The Open Source promoters remind me a lot of the OS/2 die-hards (a group I once belonged to). OS/2 was and probably still is a superior operating system to Windows 95.  Windows NT actually has its origins in OS/2 when IBM and Microsoft worked together on it.  Because of a rift between IBM and Microsoft, they went their separate ways with Microsoft developing Windows NT and IBM developing OS/2.

I fell for the OS/2 pitch, bought and installed it, then lived with the consequences.  Sure, my OS/2 never crashed, it could run hoops around Windows, and was true multitasking.  But I still had to run a Win 3.1 kernel to use my programs.  Why?  Because the OS/2 user base was so small that one by one software manufacturers stopped writing programs for it.  If I wanted the latest software, I had to run it under my Win 3.1 kernel, thus bypassing OS/2 and the superiority of its operating system.

Once Windows 95 arrived, Microsoft made sure that OS/2 could not run it as a separate kernel, effectively eliminating the ability of any OS/2 users to purchase and run new software made for Windows 95.  I hung on to it as long as I could, but finally joined the rest of the Windows 95 world (only 2 years ago, by the way).

While that seems to be an argument for Open Source code, I think that just the opposite is true. The reason OS/2 is dying (I think some people still use it) is because it was not profitable for software companies to support it with such a small user base.  Users want cheap software, but they want software that is user-friendly, supported, and has a large base of other users, manuals, etc. that they can turn to for assistance.   Haven't we all purchased software that was super-cheap, only to find out that it was extremely difficult to use?  Are we using that software?  I have a box of my rejects if anyone's interested.

I am just as irritated with Microsoft as anyone else.  I feel WordPerfect is superior to Word, yet I use Word as my primary word processor because my school adopted it.  It drives me crazy that Microsoft is dominating the business because of its sheer muscle power and marketing strategies. It would be great if something could make a dent in Microsoft's armour.  Yet I think it's optimistic to think it will happen.

I see many similarities between OS/2 and Linux.  The techies are the ones crazy about it because they can thumb their noses at Microsoft.  These are probably the same people who supported OS/2.  It is a great idea in theory, but practically speaking, I don't think the masses will buy it.  I can't see the techies spending the time and energy supporting the software products for novice users.  Who will, then?  There is no motivation for anyone to do so.  One of our readings even acknowledged that programmers get tired of a project and realize they have to pass the torch on to someone else.  With no financial incentive to stay involved, programmers will move on to the next intriguing project.  Linux might remain supported, but end-user software still needs to be developed and supported.  I know that some companies have developed software for Linux, but will businesses and the general user buy it?  My experience tells me "no."

After reading that one of you tried to install Linux on your machine, I thought I should express some words of caution.

Linux is not just another software program that you can easily remove or ignore if you don't like it.  Linux is an operating system.  An operating system is the main computer program that runs the computer and all the other software that you install.  Once an operating system is installed,  you cannot easily remove it.  You usually need to reformat your hard drive and install another operating system or partition the hard drive so that you can run a second operating system.

When I put OS/2 on my machine, I didn't fully realize that I was making a major commitment to that operating system.  The only way I could remove it was to reformat my hard drive as I mentioned.  Because everything on my hard drive was removed, I had to start from scratch and reinstall my old files, programs, macros, etc.  It took several days.

In addition, I needed to find and install new drivers for the operating system.  Whereas Windows 9x is plug and play, meaning that it automatically detects your hardware and usually provides the necessary drivers, other operating systems are not so user-friendly.  It took me months to track down the company which wrote the video driver for my monitor, determine which of their drivers I needed and install it.  The programmer was not very easy to understand and I downloaded the incorrect driver a couple of times.

Finally, my screen savers didn't work under the new operating system.  Neither did PC Tools, a utility program I had come to depend upon.  After tweaking it on my own, I finally got it to work with my Windows 3.1 kernel.  Other programs (such as defraggers) that I became accustomed to would not work under the new operating system.  If they existed at all, they were usually at least a version behind.

IBM's technical support was very helpful most of the time, but I still had to troubleshoot many of my problems on my own.  Imagine what problems you could encounter with Linux.  Who would provide support for it?

I would caution you and anyone else to learn from my experience.   While I think that Open Source has its place, I don't think that people should convert their operating systems without fully understanding the consequences.