Linux
My brother is a techie. Maybe even a computer nerd, but I use that term in the most endearing way possible. Whenever I have problems with my Mac, I call him, and invariably he’ll start talking about Linux. Until now, that’s meant very little to me—he talks so quickly that it’s hard to keep up.
I guess I’ve always been somewhat aware of the idea that different operating systems are best suited to different kinds of users. Despite that passive awareness, I was fascinated to read of the sheer computing power of Linux, the industrial uses of it, as well as the ‘open’ origins of it.
After reading about it, I’m a little bit ashamed that I’ve just stuck to Macs for the past several years. They’re great for the audio applications I use, but there’s not a lot of room to get to know how they work. Using a Mac kind of seems like someone buying a really expensive, racing-oriented automobile, but buying it with an automatic transmission because they can’t drive manual— that is, they’ve got this great machine, but they rely on it to do even the simplest of the mechanical tasks it was built to do.
Given that I’m in an LIS program, I feel a little sad that I’ve missed the boat (up to this point) and failed to familiarize myself with such a customizable and democratic operating system.
Mac OS X
As I said, I use Macs all the time, but I didn’t switch to Macs for the OS. In fact, before I read this article (admittedly a couple times before anything sank in) I hadn’t given much thought to the ‘flash and bang’ of OS X, or even to the underlying functionality of it. These articles were a fine overview (though Singh’s article required a great deal of rereading for me, a person with no computer science background, to comprehend) of the history of Mac OS X. I do, however, wish there was some kind of middle ground between the simplicity of the Wikipedia article and the detail of Singh’s article. In any case, while I still don’t get everything (particularly re: Singh’s article), I think I’m better off than I was before I read them… I think.
Windows
Maybe it’s just me, but I kept picturing a guy in pink Brooks Brothers shorts typing seaside at a resort when I read this article— it came across as little more than a sales pitch. In their own way, each article we read lacked a certain impartiality, but this was over the top. Personally, I found the Wikipedia article on windows to be much more helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows
I enjoyed your car analogy. I would much rather my machines (vehicles or computers) do most of the work for me. With the field that we will be entering, I guess we will have to use computers and these operating systems in a different way than we are used to. Hopefully this class will help us learn how to use computers in different ways that we never truly thought about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the hard-sell of the Windows article - isn't it telling when a Wiki article is a source of balanced info?
ReplyDeleteLinux is fascinating. An open source, customizable system that doesn't have to rely on endless expensive updates - what's not to like. The big question is why don't more libraries adopt this kind of open source system to keep cost down?
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteLike bds46, I also enjoyed your car analogy. Very clever. I don't consider myself the best with tech stuff either, and I always felt like Linux users were part of some elite club doing all these super complicated and cool things on their computers that I could never understand. But your analogy makes sense. After reading the Linux article I also walked away with the impression that it offers users a much more customizable and versatile experience. And it's free! I am almost left wondering why I am still paying for Windows when I could just install a free operating system. Then I remember I don't want to put the effort into learning Linux. But maybe someday...
Thanks for your comments, Everyone!
ReplyDelete@Tracy: I think the question you posed is a great one. After thinking about it a little bit, it seems like it would be a bourdon to the patrons. I'm pretty sure we all go to libraries regularly, but how many of us are comfortable interacting with machines that run Linux? I'm certainly not. Maybe the financial costs of running pay-to-use operating systems like Windows are out weighed by the benefit of patron accessibility/usability? That said, it's a great question, and I'd love to get an authoritative answer.
@ christy and bds46: Hopefully after this class and others we might take in the IT realm, we'll walk away with a better understanding of how to use Linux. I think that would be a great learning outcome! (I'm glad you enjoyed my analogy, too. haha.)
To my understanding, you seem to have an elitist view about Windows, and you have every right to feel that way. At first, you have treated the Mac with some kind of an underdog merit, only to realize Linux appeared to be more deserving of such attention. I have another reason why you should offer Linux the respect it deserves: If you have looked at the history of each system, you will realize that Linux was the original, starting with UNIX. Apple copied off of it and added a few of its own unique twists. Windows was obviously no exception. Of course, there is nothing despicable about this practice. This is how a lot of businesses tend to work. They see what the competition is doing, copy, then improve on them. As long as the people keep demanding for more and something better, the competitors will always have a reason to get at each other, and it also keeps the economy going.
ReplyDeleteJohn and Tracy - I definitely think the comfort level with Linux systems and the work necessary to adopt them are two primary reason libraries don't adopt them. As I read the article it struck me 1) how many libraries themselves may not be comfortable with computer basics like understanding even mainstream operating systems and 2) how many software systems (or segments of integrated library systems) librarians need to use in various segments of their work (cataloging, acquisitions, circulation software - to say nothing of website maintenance and interlibrary loan systems). And much of the time, these systems are supported by the vendors that sell access to them. While there are open source integrated library systems out there, I have trouble imagining a layperson librarian trying to get support from the Linux community who will tell her to "'RTFM' (read the manual)" as our reading indicated. In small libraries or libraries without dedicated technical support, I'd struggle to see how a Linux-based system could be adequately supported. Don't get me wrong, the idea of open source library software is very appealing to me and it would be fantastic if the library field weren't so dependent on a few large companies (III, for instance) to provide us with integrated library systems that are only compatible with mainstream operating systems. I just think we may be a long way off from being able to sustain that in an undervalued and under-supported profession.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of using Linux in libraries, I think it's also worth mentioning that the cost of training librarians to use those systems would probably be greater than the cost of Windows and all its frequent upgrades. Windows is still the most widely used operating system, to the point where most librarians probably have it on their home computers. A completely foreign OS, as Linux is likely to be, would be a big adjustment for anyone... even in our field.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more with the automatic transmission analogy! When I switched to Mac about a year ago that was my biggest frustration while transitioning from Windows. It just felt like I didn't have as much control. I'm told you can find ways to dig below the surface if you take the time to get a little nosy, but I haven't found myself with that kind of time just yet.
ReplyDelete