The Open Source Alternative

It's been a while since we last posted and, to continue but develop the current theme, we thought we'd move away from Linux a little and address the fundamental ethos behind this alternative operating system.

Open source software is exactly what it implies; the source code that makes it work is freely available to download, review, tweak or adapt, and pass on, subject to the terms of the licence agreement. Most such software is written and distributed under the GNU Public Licence (GPL) which is a universally accepted licence agreement for the development, amendment and distribution of open source software.

Linux is open source but not all open source is Linux, or even even Linux-compatible. It need not even be an operating system. The chances are that you're already aware of, and perhaps even using, open source software already - there are open source equivalents of Microsoft's favourites which are designed to run on Windows and address some of the perceived failings of Redmond's software development.

Arguably the most widely known suite of open source software, although many people don't perhaps actually know that it is open source, is the Mozilla internet suite; commonly referred to as Firefox (web browser) and Thunderbird (email client). Following wide-spread condemnation of the inherent security flaws in Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or more importantly, the lack of speed exercised by Redmond in addressing substantiated vulnerabilities, Firefox and it's sister product Thunderbird quickly seized a sizeable chunk of the market share, outstripping longer established alternatives.

Firefox and Thunderbird are no less prone to bugs and/or vulnerabilities but, and herein lies perhaps the most convincing argument for using open source software, they are fixed rapidly by the developers, often before the bug/vulnerability is even widely publicised - they don't wait until the monthly patch download. It's that, and the dynamic development of extensions, themes and plug-ins by third party developers that appears to have made Mozilla so popular.

Another very convincing argument for open source software is its very nature; the code is freely available and therefore it's very difficult to hide malicious code snippets in it. Something that appears to be far more prevalent in the open source than in the proprietary world is the validation of downloads using an MD5Sum. This is a simple validity check, but not infallible. If a download fails the MD5Sum check, it's usually either corrupt or tampered with and shouldn't be loaded either way.

A lesser known but equally useful open source software suite is Open Office, the free version of Sun's Star Office, cited as the main rival to Microsoft Office. Being perfectly honest, and a Power User of Microsoft's offering, it has to be said that Open Office is not ready to take on it's rival in a toe-to-toe battle royal; it lacks quite a lot of the more advanced functionality and polish.

That said, Open Office wins over its Microsoft rival on three fronts, at least for the average user:

1. It's free; free to download, free to install on as many machines as you want, free to use
2. It will open the files of it's rival. even though they are proprietary and closed source. It will even produce files of the same format, readable by it's rival
3. It will also produce web pages and PDF (Portable Document Format) files natively, that is without having to buy additional software to do so or clear out pages of redundant code

So, you may not be ready for a whole new operating system but you like the ideas, morals and ethos behind the open source movement. You can download, install and use two suites of programs which cover off the bulk of the average users' needs, without spending an additional penny.

This post has been sparked by a couple of interesting articles posted on the BBC Technology News site, so it would be churlish not to link back to them in order that you can read an alternate viewpoint.

• BBC News Programs Click Getting the most from open source
• BBC News Technology Questions for Microsoft on open formats

More on other open source alternatives next time.

The Linux vs Windows Argument

We said we wouldn't evangelise about Linux and that's still true. However, people ask why they should move from Windows to Linux and it's actually very easy to evangelise when answering the question. The truth is that people are comfortable using what they know and understand, a perfectly understandable and justifiable position.

We have found two excellent essays which answer the question without, in our opinion, coming even close to evangelising. They're simply factual and knowledgeable without being excessive. They even point out positives of using Microsoft products. So, rather than risk being branded born-again Linux users, we'll let you read these two independant articles instead:

1. Why Linux Is Better
2. Linux is NOT Windows

Enjoy, become informed, and make up your own mind.

Alternatives to Windows

In a previous post, we opined on Vista or, more correctly, Microsoft's tactics for its wide-spread adoption by the computer-buying public. The parting question was: Is there an alternative? Of course there's an alternative; there are always alternatives. Microsoft do not have a monopoly on the desktop operating system, though they do have a vast majority and a captive audience.

The first alternative is Macintosh by Apple. We've had occasion to use these prior to entering the support arena and they are both easy to use and pretty robust. They're pretty too, for the most part, but aesthetics shouldn't be top of your list when buying a computer. Another plus point is that there are even Microsoft applications available for Macs, including the full Microsoft Office suite.

However, and it's a big one, Macintosh is not Windows. You can't just take your brand-spanking new Mac and install all your old software on it. Until recently, Mac OSX (the Macintosh operating system) would only run on Power PC hardware; Windows runs on Intel hardware. Incompatibility at that level is going to take time to overcome and, for as long as Intel hardware running Windows has the lion's share of the market, there's not really any incentive for it to change.

The second alternative is Linux and, just like Mac, this isn't Windows. Nor is it proprietary. The Linux operating system is not owned by any one corporate entity, indeed some would argue that it isn't owned at all. Sure, there are corporate bodies backing their own version but they're going to find it very hard to be a viable competitor for Apple, much less Microsoft. Advertising and growth of popularity is usually by word of mouth.

Before Linux users across the land spam our mailboxes with death threats and retribution, I'm not against Linux - quite the opposite. However, to overthrow the Microsoft throne is going to take more than a collection of disparate factions ... but we digress. Linux will run on both Intel and Power PC hardware. Unlike its proprietary cousins, the cost is minimal, in some cases free. The reason is its own non-proprietary nature; it's open source, which means that the code is available for your perusal, should you wish to. Try asking Microsoft or Apple for the same privilege!

Support for Linux is usually obtained from fora, often hosted by the provider of the distribution (distro). Not all distros are created equal, many distros are specialised in what they deliver, not all fora are as useful as their cousins/rivals. And rivals they are, for you can only run one operating system at a time. Sure, you can have one than one operating system installed but you can only run them one at a time.

If you're considering Linux on grounds of cost, think again - especially about what you use your computer for. If it's only for internet access, including emails, organising your digital photographs, sorting out your household accounts and writing the occasional letter, the migration will be simply a case of learning something a little different. However, if you're a Windows or Mac power-user, it'll be a whole lot different.

DreamGenius has been, for the last several months, using Linux on its main internet access computers, and with good results but that'll be the subject of future posts. We are not yet however in a position to support either Mac or Linux, it spite of the opinions offered above. These opinions are based on experience but that experience is insufficient to offer support in return for payment. Should you choose to explore either operating system, please do so with caution and not on the machine that contains data that you wish to keep.

Microsoft Vista - Support & Opinion

We have been asked our opinion on Microsoft Vista more than once now and that's a leading question, which we'll attempt to answer here and now. Why attempt? Well ... oh, just read on, please.

Firstly and most importantly, we haven't tested Vista - We don't yet own a copy. Why not? For that, read the second point as it applies equally to this company as any other. That said, it is an inevitability that we will have to but not before our customers have either saddled themselves with it or been forced into buying it. At that point, we'll be able to post our opinions and advice on its set-up, ease of use, functionality, security et al.

What follows is simply an opinion; it's based on personal experience, sound reasoning and market intelligence but it's still only an opinion. Vista is Microsoft's first new desktop operating system in five years, since XP - fact. Microsoft have a habit of beta-testing their products on their paying users - widely held opinion. Vista is significantly more resource-hungry than XP or any of it's predecessors - substantiated opinion. Microsoft are retiring Vista's predecessors by declaring them end-of-life and withdrawing support - fact.

Your point you ask? In our opinion, this adds up to Microsoft forcefully creating a market, not only for its operating system but also for the companies that have signed up to sell it and hardware capable of running it. So, to upgrade your computer to Vista, unless you're comfortably running XP with Service Pack 2 applied, and therefore still supported and not required to upgrade in the first place, you'll simply have to replace the computer too. That's a minimum outlay of about £350, on top of the cost of the operating system.

So what's your advice? Is there an alternative? We can't tell you not to buy Vista but you have to be aware that there will almost certainly be teething problems if you do. There are alternatives but they're the subject of another post ...