[F]Linux is Not Windows

bluecolour

作者: Augseptm  出自: http://www.linuxdiyf.com
If you've been pointed at this page, then the chances are you're arelatively new Linux user who's having some problems making the switchfrom Windows to Linux. This causes many problems for many people, hencethis article was written. Many individual issues arise from this singleproblem, so the page is broken down into multiple problem areas.

Problem #1: Linux isn't exactly the same as Windows.
You'd be amazed how many people make this complaint. They come toLinux, expecting to find essentially a free, open-source version ofWindows. Quite often, this is what they've been told to expect byover-zealous Linux users. However, it's a paradoxical hope.

The specific reasons why people try Linux vary wildly, but the overallreason boils down to one thing: They hope Linux will be better thanWindows. Common yardsticks for measuring success are cost, choice,performance, and security. There are many others. But every Windowsuser who tries Linux, does so because they hope it will be better thanwhat they've got.

Therein lies the problem.

It is logically impossible for any thing to be better than any otherthing whilst remaining completely identical to it. A perfect copy maybe equal, but it can never surpass. So when you gave Linux a try inhopes that it would be better, you were inescapably hoping that itwould be different. Too many people ignore this fact, and hold up everydifference between the two OSes as a Linux failure.

As a simple example, consider driver upgrades: one typically upgrades ahardware driver on Windows by going to the manufacturer's website anddownloading the new driver; whereas in Linux you upgrade the kernel.

This means that a single Linux download & upgrade will give you thenewest drivers available for your machine, whereas in Windows you wouldhave to surf to multiple sites and download all the upgradesindividually. It's a very different process, but it's certainly not abad one. But many people complain because it's not what they're used to.

Or, as an example you're more likely to relate to, consider Firefox:One of the biggest open-source success stories. A web browser that tookthe world by storm. Did it achieve this success by being a perfectimitation of IE, the then-most-popular browser?

No. It was successful because it was better than IE, and it was betterbecause it was different. It had tabbed browsing, live bookmarks,built-in searchbar, PNG support, adblock extensions, and otherwonderful things. The "Find" functionality appeared in a toolbar at thebottom and looked for matches as you typed, turning red when you had nomatch. IE had no tabs, no RSS functionality, searchbars only viathird-party extensions, and a find dialogue that required a click on"OK" to start looking and a click on "OK" to clear the "Not found"error message. A clear and inarguable demonstration of an open-sourceapplication achieving success by being better, and being better bybeing different. Had FF been an IE clone, it would have vanished intoobscurity. And had Linux been a Windows clone, the same would havehappened.

So the solution to problem #1: Remember that where Linux is familiarand the same as what you're used to, it isn't new & improved.Welcome the places where things are different, because only here doesit have a chance to shine.


Problem #2: Linux is too different from Windows
The next issue arises when people do expect Linux to be different, butfind that some differences are just too radical for their liking.Probably the biggest example of this is the sheer amount of choiceavailable to Linux users. Whereas an out-of-the-box-Windows user hasthe Classic or XP desktop with Wordpad, Internet Explorer, and OutlookExpress installed, an out-of-the-box-Linux user has hundreds of distrosto choose from, then Gnome or KDE or Fluxbox or whatever, with vi oremacs or kate, Konqueror or Opera or Firefox or Mozilla, and so on andso forth.

A Windows user isn't used to making so many choices just to get up& running. Exasperated "Does there have to be so much choice?"posts are very common.

Does Linux really have to be so different from Windows? After all,they're both operating systems. They both do the same job: Power yourcomputer & give you something to run applications on. Surely theyshould be more or less identical?

Look at it this way: Step outside and take a look at all the differentvehicles driving along the road. These are all vehicles designed withmore or less the same purpose: To get you from A to B via the roads.Note the variety in designs.

But, you may be thinking, car differences are really quite minor: theyall have a steering wheel, foot-pedal controls, a gear stick, ahandbrake, windows & doors, a petrol tank. . . If you can drive onecar, you can drive any car!

Quite true. But did you not see that some people weren't driving cars, but were riding motorbikes instead. . ?

Switching from one version of Windows to another is like switching fromone car to another. Win95 to Win98, I honestly couldn't tell thedifference. Win98 to WinXP, it was a bigger change but really nothingmajor.

But switching from Windows to Linux is like switching from a car to amotorbike. They may both be OSes/road vehicles. They may both use thesame hardware/roads. They may both provide an environment for you torun applications/transport you from A to B. But they use fundamentallydifferent approaches to do so.

Windows/cars are not safe from viruses/theft unless you install anantivirus/lock the doors. Linux/motorbikes don't have viruses/doors, soare perfectly safe without you having to install an antivirus/lock anydoors.

Or look at it the other way round:

Linux/cars were designed from the ground up for multipleusers/passengers. Windows/motorbikes were designed for oneuser/passenger. Every Windows user/motorbike driver is used to being infull control of his computer/vehicle at all times. A Linux user/carpassenger is used to only being in control of his computer/vehicle whenlogged in as root/sitting in the driver's seat.

Two different approaches to fulfilling the same goal. They differ infundamental ways. They have different strengths and weaknesses: A caris the clear winner at transporting a family & a lot of cargo fromA to B: More seats & more storage space. A motorbike is the clearwinner at getting one person from A to B: Less affected by congestionand uses less fuel.

There are many things that don't change when you switch between carsand motorbikes: You still have to put petrol in the tank, you stillhave to drive on the same roads, you still have to obey the trafficlights and Stop signs, you still have to indicate before turning, youstill have to obey the same speed limits.

But there are also many things that do change: Car drivers don't haveto wear crash helmets, motorbike drivers don't have to put on aseatbelt. Car drivers have to turn the steering wheel to get around acorner, motorbike drivers have to lean over. Car drivers accelerate bypushing a foot-pedal, motorbike drivers accelerate by twisting a handcontrol.

A motorbike driver who tries to corner a car by leaning over is goingto run into problems very quickly. And Windows users who try to usetheir existing skills and habits generally also find themselves havingmany issues. In fact, Windows "ower Users" frequently have moreproblems with Linux than people with little or no computer experience,for this very reason. Typically, the most vehement "Linux is not readyfor the desktop yet" arguments come from ingrained Windows users whoreason that if they couldn't make the switch, a less-experienced userhas no chance. But this is the exact opposite of the truth.

So, to avoid problem #2: Don't assume that being a knowledgeableWindows user means you're a knowledgeable Linux user: When you firststart with Linux, you are a novice.


Problem #3: Culture shock
Subproblem #3a: There is a culture
Windows users are more or less in a customer-supplier relationship:They pay for software, for warranties, for support, and so on. Theyexpect software to have a certain level of usability. They aretherefore used to having rights with their software: They have paid fortechnical support and have every right to demand that they receive it.They are also used to dealing with entities rather than people: Theircontracts are with a company, not with a person.

Linux users are in more of a community. They don't have to buy thesoftware, they don't have to pay for technical support. They downloadsoftware for free & use Instant Messaging and web-based forums toget help. They deal with people, not corporations.

A Windows user will not endear himself by bringing his habitual attitudes over to Linux, to put it mildly.

The biggest cause of friction tends to be in the online interactions: A"3a" user new to Linux asks for help with a problem he's having. Whenhe doesn't get that help at what he considers an acceptable rate, hestarts complaining and demanding more help. Because that's what he'sused to doing with paid-for tech support. The problem is that thisisn't paid-for support. This is a bunch of volunteers who are willingto help people with problems out of the goodness of their hearts. Thenew user has no right to demand anything from them, any more thansomebody collecting for charity can demand larger donations fromcontributors.

In much the same way, a Windows user is used to using commercialsoftware. Companies don't release software until it's reliable,functional, and user-friendly enough. So this is what a Windows usertends to expect from software: It starts at version 1.0. Linuxsoftware, however, tends to get released almost as soon as it'swritten: It starts at version 0.1. This way, people who really need thefunctionality can get it ASAP; interested developers can get involvedin helping improve the code; and the community as a whole stays awareof what's going on.

If a "3a" user runs into trouble with Linux, he'll complain: Thesoftware hasn't met his standards, and he thinks he has a right toexpect that standard. His mood won't be improved when he gets sarcasticreplies like "I'd demand a refund if I were you"

So, to avoid problem #3a: Simply remember that you haven't paid thedeveloper who wrote the software or the people online who provide thetech support. They don't owe you anything.


Subproblem #3b: New vs. Old
Linux pretty much started out life as a hacker's hobby. It grew as itattracted more hobbyist hackers. It was quite some time before anybodybut a geek stood a chance of getting a useable Linux installationworking easily. Linux started out "By geeks, for geeks." And eventoday, the majority of established Linux users are self-confessed geeks.

And that's a pretty good thing: If you've got a problem with hardwareor software, having a large number of geeks available to work on thesolution is a definite plus.

But Linux has grown up quite a bit since its early days. There aredistros that almost anybody can install, even distros that live on CDsand detect all your hardware for you without any intervention. It'sbecome attractive to non-hobbyist users who are just interested in itbecause it's virus-free and cheap to upgrade. It's not uncommon forthere to be friction between the two camps. It's important to bear inmind, however, that there's no real malice on either side: It's lack ofunderstanding that causes the problems.

Firstly, you get the hard-core geeks who still assume that everybodyusing Linux is a fellow geek. This means they expect a high level ofknowledge, and often leads to accusations of arrogance, elitism, andrudeness. And in truth, sometimes that's what it is. But quite often,it's not: It's elitist to say "Everybody ought to know this". It's notelitist to say "Everybody knows this" - quite the opposite.

Secondly, you get the new users who're trying to make the switch aftera lifetime of using commercial OSes. These users are used to softwarethat anybody can sit down & use, out-of-the-box.

The issues arise because group 1 is made up of people who enjoy beingable to tear their OS apart and rebuild it the way they like it, whilegroup 2 tends to be indifferent to the way the OS works, so long as itdoes work.

A parallel situation that can emphasize the problems is Lego. Picture the following:

New: I wanted a new toy car, and everybody's raving about how greatLego cars can be. So I bought some Lego, but when I got home, I justhad a load of bricks and cogs and stuff in the box. Where's my car??

Old: You have to build the car out of the bricks. That's the whole point of Lego.

New: What?? I don't know how to build a car. I'm not a mechanic. How am I supposed to know how to put it all together??

Old: There's a leaflet that came in the box. It tells you exactly howto put the bricks together to get a toy car. You don't need to knowhow, you just need to follow the instructions.

New: Okay, I found the instructions. It's going to take me hours! Whycan't they just sell it as a toy car, instead of making you have tobuild it??

Old: Because not everybody wants to make a toy car with Lego. It can be made into anything we like. That's the whole point.

New: I still don't see why they can't supply it as a car so people whowant a car have got one, and other people can take it apart if theywant to. Anyway, I finally got it put together, but some bits come offoccasionally. What do I do about this? Can I glue it?

Old: It's Lego. It's designed to come apart. That's the whole point.
New: But I don't want it to come apart. I just want a toy car!

Old: Then why on Earth did you buy a box of Lego??
It's clear to just about anybody that Lego is not really aimed atpeople who just want a toy car. You don't get conversations like theabove in real life. The whole point of Lego is that you have funbuilding it and you can make anything you like with it. If you've nointerest in building anything, Lego's not for you. This is quiteobvious.

As far as the long-time Linux user is concerned, the same holds truefor Linux: It's an open-source, fully-customizeable set of software.That's the whole point. If you don't want to hack the components a bit,why bother to use it?

But there's been a lot of effort lately to make Linux more suitable forthe non-hackers, a situation that's not a million miles away fromselling pre-assembled Lego kits, in order to make it appeal to a wideraudience. Hence you get conversations that aren't far away from theones above: Newcomers complain about the existence of what theestablished users consider to be fundamental features, and resenthaving the read a manual to get something working. But complaining thatthere are too many distros; or that software has too many configurationoptions; or that it doesn't work perfectly out-of-the-box; is likecomplaining that Lego can be made into too many models, and not likingthe fact that it can be broken down into bricks and built into manyother things.

So, to avoid problem #3b: Just remember that what Linux seems to be nowis not what Linux was in the past. The largest and most necessary partof the Linux community, the hackers and the developers, like Linuxbecause they can fit it together the way they like; they don't like itin spite of having to do all the assembly before they can use it.

Problem #4: Designed for the designer
In the car industry, you'll very rarely find that the person whodesigned the engine also designed the car interior: It calls fortotally different skills. Nobody wants an engine that only looks likeit can go fast, and nobody wants an interior that works superbly but iscramped and ugly. And in the same way, in the software industry, theuser interface (UI) is not usually created by the people who wrote thesoftware.

In the Linux world, however, this is not so much the case: Projectsfrequently start out as one man's toy. He does everything himself, andtherefore the interface has no need of any kind of "user friendly"features: The user knows everything there is to know about thesoftware, he doesn't need help. Vi is a good example of softwaredeliberately created for a user who already knows how it works: It'snot unheard of for new users to reboot their computers because theycouldn't figure out how else to get out of vi.

However, there is an important difference between a FOSS programmer andmost commercial software writers: The software a FOSS programmercreates is software that he intends to use. So whilst the end resultmight not be as 'comfortable' for the novice user, they can draw somecomfort in knowing that the software is designed by somebody who knowswhat the end-users needs are: He too is an end-user. This is verydifferent from commercial software writers, who are making software forother people to use: They are not knowledgeable end-users.

So whilst vi has an interface that is hideously unfriendly to newusers, it is still in use today because it is such a superb interfaceonce you know how it works. Firefox was created by people who regularlybrowse the Web. The Gimp was built by people who use it to manipulategraphics files. And so on.

So Linux interfaces are frequently a bit of a minefield for the noviceespite its popularity, vi should never be considered by a new user whojust wants to quickly make a few changes to a file. And if you're usingsoftware early in its lifecycle, a polished, user-friendly interface issomething you're likely to find only in the "ToDo" list: Functionalitycomes first. Nobody designs a killer interface and then tries to addfunctionality bit by bit. They create functionality, and then improvethe interface bit by bit.

So to avoid #4 issues: Look for software that's specifically aimed atbeing easy for new users to use, or accept that some software that hasa steeper learning curve than you're used to. To complain that vi isn'tfriendly enough for new users is to be laughed at for missing the point.

Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"
This is a big one. It's a very big term in the computing world,"user-friendly". It's even the name of a particularly good webcomic.But it's a bad term.

The basic concept is good: That software be designed with the needs ofthe user in mind. But it's always addressed as a single concept, whichit isn't.

If you spend your entire life processing text files, your idealsoftware will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximumamount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboardshortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.

But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to write anoccasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with learningkeyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in toolbarswill be your ideal.

Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user will notbe suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software becalled "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?

The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that makes a complex situation seem simple.

What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in which itis used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to areasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience ofthe software." This has the unfortunate effect of makinglousy-but-familiar interfaces fall into the category of "user-friendly".

Subproblem #5a: Familiar is friendly
So it is that in most "user-friendly" text editors & wordprocessors, you Cut and Paste by using Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Totallyunintuitive, but everybody's used to these combinations, so they countas a "friendly" combination.

So when somebody comes to vi and finds that it's "d" to cut, and "p" topaste, it's not considered friendly: It's not what anybody is used to.

Is it superior? Well, actually, yes.

With the Ctrl-X approach, how do you cut a word from the document you're currently in? (No using the mouse!)

From the start of the word, Ctrl-Shift-Right to select the word.
Then Ctrl-X to cut it.
The vi approach? dw deletes the word.

How about cutting five words with a Ctrl-X application?

From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-X
And with vi?

d5w

The vi approach is far more versatile and actually more intuitive: "X"and "V" are not obvious or memorable "Cut" and "aste" commands,whereas "dw" to delete a word, and "p" to put it back is perfectlystraightforward. But "X" and "V" are what we all know, so whilst vi isclearly superior, it's unfamiliar. Ergo, it is considered unfriendly.On no other basis, pure familiarity makes a Windows-like interface seemfriendly. And as we learned in problem #1, Linux is necessarilydifferent to Windows. Inescapably, Linux always appears less"user-friendly" than Windows.

To avoid #5a problems, all you can really do is try and remember that"user-friendly" doesn't mean "What I'm used to": Try doing things yourusual way, and if it doesn't work, try and work out what a total novicewould do.

Subproblem #5b: Inefficient is friendly
This is a sad but inescapable fact. Paradoxically, the harder you makeit to access an application's functionality, the friendlier it can seemto be.

This is because friendliness is added to an interface by using simple,visible 'clues' - the more, the better. After all, if a complete noviceto computers is put in front of a WYSIWYG word processor and asked tomake a bit of text bold, which is more likely:

He'll guess that "Ctrl-B" is the usual standard
He'll look for clues, and try clicking on the "Edit" menu.Unsuccessful, he'll try the next likely one along the row of menus:"Format". The new menu has a "Font" option, which seems promising. AndHey! There's our "Bold" option. Success!
Next time you do any processing, try doing every job via the menus: Noshortcut keys, and no toolbar icons. Menus all the way. You'll find youslow to a crawl, as every task suddenly demands a multitude ofkeystrokes/mouseclicks.

Making software "user-friendly" in this fashion is like puttingtraining wheels on a bicycle: It lets you get up & runningimmediately, without any skill or experience needed. It's perfect for abeginner. But nobody out there thinks that all bicycles should be soldwith training wheels: If you were given such a bicycle today, I'llwager the first thing you'd do is remove them for being unnecessaryencumbrances: Once you know how to ride a bike, training wheels areunnecessary.
And in the same way, a great deal of Linux software is designed without"training wheels" - it's designed for users who already have some basicskills in place. After all, nobody's a permanent novice: Ignorance isshort-lived, and knowledge is forever. So the software is designed withthe majority in mind.

This might seem an excuse: After all, MS Word has all the friendlymenus, and it has toolbar buttons, and it has shortcut keys. . . Bestof all worlds, surely? Friendly and efficient.

However, this has to be put into perspective: Firstly, thepracticalities: having menus and toolbars and shortcuts and all wouldmean a lot of coding, and it's not like Linux developers all get paidfor their time. Secondly, it still doesn't really take into accountserious power-users: Very few professional wordsmiths use MS Word. Evermeet a coder who used MS Word? Compare that to how many use emacs &vi.

Why is this? Firstly, because some "friendly" behaviour rules outefficient behaviour: See the "Cut&Copy" example above. Andsecondly, because most of Word's functionality is buried in menus thatyou have to use: Only the most common functionality has those handylittle buttons in toolbars at the top. The less-used functions that arestill vital for serious users just take too long to access.

Something to bear in mind, however, is that "training wheels" are oftenavailable as "optional extras" for Linux software: They might not beobvious, but frequently they're available.

Take mplayer. You use it to play a video file by typing mplayerfilename in a terminal. You fastforward & rewind using the arrowkeys and the PageUp & PageDown keys. This is not overly"user-friendly". However, if you instead type gmplayer filename, you'llget the graphical frontend, with all its nice, friendly , familiarbuttons.

Take ripping a CD to MP3 (or Ogg): Using the command-line, you need touse cdparanoia to rip the files to disc. Then you need an encoder. . .It's a hassle, even if you know exactly how to use the packages (imho).So download & install something like Grip. This is an easy-to-usegraphical frontend that uses cdparanoia and encoders behind-the-scenesto make it really easy to rip CDs, and even has CDDB support to namethe files automatically for you.

The same goes for ripping DVDs: The number of options to pass totranscode is a bit of a nightmare. But using dvd::rip to talk totranscode for you makes the whole thing a simple, GUI-based processwhich anybody can do.

So to avoid #5b issues: Remember that "training wheels" tend to bebolt-on extras in Linux, rather than being automatically supplied withthe main product. And sometimes, "training wheels" just can't be partof the design.

Problem #6: Imitation vs. Convergence
An argument people often make when they find that Linux isn't theWindows clone they wanted is to insist that this is what Linux has been(or should have been) attempting to be since it was created, and thatpeople who don't recognise this and help to make Linux moreWindows-like are in the wrong. They draw on many arguments for this:

Linux has gone from Command-Line- to Graphics-based interfaces, a clear attempt to copy Windows

Nice theory, but false: The original X windowing system was released in1984, as the successor to the W windowing system ported to Unix in1983. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. Windows didn't really make itbig until version 3, released in 1990 - by which time, X windows hadfor years been at the X11 stage we use today. Linux itself was onlystarted in 1991. So Linux didn't create a GUI to copy Windows: Itsimply made use of a GUI that existed long before Windows.

Windows 3 gave way to Windows 95 - making a huge level of changes tothe UI that Microsoft has never equalled since. It had many new &innovative features: Drag & drop functionality; taskbars, and soon. All of which have since been copied by Linux, of course.

Actually. . . no. All the above existed prior to Microsoft making useof them. NeXTSTeP in particular was a hugely advanced (for the time)GUI, and it predated Win95 significantly - version 1 released in 1989,and the final version in 1995.

Okay, okay, so Microsoft didn't think up the individual features thatwe think of as the Windows Look-and-Feel. But it still created aLook-and-Feel, and Linux has been trying to imitate that ever since.

To debunk this, one must discuss the concept of convergent evolution.This is where two completely different and independent systems evolveover time to become very similar. It happens all the time in biology.For example, sharks and dolphins. Both are (typically) fish-eatingmarine organisms of about the same size. Both have dorsal fins,pectoral fins, tail fins, and similar, streamlined shapes.

However, sharks evolved from fish, while dolphins evolved from aland-based quadrupedal mammal of some sort. The reason they have verysimilar overall appearances is that they both evolved to be asefficient as possible at living within a marine environment. At nostage did pre-dolphins (the relative newcomers) look at sharks andthink "Wow, look at those fins. They work really well. I'll try andevolve some myself!"

Similarly, it's perfectly true to look at early Linux desktops and seeFVWM and TWM and a lot of other simplistic GUIs. And then look atmodern Linux desktops, and see Gnome & KDE with their taskbars andmenus and eye-candy. And yes, it's true to say that they're a lot morelike Windows than they used to be.

But then, so is Windows: Windows 3.0 had no taskbar that I remember. And the Start menu? What Start menu?

Linux didn't have a desktop anything like modern Windows. Microsoft didn't either. Now they both do. What does this tell us?

It tells us that developers in both camps looked for ways of improvingthe GUI, and because there are only a limited number of solutions to aproblem, they often used very similar methods. Similarity does not inany way prove or imply imitation. Remembering that will help you avoidstraying into problem #6 territory.

Problem #7: That FOSS thing.
Oh, this causes problems. Not intrinsically: The software being freeand open-source is a wonderful and immensely important part of thewhole thing. But understanding just how different FOSS is fromproprietary software can be too big an adjustment for some people tomake.

I've already mentioned some instances of this: People thinking they candemand technical support and the like. But it goes far beyond that.

Microsoft's Mission Statement is "A computer on every desktop" - withthe unspoken rider that each computer should be running Windows.Microsoft and Apple both sell operating systems, and both do theirutmost to make sure their products get used by the largest number ofpeople: They're businesses, out to make money.

And then there is FOSS. Which, even today, is almost entirely non-commercial.

Before you reach for your email client to tell me about Red Hat, Suse,Linspire and all: Yes, I know they "sell" Linux. I know they'd all loveLinux to be adopted universally, especially their own flavour of it.But don't confuse the suppliers with the manufacturers. The Linuxkernel was not created by a company, and is not maintained by peopleout to make a profit with it. The GNU tools were not created by acompany, and are not maintained by people out to make a profit withthem. The X11 windowing system. . . well, the most popularimplementation is xorg right now, and the ".org" part should tell youall you need to know. Desktop software: Well, you might be able to makea case for KDE being commercial, since it's Qt-based. But Gnome,Fluxbox, Enlightenment, etc. are all non-profit. There are people outto sell Linux, but they are very much the minority.

Increasing the number of end-users of proprietary software leads to adirect financial benefit to the company that makes it. This is simplynot the case for FOSS: There is no direct benefit to any FOSS developerin increasing the userbase. Indirect benefits, yes: Personal pride; anincreased potential for finding bugs; more likelihood of attracting newdevelopers; possibly a chance of a good job offer; and so on.

But Linus Torvalds doesn't make money from increased Linux usage.Richard Stallman doesn't get money from increased GNU usage. All thoseservers running OpenBSD and OpenSSH don't put a penny into the OpenBSDproject's pockets. And so we come to the biggest problem of all when itcomes to new users and Linux:

They find out they're not wanted.

New users come to Linux after spending their lives using an OS wherethe end-user's needs are paramount, and "user friendly" and "customerfocus" are considered veritable Holy Grails. And they suddenly findthemselves using an OS that still relies on 'man' files, thecommand-line, hand-edited configuration files, and Google. And whenthey complain, they don't get coddled or promised better things: Theyget bluntly shown the door.

That's an exaggeration, of course. But it is how a lot of potentialLinux converts perceived things when they tried and failed to make theswitch.

In an odd way, FOSS is actually a very selfish development methodeople only work on what they want to work on, when they want to workon it. Most people don't see any need to make Linux more attractive toinexperienced end-users: It already does what they want it to do, whyshould they care if it doesn't work for other people?

FOSS has many parallels with the Internet itself: You don't pay thewriter of a webpage/the software to download and read/install it.Ubiquitous broadband/User-friendly interfaces are of no great interestto somebody who already has broadband/knows how to use the software.Bloggers/developers don't need to have lots of readers/users to justifyblogging/coding. There are lots of people making lots of money off it,but it's not by the old-fashioned "I own this and you have to pay me ifyou want some of it" method that most businesses are so enamoured of;it's by providing services like tech-support/e-commerce.

Linux is not interested in market share. Linux does not have customers.Linux does not have shareholders, or a responsibility to the bottomline. Linux was not created to make money. Linux does not have the goalof being the most popular and widespread OS on the planet.

All the Linux community wants is to create a really good,fully-featured, free operating system. If that results in Linuxbecoming a hugely popular OS, then that's great. If that results inLinux having the most intuitive, user-friendly interface ever created,then that's great. If that results in Linux becoming the basis of amulti-billion dollar industry, then that's great.

It's great, but it's not the point. The point is to make Linux the bestOS that the community is capable of making. Not for other people: Foritself. The oh-so-common threats of "Linux will never take over thedesktop unless it does such-and-such" are simply irrelevant: The Linuxcommunity isn't trying to take over the desktop. They really don't careif it gets good enough to make it onto your desktop, so long as itstays good enough to remain on theirs. The highly-vocal MS-haters,pro-Linux zealots, and money-making FOSS purveyors might be loud, butthey're still minorities.

That's what the Linux community wants: an OS that can be installed bywhoever really wants it. So if you're considering switching to Linux,first ask yourself what you really want.

If you want an OS that doesn't chauffeur you around, but hands you thekeys, puts you in the driver's seat, and expects you to know what todo: Get Linux. You'll have to devote some time to learning how to useit, but once you've done so, you'll have an OS that you can make sit upand dance.

If you really just want Windows without the malware and securityissues: Read up on good security practices; install a good firewall,malware-detector, and anti-virus; replace IE with a more securebrowser; and keep yourself up-to-date with security updates. There arepeople out there (myself included) who've used Windows since 3.1 daysright through to XP without ever being infected with a virus ormalware: you can do it too. Don't get Linux: It will fail miserably atbeing what you want it to be.

If you really want the security and performance of a Unix-based OS butwith a customer-focussed attitude and an world-renowned interface: Buyan Apple Mac. OS X is great. But don't get Linux: It will not do whatyou want it to do.

It's not just about "Why should I want Linux?". It's also about "Why should Linux want me?"