This is the short answer to the question.

First, I like the non-Windows environments that I'm already using.

I was using OS/2 in 1992, well before a consumer version of 32-bit Windows even existed, so I guess I still use OS/2 by default. It still works for me, it supports the hardware that I use at home, and I have more than enough software to get by.

I do look at the newer versions of Windows, and as I said I already have Win95 here and a couple of copies of Windows NT 4, but I still think that OS/2 is a better general-purpose desktop OS for me given my fondness for the command line and given the things I like to do on my main home machine.

In addition, I've found that Linux can be a very flexible and reliable operating system for server use. It doesn't need a monitor (you can use telnet or X to administer the server remotely), and it simply doesn't go down. My old fileserver uptime was over 240 days before I moved into my new townhouse.

Linux can make its filesystem available to the other boxes in my LAN using both CIFS (Windows file sharing) or NFS (the UNIX Network File System), which means I can use the same server (and disk space) from OS/2, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, and Solaris.

Linux is also extremely flexible, and people can package it in many ways. The version I use on my firewall box, for example, is stored on a single 3.5" floppy diskette, and after I boot it into RAMdisk it doesn't need to have a real disk mounted at all! Not bad for a free piece of software...

Second, moving to Windows is expensive!

If I were to replace all of my OS/2 software with new Windows software, I'd end up paying a lot of $$. Even if Windows were the technical equivalent of OS/2 (and I still don't think it is), that would be a factor.

Linux, FreeBSD, or BeOS can also be expensive per copy, at least if you purchase official versions as I tend to do from time to time, but that one copy can be installed (legally) on multiple machines. Since I have six "serious" boxes of my own on the LAN, a single $50 Linux license is a LOT cheaper than several $80-90 upgrade licenses for Windows 9x, or twice that for the more expensive versions of Windows.

Third, Windows is a proprietary software product.

This is true of OS/2 as well, by the way, and it will likely result in my dropping OS/2 as soon as Linux becomes as good in my eyes on the desktop.

By "proprietary" I mean that only one company (in this case Microsoft) is in charge of the software. They control the pace of development for the software, they alone control whether or not bugs in the software get fixed, and at any moment they could decide to make the version of their software that you and I depend on an unsupported product.

That can result in a number of undesired situations, including

• being forced to purchase an upgrade (the next version of the software) in order to obtain support,

• being forced to purchase an upgrade just to obtain some small enhancements which are only released in the next version, or

• being forced to purchase an upgrade just to get a fix for a serious bug in the software.

Proprietary software also has a nasty habit of becoming dormant or even dying in some cases, mainly due to a lack of interest on the part of the company making the software, or sometimes due to the demise of the company itself. There is no option, in most cases, for a third party to step up to the plate to continue development or support -- the software becomes frozen in time.

That isn't a good thing if you're depending on that software to function correctly -- sooner or later you will likely end up having to stop using the software entirely because it isn't being fixed or enhanced.

By using an non-proprietary operating system like Linux or FreeBSD whenever I can, I'm a lot less likely to be "forced" to upgrade against my wishes, and I also know that it's a lot less likely that the software will end up being abandoned.

That is why I don't use Windows for everything...