Can Linux Replace Windows?

by David Risley on Aug 2, 2007 | 112 comments

As a bit of a follow-up to my recent editorial about the different operating systems battling it out, a few readers made comments about Ubuntu and Windows and, essentially, that I was giving Windows a little too much credit. So, I thought I would write another one here specifically to address the issue of Linux actually replacing Windows. Can it?

In short – not yet. And here’s why.

Microsoft Made The Rules

Back in 2001, Microsoft came out with Windows XP. At the time, it was essentially the only desktop operating system worth anybody’s time. At the time, Microsoft Office had won the war of the office suite. Internet Explorer had pushed Netscape out of the market by riding the coattails of Windows’s success and essentially forcing users to Internet Explorer. A legal battle ensued against Microsoft on that one, leading to the eventual loosening of the grip on the internet by Internet Explorer (although some would argue they still have a tight grip). All the time, Linux was quite popular as a server (mainly because Windows is too unstable), but as far as the desktop goes, it was mainly for geeks.

Today, open source has made a bit of a comeback. OpenOffice has become a worthy competitor to Microsoft Office, so much so that it made Microsoft re-think their office suite and now Office 2007 uses more open document standards. Firefox was borne out of Netscape’s grave and is now quite popular. And we have Linux itself having grown into the desktop arena with popular desktop options Gnome and KDE, both of which give Vista a run for it’s money.

So, things have changed. But, enough for Linux to take over? No, and that is because Microsoft’s initial success has basically meant that it made most of the rules. People have gotten used to the way Microsoft’s software works. We’ve gotten used to the way they do things. Microsoft, too, isn’t exactly an open book on how they have done things, so it leaves others to get as close as they can, but not quite there.

The popularity of Windows also means that most vendors dedicate most of their energy to making their wares work in Windows. And therein lies the reference to the capitalist market I made in the prior article. The market has chosen Windows and now we are dealing with that choice. Vendor support for Linux and other platforms ends up being more of an afterthought. Wine is an open source implementation of the Windows API that is available for Linux, allowing you to run Windows software on a Linux system. But, Wine isn’t perfect. It can run some software, but the support is spotty. Another option would include virtual machines inside of Linux to run Windows software, but that doesn’t appear to be very workable at this point either.

The best option for Linux is to use software natively written for Linux, but that supports the Microsoft standards. Now that Microsoft seems to be opening up some of it’s file standards, perhaps this can be done a little better by the Linux world. For example, OpenOffice offers document support for Office files. But, it only goes so far. Some of the fancier features of Office can’t be saved properly in OpenOffice, and that is because the exact format of the DOC files was only known by Microsoft. Now that Office 2007 is using an open XML standard, maybe this can be alleviated.

People Want an Alternative

Microsoft has made the rules here and that is because Linux took too long to go consumer on us. Yes, we are now seeing a comeback for open source, but the progress is slowed in the operating system arena because of the incredible prominence of Microsoft Windows. But, markets tend to give and take, and my sense is that Microsoft is now on an ebb. Windows XP was pretty good, and still is. I am now using Vista, which puts me in a position to recommend to others that they continue to run XP for now. Vista just isn’t ready. Which leads me to my point…

Microsoft’s handling of Vista seems to be a sign to me that the company is indeed losing it’s grip on the OS market. It took them six years to come up with Vista, and I’m left scratching my head on exactly what all the fuss was about. And after Vista’s release, the hardware support in Vista is a bit lackluster. Some hardware vendors are playing hell providing Vista support for their stuff due to the huge changes Microsoft made inside Windows. At the same time, Vista is an absolute beast of an operating system. While it really requires about 2 gigs of memory to run respectably, Ubuntu Linux can do so with only 512 MB.

So, while the success of Firefox shows that people wanted an alternative to Internet Explorer, I really do think Vista is the tipping point for a desire for an alternative in the OS arena. People are tired of Microsoft. They are tired of the barrage of security concerns, of the blue screens, the lock-ups. I, for one, would LOVE to have a viable desktop operating system that is really a drop-in replacement for Windows. But, Linux just isn’t there yet for the reasons above.

What would need to happen for Linux to become more of a replacement?

Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all. Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies). Again, Linux is going to have to play by the rules set by Windows in order to take Windows down a notch.
Open standards need to become more the norm than the exceptions. Companies should make a special point to use open standards. For example, using OpenOffice rather than Microsoft Office will make your documents more open and more cross platform.
Vendors need to flow more effort into supporting Linux. It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg problem, though. They will put more effort into it if Linux gets popular enough to warrant their time. On the other side, Linux isn’t really going to get that popular if these vendors don’t do it.

Moving to the Web

The trend of late is that a lot of desktop software is being replaced by web-based counterparts. In fact, just a couple weeks ago I have officially dropped Outlook as my email client in favor of Google’s Gmail service. I spend most of my day inside my web browser, and it wouldn’t matter what computer or what operating system I am using, Gmail would still work the same way. And Firefox is available for both Windows and Linux.

It doesn’t stop with Gmail, though. There are now web-based apps that cover everything from finance, graphic design, time management, office suites – you name it. All of it is dependent only on the web and the server it sits on. As these types of things get more popular, it just won’t matter what operating system one is using.

With the move toward web-based software, and the valiant efforts of projects like OpenOffice and Firefox, I think the scene is shifting toward open source and away from the days of Microsoft as the dominant force. This will open up more opportunities for the likes of Ubuntu and others, but it is up to the developers of those systems to seize the chance. They can’t re-invent the way the world works, and the computer world is still very much revolved around the way Windows does things. So, open source developers need not be snobbish about being anti-Windows. No, on the contrary, get in there and do what Windows does the way Windows does it, then show people that they’re doing it without any Microsoft labels all over it.

Then you’re getting somewhere.

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

Post A Comment Using Facebook

Skai
one word on Command Line Interface.
Yes, you *do* need a CLI.
Not for everyday use, but when it comes to “advanced user” things, it’s so much simpler, and can run “unattended” in simple scripts.
As a result, Vista itself includes now a new full featured scripting langage for its CLI.
And true too : everyday life is easier with GUI, and now linux offers that.
But, having to mess aroud right clicking hoping you’ll find the right option is just a bad habit inherited from windows. Replace that habit with “edit the right conf file” is much easier – given the fact that being “open”, linux *is* well documented.
Stephen
If you’ve never had to use the command line you have been very lucky. I’ve had Unbuntu installed for 3 days and have had to plow through a couple of tutorials to get drivers installed that required the command line. Every question I raise and find an answer to requires the command line in the tutorial.
Here why Linux isn’t ready. This is an example tutorial from the unbuntu ati driver wiki.
Method 1: Install the Driver the Ubuntu Way
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install linux-restricted-modules-$(uname -r) # (Okay if it is already installed)
sudo apt-get install xorg-driver-fglrx
sudo depmod -a
If the system complains about dependencies, use your preferred package manager to download python2.4 and, if necessary, its dependencies.
[edit] Method 2: Install the 8.39.4 Driver Manually
* Note: This is just an alternative installation method for the section above. It might help if you still get ‘DRI missing’ errors.
Download the ATI driver installer: ati-driver-installer-8.39.4-x86.x86_64.run (this installer is for 32bit and 64bit systems)
Change to the download directory. Make sure that you have the universe and multiverse repositories enabled in /etc/apt/sources.list before doing these steps.
There is a detailed manual with screenshots at Ubuntu Wiki.
By default, Ubuntu does not enable the Universe and Multiverse repositories. But they include some important programs and codecs, so it is highly recommended to activate them.
If you read all that, and at no point thought ‘eh?’ then i guess it’s desktop ready. If like me you read and frequently thought ‘wtf’ as more jargon rolled by…on the other hand I did manage to follow it and get the driver installed, but ready for the masses….no.
James
MS is NOT moving towards open standards. Their so-called OOXML is not at all open, including many features that are “defined” as “handle [feature] the way that MS Word [version] handled it”, and the so-called standard actually says that these features are too complicated to actually specify! How can something like that be seriously called either a standard or open?
Plastic
The only thing that’s stopping me from taking a 100% switch to Ubuntu is iTunes and Photoshop. The vmware solutions are effective but not practical to be used daily. Hopefully though with the momentum that Ubuntu has at the moment it will be just a matter of time…. here’s hoping!
Lance
I have used Ubuntu Linux full time for that last year without ever needing Windows. Its very user friendly. Your habits and thinking must change from Microsoft!!! In most general user cases Linux certainly is a excellent replacement for Windows! Open Office,Firefox,Thunderbird,Gaim,K3b,Rythmbox,Tomboy Linux for Skype, PDF and others do the job admirably. Excellent free Edubuntu games for kids!
Ubuntu Linux is stays faster and much safer (permanently) from start to finish. All my HP printers, USB devices work work work!! Literally if I had to change back to Microsoft my quality of computing would suffer greatly. Command line (CLI) is STRICTLY OPTIONAL for any user. Shame on you for saying CLI is required. And last of all Linux can change menu (60) languages at login screen. Microsoft does not allow that either. Thanks alot for the freedom Ubuntu and others!!!
Julian
Some 9 million people now run the distribution Ubuntu alone (according to repository logs) with that number increasing rapidly every day. In other words, for many people Linux has and will continue to replace Windows just fine..
Of course it won’t completely replace the Windows OS and that is fine. The last thing I would want is an OS monoculture Windows, Linux or otherwise. However, what the computing world does need is a more balanced competition between operating systems. As it stands the only real reason MS has dominance in this area is because they are paying for the privilege of pre-installation on most of the worlds computers. That’s all there is to it.
It’s not because Windows has greater usability (Linux did used to be much worse than Windows) or diverse desktop applications. That comes later as application authors want to support the dominant OS.
Now that Dell is shipping laptops with Linux on it (and selling really well) it’s fair to say this is changing.
Now to the article.
1. Installing programs:
Where software installation is concerned, if you download a package (ends in .deb) made for the version of Ubuntu you run, you can just double-click it and it will install, grabbing what it needs behind the scenes. The files it needs are there for the benefit of ‘dynamic linking’ meaning that many programs can all use the same file.
For newbies to Linux a good first thing to point out is the following: Linux users don’t go to websites to find and install software. They use a GUI (or CLI) tool to search for the software they want, read about it and click ‘Install’ to install it.
This tool (‘Synaptic’ on Ubuntu/Debian systems) grabs the software from a security-cleared repository, downloads it and installs it, checking it against a special key to ensure it hasn’t been tampered with.
If you download a file ending in tar.gz or zip, no you can’t just double click it.
Once you learn this basic rule all is well.
Rationales for ‘package management’ on Linux.
Often on Windows and OS/X when you download software you’re downloading a whole bunch of files (DLL’s or ‘software libraries’) you _already have on the computer_ and it just copies over them or copies them into a new location. This is silly, consumes disk-space and creates mess.
Linux package managers will _always check_ to see if you have a file already that the new software needs to run. If you already have it, it won’t download it again. This ‘dependency’ is a good thing. It keeps the system tightly integrated, is disk-space economical and easy to administer.
I don’t want to download ‘exes’ for Linux. I want to download packages that fit into the way my system _already_ works.
You almost never need to reinstall Linux to ‘clean’ it out. Google and Adobe however will release installers in the form of shell scripts that just copy files it needs onto the system. Linux users generally don’t like this for the reasons I mention above.
It seems that Google is now releasing packages however, perhaps because they use Linux on their workstations/desktops in-house now.
Regardless, if you can’t just double-click these to install the software (you normally can) then you should write to them to tell them it’s either broken or too hard.
Why the Windows software installation doesn’t work in the long-term:
When you install Photoshop on Windows it actually patches core DLL’s on the system in order to run. The order of software installation – of this cumulative software patching – on Windows greatly affects its performance over time. This is one reason – along with the bizarre problem of file-system fragmentation on Windows- that makes Windows slow down. As a result you either reinstall, buy more RAM or consider a hardware upgrade.. but that’s another story (we can thank Windows for giving us such cheap hardware over the years by increasing the demand for more and more performant machines).
Secondly, there is no security auditing! When you’re installing software onto your computer you’re placing a lot of trust in the developer that they haven’t accidentally shipped you a virus or that they haven’t written in a back-door. While rare, it is easy to trick someone into installing software when the software is found and downloaded from websites.
Linux repositories however, have tens of thousands of eyes watching over them and as a result there have been no cases (as far as I’m aware) of mal-intent getting it’s way over a user. This is an amazing track record for an operating system..
2. You don’t need to use a command line with a system like Ubuntu. Only those power-users really into customisation or trying experimental software will need to do this.
Cheers,
Julian
http://www.viliam.bur.sk/en Viliam Búr
I think the useful parts of Linux are already here. Easy installation; office software; web browser; e-mail client; instant messengers; multimedia… that’s maybe 70% of what people do with computers. The many small specialized applications are another 10%; they will mostly come *after* people will switch to Linux. Now the missing important 20% of software is — games. It also depends of the user group; for children it is more than 20%. And which OS they learn to use in childhood, that they will continue to use later; because switching to another OS is not easy and requires a decision.
How can Linux most easily replace Windows in games? Moving games to web? This could work for some simple games and puzzles; but I cannot really imagine it for real-time strategies or first-person shooters. It could be really convincing if the freshly installed Linux would already have in browser thousands of links to web games.
Dayton
The bottom line is that Linux can replace Windows. Just because it doesn’t work just like Windows, does not invalidate it’s usefulness. It really just comes down to a matter of choice. For most users a distribution like Ubuntu replaces windows out-of-the-box. Windows is an operating system. So is Linux. By default one can replace the other. If people don’t want to take the time to familiarize themselves with a new product, their problem exist between the keyboard and the chair.
Rewtz
I use Ubuntu 7.4, and I can say I do use command line everyday. Mostly because I like it better then the gui. I know a lot of old users who say they loved dos but hate how complex windows new operating system can be. I think people get to freaked out about command line, like its some kind of phobia. There isn’t anything to creepy back there. I mean 98% of the command line stuff I do, I can get done with the gui in GNOME, KDE or XFCE. I think that saying command line is holding back linux is a just some lame windows-fan covering up how bad windows command line has gotten.
I really say the only thing holding linux back is people who don’t want restricted/closed source drivers and lack major software from big names like adobe and stuff from the videogame industry. For me I could care less if the driver is closed sourced, as long as my device works. I would love to see Photoshop and Dreamweaver for linux, I mean they have a mac version and mac is BSD/UNIX I don’t see why a port couldn’t be done. As for gaming the only company I see doing anything is ID software, Quake 4 and the new Quake wars game work in linux.
As for the talk of Dell, Ubuntu has better support for dell’s devices then fresh windows XP Pro with SP2 out of the retail box. I had to install like drivers for ALL my drivers on XP but for Ubuntu all I had to put on was graphics card drivers which was all
Stewart
Have you considered checking out REACTOS.
It is a free open source replacement for Windows.
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
And contrary to some opinions it does not contain any stolen Microsoft code.
Burt
I stopped reading partway through for one stupid, completely inaccurate statement that many people, unfortunately, believe is true:
“Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows.”
No. Linux is not Windows and will never be Windows. Thinking otherwise is counterproductive. You can do the same things with Linux as with Windows and that may mean learning new things. But consider:
1. New users need to learn how to do anything on whatever system they use.
2. Users who want to upgrade will have to re-learn numerous things.
That is the way of change. And there is no way to get better without changing. Always trying to be the same is unhealthy and accomplishes absolutely nothing beneficial. This does not only apply to operating systems, but everything.
Victor
“Linux needs to operate more and more like Windows. It is getting there. But, Linux needs to get such that you don’t need a command line hardly at all. Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies). Again, Linux is going to have to play by the rules set by Windows in order to take Windows down a notch.”
I disagree with this. I think command line package management is one of the best features of ubuntu. To install say, VLC, all I have to do is type sudo apt-get install vlc. It installs and thats that. If there are missing dependencies, sudo apt-get -f install, installs the dependencies as well as the original package. Downloading and installing a .deb package is just as easy.
Pingback: Can Linux Replace Windows? on JMorris Online
dex
When you administer thousands of remote desktops – and the people who use them – you quickly see why Windows will stay dominate on the desktop for years to come.
Windows simply works. It helps my company gets its job done.
I don’t care about OS “cool things”. I care if I can get the job done, and done quickly. The computer is a tool to do work, not an end point. When I have a room of people to train, teaching them how to force Linux to work like Windows is a waste of time — and time is money.
Linux might get there. I hope it does: there are a lot of things under the covers that it does well, and would alleviate me from having to be proactive with security and such. However, its not ready TODAY for the enterprise, for many of the reasons David mentions.
David Risley
There are obviously a lot of opinions on Linux and it’s comparison to Windows. Everybody’s experience is different. I had to use the command line a lot. Others say they never do. So go figure.
Pingback: Fabio Cerullo’s Blog » Blog Archive » Can Linux Replace Windows?
Rob
I installed Ubuntu 7.0.4 on a Compaq Evo N620c last month.
I did so because I had seen a friend’s brand new Vista laptop crawling along. With 1 GB of RAM!
I did so because I did not have an XP key for this laptop, and needed to reinstall an OS onto it. I did not feel like using a cracked copy of XP; I was tired of the (admittedly occasional) WGA hassles.
I did so because I was puzzled as to why my older 1 Ghz AMD with 512kB RAM ran SO SLUGGISHLY only three months after a fresh install of XP (sorry for yelling). I believe it is the anit-virus and Spyware detection SW, as well as XP being sluggish itself.
I wanted to see what I could do with a Pentium M 1.6 Ghz processor with 512 Kb of RAM. I had wanted to use Ubuntu for a few months; I had played with Red Hat off and on since it came out, and it had been awhile since I had played with Linux on my Desktop.
It took me a lot of time to get my Linksys wireless card working on the laptop (critically necessary), and a lot of time to figure out how to get Compiz working beautifully (completely frivolous). Other than that, installing Ubuntu using some tutorials on the web had me up and running as fast or faster than a fresh install of XP, and I am an expert at XP. Overall, it was a lot more cumbersome to get everything working in Ubuntu, but now that it is setup, I expect this machine will run as reliably a year from now as it is running now. With XP, it takes a lot less work at first, but a lot more work down the road, as things start to work less reliably (wireless networks are suddenly not reliably attached to, other computers in network neighborhood are suddenly invisible, buttons in the taskbar suddenly disappear (Vista!), the usb device that has been recognized for the last year is all of a sudden not recognized, etc.).
I make a living repairing XP computers, so I had seen all of the problems inherent to that OS. I also saw that it worked, most of the time, if you knew how to set it up. The average person, who does not know how to set it up, ends up with a practically unusable machine after a year or so of use, assuming that no (proficient) one is doing regular maintenance to the machine.
Ultimately, I agree with David that Linux on the desktop is not ready yet. However, after seeing Vista, I think that MS is moving backwards, and it is pissing “regular people” off, making them more likely to listen to the fact that there are alternatives. For many reasons, including the ones I have mentioned above, more people are becoming open to Linux on the Desktop. The bottom line to me when I think about this is: what would I give to a relative that is computer illiterate? My answer now is XP, because they can get help anywhere without bugging me constantly! If I didn’t mind holding their hand for a fairly steep learning curve, I would throw Ubuntu at them.
Other thoughts:
The command line is too scary for the average user. And yes, it is necessary, at least according to every tutorial I have seen on how to get various things working on Ubuntu. Once it is all setup, I agree that it is largely unnecessary.
Program installation in Ubuntu runs MUCH better than Add/Remove programs in XP, as far as I can tell so far. Updates are seamless (so far and keep my fingers crossed), and everything is updated as it needs to be. With XP, everything is in charge of updating itself, and it is more cumbersome. Also, when I remove a program it is actually removed! No registry trash left behind to slow things down that much more. Added bonus: I rarely have to reboot Ubuntu. XP requires more reboots.
Ubuntu Ipod support is severely lacking. I cannot believe that after 5 years of mp3 player dominance, there is not a seamless way to copy songs from the ipod to my fresh Ubuntu install. I have searched for this for a couple of hours, and every solution has drawbacks. The best I have found, btw, is floola. It gives me errors on some songs during copying to my HD, where the id3 tags are not copied. This is a pain in the butt; I do not want to have to retype id3 tags. However, it gives the most features as far as ipod management, in my opinion.
My 512kB RAM, 1.6 Mghz Pentium M laptop is faster with Ubuntu, with more of the eye candy (Compiz is cool!), than my friends Vista laptop that has twice the speed and twice the RAM. This is subjective (I have no benchmarks), but the speed advantage is obvious within a few minutes of use.
This is why I am ultimately happy with my laptop, despite all of the Ubuntu flaws.
http://www.egalite.com Ed Kunin
There are too many Linux versions. There is only one Windows. Some Linux versions are easier to install than others especially if one is not a computer scientist. Lots of hardware is Microsoft specific which makes conversion difficult. I tried switching to Linux years ago, but could not configure my printer with Red Hat 8.0. Did it easily with Mandrake. If Linux is to be more than a nerd’s hobby, we need one easy, all inclusive version. Unfortunately the different manufacturers cannot agree, much like Sony and Toshiba can’t agree on an HD TV format.
Lots of individualists think the idea of one Linux destroys creativity and resembles the end of the world. I got kicked off a Red Hat discussion list for this suggestion. I think those who think everyone should be free to fashion a unique version of Linux are mistaken.
Derek
I think those who are so tired of MS are those that have already made the switch to anything else. I don’t see any serious problems in Windows. It’s been ages since I last saw a blue screen and avoiding malware it’s just a matter of common sense. Windows is not the joke it used to be. XP works fine, it’s stable, quite secure since SP2, and although there’s room for improvement, it gets the job done. And while Vista is not mature today, it won’t be long until it is, and it will end up dominating the desktop without a doubt.
Linux is not ready, and it will never be because it is not designed to be a desktop OS. It’s a monster assembled from the pieces that third parties make. It lacks coherence, it lacks ease of use, it lacks integration, and it lacks vision as a whole. That’s fine for servers or computing farms, but it’s not gonna work on the desktop, where it should be much, much better that whata it is right now to take the throne away from Windows.
f0rw4rd.sl4sh
I think Dell has made a big statement by offering Ubuntu on certain models. Now HP and Acer are talking about offering the same. Last time I checked these were some big authorities on technology. To have any of these manufacturers offer this operating system on their hardware is saying it is good enough for the masses. If only more people were aware of their choices..Anyone putting a quality product above their revenue is cool in my ebook..
/
Nathan
Yo, Ed… I agree that there are a lot of Linux versions, and when I first began looking at installing Linux to try it out, I was totally lost. However, I think Ubuntu is stepping up as the main entrance distro, and I think most if not all will agree that it is best suited for newbies. The existing Linux distros will never merge, and I don’t think they should. I think Ubuntu and its deviations should be lifted up as the noob’s first choice, and once they figure out what they are doing, let them play around with more advanced stuff.
Oh, and by the way… What planet are you on where there’s only one windows? How many vistas are there? There were two XPs, and I think at least 5 vistas. It doesn’t compare to the hundreds of Linux distros, but you can’t just ignore that the user has to choose a vista as much as they have to choose a Linux.
Alex
Looks like the most discussed ‘feature’ of anything non-Windows here is the command line and lots of people are saying that it’s great and helps them and that it’s ‘the way’ of doing things and that others should learn it.. Well, all these people completely dismiss the fact that they are technical people, while most computer users are not (and should not be) technical. Moreover, if we talk about progress and moving forward we should remember, that command line is a way to interface with a computer and was invented only for this purpose in times when GUIs were not feasible, and we should think about new ways for people to interface with machines and not get stuck with 40-year old way of doing so.
Earl
David,
Have you actually used Ubuntu? Your comment, “Installing programs should be as easy as double-clicking a file (not tracking down package dependencies)” seems to indicate you’ve never actually used Ubuntu. Ubuntu’s tools for installing programs *far* exceeds anything in Windows. More than 20,000 applications are installed just by clicking a checkbox. All of them are then kept up-to-date automatically with patches through the same simple interface. Windows is far behind in this regard.
David Risley
Earl,
Of course I have used Ubuntu. And I stand by what I said. Yes, the Add/Remove package manager is nice, but it isn’t so nice the moment something you want to use is NOT in Ubuntu’s library.
Ubuntu is fine if you stay inside the box. Otherwise, it’s a pain in the butt.
http://www.egalite.com Ed Kunin
Nathan
I agree the linux distros will never merge. You don’t think they should. I disagree. My arguing that point got me kicked off Red Hat so I don’t think I’ll do it here. If you want to discuss it email me at ekunin@optonline.net