For those that actually read and understood the source article, Torvalds talked about the power and stability of the 2.6 kernel line, and the current vision of incrementally improving it rather than making radical and disruptive changes. He also noted the industry-wide trend of giving “sexy names” and new version numbers to software releases, which amount to relatively minor improvements in real function. New releases of applications and operating system software are largely comprised of feature bloat, with the underlying purpose being to create sales by replacing perfectly good software with newer and different (but not necessarily better) software. Windows Vista is a perfect example of this, with many users and major companies currently electing to downgrade back to Windows XP, or refuse to “upgrade” in the first place.

Reporting that the Linux kernel will not reach version 3 creates the impression that development is stalling, or in decline, or indeed that there is something fundamentally wrong with the operating system. What is fundamentally wrong is the low level of professionalism among too many “journalists”, eager to seize the opportunity for an eye-catching headline — headlines that ‘Feed the FUD’ that already hampers Linux’s wider embrace. Granted, this spreading of misinformation sometimes works to Linux’s “advantage”, such as the widely reported news of Linux desktop use “doubling” within the last year (based on DesktopLinux.com’s admittedly non-scientific poll). But any Linux stories that misrepresent the status of Linux for better or worse do a disservice to readers seeking useful information about the OS, and to responsible journalists and tech writers that strive to maintain professional integrity.

• In addition to any outstanding antitrust suits, Microsoft has now embarked on new lawsuit frontiers for its marketing of Vista.
• The 3-dollar version of Windows in question is severely feature-limited. Yes, even more so than Vista Home Basic.
• It’s also based on seven year old technology — Windows XP, which Microsoft has pledged to stop supporting for consumers by January 2008.
• The announcement comes at a time when the Classmate PC and One Laptop Per Child projects are bringing Linux to developing countries.

Is Microsoft (a) Engaging in a timed public relations campaign; (b) Trying to make money and increase shelf life for now obsolete software; (c) Tapping into emerging markets identified by competitors; or (d) Trying to thwart the spread of Linux?

I would guess (e) All of the above. No well-considered initiative is ever single benefit.

If Microsoft were truly the benevolent entity it would like us to perceive, it would never have released Vista. Consider that the upgrade cost to even the most feature-limited edition of Microsoft’s new OS costs $100. Should you want to enjoy the benefits that one would normally expect with an “upgrade”, expect to pay substantially more. Consider also the fact that the hardware requirements for Vista are steep. Windows users looking to upgrade to Vista should have a minimum of a 1.0 GHz processor, 1 GB of system memory, and an Aero-compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB graphics memory and supporting DirectX 9 with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM driver support.

The implications of this are serious. Many of the computers running XP are now functionally obsolete under Vista, and where will they end up? At best, they will find their way to a computer recycling facility where they will be resold to enterprising individuals who can use them in computers powered by more lean operating systems (like Linux or BSD). Other components and systems may be shipped overseas to run computers in developing countries — at least in theory.

Investigation by Jim Lehrer at PBS found that many of these donated systems are melted down for their metal ingredients — copper, aluminum and gold — with many toxins like arsenic, mercury, and lead released in the process. Worst of all, much of this work is done by children. A hospital in Bangalore, India found that over half of children were lead-poisoned.

And what of the computers and components that aren’t donated? They may find temporary refuge in attics and basements, wasting away the usable lifespan they still possess. Ultimately they will end up in the garbage bins behind millions of homes because there is a cost of to safely disposing of these materials. Dumping is free — though the environmental costs are high and long term.

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality estimates that 314 million computers will be thrown away by the end of 2004, containing 1.2 billion pounds of lead, 2 million pounds of cadmium, 1.2 million pounds of hexavalent chromium, and 400,000 pounds of mercury.

As of 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 45 million computers become obsolete every year. I’m curious to see how that will change once the environmental impact of Vista is taken into account over the next 5 years.

Opponents of the suit say that any computer capable of running any version of Vista is Vista capable, whereas others charge that the upgrade value of Vista Basic is insubstantial, and that Vista’s much-hyped visual effects represent the most tangible benefit to users. Essentially, Microsoft is promoting Vista’s special effects, while capitalizing on the public’s inability to distinguish the feature differences between the 6 versions.

With that in mind, Windows users looking to upgrade to Vista should have a minimum of a 1.0 GHz processor, 1 GB of system memory, and an Aero-compatible graphics card with at least 128 MB graphics memory and supporting DirectX 9 with Hardware Pixel Shader v2.0 and WDDM driver support. Additionally, you won’t want Home Basic. And if you want everything and the kitchen sink — Vista Ultimate — the cost is $399 standalone or $299 upgrade.

Is it worth it?

I don’t think so, but then I’ve long been a reluctant Windows user. I cut my teeth on an Apple II+ over 30 years ago, and was a fairly happy MS-DOS user through the late 80′s and early 90′s. But other than a brief fling with Windows 3.1, I’ve been mostly intrigued by the alternative offerings. For example, I loved IBM OS/2 and was saddened that it never really took off. MacOS and OS X were always a pleasure to use, to the point where I began to feel comfortable without a command line. And then there was Solaris, which I discovered in the early 90′s at university, and which introduced me to Unix and primed me for Linux.

Still, it seemed necessary to keep a Windows computer around, despite its increasing list of annoyances — continuous reboots after software installations/updates, virii, spyware, slow patch releases, having to reactivate Windows with some call center on the other side of the world after upgrading my computer, “Windows Genuine Advantage”, and now DRM…

We’ve now reached the point where running Windows is no more “easy” that running Linux. They’re just different.

Honestly, Linux is so simple to install and run today, anyone can do it. I bring my laptop to university regularly, where it is often borrowed by peers for writing, browsing, and other school chores. No one comments that it isn’t Windows, or asks me questions about how to use it, because the KDE desktop works like Windows. People don’t “use” operating systems, they use applications, and with Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, an instant messenger / image editor / music player / media player / photo manager of your choice (I like Kopete, GIMP, Amarok, Kaffeine and digiKam, respectively) — you’re set. And almost all Linux distributions come with all the necessary applications pre-installed (which is not true for Windows).

In my experience, most hardware is automatically recognized and properly configured by the Linux kernel, assuming you keep it up to date. The exceptions are accelerated 3D video and wireless LAN, which can be a bit of a trial sometimes. This isn’t a Linux problem so much as it is an industry failure to provide drivers. But there are a few excellent Linux distributions that include and configure these proprietary drivers, PCLinuxOS, Mepis and Freespire to name just a few.

While some have said that system configuration is easier on Windows, I think that has largely been erased by the proliferation of Windows-like control panels in Linux distributions like Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, openSUSE, and Ark Linux. Given the amount of time needed on Windows, to install and configure programs for Spyware, Virii, and then having to manually install all the application software you need to be productive (that are pre-installed with Linux), Windows is a huge time investment.

Of course, there is the fear of changing to a new platform. You can do it. I’ll bet it took you more than a couple of days to master Windows (especially if it was Win 3.1 or Win 95), but most people have forgotten what that was like — they just know they’re “comfortable” with Windows idiosyncrasies now. And that’s fine. But learning Linux’s differences isn’t nearly as hard as it was to learn Windows from scratch. Anyone can switch with only a few growing pains… when you’re ready.

Suggested links: Try PCLinuxOS, Mepis or use the Linux Chooser.