The conflict has been looming for a long time. It's just that such a rapid spread of Linux could not but meet resistance on its way. Until recently, the real confrontation between Windows and Linux took place only in the server OS market - the position of Windows 9x in the sector of "home" operating systems was objectively unshakable. They are powerful now, but suddenly everything has changed. The efforts of numerous developers have led to the fact that the Linux environment from a gloomy UNIX-like one has gradually become more graphical and understandable to the user. Something that was generally not expected happened - Linux began its invasion of the desktop operating system market.

The situation is somewhat similar to Star Wars, right? A cold-blooded, powerful empire, on the one hand. A bunch of independent rebels - on the other. And note: before our very eyes, the rebels are achieving undoubted success. Many home and office PC users are already involved in the struggle. So which side to take? Who is right? And what should you choose? The purpose of our report is to understand the peculiarities of the confrontation and find out if there is a definite answer to these questions.

Episode I. The Phantom Menace

The roots of the opposition go back to the era when there was no division into “simple” and “supercomputers”: each computer was “super”. Linux is ideologically based on the UNIX architecture developed by Bell Laboratories since 1969. The primary code of the UNIX operating system was then licensed by various companies (Sun, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, etc.), which later developed their own operating systems on its basis. Of course, they cost a lot of money. No source code freely available - competition!

However, while a large firm can afford an expensive OS, universities have significantly fewer opportunities to buy software. Even computers are usually given to them by sponsors and lucky graduates. On the other hand, in terms of scientific potential and energy, other organizations can hardly be compared with universities. This is how the idea of ​​writing software by scientists and students "for themselves" - free systems, distributed freely and widely, and most importantly - with open source, was born by itself. After all, as many enthusiastic programmers as possible should work on such products. And so it began.

In 1984, Richard Stahlman initiated the GNU project, whose name stands for GNU's Not Unix (a somewhat peculiar, but stuck joke) .The goal of the project is to develop software that is not tied to any commercial license; initially not free, but free and modifiable (Open Source Software) This approach implies the ability to make corrections to the OS code by any (capable) user.

In 1991, Linus Torvalds (then a 21-year-old student at the University of Helsinki) began work on the kernel of the Linux operating system, based on the ideology of GNU. Soon he puts the first version of this OS on the Internet with the possibility of free access. At first, neither Microsoft officials nor the general public pay attention to the newly-minted product. Meanwhile, in the scientific environment, Linux is increasingly developing and gradually becoming the de facto standard.

One of the main reasons for this is, of course, it's free. Linux was originally developed taking into account exactly the university needs: the ability to run on low-power computers, focus on stable network operation. Functions of interaction with the Internet (and later with the WWW in full) are also easily integrated into the kernel of the new OS.

So, Linux is gradually crystallizing as an elite product, "from hackers to hackers". (In this case, we will call hackers not hooligans and crackers, but simply advanced programmers and system specialists. Moreover, many hackers characterize themselves in this way. - Ed.) The Windows operating system, which develops in parallel, is aimed at the average user. Microsoft developers proudly declare that the time required for mastering the system and applications is negligible. Meanwhile, in 1993, the number of Linux users on the planet reaches one hundred thousand.

Episode 2. Grains of anger

Together with 1995, the era of Windows 95 begins. And before, it was difficult to compete with Microsoft, but now it seems in principle impossible. Commercial apps for the new platform are filling store shelves. Games, office suites, tools for programmers, artists and musicians - all this is being developed in huge volumes under Windows 95. There are, of course, some drawbacks in this OS. Compared to previous Microsoft products, Windows 95 clearly shows flaws and vulnerabilities ("bugs"). Which, however, is not surprising when you consider how innovative it is - a fully graphical interface, drivers to support a huge number of devices, a Plug "n" Play system. The user is especially attracted by the graphical tools for managing the system. Its intuitiveness is really up to the mark - it's not in vain that huge funds were invested in the development of Windows 95. The new OS confidently takes pride of place on almost every home and office computer. Undoubted flaws of the system seem to the end user insignificant in comparison with its power and richest potential. But this is the main thing for the market. Microsoft celebrates success.

Perhaps somewhat blinded by this victory, Bill Gates underestimates the prospects for the development of the Internet. Netscape's third-generation graphical browser is becoming the undisputed leader in its field: you can download it for free via FTP, install it and immediately start surfing the Internet, albeit not too extensive, but still extremely attractive. Bill Gates, however, realizes his miscalculation in time and makes every effort to seize the initiative.

So what can the Linux community (in 1995 - 1.5 million people) oppose to the massive invasion of the user market by Windows 95? It would seem that this OS should remain within the walls of universities and on the computers of fan-programmers┘

But under the standards with the image of the penguin (the mascot of the Linux OS) commercial companies are becoming. In 1992, the German company SuSE was founded, which was engaged in software development within the framework of the Open Source project (by 2000, SuSE Linux will become the most widespread distribution kit in Europe). In 1994, the Caldera company was organized in the USA, which released its Linux distribution kit. And in 1995, Red Hat Software, Inc. (at the moment, according to various estimates, more than 60% of Linux users have Red Hat Linux installed on their machines).

By the mid-90s. With the efforts of companies and active users, Linux is gaining significant weight in the field of supporting Web-servers. Moreover, its "onslaught" on the Internet service area is becoming extremely aggressive. If in August 1995 Linux accounted for about 5% of active servers on the Web, then a year later this figure reaches 40%. Much of the secret is that Linux comes standard with the free Apache Web server, which is quite competitive even with Microsoft IIS 2000, which costs quite a lot of money. Thus, now every permanently connected machine with a version of Linux installed on it can work in the mode of a Web server. Bottom line: the maintenance of the Web is becoming the domain of non-profit systems. It is estimated that only 20% of Internet sites currently have Microsoft software Web servers installed.

But as for the user interface, graphics and compatibility with additional hardware, then here in the mid-90s. Linux is clearly on the losing end. The X Window graphics system that comes with it is not very powerful. Suffice it to say that software support for anti-aliasing (smoothing lines when scaling, for example, standard fonts) was included in the X Window only in ... 2000. And although it was Red Hat Linux 4.1 that was used to create special effects when filming the movie "Titanic", successes Windows in the area of ​​graphing data at the user level remains in the mid-90s. unrivaled.

This state of affairs, however, does not prevent Linux fans from sleeping. As, however, they are not shocked by the need to configure all the most important system parameters exclusively from the command line or by editing configuration files. But any changes in the system are quite obvious. But for a specialist. In general, the average level of Linux users as programmers and systems engineers remains well above the average level of Windows adherents. The first ones have to independently understand the extensive documentation, work with program codes, and write control scripts. The latter get by with hand-drawn buttons, sliders, and switches, and enjoy the benefits of a Plug "n" Play system. A tough ideological confrontation between the adherents of the two systems is emerging.

Episode 3. Operational space

1998 saw a real boom, dubbed the "Linux Hype" in the press. Large corporations flock into the world of free software, opening wallets on the go. Intel, Netscape Communications and a couple of smaller firms invest millions of dollars in Red Hat on September 29th. The number of Linux users in the world has already reached 12 million. Paradoxically, this state of affairs plays into the hands of Microsoft, which is embroiled in antitrust proceedings. On November 19, a corporation spokesman sues the Red Hat Linux 5.2 box as proof that his corporation does not have complete ownership of the operating system market.

Nevertheless, two internal Microsoft documents soon appeared, named among the "Linuxoids" Halloween Documents: and. Strictly speaking, their authenticity has not been officially confirmed; they are said to have fallen into the hands of Eric Raymond, one of the leading open source activists, from an unnamed (no doubt!) Microsoft employee. The papers examine and assess the threat to corporate profits (and very existence) from Linux, and suggest ways to combat such a threat. The methods, I must say, are quite radical and do not agree well with the ideals of free competition. Among them, for example, modification of existing and creation of new protocols for intercomputer data exchange - of course, closed, so that the Linux system, in principle, would not be able to work with them. It is recognized that a number of applications (notably the Apache Web server) are objectively superior to those of Microsoft at the time of writing. Accordingly, it is proposed to focus efforts and resources primarily on countering Linux. Once again, let's make a reservation that the official Halloween documents have not been confirmed, however, in any case, there is no smoke without fire.

By early 1999, Linux was already installed on more than 15 million computers. For the first time, Dell is offering customers machines with a pre-installed Linux distribution. Red Hat opens two offices in Europe and SuSE opens in America. Nasdaq shares in Red Hat, VA Linux and others are skyrocketing. For example: Red Hat shares on the very first day of trading after the release into circulation grow from $ 14 to 52 - this is the eighth fastest indicator in the history of the US stock market! On November 15, the same Red Hat acquires Cygnus, becoming the largest open source software manufacturer in the world. In the same month, Intel invests heavily in another Linux developer, SuSE.

The process does not stop there. In 2000, the most authoritative magazine InfoWorld named the Red Hat Linux 6.1 distribution "Product of the Year". In May, SuSE Linux becomes the first distribution to be successfully installed on the IBM S / 390 supercomputer. In June, variants of this system appeared for Apple PowerPC, IBM RS 6000, Motorola PreP platforms. A fantastic breakthrough if you think about it.

By the beginning of the third millennium, the noise had subsided, the unrest in the market had subsided. And this is what suggests that the confrontation is entering a decisive phase. After all, any ups and downs and sensational statements may well accompany risky one-day projects. In the case of Linux, it became obvious: this OS came in earnest and for a long time. Is it in order to oust someone from the market? ..

Confrontation: Staff Wars

Now, when the "reconnaissance of the area" has been carried out and we have clarified the positions of the rivals, it is time, taking advantage of the lull, to calmly sort out the situation. Let's try to do this, although, looking ahead, we note that it will not be easy to find the truth.

It is these qualities of Linux that have attracted not just users, but businessmen. Professional managers, seeing the success of Microsoft, assessed the prospects for the software market. But fighting the giant in his field with his own weapon was already pointless: the sad example of OS / 2 clearly demonstrated this. It was then that the merchants turned their attention to Linux. But wait: how can you make money from free software? In their time, IBM answered this question quite emotionally: “It” s all about service, stupid. ”The point is really just in the maintenance and support of the software product, and not at its own price.

After all, Linux, after taking a few confident steps towards the development of a graphical interface, still remains a command line system. Without knowing its architecture and principles of operation, it is impossible to build a reliably protected system from a standard distribution kit (in contrast to the same Windows NT / 2000, the initial settings of which are more reliable in this sense). Systemists say, "Linux is user-friendly, but not everyone." Configuration files are clearly inferior to graphical menu systems in clarity. Another thing is that Linux settings are convenient and clear for any hacker, that is, a person who is deeply versed in the system. So, having staffed the technical support department with several such pros, you can count on a good flow of service orders from users of free software.

The Windows platform was initially focused on the user-level below the hacker level. It is important to immediately understand that this is by no means a drawback; but just a different direction of development. Indeed, in the early 90s. Windows and Linux barely collided. Only by now have they begun to enter a state called "combat contact" in the army language: they have common areas of interest. Windows, with its NT and 2000 products, seeks to advance in the server-based market, squeezing out UNIX-like operating systems. Linux supporters, trying to prove to themselves and the whole world the viability of their "favorite", are diligently promoting it to the user's desktop, where it would seem that Windows has settled forever.

Faced directly, Windows and Linux are forced to resist, and not quietly develop on their own: in commerce, it is customary to fight for markets. Moreover, it is necessary to fight for the sake of survival itself. In connection with the anti-monopoly prosecution unfolding in the United States, Microsoft simply needs a competitor - a system, pointing to which, one could say with confidence: "No, Your Honor, we are not a monopoly!" Evil tongues generally argue that it was Microsoft who drew the general public's attention to Linux in connection with its problems in court ... We do not believe in this, but there is undoubtedly some part of the correct meaning in this.

Confrontation: trench truth

Since there is a certain number of operating systems incompatible in architecture and applications in the world, it means that among them there will certainly be one that is objectively leading. It seems obvious.

But if there is such a system, then why did the supporters of all the others not clearly make sure of its superiority and did not switch to it, abandoning their backward tools?

Have you ever - in a chat room, on a mailing list, on a bulletin board - watching the controversy between the adherents of different operating systems? Most often Windows and Linux, what are the most indicative from this point of view? Or maybe you yourself took part in such exchanges of views? Then you will agree that very often these disputes in a matter of minutes turn into typical quarrels, and the argumentation of the parties is an exchange of cries "MASTDAY !!!" and "RULEZ !!!" with ever increasing intensity. And if the moderator of the channel or conference does not stop this outrage, it can continue for quite an impressive time. And in life, by the way, there are plenty of such examples. You let the system administrator (adherent of Linux) and the humble user who masters, say, the Microsoft Office package talk about computer topics. Surely, after five minutes you will hear a lot of sharp remarks, if not outright insults. Smells like a kind of religious war, doesn't it?

The main problem of such disputants is the narrowness of their worldview. As a rule, they constantly use and thoroughly know only one of the systems. The other was seen only briefly, a couple of times, and she "didn't like it, didn't go." On the basis of this scanty bad experience, the conclusion is made: "mastday". But on the other hand, the familiar, dear, long (at one level or another) studied system is "rulez", because it works "as it should". But after all, everyone has their own idea of ​​"how it should be".

How to determine which system is better? And can this be done at all? Let's see. On the one hand, everything is very simple. What to choose? Windows, of course! What version? Well, of course, the very last one! But why "of course" and "of course", few people thought. Everyone has Windows. So let me have it too. 95% of PC owners who have installed this or that version of this operating system on their machines cannot be wrong!

But what about the remaining five percent? Are they mistaken? And those nearly two-thirds of sysadmins who run non-Microsoft operating systems on their (large and small) Web servers are also wrong? Or is there something wrong here?

It is necessary to understand the situation carefully, distracting from noise and emotions. True, this is not always possible. Suffice it to say that even comparisons between Windows NT 4.0 and Linux in 1998 by two reputable, reputable, independent (seemingly) independent test labs led to exactly the opposite results. In one case, Linux was the leader, in the other, a Microsoft product. That is, instead of clarifying the situation, these tests only added fog. What can we say about attempts to compare the recently appeared Windows 2000 and fresh versions of Linux! It is difficult to judge their objectivity, and users will again have to choose based on their own experience or based on the reviews of colleagues and acquaintances.

And these reviews are not always balanced and consistent. Since the complaints about Windows are primarily about "bugs", and this topic is already hackneyed to the point of impossibility, now we will consider a few standard assertions against Linux, and then find out the real state of affairs.

1. "Of course, there are alternatives to Windows. But if you want to do business, you can't do without MS Word, Excel, etc." - Kim Cartney, columnist for MSNBC.

In the Linux world, there are at least 4 projects with the goal of creating office applications. These are Applixware Office, GNOME Workshop, KOffice and StarOffice. All of them are already capable of working with ready-made RTF and DOC files, as well as saving documents in more reasonable, compact formats without losing functionality.

2. "Linux does not pose a threat to Windows because a modern operating system needs to support business-oriented applications, and Linux does not have such applications," - Ed Muth, manager of one of the divisions of Microsoft.

Here is a small list of Linux applications that are generally available free and for free:

By the way, lists of programs available for Linux can be found at www.freshmeat.net/appindex, linux.davecentral.com, and sound.condorow.net.

3. "Under Linux there is no way to run Windows applications such as Word and Excel, and I cannot live without them" - hundreds of thousands of users.

There are many Windows emulators in Linux: Citrix MetaFrame, Mainsoft's MainWin, TreLOS Win4Lin, VMWare, WINE ... They differ in functionality: some provide the operation of applications for Windows 9x; others are also capable of running products for Windows NT / 2000 There is, however, a difficulty in this direction - the lack of support for DirectX.And although games under OpenGL run fine under Linux, most of the most modern games that are released with the expectation of DirectX are still only dreamed of by Linux users. this problem may soon be overcome.

4. "There are very few or no viruses under Linux because this system is not widespread. As soon as it reaches the level of at least 10% of the prevalence of Windows, we will see a lot of malicious programs for Linux!" - a lot of frightened users.

The fundamental difference between Linux and Windows in terms of working with user accounts is that in Linux, each file has an ownership attribute. That is, each file belongs to a specific user registered in the system and one user group: say, the user vasya of the students group. At the same time, the system is managed by programs belonging mainly to the superuser - root and his own group, root. Thus, even if vasya uploads hypothetical malicious code to his home directory and tries to execute it, such code will be executed with the privileges of the user vasya. And therefore, it will not be able to damage or replace files belonging to root, i.e., damage the functionality of the system as a whole. This is, of course, a simplified explanation, but on the whole it reflects the picture correctly. Of course, seeing that the application launched by him displays messages about the impossibility of doing something there, vasya can (if the computer belongs to him) switch to root mode and execute the code as a superuser - but in this case, sorry, medicine is powerless. There's no getting around it: tighter security comes at the price of increased training for Linux users - a glimpse of their elitism still remains.

So where is she, right?

And the truth here is amazing: it is in the choice. You can take the side of power and tradition using Windows. And no one has the right to accuse you of this. You can also join the army of Linux fans by indirectly joining the Open Source movement and aiming to become a true pro in terms of computer skills. This is something to be proud of, but nothing more. Do not forget that truth is in the same place as beauty. And according to the old English proverb - beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, that is, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." Therefore, in the eyes of the evaluator. To each his own. And that's great.

But, as usual, there is a more objective criterion, especially for our, Russian realities, - money. For managers of large Western Web-companies, for example, the situation when the software of one (!) Computer costs tens of thousands of dollars does not cause a nervous shock; moreover, maintenance, expert advice and customization are paid separately. And in a more modest case, a complete set of Windows operating systems with the necessary (for the same Web designer) applications costs several thousand dollars. At the same time, Linux has analogues for almost all commercial applications of the rival system, and the functionality of this software is rapidly increasing. There is a lot of work in various directions, but it is going on because a huge number of user-creators are interested in it. This is generally the fundamental principle of the ideology of the Open Source community and the GNU movement, in the atmosphere in which Linux was born: if you know that something can be done better, do it better. A passive consumer view of things is discouraged. In the West, everything is clear: either you pay money and have every right to count on a full service, or you don’t pay money, but then be ready to overcome difficulties. Shared with other enthusiasts, but still overcome.

Moreover, it is interesting that within Linux itself there is competition between different projects mastering the same sector of the work front. The KDE and Gnome graphical shells are beating the desktop; Open Office and Koffice packages - for organizing a full-fledged set of office applications on this table, etc. As a result, everyone wins. Rival projects - because their code is open - learn from each other to do things right. Users also get the opportunity to select and compare different directions.

Yes, the current versions of commonly used Linux programs are often damp. Yes, there is not always full compatibility with the file formats of Microsoft and other companies that do not want to provide their proprietary (and nevertheless the de facto standard) technologies for free use. But let everyone who is not without sin put his hand on his heart and think: what should he do if the pirated software market suddenly disappears? After all, it is only in Russia that there is an opportunity for a few tens of rubles to buy a product, the nominal price of which in the store is comparable to our annual income.

And now, on the other hand, how will a respectable software buyer feel when he hangs up at the most responsible, as usual, moment with an application costing $ 6,000? Will it freeze exactly as if it were installed from a pirated disk?

Questions that require thought, agree. In the West, they are not asked; they are used to paying for everything and are used to the fact that the seller sets the price. And we have to think about it with our psychology. One hope is that folk wisdom will turn out to be right: "The Russians are slowly harnessing, but they are driving fast."

The confrontation between Windows and Linux is a case where you can go in any direction. Well, let's go?

Voting results