[PLUG] got info?

[Michael M]

On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 09:43 -0800, alan wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Christian wrote:
> 
> > I am going to be giving a short presentation to 20 people on Why they should 
> > use Linux instead of Windows. They are students. Is there anything else I 
> > should include? I have stats for proof of numbers
> >
> > Overview of Linux and Windows
> >
> >  1.
> >
> >     cost
> 
> You also need to include the cost of the equivelent apps.
> 
> With Windows, when you buy the OS you get a small number of apps.  (It 
> varies depending on how you got it.  Some machines have additional apps 
> bundled.) Anything beyond that is extra.  (And the prices can add up 
> quick.)
> 
> Think about what it would cost to add
> 
> - An office suite
> - C and C++ compilers
> - HTML editors
> - Image manipulation software
> - Server applications (html, mail, database, etc.)
> - media applications
> - CD/DVD burners
> 
> and so on...
> 
> To get the same types of software for Windows that comes with most Linux 
> systems would be many thousands of dollars extra.  (Plus more everytime an 
> "upgrade" comes out.)

Personally, I wouldn't stress this point very much, the reason being
that there is so much quality freeware available for Windows, in all
those categories (with the possible exception of C/C++ compilers -- I
have no idea, never used one).  Back when I was using Windows, at some
point I made a decision to start preferring OSS over proprietary
software.  Over the course of a few months, I dropped every closed
source app I was using in favor of OSS "equivalents."  "Equivalents" in
quotes because, in fact, the OSS was in almost all cases better than the
proprietary software I'd been using.  Really, I think the only software
I was sorry to abandon was Xnews, which remains the best newsreader I've
ever used (alas, Windows only -- freeware, but not open-source).  It was
the success of this experiment that led me to Linux eventually.  I
figured if all the OSS was better than proprietary software on Windows,
than probably an open-source OS would be better than a proprietary OS
like Windows.

Also, there are superb resources for Windows users looking for freeware,
whether open-source or not.  The newsgroup alt.comp.freeware is great,
and it maintains the Pricelessware list of the best freeware, almost all
of which runs on Windows.  And there is some excellent open-source
software on Windows that just doesn't have any equal on Linux -- for
instance, foobar2000, the best damn audio player on the planet.  BSD
license, but only works on Windows.

I think it would be a mistake to pretend that you have to spend lots
more money on software once you buy Windows.  Actually, I think it would
*be* a mistake to spend more money on software if you're running
Windows, unless you have specialized needs (in which case, you'd
probably *have* to run Windows anyway).  The best stuff is free, and
that includes security apps like anti-virus and firewall software.

I wish more Linux advocates would stress the utility and all-around
awesomeness of OSS, even on proprietary platforms like Windows and OS X.
I think people would be more likely to dip their toes in the OSS world
if they were encouraged to do it from the comfort of their existing
OSes, rather than exhorted to switch OSes and deal with all the
potential for hardware hassles that exist.  Many, of course, already
have, with Firefox and OpenOffice.org.

Installing Linux *can* be easy, but it isn't necessarily easy.  Every
day on the various Debian mailing lists there are dozens of pleas for
help with various and sundry pieces of hardware that don't "just work."
But any Windows user can install Firefox or foobar2000 or CDex in 30
seconds flat, and be introduced to OSS.

-- 
Michael