From a moral point of view, Linux makes logical sense, it appeals to reason. Whatever marketing Windows does, it cannot beat the simple message Linux delivers, that it is free and by osmosis, the user is free, too. That is obviously a false assumption. Yes, Linux offers the chance, given the choice, to modify source code. But the choice is not there in the first place. I’ve actually never modified source code yet, and as for compiling, I end up wasting more time on it than I can save. For example, Dr Scheme compiled in Gentoo simply hangs where it doesn’t. As for great software, I think Enterprise Linux might be better than Windows due to the bug fixes and support. I’d rather be free as in having free time, free in my non-obligation to the community, and free as in not having a bag of thoughts surrounding how I should use my computer. These days, I have too much clutter in my head.

Here’s a quote that I think is an appropriate description of a proper relationship to the computer: “Few things about your PC are as boring as things that just work, invisible in the background. ” To a large extent, Linux fits the boring category because it just works. When it doesn’t a few minutes on Google will solve it. On the other hand, Microsoft takes the other end. It gives gamers the best graphics, the desktop never crashes, and there’s a GUI to control everything. It doesn’t makes the PC anymore fun (to a large extent, trying to have fun on Windows often meant wasting time), but it won’t crash the OS. Compared to Linux, my fun using it comes largely from experimentation and getting hardware to work. The first part often crashes the desktop and the latter often takes hours to get done what only takes 5 minutes with the limited options in Windows. Having limited options in the OS does save me time making decisions and trying this or that as in Linux.