13 Reasons to Try Linux

[Rich Tate]

If you have never given Linux a run, then you should take a look at these 13 considerations and maybe think about giving it a go. I’m sure all of our Linux gurus will also chime in below.

A couple of years ago, the Linux desktop was a pimply adolescent with half-baked ideas. Today we see a handsome, well-dressed grown-up who handles a range of tasks with confidence and even performs fancy tricks. No longer need we make allowances for his dress sense or his strange habits.

As stated above, and reemphasized in our 30 Days with Linux evaluation, now is probably a great time to give it a try.

 

[nobody_here]

i keep reading these articles and how great Linux is, and i jumped in, but one reason that negates all of the ones above for me is i have to learn all the tricks and commands for Terminal if i really want it to do what i want, and that's unacceptable

like that fact that not all programs you download for Linux are self installable.....they need to fix that now

if everything acted like Windows from a day to day normal usage point of view like being able to download double-clickable .exe's and never having to use Terminal. i might jump back in, but those things that are very different from Windows will keep Linux as the stepchild in OS'es

 

[nobody_here]

i meant to add that after dealing with Linux, specifically Ubuntu, for a couple weeks, i went back to Winblows XP and suddenly all the issues i was having went away and i dont have to learn anything new now....that should be made clear, i would suggest they do a follow up article to give a top 13 as to who should not try Linux, like people like me who dont want to learn a programming language to use an OS

 

[Toytown]

Anyone who's done it once knows that installing Windows from scratch takes hours or even days by the time you get all your apps up and running.

and 15GB of hard disk space, is grossly obese.

You can't just download an updated version of Windows

With Linux, there are no serial numbers or passwords to lose or worry about. Not a single one.

More security - herefore a vital aspect of PC security is keeping your apps up-to-date with the latest security patches. That's hard manual labor in Windows, but with Linux it's automatic.

The article is just crap, most of the reasons on there arent even good reasons and are actually false. Im not a linux hater, i have my own asterisk voip system running on it, but when people shovel crap like that it.......

 

[Term-X]

Too many questionable reasons, I think. I know the article probably isn't targetting people who aren't at least remotely savvy but that is still the basic problem of Linux these days, I would think. Another issue is this touting of security that would certainly; I could almost bet, would disappear the moment it obtained the user base that Windows has now.

Less is more, no?

 

[pxc]

Reason #1: you are dying to become a *nix systems administrator

Reason #2: extreme ideology is more important than usability

Reason #3: one version of a software binary that runs on several generations of an OS doesn't seem like a good idea to you

etc...

 

[izbliss]

I agree w/ the exe files. When i gave Ubuntu 7.04 a run a month ago, it installed and looked fine, but simple things like installing the right video drivers to enable 3D desktop were a total pain. There were some apps that i could click on the file and install easily (AIM, IIRC....), but most of them were pretty terminal-heavy. Even using the Synaptic manager wasn't a cakewalk.

I was very impressed, though. Linux has come a LONG way since the last time I tried it. It seems as if it's somewhere between windows 3.11 and 95 in it's development (not visually, but in terms of useability for linux newbies).

The other thing is that I'm a gamer, and Linux doesn't have the selection that MS does.

In a few more years, I can see myself completely switching over. Once some installation improvements are made and Wine gets better, I believe Linux will be my OS of choice.

 

[nobody_here]

another thing that i noticed when using Ubuntu which applies to any Linux disto

when online trying to find help, people that are used to Linux would assume too much, even though i would make it clear this was my first time, they would say things like "create a directory in Terminal"......omitting all of the steps required to do this....as if i already know this...even the step by step tutorials i found for doing something as simple as installing a driver like izbliss mentioned were far too assuming

the day i can do what i need to do without ever going into terminal or needing step by step tutorials and hours on time to install a simple driver.....i'll try it again

on a positive note:

Linux made the most of my available bandwidth, with windows xp i can get maybe 8Mb/s on my broadband connection, same exact PC running Linux had me almost consistently getting 25-30Mb/s on the same everything......things definitely ran faster with Linux

 

[cliche]

Good contributions from the posters above with their experiences. I tried UNIX (Solaris) and Red-Hat distro a few years ago. Trying too do anything was a new learning process. Life and work don't allow me time to study just simply to use and be productive on an OS.
I'm upping my tech skills in a different field and time is simply too valuable to learn from scratch to do a task which works simply in XP

 

[Servant of Shodan]

The lack of double-click-ability is what made me forget about Linux for now, too. I’ve tried distros from Mandriva and Ubuntu, and while I did like a lot of what I saw, I’m just not interested in getting funky with a command line interface again (Commodore Basic and MS-DOS were enough for me, thanks).

I have used versions of Linux in the past, but for very specific reasons. For example, booting from a floppy with a very small FreeBSD install. I would do what needed to be done, and boot back into windows in 15 minutes.

So, if I could give one word of advice to the Linux geniuses (and I say genius with 100% sincerity), that world would be hyphenated: double-click.

 

[jmackay]

Man I thought this was [H]ardOCP. Guess taking a little time to get the most out of your OS is too [H] for most people?

 

[Servant of Shodan]

Sure, but let me ask you, would you rather double-click on a nice icon to install your programs, or would you prefer to manually type: “msiexec.exe /i c:\my program /qb- allusers=1” every single time?

It’s taken me years to build up enough knowledge of MS Windows from 3.11, Win95, 98, 98se, 2000, and XP to really get around and know what I’m doing most of the time. I’m just not willing to go through all that again.

 

[Troz]

Had this sitting on the screen since this morning but got busy.

Wow...where to begin?

1. Cost -- "Microsoft is greedy" I could have stopped the entire article right there and still known how it turned out.

2. Resources -- What the hell is he talking about? My wife has Vista Business on her Dell with 512 megs of RAM and it is running like butter.

3. Performance -- Wait, you mean a pre-built Dell/HP/Gateway/insert brand here is slower than Linux? Yet when you clean it up it's the same speed as Linux? Oh noes!

4. No bloatware -- Yeah, see point 3.

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

6. Dual booting -- Never tried so not an expert here. But I do know when installing windows I can make partitions. No special software there.

7. Installation -- Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over. Maybe an hour for XP, then 15 minutes for drivers, another hour *max* for updates.

8. Reinstalling the OS -- Put in XP SP2 disk, format install, get a few patches done. What's the problem?

9. Keeping track of software --Most Windows users don't keep a book under their bed. They keep the jewel cases on a shelf since the Key is in/on the case somewhere. No need to have a book with all of your serial numbers in it.

10. Updating software -- I'll give Linux the edge for sure. But XP does not bug you every 10 minutes. That would be Vista. At least bash the right OS. (Bash, a Linux joke, get it?)

11. More security -- Windows has far more people writing programs for it. If they chose to not have an auto update feature it is their fault.

12. Linux wins here.

13. So Linux apps are on par with Windows freeware apps? (CD burning built in to XP is by Roxio. Photo managers, Picasa by Google, etcc.) So again why not use the popular platform?


Anyways, it was a nice humorous read.

 

[brom42]

I am not going to do a fancy numbered list, but here are a couple of things that bothered me.

Windows is basically free to most home users since it comes included on their systems. People also tend to use the same OS that came on their system until they buy a new one.

Norton is the biggest Cancer that has come to windows and mac. I help a lot of people when they get their systems. All they have to do is uninstall norton and put something like NOD32 on and their system flies.

Lastly, defragging?? That is really grasping at straws. He would have sounded a lot more unbiased if he had stopped at 10, or even better 5.

Windows, Linux, and OSX all have their benefits and pitfalls. Frankly I use all 3 and don't understand what all the bullshit is about. People tend to treat OSes like religion and aren't very rational about other systems.

For the record my personal preference is Windows > OS X >>> Linux. That said, my laptop has Linux (just updated to Ubuntu 7.10) as the only OS installed on it because Linux is my least favorite overall; it is the best solution for what I use it for.

 

[soja]

Just wondering, what did you guys have to do that required so much terminal use in Ubuntu? Hardware related? Most of the time everything is available in the repository via synaptic (search, click, install?) or I can usually find a .deb which takes less clicks than an .exe.

As for the article, it seems as though he is convinced nix is so much better he never gave windows a chance (a lot like nix reviews by windows users). A lot of those points are pretty ridiculous. The only arguable ones are 1, 10-13. Although only for gaming, my windows box runs perfect w/ the proper maintenance. And yes, many Linux apps are on par w/ Windows freeware apps in my opinion. K3B (perfect burning app?), Amarok (best music app?), F-spot, Digikam, Picasa (wine), etc...? There are plenty of reasons to use or atleast try linux. Sadly this article only points out maybe one and a half. This debate never ends....

 

[Saist]

.... I agree with Soja.

What in the world are you having to do in Linux today that requires going to the command line on a constant basis?

I can come up with a couple of scenarios.

A: You switch repositories a lot on a Debian based system and have to run apt-get install -f a lot.

B: You need to reconfigure the X server for proper resolution on a Debian system, dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

C: You use Ubuntu and have to su all the time. Get out of Gnome, use KDE, we have kdesu which is a GUI pop-up that asks for your /root password.

***

Now, I came back in here to cheer that HardOCP had linked to a review of SimplyMepis, however it was the old the Dapper Drake 6.5 release. I wanted to point out that the 6.5 release is being ... depreciated ... as work moves forward on the Debian(pure) based 7 Series.

I also wanted to state that Mepis 7 RC1 is currently targeted for release between November 10th-15th, and the final should be out by the end of November.

We would appreciate all those people who are still having to go to the command line to come to Mepislovers.org and tell us WHY you are having to do so, and WHAT programs are calling for the command line so much so that we can make sure you do not have to go the command line..

As we have been doing since 2003 when we already had automated installation of nvidia-glx and fglrx drivers, as well as other various tools to help manage your system through the GUI.

Now, if you have a problem that you need to go to the command line for, I do take commissions to put specific guides up on Mepisguides.com. If you are having a specific problem... ASK. We'll try to answer. And if we can't answer it ourselves, we'll try to find someone who can. Don't haul out the flame thrower and hose away because something wasn't to your liking.

 

[nobody_here]

Man I thought this was [H]ardOCP. Guess taking a little time to get the most out of your OS is too [H] for most people?

um...yeah...the site is Hard OCP, the users are anyone in the world that wants to join, including people that want their OS to be as fast and secure as Linux but with all the advantages and compatibility of Windows.....

Just wondering, what did you guys have to do that required so much terminal use in Ubuntu? Hardware related? Most of the time everything is available in the repository via synaptic (search, click, install?) or I can usually find a .deb which takes less clicks than an .exe.

ok, you see, thats exactly what i mean, when i was here asking questions about my problem with Ubuntu i got responses exactly like that.....so my next question would be what and where is the "repository" and how do you mean "via synaptic", and what and where and why do i use synaptic..!!??

thats what i am getting at, are the linux devs so arrogant that they cant put a "start" button and a "control panel" and a "install new driver" or something that makes sense to the other 99% of the world using Windows that wants to honestly give Linux a try?

and yes, my issue was hardware

1. i shouldnt have to worry about hardware problems, i dont with Windows, the issues i was having with Linux went away all at once and in entirety when i re-installed XP

2. ok, so i found out i needed to do research (more time wasted) to find out exactly what model of wireless PCI card i could use with Windows...and i found out which one had Linux support, but didn't come with Linux drivers on the disc, so i go asking, get told what you mentioned above (more time wasted)......long story short, i ended up having to do a bunch more research (more time wasted), learning that there was a Terminal, finding out how to use it, finding out how to do what i needed, and in the end was it worth it? sure, if i didnt ever have to go back into that stupid Terminal again, but the fact that it took me hours and hours just to get a simple driver installed.....no thanks....god forbid if i ever wanted to do something serious

 

[Servant of Shodan]

...ok, so i found out i needed to do research (more time wasted) to find out exactly what model of wireless PCI card i could use with Windows...and i found out which one had Linux support, but didn't come with Linux drivers on the disc, so i go asking, get told what you mentioned above (more time wasted).....

That’s exactly what the last straw was for me. The first problems were hardware related, for example, a Radeon card on my older system, which I could not get to display greater than 800x600. I searched for hours to figure out it took about 7 steps and line after line of command code…

Then I couldn’t get the f’n wireless to work and found “solutions” that looked like this:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1071920&mode=linear
Hah! Another 7 step “solution” that took way too long to even begin to understand. You know what? Screw it. I don’t hate Microsoft that much.

I am all for Linux’s success. I really want an alternative to Windows (other than OSX – I’m not gonna screw around with hacked versions of OSX, and I’m certainly not gonna get locked into Apple’s hardware). But the ease of use is still not there for people who don't have the time to essentially learn a whole new programming language.

 

[digital_exhaust]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting your OS to simply, and I mean that literally, work.

On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the time, if one is so inclined, to actually do the research and learn how to use an OS that is not made by Microsoft or Apple... and I'm sorry, but it is no easier for a life long Windows user to make the switch to a Mac than it is to Linux... Ubuntu, in particular..

I think the article was pretty weak, just as the one linked to (Why Linux won't make it to a desktop near you)... there are valid arguments on both sides of that fence, but the authors reasoning was.....weak.....

 

[Met-AL]

Remove all the bull crap bias statements and it's a good article.

#1 reason for me why no Linux for me, I couldn't get my wireless card to work with Ubuntu what-the-frack version just before the one that released this week.

(wasted 3 hours on that one before I said enough. Cost to me= $150 for my time, which is more expensive then a copy of Windows XP)

 

[izbliss]

......long story short, i ended up having to do a bunch more research (more time wasted), learning that there was a Terminal, finding out how to use it, finding out how to do what i needed, and in the end was it worth it? sure, if i didnt ever have to go back into that stupid Terminal again, but the fact that it took me hours and hours just to get a simple driver installed.....no thanks....god forbid if i ever wanted to do something serious

This is the EXACT same reason I had for going back to Windows. I don't have the time or patience to learn a whole new set of commands for a new OS. I do hate M$ forcing us to upgrade to their new OS every few years, but it's easy to use and it works (although not perfectly). I had my fill of command lines 15 years ago when i was trying to free up more conventional memory to play Tie Fighter. Now that I don't have to worry about the command lines anymore, I SURE don't want to go back.

 

[Jeff Foley]

Just another "me too" here. I tried Ubuntu on three of my machines at 7.04 and I ended up going back to Windows only after a month or so. I did learn a lot but to be honest... I don't want to learn again. I was a DOS geek back in the day and I just don't have the time to get into my OS like that again. It's definitely a nice OS for geeky people just getting into computers(ie. high school or even college kids), but those of us who went through the learning curve once(or twice) already... no thanks.

 

[digital_exhaust]

but I already went through the learning curve once(or twice) and don't want to again... no thanks.

Fixed

There are many more that are unwilling than those who are, but generalizations are similar to assumptions... and you know what they say about those.... a lot of us enjoy a consistent, never ending learning curve... and, yeah.. I was around back in the old days as well...Castle Wolfenstein....Karateka back in the early eighties.. man those games were the shit....

 

[Catweazle]

Reasons not to install Linux:

1. I don't want to.
2. I don't need to.

I win!

Seriously, the article linked makes assumption that installing Linux is something people would want to do and which could benefit them. That somehow people have shrunk from installing it because of perceived shortcomings of the platform, and that it "should" be on our machine. It loses me as soon as it allows that element of 'compulsion' to creep in because, quite frankly, irrespective of all else it is this bit which makes it a rather silly prospect for me:

Once the gloss wears off, it's about applications

.....

For most users, OpenOffice is compatible enough with Word, Excel, and Powerpoint. The font set in the Writer is pretty mean but can be made more generous by installing MS core fonts with Synaptic. Still, fonts are the elephant in the Linux room, admittedly. More work needs to be done here.

Compatibility stops with Desktop Publishing, since Scribus can't open Publisher files. Other than that, Scribus will do most of the things Publisher does, Evolution is more than a match for Outlook, and Firefox makes Internet Explorer 7 look stale. ShowFoto is as slick as any photo editor I've used on XP, digikam is a great photo organizer, and the Linux multi-media apps lack nothing.

If you prefer Opera to Firefox, or XnView for working with photos, you just tick the box in Synaptic and it will provide. More specialized apps like Inkscape or Blender are just a few Synaptic clicks away. The Gimp is already installed; it has a reputation for being hard to use but who'd argue that Adobe Photoshop isn't?

Google now offers Picasa and Desktop Search for Linux, so there's enough here to keep most PC users happy. There's WINE for those who can't do without their favorite Windows programs (that's how Google made Picasa work on Linux). For those who can't live without their Windows games, Cedega makes them playable for a modest cost (a rare exception in this realm).

There are 15,000 apps that run on Linux. That they're generally free doesn't mean they're not up-to-scratch, but, like the thousands of apps available for Windows, the quality varies.

Let's start with OpenOffice. I've mentioned in other topics that I'd consider OpenOffice to be a reasonable MS Office 97 replacement. The comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but the principle applies regardless. File compatibility is the least of the considerations, far as I'm concerned. OO is just plain and simple not a professional enough tool to satisfy me.

Gimp? Clunkiest, most annoying graphics app I've ever used. Google apps? You gotta be kidding me if you think I want them anywhere near my machine. The list goes on. It's not because the applications aren't "what I am used to". It's because, to me, even the best of the apps are a 'making do' proposition.

And then there's the matter of 'product documentation'. Overwhelmingly, the 'product documents' available for Linux application are lists of program controls and functions, not guides to using the applications productively.


Linux has most certainly 'matured' as a platform. I'm a bit bemused by some of the "I tried it several years ago and..." comments being put forward here. But the real issue isn't the maturity of the OS itself. It's not the 'learning curve' or the interface which is off-putting. It's the availability of applications which satisfy me. I pay for the professional-quality Windows software because it provides me with a better, more enjoyable, comfortable and productive environment to work in.

 

[nobody_here]

Just another "me too" here. I tried Ubuntu on three of my machines at 7.04 and I ended up going back to Windows only after a month or so. I did learn a lot but to be honest... I don't want to learn again. I was a DOS geek back in the day and I just don't have the time to get into my OS like that again. It's definitely a nice OS for geeky people just getting into computers(ie. high school or even college kids), but those of us who went through the learning curve once(or twice) already... no thanks.

actually, i like Jeff's depiction, it describes me also, i was into PC's when a 4.7Mhz PC with a "whopping 640k memory" running MS DOS and Zen for word processing on a 13" or 14" monochrome amber monitor was the stuff of the day....we were in high cotton then....i remember when we upgraded from a 5.25" floppy to a single sided 3.5" 720k floppy drive, and me and my dad we like WOW.....yeah, i knew all the tricks back then and enjoyed it, had time for it, i was young, now i have a life, a family, and little time free, so i just need stuff to work the first time every time, never-mind learning that crap all over again

 

[soja]

um...yeah...the site is Hard OCP, the users are anyone in the world that wants to join, including people that want their OS to be as fast and secure as Linux but with all the advantages and compatibility of Windows.....



ok, you see, thats exactly what i mean, when i was here asking questions about my problem with Ubuntu i got responses exactly like that.....so my next question would be what and where is the "repository" and how do you mean "via synaptic", and what and where and why do i use synaptic..!!?
thats what i am getting at, are the linux devs so arrogant that they cant put a "start" button and a "control panel" and a "install new driver" or something that makes sense to the other 99% of the world using Windows that wants to honestly give Linux a try?

and yes, my issue was hardware

1. i shouldnt have to worry about hardware problems, i dont with Windows, the issues i was having with Linux went away all at once and in entirety when i re-installed XP

2. ok, so i found out i needed to do research (more time wasted) to find out exactly what model of wireless PCI card i could use with Windows...and i found out which one had Linux support, but didn't come with Linux drivers on the disc, so i go asking, get told what you mentioned above (more time wasted)......long story short, i ended up having to do a bunch more research (more time wasted), learning that there was a Terminal, finding out how to use it, finding out how to do what i needed, and in the end was it worth it? sure, if i didnt ever have to go back into that stupid Terminal again, but the fact that it took me hours and hours just to get a simple driver installed.....no thanks....god forbid if i ever wanted to do something serious

Well, If you were specifically asking how to do something, I'd explain in a different manner of course. If you wanted clarification, just ask. I'd have no problems explaining it. But jotting down basic things step for step is a waste of time (we don't want that now do we?) unless someone asks. There are quite a few starter guides/wikis that explain the basics pretty well without being overwhelming. And the ubuntu forums are one of the most helpful places I've ever seen. You could always explain that you don't know what they are talking about and they usually explain in greater detail. Very noob friendly.

As for "start" button and a "control panel" and a "install new driver", maybe try kde (kubuntu)? Pclinuxos also uses kde and has a layout very similar to XP and claims to have better hardware support (I've used it but I didn't have hardware problems to begin with). There is a windows like start button and control center that is just like control panel. As for drivers, that's a problem I agree. It's a hit and miss especially for wifi. I don't use wifi myself but for one of the machines I set up required the use of ndiswrapper and it wasn't that user friendly. I could easily see that turning off some people. For my machine, dropping in ubuntu doesn't require a single driver install (except enabling the included nvidia driver). I guess when you have a machine that works out of the box it's hard to complain. It would be better if it was easier to get hardware working when it's not supported out of the box, but that's not going to happen anytime soon when linux drivers aren't written by the manufacturers for a good amount of hardware out there. It's a nice thought though isn't it?

Another point, Ubuntu has a really big following, but I don't think its the easiest distro to switch to from Windows. Personally I think it's more of a balanced distro with a bit of everything and enough support/funding to keep getting better. Linux isn't for everyone, it just suits me very well. Because of that I'm willing to help out people that want to give it a whirl.

Catweazle, you make a good point. Another weak side for Linux is lack of professional apps. Wine/Crossover is improving everyday but it's illogical to expect a professional to use it unless it runs flawlessly. Damn, +2 windows

 

[nobody_here]

Well, If you were specifically asking how to do something, I'd explain in a different manner of course. If you wanted clarification, just ask. I'd have no problems explaining it. But jotting down basic things step for step is a waste of time (we don't want that now do we?) unless someone asks. There are quite a few starter guides/wikis that explain the basics pretty well without being overwhelming. And the ubuntu forums are one of the most helpful places I've ever seen. You could always explain that you don't know what they are talking about and they usually explain in greater detail. Very noob friendly.

*snip to save space*

Catweazle, you make a good point. Another weak side for Linux is lack of professional apps. Wine/Crossover is improving everyday but it's illogical to expect a professional to use it unless it runs flawlessly. Damn, +2 windows

all i know is, everyone i have talked to recently that tried Ubuntu that searched the web and forums, including the Ubuntu forums looking for answers said the same thing....everybody trying to help assumes too much, they assume when you say "create a directory called XXX.XX" that we all know how to do that.....thats where they start, they dont even tell you how to do that...so then you have to search more or ask more, only to get more assuming answers......it's like this

windows works period

no reason to switch until linux is an equal with all the advantages of linux, and i know it can be done, i honestly think the majority of the people working with it would honestly rather keep it to themselves so to speak, keep it vague enough to keep everyone from wanting to swap....i seriously believe that, it's like it's theirs and they dont really want everyone else to benefit from it, they want everyone else to want it and only want those that are willing to learn a new OS all over again to get it....and thats how it is

meanwhile i will use windows and be happy

 

[Andhar]

I see alot of people bashing that article, as biased as it seems it is a good one.

I have 7 boxes in my house, the only 2 that I wont port over to a *nix os is my htpc (even tho I have been looking into mythos) I like linux Ubuntu has made starting out very easy and even tho I started out with Mandrake back in the day I like ubuntu better.

Dual booting and having boxes built specifically for linux/FreeBSD I see the differences between xp/vista and the open-source systems, I like the transperency of linux/bsds.

An OS is a personal choice and many people don't want to put the time in to learn something new or something that has a "expert" asking questions on a forum feeling stupid but hey youre not gonna go far if you don't want to learn.

 

[soja]

all i know is, everyone i have talked to recently that tried Ubuntu that searched the web and forums, including the Ubuntu forums looking for answers said the same thing....everybody trying to help assumes too much, they assume when you say "create a directory called XXX.XX" that we all know how to do that.....thats where they start, they dont even tell you how to do that...so then you have to search more or ask more, only to get more assuming answers......it's like this

windows works period

no reason to switch until linux is an equal with all the advantages of linux, and i know it can be done, i honestly think the majority of the people working with it would honestly rather keep it to themselves so to speak, keep it vague enough to keep everyone from wanting to swap....i seriously believe that, it's like it's theirs and they dont really want everyone else to benefit from it, they want everyone else to want it and only want those that are willing to learn a new OS all over again to get it....and thats how it is

meanwhile i will use windows and be happy

Hah, I know what you mean. I first tried linux maybe 7-8 years ago and dabbled every now and then and that is how it felt like. I don't think it's that much like this anymore, except for a few of the more advanced distros. Places like the gentoo forums are definitely like that. But the forums for ubuntu, mepis, mint, pclinuxos, etc.. are pretty friendly. I see what you're saying though, because sometimes asking a question that's been asked before often directs you to another thread/site that you have to read. But a lot of times the best info is obtained this way and it saves time for everyone. Patience and time is definitely key though. You can't learn the OS overnight, but most of it is close enough to other operating systems so that you don't have to start from the very basics. You also can't expect it to work just like windows. I think the ubuntu documentation does a pretty good job at getting people situated. I think the 3rd chapter is on synaptic and installing/removing apps. A 10 min read that would probably prevent a lot of confusion (as well as the rest of the doc). Learning is a bitch though if you have no interest in the subject.

 

[Catweazle]

I see alot of people bashing that article, as biased as it seems it is a good one.

Do you somehow think that "disagreeing with" is the same thing as "bashing"?


Let's look at the 'points' raised:

1. Cost.
To the overwhelming majority of people Windows isn't something conceived of as a 'cost', because they get it preinstalled on the PCs they purchase. There are freeware alternatives available for just about any applications task people want to put their PCs to work at. Matter of fact most of the 'Linux software' is available for the Windows platform as well!

2. Resources
Goodness. Not the tired old "you need RAM and hard drive space" argument again! Nowadays even budget rigs come equipped with plenty of both, and for the person with an older, less capable rig the sensible decision isn't a move to Linux. It is remaining with the older Windows version rather than moving to the new one.

3. Performance
Everybody should move to Linux because Vista runs like a dog if you install it to an older system which it shouldn't be on? Yeah, right!

4. No bloatware.
Adware, shovelware, trialware, blah, blah? None of that on my rig either. Installing it is a choice, not an inevitability.

5. Security
More 'virus signatures' get reported for Windows because almost everybody USES Windows and thus the writers of such things target it. Guess what? They get responded to awfully damned quickly. There's no AV function included in Windows because the 'anti-competitive practices' whack-jobs make it impossible for MS to include one, but beyoind that Windows is now plenty 'secure enough'.

6. Dual-booting
Multi-boot scenarios for Windows "just work". All you need do is adhere to the principle of 'install oldest version first' and it is set up and cofigured for you without any intervention needed. Want to dual-boot with Linux? That should 'just work' too. Install Linux last!

7. Installation
Anyone who's done it more than once should know that it doesn't need to be a process which takes days! There are better approaches to adopt. And the linux install routine can't read my freakin' mind and configure all the apps to appear and work the way I want them to.

8. Reinstallation
Don't give me that 'have to redownload all the patches' rubbish, please. We've now got to the point where I can tick a box and have them already downloaded and installed when I arrive at the desktop after the install. And if a heap of time has passed and the overall size of the updates makes me reticent to re-download them I can easy enough make up a 'slipstreamed' install disk.

9. Keeping track of software
Oh my! Commercial software apps have install codes! Whoopti-doo! Because of this I should avoid Windows and instead use second-rate applications? I don't think so!

10. Updating software.
Anything on my Windows rig which needs to be regularly updated has the facility to auto-update itself.

11. More security.
Point made here is the same as the previous point, basically, put another way. And it isn't 'hard, manual labour'.

12. No need to defrag disks.
Most people running defrags in Windows don't actually 'need' to either. For the vast bulk of people, running a defrag once or twice a year would suffice. Point might be 'true', but it's also petty.

13. A wealth of built-in utilities
What was that I heard before? About included 'bloat'?




It is only a 'good artcile', my friend, if it is saying what you wanted to hear. If it's not doing that then it remains the 'misleading' article that it actually is.

 

[Andhar]

No I don't think that disagreeing is bashing...

Let's look at the 'points' raised:

1. Cost. - To the overwhelming majority of people Windows isn't something conceived of as a 'cost', because they get it preinstalled on the PCs they purchase. There are freeware alternatives available for just about any applications task people want to put their PCs to work at. Matter of fact most of the 'Linux software' is available for the Windows platform as well!

Most enthusiasts don't buy prebuilt and I took the OS and ALL the bloat off (office trial, adobe crap and norton trial) the day I got my laptop..

2. Resources -
Goodness. Not the tired old "you need RAM and hard drive space" argument again! Nowadays even budget rigs come equipped with plenty of both, and for the person with an older, less capable rig the sensible decision isn't a move to Linux. It is remaining with the older Windows version rather than moving to the new one.

Are you saying its ok for an OS to be a resource hog? I don't think I want to waste space even with 1TB of space, I can think of better things do with my ram or hd space.

3. Performance
Everybody should move to Linux because Vista runs like a dog if you install it to an older system which it shouldn't be on? Yeah, right!

According to MS's minimum specs it can go on some pretty low end stuff... Come on every system is different and I used vista I don't like it - it's pretty but thats about it. I don't want pretty I want shit to work.

4. No bloatware.
Adware, shovelware, trialware, blah, blah? None of that on my rig either. Installing it is a choice, not an inevitability.

It's not always a choice, Install the wrong program or go to the wrong site and you have it.

5. Security
More 'virus signatures' get reported for Windows because almost everybody USES Windows and thus the writers of such things target it. Guess what? They get responded to awfully damned quickly. There's no AV function included in Windows because the 'anti-competitive practices' whack-jobs make it impossible for MS to include one, but beyoind that Windows is now plenty 'secure enough'.

I don't know much about nix virii so I can't comment on that.

6. Dual-booting
Multi-boot scenarios for Windows "just work". All you need do is adhere to the principle of 'install oldest version first' and it is set up and cofigured for you without any intervention needed. Want to dual-boot with Linux? That should 'just work' too. Install Linux last!

7. Installation
Anyone who's done it more than once should know that it doesn't need to be a process which takes days! There are better approaches to adopt. And the linux install routine can't read my freakin' mind and configure all the apps to appear and work the way I want them to.

I have my installs simplified by keeping master dvd copies of all my updated software/drivers on hand. It still takes longer.. After 20mins my laptop was running 7.10 with everything running perfectly.

8. Reinstallation
Don't give me that 'have to redownload all the patches' rubbish, please. We've now got to the point where I can tick a box and have them already downloaded and installed when I arrive at the desktop after the install. And if a heap of time has passed and the overall size of the updates makes me reticent to re-download them I can easy enough make up a 'slipstreamed' install disk.

I've done this as well but on new systems it's a snooze waiting for all the updates.

9. Keeping track of software
Oh my! Commercial software apps have install codes! Whoopti-doo! Because of this I should avoid Windows and instead use second-rate applications? I don't think so!

Second Rate apps?? like what? alot of the apps I have used are far from second rate.

10. Updating software.
Anything on my Windows rig which needs to be regularly updated has the facility to auto-update itself.

First thing I do is disable automatic updates, sorry I want to know what is going on with my rig, I choose what to install.

13. A wealth of built-in utilities
What was that I heard before? About included 'bloat'?

I think he meant commercial bloat , the only thing I would consider bloat on linux is Open Office... I don't ever plan on using it..




It is only a 'good artcile', my friend, if it is saying what you wanted to hear. If it's not doing that then it remains the 'misleading' article that it actually is.[/QUOTE]

It has its points, But everyone has different views on things just like you were so quick to pick it apart in a windows centric way.

 

[EnderW]

1. Cost -- Linux is free, and that includes all the apps.

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

 

[Catweazle]

-stuff-

Please don't take offence at this, but that was hard to read. splitting the 'quotes' into smaller bits would make it easier.

Most enthusiasts don't buy prebuilt and I took the OS and ALL the bloat off (office trial, adobe crap and norton trial) the day I got my laptop.

The article linked din't restrict itself to suggesting that 'enthusiasts' should install Linux.

Are you saying its ok for an OS to be a resource hog? I don't think I want to waste space even with 1TB of space, I can think of better things do with my ram or hd space.

I'm saying that 'resource hog' is a relative concept. I install Vista (or any other OS) to my rig with the intent of running productivity applications, running multimedia activities which include recording TV and maintaining libraries of content, running 3D games and whatever else. I'm just straight not going to try doing that on a weensy hard drive. I want half a terabyte or more of storage capacity. If I have half a terabyte or more of storage capacity then quibbling about whether the OS installation folder uses 4Gb or 9Gb is rather petty. so is quibbling about whether the OS partition needs 20Gb or 40Gb to effectively have room to breathe.

According to MS's minimum specs it can go on some pretty low end stuff... Come on every system is different and I used vista I don't like it - it's pretty but thats about it. I don't want pretty I want shit to work.

Playing games with 'minimum requirements' is part of the commercial reality of the world we live in, not some inherent flaw of a particular product. And if the only difference somebody sees is the inteface 'prettiness' then they're not really qualified to comment. I'm not trying to debate those points. I'm saying they are just plain silly.

more of the same

more of the same

The article presented a one-sided view. That doesn't make it a good article. Opposing or alternate views can be traded back and forth forever. Good articles provide overviews which consider both sides of debate, and reason their way to conclusions.

 

[nobody_here]

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.

good point, my time is worth +/- $30/hr to my company, my time is worth more to me than they think it is, thus, i cant spend much time at all with something that doesnt "just work"

 

[JVC]

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.

 

[Andhar]

Tough crowd, but you are right we can debate it back and forth and still disagree at the end of it all.
I first tried linux back in 98 and I was like wtf is this pos, I promptly got rid of it and went back to windows.

Linux has come along way in the last few years with better driver support and stability, I am not an advanced user but it's worth my time to learn it & being that I work for IBM it is worth my time to learn it.

Article aside, I think it's worth it.

 

[Emission]

The article is just crap, most of the reasons on there arent even good reasons and are actually false. Im not a linux hater, i have my own asterisk voip system running on it, but when people shovel crap like that it.......

I whole-heartedly agree. On any decent system, windows takes all of 20-30 minutes to install, even less with streamlined remasters. They're trying to nazi out Windows, instead of showing it in an identical light as linux. I've done my fair share of linux installs, my main firewall uses a linux os, and it's alright, but there's a reason I use Windows day to day. I don't have to waste time finding an application when I want to do something, and in windows an app can be installed in seconds basically. Not to mention, WINE support is still rough, they're not even at v1 yet.

 

[Jeff Foley]

actually, i like Jeff's depiction, it describes me also, i was into PC's when a 4.7Mhz PC with a "whopping 640k memory" running MS DOS and Zen for word processing on a 13" or 14" monochrome amber monitor was the stuff of the day....we were in high cotton then....i remember when we upgraded from a 5.25" floppy to a single sided 3.5" 720k floppy drive, and me and my dad we like WOW.....yeah, i knew all the tricks back then and enjoyed it, had time for it, i was young, now i have a life, a family, and little time free, so i just need stuff to work the first time every time, never-mind learning that crap all over again

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

 

[runner6m]

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.

 

[Emission]

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.

This is why linux is the way it is, because the world runs on Windows.