My way or the highway
Certain proponents of particular operating systems are like adherents to some religions — their way is the right way, and don’t you dare attack it. Or, similarly, someone else’s way is wrong and offensive, and they feel compelled to tell you so — and why — at great length.
These operating system disputants tend to be advocates of fringe operating systems. A few years ago, if I had written an article that, in someone’s eyes, slighted OS/2 — regardless of whether that was the main intent of the article — the OS/2 proponents would let me know how wrong I was, in no uncertain terms. Usually their messages impugned my motives — “how much is Microsoft paying you to write that?” — instead of addressing the points of contention in the article.
For years, the Macintosh has been marginalized as a fringe platform within IT organizations. IT departments like to standardize on certain hardware platforms and operating systems, and Macs are not the platform of choice for most shops. Generally, in companies that have standardized on PC platforms, it’s only graphic designers who get to keep Macs. And that’s a measure of the designers’ determination to continue to work on Macs, when virtually all major professional design software is available for PCs.
Mac users tend to be more relaxed about their status. Maybe it’s a holdover from Apple’s counterculture roots. Remember the computer “for the rest of us” and the 1984 Super Bowl commercial? Apple has always tried to appeal to a mellower crowd.
However, there are still a few groups that rise up shouting when their favorite platforms come in for criticism. Two that spring to mind are users of Linux and the Palm OS. (I’ve never written about BeOS — I wonder if its devotees have that missionary fervor.)
Linux and Palm OS are both good operating environments, but both have distinct drawbacks. Most expert users of both platforms, if they took a dispassionate look, could probably outline those drawbacks better than anyone else. But the moment they hear a discouraging word, some of these OS partisans get lathered up and have to fight back — even if no one was really challenging them.
That kind of response is counterproductive to these users’ causes. Rational discussion of pros and cons can lead to incremental improvement in products. But when extremists attempt to bury that discussion under a flood of peripheral issues, they quash the opportunity for improvement. They also weaken their case among dispassionate observers; if their favorite operating system can’t stand up to constructive criticism and reasoned discussion, it must have flaws that such discussions would uncover.
The trick for IT departments is to figure out what tool is right for a particular job, and use that tool. In some organizations, particularly centralized organizations that have standardized on certain hardware and software, that task may be easier said than done. In those cases, sometimes it takes a zealot to prove that the unconventional choice is the right one. That’s fine — but confine the arguments to the specifics of the situation, and don’t bring up arguments that degenerate to “Mom always loved you best.”
Articles | Administrator | 
Monday, January 22, 2001 12:00 pm
Subscribe