The hidden cost of Linux? You're kidding me

This article is ridiculous! Author Adrian Kingsley-Hughes claims that Linux has its hidden costs and goes on to list them, but many of his arguments are flat-out wrong or unsupported. Let's check it out:

"When you take a copy of Windows XP, Vista or Mac OS X and you install it onto a system with the appropriate system requirements, chances are that unless you have a particularly bizarre configuration or a defective component, you can be pretty certain that the OS will install and things that you have installed (WiFi adaptors, network cards, graphics cards and so on) will work just fine."

I've seen plenty of MS upgrades go wrong; for ANY operating system, a fresh install is best. Chances are, EVERYONE has a somewhat bizarre setup. With GNU/Linux distributions, you know what is generally going to work and what isn't, especially if your educated guess is based on the last Linux install. With both Mac and Windows, however, once proprietary support is dropped for one component or another, there is a chance that part will never function again. Or maybe the new Vista doesn't have drivers, or they don't load properly (like all too many new Dell's with their soundcard in Vista). Point is, if you rely on an proprietary OS and drivers, you're stuck with their level of functionality and supported lifetime, AFTER going through the hassle of finding the drivers for everything. With modern Linux, almost all drivers are just built right in. Wifi and 3D Graphics Cards are known issues and we all wish they'd work flawlessly always using FLOSS drivers, but they currently don't; the situation is always improving and my graphics and wifi work, but not everyone has my equipment. Bizarre.

Hardware is designed to work on particular platforms and if you go out and buy something, again being mindful of the system requirements, things should work out OK for you. This isn’t true 100% of the time, but given the billion or so PCs in use, the failure rate is surprisingly low.

Really, I should expect my hardware to work with my platform? Because troubleshooting hardware on Windows is hard enough with an official fix; Free Software seems to power almost everything I need it to, and easily. In fact, the Linux Drivers Project is having trouble finding hardware that doesn't yet have Linux drivers, while Vista still struggles for its full driver set. And being Free software, the Linux drivers will never really go away. Score one for me, in three years.

Lets see the next paragraph...

Things just work, and given the complexity of that device you’re sitting in front of to read this, it’s amazing that computers hum along as reliably as they do. Mostly this is down to the principals of “survival of the fittest” being at work – if a company produces a product with too many bugs too often, that company is doomed.

Sounds like Linux in the first sentence, and a Microsoft bashing in the second -- but apparently this article is in support of a closed-source, non-Free operating system, and an article against Linux.

But when it comes to Linux, things aren’t as straight forward. First off, Linux commands a tiny market share. Net Applications shows Linux web usage currently sitting at just under 0.7 per cent. That level of market share is far too small and insignificant to command much sway among software and hardware vendors. While Linux communities like to believe that this 0.7 per cent user base is bigger than it is, and some companies are now paying lip service to Linux, no matter how you look at it, 0.7 per cent is a small number

It is indeed a very small number, but one that is based on NetApplication's survey of sold desktops, not the install base. Not too many Linux machines on the market at this point. We would like to see our ranks grow, of course.

And even with the best will in the world, the amount of effort that vendors can seriously be expected to put into Linux, given the low market share, is not much. With profit margins getting ever smaller, supporting countless Linux distros just doesn’t make good business sense.

First off, Microsoft is biting into those profits as much as anything else; create a great Linux distro and the users would come -- the EeePC showed us that. So have those that install Linux on their own, without vendor 'support'. Have you ever called for help on hardware and got real help? Second, Software as a Service (SaaS) is taking off in a big way; supporting 'countless' Linux distros makes wonderful sense. Supporting one makes sense! Open some code and let us support ourselves! We've come this far without their help, to the point where we have to read rubbish articles like this one to try to scare people away from Linux. Embrace Linux and users will embrace your company.

Another hidden cost is time. While it’s true that installing Linux has become quicker and easier over the years, the process is still far from perfect. Some severe problem areas still exist (for example, WiFi adaptors, which is very hit and miss) and if you happen to run into the tar pits, you can expect to be stuck there for a long time.

Linux install: 20 minutes; Windows, over an hour, plus all of the additional applications and drivers to find and install. I've spent more time on unknown Windows-platform bugs (both OS and software) than ever on a Linux bug; live help is always a few questions away in an IRC channel (a chat room where people hang out to help and discuss Linux), and IRC programs come preinstalled on every desktop distro I have used, except Edubuntu.

Besides, everyone knows that a Google search is how most computer issues are resolved anyways. But I'm glad we could quick cover the wifi issue again; that and this next part are pretty much the only ammo left out there:

While Vista and Leopard are ready to play DVDs out of the box, Linux users have to mess about with codecs and agree to legally indemnify everyone for using legally dubious codecs. Sure, you can buy software players, some of which are rather good, but the advantage of a free OS starts to be eroded if you instantly have to put your hand in your pocket.

I am pretty sure thats a part of the "paying for Windows" is that you're also paying for a DVD program. No, I know it is. Windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box any more than Linux; Windows requires a properly licensed program to be installed; the same with OS X. Do that with Linux and you're golden.

Another element that consumes time is deciding which Linux distro to use. Many in the Linux community still refuse to accept that the number of Linux distros available acts as a barrier to adoption.

The way we see it, the freedom provided under the GPL allows for anyone to be artistic with this medium -- and that is a good thing, and it fosters innovation and competition. If you don't want something obscure, pick from one of the popular ones on Distrowatch.com and give it a spin. It isn't going to hurt anything, and maybe you'll end up like some choice in your OS. Mix it up a little. Those other two OSes will be for sale for a little longer yet, if you find Linux not to suit your tastes.


Really, the rest of the article is mindless arguments that either you can believe or not. Trying Linux is the only way to get a feel for it, and trying another will help somewhat with the understanding of the issue of 'too much choice.' It's still the same point and click and type stuff that any other OS has. Linux has friendly people (and big business!) behind it, however, that strive to make each distro the best that it can be. No bureaucracy forcing it to have certain DRM features. No sellouts to record companies in exchange for their users souls. Just plain and simple computing, the way it was meant to be -- in the Open.