Five Reasons NOT to Use Linux

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

Read before you flame !

 

I dnt use linux only because it can't play games like crysis.

 

That is exactly why you dual-boot.

Congrats on the 1000 posts!

 

I gotta agree with #1-3.

 

Agree with the titles? Or the author's sarcasm?

 

the only REAL reason not to use linux is because it has difficulty playing games.

o, and if some of your hardware isnt supported under linux but it is supported under windows. those are the only two reasons i will accept as reasons people wont use linux

..o, and i guess if they dont know how to install an operating system and windows is already on there..

 

I was becoming increasingly angry while I read the article until I realized that the author is being sarcastic. Phew.

 

Yeah, quite right, I haven't had any problems with unsupported hard ware, but games on Linux without Wine are really bad.

Oh and by the way, 1000 posts! Finally... Never thought I could make it this far.

 

I realized the sarcasm very early on and i found this quite humorous.

 

Lol, didn't realize he was being sarcastic until after I read the comments for each title.

But I do find Linux a little hard to get use to. But that's just me.

 

I miss Microsoft Office 2007 and some other programs when I use linux. There's no real perfect platform out there, so I guess it depends upon what you want to use your computer for. Linux is nice for a variety of uses for sure, though You just have to teeter towards being a power user to get it to work for you. The majority of computer users don't fall in that category, thus Microsoft's/Apple's dominance in the personal computer OS marketplace.

 

Games. Window's last remaining stronghold.

 

Totally agree. Linux has made huge improvements in that regard over the years, but there is still plenty of work needed before it will become a real threat to MS/Apple.

 

The two things that I would miss most if I went Linux only is Microsoft Office and games. But the way I see it is why limit yourself to only one OS, I use them all.

 

ha ha....article is ancient though

 

Not as ancient as you, zoid!
j/k
lol, funny article.

 

When that article was written, I still had my teeth....LOL (j/k !!)

 

I would believe that

 

Well, whether or not the author intended it, most of his points still have a kernel of truth.

I wouldn't compare the command line in Linux to regedit on Windows.
He's exaggerating a bit when he says that it's "unlikely" that you'll need to use a command line. For day to day work, possibly, but I've never been able to set up a Linux system "just like that". How many people here have set up and configured a Linux box without having to use the command line? Without requiring "magic" knowledge of the location of configuration files?

On the other hand, it's trivially possible to both set up and use a Windows machine without doing anything on the command line, and without even opening regedit.
(Which isn't an attack on the idea of powerful command lines, btw. That's the #1 thing I miss in Windows)

And that carries over to #2, which is basically a mess.

First, it doesn't matter how complicated Windows is to set up. Most users can't do that either. They get Windows pre-installed.
Switching to Linux requires you to install an OS.
Buying a computer with Windows installed, doesn't.
And once again, it's never been that simple when I've installed Linux.
And talking about how secure an unpatched system is, is completely irrelevant in this context.

#3? How does it help his case to mention two specific products that have gone out of business? Isn't the important thing how many products are *still* available? It doesn't really matter how many are *not* available, does it?
And where does it say that only software that comes with the OS counts? His headline was "Linux doesn't have enough applications", which I would interpret as "not enough software is available in the Linux software ecosystem". Not as "Not enough software gets installed with Linux".
And of course, all the Linux software he mentioned is also available on Windows. On the other hand, the Windows software he mentions (obviously) isn't available on Linux, So even if we only consider the software he mentions, Windows ends up with more software available.
And as others have mentioned, where are the games?
It seems that Linux does have some problems with available software. Yes, for most needs, you're covered. But in some cases, you need MS Office, not OpenOffice. In some cases, you may want to play a game. In some cases, you need Photoshop, but can only get Gimp (which is a good program, but still not as powerful as Photoshop, even if it comes close. You may need those last few things that Photoshop does better)
Whether he likes it or not, a lot of people are sticking with Windows because it runs their software, and Linux doesn't.

Yes, Linux has software that'll get *most* things done. But most of it is written for little more than hobbyist purposes. They don't quite have an equivalent to Photoshop, for example. There's not as much software targeting professional users as there could be. And believe it or not, sometimes that becomes a problem.

I can't argue against the last two points though.

But overall, that "article" is rubbish. Fanboy ranting, and little more than that. Yes, there are a lot of bad reasons to stick with Windows floating around, but he hasn't really argued against them.

 

I have. Once.

 

it's coming around.

 

How so? Is there a new version of Wine coming out with DX10 support or something?

 

Naah. OpenGL 3.0 should be released around the same time as Duke Nukem Forever, and that will have all the same shader capabilities and such that DX10 does

All kidding aside, Linux is quite good for a number of games, especially older ones. Anything from id Software runs natively, many newer games like WoW run in Wine quite fine. More game developers are using an OpenGL path which basically makes running them in Wine almost trivial.

 

Well, games are not for everyone. But if you really need to play on that very expensive computing platform that Windows requires you to buy, then more power to you. Besides that, I stink at games !! As for MS Office apps, I have yet to find something created in Word, Excel, PPT that can't be displayed/run/used/modified in OpenOffice.org. There may be something somewhere, but I sure don't know of any. So, a $100.00 - $300.00 OS and commensurately priced Office apps vs. a Linux distro ($0.00 - negligible) and freeware.

I'm happy with my second hand IBM T20 (PIII 700/384MB/12GB) and Kubuntu 7.10 .

 

I run Vista on a Macbook Pro. I should technically be using OSX, but I don't, why? Steam doesn't run natively in OSX. Steam doesn't run natively in Linux (yet). I like Office 2007 (no native Linux).

Microsoft is in a sweet spot, with a virtual monopoly on high-end production software (Photoshop, AutoCAD) and games. I know some of the production software can run in Linux, but that still leaves games.

I love my games, and I have MANY of them (all of which I have working in Vista). I like Ubuntu and Mint (installed on many of my older systems), but until I can reliably start up Steam and each and every Steam game in Linux, it will be hard for me to make a full transition. Heck, I rarely ever boot into OSX, stupid gaming addiction!

 

As much as people bag on Microsoft, Windows isn't a "bad" OS. While it has its knuckled headed features (ActiveX, ActiveX, ActiveX, UAC, Network sharing center), it really isn't all that hard to use day to day. Most of the issues users have aren't all Microsoft's fault.

Networking issues? Get Network Magic, unless you wanna learn subnet masks and DNS name resolution. Firewalls? Honestly, most users should stick with Windows Firewall, which automates a lot of the security policies. Unless you enjoy memorizing a list of ports to open for each service you use.

Linux is great though if you like learning all this stuff. It is more rewarding if you are willing to put in the effort. I got started cause I heard Folding @ Home runs faster under native Linux. It's like the Veteran mode in Games. You get a much more rewarding experience over say, Casual Mode.

 

linux can still be tough to set up... it does require command line use in a lot of cases. and its not necessarily simple, especially if you have no prior experience using linux or a command line.

 

I just installed Ubuntu 8.04 last night on my HP dv6500t because my wife kept complaining about my ZA pop ups, Bluetooth mouse issues, loss of network connections, issues with hibernation/standby, IE spam/spyware, etc. I'll be waiting for these issues to pop up again in Linux, but we'll see how often it occurs!

Just wanted to point out that NO command line was necessary! Ubuntu 7 required cmd line though last time I attempted Linux (and gave up). No giving up this time!

 

If you want a really OOTB experience then use LinuxMint, it should have your bluetooth and all working perfectly fine. I got my wireless to work in it (i had trouble with every other distro), and whole bunch of other little things that aggravated me with other distro's.

 

So riddle me this.

(hypothetically)
You don't want play with the internals of your OS. You don't want to ever see the command line. You don't want to learn anything. You just want to use your applications and call it a day.

Why do you care about Linux, and why would you take even the increasingly easy step of installing it when you've already got an OS on your machine? Remember that, for being easier than it used to be, it still requires effort, and that you the switcher-user won't be able to rely on your old knowledge and habits applying to the new OS.

 

Personally, no, but my hope is that some distro of Linux will be an OS that, for a semi-experienced computer user of Win/Mac/*nix (not brand new user),
1) installs without a hitch on most computers.
2) the command line (or GUI for that matter) is not necessary to get the computer running with popular HW components.
3) enables using Internet and productivity applications without knowing the OS guts so one can just call it a day as you put it.

I love learning when it's efficient. In the past, I've had to learn too much about Linux to get it to just work out of the box- imo it was too immature for me to use it efficiently. Probably too immature for most people.

It's always had the potential of simultaneously catering to both power users and new users, which I believe is its true marketability. Up until perhaps recently, I think only could be used by power users despite interest by many.

Umm, I've been tired of the Windows bloat for a long time. I'm tired of the extra security. Tired of unreliability. Tired of paying money. The bottom line- it's just not efficient for someone to use a MS desktop operating system if they're interested about performance, security, reliability, and saving a few $.

 

I've only found one OS, to work all the time (on their specific HW), and that is OSX.

You don't have flexibility in HW, but it works, and you never have to see the terminal. And you can still use Office 2008 (prefer 2007 on Windows though), Photoshop, and even some X11 apps, like Gimp. IMO, it's the best OS, in terms of organization, stability, and has a large support of vendors.

Windows is the giant catch all. It works for most, and does most things. Stable and secure, if you know how to be computer smart. I do like Vista though, it has been solid since about last June, when Nvidia finally came with better drivers for my desktop, and ATI's drivers are OK on my laptop.

Linux is cool (running Kubuntu 8.04 on my Toshiba A215), and it is fast, stable, and has a lot of apps available. However, it's not something that I could ever hand a Live CD to my parents, and have them install it themselves...

Most things worked on my laptop, but wifi requires ndiswrapper, and it's always fun fixing X when something breaks. Webcam doesn't work, but I never use it in Vista either.

The downside is that USB support for printers and scanners is not good, Compiz sounds cool, but causes more headaches than not, and it doesn't have support of a lot of the major players. Wine is a waste of time as well.

I find point #5 somewhat true - buying computers pre-loaded with Windows, does appear to keep the initial costs down. For example, when I was comparing the Dell Ubuntu models with their Windows counterparts, they ended up quoting out with a higher price.

 

Sorry, gonna have to disagree with you here. Leopard is full of stupid little bugs that make it frustrating to use. Point in case, Warcraft 3. I can't play it for more than an hour without it crashing. It's why I'm selling my MacBook and going back to XP/Arch.

 

It only works when you DON'T want to play games. Want to play games? Get Windows. Want to be compatible with the rest of the world? Use windows

Linux is for geeks who like to tinker with their OS. Windows is for people who don't want to tinker. The IT department will do that for ya!

 

Exactly. Use OS X or Windows if you want things easy. OK, easy is a relative term. But, right now, although linux has become much more user friendly, it's probably not for newbies coming from OS X or Windows. Is there much more of a point to this suggestion? Linux is a choice after all. At least for most.

 

hmmm. I heard that ubuntu has great support for printers and such...

 

I am reading in all posts that Linux has a downside when we are talking about games. But think about the big picture. Windows and Linux on PCs have a downside when we are talking about games.

I am not using the PC for games. That would be a little stupid. I leave that for the PS3 or Xbox or WII.

I don't understand people who play games on PC. Every 2 years they have to change the video card in order to be able to play their favorite games on PC. After the video card, you have to buy more RAM. And the new game requires 30000000000 GHz Processor. But hey the Mother board is not compatible with the new processor. So this way you have to change your Mother board and thus the whole system just to play the games.

 

One Reason I am not using Linux: No one tells me EVER where to get Drivers.

Do i have to Code them or what?

 

Good stuff Leon, thanks for sharing.

 

This is really a poor argument. You are basically saying, "Because I don't do something no one else should either." The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people play games on the computer and that is why you see a big push to get them working on Linux.

 

If an OS doesn't support something that is important to you, don't use it.

I recommend dual booting though. In the past few years, linux has come a long way. Soon people who build their own systems will find it cheaper to use linux.

At the same time, Windows is considering modularizing windows (starting at a possibility of Windows 7.). This would allow for "pay for what you need" OSs. I can see them trying to make this into a bigger profit turner (charging you more for less) but it could end up saving you more.

 

The drivers are built into the Linux kernel, you don't need to go downloading them left and right like with Windows.

 

atbnet, you are not right. It's the same with the mobile phones. People are so disappointed because camera phones don't take good pictures, because they are of poor quality. The same with the PS3 (or Xbox or Wii) and the PC. The best games are on PS3, and this is not only my opinion.

You don't see people installing Linux on PS3 and surfing the web, although is possible. You use the game console for exactly its purpose. The same with the PC.

 

lol ok dude, whatever you say. You're 'wright'. I guess the millions of people playing WoW and on Steam are just my imagination.

 

I would not even dream of making my parents installing Windows on PC, neither. Heck, they have problems with so many drivers for windows, too. Actually, I think many of "ease-of-use" distros are much more easier to install than Windows. IMO the most of advantages of Windows comes from its de-facto-standard, therefore most PCs come with Windows preinstalled, and every hardware manufactures make their hardware for Windows.

 

All the school systems and libraries and government buildings can use Linux, and most of the world's population would be just comfy using Linux. People just need to be aware.

 

Why do people play games on the PC? Certain Genres just suck balls on the console.

RTS - The only decent RTS game i've played on the console is C&C3. And that's it. Starcraft, War3 and upcoming Starcraft 2 will be PC baby.

MMORGS - WoW plain and simple. Try playing that on the console

Any Serious FPS - All the serious FPS shooters are on the PC. CounterStrike, Call of Duty, Unreal, Quake, and Rainbow Six are all predominately PC platform games. It is hard to take down the mouse and keyboard here.

And no, you don't need to upgrade your video card every two years to play WoW, CounterStrike, Call of Duty 4, Starcraft, etc etc....

 

Currently typing this from my PS3. It's currently my most powerful desktop PC.

 

Processor wise, but the RAM sucks arse.

 

atbnet. I'm sorry if I don't speak English up to your standards. I don't know if you know one word in my native language, so stop being a hypocrite.