The REAL Reason We Use Linux

Vlad Dolezal writes "We tell people we use Linux because it's secure. Or because it's free, because it's customizable, because it has excellent community support... But all of that is just marketing BS. We tell that to non-Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason." The answer to his question probably won't surprise you.

Comments

It would be good...

[Port1080]

If the editors didn't strip away the story link from the article when they posted it, yes?

Re:It would be good...

[Peeet]

Thank you for posting that. For those of us too lazy to even click on the link, the reason is "Because it is fun." Good afternoon, good evening and goodnight.

Re:It would be good...

[bondsbw]

For those of us too lazy to even click on the link, the reason is "Because it is fun."

It really makes sense. Don't get me wrong, having the freedom to tinker with the kernel is nice. Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. But the majority of users don't actually use Linux (or any computer OS) for those purposes... they aren't a means to an end.

I personally use Linux third to Mac OS X (at home), which is second to Windows (at work). I like understanding the different systems, because that's how I can keep up with the extreme pace of the software development industry. But I almost never use Windows at home, and here's why: competition.

I want Microsoft to feel the pressure of competition. They have been feeling it for the past couple of years. And what do you know, it works! Firefox has caused the IE team to push towards open standards compliance. Love or hate OOXML, it's easier to work with than older formats (due to pressure from OOo and iWork). And there are many reasons to hate Vista, but it is more secure than older versions of Windows, it has much more advanced compositing, and a host of new things that are good for the future, even if they hurt now.

So, I care more about the future of the computing world... the future of my career, a future of openness by major corporations that enables someone little like me to start and run a business. And I'm doing my part to make sure that happens.

Re:It would be good...

[Codifex Maximus]

I agree.

I use Linux because:
It's powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible... in short, everything that Windows is not.

The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop and I run some windows only games at home.

Down with proprietary lock-in mechanisms!

Re:It would be good...

[x_MeRLiN_x]

In a lot of people's experience (including mine), it's reality. Linux does have it's professional uses, but using it as a workstation is not viable for most people. Most people who pass on the opportunity to use Microsoft's software usually have an irrational hate for Microsoft itself and put that above what would be the best tool for the job.

Maybe Microsoft does use stooges to spread their marketing online, but I doubt they'd bother to do it on Slashdot (it's a lost cause), and even if they did, so what? You have no evidence, so stop throwing around accusations because someone has a difference of opinion.

Re:It would be good...

[AGMW]

I am not saying XP is simple but at least it has ease of use on its side.

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you there. I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side, but it is a myth that Windows is somehow inherently easier to use!

Re:It would be good...

[Almahtar]

I not only have a real job but own a company, and I use Linux on the desktop because it saves me time and money. I don't have to have a seperate protocol for sharing files and remote desktop. I can drag a remote file onto an editor and save from the editor, and it'll save the remote copy. I have N desktops to spread my work over, and I'm a very visual person: I need that space.

My experience with windows is that it constantly needs attention, and I don't want to waste my time on that. The only reason Windows would be lower maintenance is Windows-only 3rd party applications, and for a software firm I don't need those. Any time someone thinks they need .NET work done within two questions I have it boiled down to "someone told me it had to be done in .NET and I believed them."

Re:It would be good...

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Irrational? Hardly!

The fact that I use Linux more or less exclusively makes people a lot less likely to ask for support on MS/MacOS related problems. Maybe that makes me asocial, but so what? Before I gave up on MS, my time did not belong to me, whereas now it does. If the phone calls in the middle of the night, it won't be one of my brothers having trouble installing a new sound card anymore. It'll be something that does actually matter in the middle of the night!

So I use other software that does the stuff I need, and my OS is also my hobby, and I'm not in the unpaid computer support business anymore - what's irrational about that?

Re:It would be good...

[HockeyPuck]

Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. I don't agree with this. I would bet that very few users go through ANY source code at all. Editing .conf files or running 'make xconfig' not constitute 'going through the source code'. And those that do, probably wouldn't be able to know what's going on.

Let's say you're running a webserver (apache) which connects to a postgre database. Do you check all the code in apache+mods? filesystems? DNS? NIS? FibreChannel drivers?

How is trusting Redhat/Debian/Suse to make sure their distribution is safe any different from trusting AIX or HPUX? I don't want to have to be the one at my company that audit's 1m lines of linux code to 'make sure it's safe' we just trust our distribution.

Re:It would be good...

[Technician]

My favorite is not on the list.

Instead of being loaded with nagware, crippleware, and crapware that needs removed, it comes loaded with fully functional applications. It doesn't require paid upgrades to burn ISO's, use AV, create music CD's, use an office suite, etc.

Re:It would be good...

[tomhudson]

I hate Microsoft. I openly admit it. I have earned the right to hate them, having put up with their crap products, misleading advertising, outright lies, etc. In other words, I'm a formerMS-DOS and Win3x / Win9x user.

I use only linux and bsd professionally, 5 days aw week. Nothing from Microsoft. At home, its the same story.

My sister has an iMac. After a decade of futzing around with Microsoft's failures, she hates Microsoft as well.

As to why I use linux, it's not "because it's fun":

1. I have work to do, and I can do it faster, and more dependably, under linux than under Windows;
2. It's cheaper, both in initial price, hardware requirements, and ongoing costs, than Windows;
3. I don't like vendor lock-in;
4. I value my sanity more than any "need" to add to Bill Gate's wallet;

Since switching, I've saved tens of thousands of dollars on software, I also don't have to be as aggressive in updating hardware, for additional savings.

So yes, I hate Microsoft, and I despise Windows, and my use of linux has nothing to do with any "fun" factor. Continuing to use Windows just doesn't make sense, and the only thing keeping many users on it is inertia. Force them to switch to something else, show them the pretty icons, and they get used to it in a day. Then it grows on them. Sort of like dual monitors - so many people resist the idea, but force it on them, then try to take the second screen back a week later ... they'll do an Achmed the Dead Terrorist on you - "Silence - I KILL YOU!".

Re:It would be good...

[gobbo]

If the phone calls in the middle of the night, it won't be one of my brothers having trouble installing a new sound card anymore. It'll be something that does actually matter in the middle of the night!

Lucky you. I get phone calls late at night from my little brother to get help with troubleshooting ALSA and codecs and obscure SiS driver problems with different linux distros. Cheap brat should just buy a decent used machine for a change instead of dumpster diving for hardware. I sometimes regret turning him on to OSS.

And I still get calls from windows users, because I "know computers."

Re:It would be good...

[Kent Recal]

DOS != unix.

You're not re-learning DOS when you switch to linux.
Instead you're learning a true unix shell. Which gives you
access to a large library of insanely powerful, time-tested
commands that can be combined in an uncountable number of ways.

Those not only enable you to solve a large number of problems
(actually whole categories of problems) quicker and more reliable
than any GUI could but they further enable you to automate your
solutions for re-use.

What may seem "inconvenient" at first is your first
glimpse at the power of UNIX.

Don't discard it so quickly because it's only white text on
a black screen and "looks like DOS". It's not DOS.

Re:It would be good...

[JoshJ]

The idea is not that you check every single line of code ran by your company. The idea is that SOMEONE does. There's plenty of people reviewing the Linux kernel. There's plenty of people reviewing X. There's plenty reviewing GNOME (or KDE). There's plenty of people reviewing Apache, Postgres, etc. So you hire someone to write some webapp, that's the only code you *have* to review- because all the other stuff is reviewed by someone. But if it's entirely closed, you would have to trust the company. This is the case with Microsoft. They can do whatever they want because nobody can review it.

Re:It would be good...

[ozmanjusri]

The problem with your stance is your emotionally charged world view concerning something that is intrinsically neutral

A service provider who consistently provides poor service, overcharges, commits fraud, and lies about competitors is not intrinsically neutral.

Re:It would be good...

[Anonymous Drunkard]

Our house has been running Ubuntu since Breezy. My children (now aged 9, 12, and 15) found it very easy to adjust to; in fact, my then-13 year old was bragging to her classmates about how Linux rocked. She is a heavy OpenOffice user, being saddled with homework and all, but she also uses it for her music, photos, and other media apps.

My two younger children don't really use word processing yet - they spend their time on various interactive sites (Gaia, Club Penguin), and yet they are fully capable of customizing their environment. My 9 year old worked out how to create gradations and such in his background, and is teaching his older sister.

The kids also appreciate the fact (as do I) that if, for whatever reason, they need to be migrated to a different computer, all we have to do is copy their $HOME directory and recopy it onto their new disk. Presto, all their email, bookmarks, chat logs, documents, and custom settings are instantly there.

My oldest is amused because she can recharge her cell phone (Motorola Razr V3) by plugging into the USB port; likewise, all her friends' digital cameras are instantly found and their photos made available simply by plugging them in, and her MP3 device has similar instant functionality. Her windows friends all have to find (or buy) and install special software just for this.

Our experience, especially with our children, is that Ubuntu is easy for a child of relatively average intelligence to grasp and use. Plus, if they only have user accounts without root privileges, those who are curious (and please show me a child who is NOT curious) can customize their environment to their hearts content without screwing any settings up.

It's been about two years of solid win in this house.

Re:It would be good...

[Kent Recal]

Well, I only came in to clear up your misconception about DOS being anything like a unix shell.
Not to draw you over to linux or anything.

The whole hardware-support story is an old hat. It basically boils down to: If you want to use linux
then buy hardware that's supported by linux. Which, for the majority of peripherals, is not hard anymore.
Google for "$name_of_my_gadget linux" in advance and in 90% of cases you'll learn that it runs without
problems.

Furthermore it's also an old hat that the driver-situation in windows is not flawless either.
Yes, you get a pretty GUI, but if the pretty installer fails then you're SOL.
Even if you wanted to tinker - there is no ndiswrapper to try, no kernel options to tweak
and usually no alternative source for drivers either. If your old $whatever is not supported
in vista - tough luck. Not even an uber-user can help you there.

So, finally, to each it's own. You prefer the GUI, so stick with what you like.
But don't label yourself as the prototype of an "end-user". I know quite a few "end-users",
especially of the technically clueless type, who have quite happily switched to linux
recently. If really all you want to do is browse the web and do a bit of office work (without
touching a command line) then an ubuntu box can serve you well and in fact *save* you quite
a bit of trouble with regard to "tweaking the personal firewall", re-installing after trojan infections,
re-installing after a windows update screwed up your drivers or re-installing after your office
began to behave wierd for no obvious reason.

The answer won't surprise anyone!

[7-Vodka]

Here it is in all it's glory:

Re:The answer won't surprise anyone!

[squarefish]

The REAL reason we use Linux

[thewiz]

Penguins?

Re:The REAL reason we use Linux

[dattaway]

I never needed a reason to use Linux, but its hard to argue with penguins!

Re:The REAL reason we use Linux

[Jesus_666]

It's really easy to argue with penguins, actually. Just take an anti-herring stance.

We use it because...

[budword]

We use it because it's ours.

David

And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Port1080]

...in many circles, anyway. I have no desire to tinker. I want it to "just work". I tried using Linux multiple times from when I downloaded my first copy of Red Hat in 1999 or so, through some attempts with Mandrake and SuSe. None of them "just worked" - driver support was missing, programs didn't work as expected (or work at all), etc, etc. So I stuck with Windows. Finally, Ubuntu came about and I saw that someone was taking seriously the notion that people wanted things to "just work" (I would say that Red Hat and SuSe didn't take that notion seriously until recently - they were making OS's for business use, after all, so a trained IT tech would be setting things up and maintaining them - they didn't have to "just work" for your average user, because someone else would be taking care of most of the tough stuff). Even so, the early versions of Ubuntu weren't the best (and there are still many problems with wireless support - ndiswrapper is a poor substitute for a native driver, sad to say). The 6.x series was almost there, and finally I feel like the 7.x series is something I can actually use full time (and indeed I am - I built a new system last November and for the first time didn't bother to install Windows on it). I didn't install Ubuntu because it was fun to tinker. I installed it because it was free, easy to use, and not crippled by DRM. That's it, plain and simple.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[armanox]

It's not the distribution's fault that the manufacturer won't make Linux drivers.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Hatta]

I'm sure/I hope if I'm missing something it will be pointed out, but personally I did not find Ubuntu that easy to use.

Whenever someone invents an idiot-proof system, someone invents a better idiot.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Eivind]

Me too, at work anyway.

Which is why it irks me to no end, when I log in as administrator on a Windows-box and tell it to please terminate a given process, and it does not. Not until you've told it to do that three times and waited for minutes anyway.

Or I tell it to delete a file, and it tells me I "can't" do that, because the file is "open". I don't want to fiddle with that shit. I know what I'm doing, I want the OS to get out of my way and just bloody do what I tell it to do. Which Windows won't.

And yes, I am -fully- aware of the WHY. The underlying reason is a weakness in the "file" metaphor used on Windows, but that's not much of an excuse. (on unix a "file" is a chunk of bytes with zero-or-more names. On Windows a "file" is a chunk of bytes with -precisely- ONE name) (okay, that ignores character and block-devices and fifos, but don't be nitpicky here...)

I want to be able to install a update, yet NOT reboot anytime during the next 4 hours. Yes, I'm fully aware that program FOO may then fail to work properly until I finally do reboot, I STILL don't want to reboot now. And I'd much prefer if the OS could refrain from nagging every 15 minutes about that....

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[wellingj]

In Synaptic Package Manager there is a 'Search' Option.
It doesn't get much easier than that, unless you want the computer to read your mind.

I do not know about the rest of you l33t people

[zappepcs]

but I use Linux because I don't want to pay MS for anything. ever. again.

Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.

Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.

Re:I do not know about the rest of you l33t people

[zappepcs]

I did not say I want to steal MS stuff, or pay nothing. What I said was I don't want to pay MS prices for DRM and spyware infected software that is no better than freely available software. No, I do not push the limits of what software can do for the most part, so on the edges of functionality of F/OSS software where others find problems, I generally never get there, and almost never see any functionality issues. You should note that the vast majority of MS users never hit the bleeding edge of functionality of those products either. I still see powerpoint files attached to emails that have fewer than 25 words on them. No point in embedding data in the email like MS allows, or linking to the conference data... no, just put it all in a huge-ass ppt file and let everyone open that.. because sure, EVERYONE is using powerpoint, right?

I do not hate MS's guts. I hate their business practices of embrace and extinguish, of lock-in, of forced upgrades, of slack security updates, of ... well, the point is that having to pay for that kind of service just seems FUCKING STUPID. If I have to suffer some problems along the way, I'd rather use some software that is just as good and costs me way less. All the contributions I make are IMO worth what I paid. That is to say that I donate based on the value to me of the product rather than some arbitrary value based on the MS yacht fund requirements. - that might have been harsh, but it's not too far off. No matter how you compare them F/OSS software stacks up nicely against anything else when value/cost is a heavily weighting factor.

It does what it needs to do

[GreatDrok]

I don't know about all this fun stuff. I use Linux because it does the job I need it to. More to the point though, when something goes wrong it is pretty simple to track it down and fix it. Heck, I have repaired systems that have become seriously mangled where with Windows you wouldn't have much choice but to start over.

I switched to Linux from UNIX (Irix at that time) and did so because that is the environment I need for my work. These days I use OS X for much the same reason. Whatever MS does to Windows, it is still a very closed system. If closed floats your boat, fine, but don't try and say that closed gets you a more reliable and cost effective system.

Actually, UNIX is fun I guess ;-)

He's right

[cerberusss]

FTFA:

It's fun to use the command line.

He's totally right on this, in my opinion. I get a real kick out of using my shell (bash). I've got a bunch of options in my .bashrc that make it much easier to use for me:

• Automatic logout when left alone for more than x minutes
• Colored prompt, allowing me to spot the output between previous and next command fast
• Aliases like 'printcode' that calls a2ps with all the right options
• Fancy PROMPT_COMMAND variable that sets the xterm title just right
• Limiting the history
• Ignoring things like 'ls -l' in the history
• Expanding the tab-completion possibilities

And lots of more options, the list gets too long already :-)

Because it works!

[spaceyhackerlady]

I find Linux to be a congenial programming environment, where I can noodle together scripts and programs to get things done. It provides lots of sharp tools that make things easy.

It doesn't get in the way like certain other OSs I could mention. It doesn't squander system resources on non-essentials (ditto), and I can tune it to allocate resources where they are needed. Oh, and did I mention? It just plain works!

...laura

Command line???

[www.sorehands.com]

Most people can't even spell command line. While I was in China, I was fixing a friend's computer and her boyfriend said, "You must be a computer expert, you are using a dos window." He didn't even say DOS in upper case.

You know you are a real programmer when you speak in UPPER CASE. http://www.sorehands.com/humor/real1.htm

In related news

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Girls keep telling Linux users that they (Linux users) are nice, caring and entertaining, but that they (girls) have no free time at the moment. But all of that is just a marketing BS told to Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason for girls using non-Linux users.

Re:In related news

[Ethanol-fueled]

I accepted your challenge and went down the the local Starbuck's twice today: One with my Linux laptop(with a penguin sticker on it), and once with my Mac laptop. When I was there with my Linux laptop, I was hit on by all kinds of women saying, " aww, how cute, it's got a penguin on it. Then I fired up compiz and received plenty of ooohs and ahhhhs from the crowd. I returned a couple hours later with my Mac laptop and I was hit on...by scores of well-dressed, effeminate men. Being a heterosexual male, I promptly sold my Mac laptop and stuck with the angular, responsive laptop with a sense of humor.

In yo face!

'All powerful' root?

[IBBoard]

Ever tried stopping a process in Windows and the OS wouldn't let you?

Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root".

I think a more accurate list (from my view at least) is:

1. Linux gives you complete control
2. Linux is free (as-in-speech)
3. Software install is easy
4. It has less potential problems with web dev for a Linux server
5. No DRM! You own the hardware, you own the software, you own the data.

Oh, and the penguin is more cuddly than some flag or some annoying animated critter ;)

It's the people, stupid.

[rubenerd]

Granted I'm a FreeBSD guy [insert comment about why BSD is dying here] but I think the arguments are basically the same as for Linux. I agree with most of TFA, but I enjoy using FreeBSD and other Free software for another important reason: the people.

Despite the fact commercial products can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, their technical support services nearly always suck: they're slow, obscure, vague, answered by people who don't know what they're talking about or are reading off a sheet of paper that assumes everyone they reply to is an idiot, or at the very worst you don't get an answer at all. Just speaking from my own experience.

Now granted there are plenty of jackarses on forums for Free software and the like, but on the whole I can post a question and generally get a useful response and in a fraction of the time. Plus if it's for a particular piece of ported software, generally I can either contact the port maintainer or the creator of the software directly and get helpful answers. I've NEVER got that from commercial software vendors. That's what makes the difference.

Why I use linux:

[grasshoppa]

I use linux because, in certain instances, it's the right tool for the job. I'm busy. I don't have time to play around tinkering anymore ( and yes, I do have grey hair, thank you very much ). So when I want something that'll "just work", I analyse all the tools at my disposal, and choose one based on merits.

Quite often that's linux. Sometimes that's windows. But regardless of the choice, the end result is hopefully the same: A system that just works without me needing to constantly hold it's hand.

Well there's a reason I can take to my boss

[syousef]

Boss: Why should we switch to Linux?
Me: Because it's fun!
Boss: Thanks for your input. You can go now.
Boss (to the secretary): Please get me HR on the line. I think we're over-paying some staff.

This is possibly the lamest story I've ever seen on slashdot. The article then lists THREE other reasons - plural with an 's' - (not one) why the author uses Linux. By 'we' I think he's referring to himself, his blow up sex doll and his imaginary friends.

Because it's fun indeed

[websitebroke]

One of my favorite things about Free software in general is that the programmers and the people who write the documentation don't feel like they have to keep this "professional" face on their work.

For example, you'll never find George W. Bush's face for the "unsharp filter" icon (Cinelerra) in a closed source program. That would indicate that the programmers were having fun, and that obviously makes the program of lower quality.

Personally, I think that if the developers are having fun, and are in a positive frame of mind, they'll make better software.

Reason #2

[PPH]

I can relate to this. Linux not being widely used.

Some years ago, I was in engineering and involved in 'fixing' a system built by our IT department. They had sunk about $300 million into a system that was just barely functional. We (engineering and manufacturing) were supposed to supply them with appropriate requirements so IT could start over (yet again) building another piece of crap.

We convinced our management that we should hammer out requirements by building a functioning prototype. As our IT department maintained a stranglehold over all things Windows, we chose to build on Linux and a few surplus Sun desktops with Perl, Apache and a few COTS packages. Keeping the IT dept. and Windows out of the picture allowed us to get a working demo of the shop floor interface up and running within a few weeks and half a dozen people completed the 'prototype' in about 6 months.

When our system was up and running, it actually outperformed the one running on the Windows backend. When management saw it, they just gave the order to pull the plug on the legacy Windows system and place ours into production.

Part of my job after the project completion (about 10% of my time) was to administrate 6 hosts that made up the new system. When our IT department made a pitch to management to take over administration, they quoted an recurring maintenance cost for their proposal of $50,000 per host per month. Management fell off their chairs laughing and I suggested that they pay me 6 * $50,000 per month.

Bullshit

[poliopteragriseoapte]

I call bullshit. That may be the reason he, and many slashdotters, use linux, but I don't think it is universal at all.

For instance, the main reason why I and many of my friends, relatives, etc, all use linux, is that it is plain simpler to install than Windows. Sure, Windows comes with many (most) PCs, so that's great. Once the HDs bit the dust, or Windows slows down to a crawl, or the PC is infected with viruses, or [insert any reason] and you need to rebuild a PC, it is infinitely faster and less painful to install Ubuntu than Windows -- especially now that only Vista is mostly available, and many peripherals don't work with it.

Windows used to have the advantage, but no more. I installed Ubuntu for relatives, friends, including people whose knowledge of CS is zero and they hate the command line. It is plain simpler. Takes about 20 minutes, then all just works -- printers, internet, openoffice, firefox -- most people's needs, if you take out gamers and the like (and they are a small percentage of real users) are pretty basic, really.

It is actually amazing how much the balance between Linux and Windows changed in the last couple of years -- in part thanks to Ubuntu, and in part thanks to Vista.

The only thing is...

[einhverfr]

There is more to "it isn't widely used" than is generally pointed out. This isn't just a matter of elitism, but the fact that if you want something to be good at certain things, it will be less good at others. Linux is great for a lot of things because it doesn't fall to the lowest common denominator. If it did, we would need to use a distro that didn't, that was more specialized for what we need it to do.

Imagine Linux with all the tools which say "you should never have to use the command line." Such a distro would be pretty bad for most of us who currently use Linux because a command-line is fundamentally superior to a GUI for a lot of tasks we use it for. I always have at least three terminal windows open in addition to any GUI apps.

Similarly, I find that OS X (which is almost but not entirely unlike BSD) has a number of shortcomigns that make Linux and BSD better choices for me. My sister uses OSX however because it matches what she needs.

Re:Installation

[Hatta]

Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny.

That's ridiculous. Sure you might have to spend 15 minutes setting up mp3 support or nvidia drivers the first time you install a system, but once you do it works and it works well. There are many basic desktop features that windows just doesn't support at all. Off the top of my head, virtual desktops, window shading, focus following mouse, keep on top, package management. Shit, you can't even have 2 users logged on at the same time if you're on a domain. These are basic features that I rely on every day that just don't work on windows.

Sure there are kludgy work arounds for windows: MSVDM crashes my software. VirtuaWin is incompatible with X-mouse, X-mouse doesn't work with photoshop. I use windows every day at work, and linux every home, and the linux desktop far outclasses windows in every way that matters. At least linux has an excuse, there are legal issues that prevent implementation of a few features. Windows has no excuse at all.