Linux is at least as easy to use as Windows, and is superior in some areas while lagging behind in a couple of others. That wasn't as dramatic, no doubt, as some of you would hope, but I think that it's a fair assessment of the situation. Linux has Windows beat on stability and on pure utility if you understand how to use the operating system. Most applications that currently run under Windows will run under Linux, and things like e-mail work exactly the same, except that you use a different server. The most common applications that people run under Windows can be duplicated on Linux, such as file-sharing systems, Web browsing, Instant Messaging and word processing. In many cases, the Linux flavors of these programs are more flexible and customizable than their Windows counterparts.

At the same time, Linux lags behind in a couple of crucial areas. First, the network drivers that Red Hat includes as part of the default load for their version of Linux are perhaps the most worthless pieces of software that you could have on a computer. I think our network here is pretty bland and generic, but for some reason your connection will time out about every hour if you leave Linux running for a while. The second and probably most crucial area that Linux lags behind Windows is availability of software. Everybody on campus has one thing on their laptop that they installed, and that it probably won't work with Linux. In my case, it's the driver for my digital camera. I can't make it work under Linux, and I don't have a copy of the driver with me anymore because I didn't think I'd need it, so it's totally useless to me.

I say that to reveal something to the student body which, six months ago, would have frankly horrified me. There have been proposals put forward by Linux zealots to change the computing policy either by going to a dual-boot system, where one can choose to boot into Linux or Windows, or by eliminating Windows entirely and going to Linux only. To me, this smacks of imprudence, because if the university trains students to use Linux and it is not widely used in the corporate world, then everyone who graduates will have to relearn Windows to get a job. The computer training that comes from using a computer every day is too valuable just to throw away on a whim, especially considering that it's a big advantage we have over universities that expect you to either use their computer labs or get over it. On the plus side, perhaps we could expect the increases in tuition to go down with the adoption of an open-source system. Once you have Linux on your computer, updates are available to keep your system running at peak efficiency, and the license fees to get Windows and Microsoft Office could be trimmed significantly.

Maybe this is all a pipe dream, and I must confess that I'm ambivalent on the issue. I just got my last new computer from the university, and it came standard with Windows XP, just like 89 percent of the computers sold in the United States last year. I have loaded Linux on my computer, but more as an experiment than anything else. I still find myself choosing Windows 75 percent of the time when I boot up, and I haven't found anything that I can make Linux do that Windows won't do at all. However, I do believe that the question deserves to be raised outside the department of computer science because in the world of corporate America, Linux is making a small dent. IBM recently announced a partnership with Red Hat to release more machines with Linux loaded and optimized, and already many servers for large corporate LANs use UNIX, which is a more esoteric predecessor to Linux. If the goal is to prepare students for their future jobs in all areas, then perhaps some introduction is in order. In either case, consider the fact that you have alternatives to Microsoft and Windows, and consider that eventually their dominance may end.