Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux and what it all means

Linux, like Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X, is a computer operating system -- the landscape, if you will, for the work, play and other things we use computers for.

But it gets to the apples (not Apples, cap A) and oranges stage and beyond pretty quickly. While parts of Linux -- the kernel itself, the X windows system, the various graphical user interfaces and other building blocks -- are common across the now-hundreds of distributions that deliver the free OS to desktops and elsewhere, just the fact that there are hundreds of ways to bring Linux to many different kinds of hardware (and for many different working styles) makes it a very distinct fruit (getting back to the apples/oranges thing).

In contrast, there's only one Windows -- Microsoft's. And while XP is still available because the business world demands it (and because much of the new hardware still in the retail channel can't run Vista), good luck if you want to purchase or get support for Windows 2000. Primary support for Win 2K ended in 2005. "Long term" support -- probably security patches and nothing more -- ends in 2010 -- 3 years from now. At least it had a 10-year or so life. But you can't buy Win 2K at retail.

I've heard whisperings about something called "XP Legacy," a cut-down OS that will run on hardware from the Windows 98 and 2000 era. But I can't find any information at Microsoft.com. Apple does the same thing. It's selling OS X 10.4 Tiger for a fairly reasonable $129. But can you get 10.3 Panther from Apple. Not on their Web site. And the new 10.5 Leopard is coming ... I don't know when, but soon. So should I pay $129 to upgrade my Panther to Tiger, then another similar amount to go to Leopard? Nah. I'm sticking with Panther.

But we're starting to get to the point where Mac apps won't run on 10.3, and users will need, at the minimum, 10.4 to install the software they need.

In the Linux space, Ubuntu -- the current No. 1 Linux distribution, according to distrowatch.com -- maintains a six-month release cycle, bringing out new versions of its OS at that interval. And there is one release -- currently 6.06 -- that will receive "long-term support," meaning 18 months of security patches, bug fixes and the like. But you can move to 6.10 and beyond at any time -- for free, of course. Or wait until the next LTS release comes out, if you loathe changing OSes.

Therein lies the beauty of Linux. You can partition a giant hard drive and load 10 separate distros to try them out, upgrade whenever you want -- and delete what you don't. And the only investment is your time and a stank of once-blank CD-R discs.

Ah, but your time ... it is valuable ... and there lies the eternal rub. Linux often takes time to configure and always takes time to learn.

And while hardware configuration troubles can stall a Linux newbie in his or her tracks, I was reminded just this week that Windows doesn't do hardware all that well. The cheap Airlink 101 Wi-Fi card that wouldn't work on This Old PC under Windows 98 is now refusing to work with Windows 2000 -- which I upgraded to for this very purpose. Never mind that the wireless card -- supposedly built by Ralink -- one of the few Wi-Fi card makers to offer an open-source Linux driver, doesn't seem to work under Linux, either (though This Old PC's age as well as my geekery skills, may be at fault). A pending test in the Thin Puppy converted thin client should shed some more electronic light on the issue.

But inherent in the term "distribution," is a generally sizable bundle of software included with a free Linux OS -- usually an office suite, photo-editing program, dozens of utilities, Internet everything (browsers, mail programs, IM and FTP programs, HTML editors). And the big distros offer realtively easy installation of hundreds or thousands of additional applications -- again, all free.

So is "free" the killer app of Linux?

Let's look first at the competition. What are the killer apps of Windows and OS X that make each a must for their adherents? I'll start with the less-obvious for both Windows and Mac -- iTunes (you didn't see that one coming, did you?). Then there's Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook), Adobe Photoshop and ... well, I can't think of anything else.

Mid-editorial news flash: The latest release of Crossover Linux -- the consumer- and business-friendly $40 implementation of Windows emulator Wine reportedly now runs iTunes, in addition to MS Office.

Microsoft Office ... it's another gorilla in the room, but these days not quite the King Kong he used to be.

Linux, without MS Office substitutes Open Office and KOffice, would be the ultimate nonstarter. As it is, these packages offer a very viable alternative -- and did I forget to say free alternative -- to the expensive Microsoft Office.

And there's the GIMP. Though not an full equivalent of Photoshop, it's got plenty of sophistication and is way, way less expensive. Again, it's free. Add to the GIMP at least a half-dozen other image-editing programs, like my current favorite mtPaint, which loads just about instantly in Puppy Linux and does everything I need to prep images for the Web.

And what about the Internet? Linux has everything you need -- even the Evolution mail client -- as well as Mozilla-produced Thunderbird -- to negate of Windows' killer apps, Outlook. And by not being Outlook, they just might avoid lots of nasty spam and system-crippling viruses.

But the free, open-source programs that could be Linux's killer apps -- Opne Office, the GIMP, Mozilla/Firefox -- are for the most part available in Windows versions, too, and often for Mac OS X as well. So it's easy to build an open-source box with everthing but the OS itself available for free. Chances are you're using -- or at least have installed -- Firefox, the current big daddy of open source. And I've also heard that Mac's Safari browser borrows code from Konqueror, the browser/filer for Linux's KDE interface.

So perhaps Linux's killer app is ... the OS itself, the fact that it's not Windows or OS X, not controlled by a single corporation, is free now and in the future, and can be -- and probably already is -- freely modified into a configuration that suits your needs as a user.

Of course free and open top the list. Windows and Mac OS do work well for most of the people, most of the time. But neither, by their very nature, encourage free, upgradable, machine-tuned computing. The advantage Win and Mac OS do have are vast user bases offering many people and resources with which to get help.

And while Ubuntu's forums are nipping at their heels, yet another double-edger for Windows and OS X is that each has only a few variants out there in the world, while there are hundreds of different Linuxes (though they share many, many commonalities).

So whether you choose Windows, OS X or Linux, each presents strengths, weaknesses, challenges and opportunities. And competition for loyalty on the desktop makes everybody better.