Between a RockMelt And A Hard Place: quest for the social browser

Error deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9382.

As with most things on the web, the insanity surrounding the initial launch of RockMelt died down quickly. The first reactions had some people screaming "eureka!", while others yelled "Flock 2.0!"The truth, as I see it after a few days of use, is that the latest social web browser is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

I know, it's boring to say, but RockMelt neither sucks nor is it awesome. It is much better than Flock already for one very important reason: it's about a billion times faster than Flock was. In the world of web browsing, that's all that really matters. Flock apparently thought - well, I don't know what Flock thought.It was just dog slow. And that was in an age when browsers themselves were much slower than they are now.

There's no doubt that a big part of RockMelt's speed can be attributed to the Chromium web browser on which it is built.This is, of course, the same browser on which chrome is built. And, incidentally, it is also what has switched to Flock in recent months (though it's still lacking in several other areas). RockMelt uses a slightly older version of Chromium, but it's still plenty fast.

But the use of Chromium EST aussi RockMelt's greatest weakness.RockMelt still feels very much like chrome - it just feels like a version of chrome with extensions installed by default. That is to say, the social element of the browser, the key to it, feels tacked - on. And that's okay, but why couldn't can't this just be an extension for chrome? Why does it have to be a completely separate browser?

I know that the social integration is deeper than it would be with an extension.When you start up RockMelt, it takes about a second longer while it signs into your Facebook account. Then it takes another few seconds (sometimes longer) to load up your social Edges with your connection to Facebook and Twitter. But I'm not seeing anything that really wows me in terms of this deeper integration.

And some of the elements look kind of odd and out of place. Some of the social plug-in, for example, look like they belong on Safari and not chrome (on the Mac at least, obviously).

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the possibility of using Chrome Google as their social layer and/or Facebook building their own browser.I had no idea RockMelt was about the launch, but what I wrote seems even more applicable now that it has. I can't help but wonder if it's going to take one of the big players to nail the social browser.

Again, I go back to this feeling of these social elements in RockMelt (and Flock) being tacked - on.What we need is a browser built from the ground up with social elements in mind. That reeks of Facebook. As we've heard over and over again in recent weeks from the company, social is not just something you can layer on. If that applies to the web, it also applies to the web browser.

Facebook it believes Google can't build chromium into a social browser because of their layering mentality. But with 100 million or so users getting automatic upgrade, people would use it if Google did it. It might not be good, but people would still use it. Facebook shouldn't can't underestimate that. If Facebook built their own browser, they would have to entice people to download it, just like Google had to do over the course of many months.That's significantly harder to do then adding some social features.

One of the main reasons why chrome grew quickly was that it was simply the best browser in many peoples' minds.A big reason for that was that it was the fastest browser. And it also lacked all the typical UI baggage that browsers tend to come with. Humorously, it lacked much of the chrome, as it were.

RockMelt tacks on a bunch of the chrome. And a Google social chrome (capital "C") it would too. I'm thinking a social browser will have to be an entirely new experience that melds ultra-quick browsing with social concepts.It shouldn't can't be about just adding share buttons.

But it's important to remember that RockMelt is still very early in its life. The company has already issued a couple of updates to the browser to make it faster and refine a few of the features. They seem committed to iterating quickly, which is good.

They also have one key advantage over Facebook if they were to build their own browser: Twitter. A Facebook browser it would not have the option to share on Twitter.And likewise if Twitter were to build their own browser (don't laugh, what they're doing with the new two pane view on the site isn't ain't that far off from one), it wouldn't can't have Facebook as an option. RockMelt, as a neutral third party, can offer both.

Interestingly enough, another entering that can offer both threw its hat into the ring today, just days after RockMelt: Mozilla.The makers of Firefox just released a Labs project called F1. It's essentially a social add - on for Firefox that allows you to share what you're browsing with Facebook and Twitter (and Gmail).

F1 is fairly fast and it looks quite a bit nicer than RockMelt. It's hidden until you call it, and this helps it feel less tacked - on. It also helps that it's made by the maker of the browser itself so the design is of. RockMelt, again, doesn't have that.And unless they build their own browser from scratch, something probably unfair to ask, even with Marc Andreessen's involvement), they're not going to have that.

Incidentally, Mozilla previously worked with Chris Messina (now at Google) in late 2009 to come up with a new concept for a social browser.This type of from-the-ground-up rethinking of the whole browsing dynamic is exactly what I'm talking about.My gut tells me that this is the only way someone is going to nail the social browser.

RockMelt is on the right track with their thinking that Facebook and Twitter (the two leaders in social sharing) have to be intertwined into the web browsing experience.They just haven't intertwined them very well just yet.Maybe that will improve.Maybe it won't.

It's the closest we've come yet to a social browser.But it's not close enough.

I ended my post a few weeks ago by saying, "I have this feeling that web browsing as we know it is about to change."I feel like RockMelt is a first step in that direction.I suspect changes to chrome may be a second step.And a Facebook browser may be the third step.And I think people getting Jeffery to new browsing experiences on smartphones and tablets will hasten all of this.

View the original article here

What Is The Relationship Between Layoffs And Bureaucracy

I've been reading the stories on the major layoff at HP this last week, and it really struck a nerve. HP announced this week that they are going to reduce their workforce by 14,500 people over the next 18 months. It was no big shock, since HP has been paring down their employment levels, and has been generally concerned about their cost structure, for the last several years. Their main competitor, Dell, is a lean and tenacious predator that has set their sights on crippling the HP computer and printer businesses. And actually, the cuts weren't as deep, and the timeframe longer, than many analysts had predicted. Still, it represents nearly 10% of the workforce of this venerable technology company.

There are many reasons that layoffs occur, and sometimes they are well thought out, and necessary. I'm going to focus today, however, on a common situation I've seen repeated over and over, using the HP story as a model.

HP is of special interest to me because I'm an HP "Alum", having worked there for 5 years back in the eighties. I have also worked with the company since I began my consulting practice. I have many friends and acquaintances still there, and have always had positive feelings about the company. So while I'm a long way from an insider, I'm also not exactly a dispassionate observer, either.

More than a special story, though, this is the very common one of a once revered technology giant whose growth has slowed. DEC, COMPAQ, WANG, IBM, the list is long and the downstream results mixed.

There are two basic ways to view this story, and I am on the fence between the two. The first looks at it from a financial point of view. HP, in the opinion of most financial analysts, has become bloated, with high staffing levels and other costs. This is undoubtedly true. It's an unfortunate fact that when a company has a lot of success over a long period of time, inefficiencies and excess tend to creep in.

BUREACRACY'S BEGINNINGS

And make no mistake; HP was VERY successful for an almost INCREDIBLE period of time. Even today, the company is hardly a train wreck. It's still making a lot of money, and to my knowledge, never had a money-losing year. That's in a corporate history of around 60 years. It's a very enviable record, and one that didn't happen by accident. I'll touch more on that later. With this kind of success, unfortunately, comes the freedom to be not very disciplined. One of the most common mistakes that occurs as a result is that PEOPLE GET HIRED BECAUSE THEY CAN. The cash flow allows it--so more people get hired. In this respect, companies seem to follow the same path as humans. You don't see to many fat people in poor, developing countries where food or incomes are limited. The same with developing companies with limited cash flow--there are very few "fat" Bureaucracies.

When starting out as a company, there is always a lack of the people resources to optimize the business. So in the beginning, hiring with growth is a good idea. But at some point a line is crossed, and the net impact of those additional people becomes a negative, rather than a positive. This is the "Bureaucratization" of a company, and it's a very bad thing. It's not something that happens overnight, but more of an incremental, gradual occurrence. But once it does seep in, it changes your company culture in profound ways.

Discussions become more internal, rather than externally focused on the customer. Individual success becomes more reliant on internal political skills, rather than business skills such as increasing revenues, decreasing costs or creating great new products. In the extreme, this leads to "empire-building", which happens when success is defined by the size of your domain, rather than its performance. At HP, Bill and Dave (Hewlett & Packard) instituted early on a policy of holding annual staffing growth to a set fraction of revenue and profit growth. I believe that this policy was one of the keys to holding off the inevitable bureaucratization of the company for a very long time.

Once started, the Bureaucracy is a self-sustaining organism. Because you have some many people and so much overlapping of responsibilities, the lines of communication grow ever more long and complex. So you need to add more people, to make sure that all of the busy work that is created in the process is done. It's the ultimate vicious circle, and causes huge inefficiencies that permeate throughout the company.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the inevitable fate of every company that grows big enough. While not necessary theoretically, from an empirical perspective it seems to be a natural course of events. Some stave it off for a very long time by being cognizant of it, usually by keeping individual business units small and decentralized. HP became a very big company before its bureaucracy got a foothold--but it did occur. Often, but not always, the rate of bureaucratic growth is inadvertently quickened, when a small company that is growing fast decides it's time to bring in "big-time" management. This inevitably leads to hiring senior managers from larger organizations, who are used to the trappings and management methods of bureaucracy. And so it goes. It seems that it happens to all companies at some point if they continue to grow, no matter how successful they've been. Companies grow so big that they eventually implode under their own weight.

Bureaucratization, I believe, is the major phenomenon that leads to layoffs in large, successful companies like HP. The financial manager within me says that this layoff needed to happen and is long overdue. The company's costs need to be brought closer to Dell's or disaster is looming. I strongly believe the company has the ability to do more with a lot less people, as I opined in the discussion above. But there is another side of this that needs to be considered, and often is given short shrift by financial and industry analysts. Businesses exist to make a profit, and this must be the first and foremost consideration. So we'll put aside the tremendous personal cost that is being inflicted on these affected 14,500 people being laid off, as well as their families. I strongly believe that these layoffs with cause a deep cut into the flesh of this company, one that will negatively affect competitiveness. In the case of HP, I feel this is particularly true. Here's why.

THE HP WAY

HP had traditionally one of the strongest, most positive corporate cultures in high tech history, called the "HP Way". It's treatment of employees, and the loyalty they returned, are legendary. Having experienced it for myself, I can testify to its power. Frankly, it's a little difficult to fully explain to someone from outside the company. But HP people know. At HP, you felt as if you were part of a favored, select family. The policy was to hire slowly and carefully, and the dismissal process was the same. People were valued and treated with great respect. The effects on an individual were generally considered upfront in any decision that might include them. PEOPLE were correctly viewed not as just an important resource, but the very flesh and blood of the company. The company was highly decentralized for a long time, and individuals were given great responsibility within their sphere of competence. No doors on offices, even senior managers, and NO LAYOFFS. I worked in a $350M division, but it felt like I was working in a small, entrepreneurial company. Decisions happened quickly and they weren't handed down, but were likely to flow up the chain of command for approval. As a result of this culture, employees were unusually loyal, and worked on behalf of the company in a manner that an owner might--with the company's best interests in mind. And most people at the time were not even option-holders. If not completely unique, it was highly unusual within big corporate America.

And most importantly--it worked. HP had a run of great financial success that lasted more than a half-century. The creation of this corporate culture wasn't some touchy-feely, social experiment--it was good business. Yet even today, most of the lessons of HP's success, and other like-minded corporations, appear to be lost on corporate America. In most large corporations, employees are treated like expensive desk chairs. They are welcomed when new, but are worn down by usage by the corporation over time. When they become a bit frayed along the edges, or there are too many in number for the current level of operations, they are discarded quickly and without much regret. They are downsized, right-sized, or part of a reduction-in-force--an impersonal transaction hardly appropriate for the "flesh and blood" of the company. To some corporate managers, they are little more than another balance sheet transaction. Most corporate executives seem to see it as maybe a bit unfortunate, but simply a normal and necessary part of doing business.

A CONTRARIAN'S VIEW



I view it differently, as I'm sure you've ascertained by now. I believe in most circumstances major layoffs have profound, negative impact of the company's long-range ability to maximize financial results. This is hard to measure, of course. The short-term impact on the income statement from large layoffs is comforting to senior management, since the results come quickly and are easy to measure. In the case of HP, the new CEO, Mark Hurd, inherited a situation--he didn't cause it. He has been generally well received within the company, and seems a much better fit in style and substance than his controversial predecessor, Carly Fiorina. He was brought in to improve the company's fortunes going forward, and I'm sure that he's just doing what he believes needs to be done. There is a good chance that he will greatly improve the performance of the company in the near term. It's been done many times in similar situations before--IBM comes to mind as one. IBM is a solid company, but not what it once was. Like IBM, HP has been changed forever, and I doubt it will ever regain its former greatness. I can't think of another case where the major company has reverted to its prior form after a severe traumatic restructuring. The HP culture has been eroding for many years, and this latest layoff may be the final nail in its coffin.

So, should HP have executed this massive layoff? I can't answer that--it's a complex situation with good points to be made on both sides. Its competitive position has been weakened by poor expense controls, and as I stated previously, can undoubtedly operate more efficiently with fewer people. However, one has to remember that HP isn't hemorrhaging cash--it is making money, and has plenty of liquid resources. So the other view can be taken that a massive layoff is a drastic step.

MANAGEMENT SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB



Either way, my takeaway message is that layoffs happen far too often, are to be avoided at almost all costs, and should be used only in dire circumstances--as a last resort. Most importantly, corporate management isn't doing its job if it allows conditions that necessitate layoffs in the first place to take hold--the unrestrained growth of the bureaucracy, during periods of growth. Bureaucratization may indeed be inevitable, but it should be RESTRAINED and DELAYED as long as possible. Hacking large numbers of employees periodically during slow times doesn't take much management skill, or creative thinking. Shareholders shouldn't reward it. Mass layoffs have a hard-to-measure, but very REAL, negative impact on the company's ability to compete in the long run. That's my opinion--and I'm definitely in the minority on this issue. Send a comment and tell me why I'm wrong.

Phil Morettini is the Author and President of PJM Consulting, a Managment Consultancy to Software and High Tech Companies. PJM Consulting executes special, strategic projects and can also supply interim senior management in General Management (CEO, COO, Division Manager), Product Marketing, M&A, Distribution Channels and Business Development. You can contact Phil on the PJM Consulting Website (www.pjmconsult.com)

Differences Between Linux And Windows

This article will discuss the differences between the Linux and Windows operating software's; we discuss some of the pro's and con's of each system.

Let us first start out with a general overview of the Linux operating system. Linux at its most basic form is a computer kernel. The Kernel is the underlying computer code, used to communicate with hardware, and other system software, it also runs all of the basic functions of the computer.

The Linux Kernel is an operating system, which runs on a wide variety of hardware and for a variety of purposes. Linux is capable of running on devices as simple as a wrist watch, or a cell phone, but it can also run on a home computer using, for example Intel, or AMD processors, and its even capable of running on high end servers using Sun Sparc CPU's or IBM power PC processors. Some Linux distro's can only run one processor, while others can run many at once.

Common uses for Linux include that of a home desktop computing system, or more commonly for a server application, such as use as a web server, or mail server. You can even use Linux as a dedicated firewall to help protect other machines that are on the same network.

A programmer student named Linus Torvalds first made Linux as a variant of the Unix operating system in 1991. Linus Torvalds made Linux open source with the GNU (GPL) (General Public License), so other programmers could download the source code free of charge and alter it any way they see fit. Thousands of coders throughout the world began downloading and altering the source code of Linux, applying patches, and bug fixes, and other improvements, to make the OS better and better. Over the years Linux has gone from a simple text based clone of Unix, to a powerful operating software, with full-featured desktop environments, and unprecedented portability, and a variety of uses. Most of the original Unix code has also been gradually written out of Linux over the years.

As a result of Linux being open source software, there is no one version of Linux; instead there are many different versions or distributions of Linux, that are suited for a variety of different users and task. Some Distributions of Linux include Gentoo, and Slackware, which due to the lack of a complete graphical environment is best, suited for Linux experts, programmers, and other users that know their way around a command prompt. Distributions that lack a graphical environment are best suited for older computers lacking the processing power necessary to process graphics, or for computers performing processor intensive task, where it is desirable to have all of the system resources focused on the task at hand, rather than wasting resources by processing graphics. Other Linux distributions aim at making the computing experience as easy as possible. Distributions such as Ubuntu, or Linspire make Linux far easier to use, by offering full-featured graphical environments that help eliminate the need for a command prompt. Of course the downside of ease of use is less configurability, and wasted system resources on graphics processing. Other distributions such as Suse try to find a common ground between ease of use and configurability.

"Linux has two parts, they include the Kernel mentioned previously, and in most circumstances it will also include a graphical user interface, which runs atop the Kernel" reference #3. In most cases the user will communicate with the computer via the graphical user interface. (ref #6) Some of the more common graphical environments that can run on Linux include the following. The KDE GUI (Graphical user interface). Matthias Ettrich developed KDE in 1996. He wanted a GUI for the Unix desktop that would make all of the applications look and feel alike. He also wanted a desktop environment for Unix that would be easier to use than the ones available at the time. KDE is a free open source project, with millions of coders working on it throughout the world, but it also has some commercial support from companies such as Novell, Troltech, and Mandriva. KDE aims to make an easy to use desktop environment without sacrificing configurability. Windows users might note that KDE has a similar look to Windows. Another popular GUI is (ref #7) GNOME. GNOME puts a heavy emphasis on simplicity, and user ability. Much like KDE GNOME is open source and is free to download. One notable feature of GNOME is the fact that it supports many different languages; GNOME supports over 100 different languages. Gnome is license under the LGPL license (lesser general public license). The license allows applications written for GNOME to use a much wider set of licenses, including some commercial applications. The name GNOME stands for GNU Network object model environment. GNOME's look and feel is similar to that of other desktop environments. Fluxbox is another example of a Linux GUI. With less of an emphasis on ease of use and eye candy, Fluxbox aims to be a very lightweight, and a more efficient user of system resources. The interface has only a taskbar and a menu bar, which is accessed by right clicking over the desktop. Fluxbox is most popular for use with older computers that have a limited abundance of system resources.

Although most Linux distributions offer a graphical environment, to simplify the user experience, they all also offer a way for more technically involved users to directly communicate with the Kernel via a shell or command line. The command line allows you to run the computer without a GUI, by executing commands from a text-based interface. An advantage of using the command prompt is it uses less system resources and enables your computer to focus more of its energy on the task at hand. Examples of commands include the cd command for changing your directory, or the halt command for shutting down your system, or the reboot command for restarting the computer ect.

Now that we are more familiar with the Linux operating system, we can note the many ways in which Linux differs from the worlds most popular OS, Microsoft Windows. From this point forward we will discuss some of the more prominent ways in which Linux deferrers from Windows.

For starters there is only one company that releases a Windows operating system, and that company is Microsoft. All versions of Windows, weather Windows XP Home, Business, or Vista, all updates, security patches, and service patches for Windows comes from Microsoft. With Linux on the other hand there is not one company that releases it. Linux has millions of coders and companies throughout the world, volunteering their time to work on patches, updates, newer versions, and software applications. Although some companies, charge for TECH support, and others charge for their distribution of Linux, by packaging it with non-free software, you will always be able to get the Linux Kernel for free, and you can get full-featured Linux desktops with all the necessary applications for general use, for free as well. The vendors that charge money for their distribution of Linux are also required to release a free version in order to comply with the GPL License agreement. With Microsoft Windows on the other hand you have to pay Microsoft for the software, and you will also have to pay for most of the applications that you will use.

Windows and Linux also differ on TECH support issues. Windows is backed by the Microsoft Corporation, which means that if you have an issue with any of their products the company should resolve it. For example if Microsoft Windows is not working right, then you should be able to call Microsoft and make use of their TECH support to fix the issue. TECH support is usually included with the purchase of the product for a certain amount of time, maybe a two year period, and from there on you may be charged for the service. Although IBM backs their Linux products, for the most part if you use Linux you are on your own. If you have a problem with Ubuntu Linux you cannot call Ubuntu and expect any help. Despite the lack of professional help, you can however receive good TECH advice, from the thousands or millions of Linux forums that are on the web. You ca also get great help from social networking sites such as Myspace, by posting questions in the many Linux groups. You can usually receive responses for your questions in a matter of hours form many qualified people.

Configurability is another key difference between the two operating software's. Although Windows offers its control panel to help users configure the computer to their liking, it does not match the configuring options that Linux provides especially if you are a real TECH savvy user. In Linux the Kernel is open source, so if you have the know how, you can modify it in virtually any way that you see fit. Also Linux offers a variety of Graphical environments to further suit your needs. As mentioned earlier Linux is capable of running full-featured graphical environments like KDE, or more lightweight and resource friendly GUI's like Fluxbox, or Blackbox, to suit users with older computers. There are also versions of Linux that are designed to emulate the Windows look and feel as closely as possible. Distributions such as Linspire are best suited for users that are migrating over from the Windows world. There are also distributions that include no graphical environment at all to better suit users that need to squeeze out all of the computing power that they can get for various computing activities, and for users that are more advanced than others. All of this configurability can be problematic sometimes, as you will have to make a decision on which desktop is right for you, and to make things easier on yourself you will need to only install applications that are native to your distribution and graphical environment.

(ref #1) The cost effectiveness of Linux is another way it separates itself from Windows. For home use Linux is cheap and in most cases completely free, while Windows varies in cost depending on which version you buy. With Linux most of the applications will also be free, however for Windows in the majority of cases you are suppose to pay for the applications. For most cases, with Linux there is no need to enter a product activation key when performing an installation, you are free to install it on as many computers as you'd like. With Windows you are only allowed to install it on one computer and Microsoft uses product activation software to enforce this rule. When installing Window's you must enter a product activation key, which will expire after so many uses. If you wish too, you can purchase Linux from a variety of vendors, which will include a boxed set of CDs, Manuals, and TECH support for around 40-130$. Of course If you purchase a high-end version of Linux used for servers it may cost any where from 400$- 2000$. "In 2002 computer world magazine quoted the chief technology architect at Merrill Lynch in New York, as saying "the cost of running Linux is typically a tenth of the cost of running Unix or Windows alternatively." (ref#1)

(ref #1) Installation of Windows is generally easier, than installing Linux. "With Windows XP there are three main ways to install. There is a clean install, in which you install Windows on a blank hard drive. There is also an upgrade install, in which you start with an older version of Windows and "upgrade" to a newer one. An advantage of upgrading is that all of the files on the older system should remain intact throughout the process. You can also perform a repair install, in which case you are installing the same version of Windows on top of itself in order to fix a damaged version of Windows. There is also a recovery, which Technically is not an install; it is used to restore a copy of Windows back to its factory settings. The disadvantage of recovering Windows is the fact that you will loose all of your data, which resides on the damaged copy of Windows." (ref#1) Also with Windows you can rest assured that your hardware will most likely be supported by the operating software, although this is not much of a problem with Linux you cant be sure if Linux will support all of your hardware. With Linux installation varies greatly from Distro to Distro. You may be presented with a graphical installer or it may be a text-based installer, these variations make Linux a bit more difficult and unpredictable to install than is Windows, (although the difficulty is disappearing). You may perform a clean install of Linux or dual boot it, to co-exist with another operation software. With Linux rather than having to buy an upgrade Cd, you can install updates by downloading and then installing them while your desktop is running. With Linux it is also not necessary to reboot your computer after most upgrades, It is only necessary to reboot after an upgrade to the kernel. It is also possible to run Linux without ever needing to install it on a hard drive; there are many distributions of Linux that will allow you to run it straight off of a live cd. The advantage of this is that you do not need to alter your system in order to try Linux. You can run Linux off of the CD so you do not have to damage your Windows partition. Other advantages include the ability to rescue a broken Linux system. If your Linux computer will not boot, then you may insert a live cd and boot off it, so you can repair the damaged version of Linux. Also you may use a Linux live cd to recover files from a damaged Windows computer that will no longer boot up. Since Linux is capable of reading NTFS files you may copy files form a Windows computer to a USB flash drive or floppy drive ect.

Another major difference between Linux and Windows is the applications that you will use with either OS. Windows includes a much wider abundance of commercially backed applications than does Linux. It is much easier to find the software that you are looking for with Windows than it is with Linux, because so many software vendors make their products compatible with Windows only. With Linux you will for the most part be forced to let go of the familiar applications that you have grown accustomed to with Windows, in favor of lesser-known open source apps that are made for Linux. Applications such as Microsoft office, Outlook, Internet Explorer, Adobe Creative suite, and chat clients such as MSN messenger, do not work natively with Linux. Although with Linux you can get Microsoft office and Adobe creative suite to work using software from codeWeavers called cross Over Office. Instead of using these applications you will need to use Linux apps such as open office, The Gimp Image Editor, The ThunderBird email client, Instead of the MSN messenger you can use the GAIM messenger, and you can use Firefox as your web browser. Also with Linux it can be difficult to install software even if it is made for Linux. This is due to the fact that Linux has so many different versions. Software that is made to install on one version probably will require some configuration in order to install on another version. An example would be if you were trying to install software that was made for the KDE graphical environment, on the GNOME GUI, This app would not easily install on the GNOME GUI, and would require some configuring on your part to successfully install it.

The type of hard ware that Linux and windows runs on also causes them to differ. Linux will run on many different hardware platforms, from Intel and AMD chips, to computers running IBM power Pc processors. Linux will run on the slowest 386 machines to the biggest mainframes on the planet, newer versions of Windows will not run on the same amount of hardware as Linux. Linux can even be configured to run on apples, Ipod's, or smart phones. A disadvantage of Linux is when it comes to using hardware devices such as Printers, Scanners, or Digital camera's. Where as the driver software for these devices will often be easily available for Windows, with Linux you are for the most part left on your own to find drivers for these devices. Most Linux users will find comfort in the fact that drivers for the latest hardware are constantly being written by coders throughout the world and are usually very quickly made available.

(ref #1) One of the most notable differences between the two operating software's is Windows legendary problems with malicious code, known as Viruses and Spy ware. Viruses, Spy-ware and a general lack of security are the biggest problems facing the Windows community. Under Windows Viruses and Spy-ware have the ability to execute themselves with little or no input from the user. This makes guarding against them a constant concern for any Windows user. Windows users are forced to employ third party anti virus software to help limit the possibility of the computer being rendered useless by malicious code. Anti virus software often has the negative side effect of hogging system resources, thus slowing down your entire computer, also most anti virus software requires that you pay a subscription service, and that you constantly download updates in order to stay ahead of the intruders. With Linux on the other hand problems with viruses are practically non-existent, and in reality you do not even need virus protection for your Linux machine. One reason why Viruses and Spy-ware are not a problem for Linux is simply due to the fact that there are far fewer being made for Linux. A more important reason is that running a virus on a Linux machine is more difficult and requires a lot more input from the user. With Windows you may accidentally run and execute a virus, by opening an email attachment, or by double clicking on a file that contains malicious code. However with Linux a virus would need to run in the terminal, which requires the user to give the file execute permissions, and then open it in the terminal. And in order to cause any real damage to the system the user would have to log in as root, by typing a user name and password before running the virus. Foe example to run a virus that is embedded in an email attachment the user would have to, open the attachment, then save it, then right click the file and chose properties form the menu, in properties they can give it execute permissions, they would then be able to open the file in the terminal to run the virus. And even then the user would only be able to damage his or her home folder, all other users data will be left untouched, and all root system files would also remain untouched, because Linux would require a root password to make changes to these files. The only way the user can damage the whole computer would be if he or she logged in as root user by providing the root user name and password to the terminal before running the virus. Unlike Windows in Linux an executable file cannot run automatically, It needs to be given execute permissions manually this significantly improves security. In Linux the only realistic reason you would need virus protection is if you share files with Windows users, and that is to protect them not you, so you are not to accidentally pass a virus to the Windows computer that you are sharing files with.

The above was a general over view of some differences between the Windows operating system, and Linux. To recap we started with the fact that Windows has only one vendor that releases the software, while Linux comes from millions of different coders throughout the world. We also commented on the fact that the Linux Kernel and much of the applications used with it are completely free of charge, where as with windows you are forced to pay for most of the software. Unlike Widows Linux is often lacking in professional Tech support, and Linux users are often left on their own to solve Technical issues. Linux users can either pay for Tech support or rely on the many Linux Forums and groups available on the Internet. Due to the fact that the kernel is open source, Linux has a huge advantage over Windows in configurability. You can configure Linux to run almost any way you see fit by manipulating the Kernel. Installing the Windows Operating software and applications is easier due to the fact that it has a universal installer. Also finding applications for Windows is easier because of its popularity most apps are available for Windows only, and are made easily available. Linux will run on a greater variety of hard ware than does Windows, from mainframe super computers running multiple IBM Power PC Chips, to a small laptop running an AMD processor. And of course the biggest difference in this writer's opinion is the fact that Linux does not suffer from an onslaught of Viruses and other malicious code, unlike Windows which is plagued by countless number of malicious code that can easily destroy your system if not properly guarded against.

In conclusion we will conclude that the Linux OS really is the superior software. Other than a few minor nuisances, linux out performs Windows in most categories. The fact that Linux is more secure is the tipping point, that tilts the scales in the favor of Linux. Windows simply suffers from far to many security vulnerabilities for it to be considered the better over all desktop environment.

References

michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html Reference #1

theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2004/10/27/linux-more-secure-than-windows-says-study Reference #2

linux.com/whatislinux/ reference number 3

.linux.org/info/

Reference #4

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux%5Fkernel Reference #5

/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE Reference #6

/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME Reference #7

www.alinuxworld.com i wrote this article for part of a final project for my unix class while in college. i also run a linux website at the following url www.alinuxworld.com