How to stand up for Linux

[u'b'u'n't'u]

My brother and I have onging fights on what operating system is better, he is a die-hard xp user, where I am a Linux-crazy user. How can I shut him up abuot XP. Please give me some good points to make about Ubuntu.

[Gizenshya]

You don't...

First off, there is no OS that is best for everyone. In other words, there is no "best" OS.

I highly recommend you (and your brother) to read this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=865750

[u'b'u'n't'u]

WOW tht guy makes alot of sense, well whatevr ill just smile when he gets the blue screen of death :biggrin:

[mb_webguy]

While I think the world would be a better place if more people used Linux, I agree it's not necessarily the best OS for everyone. When properly set up, XP is a solid OS, and fairly easy to use for less computer-savvy people. (Of course, the problem is that most XP systems aren't set up correctly, specifically in that a default installation gives the main user account administrative privileges. But I digress...) And since Windows is the most widely used OS, there may be very good reasons to want to use Windows -- such as if a business uses Windows-only software, which employees want to install on their personal computers so they can work from home. Unless the software will run under Wine, Linux simply wouldn't be the appropriate OS for such a situation.

As for getting more people to use Linux, Linux is fully capable of selling itself. But the natural reaction when a person is pushed is to push back. If you preach, people will be less likely to listen. But if you simply mention it when the occasion arises, people may be more open to trying it. For example, if a friend is thinking of getting a new computer, mention that they could save money on the price of the computer (and more in the long run) by using Linux instead of Windows. If they're interested, tell them more, but be honest. Don't try to sell Linux as a free version of Windows, because it's not. And if they show interest, help them try it, and show them how they can use it to do what they want to do. Because it doesn't matter that Linux is free, or more secure, or [your favorite aspect of Linux] if it doesn't meet that person's needs.

[dasunst3r]

There's no sense fighting him. Linux isn't right for everybody, so don't force it down people's throats. But from a personal perspective, I can't help but to feel some schadenfreude when some die-hard Windows fan's computer goes ka-put because of some virus or something like that.

[Maheriano]

BEST at.....?
- gaming?
- word processing?
- spread sheets?
- memory management?
- application management?
- software development?
- web services?

Be more specific, Windows is better at some of these things.

[gcogger]

I've never understood why people get so emotional about this. An OS is just a tool - would you "have ongoing fights" about which of you uses a better hammer? :)

[jpeddicord]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

[CholericKoala]

Like people have been saying, do not fight back with equal logic (which is not logic at all). Hold your ground. There is nothing more annoying than fanboys for ANY OS including Ubuntu.

[mobilediesel]

I've never understood why people get so emotional about this. An OS is just a tool - would you "have ongoing fights" about which of you uses a better hammer? :)

heh. yeah "my hammer totally PWNS your hammer!" :lolflag:

[howlingmadhowie]

I've never understood why people get so emotional about this. An OS is just a tool - would you "have ongoing fights" about which of you uses a better hammer? :)

well, no. because gnu/linux isn't primarily about an operating system. gnu/linux was conceived as a means to an end, that end being the liberation of knowledge from the people who think that ideas can be owned and laws can be bought.

as at every moment in history, we now stand at a crossroads. technology has made the distribution of culture and knowledge free to anybody with a computer and internet access. now the law is being misused to plug this gap and support the companies which claim to own culture and knowledge, instead of being adapted to support the common people.

free software is not primarily about building the best operating system (whatever best may mean). it's about freedom of speech guaranteed by public key encryption, it's about freedom of knowledge guaranteed by open, royalty-free data formats, it's about being allowed to use modern technology to help and be helped.

in other words, don't let a discussion get dragged down to technicalities about which operating system implements what best or even which operating system is cheaper. that's not what free software is about. free software is about freedom and liberation and microsoft isn't even playing that game.

[Cope57]

Mac vs Windows vs Linux (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgGXNuGURs0&fmt=18)

[karellen]

as at every moment in history, we now stand at a crossroads. technology has made the distribution of culture and knowledge free to anybody with a computer and internet access. now the law is being misused to plug this gap and support the companies which claim to own culture and knowledge, instead of being adapted to support the common people.

ideas implemented in a certain way can be owned. it's called copyright. if I write a book or a program, I am the only one to decide what to do with my work. not an ideology. if you take my right to choose whatever I want to do with my work, all this talk about "freedom" is futile, just another name for hypocrisy

[Calmatory]

My brother and I have onging fights on what operating system is better, he is a die-hard xp user, where I am a Linux-crazy user. How can I shut him up abuot XP. Please give me some good points to make about Ubuntu.

Why do you want OTHERS to come up with good reasons to beat your brother?

I mean, if you can't make point across with your current knowledge, how do you suppose that you are right anyway?

Let him use what he wants to use. Mention, don't preach!

Besides, Linux is far from perfect, not even close to be the best OS. ;)

[howlingmadhowie]

ideas implemented in a certain way can be owned. it's called copyright. if I write a book or a program, I am the only one to decide what to do with my work. not an ideology. if you take my right to choose whatever I want to do with my work, all this talk about "freedom" is futile, just another name for hypocrisy

no, copyright is about a work of artistic expression. it most certainly does not cover ideas.

[Patrick Snyder]

ideas implemented in a certain way can be owned. it's called copyright. if I write a book or a program, I am the only one to decide what to do with my work. not an ideology. if you take my right to choose whatever I want to do with my work, all this talk about "freedom" is futile, just another name for hypocrisy

Ownership is a human construct. It's an idea. It's outside the realm of the concrete world. It's a way humans use to order the world in which they live. Legality and rights are other human constructs, and the ideas of what is legal and the balance of conflicting rights is constantly refining itself.

In reality without human ideas, there is matter, energy, dimensional shape (3d), forces, and a few other things.

For example, plants are made up of atoms. Humans could say the plant owns those atoms. But then, an animal eats those atoms, uses some, excretes some, and those excreted may make new plants or rocks, etc. Humans can say those atoms are owned by whatever they make now. Or humans can say those atoms are still owned by the original plant, but were stolen and destroyed by the animal.

I too have the feeling to protect what I work hard on. I often have the desire to be acknowledged for the things I create with the building blocks around me. But this sense of ownership is an idea within my mind. And perhaps if I were in a different culture, I would not have that feeling, as many Native Americans thought it was silly that the Europeans paid them for land. "How can someone 'own' land?", some thought.

Lately, I've become attracted by the idea that, once everyone's basic needs are met, there will come a time when whatever someone creates will belong to humanity as a whole. Within capitalism, we certainly can have pockets where this exists today. Linux is one such pocket. And licenses and laws like GPL, Apache, and Creative Commons, were created to protect that pocket within our propriety culture.

But one day, as technologies progress allowing more and more needs to be met with less and less effort, perhaps no one's lively-hood or comfort of life will be threatened or enhanced by hording ideas. And then, ideas will truly flow freely.

[karellen]

Ownership is a human construct. It's an idea. It's outside the realm of the concrete world. It's a way humans use to order the world in which they live. Legality and rights are other human constructs, and the ideas of what is legal and the balance of conflicting rights is constantly refining itself.

In reality without human ideas, there is matter, energy, dimensional shape (3d), forces, and a few other things.

For example, plants are made up of atoms. Humans could say the plant owns those atoms. But then, an animal eats those atoms, uses some, excretes some, and those excreted may make new plants or rocks, etc. Humans can say those atoms are owned by whatever they make now. Or humans can say those atoms are still owned by the original plant, but were stolen and destroyed by the animal.

I too have the feeling to protect what I work hard on. I often have the desire to be acknowledged for the things I create with the building blocks around me. But this sense of ownership is an idea within my mind. And perhaps if I were in a different culture, I would not have that feeling, as many Native Americans thought it was silly that the Europeans paid them for land. "How can someone 'own' land?", some thought.

Lately, I've become attracted by the idea that, once everyone's basic needs are met, there will come a time when whatever someone creates will belong to humanity as a whole. Within capitalism, we certainly can have pockets where this exists today. Linux is one such pocket. And licenses and laws like GPL, Apache, and Creative Commons, were created to protect that pocket within our propriety culture.

But one day, as technologies progress allowing more and more needs to be met with less and less effort, perhaps no one's lively-hood or comfort of life will be threatened or enhanced by hording ideas. And then, ideas will truly flow freely.

it doesn't matter. there's nothing new in saying that ideas are constructed by humans; ever since protagoras, man was the measure of all things. that's ok, I'm fine with that. we 'design' the world around us according to our minds, values and systems of beliefs. and mine's that: freedom of choice, not the freedom of 'GPL'. that would be all

[howlingmadhowie]

But one day, as technologies progress allowing more and more needs to be met with less and less effort, perhaps no one's lively-hood or comfort of life will be threatened or enhanced by hording ideas. And then, ideas will truly flow freely.

it is worth noting that the idea that ideas belong to the first person to have thought of them is very recent. it really does start in the 20th century. copyright law was about licensing of technology for book printing and patent law was about encouraging immigration. then came the 20th century and everything changed.

now a lot of people believe that if they have an idea, they deserve to get rich off it and so do their children and their children's children right up to at least 90 years after their death. and that's the way the law sees it too.

the result is of course ludicrous. instead of fitting law to technology (which was invariably done before), the law is being constantly modified to keep knowledge and ideas out of the public domain interminably. one cannot stress enough that the 'natural' place for knowledge and ideas to be is in the public domain. science realizes this by not allowing patents on scientific ideas. if you discover something in a field of a natural science or a humanity, your discovery automatically belongs to the world. with maths this is also the case.

algorithms are however different. and the difference comes because computers are a relatively new field and the uspto got bribed and strong-armed into issuing software patents.

any work you create is automatically covered by copyright. patent law is really weird with software.

in general i would support a reduction of the length of a copyright down to somewhere below the original length of 28 years and a reduction of the length of a patent down to about 2 years---if you can't make money off of your fully-functional prototype in 2 years in the modern world, you shouldn't be able to stop others from using it.

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

sorry, just checked on wikipedia. the original length of copyright in america was 14 years with a possible 14 year extension. it remained this way until 1909. here's a nice image of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_term.svg

[Bölvaður]

well other's have talked about the freedom. now there are 2 other angles.

1. Linux = kernel, so you have to make comparison of the kernels.
You could download the source and send it to him via email and ask him what parts are better in windows.
If the answer isn't about the kernel then he may just as well be talking about google software or what his favorite colour of apples is.

2. What would the world be without Linux.... internet, supercomputers, engiensystems... well basically all sort of stuff.


but if this is just an argument about what a computer user should use... then it is intensely stupid to even reply with anything other than "uh, can you email me what you are saying, I am really busy standing over there" point anywhere, walk to that place, and stand there for a bit.

[saulgoode]

it doesn't matter. there's nothing new in saying that ideas are constructed by humans; ever since protagoras, man was the measure of all things. that's ok, I'm fine with that. we 'design' the world around us according to our minds, values and systems of beliefs. and mine's that: freedom of choice, not the freedom of 'GPL'. that would be all

Your statement of belief in freedom of choice is contradicted by your previous statement of "if I write a book or a program, I am the only one to decide what to do with my work"; which would deny others the choice to do something with your work.

[karellen]

Your statement of belief in freedom of choice is contradicted by your previous statement of "if I write a book or a program, I am the only one to decide what to do with my work"; which would deny others the choice to do something with your work.

their choices regard their work, not mine. they have no right to tell me what to do with my intellectual creation, and nor do I. if something is forcing me to restrain what I do with my work, well...let's not call it freedom...;)

[howlingmadhowie]

their choices regard their work, not mine. they have no right to tell me what to do with my intellectual creation, and nor do I. if something is forcing me to restrain what I do with my work, well...let's not call it freedom...;)

au contraire. if they're dying and need a medication to survive and you say to them "no, you're not allowed to produce this medication because only i am allowed to produce this medication" then they have every right to produce your medication.

[karellen]

au contraire. if they're dying and need a medication to survive and you say to them "no, you're not allowed to produce this medication because only i am allowed to produce this medication" then they have every right to produce your medication.

exaggerations and misinterpretations are not good arguments, even on a forum. stick to the point or, if you want to digress, you're free to do it by yourself. what comes next, nazis and gas chambers? :popcorn:

[saulgoode]

their choices regard their work, not mine. they have no right to tell me what to do with my intellectual creation, and nor do I. if something is forcing me to restrain what I do with my work, well...let's not call it freedom...;)
The point isn't that anyone is telling you what you can do with your work, it is that copyright law is restricting what others can do with your work. Your "freedom" isn't restricted by someone humming a tune which you wrote, or telling a story which you authored, or sharing an application which you programmed. Copyright isn't about what the author of a work can do with his work, it is about what others can't do.

This restriction upon the activities of others is not an inherent "right", it is a temporary subsidy granted to you by society as an incentive to your sharing works publicly. It is only to the extent that society benefits from this subsidization of the arts and sciences that the restriction of the rights of others can be justified.

[diwas]

It doesn't matter which OS you use, what matters is what you do in it.

[PirateChef]

Thanks, Saul! This is a very important point. Many people seem to regard copyright as some sort of inerrant human moral code, which cannot be broken, rather than a (fairly recent) construct of law.

If anyone is interested in the philosophy behind GNU/Linux, I highly recommend listening to some speeches by Richard Stallman, here:
http://gnu.mirrors.ilisys.com.au/philosophy/audio/audio.html

Of course, you don't have to agree with Stallman in order to use Linux. However, it is important to realize that it didn't start out as just another operating system, but a movement. If it hadn't been for dedicated hackers believing in the principles of freedom, GNU/Linux certainly wouldn't be where it is today, and probably wouldn't have ever been written at all.

The point isn't that anyone is telling you what you can do with your work, it is that copyright law is restricting what others can do with your work. Your "freedom" isn't restricted by someone humming a tune which you wrote, or telling a story which you authored, or sharing an application which you programmed. Copyright isn't about what the author of a work can do with his work, it is about what others can't do.

This restriction upon the activities of others is not an inherent "right", it is a temporary subsidy granted to you by society as an incentive to your sharing works publicly. It is only to the extent that society benefits from this subsidization of the arts and sciences that the restriction of the rights of others can be justified.

[howlingmadhowie]

The point isn't that anyone is telling you what you can do with your work, it is that copyright law is restricting what others can do with your work. Your "freedom" isn't restricted by someone humming a tune which you wrote, or telling a story which you authored, or sharing an application which you programmed. Copyright isn't about what the author of a work can do with his work, it is about what others can't do.

This restriction upon the activities of others is not an inherent "right", it is a temporary subsidy granted to you by society as an incentive to your sharing works publicly. It is only to the extent that society benefits from this subsidization of the arts and sciences that the restriction of the rights of others can be justified.

very well put :)

[tsali]

au contraire. if they're dying and need a medication to survive and you say to them "no, you're not allowed to produce this medication because only i am allowed to produce this medication" then they have every right to produce your medication.

You have twisted the concept oh so slightly, sir...

They are always free to produce their OWN medication that may be like mine...

However, I am (and should be) free to choose whether I share the formula for MY medication with them.

[cmay]

the question in the tread title how to stand up for linux is actually easy to answer.
just use linux. do what ever you can to help out and maybe donate and help others on forums. use some time to betatest and translate and if anyone see the passion for doing this and wants to do the same then help them if they want to.

[howlingmadhowie]

You have twisted the concept oh so slightly, sir...

They are always free to produce their OWN medication that may be like mine...

However, I am (and should be) free to choose whether I share the formula for MY medication with them.

you don't really believe that, do you?

if people are dying because you refuse to give them access to medication that could save them, you are guilty of murder.

[tsali]

you don't really believe that, do you?

if people are dying because you refuse to give them access to medication that could save them, you are guilty of murder.

No, I am not guilty of murder. Thousands of people die everyday of hunger while I make enough money to feed quite a few. Does that make me a murderer? Don't think so.

I am not implying that I would not share it, but I am insisting that I have that choice.

[albinootje]

My brother and I have onging fights on what operating system is better, he is a die-hard xp user, where I am a Linux-crazy user.

First of all in my opinion it's great that you're crazy about Linux, but I think you should use your energy towards people who are really interested in using Linux.
I'm using Linux intensively since 1995, I'm a huge Linux fan, but meanwhile I've stopped telling everyone about Linux.
Even when people seem to be interested in Linux I try my best to find out whether they are *really* interested, and whether they have hardware which will run fine with Linux, and whether they have enough time/potential to fix problems or have some Linux support.

An example, a colleague of mine who moved to south america told me about a mutual friend there who also wanted Linux on her laptop.
After asking some questions I said that it was not a good idea because it became clear to me that there was not enough Linux support over there, and she should simply solve the MS-Windows problems (viruses) on her laptop saving both of us time and energy.

You could use your Linux energy in Linux install parties, join a LUG, do translation work for a Linux application, start Linux workshops :)

[karellen]

you don't really believe that, do you?

if people are dying because you refuse to give them access to medication that could save them, you are guilty of murder.

just out of curiosity, what have you done for those in need? except posting on a Linux forum...

[PirateChef]

What got me into Ubuntu was finding a disk at a coffee shop. They had a stack of 'em on the counter; somebody had just left them there for people to take home. I had used Linux a few years before, and had been pretty disappointed, but the case said it was "user friendly" and that I could try it out without installing it...and I had seen a lot of screenshots of sexy desktops that people had made with their Linux systems (never underestimate the power of eye candy!)

I've only ever been able to get Canonical to send me one or two disks, though. I don't know how this person managed to get a whole stack that they could leave around coffee shops.

Burn LiveCDs and give 'em to your friends.

[PirateChef]

exaggerations and misinterpretations are not good arguments, even on a forum. stick to the point or, if you want to digress, you're free to do it by yourself. what comes next, nazis and gas chambers? :popcorn:

Unfortunately, the type of situation that howlingmadhowie's talking about HAS happened, in the real world...it's not hypothetical. It's actually a big problem in third world countries, who can't afford expensive first world drugs.

This is an issue for patent law, though, not copyright.

[Zlatan]

My brother and I have onging fights on what operating system is better, he is a die-hard xp user, where I am a Linux-crazy user. How can I shut him up abuot XP. Please give me some good points to make about Ubuntu.

your brother is much more important than your os, trust me ;)

[tsali]

just out of curiosity, what have you done for those in need? except posting on a Linux forum...

I don't see that that's any of your or anyone elses business. The point is that what I do or do not do is MY choice...

[karellen]

I don't see that that's any of your or anyone elses business. The point is that what I do or do not do is MY choice...

then stop using other people's misery for off topic debates about those in need, dying because of a medicine protected by copyright. let everyone practice what you preach: the point is that what others do or do not is THEIR choice
I rest my case

[MikeTheC]

This discussion serves no purpose because this is like asking a group of people if liberalism or conservatism is better. You have no common frame of personal reference, and therefore fundamentally no points to be able to measure and put on a ledger sheet.

If you can't add it, you can't tally it. And if you can't tally it, you have nothing to definitively prove.

End of story.

[MikeTheC]

in other words, don't let a discussion get dragged down to technicalities about which operating system implements what best or even which operating system is cheaper. that's not what free software is about. free software is about freedom and liberation and microsoft isn't even playing that game.

Massive +1 for your entire post. Most people seem not to see or "get" the larger philosophical argument. Brilliantly discussed, dude!

[Giant Speck]

I read the title of this thread and immediately thought "wait, since when was Linux a dork on a school playground?"

[tsali]

then stop using other people's misery for off topic debates about those in need, dying because of a medicine protected by copyright. let everyone practice what you preach: the point is that what others do or do not is THEIR choice
I rest my case

First of all, I didn't open that can of worms. It was YOU that insisted that exercising my freedom of choice made me a murderer.

Who in the h-e-double toothpicks do you think you are? I'll post what I darn well please within the TOS. So can you.

Where do you get off telling others how to exercise their freedom?

You've called me a murderer and told me to shut up. You have a lot to learn about freedom, buddy...

[dburnett77]

Cost, and upgrades. Plus, free ware, or open source.

XP is a security nightmare, at least linux hackers have to try harder.

Also, speed. And, memory utilization. As a nice bonus, if you loose your cd, you don't have to go to the store.

[karellen]

First of all, I didn't open that can of worms. It was YOU that insisted that exercising my freedom of choice made me a murderer.

Who in the h-e-double toothpicks do you think you are? I'll post what I darn well please within the TOS. So can you.

Where do you get off telling others how to exercise their freedom?

You've called me a murderer and told me to shut up. You have a lot to learn about freedom, buddy...

I think there's been confusion here. I was replying to howlingmadhowie. it wasn't neither of us who started the murder-freedom analogy, it was him

[howlingmadhowie]

then stop using other people's misery for off topic debates about those in need, dying because of a medicine protected by copyright. let everyone practice what you preach: the point is that what others do or do not is THEIR choice
I rest my case

but it isn't their choice. you would doubtless agree that others are not free to murder, and that it is correct that they are not free to do so.

i just happen to place life above money in this hegemony. if person A can stop thousands of people from dying and does not do so because s/he wants to get even richer, then society should step in and force him/her to help or at the very least not obstruct the ones in need.

[Wv0wvw88wvw0vW]

I understand your point of view, "gcooger" mentioned the OS is just a tool, and that, by definition it is. As a tool it is meant to perform several functions, such as memory management etc. In this case Linux is a better "tool". However, if we were to look at it through your "everyone is different" prespective, then it wouldn't be objective, and we'd be appreciating performance, stability and reliability as "art" which depends on how "user-friendly" the operating system is.

Good Points About Linux:
> It's not user-friendly
> It takes ages to download a distro
> It takes ages to get proper drivers working
~ All of these make the experience more worthwhile I think

Great Points About Linux: (Economic)
> Constant innovation through new distros, i.e. through modularity
> Not dependant on commercial backing (e.g. If Windows goes backrupt it's dead)
> It's very cheap, and easy to deploy for a company
> It's very secure, and used in military, government, and financial institutions
> Commercially, it's easier for a Linux software house to succeed due to extensive module libraries
> Better figureheads for organisations, e.g. Mark Shuttleworth to Bill Gates

Great Points About Linux: (Social)
> Very wide variety of open source software you can improve upon
>Special effects through Compiz make it more attractive than current offering by Microsoft
> It's far less likely to crash, and if a program does, it won't affect the overall system
> You can customize and play with the system to your heart's content
> You can easily virtualize other software on your Desktop
> Your computer is nearly impossibly to crack, unlike XP which you can easily crack with the ironically - "user-friendly" - Rainbow cracker, "OphCrack".

Best Thing About Linux:
> It's better than Windows

My ultimate suggestion, navigate to http://ophcrack.sourceforge.net/, download the Live CD, burn it. Startup your brother's computer, press F12 on boot, and everything else it does automatically - no interaction required. Unless your brother's password is over 16 characters, you'll be able to prove to him how flimsy, and weak Windows is from a security standpoint.

[karellen]

but it isn't their choice. you would doubtless agree that others are not free to murder, and that it is correct that they are not free to do so.

i just happen to place life above money in this hegemony. if person A can stop thousands of people from dying and does not do so because s/he wants to get even richer, then society should step in and force him/her to help or at the very least not obstruct the ones in need.

fine. then do something to improve the life of others. join The Red Cross or donate all your earnings to charity. it's so easy to write about virtue. I happen to do volunteer work in an orphanage, so don't give me the "money vs humanness" line ;)
if you keep distorting and twisting a concept as clear as freedom of choice, you're on your own. as I said, when do the nazis step into the discussion?

[Wv0wvw88wvw0vW]

.

[PirateChef]

fine. then do something to improve the life of others. join The Red Cross or donate all your earnings to charity. it's so easy to write about virtue. I happen to do volunteer work in an orphanage, so don't give me the "money vs humanness" line ;)


Many people have died (and probably continue to die) in South Africa, because their governments cannot afford the expensive AIDS drugs produced by US pharmaceutical companies. As chairman of the United States/South Africa Binational Commission, Al Gore prevented those governments from obtaining cheaper drugs, because the drug companies feared that if prices went down in South Africa, it would drive down prices in the rest of the world.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=313 (http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=313)

This is a very real, non-hypothetical example of what howlingmadhowie's talking about. Are the drug companies right here? What they are doing is perfectly legal, within their prerogatives and their mission to increase and sustain profits. It's nothing personal; it's business. Is it ethical, though?

[tombom62]

u'b'u'n't'u:
Ithink that instead of trying to force him to use Linux, let him use Xp, and don't try to fight. I speak from experience. I tried to get my sister to use linux, but she won't. I don't see her ever using it now, and I think she just won't like it. Maybe that's just the case for you too, and maybe not.

[Marlonsm]

There is a great thread, called "don't preach Linux, mention it" take a look at mig sig, I have a link for it.

But just show him Compiz and say "I didn't pay anything for it".

[pricetech]

heh. yeah "my hammer totally PWNS your hammer!" :lolflag:

How many ounces ???

[starcannon]

My brother and I have onging fights on what operating system is better, he is a die-hard xp user, where I am a Linux-crazy user. How can I shut him up abuot XP. Please give me some good points to make about Ubuntu.

Probably the best thing to do is let him suffer in silence. When its time for him to upgrade his OS, he'll have to spend several hundred dollars; and you can legally download your latest OS version and even boot it from a thumbdrive, total cost, $0.00. If your lazy like me though, you'll spend $0.30 on a blank CD.

As far as getting him to shutup about XP, he'll be on about Vista, or 7 soon enough so XP will take care of itself when MS drops support for it lol.

[Corelogik]

The enitire OS wars mentality is pointless. Find what works for you and use it. If some asks, tell why it works for you and continue on. Let them use what they use if it works for them.

The more each side badgers and berates, the deeper entrenched the other side becomes.

People will come to realisations or not on their own, they will come to Linux or not on their own. Nothing you can do or say will convince to come any faster or to stick once they have arrived. They have to decide for themselves.

Nothing short of every single Microsoft employee in the world dropping dead at the same instant is going to cause a mass migration to Linux. They will come as individuals, some, won't come at all.

Be thankful you have found what works for you, be thankful they have found something that works for them.