Linux: a viable alternative or desert mirage?
| Date | 01 March 2000 |
| Pages | 82-84 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830010314500 |
| Published date | 01 March 2000 |
| Author | Scott McLaren |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Linux: a viable
alternative or desert
mirage?
Scott McLaren
Brief history
You'd have to be practicing librarianship on a
desert island not to know at least a few
colleagues who hate Microsoft. In fact, you may
well be one of their proud number. If you ask
them why, they'll give an answer almost as
cryptic as an Everest mountain climber:
because Microsoft is Microsoft. In truth, there
are a host of reasons to at least view Microsoft
with a modicum of distrust: they've got too
much money, too much control, too much
industry influence. It is almost undemocratic.
At least the Department of Justice seems to
think so. On a less conspiratorial, more
mundane level, monopolies are not good for
consumers (libraries or otherwise).
In 1991 a glimmer of hope, which has since
become a steady light, began to shine for many
who take, if not technical then at least
ideological, exception to Microsoft. That light,
called Linux, is now all the rage in computer-
and technical-oriented publications. It all
started when Linus Torvalds, a student at the
University of Finland in Helsinki, decided to
develop a UNIX-type operating system. More
and more people began working on the project
and in 1993 a relatively stable Beta version was
available. Version 1.0 was officially released in
1994. Some sources now claim that millions of
users have already installed it on their
computers. For our purposes, it will be helpful
to consider Linux with special attention given to
how it differs from Microsoft Windows.
What it is and what it costs
First and foremost, Linux is an operating
system. As such, it is theoretically a viable
alternative to any other operating systems,
including DOS, Windows, UNIX, NetWare,
and so on. The most obvious way in which
Linux differs from Microsoft Windows is in its
price: Linux is free. It can be downloaded from
hundreds of FTP sites on the Internet[1]. That
is because it was first developed, and continues
to be developed, by a large number of hobbyists
and enthusiasts.
There is no ``corporation'' behind Linux. It is
a grassroots operating system. That aside, the
difference in cost would seem to make Linux a
The author
Scott McLaren is a Reference Librarian based at York
University Libraries, Toronto, Canada. scottm@YorkU.CA
Keywords
Open systems, Operating systems, Computer languages
Abstract
You would have to be practicing librarianship on a desert
island not to know at least a few colleagues who hate
Microsoft. In 1991 a glimmer of hope, which has since
become a steady light, began to shine for many who take, if
not technical then at least ideological exception to
Microsoft. That light, called Linux, is now all the rage in
computer and technical-oriented publications. Unhappily,
Linux's greaest strength is also its greatest weakness. It will
fail precisely because it does not have the one characteristic
that causes so many to hate Microsoft Windows: a huge
corporation backing it up.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Opinion
82
Library Hi Tech
Volume 18 .Number 1 .2000 .pp. 82±84
#MCB University Press .ISSN 0737-8831
To continue reading
Request your trial