1) Windows is too easy to use 

Many Linux supporters complain that Windows is for people who do not want to learn their computer. This is a child's attitude. 

When I was about 10 years old I was excited to learn how to use a slide rule. During my youth I also enjoyed taking apart products to see what was inside of them. I suppose if personal computers were available, and if Linux was available, I would have preferred learning about Linux rather than using Windows. Linux allows people to take it apart and look inside of it. Windows, by comparison, is designed for people who just want to turn on their computer and start working. 

An analogy with cars may help explain this. Many teenagers enjoy looking inside their car and working on the engine. Imagine if Microsoft produced cars, but their “WinCar” did not allow the user to open the hood. In such a case, some teenagers would complain that the WinCar is for people who don't want to learn anything. They would instead prefer the LinuxCar, which allows them to look inside of it and alter it. 

Linux offers us the ability to look inside and modify it, but that appeals only to certain people, mainly teenage boys. The majority of adults and businesses simply want a computer that functions.

2) Linux is free 

When I was 19 I moved away from home and had to support myself. I had to carefully look at price tags before I purchased anything. The offers of free food at weddings and parties were appealing. Even the crummy snacks that were provided by retail stores at grand openings were exciting.

Free software would have appealed to me when I was a teenager (if there were personal computers during the 1970's). If Microsoft was charging $2000 for Windows, the offer of a free Linux would appeal to me. But at the moment Windows is not much more expensive than a Linux CD. Most of us prefer to give Bill Gates some money for a Windows CD rather than suffer with Linux merely to save a few dollars. I will suffer with inferior software, but only if the price difference is more significant.

Sure, Linux can be downloaded for free, but finding and downloading all the software needed is something only a few of us are interested in. If Linux was a simple download and then a simple install, it would be more appealing. But Linux is not a small file, and it is not simple to install.

The free aspect of Linux will titillate a lot of teenagers and poor people, but not people such as myself. Businesses are especially unlikely to care about getting free software when the potential savings is small and the software is lousy. The reason is that successful businesses tend to be managed by people who realize that it is often better to spend money on useful tools rather than save money with inferior tools. Each copy of Linux can save the company a small amount of money, but computer geeks are much more expensive than software. Therefore, a business would save the most money by buying software that reduces the number of geeks they need to hire.

Furthermore, if each employee of a company wastes a few hours each year searching the Internet for Linux drivers and Linux upgrades, the company will waste more money on labor than if they had purchased a site license for Windows 2000. 

“I was thinking about getting Linux, but which Linux should I get? What's the difference between SuSE, Red Hat, Caldera, Corel, Mandrake, TurboLinux, Slackware, Debian, and Storm?”

Some people say there are about one hundred variations of Linux. This variety confuses consumers. Most people just want to install software and then start working on their computer. They do not want to learn about Linux. The variety also causes some consumers to think:

“Some of these Linux companies will probably disappear during the next year, so I should wait for this situation to stabilize. I don't want to spend money now and discover six months later that I bought a loser and have to buy another one.”

Most of us want solutions to problems; not a variety of operating systems. We only want variety if the different products do different things; ie, if they solve different problems. In such a case we can select the product that solves the problem we have. But when a hundred different products all claim to be the solution to the same problem, most of us are annoyed that we have to waste our time in an attempt to figure out which company to believe. This confusion is why organizations such as Consumer Reports exist, and why so many magazines provide product reviews. Most of us want somebody else to analyze the products on the market.
 
 

How many versions of Unix do we need?

The world seems to have thousands of people working on hundreds of different versions of Linux and Unix. 

If all of these people would work together on one system, we might have an alternative to Windows instead of hundreds of inferior systems. And if they produced a superior operating system, they could sell it and quit begging for money.
 
 

How many licenses do we need?

As you can imagine, dealing with more than 40 licenses can be confusing, so Lineo developed some software to help us. This software analyzes our software. As Tim describes it, this software:

“...helps developers identify and comply with open source and proprietary licenses while decreasing overall development time. When initiated against the developer's software project, this toolset identifies source code pulled from more than 40 common licenses, such as GPL, LGPL, BSD, Artistic, and Lineo, ...”

How many more licenses are these open source people going to create over the next few years? Wouldn't it be easier to toss all those licenses in the trash and tell people to sell their software just like everybody else? 

I find it interesting that the open source people never demand that lawyers work for free. The open source people are happy to pay high salaries to lawyers, Hollywood stars, and beer company executives, but they demand that software developers work for free and keep track of more than 40 licenses.
 
 
 
 

Is Linux just another commodity to fight over?

The fighting suggests that Linux is just another commodity that companies fight to profit from while pretending to be noble organizations who work for free. The profit from Linux appeals to many Linux distributors. So let's admit that Linux people pursue money just like the rest of us because:

1) The open source concept is unrealistic in our free enterprise world. 

2) Many open source fanatics are hypocrites.

The Linux movement has a similar attitude as the Internet movement. Both of these movements got their initial push from University students and staff. The attitude with both movements is that everything should be “free” (there are different interpretations for that word); there should be no supervision; and each person should be able to behave in whatever manner he pleases.

Life is how you want to look at it. I would describe the Internet and Linux as “anarchy”, not “free”. Anarchy is preferable to lousy leadership, but consider what could happen if Linux had proper leadership.
 
 
 

There should be only one Linux for the desktop

There is no valid reason to have a Mandrake version, a Red Hat version, etc. Actually, the different versions would create maintenance problems for companies if the employees put different versions on different computers.

The one Linux CD would contain several different kernels that are designed for different microprocessors. There will be a kernel for the 486, the Pentium, the Athlon, etc. When you install Linux, it looks at which processor you have and automatically gives you the correct kernel. 

The public should not be told to download a version for the 80486 or the Athlon. The common person is not going to download a kernel, nor re-compile Linux. Is Linux for the public, or is it only for computer geeks? If it is only for geeks, then the Linux community should honestly admit that. Or, if they are trying to make a Windows replacement for everybody, they are doing a terrible job.
 
 

User Interfaces for Linux should be like food

Restaurants may offer you mashed potatoes or French fries, and the chefs do not care which one you order. Likewise, Linux people should not care which interface you want. Some people may want several, and they may switch between them depending on what they are doing and what their mood is.

People developing these interfaces should practice what they preach by sharing their software and their ideas with one another and try to help each other make a better product. When a person installs Linux, several interfaces should be installed automatically. The user should be able to switch between them, and delete whichever ones he doesn't want.

These interfaces should work together; ie, they should know that one another exists. When KDE starts up, for example, it should look to see if Gnome is on your hard disk. If so, it will add an option in the menu to “switch to Gnome”. If you select that menu option, KDE would exit and bring up Gnome.

The interfaces should be designed for different people, rather than attempting to be the one solution for everybody. In other words, the people designing KDE and the people designing Gnome should not target the same group of people. They should offer variety, not fight to be the best, as we see between Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. 

Both the Mac and Windows computers have only one interface, but children may want a different interface than adults; people with bad eyesight may want a special version with giant fonts and icons; software developers may want a different interface when they are developing software compared when they are running it; and stupid people would probably want a different interface than...well, you know.. me and you. Having some variety would give Linux (or any system) a wider appeal.
 
 
 
 

Where is Linux for industrial applications?

Industrial applications are a great opportunity for Linux. Microsoft does not provide software for this segment of the market, probably because it is too small for them to bother with. But where is Linux for this sector of the economy?

Why are the Linux people fighting to sell Linux CDs for the desktop, which is a tiny market right now, but none of them are offering a version for the people who are trying to control machines? This is a market where people are waiting for replacements for DOS and Windows. 

If the Linux people are providing software for the control of machines, they are doing a lousy job of letting us know that they exist because I've been in this field for years and I still don't know of anybody using Linux. Even in the year 2001 a couple of manufacturers asked me if I could make my Windows software work with their DOS software, but I have never been asked to make my software work with Linux.

Sure, I see only a small section of the world's industries, so it may be possible that Linux is all over the place but just not yet in my particular field. But I suspect that the Linux people are simply too disorganized and spending too much time fighting with each other to notice that many industries want a replacement for DOS and Windows.

In June of 2000 Microsoft released version 3 of Windows CE. This version supposedly provides industrial users with a functional operating system. According to all the reports I've seen, this version is slowly increasing in popularity in industries. I suppose that within a few years Windows will be dominating industrial computers just as it dominates the desktop computer.

During 1999 and 2000, I told some people not to worry, that Linux will soon be available for their industrial uses. Today I say nothing. Next year I will probably tell them that they should get Windows CE. The Linux people are losing one of their best opportunities. 

Check out this article. Some manufacturers contacted Microsoft and asked for help with the industrial software problem. Like me, many people in manufacturing are tired of the Linux promises and have decided that the only way we will get anything accomplished is to work with Microsoft.
 
 
 

There should be a different version of Linux for industrial use

A single CD would be able to hold enough variations of Linux, auxiliary modules, and help files that most industrial users would be able find what they need with that one CD.
 
 

Interfaces for Industrial Linux

The industrial version of Linux would provide several different interfaces for people to choose from. As is true of the desktop version of Linux, the interfaces for the industrial version will be providing variety rather than fighting with each other.
 
 
 

Why is there no leadership for Linux?

Torvalds is just an ordinary computer programmer who wants to live a quiet life. He does not want to be a leader. By comparison, Richard Stallman is a leader. Stallman faces critics, writes articles, offers suggestions, and gives speeches. So does Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, Dennis Powell, and many other people. But the Linux fanatics consider Torvalds their leader, not Stallman, Perens, etc.

Torvalds may be able to supervise a group of software developers, but the world should face the fact that he cannot provide the leadership that Linux needs, and he does not want to. He likes the attention he receives, but he wants to avoid the public and he wants to avoid confrontations. 

The Linux fanatics have selected a non-leader as their leader. Torvalds hides from the world and lets everybody do and say whatever they want. The end result is that Linux community is chaotic. 

How free is Linux?

“'Free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free speech', not 'free beer.'”

Part of the confusion over what is free about Linux may come from Linus Torvalds, who used the 'free beer' definition. On the 29th of January 1992 Linus Torvalds responded to criticism of Linux by Andy Tanenbaum, who created Minix.

“you doing minix as a hobby - look at who makes money off minix, and who gives linux out for free. Then talk about hobbies. Make minix freely available, and one of my biggest gripes with it will disappear. Linux has very much been a hobby (but a serious one: the best type) for me: I get no money for it, and it's not even part of any of my studies in the university. I've done it all on my own time, and on my own machine.”

Linus sounds like the Mother Teresa of the computer world. And this creates the impression that “free” means no profit, no price. Different people can easily develop different ideas on what “free” is simply by reading different remarks. Again, the lack of leadership allows a lot of confusion.
 
 
 

What is the “price” of Linux?

The Linux of 1991 was too crude to be usable. It has required a lot of work to get to the state it is in today (Feb 2001 as I write this), and it is still not ready to compete with Windows. 

Companies, such as IBM and Borland, are putting money into Linux related projects. A lot of talent and money is being put into the development and promotion of Linux and Linux applications. By putting all this money and computer programming talent into Linux, other software projects are being denied talent and money. 

If Linux never gets beyond the Internet servers, a lot of computer programming talent and money will have been wasted. A lot of talent and money has already been wasted on OS/2 and the applications for it. If Linux fails, it will be another large pile of money and talent tossed in the trash.

The Linux people insist that Linux is free, but it is free only to the person who downloads a copy and can see only his selfish desires. From the point of view of the human race, Linux is not free. The world should ask itself if Linux is worth the expense.
 
 
 

Will Linux be more successful than OS/2? 

The Linux movement had a tremendous amount of interest during 1999 and 2000, but already some of that interest has diminished. It is conceivable that during the next couple years more people will become disillusioned and put their effort back into Windows. Five years from now Linux may remain only for Internet servers and a few other specialized applications.
 
 
 

Is the Linux community suffering from low self esteem?

This behavior also occurs in regards to nations. I frequently hear Americans boast that we are the greatest nation in the world, and they prove it by pointing out one or two good qualities about the USA, and then they hold up another nation, (India is a favorite), and they pick some of its worst qualities (such as the people living in the streets of Bombay). And they think that this proves the USA is the greatest nation.

We can find good qualities and bad qualities in every nation. Every nation can boast that their nation is the greatest, and every nation can find flaws in other nations. I think this sort of boasting and criticism is a sign of low intelligence, and/or a symptom of low self esteem.
 
 

Transmeta is a good example for Linux developers

Initially people were excited about the processor and those wonderful qualities. But then they looked closely at the processor they noticed that it has inferior qualities also. They noticed that in the application that it was intended for, the Intel processors are superior overall. Transmeta is now struggling to figure out what to do with this Crusoe processor now that people have lost interest in it.

The lesson to learn from Transmeta is that they went into battle against the world's dominant processor manufacturer with a product that was inferior overall. They assumed that by providing the Crusoe chip with one or two good qualities they would be able to compete successfully against the giant Intel Corporation. They failed to realize that a product must be as good or superior overall. The story of David and Goliath rarely turns out to be true in the real world.

To further hurt Transmeta, in February of 2001 Intel released two low power microprocessors. Transmeta can no longer boast that their chip has this particular quality because Intel chips now have the same quality.

Intel did not have to spend much time producing these low power processors. Intel has a lot of talented engineers and a lot of money. They can develop a processor in much less time than a small company. And they can develop high quality processors.

The AMD Corporation has recently been successfully competing with Intel's Pentium, but that is only because they put a lot of engineering talent and money into the Athlon processor. AMD did not create the Athlon processor with a few part-time students and volunteers. A lot of very talented engineers put a lot of effort into the Athlon.

In order for Linux to successfully compete with Windows, it must be as good as Windows overall. And to replace Windows requires Linux be superior overall. Anybody who thinks this is going to be an easy task is as foolish as a company who thinks they can easily develop a processor that will beat the Intel processors.

Microsoft may have a lot of emotionally disturbed employees, but many are talented at computer programming. Microsoft also has a lot of money to fund these programmers.

There may be a battle between Linux and Windows in the future. But Microsoft is a large company with a lot of money. The Linux people are scattered around the world with no leadership, and very little money. Should the world expect these part-time and volunteer Linux programmers to successfully compete against the thousands of Microsoft programmers? Is the world making a good decision? Or is this just a crazy fantasy?
 
 

Could Linux be a success without IBM?

If the open source movement was realistic, they could make Linux a success without money and assistance from IBM. But open source is a joke in a free enterprise system. Open source depends on handouts, sympathy, and the disgust of Microsoft.
 
 
 

Who needs who?

The sad fact is that the world does not need the open source people, nor their lousy applications.

IBM is spending so much time and money on Linux that they may as well just take control of Linux and finish developing it. Who knows if the open source people will ever finish Linux. Why not just let IBM take over and quit encouraging this farce that open source will give us a new operating system? Or why not put our support behind Sun Solaris? Why support these arrogant, obnoxious, and Marxist Linux people?

IBM could continue to provide Linux to the customers who insist upon it, but they should quit encouraging the open source movement.
 
 

If Linux were to become better than Windows, and if consumers started to switch to Linux, Microsoft could produce a Linux CD. They could then add Microsoft Office, Microsoft C, and other programs. 

If the typical consumer was given a choice between a Microsoft Linux CD that contained Microsoft Office, Microsoft C, etc, and a Red Hat CD that comes with the typical assortment of free Linux software, most would pick Microsoft Linux. This would provide Microsoft with an income while reducing the sales of Red Hat CDs.

Actually, Microsoft can make more profit from a Linux CD than can Red Hat. The reason is that Microsoft doesn't have to buy Linux or pay their employees to develop Linux. By comparison, Red Hat is paying people to develop Linux, so when they sell a CD, that money is merely helping to offset their expenses for developing it.

As of 2001, Microsoft should avoid the Linux market. The most important reason is that most people who are purchasing Linux right now are trying to get away from Microsoft, so if Microsoft offered them a Linux CD, they would avoid it. Microsoft has to wait until more of the “common” people become interested in Linux.

Another reason Microsoft should not bother with a Linux CD at this particular time is that even if people were willing to buy Microsoft Linux, the desktop market for Linux is so small that it may not be worth the expense of printing the documentation and trying to market it. It is better for Microsoft to wait for the market to become larger. Only the Linux distributors are so lacking in money that they are willing to struggle for such low levels of profit.

However, if in the future the desktop market for Linux becomes large, Microsoft would be able profit from a Microsoft Linux CD. But let's assume that nobody wants to buy Microsoft Linux. Let's assume everybody buys Red Hat Linux, instead. Will Microsoft go bankrupt? No, Microsoft would simply respond by offering Linux versions of Microsoft Office, Microsoft C, and other software.

In other words, even if Microsoft cannot profit by selling the Linux operating system, they can convert their software to Linux and then sell that software. Why would Microsoft care whether they sell Microsoft Office for Windows or Microsoft Office for Linux? The profit is the same in either case.
 
 
 

Microsoft is a significant competitor in the Macintosh world

A Linux computer is similar to an Apple computer; ie, it is simply another source of revenue; another computer to dominate.

Many people considered the Macintosh to be capable of destroying Microsoft and the IBM PC empire. But Microsoft just laughed and produced Microsoft Word and other software for the Macintosh. This brought in large amounts of profit to Microsoft at the expense of the companies who were struggling to produce software for the Macintosh.

Likewise, if Linux computers start selling large quantities, Microsoft will eventually respond by providing Microsoft Office and other programs for Linux. 

Microsoft has nothing to fear from Linux. Actually, Linux is less of a threat than the Macintosh because the Linux source code is freely available. By making the source code freely available, it is difficult for any company to make much profit from it. The only profit that can be made from a Linux operating system is the profit that come from selling the Linux CDs. This means that the people producing Linux have no source of income other than the income that comes from CD production. The Macintosh system by comparison, is sold by the developers of the system, and that brings in enough profit to keep development going.

To put it another way, by giving Linux away for free, the Linux people are denying themselves an income. This requires the Linux people find some other way to make a living. By comparison, Microsoft has a lot of other software to sell; ie, they have many sources of revenue. The Linux people may hurt themselves more than they hurt Microsoft if they are not careful.

The lack of income among Linux people means that the Linux people must struggle to develop Linux for low wages. I find it amusing to visualize Microsoft employees downloading a free copy of Linux, putting it on a Microsoft Linux CD, and then selling thousands of them for a profit.
 
 
 

Can “Open Source” laws protect Linux?

Many Linux fanatics respond that because the Linux source code is free to the public, no corporation can get control of it. But Microsoft does not need control of the Linux operating system in order to sell Microsoft Word for Linux. Microsoft does not control the Mac but they profit from it. 

In other words, what could happen is that Microsoft makes lots of money from Linux, while the Linux people struggle to improve Linux in their spare time and on a very tight budget. I think the executives at Microsoft would laugh at the situation. Some of them might even feel sorry for the Linux developers, possibly even sending them donations to help them financially.

I can visualize a Microsoft executive mailing a check for $2,000 with the following note attached:

Dear Linus Torvalds,

Our customers are currently very happy with your latest version of Linux. However, we have had some complaints that the print spooler is not always canceling a print job properly. Please look into this for us.

I've enclosed a check to help your family with California's rising electricity prices. Feel free to let me know if you need more. We certainly do not want to see our most valuable programmer suffer in poverty.

Sincerely,
Bill Gates
 

Furthermore, Microsoft could take the Linux source code, add their own improvements, and keep their code a secret. There is no law that requires Microsoft to release the source code to their software. In fact, it is possible that the “open source laws” or other laws that supposedly protect Linux may not even hold up in any nation's court. Has anybody actually tested these laws? Are they really “laws”  written by our government? Or are they just arrogant demands written by the open source people? 
 
 
 

What is “True Linux”? And who cares?

The argument that Microsoft Linux would not be a true Linux is similar to an argument that if Taiwan or Compaq produces an imitation of the IBM PC, it would no longer be a true IBM PC, and therefore nobody would buy it.

If Microsoft comes out with a Microsoft Linux, they might sell more of their imitation Linuxes than the Linux people sell true Linuxes.
 
 

Who cares if Microsoft dominates Linux?

The reason I do not want to see Microsoft dominate the Linux software is because I do not like their behavior. Their goals do not appear to be to make a better life for you and me. (I discuss this in Part 3)

Microsoft is not one of the biggest corporations on the planet. Some of the Japanese companies are so large and have so much money that they could be nations by themselves. But of all the gigantic companies on the planet, the only one that is really creating disgust around the world is Microsoft. The disgust of Microsoft is so extreme that thousands of people around the world are promoting Linux as a Windows replacement.
 
 
 

Linux fanatics are trying to start a revolution

This revolution is unusual because it is not coming from the common worker who feels oppressed by the government or business. Rather, it is coming mainly from computer programmers and people who work with computers on a routine basis. This is not a revolution with guns or bombs; rather, this is a revolution in which a new product is being developed in an effort to lure consumers away from what we regard as a disgusting corporation.
 
 

How much of the world must switch to Linux?

There are enough people using Apple computers to allow software developers to exist and develop quality software for the Macintosh. However the Macintosh market is so small that prices will always be higher for Macintosh software compared to Windows software. And there some categories of software that are almost nonexistent on the Macintosh because of the small market.

If there are only 10,000 customers of Linux software, there will be so little money for Linux software that only a few software developers will be able to make a living. If a million people to switch to Linux, then a few dozen Linux software companies might survive. If several million people to switch to Linux, there would be a significant market for Linux software.

So if Linux never appeals to more people than are using the Macintosh, what is the point of pursuing it?
 
 

Why not use OS/2 as a replacement for Windows?

We might say 1999 was the year that the world decided to put significant effort into developing Linux as a replacement for Windows. Why did they pick Linux? Why a system that needs so much development work?

I would say that the human race has wasted an enormous amount of money on a fight over the operating system for the IBM PC. And this fight is still occurring, and there's no end in sight. 
 
 
 

Do Linux fanatics realize they are in a battlezone?

When I think of this battle, an scene from the movie Braveheart appears in my mind; specifically, the scene in which a small group of poorly equipped Scotsmen stood in front of a large, highly trained English, equipped with thousands of arrows and spears, many with horses. I visualize Microsoft as being that large, organized, English army. They are standing in front of the Linux fanatics in a long row as far as I can see.

In the movie (which is suppose to be based on facts), the opposition did not have much money or weapons, but they were aware that a battle was about to take place, and they were ready and willing to put a lot of effort into it. But I visualize the Linux army as a ragged group of unorganized people, most of whom do not realize that a battle is about to take place. I visualize part time volunteers and students dropping by the battlefield for an hour or so throughout the day, and then running off to school or their full time job. Some drop by with their children, who they baby-sit while their wife works. Most of these people are oblivious to the rows of Microsoft soldiers standing in front of them at the other end of the field. When I mention to them that a battle may take place, they laugh and tell me that Microsoft will not fight the Linux people because Linux is on the side of goodness and Microsoft is an evil empire. 
 

Who will celebrate at the Kylix anniversary parties?

Some free softare/open source fanatics may also have an anniversary party for Kylix. They may hold up the packages, laugh, and make remarks about how stupid a company must be to believe that Linux people would purchase software.