The Hobbyists OS

Microsoft's army of apologists like to spread the word that Linux is a "hobbyists OS", so this post is a look at what that means and why it's a label more suited to Windows. The attack is meant to draw attention to the fact that anyone can write code which appears in Linux, inferring the quality of the code is dubious. Basically, it can't be good quality if people outside the corporation write it.

They try to paint the picture that while Windows just works, Linux needs a lot of tinkering to get anything done. It's pitched at both home users and businesses. For the home user it's about "you have to learn all this stuff, and spend hours fixing it" while the businesses get the "you have your staff PC's down for X hours so they can't be productive, while also spending extra wages on skilled IT people to fix and configure things." The implication is that "Windows is a better investment in man hours, productivity and cost, Linux costs you money."

How many man hours do you have to spend on Windows doing virus scans, spyware scans etc? How many man hours do you have to spend Googling to find how to remove infection because your chosen protection tools can detect it but can't remove it? How can you assure your customers that their data is not compromised by some spyware your tools can't detect? How can you be assured that the site supposedly giving a solution to a particular virus is not itself a phishing scam waiting to sell you some software if you put your credit card details in or a script laden site ready to dump a whole new payload of malware on your plate?

The best (from the malware writer's point of view, worst from your's) malware are the ones that sit undetected for a long time, giving their controllers as much information as possible before they're detected and removed. Just like any spy, if it's cover is blown it's no longer of use. Your protection programs can only detect what they know about, and someone has to be first to get hit. You only hear about the big ones, while the little ones are written to NOT draw any attention to themselves. This means you'll never know if your network is clean or not, only what your software reports. Who knows how many spyware programs are in the wild and have not yet been detected by the companies selling the protection software because they've been well written to avoid detection. You'll never know who else has access to your private data, which includes Microsoft themselves.

How much overtime have you had to pay out for your IT department to try and hunt down yet another malware infection running wild on your network? How much do you have to pay for the same problems to be fixed over and over and over again? What do your employees do when their PC's are down? They still get paid to twiddle their thumbs right? Do they get paid overtime for staying behind to catch up? If not, how does that reflect on their feelings towards you as an employer? They didn't choose Windows. You did.

If your hobby is detecting and removing malware, then Windows is a great hobbyists OS. Linux and OSX don't get a look in on that score.

While Linux is behind the curve in a few very specific areas, as far as malware downtime is concerned, it's all but immune. While the Windows user in the next seat can't get anything done because it's being scanned, or trying to clean some infection, or just has to reboot to finish installing a patch, the Linux user in the next seat continues working without a hitch.

To me, it seems pretty obvious which OS is built to be used for it's intended purpose, and which one you have to spend a lot of man hours just keeping functional. Remember, a PC is a tool which enables you to do other things, the more you have to spend keeping it clean, the less you can devote to it's intended function. It's not just man hours, it's also in products which always claim to solve a problem; for a price. How much is your time worth? Bosses have an instinctive understanding of this concept.

So when someone tries to spin you the "Linux is just for hobbyists" line, ask how much they factor malware into the comparison. It adds significantly to the other Microsoft written line often used by Microsoft apologists, the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

Anything with a licence cost has a higher start on that list, dealing with the constant fight against malware is NEVER mentioned as a cost, yet it does cost in real terms. Training is a handy one, when Microsoft change their applications, then all but force people to upgrade by stopping support of older versions, they force people to have to retrain anyway; so retraining in Linux is much the same. When you make an OS with as many exploits built in, the idea of making money from support services is a joke.

There's a whole industry built around fixing the holes Microsoft can't seem to fix; think about it. Does this sound like the work of a bunch of professional programmers? The fact that Windows admins have to lock down the systems they're in charge of, cutting off most of the useful functions of a PC just to save them some work cleaning infections speaks volumes. USB ports are a great thing for data portability, are they blocked on your network in case someone puts an infected USB thumbdrive in a PC and brings the network down because Windows wants to auto run everything blindly?

Regular home users generally don't have that level of knowledge. They have little choice but to brave the wild west, and expect to buy a new PC every couple of years because their current one is so badly infected with malware that it's barely able to boot up. Which of course means more money for Microsoft; which need never have been spent. To make matters even worse, Microsoft have a whole lobbying / bullying machine dedicated to ensuring customers have no choice but to buy a PC with Windows already installed.

For businesses this means you have to splash out on new PCs every few years under the assumption that you need the latest specification hardware. The difference in performance between the old and new is startling of course, because the old one is clogged down with malware, the new one is not; yet. Can you afford to throw away a large chunk of your capital when you don't need to? What benefit do you get from the newer versions? Are there some features not available in the older versions that your business needs? I doubt it. Why should you be forced to upgrade when it only suits Microsoft?

In short, if you want to spend time and money always fixing your PC, then Windows is the way to go, the rest of us can use Linux and actually use our PCs. Remember that Linux is free, both in terms of what you can do with it, and (the context of this post) cost. If you install Linux on 1 PC, it's the same as installing it on 1,000,000 PCs. Windows have volume licensing but it still costs money per PC. This adds up very quickly. Add the same deal for Microsoft Office and you're wasting a fortune before you even get onto the training, support and malware issues.