Migrating from Windows to Linux: User Considerations (revised)

Everyone has biases; wiser people are aware and admit them. All operating systems stink. You have to select the issues which your virtual nose can tolerate. My single strongest reason for using Linux instead of Windows is control. I find the lack of control I have in the Windows environment revolting.

You do not own your copy of Windows. If you examine the license, you will see Microsoft maintains ownership of the software; you merely have a license to use it. It is a limited permit, tightly restricted, and by running it, you give Microsoft permission to do anything they please with the copy of their software running on your computer. The operating system itself is wide open to their remote manipulation, with access built into the very design of it. Furthermore, you have absolutely no legal grounds for suing them if you don’t like how that turns out.

Nobody owns Linux. Once you have it on your computer, you are on your own, but there are neither legal grounds, nor technical design which forfeits control to any outside agency. That’s not to say it can’t be done, but it’s a whole lot harder.

There are different kinds of control and different things people want to control. In my case the issue is not so much a concrete list of items to control, but the overall sense of control I have as a user. On the one hand, I’m not a coder who can write drivers or any other part of the operating system. But the link I have to those who do write them in the Open Source community is much stronger, and much more open, than it would be for Windows. In Windows land, closure and unresponsiveness is the rule. In Linux, while unresponsiveness remains an issue, it is not nearly so bad, but openness is the rule.

A poor response to the user varies from project to project in Open Source. The field is developer-centric, and the primary audience is the fanboy crowd and other developers. However, the code is open, and among the users are a higher concentration of those capable of making intelligent discussion of why something didn’t work for them. These discussions, while not always open to public participation, are invariably open to public inspection. Read enough of this banter and you begin to get a feel for why things are the way they are, and possible solutions are easier to find. Try that with a for-profit corporation; rarely do they care a whit what the actual user experience is once the product is sold. And don’t you dare ask to examine the code.

The whole question of open versus closed source code access is a reflection of much more substantial differences in the user experience. Rare is the Open Source developer who will slip into their code anything that takes control from the user. Even when it is absolutely necessary for something in the system to “phone home,” it typically connects with services which are designed by people who would be the last humans on earth to compromise your privacy and the security of your system. Those systems themselves will be open to public inspection, so you can verify the claims for protecting your interests. Almost every commercial entity lies about it, if they bother addressing it at all.

Only a fool will believe I’m offering absolutes here. The issue is not whether bad things happen, but the likelihood. In the Windows environment, bad things of this sort always happen; in Open Source, it’s quite rare. In Windows Land, you are the product sold to advertisers and government snoops. Failures are denied, hidden, or require you to spend lots of money. In Open Source Land, the software is the product, and its failures are honest. Some of the best software for Windows is also Open Source. If the flaws in Windows don’t bother you, then you aren’t likely to read stuff like this in the first place.

The second, and related bias I have against Windows is the user environment itself. This is much harder to quantify. It boils down to Linux in particular, and Open Source in general, is more likely to meet my peculiar needs. Again, all software sucks, but the combination of factors in the way I experience Linux as a user makes it superior to Windows. I like the commandline, and Linux excels here above every other OS I’ve tested. It’s not just better; it’s opulent. The options for how it is displayed onscreen alone are worth the change, but the whole atmosphere, even the user guides available, are incomparably better. The Open source environment will encourage you to become a much smarter user, taking a greater responsibility for your user experience.

I like the variations possible, and that I can recompile just about any software package to suit me. Very early in the game I learned about the highly scripted build process, and how to toggle various options to suit my tastes. One size does not fit all, and Open Source developers know it instinctively. It simply is not that hard to do, and I’ve often recommended to newbies they try it, walking them through it. It’s a very empowering experience for them. When the build process fails, most of the time I can find a solution because of all the open discussions about such things scattered around the Net.

That’s the whole point about Open Source: openness. For those of us who sense a need to control some elements of how our computer works, when clicking options on the interface are not enough, whatever is possible is wide open to our inspection. A path of action is possible without learning to write the code ourselves. Best of all, this translates into a sense of security about the nasty miscreants out there seeking to prey on the rest of the world. As much privacy, security and control as is possible is easier to obtain with Open Source. The underlying cultural philosophy says the computer belongs to you, and what you run on it shouldn’t be loaded with secrets which work against you. Even when you need an expensive solution with all the bells, whistles and chrome, you’d be surprised how often someone makes that for Linux, too. While the Open Source purists complain of pollution with closed source drivers and software running on your Linux box, it remains possible because they can’t close out the commercial vendors when the source itself remains open.

So while the Open Source developer may not be your friend, he is most certainly not your enemy. The commercial closed source company is almost certainly not your friend, and my encounters indicate they are the single greatest threat to the computer owner and user. They are the ones who won’t bother asking you, but will simply leave you vulnerable every time it improves their profits. They are the ones holding the gate open for those who most want to prey on you.

When control is an issue of any significance for you, the path is much less difficult with Linux versus Windows.