Open Source Operating

A few months ago my laptop crashed. Not for the first time I found myself staring at the blue screen of death as the realisation sunk in that I had lost another load of personal files. When had I last backed up, maybe four months before? OK this is not good desk-driving, but then I haven't cleaned my oven for six months either; some things just never seem to clear the to-do list.

After a long and baffling day spent trying to recover lost files, I resolved to wean myself off the Microsoft teat once and for all. Not because Windows is slow and unstable (although Vista certainly is), or even because of Microsoft's dodgy ethics but primarily because I had never been happy using an operating system that was essentially a complete mystery to me; a black box which can only be opened by IT support blokes wearing sideburns and black jeans. I suppose it's a man thing - I like to be in control. If something breaks I want to understand why it broke. If something needs fixing I want to be able to fix it, or to at least have a good crack at fixing it before giving in and buying a new one.

I had heard a little about the free, open-source operating system known as Linux (or GNU/Linux to be more precise) before, but not being very computer-savvy I had always dismissed the idea of using it myself, assuming it would require knowledge that I neither possessed nor would be able to gain. This time however I found myself with some time on my hands, so I decided to get stuck in and learn whatever was necessary to regain control of my digital world. I could have bought a Mac of course, but that wouldn't have made much of an article.

So, skip forward five months, and I have changed from being a strictly point-click-scratch-head type to boasting (if that's the right word) a multi-boot setup, able to choose between several different operating systems on startup. I am now in fact what is known in the Linux community as a distro-hopper, regularly installing and testing different operating systems, forever in search of the perfect one. Until recently I also had a Windows 7 installation on my hard disk, just in case I came across some obscure web application or something which would only work with Windows. As it turned out I don't think I used it once in about three months, so I have now removed it altogether.

GNU/Linux is free, or open-source, software, meaning anybody is free to re-write the code, to modify it, copy it, give it away, or even sell it. Quite the opposite of MS Windows, which is copyright protected so medievally that to do any of those things is illegal. GNU/Linux is also generally free to obtain, downloadable from numerous websites, ready to burn onto a CD for use straight away.

The whole concept of no-cost, open source software is a difficult one for most people to get their heads around. The idea that something which doesn't cost any money to obtain can be better than something that does (Windows 7 currently retails for approximately £115) is counter-intuitive, and brings to mind the maxim "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is". Why would cutting edge software engineers spend their personal time developing a product for which they will never receive a penny in return? Can such products really be better than commercially-produced equivalents?

Well, to answer the second question first, it has been estimated that if a company wanted to create from scratch a modern GNU/Linux distribution including all available software packages it would cost them approximately 7,000,000,000 (seven billion) US Dollars. So yeah, they're pretty good.

Secondly, as hard to believe as it might be, software engineers do indeed give up huge amounts of their time for free. Stanford University estimated there to be over a million regular contributors to the open source community in 2003, and open source software has grown significantly since then.

Contrary to what you are probably thinking, these programmers are not all unemployed blokes sitting around in their Y-fronts programming out of boredom. The majority, according the same 2003 study, are professional software engineers contributing in their personal time. Many students also contribute, leaving only a small percentage of contributors coding in their underpants.

There are as many different reasons to contribute as there are individuals doing so. The most obvious reason is that everybody wants to work on projects that interest them, rather than on the projects that their bosses make them work on at the nine to five. Programmers are no different to anybody else in that respect. Consider the phenomenon of user-generated content in music and video that grew exponentially in the last decade on sites like youTube and MySpace.

Many feel a sense of obligation to give something back to the open source community from which they source their own free software. Kudos is also a factor, when the fastest (and sometimes the only) way for the proud programmer to get his newly designed widget out there for people to coo over is via an open source licence.

Whatever the reasons, open source programming is a fine example of spontaneous, well organised community action resulting in top-notch products for the benefit for all. A concept which is found in only the most progressive and many would say unrealistic political ideologies.

Back to operating systems however, and leaving aside for a moment issues of abuse of monopoly powers and alleged poisoning of the education system, the fact remains that people do like MS Windows. They like the fact that they don't need to know anything about computers to use it; it works anyway. If you mainly use your Windows PC for office uses, for gaming, for design, for anything else, everything will just work straight out of the box.

Windows achieves this feat by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into it's operating systems, automating every process, however simple, and ensuring compatibility with the most obscure third-party applications. This certainly makes it user-friendly, but the price paid for that convenience is that the Windows user is forever hefting around lots of code to do stuff he doesn't want, which results in slow operating speeds. It's the one-size-fits-all approach, like those T-shirts that only come in one size (usually XX-Large). OK great, anyone can wear them. But who would actually want to?

Gnu/Linux on the other hand adopts a modular approach - install what you want and nothing else, and maybe even learn a few basics about the machine you are sitting in front of while you are doing it. The result is an operating system that does just what you want it to do, and a lot faster, and with no blue screen of death.

There are many other reasons why I am a convert, including the practical immunity to viruses and mal-ware, and the fact that I think the open source software movement is a laudable one. But the main reason remains that I use GNU/Linux because thanks to it, this matt black box I am currently typing on is a little bit less of a mystery.


NB -
There are hundreds of Linux operating systems to choose from (or distributions/ distro's as they are known - see distrowatch.com for a breakdown of the most popular), and if you take the plunge you will probably find yourself trying at least a couple of them, so addictive is the hopper urge. My own advice to anyone considering switching from Windows to Linux would be to try Linux Mint, as I think it is the most user-friendly distro out there, probably doing 99% of what you want it to do straight out of the box without you having to learn anything first.

I will be posting occasional articles on Linux and the open source software movement in general for the rest of 2010. Click here for more information on open source software.