The Linux Advocacy Thread

Penguins, here is where you can speak about the benefits of Linux and tell those Windows only users what you think about them and their OS

In my experience, linux is overall faster, better looking, more functional (e.g. K3b, Amarok) except in the gaming arena ATM, and extremely portable. Not to mention inexpensive, configurable, and just plain cool in a really nerdy way.

Windows *only* users are truly the bottom feeders of the computing world, the J6P's (Joe Six Packs) (LOL, ok?). Being a gamer myself, that's the only excuse for Windows I can think of other than CAD, etc. given Virtual Machines. What say you?

 

Windows - Bloated, too big, not any included software, for $300
Linux - Fast, under 700 MBs, loads of software included, free.

 

Linux rocks. :yes:

Lightweight, open source, free, versatile, secure, etc.

Seriously, the eye-candy and selection of applications raises Linux above any other OS. :smile:

And it definitely lends itself to more discovery -- if you want to get a good understanding of how an OS works, and develop/program/hack, Linux is a must.

Oh, yeah.

 

Very good points pixelot...discovery is probably what keeps most of us with it, other than it's looks, function and speed Windows is very boring.

 

Thomas said on another thread he was giving XP a rest. That's what I say to all, do the right thing and let Windows Rest In Peace.

 

LOL, I'll have to reboot occasionally though.

 

Just hold your nose and get through it as fast as you can....you'll be A-OK lol

 

I just reinstalled XP on an old desktop. The gf needs a PC for some sort of new data collection she uses at work. It took me about 3-4 hours to get everything, including a call to MS to get the system back up. After all was well with the PC and XP, I added Ubuntu in another 30 minutes or so, hoping she'll at least give it a try.

The PITA from the install process alone is enough for me to leave Windows forever. Then there's the AV, antispyware, CCleaner, apps for this, apps for that . . . just to avoid being killed by bad guys and crud - ugh!

 

I feel there are way too many Linux advocate threads/writeups on the internet, so i'll just say what i was attracted to Linux by. I was perfectly fine with Vista, being a power user i knew my way around and how to get rid of Windows problems. then i heard of Linux and i got interested, i made a thread about December last year (thanks to those of you who helped) and got it booting. I wasn't impressed at all, i thought it was more lame that that freaky distro hopper image from Rob. I come back after needing to install Linux on an old computer and i get hooked by the open nature and the geek in me wanted to know more. I kept on looking and searching and i found out a lot of stuff, but still wasn't impressed. Then one day, i found LinuxMint and i loved it. I decided to screw Vista and MS and give it a shot. I loved it. Soon after i deleted vista off my computer and used it exclusively. Then i got fed up with Mint and now i'm using Ubuntu (a few hours too early to say this but what the hay). I love the open nature, the way it works, and a whole bunch of other things. I am not a MS hater, i just don't like their tactics and their OS.

 

Though I may not be the right person for such a thread seeing how I'm currently a Windows XP user (though planning to install Linux again shortly), I shall still list a few things that made me use Linux once. These points do fall under better looking and configurable to your liking but eh, these particular details caught my interest:

1) Font Rendering. You have the complete freedom in this area; make it look like OS X fonts, or slightly sharper, or whatever comes across your mind - this ability to fine tune the system fonts with such ease is something Windows and Mac don't have.

2) Community. Once you become a Linux user, it is very hard not to become a part of it. Most distros, but especially Ubuntu have extraordinary forums with knowledgeable individuals that are more than willing to help you with just about any problem you might come across, and most often, they do. Not only that - the very nature of Linux leaves plenty of room for conversation about all sorts of programs and interfaces. You think of a way to improve a feature in a program or add in a new one? There are likely to be people who will want to discuss and support the matter. It's like all Linux users share a special bond.

3) Tweaking - there will always be more than enough tweaking to do. Even when pretty much everything is working on par, the open nature of the OS leaves room for improvement and fun in experimenting. It's hard to get bored in Linux and you can do far more creative stuff than just trying different types of anti-spywares and AVs like you would in Windows.

4) Games. Yes, I mean it. Small open-source games aren't nearly as bad as you might have thought, and with big commercial titles mostly out of the way due to OS incompatibility, you'll want to try out some free games that would otherwise go unnoticed. Who knows, you could be pleasantly surprised; during the time I'd been using Linux, I never felt much emptiness in that area (until someone would mention Black Isle's RPGs ).

5) Terminal. Once you get the hang of it, it's so much fun. Not only do you feel like a hacker/computer expert when your fingers are flying all over the keyboard typing out shortcuts and commands, but it is also quite useful. There is almost nothing you wouldn't be able to do faster via terminal.

There, those were the interesting details I could think of right now.

 

- Cheap Cost - Need I say more?

- Scalability - Linux runs on 75% of servers that form the backbone of the Internet, yet it can also be deployed on a 486 laptop, cell phone, or PDA.

- Fast - Linux is a speed fiend, with a small memory footprint to allow for other applications to run instead (true to its intentions for running on servers)

- Reliable - Linux servers are almost as reliable as Unix servers, going down only a few hours a year for maintenance or hardware changes.

- Relatively Maintenance Free - Linux is user-friendly in this respect; ever helped a friend shape up their computer, only to find that they don't defrag or clean up temporary files? The Linux filesystem experiences negligible fragmentation.

- relatively secure - something like 95% of IT professionals report not having come across a Linux virus. Of course, this may change, but world champions of various sports may also be defeated, and we still support them.

I'll make a post talking about the Linux design in a short while, as well as more reasons as to why is more secure.

 

I read up somewhere that Linux doesn't get fragmented because it notes where there is contiguous free space and puts files there, is that true?

 

That reminds me, I need to take care of that HD problem...

 

There ya go...anyone know where I can download a good defragger and malware program for linux?

 

Linux doesn't have a defragger program but if you're looking for anti-malware then use ClamAV.

 

Sorry was just kidding around.....lol.....I haven't seen anything like Spysweeper for linux which tells the story of the risk in using linux.

 

Lawl, i kinda knew but it sounded serious.

 

That's kewl....I forgot the j/k at the end...it's hard to read between the lines on the net sometimes

EDIT: in reference to other post Calvin, I'm not a MS hater or basher either, heck it runs my beloved Strategy games....I just prefer Linux and would therefore prefer if I didn't have to boot in Vista at all.

 

It sure is. I'm asking Chaz if i can update a whole mess of the threads here, a lot of them are old including all the stickies. Tom said he'd handle the software thread so everything will be updated.

 

There is a nice website I used to keep in my signature in Ubuntu Forums while I was using Linux. It's good for those completely unacquainted with Linux when you're feeling lazy .

Why Linux Is Better?

 

Yeah, sort of. The key to Linux avoiding file fragmentation is the general fact that it uses better algorithms for allocating sequential disk blocks for file storage. Windows systems tends to use a very simple method, looking for the next available block more or less sequentially, to store files. This can create a lot of file fragmentation, where files are stored on disk across blocks that are not sequential, over time as files are shrunk, grown, deleted and added. Hence the periodic need to de-fragment a Windows file system to improve performance, etc. Linux tends to avoid this by using the entire disk, and better algorithms to store files in sequential blocks, that are distributed across the entire disk space.

This would be a simplistic analogy. Let's say you think like Windows, and you want to organize your DVD collection on shelves. You put them in alphabetical order on your shelf space, with all of your empty space being at the end of your last DVD on your shelf. Next week you buy more DVDs, and you then have to reorder the entire set just to insert the new DVDs into the correct alphabetical order. Now your friend thinks like Linux, and instead of organizing his DVDs the way you did, he instead decides to take his entire shelf space and divide it into 26 sections, each corresponding to a letter of the alphabet. He then puts the DVDs into each section, leaving free space more or less evenly distributed across the entire shelf space so that when he buys new DVDs he has a better chance of being able to just put them on the shelf, rather than reorganizing the whole collection. He may even fine tune this algorithm further by calculating how often each letter will begin his movie titles, (maybe he has many movies that begin with T as in "The"), and he can adjust the space he allocates for each letter with even more accurate fine tuning. ..well you get the general picture

Some folks also go on to suggest that even if you have fragmented files, a Linux system can access the fragmented files more efficiently than a Windows system. As a result most people will say that Linux file systems almost never need to be de-fragmented. However, most file systems will eventually suffer negatively from file fragmentation, the more full the file system gets. So it's always a good idea to never run your file systems past 95% full, continually. Lastly, some folks point out that file systems can be designed using fragmented files as part of it's file access methodology, like Reiser4, particularly in its use of block suballocation. In that case file fragmentation is a design goal for the system, and not a problem. It all depends on the way that the OS/File system is designed.

Good Luck..

 

Excellent post, jas !

 

Indeed, I never quite understood all that until now.

 

Awesome post jas. Now i understand.

 

brilliant post jas.. !!

 

Linux is safer than Windows for a number of reasons:

- First, Linux has a much smaller user base and so is less of a priority for malicious attacks. I have heard of people disagreeing with this point, but I've never seen any logic in their responses. While this fact may not always hold true, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.

- Second, because Windows was never initially designed to be a multi-user system, it has a horrible user management system; the single user on a Windows system is an administrator (read: admin = root), and so the OS will make system wide changes without questioning the user. This means that any malicious software does not need authorization to work its magic; its already running on an admin account. Not only that, but Windows can have more than one root user, which makes little sense. This makes Windows systems very susceptible once they have run the software.

On the other hand, Linux creates a limited-privilege user and a single root user account right off the bat, so in order for a virus or any such software to run it first needs authorization from the user.

- Third, Linux has a modular design in terms of how the system is structured, whereas Windows uses a central design. This means that it is much easier for the latter operating system to be compromised or destroyed altogether.

Take the registry for example, where program settings and critical system information is kept by Windows. If the registry is deleted or corrupted by malware, the system is destroyed; not so with Linux. In Linux, each user has a "home" folder, which is the equivalent to the "My Documents" folder for Windows. Here, the settings for each system program are kept in individual hidden folders (.gimp, .gaim, .firefox, etc); in this way, only pieces of the Linux "registry" can be ruined, not the whole system. Furthermore, these parts could be deleted should the user wish it, without any adverse effects to the system.

Well, there's a brief explanation for you. Jas can probably offer better information as he seems to be more experienced and knowledgeable, but that's what I know.

 

Awesome post, however I'd like to note one thing:
Linux users are usually more tech savvy then Windows users, and more concerned about security. For Example:
Do you think I'm gonna risk downloading a virus in Linux? Hell No!

 

You bring up some good points Bog. (BTW, for my money you currently have the best Penguin avatar on the boards..) I would essentially agree that Linux, and other OSes like OSX, do the user an overall favor by setting up a security model where admin (super user or root) privileges are protected by design. In other words you need to explicitly invoke them, in order to configure system wide stuff. This isn't something that the Linux movement invented, it's just something that has worked well for computer systems in the past, and was part of the Linux implementation.

But in my opinion, the biggest problem Windows has in terms of security holes is the first point Bog makes, it has to do with the number of eyeballs looking for them. I would love to see Linux be the dominant OS with 90some percent installation market share, etc. But if that were the case, you can be assured that there would be folks out to target Linux system vulnerabilities. The magic of the Linux community is that while the number of brains working to compromise security would be great, I believe the number of brains working to secure the environment would be greater (both quantitative and qualitative). I think there would be little chance that security holes would exist for long, in a user supported environment like Linux. Who knows, maybe by the time some on this board are as old as I am, you may have the chance to see if it's true when everyone is using a user supported OS as their main OS, and things like closed source software, is a historical entry on Wikipedia.

Which brings me to my last point. What Linux advocacy means to me, since that's what this thread was about. I certainly appreciate everyone's exuberance when it comes to using Linux. I suppose if we are accused of being fanboys, then we're guilty. But Linux to me is something much deeper than free software. When I first started using computers I was entranced by a world that I had never seen before. It started for me simply by playing the game Zork, on a rented Apple II in my hometown, many years ago. When I opened the mailbox and read the leaflet, the response from the program sealed my fate, in that I would forever be intrigued by this technology. I also came to really appreciate all of those who shared my enthusiasm. I was too young to have known what it was like for computer science grads to have scaled office doors through ceiling tiles, to gain access to the college's mainframe after hours, (the original hackers), but I experienced a rich user community nonetheless, through modems, BBSes, freeware, shareware, and user groups, that left an indelible mark on me. It's the main reason that I participate in this board. Linux, and to be fair to Richard Stallman and his tireless efforts, the whole GNU/Linux movement, is what computing should be, at least it is to me. It should be open, and free, not necessarily in terms of financial cost, although that's important too, but free in terms of freedom. Freedom to explore it, learn from it, and freedom to participate in and improve it. And if that's the case, that it is the user community that sustains it, that drives it, that champions it, then it's only logical that it's the user community that "owns" it.

I also believe in a responsibility that comes with ownership. In terms of the Linux community, I take that to mean the responsibility of being a good community member. My experience with computers, and more importantly with computer users, over the course of time, has been one where the general ethic has been one of wanting to help one another understand this new world of technology. In that vein I make the mild suggestion that if you truly want to help, that you then consider not passing judgment at the same time. If someone comes to these message boards, and they're a Windows user, then they have a good reason for doing so, even if the reason is that it's all they know. We should welcome them, answer their questions as best we can, and invite them to stay and try Linux. But we shouldn't try to make a case that using Windows is stupid. I guess what I mean is that we can be excited about Linux without bashing anything else, if that makes any sense. (And just because someone starts off the war of words by bashing Linux, it doesn't justify returning the favor..)

Ok.. ok.. I'll get off the soapbox now..

BTW, please don't take my response to indicate that I think that theZoid's original start to this thread meant denigrating Windows users. I've read too many of his posts to know that he doesn't think that way. I understand he was making a joke, which we could use a lot more of too.. I point my comments in a more generalized direction of this forum, for posts in where we as a group perhaps could have been a bit more friendly, a bit more "GNU/Linux" like, etc.

Ok.. ok.. for real.. I'll get off the soapbox..

 

O_O jas you make some of the most easy to understand and thoughtful knowledgeable posts i see on NBR Forums. You also share some views with me, as i am a firm believer in using what you want to use and a big reason i advocate FOSS is because it gives you a choice, locking someone into something like Windows because PhotoShop only runs on Windows (let's not think of WINE) or because you're bashing Linux for no reason and spreading FUD/BS about competition.

Linux has opened my eyes to how the world should really be (software wise anyway), and I've committed to try and make a change it the world in any way i can (positively!) so that a product maker will tell you the advantages and the faults of their product so you know which one is better for you. Of course Windows would be out of business for sure but that is just what the world demands and cannot and should not be changed.

 

Please don’t flame me for saying this-but read all the post, I know the first part is MS loving. Live with it.

I think that Microsoft windows is a good, stable product with a brilliant Kernel and excellent hardware support. But the main problem with Windows is the computer manufactures-they get there hands on windows and destroy it with a passion. They put 50 useless processes running in the background, booting up at startup; making the OS slower than a snail nailed to the floor. When you finally get rid of all that trialware, sorting out the badly configured drivers, your system registry is destroyed-resulting in hours trying to master regedit and hence trying to botch the registry back together. I wouldn't mind if these process where of some use-but they do more harm than good. Those little registration programs which only kneed to run once, boot every single time and blast a 10ft wide hole in my firewall, interfering with every useful bit of binary on my system; demanding constant internet access. Probably just in case I kneed tor register ‘Nortan360 trail’ at a minutes notice. If the system came with only the specialized drivers and windows, possibly with AVG, 90% of my problems with windows would disappear. In linux, computer manufactures don’t get a chance to [expletive]-up my beautiful OS and hence resulting in a negative experience. Linux booted from factory OS’, like those from Dell and Asus, having only the OS and drivers put onto the system.

Another point is the Windows-compatible software. Everything from Adobe to win-zip demands its own separate internet connection, blasting gaping holes in my firewall. It’s not the fault of MS, but it is a hideous nuisance. From most of the Linux distributions that I have encountered, all the software updates practically come via one rout; in ubuntu the ‘synpack update manager’ ect. This makes the system infinitely more secure than the 12 separate connections in windows.

Furthermore, one thing that I would like to point out to all those bloat hating people: Microsoft has a vested interest in making old hardware obsolete and forcing people to buy new hardware. The demands made by Vista where there to serve this vested interest-with the eye candy being a mere token in response. This is why you can get the same eye-candy in Linux on far inferior machine. With no connection to laptop manufactures or vested interests in hardware obsolescence, Linux can be made to be a much slimmer system. Apple go’s about a different rout to MS; they force hardware obsolescence by only selling there newest OS with the newer hardware-Hence cutting out the kneed to bloat.

Whilst on Apple, the OS users. Linux users tend to be those helpful, proud, people. Linux users seem to use good arguments when advocating there OS, coming up with highly valid reasons for why 'the penguin' is the best, without an above-average number of elitists. Apple users however seem to argue:

“My osx is the best because it is. The great apple logo and white box make me so-much better than you. God, in his high heavens looks down upon me with envy, because I use the mac; the very ground I walk upon worships me because I use an Apple computer. No, the hardware’s not over priced; the Apple logo (more of a relic than the true cross) makes the hardware better than in every other computer. I AM NOT A FANATIC, JUST THAT APPLE IS THE GREATEST THING ON EARTH” so-on and so forth.

I know that this is not the case with every OSX user, but the number of mac-fanatics frankly makes me avoid apple computers so that I can limit my exposure to (the fanatic) Mac users with there less-than-sensible arguments. As I’ve said, other than the odd flame war between Linux-mint and Ubuntu lovers, Linux avoids most of those destructive fanatics.
Linux is not perfect, but the fact that it’s getting there; with a vengeance.

Sorry for the length of the post.

 

Oh, sorry, guys, I mistakenly dropped by thinking this was the Linux Advocacy Thread. Instead I've accidently stumbled into the Apple/Mac bashing thread. My apologies.

/Continues on to next thread on MBP

 

Thats not a problem with Windows, as you claim. Its a problem with the fact that computer manufacturers accept payments from various software makers to put trial crap on otherwise pristine systems. Microsoft has nothing to do with this issue.

The whole point of having a firewall is to control what comes in or goes out. If you don't like having 12 connections, block them. Also, opening connections for a short time to specific servers on the internet is not a real threat to your system security unless you leave the ports open to a scan.

Um, no. One of the current problems Microsoft is encountering is satisfying its two major camps of customers; the corporate sector and private sector. The issue here is that while Microsoft tries to promote cutting-edge technologies, it also is forced to patch new versions of Windows with compatibility layers, old and stupid features and designs, and outdated GUIs so that businesses can continue to run their old, customized apps out there. This is an area where I feel for Microsoft; they are faced with the impossible goal of satisfying everybody.

You haven't tied this string of useless words to any point you are trying to make. What are you saying?

.... huh?

Actually I don't like helping people. I have a low self esteem, and I'm not really a person. I'm more of a penguin.

Again, generalizations.

I think no further comment is necessary.

 

"Location: England"

Please tell me you're an immigrant; your grammar is absolutely horrendous for a native speaker of English. At least try to use good grammar/spelling if you expect people to read such a long post.

 

hehe... this is pretty funny stuff. Good posts, people. Some very informative stuff. I think I'll subscribe.

 

*raises hand* I participated in the Ubuntu vs. Mint flame war you speak of.

 

I think you make some good points. I have experienced some of the things you mentioned in your post from Windows bloat, to Windows really needing new hardware for new features, to fans of Apple technology arguing for the superiority of their platform. (BTW, I'm a fan of Apple technology, having used many Powerbooks in my past.) My main point was that there's plenty to talk about what Linux does right, as opposed to what other OSes may do wrong. I like some things about all OSes. But I live with Linux. It provides the best fit for me.

 

Re-reading over my post I was a bit scathing of Apple, just that I had recently been in a argument of a classic mac-fanatic.
Apple computers are great at what they do, nice machines with a very pretty Os. My main problem with apple is the followers. I know most users are 'normal' and are helpful, but the most vocal (mostly being the first to respond) are the so-called mac-fanatics. If you criticize [or indeed ask for advice about,in my case,] any of the macs or OSX, your bound to get a ear (eye???) bashing from them about how your committing a cardinal sin by saying a mac can be less than perfect; ref the MBA discussion. In Linux, the first response to most query's is "try -sudo -getapt -xxxxx".

I know its underhand pointing out problems with other OS's but it is the

Code:

[s]best[/s], easiest, way to point out the advantage's of Linux. Besides, my main gripe is with the computer manufactures; they cause most of the problems with Windows, ect...
N.B, the [s] is supposed to be strikethrough, sadly I cant seem to get it to work :(

 

On grammar, the post was written late, with my spelling being because of [blamed on] a dieing keyboard. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the bad grammar, I will probably go-over the post to make it more readable. I think that grammar disappears on the web, due to the informal nature of the forum system. This author (the great Mark Steel), http://www.marksteelinfo.com/, clearly demonstrates the frustration which must be felt by srunni; on the introduction to his web page.

 

Ive now gone over the post, correcting grammar. The readability is also probably negatively effected by the enjombimon effect caused by the length of my sentences and the restricted line length. Any excuse. Anyway, sorry for any offense created. Thanks for the <del> help </del> tips, Calvin.
Moving swiftly on... I don't wish to hijack the thread of Linux essays .

 

Warning. LONG post. (Damn. I can't believe I wrote so much. )


The thing is, when I got to know about Linux, through a CNET article, (yes, I know. Sad, isn't it?) It was a complete "i'm bored, lets give it a shot, maybe I'll play some x360 tomorrow" attitude.

It initially gave me problem due to the wifi(what else?), but I continued with it only because I like to solve things.

When I told my dad that I was using Linux, he replied, "But linux is very unstable". I tell my female friends I use Linux, and they go "Is that a program?" Some of my male friends know about it, but there's this great image of Linux users being 'super uncool geek-zoids with no hope for getting laid'. Combine that with the unfamiliar territory of install an OS that isn't Windows just scares them to a state of 'can't be bothered'.

Anyway, the point that I want to get across is that people, in general, have no idea what Linux is. The number of people that use Windows is probably, what? 90%? Leaving 8% for Macs and 2% for us?

And I can't really blame them, because Windows usage is grown with. I grew up with a Windows 3.1 computer (hehehe.. with that skiing game where the bear would eat me all the time after a certain time downhill), then with 95, 98SE, 2000 then XP. And most of the other computer users as well. They're just born into Windows. Windows is the norm. "I use Windows. So do my friends, my neighbours, even my school principal." And as creatures of habit, it's hard for people to break off.

And so, they grow used to viruses, and trojans and BSODs. To them, using a computer is synonymous with Anti-virus software, anti-spyware software, the firewall random crashes, the computer getting slower and slower over time, etc. To them, that's the way it is. They don't know better, because no one has taught them better.

In primary school(elementary, for you yanks), we were taught to use computers through Windows 95, 98, etc. We were taught to use MS Word, MS Powerpoint, etc. We were taught that the word "Start" at the bottom left was the end all of accessing programs. And you can't blame them for sticking with Windows because, well, it works! Granted, there's some random crashes, here and there; some viruses here and there, but, it works! And people don't really care more than that.

Even if people had a slight know-how, it's greatly generalized as: Linux for nerds and software compiling, Macs for Graphics and music, Windows for everything else, including games. Now, say "software source code compiling" to anyone that knows OSes skin deep and they go "oh no. 'software source code compiling' means linux means nerdy means boring means uncool". Another point is the gaming industry. My goodness. It makes, what, a billion dollars a year? ten billion? And people stick to Windows because of the games. And even I can't help myself. That's why I have XP on a dual boot. Sure there's VM and WINE, but don't forget, the common person doesn't even know much about the Windows registry, let alone the concept of running an OS inside an OS? Their brains would explode! And WINE? It's good, but not as good for the real thing. People that want to play the latest games isn't going to install Linux and install WINE just to wait till WINE supports the game they want to play. "I'll just use Windows." And why not?

And this is how Windows keeps the market. Not by sheer brilliance in software design, or by their great attitude towards software distribution, but by the simple human characteristic of habit. And friends of mine buy MS Office when they buy new computers because it's a habit. "How am I going to make presentation slides without Powerpoint?" I tell them about OpenOffice, and they look extremely surprised, then suspicious. "Free office software? Are you sure?" They don't know that they don't HAVE to buy MS products or spend $300 on Windows to achieve the same results.

Even with Macs, they ask me, "Can I still go to youtube? Can I still use spreadsheets? Can people with Windows read my documents that I send them?" This ignorance isn't their fault, but could only be placed on the lack of the way they are educated about computers, software, and OSes. So it doesn't surprise me when they're shocked to hear I don't have a virus scanner and spyware scanner and I don't use MS Office, and I don't use MSN Messenger, I start up my computer in less than 1 minute and I didn't pay a single cent to DOWNLOAD my OS that doesn't require a CD key. "No CD key? Isn't that piracy?"

By no means is Windows a bad OS. It's there and it gets the job done. I believe with certainty that Microsoft knows about benefits of Linux over Windows, and that they truely are trying their best to design, service, and support their own OS to 90% of the worlds computer users. And that's a LARGE number of people. My respects to them 100%. But in the process of making Windows suceed in the 1980s they have also doomed it. In an effort to be different, they use the FAT and NTFS filesystem that is surviving only because people need to use it. In the process of making Windows successful they've bloated up their own OS with problems like IE and the registry. But from a simple marketing standpoint, who could blame them? It's either survive, or fall to Apple.

Then again, no matter how brilliant Linux is, and we all know Linux is SUPERB, it won't beat Windows in the short term because the general public simply doesn't know about how deep and far the benefits of Open-Source Software can go. And because of that, Linux to me, is still a flop. In recent years it's made a great improvement, but it's still far from being there. People still aren't taught that there's something other than Macs and Windows, and that software can be free. One of the biggest factors is games. Games use Windows because almost everyone uses Windows. But Windows is used by almost everyone BECAUSE of games. There's recent news that the Steam engine is being ported to Linux. I say good for us. But until enough games come NATIVELY to linux and people realise that games run in Linux using far less resources, it won't justify the general public to switch to Linux. There just isn't enough "incentive".

You might say, 'incentive'?! "There's so much! Like free software, no viruses, no fragmentation, etc", but people won't care about those things if they can endure using Windows. They want the surface things. Something that they can see and know apparantly that's better than Windows, and say, "hmmm.. This Linux distro doesn't seem too bad, easy to use, easy to install, no viruses, no spyware, AND I can play my games."

To me, that's pretty much the turning point. The games. The start will be slow, once the games start to trickle in, the drips will become a flow as more people gain the knowledge that Linux can play the games with less resources. Then the developers will capitalize, and make more games for Linux. Then the torrent of games flood in, the beautiful cycle starts, and utopia for all that is software! But, until then, in the short term, Linux still has much to go.

 

Nice post, but i have to disagree with you on the point that Linux's only downfall is games. Another major downfall is hardware compatibility, can you blame Linux? No, blame the hardware manufacturer for not providing Linux drivers or disclosing hardware specs. If we can get Dell and HP along with other major hardware manufacturers to get out of their MS contract (hopefully a judge will deem this as BS and nullify it soon) and sell Linux and let people know about it. One main thing is advertising because people see those nifty OS X ads and say "Yeah, OS X is an alternative but freakin' $2000 for my computer? Hell no.". We need to spread the source so people can have a choice. People using Windows because they like Windows is fine, people using OS X because they like OS X is fine too. What i absolutely hate is people being forced to use an OS they don't like because it's dominated the market and keeps it closed from competition.

 

That's true. But as firms' main purpose is to make profits, they don't see the profit in making hardware support unless they stand to gain profits. That's why gaming is a good avenue for it. If I buy a game on Linux, I expect the hardware to be properly supported to play it. Developers and hardware people have to work hand in hand to get people to buy the game. And so they have the incentive.

But the thing is, even if a person hates an OS, the switch is hard. And people don't hate it like "I HATE it! I loathe this OS!". They'll find it annoying, but usually just shrug it off.

The only problem is in business, where you can't really choose what OS your firm uses.

 

Linux's downfall is its lack of games; this is not only due to lack of hardware support, but it is also due to the fact that no game developers will waste their money developing or porting games to a platform with such a tiny user base.

 

Of course, there are a few downfalls that are placed outside of Linux's hands and into the users. After time when it gains a larger user base things will become better. Hardware support and games will come by and we'll get more users which will repeat the cycle until Windows is knocked out of existence.

 

My son is going over to see his mother tomorrow. She has had a lot of trouble with her desktop lately and is disgusted that she can't get it cleaned up and runnng properly. When she described the issues to me, sounded like a combination of bloat (Sony machine) and tons of crap she's picked up just from surfing the Web. I doubt she ever so much as cleans cache or history files. Anyway, I suggested CCleaner, which she said she already has installed but is afraid to use??? And I was married to her for a long time! LOL

Anyway (and this ties in a bit with what Zephyrus was saying) she'd never heard of Linux. Gonna have my boy give her a couple of disks I have - Ubuntu and Mandriva - to use as LiveCD's. I briefly tried to explain the benefits of Linux, and told her that the distros would be a little slow to use until and unless they were installed, but she actually seemed eager to give them a try. Maybe we'll have another convert soon, or at least one less person who hasn't heard of Linux, or who thinks it's just some sort of weird new app.

 

that's going to be a while, though. And don't forget Apple. They'll stand to gain a bigger market share iff windows declines. I propose we align with Apple first, to drive out Windows, then, when the time is right, "sudo rm -rf" them!

bmwrob, all the best for the install! Yes! One more acolyte to join our cause! *rubs palms, evil grin*

 

Apple? I wouldn't worry about them, they'd be getting people who like to use OS X and like the hardware which is just fine.

 

But at the rate that they attract new users... No matter, they are, after all, our UNIX cousins.

 

Besides, there probably are very few Linux users who don't use other systems, as well. As I type, I'm on my MBP. I love OSX and probably use it as often as I use Linux. Windows is the system I've given up, though I did reinstall it a few days ago in one machine so that my gf (also a dedicated Mac user) could use XP for a work project.

I don't think it matters what OS a person uses, as long as he enjoys its use, and the OS works. Windows isn't bad, IMO, just not to my personal liking - that's a big difference.