Due to the extremely technical topic of this post, I have created two versions of this same article. The one below is for the less technically inclined and the lazy bastards. The version found here is my technical paper, available for anyone who might be interested in undertaking a similar endeavor in booting multiple operating systems.
Everybody likes the word "free". But there's usually a catch. The old adage "you get what you pay for" generally holds true, and PC operating systems have been no exception to this rule. Until now. Linux has been a rapidly growing force in the geek community for decades. It's an open source system, meaning anyone with the proper knowledge can essentially take the hood off the engine and play around inside, altering it however they like. This availability to the inner workings of the operating system is also the source of its development, where geeks with their spare time have contributed improvements and additions to it over the years. The positive results of this gradual development from sources worldwide is self evident. Linux is one of the most stable operating systems to be found today, has a wide range of programs, and is still free to the public. There have been, however, some negative effects as a result of open source development as well. Many different versions of Linux have resulted, making it difficult for the consumer to discern any difference between them and determine which one best suits their needs. Also, without a large staff of highly paid programmers like some other software company we all know, development has been fairly slow for Linux. Windows software does not run natively under Linux either, so it requires a bit of a transition to learn their Linux alternatives. Many programs, like most games for example, just aren't available on Linux at all, which can make switching to a solely Linux-based system tough for many users. Until recently Linux was also very difficult for the average user to install, but thankfully many of the more popular versions have overcome this hurdle now.
So here I am, with my new computer and still without internet. So I got bored and decided to see how many operating systems I could install on one hard drive. I had a friend download a few of the more popular Linux distributions and bring them over, and I went to work. I ended up tinkering with five different operating systems altogether. From Microsoft we have Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 Pro, in the Linux camp is Red Hat and Mandrake, and then there's the redheaded Unix stepchild, FreeBSD.
I'll spare you all the exciting details of my multi-booting adventure. If you really want to know, read my full technical article on how I did it here. I will limit the remainder of this post to only a review of these operating systems.
FreeBSD. This is the type of installation nightmare that gives Linux/Unix a bad name. The menus aren't user friendly, it doesn't walk you through any real installation sequence, forcing you to guess what to do next, and partitioning the drives from within the installer is like reading an alien language. Twice I tried to install it, and twice I mucked it up. I never did actually get it running. This one is definitely for the more hardcore experienced Unix geek who likes to memorize the exact geometry of his hard drives and can write his own partition tables by start and end sectors by hand. It sounds like a joke, but sadly enough I'm dead serious...
Mandrake 9.0. A breeze to install. It booted right off the CD, brought up a beautiful graphical interface, and walked you through the installation simple as that. The installation was well documented, and you could find help for any feature you might be looking at, right while you were installing it. It comes with tons of bells and whistles and all sorts of little programs and utilities, many of which one could easily question their practicality or usefulness. Two of my favorites are the Tea Cooker, and the googly eye thing. Yes, the Tea Cooker. It puts an icon in your task bar. You click on it, and tell it what kind of tea you are making. It then counts down the appropriate amount of time to allow that tea to brew, and then pops up with a dialog box saying "Your tea is now ready." Yessir, you can't get that kind of quality software on Windows. Then the googly eyes... it... puts googly eyes on your desktop. The eyes just follow your mouse pointer, looking at it wherever it goes. Definitely a necessity. Everyone should have googly eyes on their desktop. Aside from some rather ridiculous extras, this OS is no joke though. I'd definitely recommend Mandrake as the Linux distribution of choice if you're the type of person who likes to tinker with all the little settings and configuration options on your system.
Red Hat 8.0. The installation experience was very similar to Mandrake. It booted right off the CD, had a nice graphical interface, and also offered loads of help on installation options. For some reason I found the Mandrake install slightly easier to work with, although this is just a personal perference. Both were remarkably easy to install. In use, Red Hat had a somewhat more professional feel to it. This is not to say it ran better than Mandrake, just that the overall appearance felt cleaner, simpler, and better organized, with less menus and options to confuse you with. If you're looking for a serious, no-nonsense replacement to Windows, then Red Hat is for you.
In use, both distributions bare an initial resemblence to Windows. However, one will quickly find that there are numerous differences. Thankfully, Linux is very well documented, and you can find detailed help on virtually every aspect of the operating system within its own help files. Linux is also very stable and secure, and under an average user account there is little fear of the user messing up the system or altering it irreparably while experimenting.
So who should consider Linux, and why? Honestly, I think these two distributions have shown that, without a doubt, Linux is ready for the masses. They are easy to install, and run far more stable than Windows. They provide much of the same functionality for most common computer tasks, such as office applications, and you can't beat the cost of FREE. Yet, transitioning to a new operating system is a big step for most home users. If they buy a new computer and it already has Windows installed, why bother even messing with something else? It would be nice to see more PC manufacturers ship computers with Linux, or even PC's that dual boot with Windows and Linux, but Microsoft has a vice grip on the industry, chaining most household PC manufacturers to contractual obligations forbidding them from such activity. As a result, the average home user will not bother with Linux. Where Linux can and is really making inroads in is with businesses. What better way to cut costs than to switch to a free operating system and tell Microsoft where they can stick their corporate liscences? You save money and improve stability at the same time, it's a win-win situation. And corporations are where the money is really at anyway, so it is really a bigger threat to Microsoft here than on the home PC. I can see Linux continuing to gain ground with businesses and geeks alike. It has developed enough of a following to make Microsoft worry, and worry they should. However, due to the lack of compatibility with Windows software in Linux, Microsoft's iron grip on the market, and the general laziness and lack of technical knowledge of the general public, I think it will still be some time before it's a real contender for Microsoft on the household desktop PC.