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.

That’s the script for the next movie from Microsoft Studios to be released as “The Story of Windows Server Longhorn: Vista Part 2.5″. According to several sources, including this post on BetaNews, Microsoft has once again begun the painful, embarrassing process of whitling down features in a yet-to-be-released product. We all remember things publicly promised in XP, Server 2003, and of course Vista. Many of which were cut to “meet production schedules”. It’s not over yet. Apparently, Longhorn is becoming Shoehorn, so as to fit into some self-proclaimed (and self-imposed) schedule.

When will software vendors learn (especially Microsoft, but other’s share blame in this regard): Release a product when it’s ready. When it’s complete and finished. Not when it smacks up against a scheduled deadline. There are no real deadlines in software when you sell retail products. If you write code for a master (as do many of us), you have deadlines. Vendors do not have real deadlines. They’re all market driven (translation: smoking crack and too many latte’s) This is just getting old and predictable. The net result is that customers (or potential customers) won’t believe them at all anymore. Sure, I believe you Mr. Ballmer. Windows Fista (I’m guessing at the next codename after Blackcomb) is going to include World-Hunger-Feeder .NET Ultimate Premium Extras 2007 Edition. Yeah. And I’m Elvis. What’s that? Mr. Ballmer says that WHFNUPE 2007 is still going to be included, but the Food module won’t ship until SP1? What’s that? Mr. Ballmer says WHFNUPE 2007 won’t make the launch date? Awe, too bad for the customers in Ethiopia I guess.

The quote of the day from Microsoft:

“So we had some really tough decisions to make.  We adjusted the feature set of Windows Server virtualization so that we can deliver a compelling solution for core virtualization scenarios while holding true to desired timelines. Windows Server virtualization is a core OS technology for the future, and we chose to focus on virtualization scenarios that meet the demands of the broad market – enterprise, large organizations, and mid-market customers. We continue to offer great technology and successful strategies for enterprise customers by broadly investing in the several areas.”

Did you catch the operative phrase in there?  It was “desired timelines“   Let me repeat that for those of you that are hearing impaired:  DESIRED TIMELINES    That translates into “self-imposed bullshit deadlines”

Microsoft (and others) should take a cue from Apple: Keep your mouth shut and feed your ADHD marketing goons decaf, until the product is ready to launch. Under-Promise and Over-Deliver. Most anyone that makes a living writing code knows this rule all too well. I live by it. (pssst: it also works for bill collectors)

I don’ t care if it’s uncool to praise something Microsoft does (or did).  I don’t care.  Longhorn Server beta 3 is a f-ing beautiful piece of software!  I jumped in late (December 06) and just started over on Beta 3 and it’s been smiles all the way.  If you have time and want to play with something new, download it and beat the shit out of it.  MS is damn good about beta program interaction and feedback.  I’ve done beta work for lots of vendors (I can’t name them due to NDA), but Microsoft is one of the best in terms of customer feedback and follow-up during CTP and beta programs.