I don't hate M$

Submitted by rich_c on February 22, 2009 - 6:34am

Technically, I don't actually hate Microsoft. Back in the late 80s, I was a big fan! I had a MSX home computer and loved it! Between then and probably the late 90s, I was a perfectly happy Windows user. Then, when I was trying to put together a cheap PC, I decided to take the plunge with an alternative OS I was aware of by had never tried before, to keep the costs down... I bought SuSE 7.1 in a box from the local branch of a well known PC chain. Being reasonably technically competent, I soon had it installed and running nicely without resorting to the offer of tech support that came with the deal. I joined the mailing list of the local Linux Users Group and was immediately impressed by the usefulness of support you get from the Linux community if you go about it the right way. (By which I mean, by all means ask sensible, considered questions and contribute answers to others' queries where you can. This still holds true today, in the forums I frequent.) Apart from a foray into Windows 98SE, I've never looked back. Irritations with my Win 98 experience lead me to dual boot that machine with Mepis 3.3.1 which propelled me down my current Mepis using path. These experiences lead me to the reasons I dislike Microsoft which are, in no particular order:

Inferior support. Seriously! Searching the internet for answers to Linux issues has lead me to far more success than I ever had trying to solve Windows issues.

Lack of flexibility/configurability and choice. There are far more options available to you with Linux enabling you to customise the way you use your machine. This blog is an excellent example of what I mean.

Cost of the OS and additional software. An obvious one really, which shouldn't need explaination. In response to the inevitable objection that you end up spending a lot of time (Which equals money.) trying to get things to work, I refer to my first point regarding the quality of 'support' I have experienced and indeed, expanding on my second point, the amount of choice. If application A doesn't meet your needs, try application B which may well do the trick. All for free and legal. No cracked proprietary software whatsoever!

Picking up on the proprietary VS. open source, Microsoft's past business practices leave somewhat to be desired. I am well aware they are in existance to make money for their shareholders but is there really any need to attempt to kill off the alternatives instead of competing fairly? As an example, in the Wikipedia entry for FUD Microsoft are the first listed as a contemporary example of a company using this underhand method of competing.

Adding to the lack of choice point above, I feel there is an active limiting of options open to the user. For example, on a network Windows is far more restrictive on what a user can achieve. some examples are given in the link above and I can verify these from experience. My setup at home is undoubtedly far more useful than a Windows based machine would be. Also, working in an environment with Windows and *nix servers, I have no doubt which are easier to work with remotely. Then of course, there is DRM. (http://www.defectivebydesign.org/) Legitimate data is the user's to decide what to do with. Files obtained by illegal means should also be the responsibility of the user, who should have to accept the consequences of their actions. These decisions shouldn't be made by the system storing the data as these inflexible DRM 'rules' clearly stop files being used for perfectly reasonable and legal uses!

Lastly, Microsoft is for various reasons partly, at least, responsible for the huge numbers of viruses and malware in existence. They have failed to produce systems which are strongly resistant to such problems and by remaining closed source, they do not enable 3rd parties to provide solutions for vulnerabilities as they are found. As I have stated in a previous blog entry, the only people with access to MS source are people within the company and black hat types willing to pay for the code through dubious websites for nefarious purposes. Apologists for Microsoft will point out that the majority of desktop PCs are Windows based, so present a far bigger target for all the criminals out there. They fail to mention that the majority of the internet is hosted on Linux servers. Surely a far higher value target if it were accesible to their viruses etc.

I'm sure a lot of Linux users who express annoyance with Windows often get asked why they hate MS. I'm also sure that hate is generally too strong a word and most peoples' dislikes are covered somewhere here...

• rich_c's blog
• Login to post comments