Top 8 Linux Myths Debunked

OK, I could go on, but it's getting boring. Again, Linux i not perfect (are you trying to tell me Windows is?),, but it beats the competition by miles

You should have made this the first sentence so I could stop wasting my time reading the rest of it. While I agree that Linux is fine for some people, your anti-Microsoft drivels are just as dumb as anyone elses' anti-Linux or anti-Apple crap.
 
I mean, we can twiddle about whether these are really the top 8 myths about Linux, but most posts show that it takes a lot more work to debunk MS's FUDs... Hey, folks, get your act together!

So, OK: Linux forums don't provide enterprise grade support, but whoever said they would? You can get enterprise grade support, and at very affordable prices, from Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Novell, at the very least. It's professional, 24/7 (if you need it), and not free, but neither is any other phone support - and it's much cheaper than Windows support.

Sure: it helps to have knowledgeable IT people for a Linux shop, but, guess what, Linux is very much *nix compliant, so it takes no time at all for any reasonably prepared sysadmin to get up to speed. If your sysadmin can't get out of Windows, you are wasting his/her salary anyway (much of the web runs on Linux, you know)

No, Linux is not as unstable as Windows. If it was, maybe Google, Amazon, and so on would not run on it. There are plenty of objective reasons why it is. And, no, Linux is not perfect, but it is more stable. If you are really paranoid, BSD is even more stable - but you are out of your mind if you believe that you'd be better off with Windows.

And, now, let me ask: why in the world would businesses that really need 100% uptime (did I mention Google and Amazon?) run on Linux?

Yes, Linux has vulnerabilities - heck, any OS has some: this is very complex stuff. The point is that you have zillions of people checking that out, and rushing patches if any vulnerability is spotted - no need to wait for Tuesday, or whatever: whenever a patch is needed, it gets shipped, and your installation will let you know right away.

And, no, Linux is not hard to use - in fact it is easier than Windows, since, when something goes wrong, you have a fighting chance to fix it, as opposed to the moronic "help" I get when I try to troubleshoot the innumerable glitches my wife runs into with her lame Vista laptop. Installation is trivial, and, you know, if you know how to use a keyboard, you can use the CLI, even if 99.99% of the time you don't have to (of course, I wish I had a useful CLI - the one that ships is ridiculous - when Windows goes beserk, but, hey, that's why I don't use it, personally)

And, guess what, even though there are indeed obtuse hardware manufacturer who make sure their stuff does not run on Linux, they are a vanishing minority. Most hardware runs out of the box. Depending on your distribution, you might have to click on a couple of links to fix the odd item out, but most of the time that's not even necessary. And, things are improving by the day (Broadcom just opened up their WiFi drivers, for example).

Which gets us to the Office thing. Well, I am in academia, not industry, but from what I can see, if you people in suits need MS Office it is because you were told you had to. Get over it, and your slide shows will be just as boring if you produced them with Open Office, as with PowerPoint. In academic projects it is not even a race: the versatility, flexibility, scope and vastness of possibilities available under Linux make it a no-brainer. Of course, that does not prevent many colleagues to stick to Windows, because they don't even know what is available out there. But there is no way I could produce the stuff I write if I was using Windows - not to mention the mind-boggling licensing costs I would have to pay to get a fraction of the capabilities.

OK, I could go on, but it's getting boring. Again, Linux i not perfect (are you trying to tell me Windows is?),, but it beats the competition by miles

#1 problem with Linux right here.

Linux is great for many things, consumer desktops are currently not one of them. Saying it makes a great server means Zilch. Nada. Zero. Consumers don't care if there system stays up for months at a time, a good chunk of them turn it off when they're done anyway. On that time frame crashes are rare on all OS's now-a-days unless theres an underlying problem on the system level (such as bad drivers). And yes - Linux does have bad drivers that causes oops/panics/freezes - don't say it doesn't cause I'll laugh right in your face.

Linux distributions are a hodge podge of free software taped together with some nice solid duct tape. Sure everything you need is there for basic use, but if you try and change anything you end up with a sticky mess unless you know what you're doing.

To put it another way, it's fine for the super-geeks and people who like to tweak everything. It's also fine for the people who just want to push a button browse or check e-mail. Where it SORELY LACKS is the catering to group between these two.

Seriously.. who wants to resolve circular RPM dependencies? Oh wait, you're using apt? Sorry, we don't have a precompiled version of our software package for debian-based Distros. You can manually install or try compiling it yourself? Your toolchain need to be at least version x.y.z.. oh? I don't know how to get that data for your distro, but here's how you do it on mine. You're using KDE? You'll need the gnome libs then - but wait, that WM has problems with our software.

To sum it up: Linux developers LOVE to have deep choice. Consumers want standardization w/ customization. These two things are not the same.

This coming from a person who's professional career revolves around using embedded linux regularly and spends 80% of his time desktop time @ work in Ubuntu. I also admin my own private web server running Debian. My PCs? They run Windows 7 and OSX.

/rant
 
Linux is great for many things, consumer desktops are currently not one of them. Saying it makes a great server means Zilch. Nada. Zero. Consumers don't care if there system stays up for months at a time, a good chunk of them turn it off when they're done anyway.
Who's talking about consumers?

And yes - Linux does have bad drivers that causes oops/panics/freezes - don't say it doesn't cause I'll laugh right in your face.
And I'm laughing in your face for saying this.

if you try and change anything you end up with a sticky mess unless you know what you're doing.
If you're changing things on any OS, I hope you know what you're doing.

Seriously.. who wants to resolve circular RPM dependencies? Oh wait, you're using apt? Sorry, we don't have a precompiled version of our software package for debian-based Distros. You can manually install or try compiling it yourself?
This is not generally how software is distributed, and if it is for some specific app you need for a specific purpose, run a supported distribution and blame the vendor for not packaging their application in a more useful fashion. It's the same thing as expecting some application packaged to install on Vista+ on XP. Except you have a chance of getting it to work instead of being screwed.[/QUOTE]
 
This is not generally how software is distributed, and if it is for some specific app you need for a specific purpose, run a supported distribution and blame the vendor for not packaging their application in a more useful fashion. It's the same thing as expecting some application packaged to install on Vista+ on XP. Except you have a chance of getting it to work instead of being screwed.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your point is here, there's TONS of support to get things fixed in Windows like the situation you're describing.
 

Not sure what your point is here, there's TONS of support to get things fixed in Windows like the situation you're describing.[/QUOTE]

My point is that if the software says 'works on RedHat and SuSE' and then you try to install it on Ubuntu, no shit you're on your own, but there's still a good chance it will work (but as I said, this is not generally something you'll encounter, since 99.99% of software will come from your distributions repos). If the application says 'works on Windows Vista and Windows 7' and you try to get it working on XP, chances are you're shit out of luck.
 
Who's talking about consumers?

Umm, everyone? People who use your product are called consumers of said product. The article so obviously is pro-desktop Linux it's ridiculous. Your last two points are directed towards desktop use.

And I'm laughing in your face for saying this.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1449329
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-kernel-70/ubuntu-9-10-ati-install-went-wrong-766895/
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/550340
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=92056
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/430747

Oh, I'm sorry - am I not supposed to taint my kernel? The holy gods of open source require that I shall not have software secrets. Well then...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=532682
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1316079.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-612771.html
http://ohioloco.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1406545
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1262957.html

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+sit...AP_joy3BA&ved=0CCEQrQIwAA&fp=6052204b889acdd8


If you're changing things on any OS, I hope you know what you're doing.

Does switching form KDE to Gnome count as "changing the OS?" How about installing a different WM? OH, you meant "If you're changing things on the distribution of the Linux OS" Yeah, that's tough shit for them. Especially considering...

This is not generally how software is distributed, and if it is for some specific app you need for a specific purpose, run a supported distribution and blame the vendor for not packaging their application in a more useful fashion. It's the same thing as expecting some application packaged to install on Vista+ on XP. Except you have a chance of getting it to work instead of being screwed.

If it isn't in the repositories offered by your distribution, this /is/ the mess you have to go through. You're solution is to change the distribution and blame the vendor? Do you understand how bad that sounds to John Doe User?

People DO expect things that worked on N OS to run on N+1 OS. Vista caught so much shit for this and rightfully so. Windows 7 and current-Vista hardly have problems running most XP programs. However, not all flavors of "Linux" are compatible, some stubbornly so.

I'm done. Linux evangelist are my fucking tech-Kryptonite. Keep holding a decent Kernel down with your re-hashed decade old articles.
 
THIS. This, more than anything else, I'm convinced, is the #1 thing holding Linux back. There are problems in everything, but how you handle them is important. Me, I'm a very patient guy when it comes to support - hell, I'd have to be, considering how much trouble I usually have understanding the foreigners most companies outsource to - but after a year and a half of trying Linux, I got sick of "USE T3H GUGGLEEEE!!!!11" and "well WHY DON'T YOU fix it?" and went back to Windows.

Yep. The nerd rage and ivory tower bullshit gets pretty old.
 
Fair enough but XP is ten years old and a billion times better supported than any Linux distro even now. And the vast majority of modern Windows software will still work in XP. Can this be said of Linux? But no one sane would be running a 10 year old Linux distro anyway.
 
I said I'm done. But on a more calm note you're overestimating the appeal of Linux in the server market. Node-based load balancing normally use a customized version Linux that will support their infrastructure. This is what Google does use. However, Google is atypical of your normal IT setup. For one thing, their systems are part of their core business which dictates HIGH SCALABILITY at LOW COST. THAT is their primary reason for using Linux - NOT high-availability.

People do love their AIX and HP-UX. And no, it's not "all the same thing".
 
I've got a conversational snippit from a conversation I had with an old friend who's liable to become a unix sys-admin, I think succinctly describes Linux vs Windows quite well:

Me: "dude its unbelievable how easy it is, even in Server 2008 (R1, Windows), its just server manager -> add roles -> install IIS -> next -> next-> done. You have a functioning webserver. Its unbelievable."
Mark: "... sudo apt-get install apache"
Me: "wow really? and that gives you HTML templates and the whole-9-yards?"
Mark: "yeah, and in ubuntu server it comes with SQL and Apache pre-installed, not linked to much, but ready to go".

As it turns out, Apache really is just as easy to install as IIS, but how many people here know what the hell "sudo apt-get install Apache" does, where you would place that, or what you would do once its in place? Everybody understands microsoft's millions of managers, even if they have to take a long time to get it, but shell scripting and terminal familiarity requires at the very least extensive informal training, and maybe even formal training.

I view Windows and Linux as two separate paradigms:

Windows is very much a streamlined big-box sort've... "drop these huge functioning blocks of code here, here and here, and holy sheep-shit batman we're in business. " For the job Microsoft is trying to accomplish, which is quite clear (these are non-mission-critical applications with a well known and documented upgrade treadmill), a windows solution can prove an excellent ROI; where a Linux installation is simply infeasible.

Linux is very much a more precise, granular and customized-modular approach. Big blocks are replaced by many small blocks, unnecessary UI code is replaced with BASH or C-Shell etc. Custom permissions systems running on a heavily modified OS mean you can cram an absurd number of tasks onto one box and run them seamlessly because the overhead is so low: and that speed comes at an enormous IT overhead: you need fleets of IT pros, backed up by further engineers, to get an effective Linux implementation.

This article is pure fluff. It doesn't say anything, and anyone reading it for serious advice --from either an IT oriented eye like ours, or a business oriented eye, needs to look elsewhere for information.
 
Installing Apache is easy, CONFIGURING it is another matter. You also have to deal with setting up your app engine which is fairly straight forward using PHP and with IIS .NET is ready to go.

The problem with Linux is that the easy stuff like installing isn't bad but as you reach another level down the complexity starts to rise exponentially. Not a big deal with a server but for a desktop it simply doesn't buy you anything except headaches.
 
The problem with Linux is that the easy stuff like installing isn't bad but as you reach another level down the complexity starts to rise exponentially. Not a big deal with a server but for a desktop it simply doesn't buy you anything except headaches.

A million times this.

You can't make statements about Linux and then apply them to all distributions. It's essentially the plethora of software and standards variance that is killing it on the desktop.

People like to talk it up as a whole, but then break it down to distributions when it suits the discussion. If it works on Red Hat and SuSE but not Debian or Ubuntu, then it's not "available on Linux" in the standard consumer sense.

If you need a package or driver in the UNSTABLE depot, then you can't be "99% Secure and Stable" while purporting great driver and software compatibility. I'm not saying Linux isn't secure and stable, but it's too hard to quantify statements about it without being ridiculously specific.

Linux, as a Core OS (Kernel + fs + Shell) is really freaking great. But after that it's a mess of contending standards and nerd-fights on forums about whether an API call should be widget_dance() or do_widget_dance(). Don't like it? Fork it!
 
When Linux is packaged well like in the case of Android its a perfectly fine OS for average users, that's just a fact based on Androids success I'd say.

But when it's a bunch of arrogant cock fighters building out a distro that only works on Tuesdays, 1% market share is what happens.

The Linux community is its own worst enemy of Biblical proportions.
 
No, Linux is not as unstable as Windows. If it was, maybe Google, Amazon, and so on would not run on it.

Yea, that unstable Windows, that microsoft.com runs on, why that site has no traffic and is down all the time! /sarcasm. Not to mention tonnes of other sites run Windows, and so do most corporate networks.
 
Ableton and traktor are completely unusable in any of the Linux distros I've tested...even with WINE. So M'eh. They need to get their act together in regards to sound production(or maybe someone needs to build a distro aimed at only that), and then I'll take another gander at what linux is offering.

Until then...win7 it is.
 
As someone who hasn't used Windows on the desktop outside of work (xp/Outlook) and who JUST purchased win7 pro, I really miss the control/cli on win7 that I have with CLI/Shell scripting on my linux desktop. I don't game much (although I purchased win7 to hopefully play some of my old, already purchased games) which is probably why i don't miss Windows too much but bought win7 pro anyhow to have RDP functionality & AD functionality (I'm hoping this will let me use an OpenLDAP server for centralized auth).

So much stuff I use daily is simply available/included with Ubuntu just a click or an "apt-get" away. On the other hand Ubuntu DOES have tons of annoyances and now having used it as my primary OS for 3+ years, I find both their forums + bug reporting system completely useless. Forums = full of noobs who can't answer my questions. Bug reporting system = response after multiple years.

My new 1090T build is going to be win7 pro + Fedora13 to see if I like it better.

1090T+12G ddr3-1333+60G solid2 (indilinux)+ win7/fedora should be quite snappy. My WEI is 5.4 (graphics are 7800GT)

My current box I"m typing from is a Q6600@stock with a vertex 60G, some 1TB drives in soft raid1 + ubuntu and graphics are dual onboard DVI (GMA 4500HD).
 
Yea, that unstable Windows, that microsoft.com runs on, why that site has no traffic and is down all the time! /sarcasm. Not to mention tonnes of other sites run Windows, and so do most corporate networks.

I would have to say that Linux is more stable then windows, but with a list conditions. out of box (figuratively spoken) windows is by far the better OS. if you go through the trouble of setting up and compiling you drivers (provided you have the right drivers) and what not Linux is rock solid. the unfortunate truth that short of big box intel machines (about the only place I have seen intel have good graphics drivers is ironically Linux) getting all of that is a pain in the ass.

Linux has its place but as much as it hurts me to say it, so does windows. vista may have sucked but they seem to have done a hell of a job with 7
 
if you go through the trouble of setting up and compiling you drivers (provided you have the right drivers) and what not Linux is rock solid.

Linux has its place but as much as it hurts me to say it, so does windows. vista may have sucked but they seem to have done a hell of a job with 7

Windows 7 is rock solid as well running on super complex desktops like my sig rig doing stuff that's never going run under Linux.

Yes Linux doesn't have the malware issues of Windows but when you add in the vastly superior support on the Windows technologies for stuff that'll never run on Linux, Windows and Linux on the desktop are at least at parity in stability. The idea that Linux is inherently more stable than Windows is also a myth.
 
Umm, everyone? People who use your product are called consumers of said product. The article so obviously is pro-desktop Linux it's ridiculous. Your last two points are directed towards desktop use.
The article seems to pretty clearly slant towards business use. We are talking about the article, are we not?

Oh, I'm sorry - am I not supposed to taint my kernel? The holy gods of open source require that I shall not have software secrets. Well then...
The point is that drivers are not 'buggy and unstable', the situation is no better on Windows. I'm laughing at you for having this idiotic view that Windows drivers are flawless, while the Linux ones are garbage.

Does switching form KDE to Gnome count as "changing the OS?" How about installing a different WM? OH, you meant "If you're changing things on the distribution of the Linux OS" Yeah, that's tough shit for them. Especially considering...
None of these things will cause the problems you describe. And yeah, I'd say changing your WM from one of the distribution-provided configurations does 'change the OS'. Just like installing bb4win on Windows can create issues.

If it isn't in the repositories offered by your distribution, this /is/ the mess you have to go through. You're solution is to change the distribution and blame the vendor? Do you understand how bad that sounds to John Doe User?
Why is it any different than the response he will get trying to run software on an unsupported version of Windows? And it's really not that hard to install foreign packages on most distributions these days.

I'm done. Linux evangelist are my fucking tech-Kryptonite. Keep holding a decent Kernel down with your re-hashed decade old articles.
And Windows fanbois are mine. Cue fireworks.
 
The article seems to pretty clearly slant towards business use. We are talking about the article, are we not?

Other than the mention of "business" in the opening paragraph for sake of hotlink, the rest of the article is aimed towards end-users - not IT professionals.

The point is that drivers are not 'buggy and unstable', the situation is no better on Windows. I'm laughing at you for having this idiotic view that Windows drivers are flawless, while the Linux ones are garbage.

Then we're saying the same thing.No where did I mention that Windows drivers were superior. However, drivers in general are the leading cause of instability on any OS. Hence my singling them out.

None of these things will cause the problems you describe. And yeah, I'd say changing your WM from one of the distribution-provided configurations does 'change the OS'. Just like installing bb4win on Windows can create issues.

Why is it any different than the response he will get trying to run software on an unsupported version of Windows? And it's really not that hard to install foreign packages on most distributions these days.

Just so we're clear, when something "Works on Linux" which distro is the de-facto one I should install?

And yeah, I'm a total Windows fanboy :rolleyes: Just for you though, I'll let you replace any windows reference with OSX. That's a BSD derivative, you should have no problem with that right?
 
Umm, everyone? People who use your product are called consumers of said product. The article so obviously is pro-desktop Linux it's ridiculous. Your last two points are directed towards desktop use.
Desktop != consumer.

Then we're saying the same thing.No where did I mention that Windows drivers were superior. However, drivers in general are the leading cause of instability on any OS. Hence my singling them out.
Then why mention it if it's the same on every OS? You're obviously trying to make Linux look bad in comparison to alternatives.

Just so we're clear, when something "Works on Linux" which distro is the de-facto one I should install?
The one the vendor tells you it works on? Though these days any commercial software I've seen is distributed in .deb, .rpm and .tgz. If your distro doesn't support .deb or .rpm with a single-click install, I would hope that you chose it because you know what you're doing.

Just for you though, I'll let you replace any windows reference with OSX. That's a BSD derivative, you should have no problem with that right?
Okay, ignorant non-Linux user spouting the same FUD, then. That better?
 
Desktop != consumer.


Then why mention it if it's the same on every OS? You're obviously trying to make Linux look bad in comparison to alternatives.


The one the vendor tells you it works on? Though these days any commercial software I've seen is distributed in .deb, .rpm and .tgz. If your distro doesn't support .deb or .rpm with a single-click install, I would hope that you chose it because you know what you're doing.


Okay, ignorant non-Linux user spouting the same FUD, then. That better?

I guess arguments are moot now if that's how you really feel/think. There are people with a much more realistic view on the technical and marketable merits of Linux and OSS. You seem content is spouting your rhetoric towards a bunch of people who know better.

Ignorant Non-Linux user spouting the same FUD? What a load of crap.
 
I was reminded of this and dug it up.

"My coworker and I were discussing this yesterday in relation to the Windows 7 Whopper and my suggestion was that if Windows is a giant, realtively cheap burger that will fill you up with lots of leftovers (and may be harmful to certain people).

Linux would be an MRE. It'll last nearly forever, work anywhere, it can be very small, but you really wouldn't eat it unless you absolutely had to.

Mac would be a meal at a fine high end resturant. It got great reviews, looks great on the plate, tastes pretty good, and costs a ton. But it is so small and empty you still end up getting the hamburger at the fast food joint across the street on the way home just to fill yourself up."
 
How did this make it into the HardOCP new feed.. It is opinion at best and at worst a copy and past top X list..
Indeed, good question. However, it has lead to some good discussion in this thread, so it looks like it was worth posting. :D
 
I was reminded of this and dug it up.

"My coworker and I were discussing this yesterday in relation to the Windows 7 Whopper and my suggestion was that if Windows is a giant, realtively cheap burger that will fill you up with lots of leftovers (and may be harmful to certain people).

I would say that might have been true, but certainly isn't true with W7.
 
if an IT department doesn't know how to install Linux in the first place or allows employees to install operating systems, then it's time for the company to find a new IT person.

you kiddin?

there are A LOT of people in IT (particularly old farts) who won't touch linux with a 10 foot pole...
 
I guess arguments are moot now if that's how you really feel/think. There are people with a much more realistic view on the technical and marketable merits of Linux and OSS. You seem content is spouting your rhetoric towards a bunch of people who know better.
Right, because the 'arguments' you've put forward have had some technical basis behind them. What rhetoric have I been spouting exactly? Basically all I've done in this thread is respond to people spouting the same old FUD that gets thrown around on this forum every time Linux gets mentioned. :rolleyes:

Linux is not currently appropriate everywhere, but there are certainly plenty of situations where it is. Coming up with bullet points like 'buggy drivers' or '3rd party software is hard to install' that are either complete bullshit or things that are irrelevant in most situations doesn't make a strong argument.

Ignorant Non-Linux user spouting the same FUD? What a load of crap.
Then make some points that aren't the same old crap from 2001.
 
you kiddin?

there are A LOT of people in IT (particularly old farts) who won't touch linux with a 10 foot pole...

I'm one of them particularly because I enjoy the Microsoft server/desktop integrations, not because of any aversion to Linux.

My real point was that installation should not be the number one reason for IT departments staying away from Linux. If an IT department didn't know how to install things (anything) on computers, then perhaps they're in the wrong field. Like and dislike has nothing to do with it.
 
I use both Windows and Linux, since some of my software in the lab requires a Windows platform, while others (NMRPipe, XEasy, CYANA, etc.) work better on Linux.

Each platform has its own advantages, and to say that one is completely superior over the other grossly overlooks things.

It's no secret that OpenOffice isn't quite as good as the latest Microsoft Office suite, although, it's certainly more than functional, and to be honest, more than enough for your average user.

At the same time, there are many free features of Fedora Core (what I use...) that would end up costing a boatload of money if I tried to get the same functionality on Windows. Installation is highly automated, and pretty easy for anyone reasonably knowledgeable, although it's still not for the complete newbie.

On another note...

When it comes to getting tech support on Linux, I've found the Usenet folks to be far more helpful. While the navigation of Usenet isn't nearly as nice as navigating through a vBulletin-based forum, at least more of the people on the newsgroups tend to be more of a mature crowd, and that the arrogance and childish antics found by various script kiddies on forums, isn't nearly as pronounced.

Thankfully, the Linux forums on HOCP are civil, and there are plenty of helpful people, so between here and Usenet, I can find the answer to my questions.
 
You know, I have nothing against any of the OSs out there, and I believe that each serves their purpose quite well. Windows is the mainstream, Mac tends to get a lot of artists (both graphical and musical), Linux gets thoughs that want to tinker and/or customize. But Jesus Fucking Christ I am sick to death of the "(Enter OS Here) is more secure" argument. Give a quality hacker/cracker enough time and they will find a hole that can be exploited. Period. And to even say that AV software isn't necessary is just plain stupid. You hear all the time from Mac fans (First large-scale virus,1981, Elk Cloner, Apple II). Fact is all computers can get viruses, Windows get the majority because the majority of computers run Windows. If I write a virus and want it to spread as fast as possible to as many computers as possible, I will write it for Windows, not because of ease, but because of exposure. I wish someone with half a brain would write one of these kind of articles instead of some fanboy trying to mislead people to jump on their bandwagon.

+1 indeed, good post.
 
Each platform has its own advantages, and to say that one is completely superior over the other grossly overlooks things.

Windows is VASTLY superior to Linux on the desktop in terms of 3rd party support. That's why people tend to stick with Windows.
 
7. "It's Not Reliable"

If you're using a Mac or Windows, it goes without saying that you are intimately familiar with crashes and downtime. Part of that is due to those systems' vulnerability to malware, but part is also simply inherent in the software. That's a big reason why Linux is used so heavily on servers--it almost never goes down. Imagine a day in the life of your business with no downtime!

Combating FUD, through FUD.
 
Every time this topic comes up the Linux fans pipe up and make me remember why it's struggling to make it's way on to consumer's desktops. If the Linux crowd spent half as much time ignoring everyone and fixing the problems people are telling them they have as they do spouting off how vastly superior they are to every other OS they wouldn't be so far behind the curve.
 
Every time this topic comes up the Linux fans pipe up and make me remember why it's struggling to make it's way on to consumer's desktops. If the Linux crowd spent half as much time ignoring everyone and fixing the problems people are telling them they have as they do spouting off how vastly superior they are to every other OS they wouldn't be so far behind the curve.

ITAWTP.
 
Bleh these threads are worthless. Look at Linux kernel submits, who is advancing Linux? Its not individuals, its large companies. Linux owns servers(/clusters) and does fine in Workstation market. Linux fails at consumer Desktop, probably because no one is investing money for it to succeed. Linux is owning the mobile market because Google is dumping in money for Android and Chrome OS. Why does it even matter. Linux is never going away either is Windows. Neither is better than the other because they do different things.
 
Back
Top