Ten reasons Linux and BSD are vastly superior to Windows - Part II

Introduction
Last week, I began a countdown of the ten reasons Linux and BSD are far superior to Windows. I received a huge response to the first installment, so without further delay, here's the final four reasons and my official response to some of the comments and criticisms I've received.


But first, rebuttal
Most of the ten reasons I have outlined in this two-part article are technical in nature and don't really apply to subjective criteria, such as a GUI being "easy to use" or a theme being "prettier" than another. The different graphical user interfaces in Linux and BSD like KDE or Gnome are so configurable, if you don't like the way something looks you can easily change it. Despite this, several complaints aimed at Part I of this article were that Linux and BSD are "ugly". Anyone who has used Linux for more than a week knows that everything in the GUI is configurable and easily changed with a trip to KDELook (or other theme sites).

Also, despite the fact that I used the term "distribution" several times in Part I and made it obvious that I was referring to a complete Operating System and not just the kernel, several people made the comment "Linux is a kernel, not an OS". This mistake could have been easily avoided by actually reading the article.

Finally, several comments were made touting the market share of Linux, BSD and MacOS vs Windows. It is true that Windows has a larger market share on the desktop but not on the server or datacenter. Making a statement that one OS is "better" than another because of market share is meaningless. Many points can be made for products that are superior but are not as popular as other products for one reason or another.

Until we can have open dialog and openly discuss the differences between proprietary operating systems like Windows and open source operating systems like Linux we won't be able to improve either. There are very real, factual differences, folks. Blindly dismissing the facts won't improve anything.


Back to the countdown
#4 - Linux and BSD distributions are more configurable and modular.
Can you strip Windows down to just a command line interface without the GUI for a server? Can you install a completely different shell? Different windowing system? The design philosophy of Unix dictates that tasks be broken into small parts and nothing is overly complex. Small programs can be linked together to perform advanced tasks and as a result those small programs can be replaced with other versions without any harm to the underlying OS. Something as trivial as the directory listing command in a Unix system is it's own program and can be replaced with another, if you wish. The directory listing command in Windows is a function of the shell. This is just one example of the design behind a Linux/BSD system and you can find many more by exploring a little in your favorite distro.


#3 - Linux and BSD perform better on any given platform.
Part of this point relates to the modularity of Unix-like systems, but it's generally true that Linux and BSD perform better on older systems and allow you to extend the life of your hardware investment. Many perfectly fine older machines can be turned into usable Linux desktop systems or servers but are unable to run Windows XP or the upcoming Vista. Companies and Universities are even clustering together many Linux systems for a distributed computing environment and enable supercomputer-class performance for a fraction of the cost.

Some distributions that are compiled from source code, like Gentoo, offer a higher level of performance due to the fact that the software is compiled specifically for your machine, not some laboratory system that is compiling software for the lowest common denominator CPU type. Software optimized for your Pentium 4 system performs better if compiled on your system versus software compiled for a generic i386 target system.


#2 - Linux and BSD don't limit your platform choices.
Windows currently will only run on 32-bit and 64-bit Intel-compatible processors. Microsoft had produced Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC ports of Windows NT at one time, but they have been discontinued for quite some time. Linux and BSD, on the other hand, run on dozens of different architecture types ranging from your normal Intel-compatible desktop system to mainframe systems. In fact, NetBSD is the most portable operating system in the world supporting the following architectures: acorn26, acorn32, algor, alpha, amd64, amiga, amigappc, arc, arm32, atari, bebox, cats, cesfic, cobalt, dreamcast, evbarm, evbmips, evbppc, evbsh3, evbsh5, ews4800mips, hp300, hp700, hpcarm, hpcmips, hpcsh, i386, ibmnws, iyonix, luna68k, mac68k, macppc, mipsco, mmeye, mvme68k, mvmeppc, netwinder, news68k, newsmips, next68k, ofppc, pc532, playstation2, pmax, pmppc, prep, sandpoint, sbmips, sgimips, sh3, sh5, shark, sparc, sparc64, sun2, sun3, vax, x68k, xen

While you may not know what half of the architectures NetBSD supports are, they might be found all over the world in businesses, schools, hospitals, retail industry, factories - NetBSD can be used anywhere. You may have even used a NetBSD-powered machine today!


#1 - Linux and BSD give you complete freedom to do what the hell you want with your system.
Have you read Microsoft's End User Licensing Agreement? I didn't think so, not many people have. It's the software agreement you have to accept in order to use Microsoft's products but most people just click the "I ACCEPT" button and move on. The EULA limits your rights to use your software and your system in any manner that you wish. In fact, you don't own the copy of Windows on your system - Microsoft is merely granting you use of Windows: "The Software is licensed, not sold."

Some of Microsoft's EULA limitations that you must agree to include:
"[you] may not without Microsoft's prior written approval disclose to any third party the results of any benchmark test"

Do you own a dual core or multiprocessor system? You are in violation of Windows XP Home's EULA:
"The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer"

Want to sell your computer to someone else? The new owner can't sell it again:
"The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software."

Now take a look at the software license that governs Linux systems:
" The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

Upon reading the software license for both Windows and Linux you can see the philosophical standpoint of both software systems. Windows wants to limit you and treat you like a criminal. Linux wants to give you the freedom to use your system how you want to use it, give it away and copy it as often as you'd like. This is the bottom line: Linux offers freedom.


Conclusion
This has been a tough week for the Linux community with Oracle's financial attack on Red Hat and Novell selling it's soul to the devil. But, in the end, remember that Linux will always be here for the end user. There are dozens - if not hundreds - of very good completely free Linux distributions that have been steadily advanced year after year. Open Source Software will prevail on the desktop and the server room. Keep the faith and I'll keep it with you.

10.0 - 1 vote

Comments

thedevnull @ 04 Nov : 10:43 Reply to this

Thanks so much for the great article! I have used the BSD's, Linux and Unix for years and love em all. What you highlight is absolutely positively on target and contains great insight into the word of FOSS. Bravo my friend. =)

Buckett @ 04 Nov : 11:21 Reply to this

wow, good point with that microsoft liscensing ageement, i had never read it, and i was one of those people that just hit the "I Accept" button and just moved on, before i decided to use linux and BSD, i was going to put home edition on a dual core Pentium D...

maui @ 04 Nov : 13:53 Reply to this

Microsoft has said that their license for XP refers to processor sockets, not cores. So you aren't in violation of it if you are using XP Home on a dual core system. www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

Kechel @ 05 Nov : 06:14 Reply to this

Linux comes in Distributions. Besides many superior things like easy installation / upgrade / removal / security updates of ALL programs on your computer with the same interface, there is 2nd point: Only in Distributions, a very big collection of different programs is tested, monitored, developed, adopted and bug-fixed in such a central way. (Think of debians Bug-Track) On Windows you have tests like this only for all apps from one company (like windows, office, and visual studio, but they never test if that's working nice and neatly with the typical combinations of hundreds of different shareware/freeware/proprietary programs found on average desktops) So Distributions give you a much more stable and secure system, as all tests and security updates are central organized. (Yeah, most people believe that MS software is central, and that linux is distributed, but with this fact it should become obvious that MS is not all software that exists, but in combination with all the other software vendors MS software is much more chaotic distributed than Distributions are) cu, Jan Kechel PS: Maybe this is worth an article on its own? PPS: A german analysis of the debian distribution-management can be found at kechel.de

obliviousmaximus @ 05 Nov : 09:02 Reply to this

Not to detract from the article or anything, but XP Home would never make use of a second processor, or even a second core anyway. It doesn't support SMP at all, you have to use XP Professional to get that feature. So it seems to me that point in EULA is irrelevant. XP Home EULA in plain english, courtesy of the Wayback machine. That particular eye-opening page seems to have disappeared from its original location. anyway, good stuff!

rmorgan @ 05 Nov : 12:14 Reply to this Yes, you are correct. Thank you for your comment.

stephenJB @ 05 Nov : 15:13 Reply to this

So why do Microsoft's attorneys want irrelevant restrictions in their licensing agreement?

cougar0790 @ 06 Nov : 08:28 Reply to this

In general, Gates saw that Linux was better than his MS-DOS which he did copy from PC-DOS. Also, Microsoft gets one Linux company, he gets more money. If he owns them all then he owns the entire market just about. Also, the limitations that he has set on his software is a bunch of bs. I use Xandros but I have 4-5 other Linux Operating Systems which I got them primarily from here. I may have to learn more about the Linux commands but in the long run it will be worth it. I am sure that after a year or two of constant work with Linux I will be able to do a lot of the things all you can do. I hate the fact that Microsoft has so many system requirements. With the Xandros you may need to have atleast a 350 MHz Processor but I have one that puts that away. I used to have a 333 MHz and I upgraded it. When I isntalled Xandros I had a lot of the things that I needed and I just went into the Xandros Networks and downloaded more stuff for it. One of which was GAIM. I would have to say that I will use Linux more than Windows now.