Using Windows is like smoking (?)
I’ve heard a lot of complaints from Microsoft Windows users over the years. At one time, the main gripe was that Windows was unreliable; too many problems had to be solved by the ‘switch it off and on again’ method. These days, more complaints seem to be about advertising and privacy. Windows, its users complain, has become a telemetry platform that feeds the advertising industry using its spyware.
Unreliability is a solvable problem and, for the most part, it has been solved. But Windows’ more recent annoyances won’t be so easily prevented, since they’re intentional.
As a long-time Linux user and advocate, my natural inclination is to recommend what seems to me the obvious solution. Linux, after all, is cheaper, faster, and more reliable, and generally isn’t a privacy hazard. So I don’t miss many opportunities to advocate for Linux.
My stance has come in for a certain amount of criticism, which is fair, in a way. Some people, after all, are compelled to use Windows, for one reason or another. Perhaps they need to use software which is available only for Windows. Perhaps they have computers that simply won’t run Linux or, at least, won’t run it without soul-destroying effort. It’s not fair, I’ve been told, to keep giving people advice that they can’t possibly put into practice.
Disagreements about Linux advocacy came to a head – albeit not for the first or last time – following a post on Mastodon by a certain Ruben Schade from Australia. The original Mastodon thread has been cleaned up but, in essence, what he posted was this:
“Linux people, please understand this. Sometimes people need to run Windows. They’re allowed to complain about Windows ads, or tracking, or any other enshittification problems, without you saying “use Linux” every time.”
What Mr Schade was saying, if I understand correctly, is that it’s OK for Windows users to complain, and it’s not OK for Linux advocates to make the obvious response. What’s significant about this particular post was the amount of frothing at the mouth it engendered. I may, or may not, agree with the idea Mr Schade expressed, but it’s expressed politely, and doesn’t seem to be obvious trolling. I might have expected some equally polite rebuttal but, in fact, what happened was a shit-storm of such magnitude that the operators of the Mastodon server had to step in to prevent the system being overwhelmed.
So in this article I’m considering whether it really is excusable for a Windows user to complain about Windows while continuing to use it, and whether it’s OK for a Linux advocate to make the obvious suggestion in response. I think cigarette smoking is a useful analogy, for reasons I’ll explain.
Is it OK to complain?
It seems to me that it’s perfectly reasonable for Windows users to complain about Windows, even when there’s an obvious solution. It’s reasonable for smokers to complain that they wake up coughing every morning, even though there is, again, an obvious solution. Why? It’s hard to give up smoking, that’s why. I have friends and family who have been trying for years. I’ve seen them walking around with so many nicotine patches stuck to their bodies that they can hardly get their clothes on. They’ve tried drugs and hypnosis and acupuncture and all the rest of it. Smoking messes with your brain chemistry; giving it up is like giving up breathing.
Similarly, it’s hard to give up Windows. Almost every personal computer is delivered with Windows pre-installed. A heap of popular software won’t run on anything else. Many people are provided with computers by their employers, and aren’t allowed to run anything except Windows, even if they wanted to. Almost all schools teach IT using computers running Windows, so young people are trained to accept it almost from birth.
Just as with giving up smoking, many people who give up Windows relapse – sometimes after a short time, sometimes after a long one. I’ve seen people give up on Linux after twenty years. Some people relapse many times over a period of years. There are many reasons for this, just as there are for failing to give up smoking: peer pressure is an important one, in both cases.
Microsoft, like all the tech monopolies, realize this. They can turn their operating system into a telemetry platform precisely because they know that most people won’t quit. I’ve watched Windows become more and more user-hostile over the years and, while the amount of moaning has increased enormously, the amount of quitting hasn’t. If it were a five-minute job to install and learn Linux, Microsoft wouldn’t be able to treat its customers as atrociously as they do. But it isn’t.
So, yes, I think Windows users are entitled to complain, although their problems, in principle, are solvable ones. I confess that I don’t offer a whole lot of sympathy, and perhaps I should, if I were a better person.
Is it OK to give the obvious advice?
If I were a doctor, and a smoker came to me for advice about his persistent cough, I feel that not only would it be OK for me to recommend he give up smoking, I have a duty to do so. I know how hard it is to quit, and I know that many who try will fail; but still I have an obligation to recommend quitting.
To complain about Windows and to expect not to be told to “use something else” is like a smoker asking his doctor: “What can I do about my cough, other than quit smoking?” A sympathetic doctor will likely try to help, even with this constraint; but, in the end, there’s only one course of action that offers real hope of relief.
Is this a reasonable analogy?
Obviously, smoking and using Windows are not equivalent. Nobody ever died from Windows, even if it saps your will to live. Still, some of the implications are similar. Windows, like smoking, is a nasty habit, which is unpleasant for the sufferer. Its telemetry has risks for the individual that are hard to assess. There are important economic consequences, too – cigarettes are expensive; Windows and Windows applications are expensive. The constant need to upgrade hardware to run the latest Windows is also expensive.
There’s another way in which using Windows is like smoking: it isn’t just the individual smoker, or the individual Windows user, who is affected. The economic impact of smoking on the smoker are obvious, of course, but there are implications for wider society, too. In a society with state-funded healthcare, smoking costs everybody. By analogy, the ubiquity of advertising platforms masquerading as operating systems makes everything more expensive for the consumer, because all that advertising isn’t paying for itself. And the way in which Microsoft and hardware manufacturers collude to ensure that there is a constant need for new equipment is damaging to the consumer and to the environment.
So, for sure, it’s not a perfect analogy. But I think it’s close enough to be useful.
Helping people to quit
It doesn’t help people to quit smoking by haranguing or mocking them. The first step must surely be for the smoker to want to quit. Windows users need to see that there’s a better alternative, even if it’s going to take a lot of effort to adopt it. It’s no more effective to say “Just use Linux” than it is to say “Just stop smoking”. A better approach, perhaps, is to say something like “There is a way to avoid the problems that Windows creates, but it’s going to take real commitment and, in the end, it might not be worth it for you”.
That’s not going to win many converts, but nor is mocking or insulting people. What has won converts, over the years, is showing Windows users that I don’t have to pay extra for a word processor or a spreadsheet. Or that I can convert any kind of document to PDF format, without hunting for a third-party application that will probably turn out to be full of malware. Or that there are Linux media players that will play any kind of content, without showing a bunch of intrusive ads. And so on.
Unfortunately, even to get into a conversation about the benefits (and costs) of Linux, the Windows user has to be willing to take a half-step in that direction. Telling him he’s an idiot isn’t going to encourage him to do this.
There’s also a question of context. If a person is asking on a Windows forum what he can do to reduce the amount of advertising he sees, that’s not the right place to advocate for Linux. As a person who lives an ad-free life, without Google or Microsoft, it would be very difficult for me not to make a smug response. But, since I don’t use Windows forums, I am spared that temptation.
Similarly, it makes no sense to recommend Linux to somebody who stands no chance of getting to grips with it. I’ll be offering my services as free technical support for an indefinite time.
Why are Linux advocates so intrusive?
Given that most Windows users are unable to kick the habit, for one reason or another, why are some Linux users so keen to push the idea of change on them? Why do we (some of us) feel compelled to plug Linux at every opportunity? Why do we (some of us) do so in such a smug, rude way?
In some cases, I have to admit, it’s just an opportunity to gloat, or demonstrate some specious technical superiority. Sometimes, it’s as if Linux users feel a religious obligation to evangelise. For these folks, Linux is part of their identity, and they are compelled to try to bring others into the fold.
For my part, it just pains me to see people struggling with Windows and conflicted about it, when I know there is a better way. I’m also aware that an IT landscape that is dominated by mega-corporations is unhealthy for society as a whole. Others’ use of Windows is a problem for me, even if they don’t see it as a problem for themselves. I’ve certainly had people tell me “I’m willing to have my personal data plundered and used for advertising, if it makes my computer easier to use”. That’s their choice but, frankly, I’m not keen on having the whole Internet turned into an advertising billboard so they can exercise that choice.
So I suspect that most misdirected Linux advocacy is born out of a sense of frustration. Yes, using Windows is a choice, and we should respect that. But, at the same time, we know it’s a bad choice, and it’s a choice that has consequences for everybody.
Closing remarks
Windows users are, for the most part, not ignorant or lazy. I’m interested in building and programming 8-bit microcomputers, and I’ve found to my surprise that most people in that community use Windows for software development. If you’re capable of learning to program CP/M in assembly language, you’re certainly capable of learning to use Linux, if you want. Some people are genuinely happy to use Windows, or are willing to live with it, fully informed about the compromises this entails.
At the same time, the IT world would be a better place if there were realistic, affordable alternatives to Windows. Microsoft can treat its customers like commodities exactly because there are so few realistic alternatives.
So, just as there are occasions on which it’s appropriate to advise people of the dangers of smoking, there are occasions on which we might carefully advocate for Linux. Deciding whether an occasion actually is appropriate can be tricky, of course.
