I've been using linux for the better part of 10 years now as my primary desktop system, and for over 10 years as a server platform.
I've played with most of the various operating systems over the years (and I do mean years), and I'll even list the ones I've used extensively here, so you know where my experience and opinions are coming from.
Early Computer HistoryWhen people talk about their "first" on-line experience, most of the seasoned internet users especially, they're usually referring to Web 1.0 (or even 0.9, heh) and maybe even the old style AOL Chat Rooms, before AOL opened up their IM system and it was members only. Perhaps a few even mention Prodigy or CompServ, predating AOL's claim to fame, circa '95 instead of '96, which for a lot of people is considered "The Dark Age" of the internet. When I think about 1996, I had already been on-line regularly for 4 years, via various BBSes in the early 90s, and direct internet access as early as late '94.
Around that time, BBSes were mostly text-based (Ok, raise of hands, how many really remember RIPTerm?) doing funky
ANSI Artwork which actually was capable of doing a lot - it's still an art form I respect today. The only "Windows" that existed was 3.1 (Unless you count 3.11, which while a big technological upgrade for the networked computer, only really affected businesses). I don't remember how many of you ever used 3.1 (or 3.11 for that matter) but I will say that it was really little more than a shell executed on top of DOS. If Windows crashed, it did so back to a DOS prompt where you could start it back up, at least, and it didn't hard-lock the PC itself.
Eventually, Microsoft released Windows 95, which virtually did away with DOS for the average user. Yes, there was a command line on the start menu, yes you could "Exit to MS DOS mode", but DOS was no longer required to work on the computer. It also brought the Explorer style interface to the game, which is leaps and bounds ahead of progman.exe, as well as 32 bit executables. I remember upgrading very shortly after it came out, and it really did usher in a whole new era for computing.
Following on the heels of Windows 95, MS quietly released Windows NT 4.0 in '96, which was their Explorer interface bolted to the NT kernel, for businesses. I've always questioned why MS spent years on the Win9x tree, and didn't develop NT straight away for *everybody*. (I intentionally omitted NT 3.51 between 3.11 and 95 because it was not only a business OS that I never used much of, but also because the changes under the hood were mostly networking related. It didn't bring much for consumers to the table unless they were on a LAN, and lets face it, what good is a LAN to a 12 year old with friends who would rather look up a girl's dress and/or play tackle football in the park.) So here's the NT 4 system, doing just about everything that 95 did except run legacy DOS applications as well. If MS didn't spend their resources on the 95 tree, and went straight for NT 4, delayed it longer to get some of the DOS compatibility back, or even just forced the upgrade right then on consumers, I think the world would have been a lot better off. Win98 came out, and compared to 95 brought few new features that were easily noticed. The interface was the same, the system felt identical, one had to look to determine what they were running. The under the hood changes were pretty significant, but stability wasn't one of them. System would crash as often if not more than 95. But when it came out, I upgraded.
Enter the UNIXAround '96 however, I was getting involved with a number of on-line communities. Mostly on the gaming-related front, I met a group of people who were both interested in the subject, and who were running some of the more popular internet gaming portals. I won't mention which ones, but they were top 10 in the day. By hooking up with them, I exposed myself to UNIX for the first time. All the servers were using UNIX (And I want to say FreeBSD, but it really could have been BSDi, it was just so long ago) and were responsible for hosting the sites, email servers, really everything the gaming network needed. I remember every time they were rebooted or crashed, the system admin Geoff would send an email out to the mailing list everybody used (and got over 100 messages a day) letting us know exactly what happened, why, and how long services were down for. I also remember using IRC on my friend's NT4 IRC server, and the downtime it had too. I remembered emailing Geoff about why his server had maybe 5 minutes of downtime every 3 months, vs my friend's NT4 server which was being rebooted weekly (or more) around '97 or so, and while I don't still have the verbatim copy of Geoff's reply, I do very clearly remember it because it inspired me for years to come. In it, he explained the differences between UNIX and NT, both in terms of how the kernels work, where the stability comes from on UNIX vs on NT, and a ton of other key points. I also remember that he did this with out saying a single negative thing about windows, it was just very matter-of-fact - an attitude that I've tried to adopt myself (I've always considered Geoff to be one of my role models, even to this day). That sole email, backed by the comparative performance of both technologies staring me straight in the face, intrigued me, and this is when I started playing around with UNIX and learning more about it, as well as NT, too.
Around a year and a half later, Geoff installed a 2nd server for the network, and this one was running Red Hat Linux 5.1 (Manhattan), and he gave me a shell account on it to screw around with. I enjoyed it very much, learning the capabilities of a telnet terminal. The power was simply amazing, though I had never considered running UNIX as a home OS. While I suppose you could use a toothbrush to clean doorknobs, or a fork to scratch your back, it never really occurred to me to consider it. I learned command line rather well though, which is a good thing.
Around '98 or so (I was a Sophomore in high school, but it was the 2nd half of the school year - maybe March or April), I was taking a class in the graphics lab at school, and the entire lab was using Apple PCs running System 7.6. This was where I discovered the possibilities of other interfaces besides Windows, and while I admit I hated it at first, I did grow to be able to stand it, and eventually, found a few of its features missed when I was using Windows at home. Truth be told, neither system was really more stable than the other, and neither could hold a candle to UNIX. So now I had MacOS experience under my belt, as well as PC experience.
Then in Feb of '99, I upgraded my computer. The reason that's significant is because I built a whole new box from parts, and, was the first time I had ever done so. Celeron 300a CPU, Intel video card, 128 megs of RAM. It was nice. It also freed up my other PC for me to install my first copy of UNIX. I downloaded a copy of Red Hat 5.1 and tossed it on my old box. I was actually impressed to see that it did present options for a GUI-based environment. After playing around with that for a while I downloaded 6.0 and installed it on my primary computer for a few weeks - Windows has blown up in my face (again) and needed to be reinstalled, so I decided to give Linux a try on a modern and reasonably powerful system (at the time). After a few weeks, I was still impressed with it (hadn't locked up or rebooted once), but missed my old applications, and so I switched back. I never intended for it to last, but wanted to see what could be done. This was the inspiration that lead me to build a 2nd computer, just for Linux.
Eventually that 2nd computer did materialize, and I gave my other machine (the one I installed 5.1 on) to some friends. That left me with my Celeron 300a, and this new box, which was a P2 450. I gradually spent more and more time on it than I did the windows machine, discovering applications and software that replaced their windows counterparts easily enough. Linux system was far more stable than the windows system was.
Then, Microsoft ******** up... big time...Things were going well, actually, with my 2 systems. Then, MS released the upgrade to '98 - a few of you might remember it. Windows ME, the Millennium Edition. Now, I've never been the kind of person to just upgrade simply because it was new - when '95 came out, I didn't ditch 3.1 that day (or even week or month), I read the reviews, and eventually gave it a fair shot. Same is true of '98 (which took me 4 months to switch to after its debut). So when ME came out, I did my homework. And what I saw was abysmal. Disgusting. The OS was so buggy, it made a drunk driver look crash-proof. The reviews were horrible, the performance even worse. I avoided that upgrade because point blank, 98 was better than ME. Hands down on virtually every front.
When Windows 2000 came out, I did my homework, and eventually upgraded. Lost some game support, yes, but I didn't use many DOS games any more. Windows 2k was more stable than 98 was, I admit that fully. I wouldn't say it was up there with my linux box just yet (by this time I was running 6.0), but was close. I did have to reinstall 2k every 6 to 9 months though or its performance would suffer. Keep that registry file clean...
As the interface turns...As the years went by, I was using windows less and less, and Linux more and more. I came to adapt linux's Gnome platform to be a hybrid interface of MacOS + Explorer, with some linux-only attributes that I very much liked. The ability to set applications "Always on top" for instance is built into the window manager on Linux. Yes, a few windows applications support it, but it's up to the programmer to turn on/off the feature, and not a function of the OS's window manager. Thus, it's very application-specific and if the application programmer didn't implement it, you're pretty much SOL. Virtual desktops is another feature I grew to love - When your web browser is maximized, or your IRC client, meh, it isn't that big a deal, but when you're switching between 2 different virtual desktops full of a bunch of small windows filling them (think 5 IM windows and 4 terminal sessions, or maybe a spreadsheet and 3 notepad docs side by side you're doing data entry from, etc), it is a VERY useful feature. I have the MacOS-like bar across the top of my screen that I can put shortcuts on, a finder-like menu, the date/time, a few permanent system tray icons, a deskbar applet that lets me look up things on google, launch programs, find docs, everything, menus with sub-items in there, etc. The list goes on and on.
And now we come upon present day. I run linux for everything. I have a windows box (still win2k) that's hardly used - mostly accessing webmail via OWA on my work exchange server. I've used XP enough to know that it's not really any more or less stable than 2k, but doesn't bring anything to the table I want. I think the new UI is horrible, I don't see a single feature worth upgrading for, and quite a few "features" I'd rather not have. DRM isn't my cup of tea, and I certainly didn't ask MS to include it on my behalf. So I stick with 2k. I checked out Vista. I don't think it's as stable as 2k or XP. Personal belief, to each his own. I think the new interface is better than XP's but still not as good as my linux one. There's no new features in it that make me think "Gee, that's a nice touch", let alone anything that makes me go "I don't know how I lived with out this!". I don't see it worth the upgrade. It also takes DRM a big step forward - well, if I'm paying for the hardware, and I'm paying for the OS, why should I have to accept not being able to use it for what I want to use it for? If I want to copy videos, that is my business. It also is my legal right under several circumstances, but no, I'm guilty until proven innocent to MS and thus since I'm guilty, I'm not able to do it on my PC regardless of my legal rights. They've just tried and convicted me using my own paid for software and hardware with out any legal ground whatsoever.
So after this long-winded post, that touches a lot of points, it really comes down to this simple fact:
I don't care what the general opinion of windows, linux, macos, etc, is. I use what works for me.
I find linux easy to use since I can do whatever I want to do on it.
I have an interface that fits my requirements 100%.
I have applications that have historical data in them from my years of use.
I have familiarity with the base OS.
I have an OS that is reasonably up-to-date.
I have a system that is secure.
Now, am I saying that windows is insecure by my last point? No, I'm simply saying that those are my requirements for using an OS, and what is important to me. Linux can be secured. Thus, it fits my requirements. It certainly isn't the only system that can be secured, but it is the only system that meets or exceeds all of those requirements. Windows fails #1 (DRM), #2 (My interface can't be replicated on that system), #3 (Simply because I've been using them for so long and they won't run under windows), and #4 (because I have no reason to stay on top of an OS I have no plans on using).
Reply
