Ed Henning

Whether Windows is a generic term and can be subject to copyright is all very interesting, as are some of the other issues in the case between Microsoft and Lindows, but in the end it is simply not relevant.

Merely in the interests of competition I would like to see Lindows win the copyright case, but I don't think it matters.

I heard recently of ridiculously cheap PCs for sale in the US running the Lindows operating system. Walmart was selling them for around $300, but they were not flying off the shelves.

Given the well-known stability of Linux and its associated software, you would expect such systems to do well. But for the majority of users, such a machine is simply not a PC. At least, not a proper one.

In this, Microsoft has won a great battle. I believe that for the majority of users, Windows identifies a PC.

The more technical user would talk in terms of the Bios or the processor instruction set, but most users would probably not know these terms, and would think simply of Windows - not generic windowing operating systems, but Windows the Microsoft product.

The more discerning user is understandably frustrated by this attitude, because it means the pressure is not there on Microsoft to produce better and more user-friendly products.

All users are affected by this. Because of the lack of demand for genuinely improved products, such updates as there are could probably be described as superficial changes.

More abstract or technical issues do not get properly resolved, the products are 'just good enough', and everybody is in the position of having to like it or lump it. In the long run, I suspect that Microsoft would be better off for the existence of technically savvy, consumer pressure.

Just about any user you talk to, whether relative novice or technical whizzkid, has a cluster of problems associated with their system, yet they will buy the next one, with the next version, without considering the alternatives.

The ease of use that matters to Microsoft is the relative difficulty of getting up and running with all the applications you want on an alternative system.

With Linux and the various other choices, it is still non-trivial, and the majority of users are forced to take the 'easy' route and put up with the problems, accepting them in the way we used to accept the need to occasionally thump the side of the old valve-driven television sets.

The arguments you most often read in the battle between Linux and Windows all miss the mark as far as most users are concerned.

These philosophical points about open source software, software licences, proprietary software and so on are interesting to only a few people.

The one company that has part of the Linux strategy right is IBM. Its message is more business-oriented and, given the success of Linux in the backroom, running servers (where the customer pressure towards quality is significant and technically driven), the next most likely area for Linux success is on business desktops, and not domestic ones. This is why the Walmart experiment failed.

The application types that are needed for most business desktops are certainly better represented in the Linux world than domestic applications.

Now, it would be a brave IT manager setting up a new office or upgrading an existing one that had everybody using Linux PCs, but it would very likely be a successful experiment.

One factor that is often cited for the success of PCs in the home is the fact that so many people gained experience with PCs in their work, and thereby understood what they could do with a PC, and what they wanted to have at home.

This is the only way Linux will gain any success on the desktop - by adoption in the workplace first. This would not only educate a significant number of users, but would drive greater variety and improved quality in applications.

This whole issue highlights the way consumer pressure works with any technically advanced product.

It's easy to overlook the advanced nature of so many of the components in a PC - the processor alone would seem like science fiction to anybody stepping into our current world from just a single generation ago.

But with any technology, consumer pressure works at the level of consumer understanding. There was a case a few years ago when one of the major brands of washing powder was found to be causing clothes to disintegrate unusually early.

Very few consumers understood why this was happening, but they knew to switch brands. This had an immediate and positive effect.

We simply cannot expect consumer pressure to improve products such as Windows, when most of the technology is effectively like the hidden part of an iceberg, beyond even the comprehension of most users.

Among all the arguments, the one about open source tending to produce high quality software is actually very strong, but it is difficult to see how this can improve Windows.

In my opinion, Windows will benefit only by the indirect pressure from an acceptance of Linux on the business desktop, and the best chance there lies with IBM.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!