Why Linux?

Purpose of This Document

This document presents a collection of comments made with various people over many years addressing the question why the companies that I have heavy influence in have shifted away from Microsoft Windows towards Linux.

Scope of This Document

This document intends to be a brief and somewhat disjoint overview. It comes from a disjoint collection of e-mails and postings made over the last decade. It may be completely incoherant, but it hopes to present something useful to the curious.

The Exhibits

Introduction

The following have been extracted from a variety of sources. I have removed any traces of third party identities to preserve their privacy, and have made minor grammar changes to third-party comments. Third-pary comments have a yellow coloured bar. My comments have a blue coloured bar.

Exhibit A

Private e-mail exchange

According to your article, you had a bad experience with Microsoft. Were all the problems solved after you changed to Linux?
The problems were not due to a single bad experience with Microsoft's products, but a long history. I would say that the main categories of problems were:

Sudden inability for our companies to function due to a problem with a Microsoft product.
Money.
Limits. Microsoft defines the boundaries in which one may operate.
One issue that many people do not understand is that with Microsoft our companies are held hostage by the good will and performance of a single vendor. If we have a problem, Microsoft has no incentive to help us resolve the problem. No company can support hundreds of millions, if not billions of customers. There are "problem spaces" that Microsoft does not "address" -- in otherwords, we want to do things that Microsoft programs were not designed to do. Microsoft will not help us to find a way to do these things.
Linux has solved most every problem. Other products, such as VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/), help solve other problems. The rare very bad problems that we have are due to human error.
I might add a word of comment here. I'm not anti-Microsoft or pro-Linux, though it may appear that way sometimes. I simply want to use the best tool for the task. If Microsoft products worked as well as Linux for a good price, we would be using Microsoft products. However, in our experience Microsoft products have caused more problems than Linux and Unix products. Therefore we only use Microsoft (or Windows-only) programs when the benefit is obvious.
Linux is not perfect. There are things that I like about some Microsoft products better than the corresponding Unix/Linux/GNU products.
Sometimes we have no real choice, so we mix things. For example, accounting uses Quickbooks because there is no native Linux program that is as good as Quickbooks. However the computer runs Linux. How can that be? We run Quickbooks inside of VMWare. VMWare allows us to obtain benefits of Linux and still have benefits of Quickbooks.
I know that Linux is more stable,faster, cheaper, virus-resistant and tamper resistant. Did you belive that?
That is our experience.
[Microsoft] tries to improve their product,
They do get better over time. That is true. But the risks for our companies have not disappeared, and the cost has not decreased.
Window is more user friendly because people without any computer background are able to use Microsoft Word. On the other hand Star Office will take time to learn.
I don't know that's true. Our non-technical people have not had problems, so I suspect that Microsoft's strength is assumed. One classic quotation from a Microsoft representative years ago, when they were field testing Windows 95, was "The users had a problem understanding Window's intuitive user interface." I believe that it's fair to say that people who have been exposed to Windows will have some difficulty using Linux simply because there are a different set of assumptions. However, my observation has been that somebody who has *no* computer experience will struggle with Windows as much as Linux. I think the funniest question was "Why do I go to the Start button to turn the computer off?"

Exhibit B

Continuation of previous private e-mail exchange.

What did VMWare did to your system; did it solve all of your problems? Which part Window XP can't handle it?
VMware is a program that creates a complete virtual (fake) computer. When the virtual computer starts, one may install an operating system as if it were a real computer; the operating system does not know that it runs on a virtual computer. It's a kind of strange idea, but very useful.
One problem we had with Windows was that for any given machine, if it were used daily, was that something would go wrong after 6-12 months and we would have to re-install Windows. Now we can create several different virtual machines, one for each task. We have fewer corruption problems now. I assume that a mixture of programs increases the likelihood of problems.
We can easily make backups now (each virtual machine is a group of several files on Linux), and restore a virtual computer in minutes because we only need to copy files now.
This is an ability that neither Linux nor XP have natively, but we can run both inside VMWare. We run Linux inside only for special things. We use Windows inside continually.

> Linux is not perfect. There are things that I like about some Microsoft > products better than the corresponding Unix/Linux/GNU products.
According to your experience, which part of Linux is not perfect? Is your company never have any problem at all with linux?
There are very few problems. We have never had to re-install a computer because something went wrong. Unix has many tools to automate administrative operations. We have no problems with viruses. Computer users cannot accidently destroy the operating system. Because Unix is transparent (nothing is hidden to system administrators), we can verify that everything is correct. Windows hides many critical things, and one must trust to faith that everything is correct; it is impossible to know for certain.
Big problems have been either mistakes made by system administrators -- humans, or bad hardware that must be replaced immediately. Nothing can stop these completely.
The other problems have been related to support of hardware manufacturers, which has improved tremendously in the last few years. We now keep a list of approved manufacturers that we know have excellent support for Linux. For example:

Network cards: 3COM
Video cards: Matrox and ATI
We know that if we use these parts, we will have no problems. We used to have problems with an inkjet printer printing correctly, but in the last year or two Linux's printer drivers have improved tremendously.
I cannot think of any other problems that we've had.
In summary, I cannot say that we have had zero problems with Linux, but we have had only a small number. Most every problem we had with Windows disappeared. The remaining Windows problems are inside VMWare; they cannot be fixed, but they remain inside an artificial environment that we can control.
How about GnuCash in Linux? Don't you think it's good financial software? Have you try it?

GNUCash was not designed as business accounting software, but personal finances.
We hire another company to finalize the books at the end of the year and prepare taxes, and they operate best if they can receive the information prepared in Quickbooks.

Exhibit C

Newgroup posting.

Sorry about this (as I don't hang around here usually), I expect I'll get laid into for this.
I'll be gentle. *grin*
Linux is used in science, government, graphics, etc. for "serious" projects.
A couple of the more spectacular and visible: It was used heavily on the computer graphics in the movie Titanic. DEC likes to tout their name in connection with the CG, but most people don't know that it was Linux running on 105 of the DEC machines. Source: "Linux Helps Bring Titanic to Life" Linux Journal February 1998. This very interesting article was written by a software engineer at Digital Domain who was involved with the whole thing.
Supercomputing is done with "Beowulf-class" Linux clusters. These machines work at over one gigaflop. High-power computing at bargin-basement prices. These are used at NASA, LANL, CACR, and other places. http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/beowulf/ is the main page. Source: Linux Journal January 1998
On the personal SOHO (small office/home office) side, I recently replaced NT with Linux as a file and print server, and dial-up gateway/firewall. In a business, I don't think one can "poo-poo" away these applications. It's critical to making and keeping money, not bleeding it off into overhead.
The choice was made because I found:

SPEED! Linux was faster in these operations, especially as a dial-up gateway.
SUPPORT! Microsoft has terrible support unless you pay lots of money. Even if you do pay the money, you normally get "solutions" that are no more than nice ways of saying "go away and stop bothering us." If there is a deficiency in NT, any fixes the problem are passed of as "Wait for NT 5.0." Linux problems are resolved quickly.
COST! We don't skimp on cost, but we can't find any reason to justify NT's high cost for small performance. What I get for Linux I must pay more and more add-ons for NT.
STABILITY! My Linux server is up 24x7. NT either crashes regularly or needs to be rebooted due to resource leaks. I have a second server at a different site that's been up constantly for over 1.5 years save for a handful of power outages. This has a become routine argument in Linux's favour.
NO TIME COMMITMENT! I've administered both Unix and NT in the past and present. NT requires a lot of babysitting. I don't have time for this. This was probably the biggest driving force behind the whole decision. Now I rarely have to do any sysadmin work.
CUSTOMISABILITY! (A new word) With NT I must put up with features that I don't want, even when they interfere with normal operation. I recompiled my Linux kernel to include what I wanted.
ABILITY! Features that I wanted are not available in NT.
Think about it. As a business owner I'm much more inclined to pay <$50 for something that out-performs >$1500 in nearly every aspect. I am very happy with the change.
When it comes to computers, I'm a strong believer in using the right tool for the job. Each machine is a tool. Most of development is done under NT. Testing under Win95. Everything else is Linux. The final decisions come down to pure economics.
[My comment 30-3-2002: First, VMWare has allowed us to replace NT and Windows 9x with Linux. Second, number 5's "no time commitment" is an exaggeration, as it describes the truth "I rarely have to do...work." Linux requires very little time to maintain.]

Exhibit D

Newgroup posting. The following is an example of a problem that neither Microsoft nor 3COM could help us with. Each pointed their finger at the other.

I have a machine that I installed with Win98 SE ... Windows pukes on the NIC, even with tools from the 3COM web site. Linux loves the card. I can pump data full bore to/from a machine connected to the same switch. ... No matter how many times I unistall the card, reinstall, run the 3COM tools, etc. Win98 always boots and chokes on the card.

Exhibit E

Newgroup posting. This was the last problem before trying Linux plus VMWare. NT stopped working without warning. All of these problems went away after putting Windows NT on VMWare.

... Now my one and only Microsoft (NT) box just pooped out on me (again) in a grand way... God is good. I just barely backed everything up... kaboom! Box boots but locks up on login. (Had that happen years ago with a bad disk sector.) I'm ready to try installing an NT development environment on VMWare on my Athlon LINUX machine. Sorry for the rambling. I've been taking Bill's [Bill Gates] name in vain the past 18 hours.

Exhibit F

Newgroup posting. An example of a common problem people struggle with Microsoft Windows. Windows is designed to be the only operating system on a computer. If one wants to use two, even two Microsoft operating systems, prepare for a headache unless one uses third-party software.

Microsoft's own web site advised people to do this!

I'll have a dual boot system, so can I make the Windows drive the slave without any problems?
If I'm not mistaken, Win9x must boot off of the primary partition of the primary master (C:). WinNT doesn't much care too much about where it resides, as long as the primary partition of the primary master is either FAT16 or NTFS (its boot loader doesn't recognise FAT32). Linux will boot off of a wet paper towel if needs be. :-)
Interestingly at the bottom of a very long paper on mixing OSes from which I got this information (on Microsoft's site) recommends using a third-party boot loader for mixing OSes. One may have more flexibility when a third-party loader is used, it seems.

Exhibit G

Newgroup posting. Here I make mention of a common experience we had. When Microsoft published "fixes" for their operating systems, many times they caused extreme problems. Here the first fix for Windows 2000 (SP1) broke networking on all the computers (one laptop and also inside VMWare).

We have a number of Linux servers running Samba here. We use encrypted passwords and can connect with Win9x/NT/W2K. I have a different W2K-related network problem, but it did connect just fine before I installed SP1 and everything took up residence in Hædes.

Exhibit H

Newgroup posting. This is a common argument I got from some people. They assume that because they have not had frequent problems that nobody else does either, and therefore I must be mistaken or even lying.

Microsoft hides the frequency of problems by reporting statistics that

are technically true
look good on the surface, but
when examined closely admit problems.

I have a system on NT4 which has not "committed suicide" in the 4+ years it has been running. Look to your hardware.
This is an assumption. This has happened like clockwork for years on several machines. Only once it was hardware (bad block on hard drive -- found out NT can *not* cope with that scenario at all).
I understand that there are those like you who have run NT for years without problems, but in my experience this is the exception rather than the rule. (NT compared to Win9x is quite stable.) From what I've read on Microsoft's web site they imply that daily booting is an expected ritual; one achieves high availability with multiple servers. When one is down the other is still running (with a higher load).

Exhibit I

This is the last part of a longer piece that I wrote in a heated debate over Microsoft's unethical practices.

The short story is that Linux allows the company to operate reliably with much less cost. We still have some Microsoft products, but they are for special things.

Note: m$ is a derisive abbreviation for Microsoft. This was written to other technically-minded people, so there is some jargon and slang.

I hope that m$ grows up and starts improving their product line. They have enough resources that they could make some great products if they had any passion. I'll readily admit to have liked a couple of their products for a long time. I don't hate m$ just because they're big.
HOWEVER, I have to look at the realities of having significant ownership in two businesses. We dumped Windows years ago because the endless headaches (plus Godzilla-sized gobs of money) just wasn't worth it. We currently have two dual-boot machines and a slew of Linux-based computers.... Again, we jetisoned m$ not because of existential angst, but because of the hard numbers. If we're to run optimally, we go by the numbers.
We're looking seriously at getting a 1U rack mount server to stick directly on the 'Net. Why will it run an open operating system? We run the numbers, and there is no business sense at all in selecting Windows. If there were we'd gladly use m$ products. But m$ just doesn't have a chance when we run the numbers. The last numbers I saw shows that we'd need well over $10,000 for licences, just to boot the box legally with OS, database, and other products. This does not include hardware or ongoing administration costs or security issues.
That m$ habitually lies, er, spins, er, "clarifies their position" doesn't help their credibility, in our book.

	According to your article, you had a bad experience with Microsoft. Were all the problems solved after you changed to Linux?
	The problems were not due to a single bad experience with Microsoft's products, but a long history. I would say that the main categories of problems were: Sudden inability for our companies to function due to a problem with a Microsoft product. Money. Limits. Microsoft defines the boundaries in which one may operate. One issue that many people do not understand is that with Microsoft our companies are held hostage by the good will and performance of a single vendor. If we have a problem, Microsoft has no incentive to help us resolve the problem. No company can support hundreds of millions, if not billions of customers. There are "problem spaces" that Microsoft does not "address" -- in otherwords, we want to do things that Microsoft programs were not designed to do. Microsoft will not help us to find a way to do these things. Linux has solved most every problem. Other products, such as VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/), help solve other problems. The rare very bad problems that we have are due to human error. I might add a word of comment here. I'm not anti-Microsoft or pro-Linux, though it may appear that way sometimes. I simply want to use the best tool for the task. If Microsoft products worked as well as Linux for a good price, we would be using Microsoft products. However, in our experience Microsoft products have caused more problems than Linux and Unix products. Therefore we only use Microsoft (or Windows-only) programs when the benefit is obvious. Linux is not perfect. There are things that I like about some Microsoft products better than the corresponding Unix/Linux/GNU products. Sometimes we have no real choice, so we mix things. For example, accounting uses Quickbooks because there is no native Linux program that is as good as Quickbooks. However the computer runs Linux. How can that be? We run Quickbooks inside of VMWare. VMWare allows us to obtain benefits of Linux and still have benefits of Quickbooks.
	I know that Linux is more stable,faster, cheaper, virus-resistant and tamper resistant. Did you belive that?
	That is our experience.
	[Microsoft] tries to improve their product,
	They do get better over time. That is true. But the risks for our companies have not disappeared, and the cost has not decreased.
	Window is more user friendly because people without any computer background are able to use Microsoft Word. On the other hand Star Office will take time to learn.
	I don't know that's true. Our non-technical people have not had problems, so I suspect that Microsoft's strength is assumed. One classic quotation from a Microsoft representative years ago, when they were field testing Windows 95, was "The users had a problem understanding Window's intuitive user interface." I believe that it's fair to say that people who have been exposed to Windows will have some difficulty using Linux simply because there are a different set of assumptions. However, my observation has been that somebody who has no computer experience will struggle with Windows as much as Linux. I think the funniest question was "Why do I go to the Start button to turn the computer off?"

	What did VMWare did to your system; did it solve all of your problems? Which part Window XP can't handle it?
	VMware is a program that creates a complete virtual (fake) computer. When the virtual computer starts, one may install an operating system as if it were a real computer; the operating system does not know that it runs on a virtual computer. It's a kind of strange idea, but very useful. One problem we had with Windows was that for any given machine, if it were used daily, was that something would go wrong after 6-12 months and we would have to re-install Windows. Now we can create several different virtual machines, one for each task. We have fewer corruption problems now. I assume that a mixture of programs increases the likelihood of problems. We can easily make backups now (each virtual machine is a group of several files on Linux), and restore a virtual computer in minutes because we only need to copy files now. This is an ability that neither Linux nor XP have natively, but we can run both inside VMWare. We run Linux inside only for special things. We use Windows inside continually.
	> Linux is not perfect. There are things that I like about some Microsoft > products better than the corresponding Unix/Linux/GNU products. According to your experience, which part of Linux is not perfect? Is your company never have any problem at all with linux?
	There are very few problems. We have never had to re-install a computer because something went wrong. Unix has many tools to automate administrative operations. We have no problems with viruses. Computer users cannot accidently destroy the operating system. Because Unix is transparent (nothing is hidden to system administrators), we can verify that everything is correct. Windows hides many critical things, and one must trust to faith that everything is correct; it is impossible to know for certain. Big problems have been either mistakes made by system administrators -- humans, or bad hardware that must be replaced immediately. Nothing can stop these completely. The other problems have been related to support of hardware manufacturers, which has improved tremendously in the last few years. We now keep a list of approved manufacturers that we know have excellent support for Linux. For example: Network cards: 3COM Video cards: Matrox and ATI We know that if we use these parts, we will have no problems. We used to have problems with an inkjet printer printing correctly, but in the last year or two Linux's printer drivers have improved tremendously. I cannot think of any other problems that we've had. In summary, I cannot say that we have had zero problems with Linux, but we have had only a small number. Most every problem we had with Windows disappeared. The remaining Windows problems are inside VMWare; they cannot be fixed, but they remain inside an artificial environment that we can control.
	How about GnuCash in Linux? Don't you think it's good financial software? Have you try it?
	GNUCash was not designed as business accounting software, but personal finances. We hire another company to finalize the books at the end of the year and prepare taxes, and they operate best if they can receive the information prepared in Quickbooks.