A World Without Walls or Fences (Interlude) — Avoiding the "Windows Tax"

Here's an interesting passage from the Windows Vista EULA (End-User License Agreement):

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft's refund policies. See www.microsoft.com/worldwide. In the United States and Canada, call (800) MICROSOFT or see www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm.

Some computer manufacturers like Dell are beginning to offer Linux or other free operating system installations on select computer systems. Even if you're planning on buying a new system that is only available with Windows, however, you still don't have to pay the so-called "Windows tax" if you plan on using one of the free operating systems like Linux or BSD instead.

Before you power up the computer for the first time, call your retailer and tell them you want decline the EULA and return your copy of Windows. They're legally bound by the EULA to give you a refund, though they still might try to either tell you it's not possible or else offer some sort of in-store credit or rebates.

If you stick to your guns, you should be able to get $100 or so back on your purchase, without sacrificing anything.

I recently purchased a new laptop, and decided to take my own advice. After a brief navigation of the Dell customer service phone system, I was placed on hold for half an hour (and subjected to a horribly distorted and static-filled version of the Dell theme song) until a customer service representative became available. After explaining the situation to the CSR (and quoting the pertinent bit of the EULA), I was placed on hold again for 10 minutes while the CSR entered the return into the system. I was told that the refund of $159 would be processed in four to seven business days (though it showed up on my statement in two).

All told, it was a much more pleasant experience than I'd been anticipating. All that was left for me to do was reformat the hard drive of my shiny new (and $159 cheaper) laptop and install Ubuntu.

Next Time: A Newbie's Guide to Installing Ubuntu

A World Without Walls or Fences (pt.2) — Selecting an Operating System

When considering the installation of a new operating system, the first thing to do, obviously, is to pick one. With Windows or Mac OS X, it's a fairly simple choice. Consumers are usually forced into one or the other, depending on whether you're buying a PC or a Mac. Times are changing, though -- it's possible to install Windows on a Mac now that they're using Intel processors, and some manufacturers (notably Dell) are offering Linux installations on select PCs.

With free operating systems, the decision is a bit more complex. There are plenty out there, but the most popular are BSD and Linux. Both of these are Unix-like systems, and while there are some differences, they would likely pass unnoticed by the average user. Each can be installed on both PCs and Macs. BSD is a fairly direct descendant of the original Unix, and its development has been fairly structured. The development of Linux, on the other hand, has been a bit more... organic. It could be said that BSD was engineered but Linux was grown. Neither is necessarily better than the other, though there are plenty of people on both sides who would vehemently disagree.

There are three freely available versions of BSD. FreeBSD focuses on efficiency and reliability, NetBSD focuses on portability (i.e. being able to run on any machine, from your laptop to your Playstation), and OpenBSD is (ironically) obsessed with security. Unless you're concerned that government satellites might be reading your thoughts (in which case you fit right in with the OpenBSD crowd), FreeBSD is probably the best of the three for a desktop operating system, though like its siblings it's really targeted at servers.

Linux is a completely different beast altogether. There are about three hundred different flavors (called distributions) of Linux, though the core of the operating system itself (i.e. the kernel) is essentially the same from one to the next. The primary differences between distributions are the software bundled with the operating system and the community of users and developers that supports that particular distribution.

Linux, in my opinion, is the better choice of operating system for the average PC user for a couple of reasons (other than it's cool mascot, Tux). First, Linux tends to have slightly better support for the more PC-specific hardware like webcams and WLAN cards. Second, Linux is significantly more popular (by several orders of magnitude) with PC users. While "because everyone else is doing it" is usually a poor excuse to do something, there are times when it's a good thing. A larger user base and development community means that any problems with the system will tend to be identified (and ideally corrected) that much more quickly. By far the most popular distribution of Linux for PCs is called Ubuntu. Ubuntu has a huge user base, as well as a regular release schedule.

Ubuntu itself actually has a few variants, the most significant being Kubuntu. The difference between the two involves the last decision that needs to be made when installing a Unix-like operating system: which desktop environment to use.

Unlike Windows and Mac OS X, Unix-like operating systems are not inherently graphical. To get the attractive and convenient windowed interface with which we've all become familiar, BSD, Linux, and their relatives need to run desktop environment software. This is actually a good thing, because it gives the user greater flexibility in altering the computer's interface with a minimum of effort or difficulty.

The two main desktop environments are GNOME (pronounced "Guh-nome") and KDE. The difference between Ubuntu and Kubuntu is that the former is packaged with GNOME and the latter with KDE. Its possible to change desktop environments after installation, or even to install both and switch back and forth between the two. Each has software written specifically for that desktop environment, but again, it's possible to run such software while using the other desktop environment. You'll take a very slight hit in performance, especially when starting the software, but this might not be very noticeable given the power and speed of modern computers. While there are quite a few differences between GNOME and KDE, for the time being let's just say that GNOME is a bit like a cross between Windows XP and Mac OS X, and KDE is more like Windows XP or Vista. Both, however, are much more customizable than Windows or Mac OS X, and can be configured to look and (for the most part) act like either.

The most recent version of Ubuntu family is 7.10, "Gutsy Gibbon". Both Ubuntu and Kubuntu conveniently provide installation disks (free of charge, of course), either through the mail or by download, which allow you to test each operating system before you commit to an installation. I tried each on my old laptop, and found no hardware incompatibilities or other problems. While I like quite a few of the applications written for KDE, Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon feels slightly more polished and complete than Kubuntu Gutsy Gibbon, so I'll be discussing an Ubuntu installation for the rest of this series.

Stay tuned for the play-by-play commentary, with pictures (and maybe even videos)!

Next time: Avoiding the "Windows Tax"