While at the airport last week I picked up a copy of Laptop Magazine. There was an article in it titled Linux for Laptops. I need to air some grievances about that article. According to the article's introduction, it is written as a review to determine "whether this open source OS can be considered a true Windows replacement." Replacement? The next sentence read, "Technically speaking, Linux isn't an operating system at all." Huh? The author doesn't give his definition of operating system. In a later section, the author reviews KDE (he chooses to review only KDE), and complains, "KDE does not recognise new hardware, does not provide a way to adjust screen resolution, won't automatically mount CDROM drives, and limits its help system to issues related directly to the GUI. In other words, KDE is not an operating system at all." So he's complained that the distribution is not an operating system, and neither is the window manager. That would be like reviewing a car and complaining that, technically speaking, it isn't an engine. And the steering wheel isn't an engine either. [More info on Operating Systems can be found here]

He also refers to Linux as "an immature OS," and says that "the operating system is still in its infancy." A knowledgable person might think of Linux as a kind of late-generation member of the Unix family. Given that this is an old and venerable OS family, the reviewer's remarks seem (to me) akin to comparing the Kennedy family with the Gates family, and suggesting that a member of the former is not as well established as the latter. With his thumb clearly on the pulse of trends in the Linux community, this reviewer examined two of the most popular distributions: Suse (out of Germany) and Lycoris (one designed to look Windowsish). He gave them low marks: Installation, grade D. System migration, grade D. Security, grade A. Networking, grade C. Display, grade C. Support, grade D+. Why he didn't review Red Hat (which I use and which seems to be the most well known), I do not know. Perhaps if the reviewer spoke German he would have given better marks on support to the Suse folks.

Now I want to compare my own (anecdotal) experiences with the reviewer's complaints. I've been running Red Hat on my laptop for years. The day I bought my laptop, I went to install drivers for my new digital camera hardware. Windows ME died. It would not recognize the hardware after the drivers were installed. By the end of the day, it wouldn't even boot. Installation had failed. I put Red Hat 7.0 on the laptop, and it installed in under an hour. It recognized all of my hardware, even the digital camera stuff, with no special drivers. I put Windows 2000 on my other partition and spent days trying to get the driver installation right. Some devices never worked in Windows (even though they were designed for Windows). Some devices worked briefly and then failed after a few weeks. I've had the same experience with Windows XP: my digital camera stuff and my external hard drive do not currently function under my Windows partition. They work fine in Linux, sans drivers. My BusLink USB 2.0 cardbus doesn't work any more in Windows. It works fine in Linux, sans drivers. To sum up: What the Hell is Wrong with Windows? Windows installation: grade F. Linux installation: grade B+.

The B+ grade is for some font and software stuff that's a little bumpy under Linux, but at least it all works (and continues working) once its in place. Now for System Migration. I have seperate partitions for /home and /usr/local. This is recommended by the Red Hat setup. If you do this, system migration is as easy as sticking in the new CD and clicking a few options. To upgrade Windows, I typically have to back up all files, scrap everything, and install from scratch. Windows upgrades do not produce stable systems. You must scrap and reinstall. In Linux you need only scrap and reinstall the root partition. You don't even need to do that, but I do clean upgrades because I'm a non-expert and its easier. To sum up: for system migration, Windows grade C, Linux grade A.

Security is a no-brainer. Everyone (even the ignorant reviewer) knows that Linux wins. But grade C on networking? Come on. The reviewer says, "Most distributions support WiFi connectivity, although many adapters require extensive tweaking. SuSE 8.1 supports Bluetooth personal area networking using an application called BlueZ." That sounds nitpicky to me, as I sit wondering why I can't make my Windows XP box talk to my Windows 2000 box. When Windows fails, I have nothing but wizards to work with. When the wizards don't make it work, the troubleshooter says "contact your system administrator." Well fuck, I am my system administrator. I can't get two damn Windows boxes to talk to eachother on a LAN and this fuckhead has the balls to give Linux a grade C in networking. I'd also like to note that Windows requires two ethernet adapters to do internet connection sharing. Linux can use IP masquerading (or IP chains, or whatever the latest thing is) to do it with a single adapter. Why can't Windows do that? If Linux gets a C in networking, Windows must get an F.

I'd also like to point out all the neat tools and programs that come with a Linux distribution: FTP, SSH, multiple browsers, telnet applications, IRC, multiple email readers, various low-level network monitoring tools, etc. You don't get shit with Windows. Thank God for OpenSSH on Windows. It's the only set of Windows-based connectivity tools that function reliably.

On to the "Display" category. "Some distributions have a hard time with higher resolutions..." Okay, don't use those distributions. Problem completely avoided. "fonts do not always display properly, causing strange bitmapping to occur." True. But this is easily fixed. You can just search font howto files to get the easy five-step solution. Besides, I think Red Hat 8.0 doesn't have that problem any more. I had resolved it under 7.0, but when I installed 8.0 I think the problem no longer existed. The real point to note here is that Linux problems can be solved. There is a vast library of documentation: FAQs and Howtos written for everyone from the newbie to the expert. Many of these files are bundled with distributions as part of the documentations. Bejillions of such files can be found online. With Windows there is nothing but shadows and mystery.

Lastly, support. This is my favorite: the reviewer complains about phone support that "in some cases, such as with the German-based SuSE, native language barriers required having to repeat the description of the problem several times." No shit. Use an American-based distribution such as the near-universal standard Red Hat and you will have no such problems. But if you choose obscure/foreign distributions to review then you should expect to encounter some odd problems. Honestly. The great thing about Linux support is that I've never truly needed it. The howto's always come to the rescue. Or in the worst-case scenario, I can just reinstall my root partition without losing any personal data. No matter how bad the problem is, I can be back to work in a matter of hours. But what support have I ever found for Windows? Windows support has always been necessary and never been helpful. Sony and Fujifilm don't even return my email inquiries, which usually say something like "Windows has forgotten what my digital camera is. It used to work but now it says 'unknown device' when I plug it in. What do I do?" They don't even reply because they don't know what I should do because there is nothing I can do. Windows fails.

I had read that article hoping to find some enlightening information about the latest laptop trends for Linux. Instead I found a misinformed piece of crap by a guy who didn't do his homework. I can't describe the sort of zen-peace that I feel when I leave behind the catastrophic Windows environment and enter the harmonious sanctuary of Linux. God has smiled upon Linux and said, "it is good," and the heretic author of the review in Laptop Magazine has committed blasphemy against something rare and pure. Bastard.