13 Reasons to Try Linux

[pxc]

Commodore C16(yep, C16) and then an IBM PCjr here. Boy oh boy did I know how to pick 'em.

The C16 with the Commodore tape drive was my first computer. Lack of software was the biggest problem, which turned into a positive for me. No software pushed me into writing my own.

The version of BASIC included on it was way better than the one on the C64 and the C16 also included an assembly monitor. Good times.

 

[jmackay]

i have 1 reason not to have linux:
"the entire world runs on windows." everything is made for windows, until that changes i'll stay with ms.

Whats Popular is not always Right.
Whats Right is not always Popular.

But nice fallacy.

 

[bob]

Ive been using linux for about 6 years now, loving nearly every minute of it. My other OS that I used to use, sometimes still do, was NT 4.0 and windows 2000 depending on the age of hardware I have. Though the linked article...aahh... my brain cant handle this much biased BS in one page of text. Sorry, but... I just cant. True, installing windows might take days... If you are installing Vista onto a 386 packard bell...

You know what.... Screw it, I cant quote this article sentance by sentance... Its too much BS to handle all in one post...Rich Tate, I think it might be best to just remove that link and substitute some actual reasons to use linux, ones that have a bit of truth to them. This is the [H]ard|Forum, not 4chan... its an embarrasment to have that article linked to in news. Im serious here, there is no reason to further spread nonsense, nonsense that the likes and magnitude in that article have not been seen on the world wide internets in quite some time. Linux already has enough up against it, that article is just one more thing that needs to go away and never be seen again.





My reasons im using linux, listed from highest to least importance:

1. It's Open Source - No EULA/TOS/Liscense agreement nonsense. Enough said on that.
2. Modular and changeable as, if not more so, than legos - If you want a different shell, a different GUI, different software... Fine, its pretty damn easy to do so. Easy, as in terms of clicking buttons for some distros. Compiling and hours of entering vauge commands in Bash may be required...
3. It can be less bloated - Less or more bloated than windows, varying greatly on what you want installed. One of my backup servers uses a distro called freesco, (500Mhz K6 computer), and the thing will boot with 12MB of ram and is able to push about 80Mbs of traffic over ftp or Http. NT 4.0 is barely tolerable with 32MB of ram. In other words, if you have a small laptop/desktop (mini-itx) with a Via cpu... Bloat might be a concern to you. You can read reviews, benchmarks, and decide what to install... and if you dont like it, change it without too much trouble. If you are on a Core 2 duo, then you probably dont really care that much.
4. Cheaper for servers - For my setup, Solaris 9 would cost me about $29,000 USD. Windows 2003R2, about $1k. Most distros are free, though some cost money, such as redhat (upwards of $7k). Actual total cost of ownership depends on if you actually know how to use linux. Slackware, Freebsd or something along those lines is quite ideal for someone setting up a server on old hardware.
5. (Usually) better performing, and (usually) more stable/reliable - Like most unix or unix based OS's, Linux (Usually) has respectable performance, and uptime. See #2... set it up for your specific situation. performace vs other os's is one of those "your milage may vary" Things. Saying it is faster than BSD or solaris is probably a trivial argument, but its my personal opinion that linux does an expotentially better job on servers than windows has. Although, I will say... I am quite impressed by hitting near-gigabit speeds from virtualised Vmware Appliances in fedora... Its just... Wow...


Yes, you may have noticed my listed 5 positive qualities of linux had little or nothing to do with desktop PC usage... Linux isnt quite there yet. I really cant see Grandma & Grandpa using Ubuntu or Debian for very long, without having to call me and ask what to do/what to click. Like ive said, its not quite there... As in, its almost there... Almost.

Linux... I suppose it could be compared to driving a volkswagen. Either you are going to appreciate it and use it forever, or hate it and vow to never step near it again.

 

[Met-AL]

The version of BASIC included on it was way better than the one on the C64 and the C16 also included an assembly monitor. Good times.

Boy o Boy, I have read all kinds of FUD in Linux threads. But this one takes the prize for being the most FUD-al-listic of them all.

No way was Commodore Basic 3.5 better then Commodore Basic 2.0.

Me and my friends used to call Commodore Basic 3.5 Commodore's own little Windows Me.

 

[Catweazle]

But nice fallacy.

There was no fallacy included in he post you quoted. JVC indicated that the popularity and prevalence of Windows is reason enough for him not to install Linux, and that's a true statement. He never suggested that it should be reason for anyone else not to do so, so don't act like he did!

I really cant see Grandma & Grandpa using Ubuntu or Debian for very long, without having to call me and ask what to do/what to click. Like ive said, its not quite there... As in, its almost there... Almost.

A year or two back, here in Australia, we saw a practice arise whereby some of the large retail Variety Store chains offered 'Ultra Budget' complete PC packages. Low specc'd systems usually fitted with VIA CPUs, accompanied with an ultra-cheap printer and an internet access package, and selling for only a few hundred dollars. they had a Linux distro and some open source apps preinstalled.

I believed, when I first saw them appear, that their sale would result in quite a lot of problems and disappointment for 'pensioner granny' and 'naive low income mum and dad' purchasers, and this indeed did happen.

Those were only ever offered during one 'season'. Too many returns from irate customers. The next time ultra-budget 'complete internet PC' packages appeared in retail variety chain stores they were entry-level Socket A rigs, preinstalled with windows XP and selling at a price point about $100 higher.

 

[Emission]

I installed Ubuntu on a couple customer machines and both we're very pleased. They we're mainly using the computers as email/web machines, so it's not a large discrepancy in that respect. They like it better than Windows, believe it or not.

 

[markt435]

Whats Popular is not always Right.
Whats Right is not always Popular.

But nice fallacy.

it doesn't matter if its right or not. this isn't a political issue. a LARGE majority of the software today is made for windows. until that changes drastically or i need a server to run, linux is just a nice toy for me to play with right now. since its performance is on par with WinXP for ETQW, i'm gonna choose it over Vista to play it with right now. and hell, it gives me another reason to use it. my steam collection of games on Vista, ETQW and maybe ET on Linux. sounds good to me...

 

[pxc]

Boy o Boy, I have read all kinds of FUD in Linux threads. But this one takes the prize for being the most FUD-al-listic of them all.

LOL. It's almost funny to be reminded how primitive Commodore BASIC 2.0 was.

I still have 2 C64s but I got rid of my C16 back in the 80s.

 

[pxc]

A year or two back, here in Australia, we saw a practice arise whereby some of the large retail Variety Store chains offered 'Ultra Budget' complete PC packages. Low specc'd systems usually fitted with VIA CPUs, accompanied with an ultra-cheap printer and an internet access package, and selling for only a few hundred dollars. they had a Linux distro and some open source apps preinstalled.

I believed, when I first saw them appear, that their sale would result in quite a lot of problems and disappointment for 'pensioner granny' and 'naive low income mum and dad' purchasers, and this indeed did happen.

Those were only ever offered during one 'season'. Too many returns from irate customers. The next time ultra-budget 'complete internet PC' packages appeared in retail variety chain stores they were entry-level Socket A rigs, preinstalled with windows XP and selling at a price point about $100 higher.

Fry's did the same up to the end of the Socket A era, with prices down to only $100-$130 for the system (no monitor, but often a free Canon printer after rebate). The systems seemed to have been built by ECS. The AMD systems weren't bad at all considering the low price. I bought and even overclocked a few.

Maybe the level of Fry's customer is a little higher, or the buyers knew how to install Windows or get someone else to, but there didn't seem to be many returns. I judge that by the number of open box systems I saw on the floor (not many).

Those horribly mislabeled "gigapro 1100" low end VIA systems were slow garbage. They could maybe compete with a way outdated at the time Celeron 566, nevermind having a PR 2x that. For those systems, I would bet the return rate was more due to the junk hardware than the primarily the OS.

 

[izbliss]

I'll use Linux on my home machines when I can install it, walk away, and not immediately hear my wife yell...
"Hey where's that cute kitten background!? Where do I type my paper? How do I print? Why won't this cheap CD with Soduku (sp?) on it install?? *blah blah blah* WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COMPUTER COME FIX IT NOW!"

And no, do not suggest my wife learn a new operating system. If you are married you know better.

I didn't know i had a clone! This is so true it's not even funny!!!!

 

[ashmedai]

Hmm...I use Linux because I need it for scientific computing purposes. But it's not the primary OS on *any* of my systems. Wait, that's not quite right. It's the primary OS on a router.

5. Security -- I'll give you that. No money in backdoor'ing a Linux box, more Windows boxes means more money for the hackers.

People that trumpet this point really need to shut up or use OS/2, since by that argument it's superior to Linux. Also, I haven't had a virus on Windows since I tried to catch Blaster to see if it was easy (took about 15 minutes ). Windows isn't less secure, it just has more idiots using it.