Are there inconvenient truths about Linux?

by Michael J. Jordan, Managing Editor

July 13, 2007

A recent blog post entitled Confessions of a Linux Fan has provoked some discussion in the Linux community. In it, the author lists 10 things (10 seems to be the preferred number of these kinds of posts) that new Linux users should be aware of. Though the author claims to be a Linux enthusiast, the 10 observations are actually just re-wordings of many of the classic arguments against using Linux. These include the notion that Linux is hard to install, that hardware support is hit or miss and that "average" people can't use it. In general, what it does is reinforce some of the classic myths about Linux. What I find most damaging about this blog post is, however, that his underlying premise seems to be that we're not being honest with potential Linux users.

I think all real Linux enthusiasts are being honest with potential users. But the truth is that the disinformation you see out there about Linux, not only in the blog I reference but in other places needs to be refuted. What I want to do here is put some of the oft-repeated "facts" about Linux in perspective.

Linux is not "really" free (i.e. costs nothing).

When we say that Linux is distributed free of charge, we mean that you can go to a website and download a CD or DVD image with a Linux distribution on it. Then you can install it on your computer. You can use it on as many computers as you like. When this particular Linux distributor releases a new version, you can repeat the process. At no point has any money has changed hands and no fees for future use are applied.

In contrast, according to present legal statutes in most countries, if you want to use Microsoft's Windows operating system, you need to purchase a boxed version of it which comes with a licence or you need to purchase a computer which has Windows installed on it already. In the latter case, part of the cost of the computer is a fee you pay to Microsoft for their operating system. I should point out that many call this the "Microsoft tax", since it is difficult to purchase a computer from a major company without them installing some version of Microsoft's operating system. So even if you don't want it, you are forced into at least paying for it initially. Then the process of having the fee refunded becomes similar to the one that American travellers in Europe have to endure to get the V.A.T. (Value Added Tax) refunded at the end of their trip. As for newer versions of Microsoft Windows, you need to pay again if you want them.

Of course, advocates of the proprietary software model will point out that there are Linux distributors that charge for their products. This is true. For-profit activities exist in the Linux world. They will also point out that some Linux distributors charge large sums of money for support contracts. This is also true. They will also point out that bandwidth to both download and provide the download service cost money. What about the cost of CDs, etc., etc.? We can take this argument to absurd levels.

In the end, is there anything that has zero cost? Besides the air that we breathe, little else is really free. Proprietary software advocates often use this as the crux of their argument about Linux not being free, implying that there are always hidden costs. But this is done in order to deny the basic fact: The Linux operating system can be obtained completely legally without having to pay money for it. This cannot be said about Microsoft Windows.

Linux use requires you to learn the command line

When I started working with PCs in the early 1980's, you needed to do a lot of typing on a black screen. I'm not talking about word processing. I am talking about needing to type in commands in order to find your files, to see how old they are or to delete them. Luckily, graphic user interfaces (GUIs) have evolved to the point where you don't have to use a command line for anything if you don't want to. This is true of Linux as well, despite what people say. A standard install of Ubuntu, Fedora or SUSE will give you a graphic user interface that comes with a file manager (Konqueror and Nautilus are the most popular on Linux systems) and you can move, delete, copy or do anything else without every having to type in a single command.

Now, those of us who are used to typing commands in a terminal and are comfortable with that way of working actually prefer it over using other graphical tools. However, I haven't seen any responsible Linux advocate say anywhere that this is something that newcomers to Linux must do. Actually, I have seen most responsible Linux enthusiasts talk about how far graphic user interfaces have come on Linux and because of this, there is no reason for a newcomer to be afraid of Linux. It is one thing to say that the command line is a good tool but it is quite another to say that Linux forces you to use it. I usually explain the situation by way of what I call my "salad shooter" analogy. If you're familiar with this product, then you know that you can use this gizmo to do many things that we used to use knives for. You can chop, slice and dice and even make julienne fries. Should you throw away your knives? Probably not, because you'd want to have them around in a pinch. Well, that's the command line. You might want to learn a few things about it to help you out in a few cases. Do you have to use it everyday? No way. I am personally getting away from the command line more and more. And this is not a conscious effort on my part. Both Nautilus and Konqueror are so good that there is no need to use a command line and my brain seems to be acknowledging that fact.

Compared with Windows, installing Linux is difficult.

When I hear this, I always ask one question: Who installs Windows? Let's face it, Windows is installed primarily at the factory before the computer reaches the consumer. Linux naysayers love to quote the "Grandma" rule, as in - 'When my grandma can install and run Linux, then it'll be ready.' Well, that sort of implies that grandma's perfectly capable of going down to Best Buy and picking up her box with Vista in it and then going home and installing it. Does this really happen? Maybe it does in the imagination of a Microsoft marketing executive. Average people don't install any operating system, so to make comparisons about which one is easier to install is a bit like saying that brain surgery, compared with open heart surgery, is difficult. What percentage of the population is actually installing Windows? Probably about the same as is performing lobotomies (and the result is about the same).

My hardware just works under Windows.

For new hardware, anecdotal evidence would tend to confirm this. Being a monopoly has its advantages, and one of those is that Microsoft can control the whole hardware supply chain - at least at the start. But then, with time, Linux developers do an excellent job of making most of that hardware work despite the difficulties and the obstacles in their way. I have noticed, however, that Vista is having similar difficulties with newer hardware. I wonder what's going on now. Maybe hardware manufacturers are getting sick of being bullied.

With Windows, I can install and run any program I want.

You certainly can. You are free to try all of those spyware shareware programs that offer you all kinds of things to make your life easier. Just download them , double click them and install them. It's really easy. Then you are free to download other freebies to de-louse your computer. When that doesn't work, you are free to re-install Windows - if you own a CD, that is.

I suppose what Windows lovers mean is that they just can't go anywhere and download any program they like and then install it with a couple of clicks. Well, if I am using Ubuntu for example, I can fire up a program called synaptic and enter some keyword in a search field and see what's available to me. With a couple of clicks, I can also install the programs that exist for Ubuntu. The same happens with Fedora or SUSE with their respective program installation software. You can install thousands of programs that exist for Linux to do thousands of different things. I can't imagine what program might exist out there for Windows that on Linux, a comparable one couldn't be found.

But even with this abundance of programs for Linux, I think people forget that we live in a world that does place some limits on our choices. People often use Quicken as an example of something that limits Linux adoption. At the time of this writing, Quicken doesn't exist for Linux. If Intuit doesn't want to make a version for Linux, we can't really force them to do it. The same goes for the game companies that won't release Linux versions. But for some people and their funny logic, this translates into 'Linux is not ready'.

Linux will ultimately fail because people want to make a profit.

Who said Linux companies don't want to make a profit? Even the Free Software Foundation, which is often accused of being a "communist" organization, finds the profit motive perfectly healthy. This is what the new GNU General Public License says about charging money for software:

You may charge any price or no price for each copy [of the software] that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

Red Hat has been making a profit for many years now. According to Novell, since the last quarter of 2006, their main revenue stream comes from their Linux division. It could also be argued that if SCO had not chosen the profit through litigation approach, they would now be a respected Linux distributor with an operation comparable to Red Hat or Novell instead of being on the verge of bankruptcy.

The approach that Novell and Red Hat take, as well as many others, is, for the general public, a new one. If it is looked at as mainly giving software away for free, then most people have trouble understanding it. But you have to look at the business landscape as a whole. Tire companies want to make tires. They don't want to maintain an IT department to make programs or support other people's programs. So they sign a contract with Red Hat in order to keep their IT operations running smoothly. The fact is, it's getting harder and harder to sell software, so Red Hat doesn't try to sell them that. They sell them peace of mind and hassle-free computing. Even Google understands this. They do the same thing, but they also sell advertising. Microsoft's business model is to sell software in boxes. Now which business model do you think will ultimately fail?

Who peddles these myths?

Michael J. Jordan is Managing Editor of Linux Online. He can be reached at Michael.Jordan**AT**linux.org