If you want to switch from Windows to Linux but are not, why?

[BulletDust]

I'm a Windows user, have been since before day one long ago when the public first got a glimpse of Windows 1.0, but I don't go around attacking Linux users, there's no point - I just can't tolerate the kernel nor the distributions based on it, that's all, and that's all I have ever really stated.

Personally I think Linux sucks - there, I finally said it here at the [H] but that's my personal opinion of it and in no way slants the users if they are capable of tolerating it.

The main point being: if <your operating system of choice> does everything you require it to do then what the fuck do you care what anyone else thinks about your choice of using <your operating system of choice>? For me, that's Windows, for you it seems to be a Linux distribution of some kind, and so on for others with their own choices.

"Can't we all just get along..." to quote a rather infamous gentleman accused of speeding along a California highway at claimed speeds in excess of 160 MPH on flat terrain in a Hundai loaded with 4 passengers that couldn't go that fast downhill in a tornado then having the shit kicked and beat out of him by some rather overly enthusiastic L.A.P.D. officers so long ago.

Having a personal opinion and preference is fine, I don't have a single issue with your post. I prefer Cats over Dogs.

The point is both Windows and Linux have advantages and disadvantages as an OS, considering everything the playing field is fairly even. If someone feels the need to switch from Windows to Linux it is entirely possible, based around personal needs and preferences. Linux isn't as unfriendly to use as many would like to believe, in fact as stated it's very similar to OSX as there are a number of scenarios under OSX where the terminal using identical commands is absolutely necessary. If you believe you can use OSX, technically speaking you should also be able to use Linux.

 

[BulletDust]

To add:

I actually respect an individual that blatantly states "they hate Linux" as opposed to the individuals that keep trying to come up with excuses as to why they cannot use Linux and how that applies to the masses.

 

[KazeoHin]

To add:

I actually respect an individual that blatantly states "they hate Linux" as opposed to the individuals that keep trying to come up with excuses as to why they cannot use Linux and how that applies to the masses.

That's fair. Ever since I got a certification in networking, I understand now that Linux is a necessary thing that does things VERY differently and for servers and networking in general this works. I just can't stand to do ANYTHING in a console or command-line: so linux is out of question for me as anything other than a VM to run a router or something.

 

[BulletDust]

That's fair. Ever since I got a certification in networking, I understand now that Linux is a necessary thing that does things VERY differently and for servers and networking in general this works. I just can't stand to do ANYTHING in a console or command-line: so linux is out of question for me as anything other than a VM to run a router or something.

Just bear in mind that the requirement to use the terminal is no longer as necessary as you may think. There are .deb installers that are every bit as easy as Windows to install many software packages via GUI, any time you have to use apt to install software you simply copy and paste. The need for the terminal in a modern Linux distro is always blown out of proportion by unknowing Windows users.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

If you believe you can use OSX, technically speaking you should also be able to use Linux.

But I do, in a VM, as I've done for years now and I helped create/start The OSx86 Project - I've got letters from Apple Legal telling me to cut that shit out.

I've used - at some point over the past 40 years - pretty much every major computer operating system that's ever been put into actual use, it just so happens that Windows (at least for the time being) still proves to be the most useful to me on all the levels that matter including the widest use worldwide so there's never a compatibility issue on any of those levels either.

Now we've reached the point in this thread where all we're doing is repeating the same things over and over with slight modifications. Here's the final answer to all of this:

YMMV

And that's where I take my leave of this thread.

 

[B00nie]

You're not helping your case much by making such ludicrous statements clear outta the blue, you do realize this, right?

This is my honest opinion, if you have a problem with it - not my prob.

 

[BulletDust]

But I do, in a VM, as I've done for years now and I helped create/start The OSx86 Project - I've got letters from Apple Legal telling me to cut that shit out.

I've used - at some point over the past 40 years - pretty much every major computer operating system that's ever been put into actual use, it just so happens that Windows (at least for the time being) still proves to be the most useful to me on all the levels that matter including the widest use worldwide so there's never a compatibility issue on any of those levels either.

Now we've reached the point in this thread where all we're doing is repeating the same things over and over with slight modifications. Here's the final answer to all of this:

YMMV

And that's where I take my leave of this thread.

I agree, this topic is getting a bit repetitive.

 

[Deleted member 245375]

This is my honest opinion, if you have a problem with it - not my prob.

It was stated as a matter-of-fact kind of thing which prompted my response - if it's meant to be expressed as an opinion it usually helps to frame it as such. Also, "best" is relative since you can't really run Xbox games on a Windows PC even with the crap Microsoft is shilling with Windows 10 that make people think they can - it's still not the same experience and never will be.

And yes I realize I said I was done but, after just watching the Presidential debate earlier I'm in a mood I suppose.

 

[BulletDust]

And yes I realize I said I was done but, after just watching the Presidential debates earlier I'm in a mood I suppose.

Every client today was talking about that debate, I had to make bookings around it so they could all watch it....

 

[B00nie]

Every client today was talking about that debate, I had to make bookings around it so they could all watch it....

Interesting contest. Voters will have to choose between a president that will stumble to her bad health or a president that will stumble to his bad judgment. lol.

 

[BulletDust]

Interesting contest. Voters will have to choose between a president that will stumble to her bad health or a president that will stumble to his bad judgment. lol.

I'm not even located in the US, and I think it's a real worry.

 

[michalrz]

I just did a little experiment. After years of not using the desktop on Linux based systems, I tried to use it as if I were a novice again.
Mind you, I listened to all the "Linux is so lightweight it runs on anything!" opinions and used an ancient Vista laptop (Intel T3400, 2GB RAM, 320GB spinner drive, Intel GMA45 graphics).

I then proceeded to note all the moments where there was at least some confusion.

1. I used the regular text based installer. Not the expert one. Exact installer was "debian-8.6.0-amd64-CD-1.iso".
I set my language to Polish, to check out the translation quality.

This caused me to accidentally install Gnome, because in package selection the label "Debian desktop environment", in Polish, implied it's a bunch of basic packages required for X and such. Alas, it just installed gnome. Some messages were not translated at all. Mix and match. So much for the translation.

I tried to log out of gnome, but... there was just shutdown or reboot.

2. For nostalgia's sake, I installed the Trinity Desktop Environment, which is based on KDE 3.5.10.
Pasted the repositories' address in my sources.list and did apt-get update.
Oops, forgot the apparmor key. Used the command apt-key. Had to whip out the command line already.

3. If I were blindly following a tutorial, I would be done at that point because the installer failed to put the main user into sudoers. Fine, su - it is.

4. As the packages were downloading for Trinity, aptitude kept asking me for the installation CD every few seconds. As in, it kept interrupting the download process of a package (20 MB of tde-wallpapers) to ask me for the CD. Enter, enter, enter, whatever - take it and keep it.
It then stopped asking for the disc, but... kept pulling the package of the Internet, anyway.

5. At the end of the Trinity installer, I was asked to pick the login manager.
So I switched from gdm3 to TDE. I thought that was it. Rebooted the machine, was greeted by TDE, but kept getting logged into Gnome nevertheless. Oh, I have to pick the session type from a cascading menu. Okay.

6. Finally, I'm in my familiar environment. I click 'my computer', select my Windows partition - access denied. Ntfs-3g is installed. Oh, I can mount as root temporarily or add the partition to fstab. Meh. Why not just ask me for the root password UAC style?

7. Okay, let's try a game. I go download Google Earth wanting to play around with the flight simulator. Google provides a package for Linux - I can download either the 32 bit or the 64 bit 'deb' package. I choose 32 bit.
The package downloads, and I double click it from Firefox.
It's recognized as a package, and the package manager launches. However, installation silently fails.

I open up the terminal and try to install it using dpkg -i. Ahh, message about a wrong machine architecture. Why didn't you say so before?

So I download the 64 bit one. I Click it again - this time it's 'check your account' or something.

Finally I give in and open up a root terminal, and use dpkg to install.
Installation failed - dependencies are missing - lsb-core package is not here.
So I download it using apt-get and only then Google Earth installs properly.

But, where is it? In Windows, newly installed things are placed on the desktop for this very reason. Instead, I have to use the 'start' menu and hunt it down.
I run the simulator - performance is slightly worse than in Windows XP, but the real problem is the image quality. It's butt ugly compared to XP. Huh.
Glxinfo says I have hardware acceleration, but it seems the meek Intel chip can't output quality pixels like in Windows. Aww.

8. At this point, after 5 minutes, I ran out of memory. My fan went to high RPMs, and the 'task manager' equivalent showed that 1.8 GB out of the 2 GB installed is already claimed.
I'm left with a few dozen megabytes. I close Firefox, GEarth and file managers - 1.6GB.
Swap space consumption began at that point.
Fan hasn't stopped since - it's been 2 hours.

9. The task manager cannot properly display numbers. It reports stuff like 1.75e+06 of used RAM.

10. I tried to print using a networked Kyocera Taskalfa 3051ci copier.
Nothing intuitive here - you download a tarball from the vendor's site and follow a Readme.
Yay, I can print, but the copier vendor's toolbox shows nothing.

At this stage, I'm writing this post from this system while listening to Bo Burnham's songs using the HTML5 player on Youtube with Firefox. I'm switching around file managers, PDF files and some lightweight programs and the performance is okay.

It's not as fast as XP on this configuration, obviously because XP is ancient aliens compared to a modern Linux 3.x kernel. But, it's fast enough. Windows minimize/move/refresh fine, sound doesn't stutter. System is suffering though, both cores at 50%, RAM is maxed out.

Overall, I now have a full featured system under my fingertips. I can browse Windows shares with konqueror, media files play, Libreoffice is pre-installed.

But, after over 10 years of observing from the sidelines, only using the CLI, I have to chalk up this little adventure as a failed proof of concept. Most of the above issues simply shouldn't exist after so many years.

Do note, that I point out failures of all sides - the installer people, i18n people, and the Trinity people. So many years and still not idiot-proof, still flimsy.

That said, I'm sticking with this install for a while, as I can still do most of my stuff, but I'm a bit disappointed.

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't understand how, on an enthusiast site like [H]ard|OCP, the statement can fly that most people don't care about the OS, the OS should be out of the way, and we should primarily concern ourselves with programs/applications and games. Are you enthusiasts or aren't you?

I remember as a kid when I first started playing around with computers. The excitement to me was all about what you could do with them and I think that's the basis of computing enthusiasm. Traditional operating systems are only one aspect of the scope and scale of computing technology these days.

 

[heatlesssun]

The bulk of users out there don't care for SLI, they don't care for NVS and personally as a tech I've never seen a single sole use Onenote.

But isn't the point of a PC to be able to do things with it to make life easier and more enjoyable? Just because one my not be aware of something doesn't mean that it can't be useful. Anyone that needs to deal with lots of freeform information can benefit from tools like OneNote, Evernote or any of the number of such tools out there. This is what makes Windows compelling. Whatever is done with PCs on the client side is going to be supported by Windows. Even if never crossed one's mind before discovering it.

 

[Frobozz]

I disagree. That is only one type of enthusiasm or part of it. There is also the enthusiasm that wants to take a thing apart, figure out how it works, improve upon it, and/or make it work like you want it to work.

David Cutler was definitely most interested in the operating system. If you listen to Linus Torvalds, he doesn't really care for Linux outside of the Linux kernel (probably with reason, given this thread and the state of Linux on the desktop). I would bet Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak are similar.

I noticed that attitude shift around when Vista came out. The community went from reghacking and tinkering with services to "just leave it alone." *shrug*

 

[heatlesssun]

I disagree. That is only one type of enthusiasm or part of it. There is also the enthusiasm that wants to take a thing apart, figure out how it works, improve upon it, and/or make it work like you want it to work.

Operating systems are only one part of computing. There's many things to be enthusiastic about at different levels. Application development across mobile, web, desktop and new areas like AR and VR, mobile apps, networking, security, big data and machine learning, etc. And given just the shear amount that's out there, it takes effort to even understand effectively leverage technology. There's just SO much more than dealing with traditional operating systems.

 

[B00nie]

Michalrz: Oh yes, changing desktop environments is definately every noobs going to do with linux. They don't even KNOW what a DE is.

Good luck trying to change the windows DE by the way. Either you like what you got or you don't. It's there lol.

And Debian is the least preconfigured as a mainstream desktop distro you could pick short of arch. You wanted your little test to fail, bad.

 

[michalrz]

Michalrz: Oh yes, changing desktop environments is definately every noobs going to do with linux. They don't even KNOW what a DE is.

Good luck trying to change the windows DE by the way. Either you like what you got or you don't. It's there lol.

And Debian is the least preconfigured as a mainstream desktop distro you could pick short of arch. You wanted your little test to fail, bad.

But - even if I wanted it to fail - why are those bugs there in the first place?

 

[auntjemima]

Michalrz: Oh yes, changing desktop environments is definately every noobs going to do with linux. They don't even KNOW what a DE is.

Good luck trying to change the windows DE by the way. Either you like what you got or you don't. It's there lol.

And Debian is the least preconfigured as a mainstream desktop distro you could pick short of arch. You wanted your little test to fail, bad.

Changing desktop environments is part of the OS and is definitely a "selling feature" for Linux. Easily customization! Yet when it fails (and shouldn't), you go right on the windows attack? This is why people don't like the Linux community. Get better material.

 

[Frobozz]

Everyone's so salty.

 

[zero2dash]

I switched to Ubuntu dual booting with 8.1 a few months back, but ended up wiping and going back to 7.
The plan (then) was Ubuntu for everything, and 8.1 for games. The reason I went with 8.1 over 7 for games was just because it was slightly newer and I had to image anyway.
I was pleasantly surprised by the # of games in Ubuntu/Steam, but I could never do it full time....with most games using DX, it's not possible for me.
The other issue is the lightdm lock screen breaks VNC server functionality in Ubuntu, as well as Kubuntu and even Ubuntu MATE. (I don't know about Cinnamon/Mint though I'd suspect since that's built on Ubuntu, the odds are, it would.) This is a known bug but unfortunately going on 2 1/2 years it's still not fixed. I need to be able to remote into my machines at home while on the road, and I cannot do that in Ubuntu if someone else is on my systems at home. (Shame that it affects all of the VNC servers I've tried, including x11vnc Server and TightVNC Server.)

Otherwise, I preferred Ubuntu. Terminal and APT are where it's at. That's how you update a system. I actually like Unity (though I also do like MATE; I just like Unity the most). I had no other issues with Ubuntu - it did what I wanted/needed it to.
If they fix the lightlocker bug, I'd probably switch back to dual booting Ubuntu and using it the 90% of the time that I'm not playing games. That's more of a show-stopper for me than rebooting to play games, especially being on SSD anyway.

I've also tried Debian, Mint, and Fedora/CentOS. Ubuntu (and it's derivatives) seems like the best suited flavor of *nix for me. Easy enough to run OOTB with minimal setup, but nuts and bolts underneath if I want to get my hands dirty.

 

[BulletDust]

I just did a little experiment. After years of not using the desktop on Linux based systems, I tried to use it as if I were a novice again.
Mind you, I listened to all the "Linux is so lightweight it runs on anything!" opinions and used an ancient Vista laptop (Intel T3400, 2GB RAM, 320GB spinner drive, Intel GMA45 graphics).

I then proceeded to note all the moments where there was at least some confusion.

1. I used the regular text based installer. Not the expert one. Exact installer was "debian-8.6.0-amd64-CD-1.iso".
I set my language to Polish, to check out the translation quality.

This caused me to accidentally install Gnome, because in package selection the label "Debian desktop environment", in Polish, implied it's a bunch of basic packages required for X and such. Alas, it just installed gnome. Some messages were not translated at all. Mix and match. So much for the translation.

I tried to log out of gnome, but... there was just shutdown or reboot.

2. For nostalgia's sake, I installed the Trinity Desktop Environment, which is based on KDE 3.5.10.
Pasted the repositories' address in my sources.list and did apt-get update.
Oops, forgot the apparmor key. Used the command apt-key. Had to whip out the command line already.

3. If I were blindly following a tutorial, I would be done at that point because the installer failed to put the main user into sudoers. Fine, su - it is.

4. As the packages were downloading for Trinity, aptitude kept asking me for the installation CD every few seconds. As in, it kept interrupting the download process of a package (20 MB of tde-wallpapers) to ask me for the CD. Enter, enter, enter, whatever - take it and keep it.
It then stopped asking for the disc, but... kept pulling the package of the Internet, anyway.

5. At the end of the Trinity installer, I was asked to pick the login manager.
So I switched from gdm3 to TDE. I thought that was it. Rebooted the machine, was greeted by TDE, but kept getting logged into Gnome nevertheless. Oh, I have to pick the session type from a cascading menu. Okay.

6. Finally, I'm in my familiar environment. I click 'my computer', select my Windows partition - access denied. Ntfs-3g is installed. Oh, I can mount as root temporarily or add the partition to fstab. Meh. Why not just ask me for the root password UAC style?

7. Okay, let's try a game. I go download Google Earth wanting to play around with the flight simulator. Google provides a package for Linux - I can download either the 32 bit or the 64 bit 'deb' package. I choose 32 bit.
The package downloads, and I double click it from Firefox.
It's recognized as a package, and the package manager launches. However, installation silently fails.

I open up the terminal and try to install it using dpkg -i. Ahh, message about a wrong machine architecture. Why didn't you say so before?

So I download the 64 bit one. I Click it again - this time it's 'check your account' or something.

Finally I give in and open up a root terminal, and use dpkg to install.
Installation failed - dependencies are missing - lsb-core package is not here.
So I download it using apt-get and only then Google Earth installs properly.

But, where is it? In Windows, newly installed things are placed on the desktop for this very reason. Instead, I have to use the 'start' menu and hunt it down.
I run the simulator - performance is slightly worse than in Windows XP, but the real problem is the image quality. It's butt ugly compared to XP. Huh.
Glxinfo says I have hardware acceleration, but it seems the meek Intel chip can't output quality pixels like in Windows. Aww.

8. At this point, after 5 minutes, I ran out of memory. My fan went to high RPMs, and the 'task manager' equivalent showed that 1.8 GB out of the 2 GB installed is already claimed.
I'm left with a few dozen megabytes. I close Firefox, GEarth and file managers - 1.6GB.
Swap space consumption began at that point.
Fan hasn't stopped since - it's been 2 hours.

9. The task manager cannot properly display numbers. It reports stuff like 1.75e+06 of used RAM.

10. I tried to print using a networked Kyocera Taskalfa 3051ci copier.
Nothing intuitive here - you download a tarball from the vendor's site and follow a Readme.
Yay, I can print, but the copier vendor's toolbox shows nothing.

At this stage, I'm writing this post from this system while listening to Bo Burnham's songs using the HTML5 player on Youtube with Firefox. I'm switching around file managers, PDF files and some lightweight programs and the performance is okay.

It's not as fast as XP on this configuration, obviously because XP is ancient aliens compared to a modern Linux 3.x kernel. But, it's fast enough. Windows minimize/move/refresh fine, sound doesn't stutter. System is suffering though, both cores at 50%, RAM is maxed out.

Overall, I now have a full featured system under my fingertips. I can browse Windows shares with konqueror, media files play, Libreoffice is pre-installed.

But, after over 10 years of observing from the sidelines, only using the CLI, I have to chalk up this little adventure as a failed proof of concept. Most of the above issues simply shouldn't exist after so many years.

Do note, that I point out failures of all sides - the installer people, i18n people, and the Trinity people. So many years and still not idiot-proof, still flimsy.

That said, I'm sticking with this install for a while, as I can still do most of my stuff, but I'm a bit disappointed.

So let me get this straight...

You downloaded and attempted to install what is effectively a fairly unsupported 32 bit poorly packaged Linux distro with one of the worst installers in order to try to discredit Linux? 32 bit Linux is deliberately fading into obscurity, with good reason.

Do you realise it looks like you deliberately set yourself up to fail?

 

[NoOther]

First, I love the debate between these is still going on. A little background on myself, I have been a long time user, admin, engineer with both Linux and Windows. I use both at home for various purposes. I have been using Linux since aroudn the time it first came out in 1991. I believe my friend and I actually got copies sometime early in 1992. We also played around with the Atari Amiga, got copies of OS/2 Warp, played around with Macs, etc. I got my own system in 1995, in which I installed both Linux and Windows. In college I used Unix fairly heavily, since SGI was a major player in college, I also happened to use VAX/VMS mainframes and NeXT systems. A good portion of my career (21 years as an system admin then systems engineer and now systems architect) has involved using UNIX, Linux, and Windows among other systems. So that is just to give some background with my experience.

Having a personal opinion and preference is fine, I don't have a single issue with your post. I prefer Cats over Dogs.

The point is both Windows and Linux have advantages and disadvantages as an OS, considering everything the playing field is fairly even.

Objectively looking at both OS's, I first have to say that the playing field is far from even. Honestly, Windows dominates the playing field in almost every sense. The playing field is the current breadth of installation and use. It's fairly common knowledge that Windows controls the market by a huge margin there. So let's start off first by being honest about it.

Now on to some observations from my experience.

1) Ease of Use. This is pretty much a no brainer. Windows is far easier to learn and use than Linux. The GUI for Windows is easier to understand and navigate. You don't ever really need to use the command line to use the system. Even their servers GUIs make life incredibly easy for you in installing any of the more common uses for servers. For enterprise use, Windows pulls away even further with its Active Directory structure, ease of search capabilities, intuitive networking options, multiple role/user/file security features, etc.

2) Applications. This is more subjective. Overall I would say Windows wins out here for the simple fact that you almost never have to download obscure libraries or dependencies to install a Windows application, whereas many programs in Linux still require you to search for and install dependent programs, which then also may require you in turn to find and install their dependencies. This can lead to a downward spiral of dependency hell which is still a trademark issue for Linux. It gets better as time goes on, but its still a bit of a mess. In addition, Windows simply has the lion market share of popular applications. That rift is rather large, and while sure there are 'alternatives' in Linux, there aren't as many and they aren't quite as mature as the offerings for Windows. Now, on the other hand, I find it far easier to write scripts and applications for Linux as the compilers are often built right into the system, or are easily downloaded and installed. This requires some experience in the matter, but gives a lot of flexibility to a power user. Also I prefer the configuration, logging and auditing features I find in Linux. Even though its often easier for the layman to get information on a Windows system, for an experience admin, Linux typically offers more ways to get information. Also configuration on a Linux system is often much more extensive than on a Windows system. Allowing you nearly endless options on what you want your environment to look and act how you want. Also, as an experience admin, I am quite fond of the command line and find it far more robust than that offered by Windows.

3) Versatility. Again this is a hard one to call and also can be subjective. On one side, since most of the known world uses Windows, its generally pretty easy to get a Windows system and be able to interact with whatever is out there. As a layman, again it would be far easier to get a Windows system and interoperate with most of what is out there. However, I find it easier as an experienced admin/engineer to download a Linux distribution and then make it into whatever I want. This is incredibly important as it relates to my line of work. I predominately use Linux in my field as does a good 95% of my field.

4) Security. Now here is where I am sure I will catch a ton of flak. But to be quite honest, Windows systems can be as secure if not more secure than Linux systems. And honestly, often they are more secure than Linux systems. The reason being is most Linux users tend to operate consistently as root or as an elevated user. There is a lot of misconception about the security of Linux in that regards, because people believe since it is less susceptible to viruses (again this is mostly because of the market control by Windows, not actual kernel/system security) that its inherently more secure. That is far from the truth. As it is my job to secure Linux systems, I consistently get reports about the vulnerabilities in the system. There have been quite a few very big vulnerabilities within the system, some publicly reported, others not so much. Also the system you use is really only as secure are you make it. Out of the box installs for both Windows and Linux try to steer your towards a more secure posture. In this, Windows actually has somewhat of an edge, as their process is a bit more intuitive. There is also an abundance of products that are easy to find and available for Windows systems to help secure them. There are also a lot of false products out there as well. For Linux, it is not as easy to find those same kind of products to secure it, nor do many of them work quite as well. The best way to secure Linux is still to research and implement best practices yourself. Because of the versatility and endless configurability of Linux for advanced users, this means a plethora of options to make it more secure. Also the fact there are far less viruses (again due to market share, not secure posture) gives it a pleasant benefit. However, all that being said, ultimately I can make a much more secure Linux system than a Windows system. But I am also not a layman.

5) Support. This to me is a no brainer. There are far more options for support for Windows than there are for Linux. It's just the way it is. Not only can you call up Microsoft to request support, there are far more tech shops with Microsoft techs than there are for Linux. You can easily take your system to one of those shops, or have someone come out and help you with your system. Barring that, there is a ton of knowledgebase articles and sites out there for most Windows issues. Support for new issues also comes far more rapidly because of its widespread use and monetary considerations. In addition updates are generally faster, especially for major security flaws. I am sure many will argue this, but I don't think you had to sit and explain to administration why Linux had a huge security flaw for a year and half that basically easily gave away complete control of the system remotely and was not properly patched. This has happened a few times, and as much flak as Windows gets for some of their security flaws, Linux is just slower on major issues. There is a lot of support and information out there for Linux, but it isn't as easy to find, as intuitive to use, or as widespread.

So my overall verdict is really split. For the average user/layman/business/enterprise, Windows is a the better product. For an experienced admin who wants to tinker or create a more innovative system, Linux is the better product.

 

[BulletDust]

1) Ease of Use. This is pretty much a no brainer. Windows is far easier to learn and use than Linux. The GUI for Windows is easier to understand and navigate. You don't ever really need to use the command line to use the system. Even their servers GUIs make life incredibly easy for you in installing any of the more common uses for servers. For enterprise use, Windows pulls away even further with its Active Directory structure, ease of search capabilities, intuitive networking options, multiple role/user/file security features, etc.

Generally speaking, Linux server operating systems don't use a GUI, so I agree a Windows server would be easier for the new age tech to use and navigate. However when it comes to desktop Linux, I can assure you my own Ubuntu MATE machine is in no way more difficult to navigate than Windows, it's essentially identical to OSX, if you can use OSX you can navigate my Linux desktop quite easily.

2) Applications. This is more subjective. Overall I would say Windows wins out here for the simple fact that you almost never have to download obscure libraries or dependencies to install a Windows application, whereas many programs in Linux still require you to search for and install dependent programs, which then also may require you in turn to find and install their dependencies. This can lead to a downward spiral of dependency hell which is still a trademark issue for Linux. It gets better as time goes on, but its still a bit of a mess. In addition, Windows simply has the lion market share of popular applications. That rift is rather large, and while sure there are 'alternatives' in Linux, there aren't as many and they aren't quite as mature as the offerings for Windows. Now, on the other hand, I find it far easier to write scripts and applications for Linux as the compilers are often built right into the system, or are easily downloaded and installed. This requires some experience in the matter, but gives a lot of flexibility to a power user. Also I prefer the configuration, logging and auditing features I find in Linux. Even though its often easier for the layman to get information on a Windows system, for an experience admin, Linux typically offers more ways to get information. Also configuration on a Linux system is often much more extensive than on a Windows system. Allowing you nearly endless options on what you want your environment to look and act how you want. Also, as an experience admin, I am quite fond of the command line and find it far more robust than that offered by Windows.

The only dependency issue I ever had was when installing my favourite Reddit client, I downloaded the one dependency that was needed off the Ubuntu Software Center, installation was stupidly simple, and everything was fine. Bear in mind that I've also had dependancy issues under Windows running .NET based software.

4) Security. Now here is where I am sure I will catch a ton of flak. But to be quite honest, Windows systems can be as secure if not more secure than Linux systems. And honestly, often they are more secure than Linux systems. The reason being is most Linux users tend to operate consistently as root or as an elevated user. There is a lot of misconception about the security of Linux in that regards, because people believe since it is less susceptible to viruses (again this is mostly because of the market control by Windows, not actual kernel/system security) that its inherently more secure. That is far from the truth. As it is my job to secure Linux systems, I consistently get reports about the vulnerabilities in the system. There have been quite a few very big vulnerabilities within the system, some publicly reported, others not so much. Also the system you use is really only as secure are you make it. Out of the box installs for both Windows and Linux try to steer your towards a more secure posture. In this, Windows actually has somewhat of an edge, as their process is a bit more intuitive. There is also an abundance of products that are easy to find and available for Windows systems to help secure them. There are also a lot of false products out there as well. For Linux, it is not as easy to find those same kind of products to secure it, nor do many of them work quite as well. The best way to secure Linux is still to research and implement best practices yourself. Because of the versatility and endless configurability of Linux for advanced users, this means a plethora of options to make it more secure. Also the fact there are far less viruses (again due to market share, not secure posture) gives it a pleasant benefit. However, all that being said, ultimately I can make a much more secure Linux system than a Windows system. But I am also not a layman.

Generally agreed, although Windows is indisputably more prone to issues with viruses and malicious software than Linux due to it's popularity and I still believe sudo is a little more versatile and implemented better in Linux than UAC under Windows allowing it to be used more effectively to stop the installation of malicious software through finer control.

5) Support. This to me is a no brainer. There are far more options for support for Windows than there are for Linux. It's just the way it is. Not only can you call up Microsoft to request support, there are far more tech shops with Microsoft techs than there are for Linux. You can easily take your system to one of those shops, or have someone come out and help you with your system. Barring that, there is a ton of knowledgebase articles and sites out there for most Windows issues. Support for new issues also comes far more rapidly because of its widespread use and monetary considerations. In addition updates are generally faster, especially for major security flaws. I am sure many will argue this, but I don't think you had to sit and explain to administration why Linux had a huge security flaw for a year and half that basically easily gave away complete control of the system remotely and was not properly patched. This has happened a few times, and as much flak as Windows gets for some of their security flaws, Linux is just slower on major issues. There is a lot of support and information out there for Linux, but it isn't as easy to find, as intuitive to use, or as widespread.

I don't agree with this, Almost every second day my Linux PC gets updates that keep the system running smoothly and effectively, I don't get support like that under Windows and certainly don't under OSX. From my perspective I see an enthusiastic team of developers creating FOSS software far more willing to provide timely support regarding software application issues than a large faceless corporation hellbent on looking after shareholders with the perception of 'we'll fix it when we deem it's enough of an issue to be rectified' - An example of this is NV Surround under Windows, Nvidia don't care enough about it anymore to rectify the plethora of issues and dumped features that have arisen since the system was released.

See below for how easy it is to install Google Earth on a properly packaged distro using the .Deb installer:

 

[BulletDust]

The other issue is the lightdm lock screen breaks VNC server functionality in Ubuntu, as well as Kubuntu and even Ubuntu MATE. (I don't know about Cinnamon/Mint though I'd suspect since that's built on Ubuntu, the odds are, it would.) This is a known bug but unfortunately going on 2 1/2 years it's still not fixed. I need to be able to remote into my machines at home while on the road, and I cannot do that in Ubuntu if someone else is on my systems at home. (Shame that it affects all of the VNC servers I've tried, including x11vnc Server and TightVNC Server.)

Using VNC on boot in order to remotely log into a Linux box via the lightDM lock screen is entirely possible, I know, I've set it up in the past quite simply.

 

[NoOther]

Generally speaking, Linux server operating systems don't use a GUI, so I agree a Windows server would be easier for the new age tech to use and navigate. However when it comes to desktop Linux, I can assure you my own Ubuntu MATE machine is in no way more difficult to navigate than Windows, it's essentially identical to OSX, if you can use OSX you can navigate my Linux desktop quite easily.

No you cannot, because I have used all of them, and Windows is still far easier even for me to use and I have been using just about every flavor of Linux since it has come out. Also it is not just my opinion, but it is the opinion of millions of others as well.

The only dependency issue I ever had was when installing my favourite Reddit client, I downloaded the one dependency that was needed off the Ubuntu Software Center, installation was stupidly simple, and everything was fine. Bear in mind that I've also had dependancy issues under Windows running .NET based software.

Just because you have only had one dependency issue, does not make it less relevant. I have run into thousands of dependency issues using Linux. A magnitude of order more than I have ever run into with Windows.

Generally agreed, although Windows is indisputably more prone to issues with viruses and malicious software than Linux due to it's popularity and I still believe sudo is a little more versatile and implemented better in Linux than UAC under Windows allowing it to be used more effectively to stop the installation of malicious software through finer control.

However, you have to actually go in and setup sudo most times. It isn't as intuitive and user friendly as Microsoft's original setup. Also I have used many programs for Windows that give far better control and granularity than the UAC program. So that is pretty much a wash.

I don't agree with this, Almost every second day my Linux PC gets updates that keep the system running smoothly and effectively, I don't get support like that under Windows and certainly don't under OSX. From my perspective I see an enthusiastic team of developers creating FOSS software far more willing to provide timely support regarding software application issues than a large faceless corporation hellbent on looking after shareholders with the perception of 'we'll fix it when we deem it's enough of an issue to be rectified' - An example of this is NV Surround under Windows, Nvidia don't care enough about it anymore to rectify the plethora of issues and dumped features that have arisen since the system was released.

Just because your Linux system gets updates, doesn't mean they are important updates that you need. Do not mistake the frequency of updates with the effectiveness of updates. As for your example about the corporation hellbent on looking after shareholders that is really a false notion. Microsoft as a company is continually trying to improve its product. Also there are tons of other companies out there that are also trying to help improve Microsoft's product separately. And as far as your example of NV Surround, how is that Windows fault? That is a decision by Nvidia based on their product. You are really nitpicking there on that one. I could talk about far more options and features that are devoid in its support on Linux.

See below for how easy it is to install Google Earth on a properly packaged distro using the .Deb installer:

Umm, you got one thing that is programmed and designed within a Linux environment to work within a Linux environment by a company that gains far more by people adopting that environment. Congratulations. Now go natively install the MS Office suite on Linux by just double clicking an executable file.

 

[Gman1979]

What stops me from making a full move is all the politics involved. I just can't get into an operating system as a holy crusade mentality that accompanies most Linux projects. I use whatever works at that moment for my needs. With reboots taking just a few seconds now, there's not really much of a reason to not dual boot or run one of them inside of a VM as needed.

Neither Linux or Windows fulfills 100% of my needs and I'm fine with that. It's why I have multiple computers and other computing devices scattered around the house with various configurations. When even my laptop can handle running VMs, there's just no justification for having to ditch one or the other entirely.

When I did my first Linux install, the Cds came from a book lol Redhat 4.1 and Suse if i recall correctly. The driver support is better now but the ecosystem is toxic these days.

 

[zero2dash]

Using VNC on boot in order to remotely log into a Linux box via the lightDM lock screen is entirely possible, I know, I've set it up in the past quite simply.

Right, that works.
The issue is, the minute someone switches user accts (which brings up the lock screen), the VNC window session is abandoned/broken. Easiest/quickest way to test this is to install x11vnc (as a service, as you describe), reboot the machine. Use a VNC client, connect to the Ubuntu host machine. From the VNC viewer or from the host box itself (while the VNC viewer is connected), switch to the Guest session (or a new user, if you have a 2nd user).

VNC session is now broken. It'll be connected, and it'll show a desktop, but it's not actually what is on the screen at the host Ubuntu box. It's effectively a static image; a jpeg (if you will) of the desktop before the lock screen came up.
Now, if the console user switches back to the original VNC user's desktop, the session becomes active again and is "live" instead of "static".
Light-locker breaks it somehow and renders it unusable. Check the last 2 posts on the link I gave; I did this and supplied screenshots as well. I want them to fix this, though after 2 1/2 years, I don't know if they ever will. People say to uninstall light-locker and use something else, but I haven't found a good way to do this because if you sudo apt purge light-locker, it threatens to remove the Unity DE as a dependency.

I've tried different VNC servers in Ubuntu, and different VNC clients in Windows. It's a server-side issue, again with light-locker.

Meanwhile, using UltraVNC server on a Windows machine, I can switch from user to user with no ill affects. I see what's on the screen at home just like I should. Unfortunately, Ubuntu (any flavor) does not do this.

 

[Burticus]

I have a lot of interest in and respect for Unix. I think the computing landscape would be very different were it not for Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson creating Unix, even if you ignore Unix itself and just focus on that the C Programming language came out of revising Unix for portability. Unix has always struck me as a programmer's OS.

I also have a lot of respect for Window NT, the work of David Culter, and the influence of VMS and RSX-11, OS/2, and Windows on Windows NT. I have virtual machines of Windows NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, and NT 4.

Linux is Unix-like and seems to be the heir apparent to Unix in many cases, so I am interested in it too.

I don't understand how, on an enthusiast site like [H]ard|OCP, the statement can fly that most people don't care about the OS, the OS should be out of the way, and we should primarily concern ourselves with programs/applications and games. Are you enthusiasts or aren't you?

Oh man you just gave about gave me a 90's IT support nightmare seizure with all those. Things were not going well in NT land until NT 4.

 

[heatlesssun]

An example of this is NV Surround under Windows, Nvidia don't care enough about it anymore to rectify the plethora of issues and dumped features that have arisen since the system was released.

I've been using nVidia Surround for 6 years now, from Windows 7, 8.x and now 10 and I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. In 10 the only quirk with it I've experienced is in using a centered task bar, elements like the Start Menu still position themselves at the edges, not in the center relative to the task bar.

 

[B00nie]

But - even if I wanted it to fail - why are those bugs there in the first place?

Why are Windows bugs there? Why are millions of people complaining about Windows10 problems? Why Microsoft spies on you? Why can't you control Windows but vive versa?

The point was that Debian is never the first choice for someone who is looking for a 'keys in the hand' desktop experience. Ubuntu, Mint, Elementary OS etc. are far better and more likely choices.

 

[B00nie]

Changing desktop environments is part of the OS and is definitely a "selling feature" for Linux. Easily customization! Yet when it fails (and shouldn't), you go right on the windows attack? This is why people don't like the Linux community. Get better material.

No noob is going to change the DE before they learn a lot of other things. You're just inventing scenarios that are not something people do daily with their computers. I might as well make the argument that Windows doesn't work because when a noob wants to get extra megahurtz and tweaks the windows registry, things get broken. But that argument would be stupid just as yours was.

 

[BulletDust]

Right, that works.
The issue is, the minute someone switches user accts (which brings up the lock screen), the VNC window session is abandoned/broken. Easiest/quickest way to test this is to install x11vnc (as a service, as you describe), reboot the machine. Use a VNC client, connect to the Ubuntu host machine. From the VNC viewer or from the host box itself (while the VNC viewer is connected), switch to the Guest session (or a new user, if you have a 2nd user).

VNC session is now broken. It'll be connected, and it'll show a desktop, but it's not actually what is on the screen at the host Ubuntu box. It's effectively a static image; a jpeg (if you will) of the desktop before the lock screen came up.
Now, if the console user switches back to the original VNC user's desktop, the session becomes active again and is "live" instead of "static".
Light-locker breaks it somehow and renders it unusable. Check the last 2 posts on the link I gave; I did this and supplied screenshots as well. I want them to fix this, though after 2 1/2 years, I don't know if they ever will. People say to uninstall light-locker and use something else, but I haven't found a good way to do this because if you sudo apt purge light-locker, it threatens to remove the Unity DE as a dependency.

I've tried different VNC servers in Ubuntu, and different VNC clients in Windows. It's a server-side issue, again with light-locker.

Meanwhile, using UltraVNC server on a Windows machine, I can switch from user to user with no ill affects. I see what's on the screen at home just like I should. Unfortunately, Ubuntu (any flavor) does not do this.

I've come across this issue before and I found a solution that works beautifully by adding VNC as systemd process on startup. Im on mobile now, when I get home I'll see if I can find it for you.

In relation to comments regarding my comment on NV Surround issues under Windows, there were a number of issues for years that NV never sorted. First of all, the Window snapping feature suddenly just stopped working, one minute it worked fine, next driver update it simply didn't work anymore. Secondly, the taskbar kept shifting between windows seemingly at random. Thirdly, windows kept maximising 'behind' the task bar and fourth on the list, Nvidia never listened to the masses complaining of a simple switch from extended desktop to surround when running more than one card in SLI. Now this may be fixed with the advent of Windows 10, bit I can assure you, for many years these were frustrating problems that many complained about on the NV forums that NV was in no rush to resolve. In the end I dumped my surround setup for a single 4k monitor.

In relation to certain individuals coming up with laughable comments like "yeah right, now go and install office under Linux" be a man, simply admit you hate Linux (which is fine) and move on. Your comments aren't adding to the discussion at all.

 

[heatlesssun]

In relation to comments regarding my comment on NV Surround issues under Windows, there were a number of issues for years that NV never sorted. First of all, the Window snapping feature suddenly just stopped working, one minute it worked fine, next driver update it simply didn't work anymore. Secondly, the taskbar kept shifting between windows seemingly at random. Thirdly, windows kept maximising 'behind' the task bar and fourth on the list, Nvidia never listened to the masses complaining of a simple switch from extended desktop to surround when running more than one card in SLI. Now this may be fixed with the advent of Windows 10, bit I can assure you, for many years these were frustrating problems that many complained about on the NV forums that NV was in no rush to resolve. In the end I dumped my surround setup for a single 4k monitor.

Surround has had it's quirks but I've not see anything you've descried here using 10 with Surround for over a year now. It's really meant for gaming scenarios unfortunately switching between surround and independent monitors isn't as quick as it needs to be. But more than these issues is game support which is inconsistent. Most games I've bought recently do support it, Forza Horizon 3 looks stunning in Surround.

In relation to certain individuals coming up with laughable comments like "yeah right, now go and install office under Linux" be a man, simply admit you hate Linux (which is fine) and move on. Your comments aren't adding to the discussion at all.

It's not necessarily personal. Sure I get that Office not being available for desktop Linux is on Microsoft. But I'm guessing the market for it wouldn't be that strong considering that so many desktop Linux fans identify with the notion of being "free" of Microsoft.

 

[michalrz]

So let me get this straight...

You downloaded and attempted to install what is effectively a fairly unsupported 32 bit poorly packaged Linux distro with one of the worst installers in order to try to discredit Linux? 32 bit Linux is deliberately fading into obscurity, with good reason.

Do you realise it looks like you deliberately set yourself up to fail?

Why are Windows bugs there? Why are millions of people complaining about Windows10 problems? Why Microsoft spies on you? Why can't you control Windows but vive versa?

The point was that Debian is never the first choice for someone who is looking for a 'keys in the hand' desktop experience. Ubuntu, Mint, Elementary OS etc. are far better and more likely choices.

Debian is all over the place on Distrowatch, high up on various rankings.

The 32 bit example shows inconsistency with sending errors upstream to the GUI. I wasn't really counting on cross-compatibility. Wanted to know how gracefully would it be handled.

I'll try a similar thing with Mint or/and Ubuntu. I've already used both on the desktop for 2 and 3 years, respectively. Loved them. With Fedora in the middle.

 

[BulletDust]

Debian is all over the place on Distrowatch, high up on various rankings.

The 32 bit example shows inconsistency with sending errors upstream to the GUI. I wasn't really counting on cross-compatibility. Wanted to know how gracefully would it be handled.

I'll try a similar thing with Mint or/and Ubuntu. I've already used both on the desktop for 2 and 3 years, respectively. Loved them. With Fedora in the middle.

It's also aimed at more advanced users and therefore lacks a number of bundled packages and runs a fairly stripped down installer. As far as Linux distro's go, when trying to prove a point you picked one of the worst. 32bit Linux support is also beginning to dwindle as Linux shifts solely to x64.

It's not necessarily personal. Sure I get that Office not being available for desktop Linux is on Microsoft. But I'm guessing the market for it wouldn't be that strong considering that so many desktop Linux fans identify with the notion of being "free" of Microsoft.

If Office was available for Linux I'd have no problem buying it, provided I could justify the expense over Libre Office. As it stands Libre Office does everything I need an office suite to do, if I need Office for any reason it's on my Windows PC, having said that I've never needed it. The dyed in the wool Linux/FOSS fanbois drive me crazy, I'm not one of the bearded clan and don't care much for their strictly FOSS idealism.

 

[BulletDust]

Surround has had it's quirks but I've not see anything you've descried here using 10 with Surround for over a year now. It's really meant for gaming scenarios unfortunately switching between surround and independent monitors isn't as quick as it needs to be. But more than these issues is game support which is inconsistent. Most games I've bought recently do support it, Forza Horizon 3 looks stunning in Surround.

Honestly, NVS was actually far better just after release. Window snapping worked and windows used to maximise to their respective displays, the task bar could be spanned or centred with no issue and the task bar didn't randomly shift from monitor to monitor. After a while it was like NV just lost interest in it. Honestly, SLS works far better running proprietary NV drivers under Linux, windows snap as needed, windows maximise to their respective displays and games either span all monitors or fill a single monitor depending on the resolution selected.

Due to the flexibility of Linux I can put as many panels as I like (task bar) where ever I see fit.

 

[michalrz]

Honestly, NVS was actually far better just after release. Window snapping worked and windows used to maximise to their respective displays, the task bar could be spanned or centred with no issue and the task bar didn't randomly shift from monitor to monitor. After a while it was like NV just lost interest in it. Honestly, SLS works far better running proprietary NV drivers under Linux, windows snap as needed, windows maximise to their respective displays and games either span all monitors or fill a single monitor depending on the resolution selected.

Due to the flexibility of Linux I can put as many panels as I like (task bar) where ever I see fit.

The NVidia drivers and even sometimes the AMD drivers definitely worked like a charm on Ubuntu when I was trying it out for Wolfenstein/Urban Terror gaming in the past.
Desktop compositing was smooth. Fonts were pretty. Zero issues on install. Performance was the same as on Windows.
HW monitoring worked, power saving features worked, games ran just as fast in those cards' case. But that was an older Ubuntu, circa 2012. I imagine it hasn't gotten worse.
But the thing I like most about multiple desktops is how KDE handles it. You see the thumbnails representing each virtual desktop, and in those thumbs there are outlines of windows which are opened on each. If you need a particular program window really quick, you can swipe its outline onto the thumbnail representing your current virtual desktop. This is great for me.
I also had Yakuake as my CLI, that way I could randomly pull it down like a map whenever I needed it.
Also to all- Libre is something worth checking out even if you've already seen open office. It's NOT the same suite, believe me. Libre is seriously a powerful feature when added to any Linux distro.

 

[BulletDust]

Zero2dash,

This new forum software has me totally confused, but I started a conversation with you on the procedure used to achieve what you want to do under VNC, I had it all running in 15 mins tops using the tutorial linked.

If you can't see the link, look below:

Ubuntu 15.04 – Configure your system to have x11vnc running at startup – Griffon's IT Library

Hope this helps.

 

[BulletDust]

The NVidia drivers and even sometimes the AMD drivers definitely worked like a charm on Ubuntu when I was trying it out for Wolfenstein/Urban Terror gaming in the past.
Desktop compositing was smooth. Fonts were pretty. Zero issues on install. Performance was the same as on Windows.
HW monitoring worked, power saving features worked, games ran just as fast in those cards' case. But that was an older Ubuntu, circa 2012. I imagine it hasn't gotten worse.
But the thing I like most about multiple desktops is how KDE handles it. You see the thumbnails representing each virtual desktop, and in those thumbs there are outlines of windows which are opened on each. If you need a particular program window really quick, you can swipe its outline onto the thumbnail representing your current virtual desktop. This is great for me.
I also had Yakuake as my CLI, that way I could randomly pull it down like a map whenever I needed it.
Also to all- Libre is something worth checking out even if you've already seen open office. It's NOT the same suite, believe me. Libre is seriously a powerful feature when added to any Linux distro.

I couldn't do without virtual workspaces now, and they're supported under Linux better than any other OS in existence. OSX gets close, but the Linux implementation is still better IMO.