[Am-info] Why MS Windows isn't ready for the Desktop

[Gene Gaines]

Well.  Is the article below baseless rant, or does it
present opinions backed up by facts?

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia


From: http://thelinuxbox.org/Desktop.php

Opinion: Why MS Windows isn't ready for the Desktop
posted July 30, 2004

by Sean Parsons

  Now as you have most likely surmised from the title, this
  article is intended to spoof the plethora of articles
  proclaiming that 'Linux is NOT, has NOT, and NEVER will be
  ready for the desktop', but the content of this article is
  also intended to be both factual and informative for those
  that have been schnookered by the anti-Linux hype.

Introduction

  In simple terms, we should define what 'ready for the desktop
  means'. A simple definition would be a graphical user
  interface in which applications have icons and can be launched
  in an intuitive manner. Well certainly MS Windows 95 achieved
  that, but then again so did Commodore 64. We should probably
  set our standards a little higher than this.

  Here's my expanded definition of what I think should be
  required to be ready for the modern desktop:

  A modern desktop system should not just sport an intuitive and
  pleasant look and feel, but it should also be secure, stable,
  offer file compatibility, and be easy to configure for a
  plethora of uses ranging from office tools to multimedia
  handling. MS Windows is so far behind in these various areas
  that it may not ever catch up to its GNU/Linux counter part.

  Above all, an operating system aspiring to compete with
  GNU/Linux must be able to build a community with the same
  level of end user commitment as what the open source community
  has achieved with its vast multitude of online forums and
  Linux User Groups (LUGs). Now while we all agree that if I had
  a question I could call a proprietary company's help desk
  (which may potentially involve a fee); although, I am quite
  likely to get an unsatisfactory answer from someone that
  barely earned their diploma in Information Technology from the
  Sally Strother's Correspondence School.

We know what 'ready for the desktop' means, but what is Windows?

  Windows is most likely a generic term within the tech
  industry. In the early 80's MIT attempted to create a W server
  to implement network transparency of windows from various
  computers (which were using various operating systems). The
  'W' stood for windows in an operating system agnostic
  environment.

  --For a little history link to modern times, when MIT rewrote
  their 'W' in 1984 they proceeded to the next letter of the
  alphabet. This rewrite has evolved into today's X Windowing
  System.

  So what you may traditionally refer to as Windows should more
  appropriately be referred to as MS Windows.

  MS Windows is a hollow shell of an operating system that
  offers very few applications upon first boot, and the
  applications it does offer are of poor quality. Let's provide
  some examples. After a fresh install of MS Windows XP
  (Microsoft's newest official desktop offering -- which was
  released nearly three years ago) here are how my options
  compare for some simple everyday tasks like writing a paper,
  surfing the web, instant messaging my friends, or creating a
  presentation for work:

  Writing a paper: MS Windows XP will let me use Word Pad, but I
  won't be able to do much formating of my text, I won't be able
  to insert tables nor images. I won't even be able to open a MS
  Word document despite the fact that Microsoft is the one that
  created this format. If we compare that to GNU/Linux you will
  see that most distributions offer ooWriter, Koffice, and
  Abiword. All three have a multitude of formatting options and
  they even have import filters to open MS Word documents. We
  will discuss more about file compatibility in greater detail
  later in this article.

  Surfing the web: Microsoft's only offering is Internet
  Explorer. GNU/Linux distributions tend to ship with a
  multitude of browsers, but to keep this simple we will use the
  Mozilla application suite for comparison since it has become
  the de facto standard.

IE vs. MOZILLA FEATURES:

  Tabbed Browsing
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No
        
  Download Manager
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No
        
  Built in Pop-Up Blocker
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No
        
  W3C Compliant
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No
        
  Can properly handle CSS
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No
        
  So insecure that the US Department of Homeland Security has warned you not to use it.
    Mozilla  YES -- IE No

  IE did not fare well in that comparison unless you like using
  a browser that the US Department of Homeland Security has
  warned you against, but we will discuss more about Microsoft's
  poor security later.

  Instant messaging: MS Windows XP ships with an IM client for
  MSN, but it will only work with others that are using the same
  instant messaging protocol. That means you can not communicate
  with those using Yahoo's or AOL's instant messaging protocols.
  With GNU/Linux you will find useful IM clients like GAIM and
  Kopete that will work with all three protocols.

  Creating a presentation: I'm sorry, but a clean install of MS
  Windows does not contain any presentation software, whereas
  GNU/Linux distributions often include Kpresenter and
  ooImpress. OoImpress doesn't just work with its own native
  format, but also is can work with Microsoft's Power point
  format, and can even be exported to HTML and Flash.

  I could continue on about the multitude of tools that
  GNU/Linux users typically have by default that our Microsoft
  counterpart lacks, but you should have the idea by now.

Security & Stability

  Let's all just say it out loud, "I have used Windows XP, and I
  have seen the blue screen of death."

  The sooner we admit that MS Windows still has not created an
  OS as stable as GNU/Linux, the sooner the FOSS community can
  help you recognize all of Microsoft's hype about XP's security
  and stability to be just that, hype. This opens the door for
  us to analyze many of the mistakes made by MS Windows XP.
  Numerous marketing execs from Microsoft have attempted to
  expound on the virtues of their tight integration between some
  of the core applications and the kernel. This causes a
  potential loss of system integrity whenever a core application
  crashes. GNU/Linux has chosen a more modular architecture.
  This modularity means that despite all the beta, and sometimes
  alpha, software that I've ran, I have never managed to crash
  the Linux kernel.

  When it comes to security, Microsoft has made two fundamental
  flaws: providing users with administrative privileges, and
  once again Microsofts 'everything is integrated' approach has
  come back to haunt them.

  Since the user functions with administrative privileges, then
  any virii, spyware, or other potential malware possess the
  same administrative privileges as the user that inadvertently
  downloaded it. In a unix-like environment, like GNU/Linux,
  each user is granted an account within the home directory, and
  administrative tasks require your root password to affect
  anything system wide.

  To continue my rant about Microsoft's 'everything is
  integrated' approach, we should consider another of its
  adverse affects. This broad sweeping integration causes any
  sort of malicious software designed to harm one of MS Windows
  core apps has the strong potential to affect everything else.
  GNU/Linux's modular approach shields it from these same
  detrimental affects.

  Now while I won't call it impossible, it would require
  Microsoft to make some major changes in how they implement
  their desktop if they ever intend to compare to GNU/Linux on
  the issue of security and stability.

File Compatibility

  When it comes to file compatibility, there are two major
  focuses; office productivity and multimedia. Sometimes you
  just need to get work done for either your job or class, and
  sometimes you just need to relax with a flick. Or if you're
  like me, then whenever you're busy in your home office,
  suddenly your daughter wants to watch some movie involving her
  favorite princess of the week. So now you've got the wide
  screen format stretched across the top of your monitor while
  you open a terminal emulator across the bottom so you can
  attempt to continue typing your project in Vi. OK, maybe I'm
  the only one with this tendency, but let's continue to explore
  the subject of file compatibility.

  Considering that in the proprietary world everything centers
  around Microsoft Office, I bet you would expect me to bow to
  MS windows superiority in this arena. If that's your
  expectation, you would be wrong. Besides the fact that MS
  Windows does not ship with MS Office, it has additional
  shortcomings. File compatibility between various versions of
  MS Office are very poor, and it can not handle formats from
  other office suites, which is a serious shortcoming in a world
  where Star Office/OpenOffice.org are gaining greater
  popularity.

  Most GNU/Linux distributions ship with OpenOffice.org (OOo).
  OOo can accurately import 95% of Microsoft Office documents,
  has its own native XML based format and can export its files
  to a plethora of formats like MS Office, HTML, Flash, PDF,
  etc. If I, a self professed nerd, am happy with all those
  options then it should suffice for Joe Desktop User.

  MS Windows has ports of all the major proprietary media
  players including Windows Media Player, Real Player,
  Quicktime, Winamp, WinDVD, etc.; but do you see the
  shortcoming there? Each media format requires a separate media
  player. GNU/Linux has a simpler methodology to handling all
  this. It's called codecs. Install the proper codecs and you
  can play all of these varying formats with one or two players
  of your choice. I like to handle everything with Kaffeine and
  the latest Real Player that the newest distros have begun
  shipping with.

  Now Microsoft could easily remedy this issue prior to their
  next major OS release, but it would require them to try and
  interoperate better with their proprietary counterparts.
  Considering Microsoft's history of trying to dominate markets,
  they are not likely to attempt this.

Conclusion

  Now the object of this article was not to make GNU/Linux
  appear perfect, but instead to demonstrate that it can provide
  a superior desktop experience for many over the traditional
  proprietary operating system. GNU/Linux has millions of users
  and is growing because of its ability to excel in so many
  different areas, so the next time someone tries to tell you
  that 'GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop', ask them, 'Whose
  desktop do you mean?'.