Why is Linux such a strong contender?

What is it that gives GNU/Linux its real strength when compared to other operating systems? GNU/Linux has many advantages, some can be quite subtle, but others can be measured directly in terms of financial benefit. Rolling out new servers is never an easy process, but my experience of GNU/Linux is that it is no more and no less difficult with GNU/Linux than with any other major server operating system.

GNU/Linux isn't just an operating system; it's a suite of packages made up of the Linux kernel and many tools belonging to the GNU project, plus a great many other applications and packages, many of which are freely available as Open Source projects. The development basis upon which GNU/Linux is founded makes it a very robust and secure system. As with other operating systems, it is possible to leave the computer open to attack if not configured correctly, or if packages are installed which have an unknown or disreputable source. This is where Open Source really scores points, though. It is much easier to check for vulnerabilities in the the packages you're installing if you have the source code available. And even when installing ready-built binary programs from the published repositories of the major distributions, the origins of the program, and the source code can be traced and investigated as necessary. The value of this is particularly important with systems where high security is a paramount requirement.

Lets take a look at some of the real strengths of both the operating system and of the development model (Open Source) that support it:

Peer Review. The source code for the operating system itself and most of the packages is readily available. This means it has already been seen and reviewed by significantly more eyes than closed-source software manufacturers can muster. This gives it a leading edge in security. Let's face it, if your average computer hacker has the source code available for all the procedures and methods that sit in the security layers of the operating system and still struggles to break in then the software has a distinct edge over its rivals. As the code can be read and examined by experts the world over, bugs will be found earlier, leading to fewer security holes hanging around that can lead to a compromised system. Security issues crop up all the time for all operating systems; the Open Source model brings more advantages here too - not only are those using it relying on security updates, but if such security is important to them they can analyse security issues and create a fix themselves. The GNU GPL (the licensing framework that surrounds the Linux Kernel and many of the application) encourages this. This could never happen with closed source software.

Community Endeavour. The motivation for producing good software in the commercial world is normally driven by the profit line. This generates pressure to release a software product on its promised delivery date; company futures can hang on such things. And the profit motive can easily force a company to move its developers onto other tasks immediately after such a release, leaving the first hurried release incomplete. If you take away profit as the main goal in producing the software, it removes pressure to release unfinished or weak software; the developer has the luxury of making it right. Of course, in the Open Source world, developers are encouraged to release their software frequently and early - such exposure helps find any problems in the software; but frequent releases should see such problems resolved quickly, too. And as software is unfettered by the need to make a profit, it has been developed to fulfil a genuine requirement. Quite often the requirement stems from something the developer needs for their own use, which is a powerful motivation to make the software right.

Freedom of Choice. Many people accept the defaults; many people allow themselves to be ushered into using whatever tools come with their default installation of their default operating system. But what if your operating system doesn't come with the tools you need? Or what if the tools are inadequate for your purposes, or clearly crippled in a way that twists your arm into paying for more tools? What if it didn't come with a word processor, spreadsheet, development environment, video editor, or even a secure email client? Well you'd probably end up buying those tools, wouldn't you? But what if those tools not only came with your operating system, but there was a choice of them, wouldn't that be better? It would; and it is better. Significantly better. It could certainly save a lot of money, but most importantly it would free the user from the yoke of any particular company's tools; they would no longer have to do everything the way one software company has deemed best. Of course, the user may like to do some tasks that way, but it would be much better to have a choice. With GNU/Linux such choices are common; users are not even limited to the desktop environment they use; there are several high quality ones to choose from, each catering for different needs. And the choice can be made at log-on time, not install time. Users can even chose to have no desktop environment at all, and work from a command-line in text mode if they prefer (it's not likely to be very popular, but it's there as an option). The entire feel of your desktop system can be changed; GNU/Linux provides a level of control that allows everyone to set things up the way they want them, not just to satisfy a whim, but because it can genuinely affect productivity by organising things better. And this control doesn't come at a price, it's built in to GNU/Linux.