TGWVLION '05 wrapup and assessment

AG has posted a TGWVLION '05 wrapup (with action photos of the event!) over on his blog. This entry started as a comment to his entry, but quickly spiraled out of control, so I'm posting it here as my wrapup and rebuttal. This is also why I start out sounding like I'm talking to one person, but end up talking in general to multiple people. Also, I've been interrupted several times, so I may repeat myself or lose coherency here and there--and the thing's just too freaking long to reread.

Overall, this is a pretty fair wrapup. I've been thinking about my wrapup post, but haven't had a chance to write it. Also, thanks for pointing out the gnome issue and the security patch issue.

But, I would (as predicted) like to take issue with a couple points.

1) IT vs. Editorial. If you would like to have an IT vs. Editorial install off, I'm pretty sure we'd win. I think that you'd have to concede the point that you are the exception when it comes to computer literacy in the editorial department.

2) Bloat in Windows vs. Open source. I like the way you cleverly obscure the real issue here. You say that 'open source' has become bloated, when in reality there are certain packages that have done so. It is unfair to compare windows to open source. You have to compare packages that perform similar functions. For example, you can compare windows to linux with gnome installed, but not windows to a linux headless web server. Or, you can compare IE to Firefox as another example.

This actually brings out a point that I'd agree with, though: when installing similar levels (size/feature levels, not quality levels) of software Linux takes as long as, or longer than, Windows. But, if I had chosen to install a lighter-weight window manager (my original plan that I discarded as somewhat unfair, even though it is a valid option when installing Linux) and forgone Gnome, I could've been done quicker. I chose to install Gnome for exactly that purpose. Gnome includes as much, indeed more, than Windows does. Now, I still thought it would've installed quicker, but on that point I was wrong.

The other point that you make: "The open source community, through Linux's size and included apps and Firefox's bugs, should be learning that Microsoft's expansion and bug problem isn't all its fault or, at the least, something it can easily solve." is completely without merit and one that I've recently categorized as 'your weakest argument ever'. This is because there is no such thing as 'Linux's size and included apps'. When installing Linux, it can be as large or as small as you want. A base install of Debian is no more than 100megs. Anything else added on top of that is by choice. If you had said 'Gnome's size and included apps' you'd have half a point. I say half because first, Gnome itself is a choice, and second, because you don't have to install everything included with Gnome. Typically, what happens is that a distrobution of Linux will package Gnome and Gnomey apps and utilities into a package called Gnome. The Debian package of Gnome is what I installed. But even within that, I had the choice to pick and choose what I wanted or didn't want. That is a freedom that is unavailable with Windows. When installing Windows, you alwasy get the same thing. It can be argued that that is a positive, but I see it as possibly the greatest negative for Windows. There is no freedom to customize the system as you see fit. If you don't want a graphical interface (servers, typically), tough. If you don't need Windows Media Player or Internet Explorer, tough.

On the second half of your statment: "Microsoft's expansion and bug problem isn't all its fault or, at the least, something it can easily solve.", I have to say that this is partly true. A large complex system will have bugs and security holes. But, Windows was developed for features first at the cost of security. It's taken them a long time to get to a reasonable level of security and stability. But, there are still too many core design flaws that will continue to have exploits surface. I refer, of course, to stuff like IE being completely tied into the lowest levels of the OS, so that when IE has a hole, it can compromise the whole OS. You attacks on Firefox are an attempt to show that FF and IE are the same in this manner. Yes, FF has, and will have security holes, but FF is not tied into the OS, so it is far more difficult to compromise the whole box with it.

3) Security patches: It is a feature of Debian that it will grab updated packages while installing, so that out of the box, you're patched up. This isn't necessarily a Linux thing. This highlights a problem with a lot of discussion about 'Linux' vs. Windows. The problem is that there isn't a direct comparison that can be drawn. People don't typically run 'Linux', they run a distribution of Linux. The individual distros could be compared to Windows, but not Linux as an entity of its own. This also speaks to why your statement: "Furthermore, I would argue (and Furious will disagree) that maintenance and patch updates are more difficult to do in Linux than XP." doesn't work. I don't think that Windows updates are all that difficult, just that they are time consuming and occasionally break stuff (not enough that I think you shouldn't run them, though). Debian, however, is the easiest and safest OS to update that I've ever run. Updates can be downloaded ahead of time automatically, and installed with one command or through a graphical utility. If you're running the Stable version of Debian (the only one it's really fair to compare to a 'stable' release of Windows) it will never break anything. Ok, it's never safe to say never, but it's so close to never that it's pointless to use another word.

Also, about security updates, is the fact that people don't typically update their software, just the OS. What I mean, is that Windows update only updates Windows (and bundled software). It doesn't update Photoshop for example. So, if a security hole comes out in Photoshop, Windows users could be screwed. But, in Debian (and most distros) it keeps all of the software up to date. So, if there's a security hole in Gimp, it gets patched using the normal system update tools.

Also also also (man, this section is getting a bit long), with Debian the updates are very transparent--you knowexactly what's getting updated and why; with Windows, there's typically a lot of patches rolled into one, and you never really know what's changing.

And lastly, I have to mention the point that is always mentioned when discussing Windows patches vs. Linux patches: in general, open source software is patched far quicker than Windows software.

5) The 'Linux people' aren't the ones saying that Windows can get hacked almost immediately on install. There have been several studies done on the matter. Sure, 'Linux people' enjoy hearing it, but so would you if the sides were switched. Of course, this concern can be mitigated using some common sense (as can most security problems).

Ok, that's the end of my rebuttals to some of the points made in that blog entry. The remainder (who am I kidding? No one's still reading) is just some further wrapup of the competition.

The main thing I've learned from the competition is this: installing Windows or Linux is not all that hard when hardware is supported in the OS. If the Windows CD has the drivers for all of your hardware, the install will go relatively smoothly. The same is true of Linux: if the Linux kernel (the core of the OS where, in Linux at least, the drivers live) has support for your hardware, the install is easy. But that's where the difference is, and I think that's the main point that AG is trying to make. If the Linux kernel doesn't have support your hardware, that's usually the end of the line. There aren't that many hardware manufacturers that distribute their own Linux drivers. But, if the Windows CD doesn't have the driver, typically, you can find it on the manufacturer's website or on one of the various driver sites.

Now, my experience with installing Windows almost always has involved going out and searching for drivers, downloading these rediculously sized executable installers, and rebooting countless times. This is my main point when I say how hard Windows is to install. But, I have always--or at least usually--ended up with full hardware support. With Linux, I have had two instances where I had to wait. It eventually was added into the kernel, but it wasn't supported when I bought the hardware.

Much has been said of the security patch issue--security patches are installed during the Debian installation, but are a tedious (see how charitable I can be?) process in Windows. But, a point that hasn't been made is that when I was done installing Debian, I had basically everything I use to get my work done. This includes (obviously, since they were a part of the test) web browsing and word processing, but it also includes photo editing, media playing, administration tools, games, etc. Windows users still have a lot of work to do at this point. (Usually, at least--you could realistically operate with just what's distributed with Windows, but that's usually not the case.) In addition to (by AG's numbers) two evenings of security patching, a Windows user also has to install all of the normal apps they use: antivirus, photo editing, mp3 player (although AG uses Windows Media Player, yech), web browser (you don't really use IE, do you?), instant messenging program, etc., etc., etc.

So, all in all, I hate it that I lost, but (suprise, suprise) I still think Linux (Debian in particular) stomps all over Windows in almost every aspect. The two aspects that Windows wins in are hardware support and the inertial effect of familiarity. But, I have learned some things that I was wrong about, and will remove them from my arsenal of anti-windows weaponry.

Gary had suggested that the next competition should be that we take two normal users and have them install Windows and Linux. But, as AG has oft pointed out, this really isn't the most important part (even though this entire contest was based on the ease of installing Linux vs. Windows); the most important part is usability and ease of administration. But, I'm not sure how to stage that competition.