I think that the most-balanced take on the whole situation is to say that
you don't have to "choose between" Windows and Linux! Both systems can peaceably coexist, although I do recommend that you simply buy two computers (or, two disc drives, if you need to run both on the same machine).
An operating system is "a means to an end, not an end unto itself." You don't have it around just to admire it (unless, of course, it is Linux
). You have it because it enables you to
do 'something', whatever 'something' is. You tolerate it, to the extent that it succeeds in getting you "from point 'A' to point 'B'." So, if you have this really-cool program that "only runs under <X>," that might well be
sufficient reason, in and of itself, to run <X>!
Still, I
also believe that it is nigh time for all of us to recognize "the handwriting on the wall" with regard to Microsoft Windows. A sea-change
is coming, and nothing in all of Microsoft's well-funded marketing department can do anything to stop it.
The Linux system, and open-source, has
overwhelming technical advantages over the entire business-model that is represented by Microsoft and Windows. (Mind you, I say this without intending any sort of slight either to Microsoft Corporation or to the very skilled, very hard-working professionals who work there!)
Here's the bottom line: when I do
ls /usr/src/linux/arch, I see (currently)
twenty-six architectures listed there. How many of those can Windows run on? Perhaps three.
Case closed! {Sorry, pal. No, it's not "fair," but ... Technology's like that.}
All twenty-six of these architectures are listed there because a great many people found it well worth their time to do all the hard work that's necessary to make Linux run, and run well, on every one of those systems. No matter how hard Microsoft may try, and no matter how many (~$125,000
apiece in Redmond, ~X-
and-growing-fast what you think they're stupid because they speak Hindi Rupees in India) programmers they throw at it, Microsoft
cannot match that. It simply cannot be done.
And it
must be done. So, sorry, Microsoft loses the game. It's only a matter of time.
Now, let me be quick to say that "loses" is a
relative term, because computer technology has one very important characteristic:
what it does is a great deal more valuable than
what it costs, so companies hang on to technology for a very long time. Windows will remain a "cash cow" long after it has lost its relevance... which, I submit, it already has.
Look at Apple: they've skunked everybody with the "OS/X computer sitting in the palm of your oh-so-kewel hand masquerading as a telephone," and they know it. They
leveraged open source, and Unix, and all the rest to do it, and nobody can match them,
and they know it. Case closed.
Now, what does that mean to
you, or to your mom or your grandma (the ones who, bless 'em,
still don't "get it"
)? Actually, this very-familiar situation is a whole lot closer to the one that's faced by a corporate business than you might at first appreciate!
Windows might well be the "best" solution
for them, and it might always be. (Or, as is the case for
my parents, Macintosh OS/X keeps them happy and I fight off every mention of 'Windows' with a stout stick.)
"What it does" (that is to say, "the fact that it
does it")
is a great deal more valuable | important than, well, just about anything else.
"The fact that 'when Mom calls, it is only to invite us over for supper'" is ... as we
all know
...
priceless.
And for businesses, the same darned thing is true.
