owners must choose among a flotilla of operating systems, it s quite understandable to see users forming camps and taking sides with their operating system of choice. Some of these camps Linux being no exception are even preparing to go to war. Whenever people are forced to make a choice be it between different machines, different operating systems, or even different editors and shells, extremist advocates for a particular combination of the above are bound to spring up like fungus on old bread. Case in point: I once witnessed a long-winded, month-long flamewar over the use of of mice vs. trackballs. ( Stays in one place! the trackball-enthusiasts volleyed. Can wear cute dust covers! the mouse-activists retaliated. It was very silly.)
Even with all of this fervid evangelism, I still believe that we can reconcile the Linux craze with good old common sense. And maybe a just a pinch of politics.
For years, the systems software industry has assumed that most personal computer users are, well, idiots. Users can't be expected to do anything for themselves. The unlucky user that runs into any trouble is supposed to either (a) read the documentation (which contains such wisdom as Do Not Expose Your Computer To Fire or Open Flame ), or (b) call the friendly Customer Support Hotline.
For kicks, I decided to call the Customer Support Hotline at a major PC software company (and I'm not naming names). The conversation went something like this:
ME: Hello, I'm having problems booting (insert operating system name here) on my machine.
CUSTOMER SUPPORT REPRESENTATIVE: Is the computer plugged in?
ME: Oh!
You see, even if you have a great deal of computing background, and have a genuine problem that's not going to be solved by removing the computer from the bathtub (the old I spilled coffee on the keyboard! excuse), the friendly Customer Support Representative has no way of knowing this. Which is, of course, not their fault. Until AT&T makes good on its You Will teaser commercials, communication via telephone does have its limits.
The problem inherent with commercial software is that it must be designed with the mass market in mind. In order to sell millions upon millions of copies, it must appeal to the general public a very small percentage of which are actually computer enthusiasts. The designers must find the lowest common denominator amongst the wide range of experience of the software's potential users. What you end up with, after running an operating system concept through these many marketing coffee filters, is something not unlike plain hot water. Simple, harmless, and above all, boring. No caffeine, either, which doesn t bode well for late-night hacking addicts like myself.
The truth is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. The average computer user shouldn't be forced to learn a Real Operating System in order to utilize the machine. (Otherwise, we'd have to send everyone to Real Operating System re-education camp, and that would be a mess.) Microsoft has taken the admirable stance that computers are meant to be used, not tinkered with. MS Windows and friends are easy to install, easy to use, and allow nearly anyone to use their home computer for applications ranging from desktop publishing to musical composition. Like it or not, Microsoft has changed the face of the personal computing world, in many ways for the better.
My only complaint is that these operating systems don't leave room for the rest of us the 10% (or so) of computer users with the knowledge, interest, or recklessness to do something better, or at least more fun, with their machines. This must be one of the reasons why Linux is so popular it's anything but a watered-down system. It affords you the raw puissance of the x86 through a complete implementation of Unix. Not only is Linux more flexible and brawny than other operating systems, it's also less expensive. What more could you ask for? (A version of Doom for Linux? All right, but who doesn't want that?)
But, as we all know, Linux has its drawbacks. Hardware compatibility, in some areas, is sparse. (I still can t get Linux to recognize my Black & Decker power saw but trust me, I'm working on it.) Professional support is hard to come by. And documentation? Ha! Who has time for that?
On top of it all, it's much, much easier to run Linux if you've had some Unix systems administration experience. Nevertheless, thousands of novice Unix users are bailing out of the MS-DOS environment and heading for greener pastures on the Linux frontier. Why? Perhaps it's because the many benefits of Linux outweigh the shortcomings. Or, perhaps most people figure that they have nothing to lose if you have Internet access, Linux is free, and is certainly better than the commercially-available alternatives. Or perhaps, most importantly, Linux poses a real challenge for those with a taste for late-night hacking (and/or conversations with God). It rekindles the excitement of computing, particularly for those users who don't want everything handed to them on a silver platter. The April 18th issue of PC Week says that Linux reminds us of why we became interested in computers in the first place. In that, they certainly hit the nail right on the head.
In today's world of plug-and-play commercial software, Linux gives computer owners the opportunity to actually tinker with the machine. Hacking is an extremely addictive hobby, and for some, it doubles as a career. How many other PC-based operating systems leave room for the hackish spirit? Not many, unless you consider editing CONFIG.SYS hacking . Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair, but Linux includes the complete kernel source code, for crying out loud. It literally screams to be hacked on.
But apart from its technical attractiveness, and the thousand other reasons that you re sick of hearing about by now, there's one aspect of Linux that is absolutely vital to its popularity and survival. And that aspect is... (drumroll please) Linux's sex appeal. Ho ho! Are you awake now? I m kidding, of course. It's Linux's copyright. (Moans from the audience. Vegetables are lobbed.) I really do hate to bring this up, but try to bear with me. Whether you know it or not, there's a very important ethical reason to use Linux above nearly all other operating systems. And this single reason overshadows all others, in my (completely untrustworthy) opinion.
The fact that Linux, and much of the software that runs on it, is covered by the GPL is much more than a matter of politics or personal taste. I'm not claiming outright that free software is better (at least in a technical sense) than commercial software just by virtue of its freedom. But Linux does happen to be in a position where it can compete at least on the level of personal computing with several commercial operating systems.
Yes, yes, you're telling yourself, So what? Stop and think for a minute about the potential dangers of allowing large software corporations to decide how you use your machine on a daily basis. To a great extent, this is happening already. In many, many cases, users have no choice but to use MS-DOS or one of the other commercial operating systems for the PC. In some instances, you may be forced to use a particular graphics environment, a particular compiler, and so on. What can you do if you simply don't like the operating system and the software that runs on it?
In the case of commercial systems, not much. You have no access to the source code for any of this software, and therefore have no direct way to modify the system to suit your needs. Unfortunately, some operating systems place serious restrictions on the extent of user customizations, as well. Last I checked, it was impossible or at least very difficult to modify even trivial aspects of the MS Windows desktop configuration, such as the font used in window titlebars. Should software companies have that much control over how we use our computers? (Or am I having paranoid delusions from reading 1984 one too many times? You make the call.)
In addition to being subject to the whims of the software developers, you must periodically shell out hundreds of dollars to upgrade the system. In this you have no choice. It s either pay the money to upgrade, or fall into obsolescence. (Rumor has it that there is a monastery in Tibet, where the monks have taken a vow to never upgrade their systems. Could this be the path to Shangi-La? If so, it's time to dust off the old Commodore PET.) The problem compounds when you run a great deal of software that requires money to be thrown at it every few months, like a slavering dog, growling to be fed. Let's say that you run MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Microsoft Word, Lotus 1-2-3, and Borland C/C++. Each of these could cost $100 or more just to get the most recent version (and this includes the discounted price that many vendors extend to their current users). What it all amounts to is a monetary black hole forming in your pocketbook. Eventually, you ll spend more keeping your software up-to-date than you did to buy the machine in the first place.
After several years of this painful ordeal, the once top-of-the-line system on your desk will start to look like a very expensive paperweight. With the rapidity that software (and hardware) tends to become obsolete, you've got to question the rationality of this approach. Supposedly, you became involved in personal computing in order to be more productive. But how productive is it to sink hundreds and eventually thousands of dollars into this electronic pit bull with a ravenous appetite?
Naturally, free software does not suffer from these pitfalls. You have the ability to modify it as you see fit. You are not bound to the mass-marketing design used by other operating systems. Upgrading is, for the most part, relatively inexpensive. Free software puts the power back in the hands of its users.
But neither is free software the ultimate solution. The tradeoff, of course, is that Linux really isn't for everybody. It's certainly not the easiest operating system to use, nor does it run many commercial applications. On the other hand, Microsoft Windows is popular because it is an excellent personal computing solution for millions of people. Very few users care if they can modify the system, because it already works for them.
However, there is a growing segment of the computing population that does care. Not everyone can be happy with the status quo of commercial software. So, for the rest of us, there's Linux the operating system by and for hackers. The operating system that puts the fun back into computing. It's so much fun, in fact, that you could spend all day customizing the titlebar font. Believe me. I speak from experience.
Matt Welsh is a writer and programmer who spends entirely too much time fiddling with Linux. Comments are appreciated; send correspondence to the author, c/o Linux Journal, or via electronic mail at mdw@sunsite.unc.edu.
Back to my
home page..