So, after a reader suggested this article by Clive Cooper “How I made the transition from Windows to Ubuntu“, I have to say that the obvious response to that is that the “results” of such a transition are almost entirely subjective. Not entirely, but almost. The emphasis of any perception of a “good experience” is going to depend upon the nature of use. Transitioning for a clerk, or secretary worker, is not going to be the same as that of a game developer, a CAD engineer, a musician or a media designer.

I’m not by any means trying to convey or imply any significance to those specific “roles”, just giving them as examples. I would say that many “casual” computer users would be 100% fine with Ubuntu. I dare say many would hardly notice. I’m talking about the kind of people that are awe struck at AOL. Not that this bodes ill for Linux by any means. In fact, it’s very good. The major appeal of Windows for AOL-types is ease of setup and use. Ubuntu is damn good at supplanting those attributes. Maybe not the initial setup, but then again, most of those types of users buy a computer already setup. Let’s keep this Apples-to-Apples.

For many users however, life on a computer is entirely dependent on a select group of applications software. Some of these work on Linux, some work poorly, some not at all. I do not ever consider Wine or VMware a real “solution” because it’s a bandaid on a bigger problem: a dearth of equivalent native applications. Argue all you want, but that’s what it is. Running MS-Office in a Wine session, is still MS-Office. That’s not a “clean” solution in my book. OpenOffice is (or can be, sometimes). This brings into question another argument: Should Linux have to mimick every aspect of Windows to be considered “successful”?

No. Not really. But…

It all depends on what you define as “successful” for the Linux market. Is sales and marketshare the measure? Is it vendor support and product availability? Is it magazine articles praising it’s virtues? I’ve yet to get two Linux evangelists to agree on this subject. On one hand, many will blurt out boldly that Linux can easily displace Windows on the desktop of most users. Then they hem and haw on the particulars of exactly how that could or might happen. The problem is that Windows didn’t win by technical superiority, it won by clever marketing and lucky timing. There is no “clever marketing” that I’ve seen for Linux, because there isn’t enough money behind it yet. Luck hasn’t been too kind to it either. Sure, things are improving, but very slowly based upon the numbers. Linux needs a real ass-kicking, ball-busting sponsor to take the reigns and drive the herd to the creek (in one direction). Otherwise, it’s going to remain the sideshow freak for technoweenies to gawk over. (for the record, I’m writing this on my Ubuntu desktop)

Windows isn’t a technical total failure either. It has it’s share of merits. As Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical Ltd recently said, Microsoft did contribute heavily towards the trend of cheaper priced software. It’s funny how quickly we forget that and start beating them up for escalating prices. (In case you didn’t know, Mark is the founder of Ubuntu) Remember how much a UNIX workstation cost back in 1985? I do. We bought plenty of them and I was around the Navy when they were shelling out $30,000+ for each one, and getting truckloads at a time. A typical Dell Dimension E521 today will blow one of those away in performance and capability. Part of that was the dramatic drop in operating system and basic app prices. UNIX and the proprietary apps that we bought were outrageously priced, even then.

However, what bothers me about Microsoft today, is that they’ve given up on core innovation. They still innovate in very focused areas, and certain products. But as a whole, they’ve become a follower. Chasing AOL, Netscape, Real, and now Google and Adobe (with Silverlight). Everything they’re hyping with maps, web-apps, is all catch-up. Even the newer “server core” Longhorn is a catch-up to UNIX and Linux. Pure and simple. And the more recent legal attack againt FOSS is just too much. It smacks of desperation and angst. Meanwhile, their products are becoming infused and obsessed with “rights management” at the expense of complexity, licensing terms, increased restrictions and increased prices.

I had to give Linux another chance.

I’ve been a casual user since college (late 1990’s) with Slackware, then early RedHat, then SuSe, and Mandrake, then on to Fedora and now Ubuntu. Of course, I’m basing a lot of what I’m saying on the Gnome desktop moreso than the KDE desktop. For the record, I still think KDE is too much and Gnome too little. I wish someone would crank out a happy medium.

So, what am I trying to say? Good question. The answer is this: Whether you will “like” what you get when “transitioning” from one operating system to another is going to depend on multiple factors. One of the most significant of these is the types of applications you prefer and rely upon. If suitable replacements exist for the new operating system, you may be perfectly happy. Maybe ecstatic. Maybe not. Then there’s the tedious hunt for replacements when there really aren’t many around. Do I need to list specifics? No. That would simply be picking another argument to waste more time.

I can list quite a few apps on several platforms that are difficult, if not impossible, to replace on another platform. It’s all market-driven. That’s why the CAD/CAM world is still stuck with too many products and file formats. It’s why AutoCAD doesn’t run for shit on Linux or OSX. It’s why you can’t run OSX inside VMware on a Windows host. It’s why Microsoft is still building translators and converters for MS Office 2007 to XPS, ODF and OpenXML formats to make the EU and China happy. It’s why there isn’t a native iTunes client for Linux. Homogeneity is not only boring, but profit-challenged. Water, temperature and electricity flow best when two points in the circuit are not equal. Same with markets. As long as each platform has differences, there will be products and services sold to bridge those gaps.

Going back, sort of, to Clive’s article, he provides a very insightful list of Windows-to-Linux application comparisons.  It’s missing quite a few that I happen to really need (on the Windows side), but even a few which are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to many Windows users besides myself.  Examples?

• iTunes –> Floola is the best Linux candidate I’ve found yet.  Though, still not perfect
• Autodesk AutoCAD –> ???
• Autodesk Inventor –> ???
• QuickPAR –> ???
• SQL Server 2005 Mgt Console –> ???
• IIS 6 Mgt Console –> ???
• UltraISO/WinISO –> ???

Clive also says “Nero” equates to “K3B”, but “Nero” is only one name for a SUITE of apps which are bundled together.  NeroWave, and NeroVision don’t have counterparts in K3B that I’ve ever seen.  Burning CD/DVD disks is mindless drivel.  Building DVD player menus, covers, and transcoding on the fly are a bit different.  I’m still hunting for the ??? items above.  (feel free to drop comments with suggestions if you’d like)
I’m digressing again.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Microsoft, apPle, google, longhorn, techy-geeky, vmware, windowz. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.