Why MS Windows isn't ready for the Desktop

The Linux Box ^ | 30 July 2004 | Sean Parsons

[ShadowAce]

Now as you have most likely surmised from the title, this article is intended to spoof the plethora of articles proclaiming that 'Linux is NOT, has NOT, and NEVER will be ready for the desktop', but the content of this article is also intended to be both factual and informative for those that have been schnookered by the anti-Linux hype.

Introduction

In simple terms, we should define what 'ready for the desktop means'. A simple definition would be a graphical user interface in which applications have icons and can be launched in an intuitive manner. Well certainly MS Windows 95 achieved that, but then again so did Commodore 64. We should probably set our standards a little higher than this.

Here's my expanded definition of what I think should be required to be ready for the modern desktop:

A modern desktop system should not just sport an intuitive and pleasant look and feel, but it should also be secure, stable, offer file compatibility, and be easy to configure for a plethora of uses ranging from office tools to multimedia handling. MS Windows is so far behind in these various areas that it may not ever catch up to its GNU/Linux counter part.

Above all, an operating system aspiring to compete with GNU/Linux must be able to build a community with the same level of end user commitment as what the open source community has achieved with its vast multitude of online forums and Linux User Groups (LUGs). Now while we all agree that if I had a question I could call a proprietary company's help desk (which may potentially involve a fee); although, I am quite likely to get an unsatisfactory answer from someone that barely earned their diploma in Information Technology from the Sally Strother's Correspondence School.

We know what 'ready for the desktop' means, but what is Windows?

Windows is most likely a generic term within the tech industry. In the early 80's MIT attempted to create a W server to implement network transparency of windows from various computers (which were using various operating systems). The 'W' stood for windows in an operating system agnostic environment.

--For a little history link to modern times, when MIT rewrote their 'W' in 1984 they proceeded to the next letter of the alphabet. This rewrite has evolved into today's X Windowing System.

So what you may traditionally refer to as Windows should more appropriately be referred to as MS Windows.

MS Windows is a hollow shell of an operating system that offers very few applications upon first boot, and the applications it does offer are of poor quality. Let's provide some examples. After a fresh install of MS Windows XP (Microsoft's newest official desktop offering -- which was released nearly three years ago) here are how my options compare for some simple everyday tasks like writing a paper, surfing the web, instant messaging my friends, or creating a presentation for work:

Writing a paper: MS Windows XP will let me use Word Pad, but I won't be able to do much formating of my text, I won't be able to insert tables nor images. I won't even be able to open a MS Word document despite the fact that Microsoft is the one that created this format. If we compare that to GNU/Linux you will see that most distributions offer ooWriter, Koffice, and Abiword. All three have a multitude of formatting options and they even have import filters to open MS Word documents. We will discuss more about file compatibility in greater detail later in this article.

Surfing the web: Microsoft's only offering is Internet Explorer. GNU/Linux distributions tend to ship with a multitude of browsers, but to keep this simple we will use the Mozilla application suite for comparison since it has become the de facto standard.

IE vs. MOZ

FEATURES	BROWSER
	Mozilla	Internet Explorer
Tabbed Browsing	X
Download Manager	X
Built in Pop-Up Blocker	X
W3C Compliant	X
Can properly handle CSS	X
So insecure that the US Department of Homeland Security has warned you not to use it.		X

IE did not fare well in that comparison unless you like using a browser that the US Department of Homeland Security has warned you against, but we will discuss more about Microsoft's poor security later.

Instant messaging: MS Windows XP ships with an IM client for MSN, but it will only work with others that are using the same instant messaging protocol. That means you can not communicate with those using Yahoo's or AOL's instant messaging protocols. With GNU/Linux you will find useful IM clients like GAIM and Kopete that will work with all three protocols.

Creating a presentation: I'm sorry, but a clean install of MS Windows does not contain any presentation software, whereas GNU/Linux distributions often include Kpresenter and ooImpress. OoImpress doesn't just work with its own native format, but also is can work with Microsoft's Power point format, and can even be exported to HTML and Flash.

I could continue on about the multitude of tools that GNU/Linux users typically have by default that our Microsoft counterpart lacks, but you should have the idea by now.

Security & Stability

Let's all just say it out loud, "I have used Windows XP, and I have seen the blue screen of death."

The sooner we admit that MS Windows still has not created an OS as stable as GNU/Linux, the sooner the FOSS community can help you recognize all of Microsoft's hype about XP's security and stability to be just that, hype. This opens the door for us to analyze many of the mistakes made by MS Windows XP. Numerous marketing execs from Microsoft have attempted to expound on the virtues of their tight integration between some of the core applications and the kernel. This causes a potential loss of system integrity whenever a core application crashes. GNU/Linux has chosen a more modular architecture. This modularity means that despite all the beta, and sometimes alpha, software that I've ran, I have never managed to crash the Linux kernel.

When it comes to security, Microsoft has made two fundamental flaws: providing users with administrative privileges, and once again Microsofts 'everything is integrated' approach has come back to haunt them.

Since the user functions with administrative privileges, then any virii, spyware, or other potential malware possess the same administrative privileges as the user that inadvertently downloaded it. In a unix-like environment, like GNU/Linux, each user is granted an account within the home directory, and administrative tasks require your root password to affect anything system wide.

To continue my rant about Microsoft's 'everything is integrated' approach, we should consider another of its adverse affects. This broad sweeping integration causes any sort of malicious software designed to harm one of MS Windows core apps has the strong potential to affect everything else. GNU/Linux's modular approach shields it from these same detrimental affects.

Now while I won't call it impossible, it would require Microsoft to make some major changes in how they implement their desktop if they ever intend to compare to GNU/Linux on the issue of security and stability.

File Compatibility

When it comes to file compatibility, there are two major focuses; office productivity and multimedia. Sometimes you just need to get work done for either your job or class, and sometimes you just need to relax with a flick. Or if you're like me, then whenever you're busy in your home office, suddenly your daughter wants to watch some movie involving her favorite princess of the week. So now you've got the wide screen format stretched across the top of your monitor while you open a terminal emulator across the bottom so you can attempt to continue typing your project in Vi. OK, maybe I'm the only one with this tendency, but let's continue to explore the subject of file compatibility.

Considering that in the proprietary world everything centers around Microsoft Office, I bet you would expect me to bow to MS windows superiority in this arena. If that's your expectation, you would be wrong. Besides the fact that MS Windows does not ship with MS Office, it has additional shortcomings. File compatibility between various versions of MS Office are very poor, and it can not handle formats from other office suites, which is a serious shortcoming in a world where Star Office/OpenOffice.org are gaining greater popularity.

Most GNU/Linux distributions ship with OpenOffice.org (OOo). OOo can accurately import 95% of Microsoft Office documents, has its own native XML based format and can export its files to a plethora of formats like MS Office, HTML, Flash, PDF, etc. If I, a self professed nerd, am happy with all those options then it should suffice for Joe Desktop User.

MS Windows has ports of all the major proprietary media players including Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime, Winamp, WinDVD, etc.; but do you see the shortcoming there? Each media format requires a separate media player. GNU/Linux has a simpler methodology to handling all this. It's called codecs. Install the proper codecs and you can play all of these varying formats with one or two players of your choice. I like to handle everything with Kaffeine and the latest Real Player that the newest distros have begun shipping with.

Now Microsoft could easily remedy this issue prior to their next major OS release, but it would require them to try and interoperate better with their proprietary counterparts. Considering Microsoft's history of trying to dominate markets, they are not likely to attempt this.

Conclusion

Now the object of this article was not to make GNU/Linux appear perfect, but instead to demonstrate that it can provide a superior desktop experience for many over the traditional proprietary operating system. GNU/Linux has millions of users and is growing because of its ability to excel in so many different areas, so the next time someone tries to tell you that 'GNU/Linux isn't ready for the desktop', ask them, 'Whose desktop do you mean?'.

[ShadowAce]

Friday Tech Ping

[ShadowAce]

Friday tech ping

[r9etb]

A modern desktop system should not just sport an intuitive and pleasant look and feel, but it should also be secure, stable, offer file compatibility, and be easy to configure for a plethora of uses ranging from office tools to multimedia handling. MS Windows is so far behind in these various areas that it may not ever catch up to its GNU/Linux counter part.

Sorry, there's just no point in reading beyond this partisan poop.

My experience has been that the MS Office products have wonderful file compatibility features, including with a variety of non-MS products. And it's been a long time since I had any difficulty plugging in a new whatsis of any sort.

[TomServo]

Lessee - haven't seen the BSOD since 1998 (which was the fault of a certain author of a certain book), no crashes since - uhhhhh - I can't remember. No lockups - ever. No viruses since uh....'bout 98, too (which was my fault). Runs on every piece of hardware I've ever installed it on when Linux wouldn't (and even ran on a machine it wasn't supposed to run on). Runs every piece of software with no problems..

Yep - makes me wanna switch.

[newgeezer]

{yawn}

[7.62 x 51mm]

Agreed. XP is rock solid on my personal and business machines. Win v3.1, 95 and 98 were pretty shakey, in comparison. I won't be switching anytime soon, either.

[babyface00]

My experience has been that the MS Office products have wonderful file compatibility features, including with a variety of non-MS products

I believe the author's point is (especially with respect the text you cited), that MS Office is not included with Windows. You have to buy that application separately, while the Linux tools mentioned are included with the Linux OS distribution.

Wordpad does not offer the file compatibility, nor the formatting capabilities that the full-blown version of Word has.

[Stars N Stripes]

Oh yeah! When the Amiga finally comes back, all your operating systems are belong to us...

BOING PING!

[Hank Rearden]

WinXP Pro is solid and runs *everything* I need to run, including some very obscure things I use for my business.

So you can do word processing and spreadsheets on Linux - modern computing needs go far beyond that, and "just about as good" isn't good enough. People have developed apps for everything you can imagine, running under Windows.

When a Linux variant comes along that can run native WinXP apps out of the box, at real speeds, then they'll have something. And even then, what'll they have? Something that runs Windows apps. I already have that.

What's unique about Linux that Windows can't do? I don't care if the OS is free - I'm not that much of a cheapskate. I've got work to do.

[CyberCowboy777]

With my experience with 2K and XP, my major problems have come from third party software and hardware issues.

Last time I saw a BSOD it was due to my overclocking my CPU and memory.

MS has issues, but being the easier to use, most compatible desktop environment is not one of them.

I can install a wireless card in old laptop with XP in under five minutes, not the case with Red Hat.

[TomServo]

MS has issues, but being the easier to use, most compatible desktop environment is not one of them.

Agreed. As you know - all OS's have issues. None of which are insurmountable. It all depends on how much time you wish to spend dealing with those issues.

[-YYZ-]

I've managed to crash my XP Pro system a few times. I believe the cheap-ass unstable hardware I have it running on is responsible for that. It does everything I need, most media will play in WMP, and IE is compatible with all those websites out there using ActiveX and other MS developments. It does the job for what I need it to do.

Now, I've dealt with Linux systems quite a bit at work. I've gotten tired of dealing with the myriad kernel versions and incompatible versions of various important libraries and modules (glibc being a big one). Now, admitedly, your average user isn't going to be loading Informix and Oracle database servers on a daily basis, but when these type of issues occur they can be very difficult to figure out. When I go to install something that says it will run on WinXP, it nearly always does, with no hassles.

MS Windows has its shortcomings, particular in the security area, but the various Linuxes (how many different flavours are there out there, currently?) aren't all this article makes them out to be, either.

[zeugma]

Another way that Linux is superior to windows is how the installtion of software is handled.

For instance, I just attempted to upgrade Mozilla. I run the nightlies so I can bug hunt during my regular surfing so I went to the Mozilla nightly page and downloaded last night's build with the full installer.

Before I installed it, I renamed the existing mozilla installtion:
sudo mv /usr/local/mozilla /usr/local/mozilla.20040730
I untarred the installer and ran it.(as root) It installed itself into /usr/local/mozilla, which is the default. Then I attempted to run it. For whatever reason I got a segfault, which means the application crashed and burned. Not a good thing, as it is hard to surf if it won't run.

To recover from this failure, all I had to do was execute the following two commands...
sudo rm -rf /usr/local/mozilla
sudo mv /usr/local/mozilla.20040730 /usr/local/mozilla

Granted, with most windows installations, you'd have an icon to click to uninstall the program, but I know from experience that it is almost impossible to get most programs completely uninstalled without doing some registry and file hacking. However, in this case, I'd completely restored back to the previous (working) version with no trouble whatsoever, and can be confident there is nothing left hanging around that may cause problems for me in the future.

Frankly, IMO the biggest issue with MSWindows is the registry. Many years ago, the '.ini' files were bad enough, but they were replaced by microsoft with a nightmare that was much worse.

[BA63]

Agreed. XP is rock solid on my personal and business machines. Win v3.1, 95 and 98 were pretty shakey, in comparison. I won't be switching anytime soon, either.

I tried the switch to Mandrake Linux OS 9.x, did a great job installing and worked like a charm. One Problem, did not support my printers at all. I have used Windows from 2.11 up. I agree with you, Windows, with all it's problems still gives me the most flexibility beyond the OS. I will ride it out with MS as well.

I do like the fact that a Flavored xNIX is trying to gain a foothold in the market, I am just not sure when they will be able to compete, even for free.

[JoJo Gunn]

I just left a computer forum I lurk at and found your ping. Don't know if this has been posted anywhere yet:

'Critical' IE Patch Released
By Ryan Naraine
July 30, 2004

As promised, Microsoft has released a monster patch to secure its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) browser from takeover attacks.

The software giant's out-of-cycle MS04-025 advisory included fixes for several "critical" bugs that have already lead to code execution attacks.

That cumulative patch, which replaces the MS04-004 bulletin, provides a comprehensive fix to the core vulnerability that led to the Download.Ject malware attack last month.

In that attack, malicious hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft's IIS 5.0 servers and IE to distribute malware programs.

Software products fixed with the latest patch include Windows NT Workstation 4.0, Windows NT Server 4.0, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition (Me), Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

The cumulative patch covers IE versions 5.01, 5.5 and 6.0.

According to the Microsoft alert, the flaws opened the door for attackers to install programs; view, change, or delete data; and create new accounts with full administrative privileges.

article source

[yhwhsman]

this article is intended to spoof the plethora of articles

I think by spoof the author means he's trying to make a funny. I don't believe it's meant to be a serious article.

[Golden Eagle]

Another way that Linux is superior to windows is how the installtion of software is handled...I renamed the existing mozilla installtion: sudo mv /usr/local/mozilla /usr/local/mozilla.20040730...I untarred the installer and ran it.(as root) It installed itself into /usr/local/mozilla, which is the default. Then I attempted to run it. For whatever reason I got a segfault, which means the application crashed and burned. Not a good thing, as it is hard to surf if it won't run...To recover from this failure, all I had to do was execute the following two commands...sudo rm -rf /usr/local/mozilla...sudo mv /usr/local/mozilla.20040730 /usr/local/mozilla...

Sounds superior all right, ROFLMAO.

[r9etb]

Ah. Well, he shoulda made his point sooner then -- I didn't feel like reading Yet Another Article by an MS basher, and he did a good job starting out like one.

I read no further than the line I quoted.

[TomServo]

However, in this case, I'd completely restored back to the previous (working) version with no trouble whatsoever, and can be confident there is nothing left hanging around that may cause problems for me in the future.

And I can do the same thing with Ghost. Some folks (on the Win side) haven't learned that, though. A lot of grief could be avoided by spending $30.00...