Software costs A LOT of money

[Futurama]

It really frustrates me when I see my high school spending thousands of dollars every year on Antivirus software, Microsoft Office licenses, Microsoft Windows' keys, and other products such as Adobe Photoshop. As a heavy Windows and Linux user, I can safely say my experiences with both Operating Systems have been quite happy. That being said, I do not understand why so many businesses and schools feel the need to spend thousands of dollars on software when you can replicate that experience with free, open source software. Linux is very different to what it used to be a decade ago. Ubuntu Linux is now as user-friendly as Windows is; so why pay?

If Linux can run ~90% of all Windows programs with WINE, have virtually no need for its own Antivirus (just to protect non-UNIX based OS's), have a faster file system format with a slower fragmentation-rate, and support older hardware, why is Windows still the dominant OS?

It simply appears that Windows is easier to develop software on, and the fact that there are hundreds of millions of more customers and how most Linux users support free software than paid software can severely discourage talented developers wishing to make a living.

Also because there are a gazillion other Linux variants out there it seems to hurt itself.

Should I talk to the school board and suggest this? I really feel like my school is wasting money.

Am I simply ignorant and am missing valid points about the advantages of a Windows world?

I recently convinced several of my friends, family, and my girlfriend to try OpenOffice and Google Docs. They seem very pleased with it and are quite surprised at how feature rich these two /free/ alternatives are. Also, my own computer-illiterate Mother tried Ubuntu out and is really loving how fast it is on her old laptop.

The only thing I am keeping Windows for are my games.

 

[caffenta]

The problem is that the business world is (still) running Windows and professional software. So you'd better know how to use them if you want to work. I'm guessing that's why your school pays for them, to prepare students for the real world.

And the no need for anti-virus thing only works because Linux does not have a large following (relatively). If Linux were running 90% of computers, it would be overrun by viruses as well.

 

[Futurama]

The problem is that the business world is (still) running Windows and professional software. So you'd better know how to use them if you want to work. I'm guessing that's why your school pays for them, to prepare students for the real world.

And the no need for anti-virus thing only works because Linux does not have a large following (relatively). If Linux were running 90% of computers, it would be overrun by viruses as well.

That's a common misconception. Linux powers 99% of all servers. So if a hacking group wanted to take down a large portion of the World's websites they would develop it for Linux. Fortunately Linux is much more secure than Windows in that is a Permission-based operating system and requires the User's permission to run everything. Linux viruses do exist, but they cannot do the harm as a Windows-based virus can. Windows was developed for software and programs to run on their own and does not require a User to allow their actions.

Because Windows is the dominant Operating System in the business world, it does make sense for school computers to run it. However, my argument states the question why is that? Why do businesses shell out thousands of dollars of software when a free, open source variant does 90% of the licensed, payed for software?

 

[caffenta]

That's a common misconception. Linux powers 99% of all servers. So if a hacking group wanted to take down a large portion of the World's websites they would develop it for Linux.

A PC with a not-so-smart user is a much easier target. And there's lots of PCs with not-so-smart users out there.

Fortunately Linux is much more secure than Windows in that is a Permission-based operating system and requires the User's permission to run everything. Linux viruses do exist, but they cannot do the harm as a Windows-based virus can. Windows was developed for software and programs to run on their own and does not require a User to allow their actions.

Well, Windows NT and later is sort of like that too. The problem is that most users just make themselves administrators to avoid all the warnings. It's like running Linux as root. You would not do that, but 99% of Windows users do. Windows 7 has increased the warnings, even for administrators, but users turn that off because it's annoying. I'm not saying Windows is better than Linux, but you have to consider the user base.

Why do businesses shell out thousands of dollars of software when a free, open source variant does 90% of the licensed, payed for software?

Because businesses want software with support, not some uncontrollable free software written by thousands of people online. They have the money. They'd rather spend it than deal with the issues. And businesses who just use GPL-licensed software without contributing are not really viewed kindly by the open-source community.

 

[turbo]

Why do businesses shell out thousands of dollars of software when a free, open source variant does 90% of the licensed, payed for software?

Open Office is nice for personal use, and free is good. Unfortunately, businesses want software packages that are not only compatible with their installed base, but also their clients' installed base. It's not enough to claim "I can open every file that Microsoft Office can produce." If you own a business, you want to be able to tell a client that you can interface with their documents and data products with all the functionality that their own software can replicate.

Apple screwed themselves by not designing their OS's with backward compatibility. That lack of backward compatibility ensured Windows' dominance, while bloating the Windows OS's and slowing their clients' computers. Everything comes with a cost.

Linux comes with a cost, too.

 

[KrisOhn]

Linux powers 99% of all servers.

I would like to see where you got these stats.

So if a hacking group wanted to take down a large portion of the World's websites they would develop it for Linux.

Not necessarily. A sever is usually just a single computer, maybe a couple computers in a cluster at most. If I were to develop a virus to target a specific company, I would develop the virus to run on whatever OS the majority of the machines in the building are running. You take out a sever, you take out a small number of machines that can usually be restored because they are backed up often. You take out a large number of machines, the company has a little bit bigger mess on their hands.

Fortunately Linux is much more secure than Windows in that is a Permission-based operating system and requires the User's permission to run everything.

Windows does this too, UAC along with confirmations when executing different file types.

Linux viruses do exist, but they cannot do the harm as a Windows-based virus can.

That's a pretty subjective statement there... Given the right tools Linux can be hacked, and very devastating viruses can be developed for an open source platform.

Windows was developed for software and programs to run on their own and does not require a User to allow their actions.

UAC.

Because Windows is the dominant Operating System in the business world, it does make sense for school computers to run it. However, my argument states the question why is that? Why do businesses shell out thousands of dollars of software when a free, open source variant does 90% of the licensed, payed for software?

Because corporations like to pay for things. It gives them a sense of security.

 

[KrisOhn]

Windows 7 has increased the warnings, even for administrators, but users turn that off because it's annoying. .

I've run Linux a bit before, it prompts you for your password whenever you want to do something, if I had stuck with it long enough to figure out how to turn it off, I would have.

 

[caffenta]

I've run Linux a bit before, it prompts you for your password whenever you want to do something, if I had stuck with it long enough to figure out how to turn it off, I would have.

Run it as root. No more warnings. "rm -r /*" will work without a warning. That'll be the last thing that will, though.

 

[KrisOhn]

Run it as root. No more warnings. "rm -r /*" will work without a warning. That'll be the last thing that will, though.

I see and hahaha, I'll make sure not to test that command ha

 

[caffenta]

I see and hahaha, I'll make sure not to test that command ha

Actually, I think you should run "rm -rf /*". Otherwise, you might get warnings for read-only files.

 

[KrisOhn]

Actually, I think you should run "rm -rf /*". Otherwise, you might get warnings for read-only files.

Ahh yes, much safer

 

[Futurama]

Linux is more secure than Windows: http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/8261-note-to-new-linux-users-no-antivirus-needed

 

[Chronos]

Hackers are driven by market demand.

 

[caffenta]

Linux is more secure than Windows: http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/8261-note-to-new-linux-users-no-antivirus-needed

And I bet there is an article on windows.com that claims Windows is more secure than Linux.

Cue the Windows 3.1 startup sound: Tada... http://www.windows7news.com/2009/04/14/microsoft-claim-windows-7-will-be-more-secure-than-linux-and-leopard/

No one denies that all the UNIX-flavored OSes are very solid, Linux included, but you should really consider your sources.

 

[KrisOhn]

Hackers are driven by market demand.

The hackers I'm familiar with are driven by curiosity.

Hackers being driven by market demand... I can only see that happening if it was their job.

 

[Chronos]

See China, India, ...

 

[Chronos]

Software is expensive because it costs a great deal of money to develop. Bad software is even more expensive because it drives people out of business - both developers and users. The end result is cheap software is simply unaffordable.

 

[MATLABdude]

Site-licensed or large-volume (and especially educationally site-licensed large-volume) is often nowhere near as expensive as the price-tag you see on the single-user retail package.

When you have in the neighbourhood of a few hundred licenses, the installation / authorization / licensing also usually becomes quite a bit easier and more flexible...

 

[RobikShrestha]

I too started using ubuntu (tried mint too) and I find them very user-friendly. Of course you need to know few commands here and there but they are easy to find. Security: Linux based systems are much more secure not only because they are not-so-popular among not-so-smart users but the way we run programs are different from windows. Of course windows is really good but it is really really expensive. Gimp for photoshop, open office for ms office etc. Same stuff Free of Cost!

 

[daceymathers]

If they are spending thousands of money on antivirus then i think they are fool .There are lots of antivirus free virus protection.Avast,norton,avira all are free antivirus that are valid for lifetime you just need to update them by registering.

 

[JaredJames]

If they are spending thousands of money on antivirus then i think they are fool .There are lots of antivirus free virus protection.Avast,norton,avira all are free antivirus that are valid for lifetime you just need to update them by registering.

I recommend you read the terms and conditions on those free products - they specifically say something like "this is for personal use only".

 

[JaredJames]

That's a common misconception. Linux powers 99% of all servers.

So what? Linux could run every server on the planet, but if the majority personal computers and business computers are running Windows and Office, it serves absolutely no purpose teaching students Linux software.

The fact is, the majority of computers run a Windows OS and software designed for it (Office being the big one). This is especially true for businesses. To teach a student how to use a free Linux equivalent is all well and good to save a bit of money, but when they are then dumped on the job market with limited to no ability to use Microsoft products they are effectively useless to an employer.

Schools need to prepare students for the real world and jobs they will be doing. Unless businesses start switching to the free alternatives, there is no demand to teach them it. It would be a waste of time teaching a student physics when the only jobs available are in IT.