Preface

This is a summary, or supplement, of my personal background regarding Linux and Windows. It tries to explain the technical reasons why I stayed with Linux (and these reasons have nothing to do with "Microsoft is evil" claims). It's an except from an online discussion forum as an answer to the following posting:

"I installed linux twice...
And both times I went back to Windows. Windows has software that I want. Windows has my games. Some of you will say that "linux has WineX", which is true. But it wasnt worth the trouble, for me at least. So basically I decided that I had nothing to show for being on Linux, and went back to Windows, because it was easier, and it worked. When linux can run, out of the box, every new title (that the computers specification state it should anyway) without fuss, I might go back. And before you flame me, realize that I probably represent an absurd percentage of the windows crowd, who couldnt care less about their OS, they just want their stuff to run."

It's his opinion, and that's perfectly OK. I'm not trying to prevent people from stating their opinions - because I also have one to state. :-) Maybe I had a worse experience with Windows than other people. Maybe "other" people just came to accept that Windows doesn't work properly, because their neighbors have the same problems, and they think it's "normal"... I don't know.

For myself, I have decided that Windows does not work "well enough", even if some rare things still work better or more easily than under Linux. I prefer learning some new concepts to working around old flaws.

My Answer: "I installed Windows twice..."

No, that's wrong. I installed Windows hundreds of times. Literally.
Well, at least I tried.

Let's put it this way: I installed Windows twice after I thought I'd never want to go back.
I went back both times.
Back to OS/2 first, then back to Linux.

I started with Windows (like just about everyone here I guess). I wrote my school stuff with Word. I crashed and lost my data in win3.1, Win95 and NT4 like everybody else probably did at least once. I got hacked when I used the internet in Windows 95. I searched for alternatives and found OS/2. I actually worked with my computer, productively, during the Win95 launch, when everybody was busy reconfiguring, formatting, upgrading, crashing, searching for drivers, pestering call centers, and whatnot.

I went back to Win95 (b or c) when it came out because IBM didn't convince me to stay (OS/2 had convinced me, and I used it quite a long time - but IBMs marketing failures didn't). My small private BBS, which I started much later, stayed in OS/2 for about 4 years after that, until I moved and lost my ISDN lines.) I thought the 'new' Windows would be better, more stable, etc yadda yadda. I was disappointed.

I tried NT4. I was disappointed (my software didn't run, and the games we then played didn't either. Like Command&Conquer, which ran FINE under OS/2, even during a 33kbps BBS download).

I got Linux (SuSE 4.something from 1995) for Christmas in 1995 (I probably wouldn't have been able to decide on which Linux to buy, I'd seen it in stores but hesitated to spend 100.- DM on something I didn't know anything about). I was disappointed by the usability (fvwm2) and the GUI but impressed by the number of (free) apps for it, which could do much of what I wanted (Staroffice was available, which covered the majority; and I had a licence for OS/2, which I traded for a Linux license; it wasn't free then). The only thing that I missed was FIDOnet software, and I had a feeling Linux then was suited more to developers and internet geeks, both of which I wasn't really. In 1996, Linux wasn't comfortable, but it worked - and never crashed on my even once.

At about that time I stopped playing actual games and started playing with applications, scripts, programming languages, networks, and the like. I had experiemented with hex editors before to edit savegames (not to top the high scores, but because I wanted to know what was going on behind the scenes - I even wrote an editor for a DOS game once).
This hasn't changed much: I still have a Windows partition around for games, and I still visit LAN parties occasionally (usually, to help with the servers and administrate the network though ;) but I don't use it very often.

But after half a year my SuSE /usr/local partition (containing self-compiled programs) was bigger than the rest of the system (because I was probably too stupid for the packaging system) and my system was quite a mess - probably self-induced, I experimented too much. I tried NT4 again - not all apps worked (eg. FIDOnet software was available for 95, but didn't run in NT4, and FEddy was available for Linux then. Don't even start asking about games under NT, some of which even worked in dosEMU under Linux!). That was, IIRC, in 1996.

After some months I totally trashed NT with a service pack install which crashed during installation. At that moment, I realized I didn't want to trust my data to a Windows system again. Ever. I'd rather install something, ANYTHING, else (I wasn't far away from buying a Mac, if only they'd been affordable to a student then). I experimented with several Linux distributions during holidays and found that except for Debian, all the 'big' ones were quite similar to SuSE - RPM packaging, no easy updates, etc. (This has, fortunately, changed since then.)

I installed my Debian system during the 1996-7 christmas holidays (took me two days to get a useable system, with 'bo' aka Debian 1.3 IIRC). It took me about two weeks to understand the system and get everything running - I wasn't about to make the same mistake I made with SuSE.

But the reward was there - I haven't reinstalled since. I backup this system regularly. It has moved over two hard disk crashes, about 10 hard disk upgrades, uncountable system upgrades (eg. libc5->6, X11 3.x->4.x, perl 4.x-5.0-5.6-5.8, etc etc) and about a dozen machine upgrades (started with a P60/16MB, I'm now using an Athlon XP 2600+ with 1024MB RAM). It doesn't get slower every time you install a new program, like Windows does. (Windows wasn't really worth backing up because I had to reinstall it every couple months anyway. OS/2 was much better, but I ended up reinstalling it once or twice anyway - in four years.) When I remove programs in Linux, they get removed cleanly. It doesn't have conflicts between drivers or software, unless I install experimental stuff.

About 1998 I decided to patch a server together with spare parts: I wanted to resurrect my BBS and an ISDN dialup. I copied my Debian installation to the second harddisk, removed non-server related packages (X11, Staroffice, etc), installed server-related packages, removed my /home from the first machine, mounted /home via NFS from the second, and there we were. In 2001 I got a laptop. Copied my installation over, removed some packages, added APM and ACPI, changed the X11 driver line and resolution, ready. No new installation needed.

Well... I've used Windows for quite a long time. I am even now using Windows from time to time. As long as I don't have to maintain it and keep it running and the apps I need, it's fine. But as soon as you start doing serious stuff with it, Windows breaks in my hands. If I use Windows as I use Linux, it crashes, apps don't react, etc and people tell me that's "normal", even with Windows 2000, I'm supposed to be more careful and open less apps at the same time.

I don't accept that. When I work, I'm not a "hacker" or "freak", I just like to get my job done, which often enough is creating a presentation with Openoffice or writing technical documentation or developing database or website stuff. Currently, most of the time I'm occupied with my diploma thesis. :-) But if I can't have several text editors, office files, GIMP/Photoshop or Corel Photopaint sessions and file manager windows open without the OS throwing up, I'm not being productive.

So: I went back to Linux. Maybe Windows is easier for the 'casual' user. But please don't suggest sandals to a mountain climber, even if they are more comfortable and look better.

(Oh yes: the OS installs tend to overlap, I had two harddisks and when I changed I installed the 'new' OS on the 'other' harddisk and kept both for a period of time, when possible. So don't nail me about the exact dates, I don't remember some of them either.)

And please don't start the "much more apps available for Windows" discussion: It's totally true, if you count a) all the things that Linux can do without extra apps, and b) all the viruses and worms. And anyway, who needs 4711 file managers/ICQ clients/graphics programs/..., it's much more efficient to cooperate and put all the good features into one product, which in free software tends to happen much more often than in the commercial/shareware world. Yes, of course there are niche markets where Windows has software and Linux doesn't. But the same thing goes for the other way round.

OK, I'm finished.
Go on. You can flame me now.

Antworten auf diesen Beitrag

"While I appreciate the history of your life, I can't figure out how in the hell you're breaking W2K!"

Shall we leave the obvious methods (SMBdie, security exploits, scripts that exploit Internet Explorer holes, more Internet Explorer security problems etc) aside. I just used it. Explorer tends to hang (the system, not just the process) when generating thumbnails or when browsing FTP sites. It's worse when in the nethood and some machine reboots or for some reason decides not to answer, or you have a big network - the whole desktop freezes for as long as Explorer needs to search the network. I had most of the Windows systems installed, configured and maintained by friends who knew Windows a HELL of a lot better than me, or "standard installations" done by administrators in the companies I worked with.

Everywhere I had problems, on many systems the same problems. For example in Office 97 occasionally in 2000 I had the problem that when I closed Word or Excel and re-opened (ie. clicked on a xls file) before the process was completely finished, I wasn't able to open Office again AT ALL until I rebooted. In w2k, logging out and in again helped sometimes. Don't ask me what happened, these were standard installations without weird tools or registry hacks, and with a single digit number of installed applications (contrast to the 3-digit number of apps in Linux that I installed and use, plus those part of the system anyway).

You're right, I might not be the "standard user" that Microsoft perhaps expects. Just about the first thing I do when I start working with Windows is install some virtual desktop utiliy to have more screen space. (Before you ask: every time I had a problem I tried without the utility, of course, and the problem remained the same most of the time.) I seldomly use less than three apps at the same time, the "typical" Windows user maybe just uses them consecutively, not simultaneously.

I guess I just have a bad influence on Windows systems. When I went to my parents last Christmas (and this is no joke!) and went into my brother's room to say hello, he was playing some strategy game on his machine. (I think he's using XP) He turned around to meet me and said something like ".. but don't get near my computer, it always crashes when you are nearby, it just doesn't like Linux users". I went like "ha, ha" and turned around (being about 5 meters away from his machine) just to hear a VERY angy "TOLD YOU SO! And I didn't even save my game!" from behind me.

I don't like windows. I admit that freely. But I use it when I have to to get a job done. And I don't break it on purpose when I want a job done. But with me, it breaks nevertheless, even when I'm being taught by Windows users how to 'be careful'. Don't ask me why.

"and I've never even *heard* of the problems that you're talking about, like having to open fewer apps, having to reinstall, Windows slowing down by just installing new things, etc"

You apparently never e.g. compared boot times before and after MS Office installs or IE upgrades, and that's _without_ the additional MS Office panel. MS seems to install loads of DLLs that load at boot-time so that Word & Co. come up quickly when you start the actual application. On one machine I had (in 1997) the difference was about 20 seconds, and the system was noticeably slower after the install, and (because?) less memory was available for apps (other than MS Office).

There's the registry which is kept in memory and which keeps growing unless you manually export and re-import it under DOS. (this keeps getting mentioned in the press) There's all the PC magazines that keep telling us the "top 333 ways to speed up and optimize windows" and "registry clean up utilities" and so on. Even if YOUR system doesn't suffer from these disabilities I don't think these magazines print their registry optimization stuff just for the fun of it.

"It sounds like this is completely made up. I kind of doubt that you're the only person on the planet trying to open up multiple apps at the same time with W2K."

I made none of this up. Come visit me if you want. I live in Hamburg. The most infamous part of Hamburg, in fact - three blocks away from Atta Mohammed's place, or rather where he used to live. (That has nothing to do with my Windows problems though (or with anything else). :-)

"And you think that all of these people are all sitting around happily with crashing computers when they can go buy RedHat at Best Buy?"

Most of the people I know use Windows, and aren't happy with it - but many of the Windows users I know don't even know there are alternatives. I go to a technical university and my estimate is that about a quarter of the students there have used or currently use Linux, which is quite a sizeable percentage. But many of the others think it's NORMAL to have to reinstall every couple months, or if you are extra careful, perhaps once a year. After all, all their friends have the problem, except for the few who use Mac or Linux.

More to the point: Almost nobody uses Windows voluntarily. Most use it because they haven't yet seen (or seriously considered) alternatives. Many use it because they depend on apps that are only available for Windows. Many of those are gamers, which I understand completely. Many use it because they don't get a choice (in companies). But well, at least I know nobody who uses it just because it's Windows. Do you?

An example: The university server

During my studies I worked as an administrator in a university department. They had a Windows NT machine as a printer server. The machine crashed about 2-3 times a day. Except for a FTP server application, the printer spooler, and some Postscript driver, NO APPLICATIONS were installed on this system. And you weren't able to cancel print jobs, for some reason. I don't know who configured this system but he didn't know what he was doing, for sure. (I'm not necessarily putting the blame on NT. I simply don't know whose fault it was that his machine was down 3 times a day.)

I asked why they continued to use this system. They said because they knew how to reset and re-install it when it broke down completely, which had happened three times in the last year. I asked, and everybody is OK with that? They said, yes, after all Windows is the standard and you have to live with it.

After some discussion I was allowed to set up a Linux based printer server for testing. We didn't tell the others (just me and the full time admin), just swapped network cables. It worked, never crashed, and ran perfectly. (which was probably just as much because of us, as because of Linux). After some time, we also installed Samba file sharing, Mail server, webmail, moved the department web site from the central uni server to our own, added user accounts, and told the users how to use the new features. Everyone was really happy about the new server. Nobody knew it ran Linux, that was the plan.

After some months the department head came to us and asked if we had reinstalled the server, and congratulated us, see, it IS possible to get Windows running smoothly. We told him it wasn't running Windows any more. He went berserk and asked what the hell we thought we were doing and what are his people gonna do when the machne breaks down, and when you can't stop a print job, etc. We asked him exactly how often had the machine broken down in the last eight months? Zero times? Ah. And how often have you used the new CUPS web interface to control your print jobs, which you couldn't before, and how often have you had a problem with that? Zero times? Ah.

I imagine that if we had told people beforehand that we had switched the server to Linux, there would have been many, many more complaints - just for psychology reasons. When people don't expect something unknown or new, they tend to accept changes more easily, I think.

We are now running 4 (out of about 20) workstations under Linux in this department, and an additional server. Those are the (only) 4 workstations that kept running during the ILOVEYOU mail and worm epidemics that plagued the Windows machines in our network. People were happy that they could check their mail without having to fear every mouse click.

Now this has become much longer as I wanted, but maybe it was worth the effort and you understand a little better now. ;-)