I often hear people complaining, sometimes loudly others in passing, about Microsoft’s pricing and licensing policies. Additionally, we’ve all seen some reliability problems in Microsoft’s Operating Systems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to bash on Microsoft. I use plenty of their products for a variety of reasons. I accept the aforementioned security/reliability issues as the price for that use.
I have to wonder about those that complain about Microsoft’s products, but buy them repeatedly anyway. So I ask: “Is Microsoft *REALLY* the only game in town?”
The answer, of course, is a resounding “No”. Why is it that we would rather complain about Microsoft than do something about it? Last time I checked, this was a free market. Why not exercise the power that this system inherently bestows on the consumer (vice the provider)? Are the various flavors of UNIX (BSD, Linux, SystemV) really so bad as that? I don’t think so.
Many complain about the learning curve associated with UNIX. The truth is that when running X (gui for UNIX) you can add other software, such as Gnome and Enlightenment, to it in order to make it look like windows. This radically reduces the learning curve associated with the use of the operating system.
Need productivity software? How about StarOffice from Sun? Corel offers WordPerfect suite for Linux/UNIX. Both of these packages can read from and write to your current MS Office documents. Both are available either free or at least inexpensively. Last time I checked, WordPerfect Suite was available from CompUSA for under $100 last time I checked, and it included the install CD’s for Corel Linux.
I don’t see a need for any user, corporate, government or private, to feel locked in to Microsoft’s products.
Am I wrong?