Every Tuesday in my local paper, there is a section about IT. It contains IT news and a column from a computer consultant who answers reader’s questions.
Today’s question was from someone in business. They had 12 computers which were just used for web, e-mail and writing letters, and they had heard that Linux was free and invulnerable to viruses and spyware. The man wanted to know the consultant’s opinion on whether a Linux migration would be a good idea.
The consultant answered like a rabid Windows user. To start off with, he said that Linux was still affected by viruses; and that anti-virus software for Windows was good enough. Strike one. Then he said that a Linux migration was a bad idea, because if the company wanted to buy a peripheral for one of the computers, they wouldn’t know if the device would work with it. Strike two. Then he said that OOo wasn’t a very good substitute for MS Office, because "it can’t understand macros" (er, doesn’t everyone just turn off macro support in MS Office anyway? Besides, OOo *does* have support for them these days!). Strike three. The final blow came when he claimed that the cost of training staff on how to use Linux and open-source applications would make the venture useless.
To add insult to injury (his own, if I ever get my hands on him!), he reckoned he wasn’t "anti-Linux".
True, some of the things he said would be considerations for some businesses, but not for this one. Linux is overkill for simple e-mail, web surfing, and word-processing terminals, but it’s still more suitable than Windows. This business wouldn’t need VBA macro support. This business wouldn’t need accelerated video, or even sound, in their 12 machines, so telling them about the 1% of unsupported sound cards is just FUD!
I know from previous Linux-related letters that he’s never used an installed Linux - how else would he be unaware that you don’t have to manually install a bootloader? But why is he so anti-Linux? It’s not because of ignorance, although I do think he has a lot of that.
No; the answer is: He’s a computer consultant without Linux training. If everyone switched over to Linux tomorrow, he’d be out of a job, or he’d at least have to undertake retraining; a tough proposition at what I believe his age to be. He’s just afraid of what a Linux future would mean: personal obselesence.
Imagine you’re telling a independent computer fixer about why they should be pushing the use of Linux to their customers. You mention that it doesn’t get viruses or spyware, it never needs defragmenting, and the security system makes it resistant to human breakage. The computer fixer’s answer would be "Well, how the h*ll am I supposed to make a living if the computers no longer need software maintanence? If there’s no viruses, if the computers don’t get so slow, if the users become smart enough not to break their systems or if the system stops the user from breaking it, then what am I supposed to do?"
That’s the problem. Computer fixers won’t push Linux because it is something outside their experience, and they are currently making their money from something with built-in problems. Computer retailers won’t push Linux, because it’s not bloatware that will force consumers to upgrade often. I’ve been hired as an independent contracter to fix some people’s computer problems - problems specific to Windows, where the only non-Linux solution is a stop-gap one.
It’s great that there are technical people out there who are spreading the word of Linux, but now we’ve got to think of ways to engage the people who have the most to lose from a Linux migration. This may mean adopting "arms trader" tactics - tell a number of retailers simultaneously that they sell Linux-preloaded computers, they will undercut their competitors, capture most of the current Linux market, and create a new Linux market all to themselves (we MUST get the Windows licensing practice under control first!).
We could also try and get community volunteers to help out - for instance, run free informal classes for existing computer techs on how to install, set up, and repair Linux systems for ordinary people. Emphasise that the fixing process would be much cheaper for them, as some problems could be fixed through SSH or XDMCP without needing to travel to the customer’s house. Emphasise anything else that would provide incentive.
We should think about the people who have something to lose, and make sure they have something to gain.
I’m not going to e-mail the consultant from the newspaper, but I’m sure he knows who he is. This is addressed to him: If you are reading this blog post, please add a comment or message me, and I’ll arrange a time to teach you some Linux for free.
Entries (RSS)