Is MS-Windows still a real operating system at all? GNU/Linux is an operating system variety, with competition between operating systems based on the same Linux kernel, and the goal of all those companies and communities that develop GNU/Linux distros, is just to make operating systems for everybody. What is MS-Windows in comparison? Isn't it just a commercial vector, something that they can put on new hardware from the factory, so that people are directed into buying commercial closed source software? Microsoft has even fired most of it's developers working on MS-Windows, lol, it doesn't look like that much of a serious product to me, it doesn't look like a product made to be a serious operating system to me.
And even when Microsoft adds functionality to make things better, to provide some relief for the outcry of misery of the users, like for instance ASLR and DEP, the commercial closed software application developers don't implement it, because they can still sell without even bothering.
In that respect, it seems to me that the biggest problem of MS-Windows is the lack of security. So one would think that users are highly concerned about that, and would want to invest into making their MS-Windows systems more secure. And they do, commercial closed source antivirus programs are money makers. Yet when we look at a test like this one: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Maengel-beim-Selbstschutz-von-Antiviren-Software-2465869.html, it seems that only ESET has actually taken the time to fully implement ASLR and DEP to make their anti-virus program secure to the point that the anti-virus program isn't the first thing that is taken out by modern malware on an MS-Windows system.
And further in that respect, there is this cult of "good enough". Many people will say "yes but the test shows that Avira Antivirus Pro has implemented ASLR and DEP for 99.7 % of its software... that's good enough... no it isn't, that means that a modern malware will succesfully exploit that 0.3% in nanoseconds, it's as simple as that. And then ASLR and DEP are useful technologies, but they're not the best thing ever, as a whole, the latest fully updated MS-Windows offers nowhere near the same level of security as a standard GNU/Linux install that hasn't been updated in years. But users just don't care.
It's that "just don't care" and "good enough" mentality that makes MS-Windows successful, as it comes preinstalled on hardware, and people don't want to hear about the problems, they actually tell themselves that they've done a great deal paying only 100 USD for a MS-Windows OEM license preinstalled on their new laptop, instead of having to shell out 150 USD for a separately sold MS-Windows license, without even thinking that there may be a difference.
I'm very motivated to bring people over to open source, because people have a lot of misconceptions about open source, and those misconceptions are fed by corporate commerce, and that's not fair, just not an honest way of doing business. There really are no real compatibility issues, in fact, there are less compatibility issues in open source than in closed source, much less. There are even solutions to run Windows-only programs on GNU/Linux, and those solutions are certainly not bad. I don't really consider the fact that the entertainment software industry (Adobe, commercial games, amateur music production software, etc...) locks it's software down to MS-Windows, a problem for GNU/Linux or other open source software products. Those are basically software console applications, it's like XBoxifying your PC. There is nothing wrong with that, entertainment has its function in society, the only thing is: would you run your serious applications on your XBox? And not only that, but also, the number of serious applications that are preferentially run on MS-Windows software consoles, is getting really thin in comparison to the open source world, and Microsoft knows that, that's why they're open sourcing their development tools, in the hope that someone might get interested in developing serious applications for MS-Windows again. I bitch a lot about these things, but in the end, I'm not that worried about it, it will settle itself. This is the kind of problem that is a direct exponent of the great capitalist wars of the 20th century, that murdered well over 100 million people in less than 30 years, but it also caused the fastest advancement in technology in the history of mankind. It will take time before the people really claim the knowledge their ancestors died for, before they realize that all knowledge is open source, and that open source development is a better guarantee for fairness, honesty, security and innovation. RedHat has been growing more than Microsoft for several years now, the open source software business model is taking over, one step at a time.
As an entertainment software user, never having been in close contact with advanced computing environments, never having to need more than what the XBoxified PC has to offer, it's easy to doubt the added value of open source. In reality though, it's not about open source versus closed source in the sense of security and spyware and all that, it's about much more fundamental things, like the fairness of the business model involved. I don't want to go all RMS on this, because I'm not a big fan of that kind of discourse either, I'd rather keep the link between software and what you have to achieve with it in daily real life, the money you can make with it, etc..., but there is a big benefit in open source software in that it is just a much more efficient way to develop software that is just better, and open source development really leverages innovation beyond what any closed source software company could even afford in terms of man hours and talent. Because innovation is not about patents and copyrights, it's about people. Corporations don't want this, because they like to keep all the money for themselves, and don't like to share anything, they don't really want to innovate, MS-Windows and its 30+ year old technology is the best proof of that, they want to make money from every aspect of a product they can. In open source, there is no such problem, and the focus is on development and innovation, because the money making model is quite simple: customers pay for services that others can't provide, not because it's a walled garden and they're locked in, but because you can offer skills that tie in with the innovative technologies you can offer the customers. You can take what's already there in terms of technology, and expand it to serve a particular purpose a customer needs a solution for, and then you share your expansion with the open source world, so that there is no way back, only a way forward, but since you have the knowledge to make it work, you can sell support and turnkey implementations to customers, with an unseen degree of innovation deliverable in a very short time, so that the turnover for the customer is tangibly better, and everyone is satisfied. Enterprises and governments see the benefits of open source development, and they ALL migrate.
The big problem with open source software at this time, is not a problem with open source software itself, it's - again - a labour problem. For the moment, there is a HUGE shortage of people with the necessary skills to keep up with the boom of open source software. It's just not that easy to keep up with demand, and some people actually get frustrated and mad, and they go back to closed source software because they're frustrated and mad, and six months later, they come knocking again because they see that there is no way back if they want to move forwards with their business. That's why I always bitch about the need for people to get into open source software, not because people need open source (although they really do), but because the world needs people with open source experience and skills. The development methods and techniques for closed source (and there are a lot of closed source developers without a job!!!) just turn out not to be all that useful in really innovative projects, and those guys, as hard as it may be, turn out to have to start from pretty much scratch when they try to move over to the booming open source development market. Open source development is completely different, in that not everyone is told to do just a specific thing and the bosses will bring it all together, they don't have to worry about it... in open source, developers are much more involved in the entire project, they have to know "moar shit", they have to understand the work of others to respect the code of others, and to make their work fit in. This is not easy, and everybody had heard about the big discussions and the big schism in the Debian community, and everyone has heard about the big disputes with Poettering, etc... but those disputes mean that there are actually people that care about software, that there is science and innovation going on, that people want to go ahead and have heated discussions about technology, and in the open source world, it regulates itself, because there is more demand for the software than the current batch of developers, however many there are, can provide.
I can confirm that it's very hard to find skilled people with the proper mindset for open source development. That's because it's so conceptually "out there" innovative, that people can't wrap their minds around it all that well yet, and that's because of the closed source software clamp on the market and on technological innovation, because of the "good enough" mentality. That's why it's never too early to get into open source thinking, not just software, but just the concept of open source in terms of personal development, the simple question "how do I, all by my own free will and initiative, work together with others, to make that particular thing that I want, happen, so that I can make a ton of money providing ad hoc solutions", instead of "what does my boss tell me to do now and how can I make a good impression that will result in more pay". It's really a matter of mental emancipation, of taking matters in your own hands. That's why I keep stressing to think about the not-so-obvious and about open source methods, and of course, the use and understanding of open source software. Do I have the same motivation as RMS? No lol, I don't care too much about his little propaganda business (because that's what it is in the end in my opinion). My motivation is quite selfish: I need open source developers that know what they're doing, that can go to a client and work towards a solution, that are not afraid of sharing, that can really make things happen for themselves and for the team. It's as simple as that. And it's changing. In the local university here in Germany, in the last couple of years, there has been a steady yearly increase of the number of female computer sciences students of 70%. In a couple of years, there will be as much female CS students as there are male students. The CS world is really opening up, it's open sourcing to the world, it's becoming more in touch with the wide open world. That's a really good thing, that means that the future is looking very good for open source software development. And that also means that the future is looking very dark and gloomy for closed source software development.
In the end, it's all about the people behind the technology... as the people start to take themselves more serious again, they will also take software more serious again, and they will lose interest in closed source.
