linux

["Shiv Kumar" <shivkumar@satyam.net.in>]

Why Linux will prevail
Don Soegaard, Special to ZDNet,
February 22, 2002



The idea expressed in many articles--that GNU/Linux is good for servers but
not for the desktop--is a joke. The fact is, Linux will prevail.

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:

1) Hardware components: Most PC hardware comes with drivers for Microsoft
operating systems due to the widespread belief that PCs always run on
Windows.

2) Software: Most third-party software (games, audio-visual media,
applications, utilities) for the desktop is compatible with one or more
Microsoft operating systems.

3) 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 realize 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 standardized 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
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 modularize 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 utilize 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.