I am in a writing mood tonight. Well actually that's mostly what I do... Sooo,
here goes...
First off, I commend you for trying Linux. Secondly, I think that we are closer
to having things work out of the box than you think. Thirdly Windows is not as
good as most people think despite having a cozy relationship with OEMs. Vista
has fewer drivers than Linux. Lots of hardware does not work and will never work
on Vista. What do Windows users do when this happens? They don't rag on about
Windows, they go out and buy new equipment.

When many people come to Linux from Windows their expectation is wrong. They
expect that it will be the same as Windows. They see the differences between
Linux and Windows as Linux is deficient because it is not like Windows. They use
hardware that was made specifically for Windows and expect it to just work. Plug
that same equipment in a Mac and it may or may not work.
I have equipment that works better in Linux than Windows. I have some equipment
that will not work in Windows, but works in Linux. I have some equipment where
that is reversed. It works in Windows, but not in Linux. I have two scanners. My
el cheapo Canon works equally well in Windows XP and Linux, but my expensive HP
scanner works better in Linux. It is easier to install. I don't need a disk for
either in Linux and for the HP, I need to fiddle with the settings because XP
wants to use its own driver, that does not work. To install my Brother Laser
printer in Linux I have to choose it from a list, but in Windows I need to
insert my CD and install lots of garbage that I will never use or need again.
The same can be said for my HP photo printer. In Linux it is installed without
me having to do anything. In XP I need to insert the disk and it comes with a
couple of hundred MBs of utilities that are installed and an icon that is run at
startup and sits in my
system tray and lots more on my desktop and in the menu. Give me a break. I
just want to install the printer not fill my hard drive.
In fairness, I have a couple of webcams that don't work in Linux, but they
aren't much good in Windows either. My media player works in Linux, but it is
easier to use in Windows. The reason is that it is made to work with Media
Player. But again in XP it installs, the driver, a program that runs in the
system tray, Media Player 10, whether you want it or not and .Net. In Linux, I
just need to open Amarok and set it to use MTP device. It isn't fancy, but it
works.
Windows users see all of these things as normal and find the Linux way foreign
and therefore inferior. I see the Windows way as being heavy handed and
unnecessary. It is all about the way you think of these things.
So my challenge for Windows users is to change the way they think. Don't come to
Linux expecting it to be Windows. Come to it expecting it to be different.
Expect more. Expect hardware to be detected and installed without inserting a
disk. Expect not to have to re-boot after installing hardware. Expect not to
have things wanting to install that you don't need. Expect not to have icons
cluttering your desktop or running in your system tray. It isn't about lowering
the bar, but about raising it.
If something does not work in Linux, there is probably a good reason for it. It
was probably made to work with Windows (and maybe only in Windows like
Winmodems) or it is old and was probably in use before Linux became good at
detecting and installing drivers (much thanks to the kernel developers for
bringing us to our current state of excellence, BTW). That hardware would
probably be put out to pasture in Windows, but people expect it to work in Linux
because they have heard that Linux works well on old systems. Yes, but there are
limits.
That being said, Linux is not perfect. There are still areas where we lag
behind, but those aren't usually the things that people are looking for. You
won't find lots of work being done for modems not because Linux is lacking, but
because dialup is old technology and its days are numbered. It just would not be
a good use of resources to commit developers to working on improving dialup. If
that is your thing then don't expect much from Windows or Linux in the way of
new work. The only reason why Windows has the edge here is that it does not have
to do any new work. It is work that was done long ago.
You will find lots of work being done on security and file systems even though
Linux has a big lead on Windows in these areas. Users and businesses demand a
system that us secure, stable and reliable. Everything else goes from a solid
foundation. You will find lots of work being done on graphics and sound because
media is huge.
In the areas that count, Linux is not only very competitive, but some would say
it has a lead or at least on par with the Mac. XP is yeaterday's OS. The Windows
file system is at least a dozen years old and NTFS is older than that. Windows
has not made a single improvement to their file system in that time. It has no
journalling. It becomes defragmented and it is subject to data loss when it
crashes. They place low priority on your data because they can take you for
granted. They don't have to make their OS better because they can sell it and
people will buy it no matter how outdated or lousy it is, just because it is
familiar.
You say that if people boot up Linux and nothing works that people will leave.
In my experience that is usually not the case. Usually everything works. In a
few cases one or two things won't work right a way. In this forum, we get people
with problems, but the world is full of users who do not have problems. Don't
base your opinion of Linux on reading about the problems of people on a forum.
It is like basing your opinon on the state of health of the nation after only
visiting the emergency room.
I am encouraged by your letter. You tried. You see Windows as having problems.
You hope to return to Linux. My concern is that you have formed an unhealthy
opinion and don't have a full appreciation of Linux. That could be due to your
hardware configuration or lack of experience or perhaps it was due to
unrealistic expectations.
You will find computer problems everywhere. Even experienced users get them.
This happens irrespective of the OS. The difference is that experienced users
have done this often enough that they have learned from their mistakes. They
have seen just about everything happen that can happen so little surprises them.
The only guarantee that I can make is that as long as you are using a computer
there will be problems whether you stick with Windows or switch to another OS.
That is the nature of the beast. Hardware fails. OSes and applications have a
shelf life. And things change. If you expect it to be static, then perhaps
Microsoft still has hope of selling XP in another 8 years. But even they see XP
as being too old to base their future hopes on it.
Finally, I address the subject of your posting, "the killer ap". I don't think
that such a thing exists. There are good applications but no killer apps. I
think that most users do not even use most of the features of what they have and
can actually get by with less, not more. However, that says more about us than
it does about the apps. We want it all. We want in now and we want it for as
little money as we can get away with.
I listened to a podcast today on Jokosher, a Gnome sound editor. It reminded me
of how Linux does things differently. They started with an idea and one
developer. They found others interested in the same thing. They added developers
one by one and added to the program gradually. It is good at doing what it does.
The project is viable and it is growing slowly. They have plans to add new
features and not rush into it. The program will evolve over time. And it will
evolve new features as users and developers see the demand for them, not an
isolation or just because they can do it.
In contrast a commercial vendor would have a good general idea, let's say to
make a sound editor. Then they would get together a team and dream up every
possible option to add that is better tthan the competition and hire lots of
developers, take a year or two to develop it and market the heck out of it. It
would be big and bloated and have tons of features, most of which people would
not use. It would cost lots to develop and it would sell for a ridiculous amount
of money, all because someone wanted to write a killer app.
Lots of Windows applications have the killer app rep whether it is MSOffice or
Photoshop. Most of the copies for these killer apps are pirated because they are
too expensive to actually buy. They all are huge and use a lot of resources and
most users only use a small fraction of what they can do. Is that what you mean
by a killer app? Who needs them?
Best wishes,
Roy
I did not get all of the writing out of my system. Sorry.
P.S. Here is why I use Linux:
(My Linux testamonial, if you will, is not made to elicite discussion but to
tell my past experience and why I write some of the things that I write. I hope
that if there is response to this part that it will be others' experience and
not discussing mine. And if you don't care to read this that is good, too.
Writing is what I do for fun.)
I own a copy of XP, actually more than one. If it was good, I would use it. I
cut my teeth on Windows and DOS before that. Microsoft and I have a long
history. I gave up on it only after Microsoft gave up on me. That old
what-have-you-done-for-me-lately thing, I guess. I paid them money and got
patches, no support and had little to show for it in the end. In fact the more I
used their patches, the worse it often worked. Windows ME was what convinced me
that Microsoft could not make a decent OS. Bloatware was in everything they did.
Everything after that only convinced me that I was right.
I was looking for alternatives long before I finally switched, due to these
philosophical differences. I had dabbled in OS2/ Warp, Mac OS, Unix and several
now defunct OSes that never caught on. I did Windows well. I could fix it and
routinely helped others with their Windows problems. So switching would cost me
something. I would be losing not just Windows, but I would be losing all of my
experience, trading competency for frustration. I tried to talk myself out of it
before I finally bit the bullet and tried Linux which was shortly after XP made
its debut.
After they sold me at least three copies of Windows, I caught on that they did
not care if I enjoyed using Windows as long as they got their money and made
sure that I was not cheating them out of getting more. They started checking up
on me and my actions and installing things that I did not want such as WGA.
Here, was my own computer being turned against me. By this time, I was using
Linux regularly, but still dual booted into Windows.
I had friends who found that their computers were as good as being infected with
viruses because their copy of Windows was not legal. Even people whom I knew had
legitimate licenses were caught because some technician had worked on their
system and had reinstalled Windows without their key. I suddenly realized that
it was no longer about me or my friends or about making us happy; the whole
thing was about Microsoft and assuring their bottom line was secure. As far as
they were concerned, I no longer owned my computer, they thought that they did.
When I came to this realization, I gave up on Windows altogether and have not
used it for years now. When I do, it is a painful experience. It reminds me of
all of that bad history. It reminds me of how little respect Microsoft has for
me. And it reminds me that they can't make a decent OS if they tried. And they
have. And failed.
Although Microsoft has not moved on, I have. They continue to peddle XP when
they can or to convince people that Vista is not that bad. I don't really care
anymore. I actually hoped that Microsoft would get better and that Windows could
be improved at one point. But those times are long gone. There is little they
could do that would interest me or change my mind because I know that their real
motive is not to help me, but to make me into a Microserf. And in this I refuse.
If Linux was complete garbage, I would prefer it to Windows for the above
reasons. I want to count for something. I want to pay money for something that
is worth the money and I want the company that I do business with to care about
me more than just getting my money. I would like to believe that they have my
best interest as their first priority. And I want them to show pride in their
own work. If they can't be proud of it then I can't respect their work.
Fortunately for me, I did not find this in a company, but in an idea. It is
Linux which is not a company at all. And it is not profit and market driven, but
is user driven. I have nothing against capitalism or making profits, but when it
comes to my money I want it to speak for me and my ideals. If anybody wants my
business then they need to win my trust.