Proprietary Software and Linux: Good, Bad or Somewhere in Between?

Let\’s start with the following proposition:

The graphical interface was designed so that more people could use computers without knowing or understanding technical information.

The driving force in computing (personal computing anyway) has been broad reach. Until recently, Apple and Microsoft were the only one\’s left standing from the desktop wars of the past littered with discarded brands and operating systems (check any search engine to see what used to be). Of course it was the imprimatur given by IBM\’s adoption of Microsoft for its personal operating system and the subsequent tidal wave of development which resulted in the presence of so many application options that drove users to Windows as well as their desire to make a safe technical choice (something that has a strong influence when there is uncertainty in technology). Microsoft\’s price advantage vis a vis Apple certainly didn\’t hurt either.

We should not forget that the success of Microsoft began in the business community not in the consumer market. Business adopted MSDOS and subsequent Windows interfaces which led to it being the choice for consumers. Apple with it\’s strong presence in education and colleges was hoping to get future business people to consider Apple as they moved into the business world but it didn\’t happen. In fact, Apple continued to decline as a % of market share.

With business flocking to Microsoft and consumers using what they were exposed to in business, Apple became as an interface a specialized machine for artists and print shops and an icon of a \”counter culture revolution\” mindset for those who liked to think of themselves as individualistic. But that was just advertising propaganda. The agenda for both Apple and Microsoft however was not revolution but making money.

Today we see again that it is the business world which is driving the adoption of free software. Linux became what Unix users in the back room of IT shops wanted. An unencumbered Unix. Those who have been around long enough probably remember all the attempts that were made by computer companies to standardize some version of Unix. Each computer company put out their own proprietary versions, Xenix, HPUX, AIX designed either to run on a variety of proprietary hardware platforms or on high end pcs. They were able to charge handsomely for it and not all were successful (Microsoft\’s version Xenix went nowhere) but in the end there was really no difference between a version of Unix that wasn\’t from AT&T or SCO or whoever owned that trademark at any particular time and proprietary software running on clients like Windows or Apple.

Richard Stallman was a believer in unencumbered software and set the legal framework (a license) under which software could be released and be unencumbered by patents. Once Linus Torvalds added a kernel to Stallman\’s previously released operating system components, the Unix guys and developers in IT (the computer cognoscenti) had what they needed. The rest is history.

The opening of the internet by the U.S. Congress to the public changed everything. The TCP/IP communication protocol which was native to the net was also the native communication protocol of Unix/Linux. There was no need for some middleware (NetBios) translation to some other protocol. Microsoft wanted the back end server market but found it couldn\’t compete with an operating systems whose native communication protocol was the same as the internet\’s, had free source code and could be customized for any purpose. Linux took off and became the tool of choice for \”internet delivery\” computing and networking. Even Novell, the leading network software supplier of the day had no choice. Netware became notware.

For companies, the free software idea was only relevant in terms of what it spawned which was cost effectiveness and so better profits. In some ways, Linux & TCP/IP is what MSDOS was to personal computing, the defacto standard and like MSDOS in its day, required a body of technical knowledge to get the most out of it. But MSDOS eventually was challenged to provide a less technical interface and it was Apple who pushed Microsoft in that direction. Computing became about how the technical elements of computing could be pushed more and more to the background in order to expand reach all the while trying to add features for those more technically adept. It is instructive that Microsoft\’s installed base in those days demanded that Microsoft provide a better interface rather than just switching their business to Apple. There were many reasons for this but the fact remains that people didn\’t want to switch. They could only handle so much change and they needed the comfort that numbers (the herd) provided. It was \”safer\” to wait for Microsoft.

I write this not because many of you don\’t already know the history but to highlight something about human behavior. World view as used in the article is the right choice of words when discussing these issues. Apple\’s approach has always been to position itself as the liberator of the individual against Microsoft\’s minions in their cubicles. This liberation however was not of the technical or legal variety it was the liberation of the self. It was personal. In addition, the ease with which one could use an Apple (a function of Apple\’s control over all products associated with its machine) satisfied the self\’s never ending quest for convenience where possible.

As long as machines were desktop bound and primarily for business use, Apple had an uphill battle. Apple\’s rise again shows just how important the commercialization of the internet has been and what it has meant in terms of altering the paradigm of user machine interaction.

Despite Microsoft\’s presence on the desktop, it is obvious that there is no \”one size fits all operating system\” otherwise Microsoft would have a bigger slice of the server market and wouldn\’t be playing catchup to Apple as it positions itself as the computer for relatively easy to use integration with mobile devices (IPOD, IPHONE).

If people want Linux to be a mass consumer product, then you have to take the consumer right where they are and promise them and deliver what they want and not what you wish they would want.

This has to be the goal of Linux on the desktop if mass adoption is desired.

What won\’t work is Linux with its hit and miss ability to anticipate user\’s needs or an appeal to an individualism that is based on a technical and legal approach.

Code availability and customization are of as little interest to most people as the legal technicalities of free software versus proprietary software.

Which brings us back to the first proposition. The philosophy of the graphical interface is technical ignorance. Any attempt to think that people will find a technical and legal philosophy as a motivator for using a computer are doomed to fail. People simply don\’t care and by people I don\’t mean all people, just most which is enough.

For Linux to succeed as a consumer product, something like Canonical has to make it happen (there doesn\’t seem to be anybody on the horizon who is focused more on the consumer product approach than Canonical and Ubuntu).

But Linux won\’t just be a consumer product. It will serve a variety of functions as it does now. In some cases the freedom aspect will matter but in other cases it won\’t.

Competing claims for what Linux should or should not be will not be the determining factor of how Linux will be used or by whom. No one controls that.
Those who emphasize the freedom as in speech aspect are like political activists. Such people are a subset. No one needs to be told that what eventually reaches the voter is usually a milder form of action than what any political activist in a cause would call for. This doesn\’t negate the activist. We need them and their specialized interests as much as society needs every group. The complexity of the modern world demands such specialization of groups.

In most cases (outside of their own area of expertise), people don\’t know what to do. That is what leadership is about. Leadership is never a case of the facts, it is a case of being able to move people in a direction. Sometimes this is done by force (Microsoft\’s tactics usually rely on this in the same way that an Empire uses its military) but usually force fails. People like water will take the path of least resistance and like water eventually find cracks to seep through and go where they want to go.

The bottom lines is ultimate uses of Linux will be varied and they won\’t all adhere to a philosophy based on freedom and unencumbered patents. The use will be as varied as the uses human beings can think of whether as individuals, groups or companies.

The bottom line is we are fortunate to be living at this moment with this kind of access to choices no matter what the future eventually brings. The day free software becomes dominant will mean only that software itself as we think of it has become irrelevant. We will still end up finding that most of our computing needs are supplied by people who will demand a price and that they will protect that revenue stream with whatever tools are at their disposal.

Gnu/Linux as free software has its place, I\’m just skeptical that its place is as the consumer computing software of choice but hey, crazier things have happened.