BBC To Host Multi-OS Debate

Bananatree3 writes "BBC is currently seeking submissions from all you Microsoft Windows, Mac and Linux devotees "in 100 words or less, why you are such a supporter of your chosen operating system and what features you love about it". They will then select one user of each platform to go head to head in a debate that will be part of the BBC's Microsoft Vista launch coverage on January 30th."

Don't apply unless

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Don't appply unless you're 20 something and remotely good looking. The BBC recently knee capped their tech presents to only pretty people who don't seem to care even remotely about tech.

Not to mention I've seen nothing but Second life all over the news tech wise in months.

The winner of the debate will be

[suso]

Whoever appeals to the general public and doesn't alienate themself with overly strong opinions. Someone who recognizes strengths and weaknesses in all platforms and summarizes that, but puts a spin on their own favorite platform.

Re:Don't apply unless

[netpixie]

Which is why they're having to play this game. They have no-one who knows anything so they're trying to get geeks to do their jobs for them, for free.

Re:And don't say...

[mgiuca]

Certainly, "security through minority" is part of it. But you must realise that even if everyone in the world used Linux, it would be far more secure than Windows currently is. (And most of this applies to other non-Windows platforms too).

Linux (and Unix) have a far better security model than Windows. This is mainly because limited accounts have just the right amount of power (and it's configurable, and changeable at the drop of a hat) - so it's perfectly fine to use limited accounts and sudo in to the system when necessary. Windows (XP) has such a shit limited account that nobody can really make any use of it - most programs require admin accounts to play. Thus everyone uses Admin and there is no security. From what I've heard Vista changed this around a bit but limited is still far too restrictive, and there's no "sudo".

Linux also has the sizeable advantage of not having a freaking web browser integrated into its kernel. Furthermore, the web browsers which do run in Linux are not Internet Explorer!

This is just so typical of MS - it would have been far more secure if IE was just another user-level program, like Firefox. But it's such an integral part of Windows - and this is deliberate as a way to dominate the browser market - that any vulnerability in the (highly-vulnerable) browser is a vulnerability in the OS. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest between monopoly and security which goes beyond the simple concept of "security through minority".

(For example, I saw an important Windows security update the other week saying that a vulnerability in IE's vector graphics rendering code could allow an attacker to take control of your computer. If this is possible, what does that say about the entire design of Windows and IE?)

For more examples, Linux doesn't let any program rampantly change the registry, or set itself to run on startup (and that's the main problem with Windows). (In fact for another example, Linux doesn't even have a bloated difficult-to-recover, easy-to-corrupt settings file for all programs). This probably comes back to the fact that Linux users do not normally use root, while Windows users almost always use Admin.

So while there would certainly be a lot more virus and spyware activity in Linux if it had the dominance in the market, it would technically be very difficult to make viruses and spyware run in such a robust security environment. So you still wouldn't get this rampant "normality" of programs which install themselves and slow down your system, eventually bringing it to a standstill. That's a feature of Windows, not simply the "majority" OS.

It's about morality

[linuxdoctor]

For me the issue has always been more about the morality than the technology. Proprietary vs Free/Open Source. Monopoly vs diversity. Most importantly I consider the nature of the people/companies delivering the products. We all know that Microsoft software is incredibly unrealiable, insecure and too big and slow, but even if they were delivering the best software in the world I would never buy or use it if I had the choice. It is because I object to and abhor their business practices.

Microsoft itself has been mired in legal problems almost from its inception. It is probably the most sued company on the planet and it has been convicted of economic crimes in many different countries. They then simply ignore whatever legal judgements against them using their incredible financial clout to challenge whatever the courts rule. They seem to be completely immoral. It is for moral reasons more than anything else that keeps me away from using their software.

Yes, technology is important, but morality is even more important.

Just asking for it....

[PinkyDead]

Ok, so this is probably asking for flame but when you look at the comments on the site there are two consistent patterns:

Either,

"I've always used Windows, never used Linux/OSX - Love Windows, Linux/OSX sucks".

or

"I used to use Windows, switched to Linux/OSX - Love Linux/OSX, Windows sucks".

I know that's what everyone mostly hears anyway and I know there are Windows users out there who can genuinely say, based on proper comparisons, that Windows is best for them - but the uninformed Windows user really sounds pathetic.

And the guy complaining about Apple charging for wireless unlike Microsoft - that's just funny.

don't write off freedom as a selling feature

[yankpop]

It's true that rms may not be the best introduction to linux (or gnu/linux) for the general, non-technical public audience. But there are lots of very eloquent Free Software advocates who can be very persuasive without coming across as gonzo anarchist whack jobs. Regular people are starting to notice DRM, at least when they can't (easily) transfer their iTunes files to another player. Get someone like Eben Moglen in there to talk about MS and Apple working with the entertainment industry to sell us our "culture by the sip", and that will resonate with them.

Get someone from a free documentation project like Project Gutenberg, or the library community, to talk about proprietary formats and the dangers they pose to our ability to access our own data. Maybe not everyone will get it, but I think there would be real value in introducing people to the idea that they can get off the MSOffice upgrade treadmill.

I know rms' stubborn adherence to sticking GNU in front of Linux rankles a lot of people. But this is exactly why it is so important. If we want to argue in favour of Linux only in terms of features (more stable, excellent browsers, spreadsheet needs work, wordprocessors ok, multimedia tricky etc.) then we throw away our most compelling strengths. If you just want to replace Windows, Linux is ok, but if Windows is the standard we measure by we will always come out behind. But if you want to replace the proprietary paradigm that Windows represents, GNU/Linux offers more than enough to make up for the gap between OOCalc and Excel.

Like any social movement, you have to present your message with tact. But that doesn't mean you should abandon that message all together.

yp.

Re:Scary..

[EraserMouseMan]

I think it just says that those Windows users are perfectly content. People who use it like it and don't see any reason to switch. If somebody owned a certain make of car and liked it so much they refused to buy any other car, does that automatically "defeat their arguemnet" that it's a great car?

If people were so fed up with Windows, Apple wouldn't have to run commercials to try to make windows users feel uncool. Linux zealots wouldn't have to be zealots. There wouldn't need to be endless forking of distros trying to improve on something all the others didn't address.

No one operating system is best

[Peter Cooper]

You should always use the best tools for the job, whatever you're doing. People's impressions of what tool does the best job varies, but I think anyone who's a zealot for any ONE system is a moron. The smartest people I know use whatever is needed in the circumstances.. for example, Windows or a console for gaming, OS X for desktop, Linux for servers (or Ubuntu for desktop, etc).

So this 'debate' will really be three or more zealots sitting in a circle flinging mud at each other, screaming that one operating system is the best, rather than actually admitting they all have their niche. This isn't just a BBC trait, but one of the whole media.

Fair Debate? Doubtful...

[Spicerun]

Since this is for a 'MS Vista launch', probably funded by some Windows interest somewhere, what makes anyone but Windows advocates think that this will be a fair debate? Seems to me that MS Vista will be the winner despite the debate or presentation. Are you guys really that naive to believe that MS Vista isn't already the winner in this particular debate presentation?

Re:Don't apply unless

[iangoldby]

The problem is that the BBC (like any broadcaster) will pick the three people who they think will be the most entertaining.

In this context, entertaining means controversial, argumentative, polarised in opinions, someone viewers can feel superior to.

It does not mean informed, measured, reasonable, articulate, persuasive, ...

Re:Don't apply unless

[mike2R]

The last 3 articles on technology I read on the BBC (years ago) were either riddled with misuse of certain words, left out some important and key details, misstated the implications of the story, and/or came up with a very strange and subjective conclusion that came out of the blue.

Pretty much all news is like this - you just know enough about this area to be able to spot it.

On BBC?

[naChoZ]

Does this mean that each debater's point will be punctuated with Benny Hill skits and music? That would totally make it worth watching.

Re:The BBC should look to support Mac / Linux more

[SiChemist]

As a Linux user, I would say that using iTunes to distribute content is just vendor lock-in of a different nature.

Re:Scary..

[nine-times]

If you've been in the industry for more than 10 years...[snip]

and the fact that "It Just Works"(tm).

I don't know what industry is "the industry", but you must not be in any tech-support related industry if you think Windows "Just Works". Sure, it "Mostly Works, assuming you are using very standard software and well-supported hardware, and you aren't trying to do anything very clever." Then there are the times where it "Just doesn't work, randomly, and not a living person on earth can figure out why but some MCSE will give you a line about how 'the RAM must be bad'."