Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet)

The picture is much more clear for a normal consumer... only the gaming geek should use microsoft... the rest should use the free world. That's my opinion and I make it a reality in my family. Everything from word-processing, internet, simple gaming to mulimedia inside a cheap box (536 euro, including 17 inch monitor). That is the reality that linux offers to us no microsoft can beat that.

Smaller organizations (and individuals), in particular those without technical expertise, face relatively greater obstacles and have somewhat less to gain by their small installations.

Further, the windows way historically caters to the non-technical consumer.

Benefits of migrating to linux must be understood. Migrating to linux must be well planned and executed.

This article provides reasonable and objective insights and also helps the community to focus its efforts.

After all, we like migrators to linux to succeed and to eventually provide at least promotional support to the community by demonstrating successful deployment to peers, clients and even their families.

Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops.

Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would no longer be able to run current MS software versions anyhow.

Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch.

Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_april2003_approved.html .

I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.

Linux will be less expensive than Windows because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org can then be used instead of Microsoft Office.

...The decision about changing the office productivity package should be made separately from the decision of whether to change the client OS...

I would be happy to accept this idea, save one problem: Microsoft is more than willing to assert its right not to port Microsoft Office to Linux. Logically, I can separate my decision to change my Office Productivity package from my operating system if and only if the productivity packages I'm evaluating are available for all operating systems in question.

Running this down anew, I can easily make the following statements:

1. Microsoft Office is not ported to Linux. I cannot run it on that operating system in any reasonable supported fashion.
2. If I want to consider Linux on the desktop, and since I can't run Microsoft Office on Linux, I am now forced to consider alternatives for Linux which work in Microsoft Office's niche. Conveniently enough, StarOffice and OpenOffice do so with reasonable carryover.
3. If I make a conscious decision to choose Linux over Windows (for any reasons I deem fit), I have by default committed to an alternative to Microsoft Office. Therefore, if the alternative is less expensive than a copy of Microsoft Office, I have saved exactly that much money in licensing fees by choosing Linux.

Perhaps I could rephrase their original 'myth' like this, for rebuttal:

Linux will be less expensive than Windows because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org (or a presumably less-expensive-than-Office-alternative) must be used instead of Microsoft Office.