The OS Problem

I recently purchased a new laptop.  It's a Gateway M-6843.  It's wonderful!  The very first thing I did, of course, was install Ubuntu 8.04.1.  I plugged in the laptop and booted from the Ubuntu CD and clicked the install icon.  After about a week, I saw this blog detailing how this person got a refund from HP because he didn't want to use Windows Vista.  So, I started the process with Gateway.  It's been about a week and it's going to be a long process.  Customer Support at Gateway gave me the run-around so I am in the process of writing a letter to the Corporate Office.

The reason for all of this is because of the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) from Microsoft.  According to the EULA, if I choose not to use Vista, I should contact the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM, in my case this would be Gateway) for a refund or credit.  But this begs the question: Why don't people get this option before buying the system?  That is, instead of having the customer pay for the OS, why not show them the EULA first?  That way, the customer is not out any money if the customer doesn't want to accept the EULA.  Or, have Windows installed like trial software 'bundled' with the hardware.  Then, after the trial period has expired, the customer has to purchase a license from Microsoft if they want to continue using Windows.  This is how trial software works.  This way, the customer is in charge of their purchase and not Microsoft.  And that's why it might not ever happen.

Right now, the customer is forced to purchase the software first and then fight the battle of getting the money back.  This will be a long, tedious process and most people won't even try.  The ones who do try will probably give up.  The current process is not about the customer.

This is why I'm such an advocate of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).  Most of the FOSS operating systems come on a live CD.  You can boot your computer from the CD and play with the OS for a while -- put it through the paces, make sure it works with your hardware, see all the applications available, etc.  Then, if everything works (or if there are easy to follow instructions to get the hardware working) you could install it on your system.  I believe that if most people had the choice, if they saw what they could get with FOSS, they would choose it almost every time.

At the same time, however, this is also why Linux won't ever get a big slice of the computing pie.  If the masses of people aren't given a choice, heck, if they don't even know a choice exists, they will be locked into Microsoft forever.  It will take more and more people demanding fair treatment before anything ever gets done.

But what about Apple and Mac OS X?  You used to be a big supporter of that platform.

Good question and comment.  It's true, I used to be a huge Apple fan.  My wife and daughter still use an Apple laptop.  Plus, we all have iPods.  However, I am beginning to see that Apple might be worse than Microsoft.  That is, not only are you locked into an OS (it comes pre-installed on your computer), but you are also locked into the hardware (the only way to get the OS is to purchase the hardware).  The difference is a person knows what she is getting with this deal.  She specifically sough out this hardware and the software (or for the software).  That is, she is tired of Windows and want something else.  However, she believes that her only alternative is to switch to Apple and Mac OS X.  But what if she knew she could keep her existing hardware a lot longer than she is told and could upgrade to an OS that is at least as secure (if not more so) than OS X and it wouldn't cost her a thing?  That sounds pretty good to me and most people I know.

But for Linux to get any type of respect and public attention, it must be show cased.  Right now, most of the plug for Linux is from it's user base, i.e., word of mouth.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But when people go to the store, most of the time, all they see are Windows PCs.  If they turn on their TV's they see Microsoft and Apple commercials touting their products.  Even in the print ads, it usually a Window's system that is shown.  Heck, even the companies that sell Linux powered systems have '<company name> recommends Windows Vista'.  You have to go digging in their web sites to even find Linux.  In other words, Linux, on a large scale isn't being promoted.  Granted, there are some PC magazines that are running ads for it or have articles about it.  But, these are specialty mags.  Only the people who like looking at those mags will see the ads/articles about Linux.  But what about the average person?  What about the parents that are trying to find a reasonably priced system for their child?  Or the grandparent that would like a system to email their grandchildren?  Or the college student that needs an inexpensive system for school?

Like it or not (and I don't) the average person will have to settle for Windows and continue to put up with the crap that Microsoft spews out.  For Linux to become the viable alternative I believe it is, it needs to be thrust into the public eye so people can see it in all it's glory.  It has to have it's time in the spotlight.  It needs print ads and TV commercials.  People need to see the great features and security and the applications that they can have.  They need to be able to walk into a store and see the hardware they like running Linux.  They need to have knowledgeable sales staff that can show off Linux.  Then and only then will people really have a choice in their computing needs.  Right now, they are still at the mercy of Microsoft.  And that's a problem.

Peace be with you.

OD