Why Linux is better than Windows...Really!

I saw a an old thread on here were the original poster asked why Windows is better than Linux. He then listed all of the problems that he was having with Linux.....no body answered him. Here I'm quoting an article from elsewhere, here is a link to the original. Propose A Compelling Linux Business Case - LinuxQuestions.org Please nonte the statistics at the end.

"Introduction

So you want to convert your business/office computers to Linux, but you're not sure how your employees are going to react, correct? Or you want to find out what's so good about Linux that makes it an appropriate OS (Operating System) for a business user? Well, you've come to the right place!

Linux is now entering the business market like never before, and some of the statistics I have seen on its growth are extremely amazing (more on this later). But first of all, what exactly is Linux? Linux is an OS which originally began as a home project for a young Finnish student named Linus Torvalds (you can see a copy of his renowned message to the comp.os.minix Usenet group here) - but talented programmers joined together to create the powerful, flexible, reliable, stable, secure, expandable, multiuser, multitasking, configurable and free OS called Linux.[1]

What do you mean by “It's free”?

You will often see the expressions “free as in speech” and “free as in beer” - and it is safe to say that Linux is both of those.

Linux is distributed under the GNU General Public License, which means that anyone may copy, modify, distribute and even sell Linux without breaking any laws (as long as you freely submit changes to the source code to the community and do not alter the terms of the license).

On account of the fact that Linux is free (as in "speech"), there are many distributions of Linux – each of which may bring different applications, modified source code, another window manager, different tools and so on. Each distribution has unique characteristics and targets a specific type of audience. This is one of Linux's many beauties – you are free to modify Linux and create your own version. Free also means that you are not being constantly shadowed by the almighty Microsoft, who seem intent on making change to another OS a painful and irrational process.

If you are unhappy with the support you are getting or with the design of a certain distribution, then you can simply install another distribution which will better suit your needs. To summarize this in one word – freedom.

Free as in beer is a more complicated topic – because while you can download most distributions of Linux at the click of a button, this will still cost you: the time on your Internet connection to download the .iso; a CD-R/DVD-R to burn it to; the time taken for the .iso to be burnt, and so on.

Yet, you may be confused when you stroll into the local computer shop and you see a Linux distribution like Mandriva or Suse on the shelves. But didn't I just say that Linux was free? Yes, but having these boxed sets means that you get a couple of books containing good documentation (I noticed this clearly in Suse), support if you ever need help, the pre-made Linux install CDs (useful if you only have a 56k Internet connection), and a bunch of other stuff. Buying a Linux distribution also helps to keep them going financially, so that the main developers can still earn a living while taking part in an immense Open Source project.

So, what are the advantages?

Many people say that Linux is hard to install – but that is only because they have never tried installing Windows. The chances are that you will be able to install Linux much easier than Windows, especially with the distributions which have graphical installers (like Mandriva and Suse). Linux – like any other Operating System – is not perfect, but I shall try to outline its most important characteristics.

Stability

Linux's stability makes it one of the most enticing Operating Systems for a server – which need all the reliability and efficiency they can get. Linux users enjoy talking about running weeks, months, and even years without rebooting. This is what every PC user envies. The classic "Blue Screen of Death" is not part of the Linux vocabulary, and never in my time of using Linux has it crashed. Sure, the odd program has decided that it should freeze up every once in a while, but quitting them is simple – either by clicking on the "Force Quit" icon and clicking on the frozen application, or by typing 'kill app' into the terminal – and I've never had one seize up the whole system with it.

Power

Under the pretty cover of the GUI, Linux can provide all the power, functionality and flexibility that you will ever need. If you would like to do something which none of your installed applications can, then writing a simple bash script or Perl/Python script is easy – and it will allow you to do almost anything. Think of all the Linux-powered servers in the world which are transporting information across the globe – even think of the one which is allowing you to view this article – and then you will realize Linux's true power.

Security

It is time for you to throw away your antivirus, firewall, adware/spyware removers and your Windows partition itself – Linux doesn't need any of these. Of course, Linux isn't entirely immune to viruses or subtle backends, but you would have to almost be looking for one if you wanted to catch it. Linux's design model is built around the concept of security, and so the threat of viruses are almost non-existent in the Linux world. Security flaws are widely announced, and any threats to security are covered rapidly and effectively. If there is a risk to your system, it is likely that a security update will be available by the following day – and you will not need to wait until the release of the next 'Service Pack' until you receive it.

Costs

Windows has a very high price tag, and you usually only get a 60-day Microsoft Office trial with it. Have you ever wondered about getting an OS and excellent software without spending a single penny? Well, you can do just that – new software and updates are available to the Linux community for free, and the only cost may be the time you spend on the Internet downloading the applications. So what would you like to do with your computer? If it's for a business, then there is Firefox for browsing the Internet; the OpenOffice.org suite – which is compatible with the Word, Excel and Powerpoint formats – for documents, spreadsheets, presentations and much more; and thousands more applications which are extremely useful.

The wide variety of applications is also another thing to consider, and to put this into context: I prefer using AbiWord and Gnumeric to using OpenOffice.org Writer and Calc – but this is just a matter of preference. For a comparison of Windows/Linux applications, please see the Table of Windows software equivalents on Linux.

Multitasking

Microsoft recommends using one server per major process on Windows, because if not the server may not be able to run the processes efficiently and will be more vulnerable to crashing. Linux tends to bog down if you have a few hundred processes running, but even then it is unlikely to crash. Once again, Linux proves its capabilities – and this time as a server, which you may need in your business' private network for whatever reason.

For The Weak And Strong

Linux will run marvelously on both an old, decayed, 500MHz processor and on the latest 64-bit Intel Xeon processor. Quite naturally, the former will only be able to run using the Command Line Interface (CLI), while the second could boast its raw power in the Graphical User Interface (GUI) with a window manager like KDE. Linux, as stated, has been able to run at a 64-bit level on 64-bit processors for quite some time now – Apple has only just begun to support Intel processors (and therefore 64-bit processors other than its old PowerPC ones), while Windows' 64-bit Operating System still doesn't have a final release date (they have recently released a 64-bit version of XP though as a kind of “temporary fix”).

No Licenses Required

When using Linux, you don't have to worry about whether you have used an application's 'Serial Key' once too many, or whether you've kept a copy of the original OS license, because the GNU GPL means that you are legally allowed you to throw away your worries and forget about these petty things. You are entitled to copy and distribute your Linux CDs as freely as you wish.

However, some Linux applications are commercial and cannot be distributed in the same way that Linux can be, for the simple reason that they are not under the same license. For example, some games are not covered by this license, and other commercial applications like StarOffice[2] are not either. Whether you are buying or downloading software for your computer, you should always look at what license it is covered by.

Linux seems great! So what's the bad news?

As I was saying, no Operating System is perfect. Even with the mighty power and stability of Linux, there are some disadvantages which you should consider before doing anything else.

Hardware Support

Linux hardware support is much better than claimed. If you take into account all the different kinds of processors which Linux is able to run on (x86, PPC, SPARC, etc...), you can truly appreciate the large hardware support base it has. Alas, there are some devices which are designed specifically for Windows, and while the Linux community does strive to bring out compatible drivers for these, certain printers/scanners/faxes have limited support under Linux (you may want to check out the support for these in your office by using a Live CD).

However, if you spot a new peripheral in PC World which you are tempted to buy, buy it – because chances are that a Linux developer somewhere around the world has his eye on the same thing. That is the beauty of Linux: the sheer number of hardware devices and peripherals it supports means that you won't need to be fishing around in your dusty drawers any more for a scratched and worn driver disk – because the device will usually work upon "plug and play".

Baby Duck Syndrome

The Baby Duck Syndrome[3] is quite well known, and to quote IBM: "it's what happens when users judge new and upcoming systems by comparing them with the first system they learned. This means that users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems." You can never be sure that your employees are going to like Linux because they're already used to the look and feel of Windows. Sure, you can try to convince them to use it (one method that works for me is saying: "It's the new version of Windows" ;-] ), but they may be skeptical of anything other than their “favorite OS” thrown in front of them. They will have to do a bit of relearning and should explore the system to understand how to use it, but in the end it will be for the better.[4] Most of the skills they learned with their previous OS will still apply, but it's more a matter of learning how to hone those skills in Linux.

Software

There is an enormous amount of software available for Linux, therefore if you want to download a new application it is as simple as browsing Sourceforge.net for it or searching Google.

But, there are some applications which are designed with Windows directly in mind which do not have Linux versions. This is already starting to change, and commercial Linux games and applications are now starting to appear as Linux expands and grows in popularity. Yet if you have the new version of Adobe Photoshop which only works on Windows, do not throw the copy away just yet. You can still get it running on Linux.[2]

What does this all mean?

How will this increase the employees' productivity?

First of all, the increased stability means that you aren't as likely to have the program crash on you. Where on MS Word I've been typing up a document and it has crashed - losing everything I've written (partly my fault for not saving it), I have never had OpenOffice.org lose my documents on Linux. You may not believe it, but it's true. Another thing to consider is the increased security - if one of the employees has a highly confidential document on their system, then it will be considerably harder for a cracker to break into their system than a Windows one (this topic has been subject to many arguments over the years, but if the United States Military use Linux, then it must be quite secure).
In the short-run, it might actually hinder their productivity rate because they will have to adapt to the new environment, but then things will run much more smoothly.

How will this benefit the company?

No more paying for licenses. The total costs of licenses for some of the companies I've seen are enormous, and this is why I tend to bring this issue up - because as you may or may not know, each licensed copy of Windows XP Pro costs £285.99, and each copy of Microsoft Office 2003 costs £345.97. So, if you have 20 computers in your office, you would have to spend £12,639.20 to legally upgrade them all. Alright, maybe you have already done that - but are you really willing to spend that much money again when Windows Vista and the new Office come out? I didn't think so.
The company's information will also be more secure because their employees' systems will be, and so harmful leaks will be far less likely to occur.

Conclusion

I have tried to summarize the main advantages and disadvantages posed by using Linux as a business desktop Operating System, and I hope that you can use this information to compose a persuasive Linux Business Case. I wish you the best of luck, and please leave a comment with any results!

Some Statistics
•The US Military use Linux as their main Operating System, as do the US Postal Service;
•The fastest 10 supercomputers in the world run on Linux (except the fourth, which runs on Super-UX – a different subset of UNIX);
•The Mexican Government runs Linux on all its computers;
•The city council in Munich, Germany has dropped Windows in favor of Linux to run on its 14,000 computers (more...);
•Paris is still deciding whether to switch its 17,000 workstations and 400 servers to Linux instead of Windows (more...);
•The city council in Rome has also decided to convert its computers to Linux (more...);
•In the regions of Extremadura and Andalucia in Spain, over 200,000 Linux desktops have been dispensed for approximately 400,000 students (more...);
•Some GNOME deployments (not necessarily Linux).

Appendix

[1] - Linux is (technically speaking) the kernel, and not the Operating System. The OS as a whole should be called GNU/Linux. More information on this can be found on the following GNU page.

[2] - If there are any Windows applications which you have paid for and would like to get running on Linux, then you may like to take a look into Wine, a Windows emulator. Alternatively, there is a more reliable emulator called Win4Lin, although this may make a slight hole in your pocket – however small it may be.

[3] - Read IBM's article on Baby Duck Syndrome.

[4] - So, how are you going to make the switch to Linux a smooth ride for your/the employees? Feel free to try other methods, but here's one which worked for me:

First of all, install Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice.org on their Windows computers, and let them work with the new apps for a while. Add the IE View Extension to their Firefox installations in case they need to access any IE-only sites.
Teach them how to do simple things in O rg Writer like: changing the font and color of the text, tabs, the highly useful window: Format->Page... to alter page settings, and any other parts of a word processor which they may need to use.
Then, in O rg Calc, teach them how to do all the things they did in Excel: =sum(), =if(), formatting cells and page layout, etc... They need to feel comfortable using these applications. If you yourself aren't a “master” of O rg, then you may like to read through the documentation.

Let them use these applications for a few days, and only go onto the next part when they feel at home with the new apps. Ok, now is the time to test out their newfound knowledge. Download a good Linux distribution (my personal favorite is Ubuntu, but I find that newbies tend to get along much better with Mandriva 2005 LE), and burn it to a CD/DVD.
Right, now set up a dual-boot on each of the employees' computers – this will be their 'Linux trial period'. If you're not sure how to do it, then Google it. Once the distribution has been set up on their computers, run 'sudo gedit /boot/grub/menu.lst' in terminal (this only applies if you have installed Ubuntu – for other distributions, either ask on LQ.org or contact me). Then, in the menu.lst, set the timeout to '0'. That way, they won't have enough time to boot into Windows and it will go straight to the Ubuntu GDM.
Good! Now, teach them how to navigate their new system. Explain how to open up Firefox, O rg, and other useful apps, and watch as the realization that they've just been using those same apps sets in. Hopefully, they'll grow to love Linux the same way I and many others like myself have.
Have a poll at the end of the trial period (which should last 4-5 days). Weigh up the results of those who for voted for Linux, and those who voted against. Finally, do whatever the results show – if they don't like Linux, delete the partition and resize Windows to the full disk size. If they do like Linux, then get rid of Windows and resize Linux to take up the full drive."

 

Sooo... you created an account simply to copy/paste a 2006 LinuxQuestions article? Huh...

Personally, I use Windows and Linux both pretty often (maybe Linux is slightly more so used, but still close to 50/50), but I'll play Devil's Advocate here for Windows on a few of these points, as well as my own thoughts:

Install:
I've installed both Windows and Linux OSes and none of them seemed too difficult to install. Glossing over details, it mainly consists of selecting language, keyboard layout, your regional info, partition(s), and the actual install process. Though the distros I've used also asked if I wanted to install additional software, but that's easy to manage too, just an additional step. Point being, a modern OS is pretty simple to install, so I don't see why anyone with somewhat moderate technical skills should have issue with this.

Stability:
Hadn't seen a BSOD since upgrading from Win98 in 2005 (yeah, long time to wait for XP). Neither have I seen a kernel panic in any of the Linux distros I've seen. Long story short: only really-badly coded software/drivers will screw up your computer in this way, as far as I know.

Power:
Power Shell, batch files, CMD... Python and Perl are cross-platform, too.

Security:
Don't be a foolish user that visits shady websites and clicks on shady links/ads and you'll be fine. Ran Win7 for a month with MSE and Malwarebyte's uninstalled just to see what happened. Nothing did. A lot of exploits now revolve around social engineering, which is a human fault, not an OS's.

Costs:
Yes, the OS is free, but does your business's IT department have anybody who knows how to operate it well for the deployments you're considering? You can't ignore employee salaries. A business has to determine cost, benefit, and break even points to evaluate decisions like moving to a different platform.

Multitasking:
Never heard or read anything about Microsoft saying this, do you have a link?

For The Weak and Strong:
Outdated paragraph, though I can't fault LinuxQuestions since this is from 2006.

No Licenses Required
True.

Hardware Support:
True to some extent, though the gap seems to be dissolving at some rate. Main issues I read about now are with GPU drivers, though maybe a quarter of those issues are because someone doesn't want to use nVidia's or AMD's binary blobs, which aren't FOSS (philosophical, not technical, problem).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong here; I love Linux as much as anyone else around here, but a great way to promote Linux isn't by hashing up dated articles and arguments. An OS is just a means to an end, and what works best for a particular situation could be a Linux distro, or even Windows or OSX. Each business should individually evaluate its options to determine what's best for itself.

Baby Duck Syndrome:
I don't understand why someone would lie to another when concerning this. Maybe instead of trying to trick someone into thinking that a distro is a "new Windows version", just sit down with them for half an hour to explain the distro's GUI well enough to get work done. I suppose that argument may be used against me and my opinions on Windows 8, but 8 is fundamentally different enough for me to think that a hell of a lot more training would be required to get a worker up to the productivity speed as they were on their previous OS (probably XP or 7).

Software:
Not sure if this is really relevant anymore, with the amount of Linux software out now, and especially a Linux port of Steam. But, if a business has in-house software that's Windows-only, that's a strong case for why not to move to Linux.

Emplyees' Productivity:
Not sure where the author gets this idea that OpenOffice is perfect... I've had that crash and burn on me a few times as well as Office, nearly loosing some important work (though I was able to recover the files).

the US Military also bought millions of counterfeit Chinese computer chips. So I don't see the point in that argument for Linux security. And again, social engineering is a major vector of attack these days, and no OS is 100% protected from that.

Benefit the Company:
Also note that those licenses also come with technical support, which isn't free for Linux distros as well (Red Hat is a great example of this). If you choose to use a community-backed distro, you still have to hire or train IT staff to operate that stuff, which again isn't free. Again, it's a matter of break even points.

 

I will do other things on this forum other than post outdated Linux Question articles. I only did it this time because of an older thread that I saw in which the OP was sort've attacking linux. Yes, you have some good points here. But I think that the point of the article still holds true.

 

Way to sully the good reputation of Linux by associating it with the military industrial complex and USPS.

 

No, this shouldn't sully its reputation any. The military tries to choose only good systems; after all, they need to be secure and stable. OK, maybe USPS isn't a good ascociation to have, but still.........it shows that Linux is able to be successfully deployed on a large scale.

 

The US military also makes mistakes. Remember that they're human too. A link to their computer chip screw-up:

Fake Chinese parts for U.S. military equipment – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Surely it's not the first time a major mistake was made by them.

 

That is why I said that they try to choose good systems.

 

But everybody tries to use good systems. Don't know anyone who goes out of their way for a bad one .

 

You know there are probably hundreds of private institutions not funded by theft and coercion which also utilize linux on a large scale?

 

That article is pretty old. Here is something a bit newer with a bunch of different government institutions, companies, and schools that use Linux.
50 Places Linux is Running That You Might Not Expect

"proletaria" "police state" "military industrial complex"

 

Thank you for contributing.

 

Almost everyone with an opinion on Linux doesn't run it, and when they do they try Linux out, they run it on any random machine, instead of a machine that was designed for Linux. I am a person that runs Linux on everything, personal and business. So take it from someone that actually uses Linux, it is great.

OS Rule #1: You pick you hardware for the OS you plan on using! If you want to run Apple OS, you buy Apple hardware. If you want to run MS Windows, you buy Windows hardware. If you want to run Linux, you buy Linux hardware. A large amount of the complaints about Linux stem from Windows users installing Linux on their Windows system. DOH!!!

The person that started this original thread, Why Linux is better than Windows?, obviously has not used Linux much.

Example #1 on why this person hasn't used Linux Much:
Quote - "Have fun emailing libreoffice/openoffice files to people instead of .Doc files, not to mention the formatting problems that arise from doing this."
Reply #1 - LibreOffice will save your files in more formats than any proprietary, and will open more formats than commercial office suites. For example, LibreOffice opens Microsoft formats, but M$ word will not open LibreOffice formats. Linux will mount Microsoft file systems, but M$ will not mount Linux file systems. Also LibreOffice saves in ".pdf" format without any extra cost. I use Libre Office exclusively in both my personal life and in my business, and have no issues with M$ users.

Example #2 on why this person hasn't used Linux Much:
Quote - "There's also compatibility issues with external hardware"
Reply #2 - This is one of the silliest points made against Linux, and most people actually think this is a legitimate point. If you want to run Linux, buy Linux compatible hardware. I run LInux on all my computers/laptops. My phone is a Droid RAZR (Linux kernel) and all I have to do is plug it in, and Linux mounts both the internal and external cards, without me having to search, find, download or install any drivers. The mounted SDCards pops up as an icon on the desktop.

Example #3 on why this user hasn't used Linux much.
Quote - "I have 6 drives on my computer, if I use windows, I can easily label them A: to Z:, while I get confused on which drive is which in Linux"
Reply #3 - Windows shows you drive letters, and is always reassigning them. So every now and then your drives changes letters, making it hard to keep track of drives. Linux mounts the drive according to it's volume name, so it always has the same name, no matter what order it was mounted in. a drive named "MEDIA FILES" will always be called "MEDIA FILES". Much better than Windows system.

Example #4 on why this user hasn't used Linux much.
Quote - "Good luck trying to get games to run, removing software you forgot the name of, removing items off the task bar, adding items to the task bar, changing screen resolution, adding/removing users, creating a bootable USB from linux."
Reply #4 - You can still very easily change screen resolution, clicking the System Settings icon on the left, and selecting "Displays" and then choose your resolution from the drop down menu. You can create a bootable USB in Ubuintu using the "Startup Disk Creator" and the ".iso" file you download to install Linux in the first place. I am guessing from this statement that the person tested out a newer version of Ubuntu with the Unity interface. Linux Mint (w/codecs) is a much better distro for people like this to try out. It comes with things like Adobe Flash installed, and users and groups is installed also, making it a breeze to add and remove users and groups.

 

With this and $0.50 you can make a phone call. Linux always has and always will be a tiny fraction of the market. Mainstream acceptance has been "right around the corner" for the last 15 years.

 

Again, I think I'll play Devil's Advocate here (sort of).

1) That's deflecting from the original problem. "OpenOffice.org uses more formats!!" isn't the answer to "OpenOffice.org and Word don't play perfectly well together."

2) Eh, I have nothing here. Well, besides "What's Linux-only hardware?". As far as x86 goes, I don't see much of a difference between a System76 laptop and a Wintel Clevo-based laptop, aside from OS. Sure, a few wireless cards and whatnot might have bad/no drivers for a Linux distro, but generally anything that can run Windows can run Linux as well (and, as far as x86 platforms go, vice versa is mostly valid too).

3) Nothing to say about that. You're right.

4) Okay, that guy's just wrong there.

 

the most linux problems i have had has been with printer support.

 

1) Yes, and Microsoft Office 2007 and Microsoft Office 2010 don't play perfectly together. I have yet to find any office suite that plays well with it's competitors. Expecting Libre Office to play perfectly is a good goal, but it is a double standard to expect Libre to do things that MS Offoice, or Word PErfect don't do themselves.

2) The hardware doesn't have to be "Linux Only." The hardware only needs to be Linux compatible. Most Linux compatible hardware is also Windows compatible. For example, I bought an HP Laserjet All-In-One 1536dnf printer because there is great support for it in Linux. I plugged it in, clicked on the "System Settings" icon, then clicked on "Printing" in the hardware section. Told it to look for a network printer, and Ubuntu found and installed the printer. I didn't have to insert a driver disk, or search the internet for a driver. Printer and scanner work perfect, even over a network connection. Of course, if you want your system to have current drivers, you need a current Linux distro. My Droid RAZR is another example of Linux compatible hardware. . . since technically it is a Linux computer with cell phone hardware, and a windows environment called "Android".

If you don't think the Android phone is Linux, check this video out. Ubuntu for Android It is an Android phone that switches over to Ubuntu Linux when the phone is docked in a desk dock, while still maintaining the cell phone operations, and integrating things like address book, pictures, videos and the likes.

Here is the official Ubuntu for Android Web-page: Ubuntu for Android | Devices | Ubuntu

In many ways, the open source community has caught Windows, and is flying right past it. This has a lot to do with the fact that Android runs on a Linux kernel variant. For example, we are now seeing better wireless card compatibility, because now hardware manufacturers need Linux drivers so their hardware can be used on Android phones.

 

I don't care if Linux ever goes mainstream on the desktop. Linux is already mainstream in the cell-phone market, and the server market. All I care about is if Linux does what I need it to do, and it does. I bought a Windows7 Laptop a few months back, and I was going to make it a Windows only machine, but it turned out that since my business is based in Linux, the Windows machine didn't do what I needed it to do, so it now runs both Windows and Linux. Now I can get my taxes done!!!

It actually works out to my advantage if Linux desktop usuage stays low. It keeps the malware/viruses at bay, and gives me an edge over my business competition.

Here's the secret to great Linux printer support . . . . you buy your printer for Linux. You can't just buy a random printer and expect it to work. However, if you buy a Linux compatible printer, it will most likely work on the other OS's. This holds true for most hardware.

Get an HP printer, or a printer with Postscript capabilities. Postscript is the "cross-platform" printer language. If you get a Postscript printer, you can run it on Unix, Linux, Windows, and Mac. You will pay more for a postscript printer.

 

I've used OpenOffice for Windows, and I understand OpenOffice is pretty similar to LibreOffice. It will open Microsoft Office files, but you often lose some of the special formatting. For example, when I open a legal pleading drafted in Microsoft Word 2003 in a different version of Microsoft Word (Word 2010, Word for OSX, etc), the UI is different but the file itself is unchanged. However, when I open it in OpenOffice, I lose the pleading lines and, if I recall correctly, our firm's footer. The main text of the document comes through, but not all the details of the template it's on.

If you're creating documents from scratch, OpenOffice and the like are perfectly good solutions. If you're collaborating on documents with other people using MS Office, though, you really need MS Office as well. Nothing else works as well for collaborating on documents.

You didn't address "getting games to run." Most modern AAA games are Windows only. A few are Windows and OSX (Blizzard's games, for example). Essentially no modern AAA game titles are set up for Linux. Valve's games are a notable exception...but they're about it as far as I know.

I'm not trying to bash Linux. I think we're all better off in a more diverse market where multiple OSes compete instead of one OS dominating. However, some of the compatibility issues that are a barrier to Linux adoption are very real issues.

 

Yes, but Windows is not a good operating system. The evidence is overwhelming in favour of Linux.

 

You can't expect any random Windows users to come in to this thread (whose title is a bit provocative, to start with) and then read such a giant wall of text. No one's going to unless they have some interest in Linux already.

And we're at a point, and have been for more than a decade, where what's a "good" OS is subjective, assuming we're talking about major ones. You could argue that Windows 1.0 was hacky and not "good" on a technical level. But by the time you get around to Windows 2000, I don't see how you can argue that Windows isn't at least "good", given all its proven uses. You could argue Linux at that stage in time was better, and it probably was in some areas. But it's silly to say that an OS that was so widely used and so successfully, and without the issues of Windows 9x and previous, wasn't a "good" OS. It would be like arguing that Linux isn't a good OS because the X Window System has some undesirable and sort of clunky characteristics (I realize X isn't integral to Linux, but to most users it might as well be). While X isn't ideal, I'm not going to say that makes Linux a bad OS.

It's fine if you don't like Windows... I don't particularly like OSX myself. But telling a Windows user that Windows is not a good OS is just going to make them dismiss your arguements about OS's. We aren't in the days when removing a floppy disk at the wrong time could cause a blue screen anymore.

Ideally, yes, you buy the hardware that works best with the system. The thing with Linux is, that interested parties read about it, and read, "It runs almost anywhere!" So they think cool, it'll probably run on my hardware. They also read, "It's free!" And the part of that they care about is very likely the "free as in beer" part, so they think, "Nice, I don't have to spend anything to try it." Whereas they are going to have to spend money on hardware dedicated to Linux. And not many people are going to do that if they aren't already happy with using Linux somewhere else. They'll try it on the hardware they have, and if it doesn't work well, they'll forget about Linux and keep using Windows or OSX. If it works reliably, they might eventually use Linux regularly.

As for office file compatibility, it seems to me that MS Office 2010 is the ideal solution here. It does open LibreOffice formats, or at least the most common one (spreadsheet, word equivalent, presentation). It's done so reliably when I've tried it, though granted that hasn't been that often as I don't encounter OpenOffice or LibreOffice documents that often. Whereas like Mitlov, when I last seriously tried OpenOffice back around version 3.0, it would open .doc and .xls and .ppt files, but little features would often be left behind, and results were worse with Office 2007 formats. I'm sure it's improved since then, but I wouldn't bet on OpenOffice being better at opening MS Office files than vice versa. Although MS does have an advantage since OpenOffice files are supposed to be saved in a consistent format with any compatible program (I've read this isn't always the case due to too-loose specifications), and implementations are likely to be open source.

Microsoft Office 2010 can also save in PDF for free. Though it isn't really a solve-all if you still have to edit the document. Or if you have an older version of Office.

Not that OpenOffice is bad. But for me, I've found the cost of using Microsoft Office is worth the benefits in collaboration, polish, and things just working.

 

In addition to the argument of free (beer) vs cost, not everybody pays full retail price for commercial software. For example, Office 2010 Professional Plus is free for me, so in addition to the benefits that Apollo mentioned, that's even more of a plus for my usage (not to say that LibreOffice is bad - I have that on my Linux systems and it works great for what it is - but when just about most of your peers and coworkers use .docx, etc., the networking effect kicks in and it's rational to follow along). And Windows 7 Profession or Ultimate for me is just $20, and that's worth it just for PC gaming benefits. Not even going to go into detail about what Dreamspark offers students, especially when the university provides even more than the default (for example, I could get Windows 8, or 7, or Vista, or whatever - all the way down to MS-DOS 6.22 - for free).

But yeah, this thread title is pretty provocative, and like what Apollo stated, doesn't put Linux in a good spotlight imo. All three major OSes do their job well, and with more stuff heading to the cloud (something I don't like, but that's a different argument altogether), the client OS is being more and more irrelevant.

 

But not for your uni .

A Windows user, have experience with Linux and OSX. Same crap. IMO, it's like debating whichever Internet browser is the best.

 

True, but costs are distributed through all the students here, so practically it's free. And I can download/install it as many times as I like on "my computers" (no hard definition on what I can/can't install on).

Spot on with that, though. All operating systems have their pros and cons, but overall it's just an abstraction of hardware to your programs. Windows vs OSX vs Linux arguments don't make as much sense as say, Photoshop vs GIMP, for example.

 

So, I have always been interested in Linux, but afraid. I am not super tech savvy, nor have I ever had any specific need to try Linux. I use my computers at home for gaming and entertainment; i fit firmly in the category of "I just want it to work when I need it"

Given my recent distaste with the direction windows is going, however, I feel now is the time to broaden my horizons a bit. I recently got a family member a new computer, and I am now in possession of a 7 year old compaq (maybe compal) notebook. 1gb memory, Intel celeron processor. Would this be a good test computer (I dont want to use one of my regular rigs) Beyond reading up on the different distros, where would I start?

 

First, I would try Ubuntu first as a starter. It is probably one of the easiest distros to install. However, for a notebook that is that old I would go with lubuntu, which stands for light ubuntu.

Second. I still don't understand why people bow to Microsoft just because it has more of the hardware market under its thumb than other operating systmes do. Face it. Microsoft is a monopoly, which means that it conrols other businesses. Thus, printers, for instance, fall under its spell. Not to mention, it is a commonly known fact among security experts that Linux is more secure than Windows.

 

@nbiser: You know, Microsoft isn't a monopoly, strictly speaking. A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity, and Microsoft isn't the only person selling (or giving away) operating systems or office software (far from it). You're thinking of a monopsony, which I'd definitely agree that Microsoft is one (though it's not illegal). While there are many OSes and office suites, Windows and Office have a near market dominance in those fields, but don't have complete control over it. To think of it in another way, Texas has a monopsony on K-12 textbooks, but you're certainly welcome to buy a textbook produced in a different state.

As for security, here's an interesting read: http://www.esecurityplanet.com/tren.../Is-Linux-Really-More-Secure-than-Windows.htm
TL;DR: Neither Linux nor Windows are 100% secure, and social engineering is the greatest security threat now, which is OS-agnostic.

I second nbiser in recommending Ubuntu (or derivatives) as a starter Linux OS; it's pretty easy to grab a hold of things and work your way around the system. However, a major flaw of Ubuntu currently is that Amazon search is automatically installed with the OS, which is a major privacy concern. It's easy enough to uninstall (Google has good directions), but if you don't want to deal with that, Linux Mint is a great Ubuntu-derived alternative (I'd recommend the version with Xfce, which is very lightweight and won't bog down your Compaq). As for the hardware itself, that's good enough to run a lot of Linux distros (save for the ones with a *lot* of eyecandy, but those are rare).

Personally, I use Ubuntu 12.10 (with Amazon stuff uninstalled), Debian Squeeze (which Ubuntu 12.10 derives from), and Linux Mint 13.

 

I am getting a new hard drive for the old rig, so when i get it ill just load ubuntu onto a usb drive and give it a whirl. As for security, I am not that concerned. I quit facebook before I bought my gateway, and the 6 months i used twitter was solely on my mobile. Thankfully, neither of my rigs has ever even been logged into one of those security traps.

 

Ha, so long as you don't put stupid stuff on Facebook, et. al., you're fine . Also, no phone numbers, addresses, etc.

But back on topic, a USB LiveCD is a great way to test a distro before installing it. Just note that the USB read/write speeds will be slower than the HDD's read/write speeds, so the OS will feel more bogged down than it'll actually be when natively installed.

 

Would I need to have another OS installed to be able to use the LiveCD? The computer currently has vista on it and I dont want to waste a license on it.

I was planning on Office Spacing this computer anyway ( Office space fax machine - YouTube ) as I have been fixing it for a family member for years, so I'm willing to just go all out and try Linux

 

Shouldn't need a host OS for a LiveCD. So long as you're booting from the correct device (in this case, USB), it'll load up just fine. If the BISO doesn't support that, however, you'll have to burn the distro onto a CD or DVD and then boot from that.

 

While my main goal is to just familiarize myself with Linux, I would love for the Linux computer to serve as an additional tv (web-streaming) in my kitchen. The main problem might be the processor/gpu combo in the machine, but assuming that is up to snuff, would you foresee any problems streaming from netflix, hbogo.com, and justin.tv?

 

Software-wise, you shouldn't have any issue. As for the laptop itself, it might have issues playing that content as smoothly as a newer laptop or a dedicated TV box like a Roku, etc.

 

Good to hear, and thanks. If it doesn't work, no big deal. My main reason for this is Windows 8 - if this is the direction the OS is heading, then hopefully Linux will let me do everything I need.

 

Hmm, with Steam coming to Linux, Linux will pretty do anything that Windows can do (gaming was basically the last hurdle against Linux computers for the past few years). Worst case is that you can turn that Compaq into a basic Internet surfing + document editing machine. Or maybe as a file server if it doesn't suck up a lot of power when running 24/7.

 

Steam coming to Linux doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything you can on a Windows machine. It just means you'll be able to run the game client and Valve's own games. It remains an open question whether game developers, particularly developers of AAA games, will make games for Linux. This exact thing happened when Steam came to OSX. Some people heralded it as the end of saying "Macs aren't good for gaming," but to this day most AAA games on Steam are Windows-only.

 

One can be hopeful though, right?

 

Well, i think the steambox running on a version of Linux speaks more than just steam being available ON linux. My hope is that now that devs dont have to code for a console and a pc (seeing as the new consoles are x86 based), they can spend that time on developing Linux versions.

Assuming it wont work as a tv/web steaming comp, does anyone know if utorrent/bittorrent work well on Linux (possible dumb question, but I am not sure)

 

The first and most prominent OEM making Steam Boxes (Piston) changed its mind and decided to run Windows, not Linux, on its Steam Box.

Piston 'Steam Box' maker breaks from Valve's vision of a Linux-powered system | Polygon

Valve itself is still talking about Linux on its Steam Box...but their in-house Steam Box is still vaporware at this point, I think.

 

And the ports of Valve's own games are rather shoddily done. They're functional on OS X but no more. On the Windows side of my Mac, I can play Portal 2 at 1680x1050, max AA, max AF, and be locked at 60 fps all day long. To get that kind of performance on OS X, I have to drop the resolution, AA, and AF. It's annoying, but not worth flipping back to Windows just to play them. Now the ports of games that reside on the App Store are generally of pretty good quality. Rage runs better on OS X than it does on Windows, at least if you have an AMD GPU. Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the Batman Arkham games are well done, too. Given the limitations of the operating system, Apple's lousy OpenGL drivers, and code base the folks doing the porting have to work with, Feral and Aspyr do much better than you would expect. If they received more cooperation and support from the developers and Apple, Mac would be even more viable. It's a long way from what it was, but it could still be much better.

Going back to Steam, I believe most of the folks who worked on the Mac port of it have left the company. As such, updates to the client are slow in coming and don't really fix any of the other underlying problems it has. While Valve has said they are committed to the platforms, their actions with regard to OS X have spoken rather loudly to the contrary.

 

Windows may not be a monopoly strictly speaking; however, this doesn't mean that it isn't almost a monopoly. Not only is it almost a monopoly, it is trying to become one. It has almost all sorts of tricks that I've seen it try to pull off towards a monopoly.

 

Well, when it becomes a monopoly again, the courts will deal with it like they did the first time.

 

Between the growth in popularity of OSX laptops, and also tablet starting to replace PCs for some causal users, Microsoft has less power than it did five years ago, not more. Right now I'd call it dominant but not a monopoly or a near-monopoly...the same thing I'd say about Android in terms of smartphones.

 

Guess we know who took the $5 law class instead of the $10 one.

 

Try Linux Mint with codecs if you are a Linux Newbie coming from windows. All of the basics come installed and working (Flash, dvd player, dvd decrypter, system config software, etc.) Plus the windows evironment is much like windows 7.

 

Yes that would be a good computer to test on. With that old of a laptop you will want a lighter resource distro. Just to throw a few out there, in no particular order, I would try out: crunchbang, xubuntu, lubuntu, peppermint, bodhi, pclinuxos (lxde), puppy, and maybe even regular ubuntu. you can download a cd/dvd image (.iso) for each and either burn to cd, or do a usb install with unetbootin, or Linuxliveusb.

Also have a look at distrowatch.com and even read about their major distrobutions. Also trying out some of the popular distros in live mode (booting your newer laptop from a linux usb drive) is also a good way to start. check out Mint, ubuntu, fedora, pclinuxos.

 

If you plan on running Linux as a TV/media machine, you go with Ubuntu, and then install XBMC. You can then create an XBMC account, and set it's default windows environment to XBMC. Then have Ubuntu automatically log into that account on boot. You can also go with a dedicated XBMC install, but then you might not get the ability to easily set up other accounts on the system.

If you are curious what XBMC is, you can download and install it on Windows. It was originally developed in Linux, but now it has gone cross platform.

 

The thing that keeps me with Windows is that I don't want to buy an Apple computer and Linux gives worse performance and battery life.

 

I'm not a Microsoft fan, however I will point out that some consider the beginning of the end of the last tech boom whenthe government started going after Microsoft. Just a thought. I simply refuse to buy laptops or computers I have to pay for Windows with. That's a big reason I bought a Sager from XoticPC.

 

I like to buy older laptops and breath new life into them using Joli 1.2 or Ubuntu 10.04
They both install quickly & seem to find all the hardware too. If you are already running Win you can go to the Ubuntu site & download a newer version directly - once installed you will have a dual boot option. If you don't like how the newer version of Ubunto works- you can always uninstall it. Linux sure seems to work which is what I like. It's easier for me to watch all my movies in Ubuntu while on the road traveling. Try it on an old laptop bloated with adware/ malware/ barely running & you might be happily surprised!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I use Linux occasionally, my problems with it is lack of software diversity in the same scale as Windows and some hardware compatibility issues, for example I gave up on the newest Ubuntu release because it doesn't support my graphic card and would crash, I needed some serious workaround to get good results with Debian.

The biggest Achiles knee of Linux is the lack of compatibility with games, because honestly we spend more time playing than doing anything else, Steam is trying to correct that by launching a linux client. If they get more game compatibility they might get more marketshare, the solutions currently available such as Virtual Boxes or Playonlinux are not satisfactory. Linux is still more a thing for tech-oriented people, it has more power and control over a lot of the system potential so you can solve much problems, which is not easy in windows.