The Software Adoption Spectrum

I'm sure many have seen so-called "political spectrum diagrams" like this:

Libertarians in particular have used such diagrams to make clear their distinction in the American political spectrum between liberalism and classic conservatism.  A particularly commonly cited example is the Nolan Chart, devised by American Libertarian Party founding member David Nolan.  another good example was created early in his academic career by science fiction author (and, yes, libertarian...it sort of goes w/the territory) Jerry Pournelle.

These diagrams are useful in that they serve to dispel the myth that political orientation and issues map solely to a linear spectrum of "right vs. left".  They also look cool.


It occurred to me recently that a similar spectrum diagram could be used to map the relative advantages/disadvantages of various desktop operating system solutions.  After giving the matter some thought, this is what I came up with:

My "Software Adoption Spectrum" chart maps a little differently, in that it takes four specific criteria or metrics for evaluating desktop solutions, and ranks them from 1 to 5.  A "perfect" solution that ranked at the top of the scale for all four criteria would map out as a circle as large as the spectrum grid itself.  A completely flawed solution that failed all four criteria would be a dimensionless point in the middle of the grid.

Where this is potentially useful is determining whether or not a particular solution makes sense for a particular user.  Even though the effort required to switch, for example, from Windows to Linux is greatly exaggerated there's still some effort involved.  This chart is a tool to determine if the effort is warranted or not.  I'll come back to the chart in a bit, but first I'd like to look at the four criteria/metrics and rank each of the main Desktop OS solutions--Windows, Mac OS, & Linux-- in each case.

Control

Control is just that--the degree to which your computer can be made to do what you want it to do, the way you want to do it.  One of the principal attractions of desktop Linux, particularly to the technically inclined, is that control over your personal computer is limited solely by your own knowledge and expertise.  Given time, expertise, and the willingness to do so, you can essentially build a working Linux desktop system from the kernel up.

But even lacking that level of commitment, you can make fundamental decisions about how your system operates and how you interface with it that neither Windows or Mac OS permit.  A Linux desktop user can pick between file system managers, desktop shells, office packages, and much more.  Windows has, at various times in the past, offered some options for customizing individual systems.  Mac OS started out very rigidly controlled and has since become flexible on minor issues. My personal ranking of Windows, Mac, & Linux on the issue of "control" is as follows:

OS	Rank
Linux	5
Windows	2
Mac OS	1

Security

Security is the measure of how likely your system is to be hacked or compromised.  Although Windows has improved in this area, it continues to be the most problematic of the three main desktop OS solutions.  Mac OS continues to be more secure, although the recent "Flashback" exploit has proven this to be a relative measure.

Desktop Linux continues to be, by a large margin, the most secure desktop OS solution available.  While both current versions of Mac OS and Linux share a UNIX-derived secured architecture heritage, the open nature of Linux ensures that security issues become widespread knowledge as soon as they occur, and thus wind up being fixed.  The Flashback exploit that recently afflicted Mac OS was, to a certain degree, a self-inflicted wound brought about by Apple's insistence on centralized corporate control over patches to community-maintained software (in this case, Java).  On the issue of security, I rank the major OS products like this:

OS	Rank
Linux	5
Mac OS	4
Windows	2

Convenience

Convenience is the measure of how easily you can use a given Desktop OS in the first place, as well as a measure of how easily you can collaborate and share data with other users.  Windows ranks at the top for this metric, by virtue of its sheer ubiquity.  If you bought a personal computer with the desktop pre-loaded, the odds are better than 90% it came out of the shipping crate running some variation or other of Windows.  If you need to share documents with other users, the odds are probably closer to 95-99% that their first preference is going to be a document created in Microsoft Office--and again, your computer came out of the crate with an evaluation copy of Office pre-loaded, just like the evaluation copy of anti-virus software, both of which you or your employer wound up shelling out additional cash to keep running.

This being said, Windows does not rank as highly in advance of its competitors as you might think.  Office is available for Mac OS, of course, albeit w/stripped down functionality.  If you happen to have legally licensed copies of Windows and Office, you can easily set up a stripped down virtual PC running office on your vastly more secure Linux desktop machine.  You can also produce files that can be read in MS Office in any of several Open Source office suites (again, w/stripped down functionality).  You can also just share files via Google Drive.  For the moment, we will leave aside the supposed (and utterly inflated) inconvenience of installing an alternate operating system.  Looking only at interoperability, the convenience rankings work out about like this:

OS	Rank
Windows	5
Mac OS	3
Linux	2

Privacy

At first glance, "Privacy" would seem to be virtually the same concern as "Security"--it isn't.  Security is the measure of how secure your system is from having either data or applications compromised by hostile third parties.  Privacy is a measure of how secure your pesonal information is from either internal or external prying, either by on-line third parties (including government agencies), other users of the same computer....or the manufacturer of your computer's operating system.

In terms of this metric, Desktop Linux is the clear and indisputable winner.  Both Windows and Mac OS "phone home" varying degrees of information about what you and your computer are doing.  Linux does not.  Every major Desktop Linux distribution offers the opportunity to encrypt the "home" directory containing all of your personal information, protecting it from any incursions, even local ones from other users of the same computer.  All large corporations are susceptible to government coercion (I'm looking at you, Google), but if your means of accessing personal information stored "in the cloud" is potentially compromised in the first place, the odds of losing your privacy is vastly lessened in the first place.  Why this matters is beyond the scope of this article.  Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter is probably wasting their time reading any of this.  In any case, the ranking looks like this:

OS	Rank
Linux	5
Mac OS	2
Windows	1

Results

If we use these ranking metrics to create elliptical domains on the software adoption spectrum chart, it looks something like this:

I've removed the scale number and replaced them w/arrows to make the chart easier to read, but the results otherwise pretty much speaks for themselves.  Microsoft Windows has the smallest of the three domains, weighed heavily toward convenience but falling short in all other measures.  Apple's Mac OS has a larger footprint, almost matching Windows in terms of convenience, but almost completely sharing its drawbacks in terms of security and privacy, and suffering from even greater shortcomings in terms of control.

Unsurprisingly, Desktop Linux has a larger domain on the chart than the two leading commercial OS's put together.  To some extent this reflects my own personal software preferences, but I think that even more it indicates what a poor metric mere market share is for decisions on software adoption and information technology decisions in general.  A great many people use MS Windows on their computers.  A great many people watch "American Idol"... in neither case is the possibility of consuming rubbish precluded.

This chart is no more going to convince anyone to adopt Desktop Linux than the Nolan chart is going to convince someone to join the Libertarian Party.  But, hopefully, either Nolan's chart or mine might provide some useful perspective outside the usual propaganda for anyone weighing their options.  I'm not trying to make converts in any case...I just like writing about this crap.

A word about Tools

Of course I can hardly fail to mention that I created the two "Software Adoption Spectrum" images in the very excellent Open Source drawing program Inkscape, performing final edits in the ever-reliable OSS Photoshop equivalent GIMP.  Both tools are available free of charge for both Linux and Mac OS. Inkscape is also available for Windows... if you're into that sort of thing.

Thoughts on Google/Motorola

Even though this blog is mainly about Desktop Linux, its impossible to ignore the impact of the ongoing migration of information users to mobile devices-- or the potential impact on the entire computing world of Google going into the hardware business.  Also, there is possible model for Google/Motorola going forward from the history of desktop computing that bears consideration.

It is, of course, impossible for an outside party to guess the direction Google intends to take with their new division--but anyone with any familiarity with the history of desktop computing can see an obvious parallel--and potentially beneficial business model--by looking at the relationship between Microsoft and Compaq over most of the 80s and 90s.

A little history...

pretty much where it all started--Apple II

A recap would probably be of use to those of you joining this game in progress.  In the early 80's, Microsoft's fortunes were essentially made by IBM's decision to develop a personal computing platform to compete with the Apple II--but not develop their own operating system.

That opportunity went to a small startup called Microsoft.  Whether or not the MS-DOS operating system was developed or merely stolen  is at this point a matter of little more than academic interest.  Of considerably greater import:  IBM's decision to make their licensing agreement with Microsoft non-exclusive.

As a consequence of this decision, Microsoft was as free to distribute their desktop operating system to hardware vendors then as Google is free to distribute Android to Mobile Phone manufacturers now (although the software itself was hardly free). 

the great-granddaddy...

This encouraged another small start-up venture to create a product that has essentially changed the world.  The Compaq Portable was the first so-called "PC Clone", although it hardly looked much like an IBM PC.  Designed as the first mobile computing device, this suitcase-sized device was basically the great-granddaddy of that smartphone in your pocket.

There were soon many other PC Compatibles on the market, with Compaq itself rapidly following up with it's DeskPro non-portable product.  Soon enough, microprocessor-based computers also diversified into laptops and servers as well.

...and why it matters--the Compaq/Microsoft Model

Where this serves as a model for the future development of Android-powered devices is this:  until their acquisition by Hewlett-Packard in 2002, Compaq continued to produce the "best in class" of DOS/Windows powered desktop computing devices, collaborating closely w/Microsoft in the process.  Dell may have managed to out-compete Compaq in sales volume and price, but there was never any real doubt among knowledgeable users as to which company produced the better computers.

...of this--in more ways than one

OK, back to the current millennium.  Albeit as an owned subsidiary, Motorola can be Android's "Compaq"--one of many companies that produce hardware running the same operating system, but the one routinely acknowledged as the standard setter.  As an Android user, this is the model I would personally like to see.

In order for this to occur, Google has to be serious about maintaining a firewall between their hardware and software divisions.  If mobile device manufacturers come to believe that Motorola has an unfair advantage with Android, they will start looking for another OS solution--possibly the now open-sourced Web OS.  Fear of such anti-competitive behavior has much to do with China's stipulation in agreeing to the merger that Android must remain an open platform for a minimum of five years.

An example that Google should not follow is the fairly porous "firewall" that continues to  exist between Microsoft's Windows and Office divisions, which only exists because (a) Microsoft's de facto monopoly status in the corporate/enterprise software market lets them get away with it, and (b) you can pretty much do anything you want with closed-source commercial software.

this sucks...stop doing it

Motorola as a best of breed Android device manufacturer can also serve as the remedy to the single biggest problem Android faces as an OS platform.  While the problem of "fragmentation" is greatly overstated by Apple fan-boys (who, let's face it, like being told what to do w/their hardware), it's still an issue, and an inevitable one given Android's openness.  In order to differentiate themselves in the market, Android device manufacturers "improve" the Android experience w/irremovable desktop shells and social media widgets.  Motorola has itself been one of the worst offenders.  Motorola Android devices should run Android...period.

almost as bad as Win8, IMHO

How this plays out is going to matter to Desktop Linux users in any case--let's not forget that Android is just a specialized shell on top of Linux.  The vast number of Linux boxes quietly and reliably chugging away in server rooms around the planet ensure that the innovations and improvements will continue to occur at the kernel level, but do nothing to improve the Desktop Linux experience.  Android (and iPhone) mobile devices have already had an enormous impact on the development of Desktop Linux.  Whether you love it or loathe (count me among the latter), it's hard to imagine Ubuntu's Unity even existing, absent the influence of handheld devices on user interfaces over the last few years.

Google has just been handed an enormous opportunity to make good on the years of goodwill and somewhat naive trust they've received from the Open Source software community.  There is at least one time-tested and well-documented way they can do this right.  We are all about to find out how "non-evil"--and smart-- Google really is.

The One Percent Software Solution

(an earlier version of this piece appeared 2012-04-30 on Urban Times)

(pie chart courtesy of Urban Times)

Ninety percent … nine percent … one percent. Although the numbers tend to flex somewhat, the basic breakdown of desktop computer market share has been fairly consistent for most of the last decade:

• For roughly 90% of the planet’s computer-using population, desktop computing and the Windows operating system are synonymous.
• For approximately 9%, the desktop computer solution of choice is the Apple Macintosh.
• The remainder, presently weighing in at around 1%, consists almost entirely of desktop Linux.

Two recently breaking and fairly large-impact technology stories call into question the wisdom of these relative percentages and provide fairly persuasive arguments in favor of what one could call the “one percent solution” of desktop Linux adoption.

On the one hand, there is the news of the impending release of Windows 8, and its promised reinvention of the desktop. On the other hand, just when longtime Windows users might consider switching to Macs over interface issues, there is the news that the Mac platform’s supposed invulnerability to viruses and malware has been conclusively proven false by the “Flashback” exploit – which managed to infect over 600,000 machines before any efforts could be taken to combat it. Desktop Linux, widely derided as the tool of choice of hobbyists and nerds, begins to look considerably more attractive in these circumstances – even more so, once one gets past the misperceptions and calculated disinformation.

A Brief History Of Windows

from this, Windows 1.01...

Let’s start with Windows: The desktop interface pioneered by Xerox, (arguably) perfected by Apple, and deployed to millions by Microsoft, is in the process of being reinvented beyond recognition. The default start-up mode of Microsoft’s soon to be deployed Windows 8 flagship is the most radical shift in user interface philosophy since the debut of Windows 95, possibly the most dramatic shift ever.

No longer will the screen of your computer resemble a virtual desktop. Now it gets to look like a very large Windows SmartPhone. If you have never owned, much less even seen a Windows phone … well, that’s sort of the point here. The last few years have not been kind to the 800 pound gorilla of the software world.

to this, Windows XP...

Even though Microsoft successfully recovered from the disaster that was Windows Vista with the release of Windows 7, the company lost market share and credibility at a very critical time, a time when the paradigm of desktop computing itself is giving way to a mobile-centric world dominated by smartphones and tablets.

In this mobile-centric world, Microsoft’s long-held role as the world’s dominant technology company has been taken by Apple, courtesy of the iPhone and iPad. The role of Windows as the more open and less expense alternative to Apple’s rigidly control hardware and software ecology has been taken by Google’s Android.

Tablet computing now is very much what desktop personal computers were in the 80’s, when Microsoft’s first fortunes were made, as corporate IT departments are being told by senior management (now, as they were then) that they will find a way to support these new devices, whether they like it or not.

From a business standpoint, it is not at all surprising that Microsoft would seek to bolster their eroding market share in key sectors by making their flagship product a tablet OS first and a desktop OS second. It may be a brilliant strategy, or it may be a profound case of “too little, too late”. For those of us who actually use desktop computers, though, the question of Microsoft’s future fortunes as a technology leader pales compared to a more immediate one: “Dude … where’s my desktop?”

to this, Windows 8 – really?

The approved answer is that “there’s an app for that”. That’s right; Microsoft has, not too surprisingly, adopted the Apple/Android notion of an “App Store” as the preferred way to acquire software. If you are determined to remain a Microsoft customer and equally determined to use a keyboard, mouse, and monitor to view information in, well, windows – no problem. Just upgrade to Windows 8, then load the app that emulates your old-school desktop environment. Or not – and this leads us to desktop computing’s second big story of the month.

The (Not so) Virus-free Apple Mactintosh

There is a long and complex history behind the most common alternative to Windows-based desktop computing. The Apple Macintosh’s earliest successes were based on being an appealing alternative for graphic designers, visual artists, and musicians. As primitive as the early Mac interface was, it was light years ahead of the character-based screens and keyboard-centric (PCs did not have mice for a number of years) input of so-called “IBM clone” desktop computers. Later, when the interface gap began to close, Apple retained high levels of brand loyalty among creative content creators by “just working” – and, increasingly, as the Internet became indispensable to desktop computing – by being seen as virus-proof. While the imperviousness of Macintosh computers to malicious code has always been somewhat over-hyped, there’s no doubt that it has been a far more secure platform than Windows … until now, that is. The “Flashback” malware exploit started out as a make-believe installer for Adobe Flash, taking advantage of Apple’s decision to stop supporting that fairly ubiquitous rich media file format.

Macintosh, the viable alternative...or is it?

Flashback later evolved passed the need to masquerade as an installer, as the developers further refined their ability to take advantage of another unique and Mac-specific weakness: Apple’s insistence on taking complete responsibility for managing patches to Java, instead of immediately pushing out patches from the primary development team at Oracle. The Java weakness exploited by Flashback has been a non-issue on both Linux and Windows based desktop computers for months. As a result of Apple’s insistence on doing things their way, at least 600,000 Macintosh desktop computers worldwide can be commandeered into being part of denial of service attacks and have already placed at risk credit card numbers and other sensitive information belonging to the computers’ owners. So, in summary: the preferred desktop solution of some 90% of all computer users is prone to viruses and even more prone to redesign by executive fiat;  the preferred solution of most of the remaining 10% users has significant liabilities of it’s own, and is even more tightly controlled by corporate decision makers. What about the 1% solution?

Desktop Linux

...there's also this (Linux w/XFCE desktop shell)...

Unless you are already a desktop Linux user, most of what you think you know about the operating system is probably false. You’ve probably been told that the software is amateurish and badly coded. You have probably been told than none of your existing applications will run under it, nor can the files created by your current applications be opened.

You’ve probably been told that it’s “too hard” for someone who isn’t a techie or a hobbyist to use, and that you’ll have to type a bunch of arcane commands at a command line prompt in order to do anything useful.

or this (Ubuntu Linux w/Unity Desktop)...

These common perceptions range from containing a kernel of truth to being based on outright and outrageous fabrications. The truth is a little more complex and a great deal more encouraging.

The truth is that the leading desktop Linux distributions (or “distro”, the equivalent to a commercially packaged operating system) are every bit as intuitive and easy to use as current versions of either Windows or Mac OS. Details of how files are organized and how users are managed differ, but to no more significant degree than the differences a Windows PC and a Mac. Application and data incompatibilities range from non-existent to severe, but in either case, they are almost invariably difficulties that have been created to discourage users from defecting to open source software.

or this (Linux w/KDE desktop)--choices, much?

These roadblocks have become increasingly irrelevant as users and their data live less on a local hard drive and more “in the cloud”. For those concerned with having control over their digital lives, much can be said for a “one percent solution” that offers as much as 100% control to those willing to learn how to exercise that control.

Almost all of the problems that Windows and the Macintosh operating system increasing have in common are really just one problem:  the absolute ownership, in both cases, by commercial corporate entities with increasingly little sense of obligation to provide any sort of autonomy or control to the people who increasingly find significant pieces of their lives intrinsically bound to the technologies these corporate entities sell as product.

The Bigger Picture

the "other 1%" personified

Finally, there is a broader consideration here than mere technology. Over the last year, a “one percent” of a somewhat different sort has gotten a lot of attention they would rather not have gotten, as the “Occupy” Movement, among others, have drawn increasing scrutiny to the extraordinary inequality of wealth in this world. He may no longer run Microsoft, but is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Bill Gates is a perfect exemplar of this other “one percent” – or that trusting the people to whom he entrusted an empire – trusting them with our hopes and dreams, our bank statements and our love letters – is perhaps taking trust just a little too far?


In an age when technology has permeated global culture and dependency on digital information systems has become a “given” for increasing numbers of the world’s inhabitants, it is almost a revolutionary act to declare independence from corporate owned and controlled technology platforms. It may very well wind up being a precursor to more substantive revolutionary acts, given the extraordinary level of cooperation between large business entities and governments interested in controlling dissent. It is fundamentally impossible to circumvent the possibility of government-approved spyware in Apple, Microsoft, or even Google’s products. On the other hand, building a spyware-proof Linux distribution requires remarkably little effort … and arguably, such resources already exist.