PDA

View Full Version : Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

gameryoshi600
May 11th, 2008, 03:28 AM
XP is too old for me. Vista is terrible. So I go with Ubuntu.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
May 11th, 2008, 12:03 PM
A few decades ago, an IT professional said, "Windows is user friendly, expert hostile. Unix is user hostile, expert friendly." Linux today is not nearly as "user hostile" as it used to be, and Windows is more expert hostile than it used to be.


This is one of most true statements I have heard!

housam
May 11th, 2008, 09:57 PM
with Ubuntu you can feel free, think free and work free. it is the ultimate freedom environment that man can get.

free2useemail
May 12th, 2008, 10:35 PM
I have to agree. Senice my graphic driver is not capable of Ubuntu, I can't get the special effects, there really is no reason for ubuntu. it is faster, and fun to play with!

astroorion
May 13th, 2008, 11:32 PM
I stopped using the internet with Windows Xp and started using Ubuntu I just got sick of the slow downs in Windows Xp probably due to unknown Viruses and Spyware which clog the OS plus the review's on Ubuntu in Maximum Pc also convinced me to try it. I just also started using wine not to long ago and have a game running on Ubuntu Call Of Duty 1 just got it up and running yesterday What I like about Ubuntu it is evolving so what doesn't work today meaning Games for Windows or other windows software will eventually run Later on in Ubuntu as it develops further.
But for know I just dual boot when I need to Windows for gaming until it runs on wine I am Patient \\:D/

xellas84
May 14th, 2008, 12:05 AM
with Ubuntu you can feel free, think free and work free. it is the ultimate freedom environment that man can get.

New Ubuntu user here (refugee from XP, since my old comp was stolen I decided to try this out after building a new box).

Honestly, I've been seeing this 'freedom' concept thrown around a lot around here. This will sound abrasive, and yes, it's intentionally so. Who cares?! I am from the camp that says "I want to do what I want, when I want, with minimal downtime". 'Freedom' is a lovely concept, and if it could be achieved without sacrificing the things that are actually USEFUL, then I'd go with it in a heartbeat.

If you get 'freedom' by sacrificing doing the things that you love to do (In my case, unrestricted gaming) then I suppose that freedom isn't worth much, now is it? Linux is STILL extremely unfriendly to new computer users, and honestly, pretty unfriendly to long-term users who don't want to have to spend 10 hours of precious time reading walkthroughs and trolling through blogs and forums to figure out what the hell they did wrong every 20 minutes.

Excuse my short-tempered rant, I'm going to go back to trying to figure out how to make Assassin's Creed run on WINE now, like I have been for the last 5 hours.

cardinals_fan
May 14th, 2008, 01:00 AM
New Ubuntu user here (refugee from XP, since my old comp was stolen I decided to try this out after building a new box).

Honestly, I've been seeing this 'freedom' concept thrown around a lot around here. This will sound abrasive, and yes, it's intentionally so. Who cares?! I am from the camp that says "I want to do what I want, when I want, with minimal downtime". 'Freedom' is a lovely concept, and if it could be achieved without sacrificing the things that are actually USEFUL, then I'd go with it in a heartbeat.

If you get 'freedom' by sacrificing doing the things that you love to do (In my case, unrestricted gaming) then I suppose that freedom isn't worth much, now is it? Linux is STILL extremely unfriendly to new computer users, and honestly, pretty unfriendly to long-term users who don't want to have to spend 10 hours of precious time reading walkthroughs and trolling through blogs and forums to figure out what the hell they did wrong every 20 minutes.

Excuse my short-tempered rant, I'm going to go back to trying to figure out how to make Assassin's Creed run on WINE now, like I have been for the last 5 hours.
I have absolutely no problem with proprietary software (I use NVIDIA, Java, Flash, RealPlayer (ugh), and Opera every day). But I like open source software more simply because it, in my view, is more secure. Code audits can catch a number of vulnerabilities that I would otherwise depend on the distributer to patch at their leisure.

Barrucadu
May 14th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Excuse my short-tempered rant, I'm going to go back to trying to figure out how to make Assassin's Creed run on WINE now, like I have been for the last 5 hours.

Well, you can't really complain if you're trying to run a Windows binary on Linux, even through WINE. WINE is very far from perfect. If you want to run Windows binaries perfectly, do so on Windows.

vexorian
May 14th, 2008, 01:18 AM
Honestly, I've been seeing this 'freedom' concept thrown around a lot around here. This will sound abrasive, and yes, it's intentionally so. Who cares?! I am from the camp that says "I want to do what I want, when I want, with minimal downtime". 'Freedom' is a lovely concept, and if it could be achieved without sacrificing the things that are actually USEFUL, then I'd go with it in a heartbeat.

If you get 'freedom' by sacrificing doing the things that you love to do (In my case, unrestricted gaming) then I suppose that freedom isn't worth much, now is it?


You just said you want to trash freedom over gaming? Oh gosh, the problem here is that many people think that way. In my opinion, for these things that don't really matter, aka games, it is fine to use proprietary garbage, it's not like you'll lose your computer if the proprietary companies decide to screw you up (and since they are proprietary, they eventually will)

With an OS though, it is a different issue, you need that stuff to run your computer, and you would like it to be cooperative with you. I dislike the lack of freedom on XP and specially vista, DRM, WGA, it is getting ridiculous already, and MS seems to deliberately be removing even the freedom to tweak, windows 3.11 was like 30 times more customizable than windows XP. This freedom thing is no joke, with ubuntu I actually got control over my own hardware, that's something that for some reason windows and OS/X don't like to give me.




Linux is STILL extremely unfriendly to new computer users,

You are wrong.


and honestly, pretty unfriendly to long-term users who don't want to have to spend 10 hours of precious time reading walkthroughs
There's your answer, you are a windows power user, you got too used to windows, sorry. Ubuntu is friendly, but you are not looking for friendly, you are looking for familiar, most people need 12 hours reading walkthroughs to use windows XP, you probably needed to go to school or to have someone close to teach you when you were a kid.



and trolling through blogs and forums to figure out what the hell they did wrong every 20 minutes.

Excuse my short-tempered rant, I'm going to go back to trying to figure out how to make Assassin's Creed run on WINE now, like I have been for the last 5 hours.

Well, if you like games that don't run easily on WINE so much, windows XP is the OS for you, if you want free of cost, just get the pirated version or something. Speaking of which, the reason your game doesn't work is most likely because of the proprietary world mentality of limiting users... perhaps you need a no-cd crack...

But really, if running some windows games is such a priority to you that you don't mind giving the control of your computer to some greedy company, windows is for you, don't mind trying Linux.

xellas84
May 14th, 2008, 01:52 AM
You just said you want to trash freedom over gaming? Oh gosh, the problem here is that many people think that way. In my opinion, for these things that don't really matter, aka games, it is fine to use proprietary garbage, it's not like you'll lose your computer if the proprietary companies decide to screw you up (and since they are proprietary, they eventually will)

With an OS though, it is a different issue, you need that stuff to run your computer, and you would like it to be cooperative with you. I dislike the lack of freedom on XP and specially vista, DRM, WGA, it is getting ridiculous already, and MS seems to deliberately be removing even the freedom to tweak, windows 3.11 was like 30 times more customizable than windows XP. This freedom thing is no joke, with ubuntu I actually got control over my own hardware, that's something that for some reason windows and OS/X don't like to give me.

I'm looking for EQUIVALENCE. Freedom to tweak hardware is wonderful, but only if you can USE that tweaked hardware for the same SOFTWARE, or something equivalent to it (AKA, it can use the same files, like OpenOffice can use Word files). If Linux can't be equivalent, then it is overall less useful. Currently, unless I'm missing something major (And from what I'm seeing on this forum, I'm not), to use Linux I'm going to have to give up the concept of doing my favorite activity on the computer. That's like saying that I can have an electric car that doesn't use gas, but I can't drive more than 1 hour, and my favorite hobby is long drives in the country. Sure, the concept is nice, but the end product is NOT EQUIVALENT to what I'm giving up.




You are wrong.


I'll agree with you when I can manage to teach my mother how to use Linux as quickly as I taught her how to use Windows. Took me less than 2 hours to get her to be able to do all the basic things in Windows with no effort, and the only prior knowledge that was relevant that she had was she knew how to type on a typewriter. When Linux gets that quick to learn, I'll agree that it's user-friendly. I read a LOT faster than my mother, and it's taken me longer than that to get through the absolute beginner guide for Ubuntu.




There's your answer, you are a windows power user, you got too used to windows, sorry. Ubuntu is friendly, but you are not looking for friendly, you are looking for familiar, most people need 12 hours reading walkthroughs to use windows XP, you probably needed to go to school or to have someone close to teach you when you were a kid.


No, I'm looking for 2 things. Easy learning curve, and equivalence. Linux fails on both of those. It is nowhere near equivalent in the things I want to use it for, and the learning curve on it is BRUTALLY harsh to anyone who hasn't been in the Linux world for a long time. Not at all saying you CAN'T get through it, but you are in for a nasty ride.

Oh, and my definition of 'friendly' is nearly synonymous with 'intuitive'. Commands like "ls" and "pwd" are not intuitive at all. In other words, if you need a cheat sheet to use basic functions, it is NOT user-friendly. Most of the basic commands in Linux haven't changed a bit from the days of Unix, which is absolutely ridiculous in my book.




But really, if running some windows games is such a priority to you that you don't mind giving the control of your computer to some greedy company, windows is for you, don't mind trying Linux.

Oh sorry, I'll just go ahead and give up my main hobby and free time activity for the nebulous concept of 'freedom' from a company that just wants to make money. Yeah, that makes sense.

nowandever29
May 14th, 2008, 02:37 AM
I use it on my TV box (PVR box). Windows XP MCE 2005 is a bugger to get installed, and slowly becomes unstable over time. Windows Vista MC is buggy and unstable out of the box. MythTV for Ubuntu (Mythbuntu) is much better for homebrew PVR - no friggin' DRM, unlimited storage, commercial stripping, etc.

Frak
May 14th, 2008, 03:17 AM
Xellas, if you have to keep arguing here, just go back to windows and quit arguing. You make yourself look bad by continous arguing (and nonsensicle blabbering).

Everybody else: Let it go.

vexorian
May 14th, 2008, 03:20 AM
I'm looking for EQUIVALENCE. Freedom to tweak hardware is wonderful, but only if you can USE that tweaked hardware for the same SOFTWARE, or something equivalent to it (AKA, it can use the same files, like OpenOffice can use Word files). If Linux can't be equivalent, then it is overall less useful. Currently, unless I'm missing something major (And from what I'm seeing on this forum, I'm not), to use Linux I'm going to have to give up the concept of doing my favorite activity on the computer.Windows has exactly the same issue I can't do and run the things I like and I cannot use the hardware for what I like when I am on windows, yet you don't see me go to MS' tech support site to complaint about how windows has failed to fulfill my over-specific taste/hobby or go around saying that windows is not "equivalent".


I'll agree with you when I can manage to teach my mother how to use Linux as quickly as I taught her how to use Windows. Took me less than 2 hours to get her to be able to do all the basic things in Windows with no effort, and the only prior knowledge that was relevant that she had was she knew how to type on a typewriter.
You need to learn ubuntu before trying to teach it, which in my opinion you didn't judging by your next comment about ls and pwd. I doubt your mother will have any issue with ubuntu if all she wants to do is the basic things, now if she wants to be able to run some random game in her computer, it might get harder...




Oh, and my definition of 'friendly' is nearly synonymous with 'intuitive'. Commands like "ls" and "pwd" are not intuitive at all.

Certainly, although I don't really use them when I use ubuntu, I do know about ls because I use ssh to manage some site.


In other words, if you need a cheat sheet to use basic functions,
err, nope. You don't need any command line to use ubuntu.


it is NOT user-friendly. Most of the basic commands in Linux haven't changed a bit from the days of Unix, which is absolutely ridiculous in my book.

I guess equivalently I could complaint about windows being unfriendly because attrib's syntax is very hard to deal with. How do I see the contents of a directory in windows? Oooh it's dir! So hard! Windows is keeping most of the commands from the DOS era, which I think is unacceptable.

Anyways, like I said, and also reading your whole "equivalence" speech, it looks that what you want is a windows clone, sorry but ubuntu will (fortunately) never fulfill such objective, you are free to go on with your life now, take windows and be happy with it.

Also: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=11069 It is bronze, so I wouldn't rely too hard on it, I think silver or gold would make me more hopeful to get it run in Wine, you should take your complaint to the game's publisher, you can't expect magic from the Linux people in making every game in the world work there, specially if the companies specifically code trying hard to stop their games working in Wine for some reason.

---
Strangely enough, it looks to me the command line is friendlier than the GUI, or at least more people can actually learn it, I can mention a handful of - currently old- people that mastered DOS and Unix commands in the past, to them dir was very natural, but now will cry out of the confusion caused by windows' icons.

Achetar
May 14th, 2008, 04:39 PM
I'm looking for EQUIVALENCE. Freedom to tweak hardware is wonderful, but only if you can USE that tweaked hardware for the same SOFTWARE, or something equivalent to it (AKA, it can use the same files, like OpenOffice can use Word files). If Linux can't be equivalent, then it is overall less useful. Currently, unless I'm missing something major (And from what I'm seeing on this forum, I'm not), to use Linux I'm going to have to give up the concept of doing my favorite activity on the computer. That's like saying that I can have an electric car that doesn't use gas, but I can't drive more than 1 hour, and my favorite hobby is long drives in the country. Sure, the concept is nice, but the end product is NOT EQUIVALENT to what I'm giving up.




I'll agree with you when I can manage to teach my mother how to use Linux as quickly as I taught her how to use Windows. Took me less than 2 hours to get her to be able to do all the basic things in Windows with no effort, and the only prior knowledge that was relevant that she had was she knew how to type on a typewriter. When Linux gets that quick to learn, I'll agree that it's user-friendly. I read a LOT faster than my mother, and it's taken me longer than that to get through the absolute beginner guide for Ubuntu.




No, I'm looking for 2 things. Easy learning curve, and equivalence. Linux fails on both of those. It is nowhere near equivalent in the things I want to use it for, and the learning curve on it is BRUTALLY harsh to anyone who hasn't been in the Linux world for a long time. Not at all saying you CAN'T get through it, but you are in for a nasty ride.

Oh, and my definition of 'friendly' is nearly synonymous with 'intuitive'. Commands like "ls" and "pwd" are not intuitive at all. In other words, if you need a cheat sheet to use basic functions, it is NOT user-friendly. Most of the basic commands in Linux haven't changed a bit from the days of Unix, which is absolutely ridiculous in my book.




Oh sorry, I'll just go ahead and give up my main hobby and free time activity for the nebulous concept of 'freedom' from a company that just wants to make money. Yeah, that makes sense.


I installed and used Ubuntu no problem with no previous Linux experience. It's been almost two years now and I have only had to reinstall Ubuntu once, and that was when Windows crashed it (tried to write to the partition ubuntu was on, and messed something up seriously). I am actually running Arch w/e17 right now. It's been a good two years. As soon as I finish my gaming rig I will remove Windows from my laptop and just use Arch and Ubuntu (as a fallback for when I inevitably break Arch's boot process again). THe only reason I still have Windows is Gaming.

If you don't want to use Linux, fine, go use Windows. I won't condemn you. But I enjoy using linux, something I havent said about an OS since I accidentally broke Win98 on and old computer and was forced to use DOS (who knew that DOS was so much better than W98?).

AmpersUK
May 14th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by xellas84 http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4953116#post4953116)
... to use Linux I'm going to have to give up the concept of doing my favorite activity on the computer. That's like saying that I can have an electric car that doesn't use gas, but I can't drive more than 1 hour, and my favorite hobby is long drives in the country.

I think a better analogy would be your having an Oldsmobile, and refusing to buy a Chevvy because it was an automatic.

Commands like "ls" and "pwd" are not intuitive at all. In other words, if you need a cheat sheet to use basic functions, it is NOT user-friendly. Most of the basic commands in Linux haven't changed a bit from the days of Unix, which is absolutely ridiculous in my book.

However, I think I can be in complete agreement with that. - personally I prefer them as they are as I am 69 and came to Linux recently to keep my mind active - but Linux will suffer all the time with their unintuitive commands.

There is a very good message in these Ubuntu forums on Linux misconceptions (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=701806&highlight=uninstall+crossover) which I suggest you read.

xellas84
May 14th, 2008, 07:01 PM
I installed and used Ubuntu no problem with no previous Linux experience. It's been almost two years now and I have only had to reinstall Ubuntu once, and that was when Windows crashed it (tried to write to the partition ubuntu was on, and messed something up seriously). I am actually running Arch w/e17 right now. It's been a good two years. As soon as I finish my gaming rig I will remove Windows from my laptop and just use Arch and Ubuntu (as a fallback for when I inevitably break Arch's boot process again). THe only reason I still have Windows is Gaming.

If you don't want to use Linux, fine, go use Windows. I won't condemn you. But I enjoy using linux, something I havent said about an OS since I accidentally broke Win98 on and old computer and was forced to use DOS (who knew that DOS was so much better than W98?).

See, I can respect that. You like Ubuntu, great. Honestly, it IS a nice OS, once you get past the wierd command line commands and lack of compatability with some stuff (I need Skype to work!). However, I really don't know much about what you are talking about... I've been using Windows for over 10 years now, and I have only had one major issue, back on W98 when it stuck itself in recovery mode for no apparant reason. Every other problem I had I ended up tracing back to old parts dying.

I'm already planning to keep Ubuntu for a duel-boot system. But can you tell me some more about this Arch, since by how you said that it seems it might be good at gaming. (I'll be the first to admit, I'm new to any non-Windows OS)

Barrucadu
May 14th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Why do people say the commands are unintuitive :confused:

ls = list
cd = change directory
apt-get = advanged packaging tool get
sudo = super user do
pwd = print working directory
chmod = change mode
chown = change owner
And so on, and so forth.

Barrucadu
May 14th, 2008, 07:13 PM
-edit-
Ignore this post, I posted in the wrong thread :P
The post above was meant for this thread though :)

vexorian
May 15th, 2008, 04:43 AM
I'm already planning to keep Ubuntu for a duel-boot system. But can you tell me some more about this Arch, since by how you said that it seems it might be good at gaming. (I'll be the first to admit, I'm new to any non-Windows OS)Gaming is an aspect in which different Linux distros can't really differ, unless perhaps the versions you are comparing are extremely far release date-wise which would mean Wine's version is severely behind in one, but both Arch and Ubuntu have modern versions, so it is the same.

leandromartinez98
May 15th, 2008, 10:47 AM
It is very hard to answer this question, because each one has its own personal reasons to use linux. Mine are easier to install programming stuff and latex, but I know that there are quite good applications for that for windows, even for free. Another thing in linux/unix is the terminal. By learning how to do scripts you can do much more things much faster, for example reducing the size of thousands of photos automatically. I think in DOS you can also do some scripting, but things are not designed for that, so everything is harder.

On the other side, we could ask the inverse question: Why use Windows if we have linux (for free). I also use Windows, and although I'm using linux for about 8 years now at home and at work, I still have dual-boot machines and go to Windows some times. These are the reasons:

1 - Powerpoint. In my opinion Linux alternatives are far from
being as good. Small things are very annoying in OOffice (in one of my instalations the cursor does not appear when writing text, for instance).

2 - Itunes. The music managers on Linux are good, as good as Itunes in my opinion. Unfortunately, they cannot upgrade my Ipod software... So I keep using Itunes. Of course this is very specific, it should be apple who should provide Itunes for linux.

3 - Picassa. The Fspot manager is great, really, but cannot send emails with photos using gmail as picassa neither manage its web album. Yes, there is Picassa for linux, but it doesn't work (at least for me).

4 - Gaming. I don't do that. But for people who likes gaming I imagine it is an important point.

Since 2 and 3 are dependent on private services (apple and google), the real problem of linux distributions for most people is the lack of a competitive office suite. OOffice is far from being as "good" as MSOffice. The "good" is under commas because I don't think MSOffice is particularly good (powerpoint is, on the other side). OOffice and other applications are loosing time trying to follow it. I think a linux office suite should be based on other alternatives. For example, the writer should be developed over the latex system, but with interfaces for allowing an easy start for simple documents and see-what-you-write interfaces.

leandromartinez98
May 15th, 2008, 11:12 AM
Strangely enough, it looks to me the command line is friendlier than the GUI, or at least more people can actually learn it, I can mention a handful of - currently old- people that mastered DOS and Unix commands in the past, to them dir was very natural, but now will cry out of the confusion caused by windows' icons.

This is quite true. It is much easier to help someone which is far telling them a command, than start describing where to click. The other side just needs to know what is to "enter a command". Furthermore we can do all that remotely, if you want, and you can help your mother to install things from other country. Older people, which used DOS or Unix, still have many problems trying to do simple things like downloading files, because file system is somewhat hidden.

leandromartinez98
May 15th, 2008, 11:23 AM
I have been hearing a lot of noise from Steve Balmer (he's truly a prince among men) that windows is moving toward highly intrusive and draconian methods to curtail piracy. This sure sounds like they plan on exercising even more control over computers that run windows.

This is probably not true and will never be. Microsft knows and, ever knew, very smartly, that allowing piracy is a way of dominating the market. Even Bill Gates declared that he prefers people using pirate windows than other stuff. He thought about that many years ago, when launching DOS and MS Office, and that's why he beat the MacOS (which seems to be better from all points of view). The will keep allowing for piracy, to try to continue to be the leader. Selling of the OS is done not for the user, but for the companies that sell the PCs, that can advertise that they already have the most-used OS from the box. This is also true for all other market leaders in software, you must allow for piracy for gaining market, and that is good for business at long term.

vexorian
May 15th, 2008, 01:29 PM
On the other side, we could ask the inverse question: Why use Windows if we have linux (for free). I also use Windows, and although I'm using linux for about 8 years now at home and at work, I still have dual-boot machines and go to Windows some times. These are the reasons:


You are wasting a lot of time with dual boot, seeing the things you need windows for, you can really achieve ultimate happiness by using a virtual machine, I use virtual box and can use iTunes and MSOffice when necessary (I really prefer floola and openoffice)



1 - Powerpoint. In my opinion Linux alternatives are far from
being as good. Small things are very annoying in OOffice (in one of my instalations the cursor does not appear when writing text, for instance).

Wine 1.0rc1 is supposed to be able to run MSOffice fine, that's something to consider, there is also CrossOver office.



2 - Itunes. The music managers on Linux are good, as good as Itunes in my opinion. Unfortunately, they cannot upgrade my Ipod software... So I keep using Itunes. Of course this is very specific, it should be apple who should provide Itunes for linux.

I wish apple would for once grow up and stop being totally unsupportive of Linux. Unlike MS, they don't really need to boycott it, in fact, iTunes' unability to work in Linux has only forced more users to use other managers, and thus stop using their store.



3 - Picassa. The Fspot manager is great, really, but cannot send emails with photos using gmail as picassa neither manage its web album. Yes, there is Picassa for linux, but it doesn't work (at least for me).

That's odd, it should work, report it to google or try the forums. I never really got that photo manager stuff.



4 - Gaming. I don't do that. But for people who likes gaming I imagine it is an important point.

This is an area in which Wine really is getting very good lately.

drifter2502
May 16th, 2008, 09:45 AM
I purchased an MSI 670 laptop(notebook) six months ago with Vista. Waiting for Vista to boot and switching off was and still is tediously slow. Security and Admin permissions pop up nearly every time you run a programme.
Three days ago I installed Wubi on a direct download (no loading from disk) Apart from a small problem on first boot that was swiftly solved on this forum(Thanks to `ago `) everything works very well. Boot time into Ubuntu, closing down and overall response in working use is so much faster,(contrary to some reports)
My wireless network runs without any manual tweaks,file sharing from my XP desktop to my laptop works. I allowed 10 gb of disk space for Wubi and I just hope it will be enough because I will be using Ubuntu all the time from now on. The free software I have downloaded so far,mainly for editing music is perfect for me.I know this question relates to XP but Vista is the same company. You try getting advice from Msoft when something goes wrong be it Vista or XP. Life is too short to hang around for a fix!! I will be using Wubi on my desktop very soon.

sysex
May 16th, 2008, 03:27 PM
I wish some serious music production sequencer/wave editor and so on would come up on linux, or the software companies of them would produce linux installations. I would buy that !!

I can give money for software running on Mac but would never give a coin for important software running on such a bad OS such as windows, although I can tweak the system (windows) so well to run very fast and clean.

The good side of windows is that you become a computer technician trying to solve problems on a production computer. But better spend that time on production or linux to learn wise things.

Nice question/topic, but reminds me of what some barbie girls ask men sometimes about very easy to answer subjects.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
May 16th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Linux is STILL extremely unfriendly to new computer users

You are wrong.

I'll agree with you when I can manage to teach my mother how to use Linux as quickly as I taught her how to use Windows. Took me less than 2 hours to get her to be able to do all the basic things in Windows with no effort, and the only prior knowledge that was relevant that she had was she knew how to type on a typewriter. When Linux gets that quick to learn, I'll agree that it's user-friendly. I read a LOT faster than my mother, and it's taken me longer than that to get through the absolute beginner guide for Ubuntu.

You need to learn ubuntu before trying to teach it, which in my opinion you didn't judging by your next comment about ls and pwd.
I am a Windows power user, but I still think that Ubuntu (I mean the distro exactly) is a lot easier to learn for new user, for one who hasn't used (or used a little bit) Windows.
Software installation is much more straightforward!
So is pretty much anything else.
There is no reason to rant more about it xellas84!

Ub1476
May 16th, 2008, 09:32 PM
What a question.

The real question is:

If you have Linux, why do you use Windows XP?

Games (I know, it's cheap).

cometa2k7
May 16th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Linux is FUN!!!

Plus, have you ever tried to get Windows to calculate the Fibonacci sequence to 100,001 digits? On Linux, it was ridiculously easy to create the Python script and execute it. I've had it running in the background, and I've been able to use my PC uninterrupted for hours. I'm using most of my processor power, but I'm running a lot of apps besides the terminal and my python script.

If I tried it on Windows, it probably would have crashed by now. The 100,000th term is rather long. :lolflag:

Toshibawarrior
May 17th, 2008, 03:09 AM
Linux is by far stronger, faster, safer, easier and more user-friendly than any crappy Windows version. Microsoft keeps adding crap to their current crap. For example, XP was a nice crap...it had almost-perfect performance as long as drivers didn't go berserk and the horrifying "Blue Screen of Death" appeared, then it was a mess trying to reboot. After they saw that people started to get bored of the same crap of XP, they released Vista! YAY! ...more crap. This version of Windows (which was the default OS on my Toshiba laptop) was the most horrifying, crappy piece of crap available on the market...drivers were always missing, programs weren't compatible, options were hard to understand, there were almost no user-defined appearance setting (just that piece of sh*t Aero which only made your PC eat 30% more of your RAM in getting a stupid transparent effect on the window borders and taskbar...absolutely NOTHING else...and it wsted around 15-30% of memory on that crap). After using Ubuntu I ripped Vista off to hell completely, and I'm never going back to XP.

So basically saying that XP and Linux are the same, it's a punishable by law infamy! Microsfot Windows is and will ever be utter crap!!! Besides, Linux is more user-friendly and has tons of available options to play with...

"Oh man, I can't configure Ubuntu on my laptop"...DUH!!! Just get used to read on the forums and use workarounds to get where you want to be!!!!!!

Windows 95-Vista were crap...let's see which new crap they add to XP to call it Windows 7 and nail you with $200 for an upgrade! Just to get the same sh*t you had since 2001, but with some new malicious hole were viruses and spyware can frolic and destroy everything in sight, and some new stupid interface which has always been the same! Ever since Windows 2000 all intefaces were the same, varying some colors and borders.

"Damn, this guy is an Ubuntu fanboy, make him stop!" Yeah, Windows should go to hell altogether with the whole company!!! Microsoft has never done anything useful!

And I'm not a fanboy, nor am I paid to get this post here. Linux Ubuntu is clearly better! period! No further discussion!!!!!!:x:x:x](*,)](*,)](*,)

C!oud
May 17th, 2008, 03:35 AM
Have to agree with Toshibawarrior on this one. Linux is just a better OS overall than what windows is. No body is able to argue that windows has better security or that windows is more stable than what Linux is. Sure there is a learning curve but that's how it is with everything in life. If you aren't willing to try to solve a problem yourself and spend some time actually researching Linux then I suggest you just stay with windows. So Linux is ten times better than windows but it's not ready for the average computer user. Linux is for people who want to get the most out of their machines and are always looking for something better. Linux is not for the average user who doesn't even know what OS stands for and is not willing to change. Unfortunately it's going to be like this for a while because as long as Microsoft holds a monopoly and most computers continue to come with the latest windows OS it will be hard to change the mindset of the average user who could really care less what they are running. Personally I find Ubuntu more user friendly while being a whole lot more powerful than windows but most people don't think that way as Microsoft has created a whole culture which people from my generation have grew up in. When a person thinks about the computers the first thing that usually pops into someone's head is windows or Microsoft as Microsoft has done one hell of a job marketing their product to the point where for most people the words computer and windows are interchangeable. Thus in the end it's all about the user initiative if you are willing if you want a challenge if you want something new and you want the most out of your machine then Linux will be a pleasurable experience for you as you will learn why Linux is usually highly regarded over windows.

carusoswi
May 17th, 2008, 08:23 AM
Have to agree with Toshibawarrior on this one. Linux is just a better OS overall than what windows is. No body is able to argue that windows has better security or that windows is more stable than what Linux is. Sure there is a learning curve but that's how it is with everything in life. If you aren't willing to try to solve a problem yourself and spend some time actually researching Linux then I suggest you just stay with windows. So Linux is ten times better than windows but it's not ready for the average computer user. Linux is for people who want to get the most out of their machines and are always looking for something better. Linux is not for the average user who doesn't even know what OS stands for and is not willing to change. Unfortunately it's going to be like this for a while because as long as Microsoft holds a monopoly and most computers continue to come with the latest windows OS it will be hard to change the mindset of the average user who could really care less what they are running. Personally I find Ubuntu more user friendly while being a whole lot more powerful than windows but most people don't think that way as Microsoft has created a whole culture which people from my generation have grew up in. When a person thinks about the computers the first thing that usually pops into someone's head is windows or Microsoft as Microsoft has done one hell of a job marketing their product to the point where for most people the words computer and windows are interchangeable. Thus in the end it's all about the user initiative if you are willing if you want a challenge if you want something new and you want the most out of your machine then Linux will be a pleasurable experience for you as you will learn why Linux is usually highly regarded over windows.

I have neither time nor energy to read this entire thread (bumped into it doing a search for something else), but I will say that the inherent design of Ubuntu (Linux) frees me from some of the annoyances ever present in XP. Freedom from viruses and the need to scan for them regularly is a huge relief. It seems every time I want to do something in XP, I look up to see that my machine is bogging down only to discover that my virus software is either trying to protect me by scanning my system, or it is trying to protect me by updating itself when all I want to do is use the machine to get some work done. This simply never happens in Ubuntu.

I cannot remember Ubuntu ever crashing (as in shutting itself down unexpectedly) ever . . . not ever. You simply cannot say that about XP (although XP is worlds better and more stable than any other Windows OS I have ever used (and I've used 'em all).

I never have to worry about validating Ubuntu, and, when Ubuntu needs updates, it notifies me, gives me a choice, then, goes out and gets those updates quickly - it doesn't care what browser I'm using (XP would complain that only Internet Explorer can be used).

I still use XP for the three or four major applications that, to date, will not run on Ubuntu and for which Linux offers no equivalent application. This situation is gradually changing. In terms of my addiction to photography, I now have a "suite" of Linux aps that I prefer to their XP counterparts that are every bit as capable in terms of manipulating photos as anything available for XP. I'm still waiting for equivalent applications to replace my relational database XP application, my accounting application, and my video/audio editing applications. When equivalent applications become available for Linux that are satisfactory to me in those areas, XP will finally be history on my machine.

I don't hate XP, and I use it every day at the office. But I much prefer Ubuntu - it's less intrusive, more stable, more fun, and it is FREE.

Caruso

mimimotor
May 17th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Everything I can do on Linux I don't do on XP to keep my XP installation as pristine as possible. I need to use Microsoft Word and PowerPoint as well as R and Latex for my work. They all work easier or better on XP than their Linux look-a-likes. Over the years and on different machines I have used different Linux distributions, Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu. Though they satisfy my nerish needs I can honestly say that they are NOT more stable than XP. Maybe the kernel is, but I worked with user programes. Multimedia used to be a drag, but has greatly improved over the years.
A nice thing of Linux though is that it does not cost anything and it is easier to run illegally obtained stuff. So it satisfies my criminal conscience very well. It also makes me feel smarter than most other people (wich I am). I tended to surmount great difficulties by reading arcane manuals written by people with absolutely no empathy for readers. Over the years this situation has changed. The recent Ubuntu distros could almost be understood by people with an IQ < 120! I love Xubuntu because it is fast and simple.

cardinals_fan
May 17th, 2008, 07:02 PM
reedom from viruses and the need to scan for them regularly is a huge relief. It seems every time I want to do something in XP, I look up to see that my machine is bogging down only to discover that my virus software is either trying to protect me by scanning my system, or it is trying to protect me by updating itself when all I want to do is use the machine to get some work done.
I would ditch the antivirus. A firewall is a good idea, but most antivirus apps are rather worthless.

charlesbw
May 18th, 2008, 12:30 PM
i would switch to linux if it supported the games i played, i a computer that i built for gaming and it'd be a waste not to use it for some gaming. :)

silvanus2005
May 18th, 2008, 01:24 PM
Right now I`m using Linux for fun, and to keep an open mind to what is happening in free software side. But until I will be able to make work in Linux my printer, scanner and digital camera, I have to keep XP on my laptop. On the other hand, Open Office has stability problems that I don`t meet in Microsoft Office, so I have to use that Office suite instead Open Office, until Open Office will become more stable.

sharks
May 19th, 2008, 05:02 AM
I have dugg this:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/If_you_have_Windows_XP_why_do_you_use_linux

vprasaj
May 19th, 2008, 07:08 AM
I like ubuntu (mint). I can do 70-80% of all the things in linux that i could do in windows (excapt those games and cad apps). But i can do only 50%-60% of the things in windows that i could do in linux.
(MHO)
Use both if you can't live without MS system. It won't hurt.
I like ubuntu, but i need xp too.

pluckypigeon
May 19th, 2008, 10:04 AM
I'm not a gamer really so I don't know what goes on with that. Although I do play Football Manager which runs fine with Wine.

I couldn't live without python, gimp, kompozer, firefox, gedit, audacity, jython and rhythmbox.... although I know nowadays most of those work in windows but that doesn't feel the same. Windows is to blocked off when it comes to program code and open-source life.

The only two things I run through Wine are FM and Guitar Pro (yes I know about Tuxguitar and bygfoot but they are no comparison)

And Gnome is far better looking then XP and even more better then Vista.

The compiz cube can be imitated by Microsoft but it's nowhere near as good.

:popcorn:

Peterix
May 19th, 2008, 01:08 PM
Let's rephrase the question:
Q: If you have Linux, why use Windows?
A1: Because I'm a CS student and have to know both of them. Otherwise, I don't really care about anything related to Windows. Windows sucks.
A2: To play a Linux incompatible game every few months... my computer is ancient though, so nothing new runs on it and I don't care about 99% of games.
A3: I do have Windows, so I have to keep it updated and working in case I need it. I boot into it once every month and let it do its thing...

<3 Linux

quinnten83
May 19th, 2008, 03:21 PM
I have dugg this:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/If_you_have_Windows_XP_why_do_you_use_linux

Why??
we will be flooded with spammers and trolls.
Nothing good can come of Digging this!

Linuxdude256
May 19th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I also run windows xp (as I will never ever run vista) as well as Ubuntu, I use windows to play world of warcraft mainly, the game will work with Linux w/ the use of wine, The sluggishness that I am experiencing is directly related to my processor. :mad:
while playing wow under linux.

For anything serious such as letters, budgets, I use open office, it works, and best of all I need NOT dig deep in my pockets for purchase Microsoft office.:guitar:

Anything that I do in windows, I can also do with Linux. FREE is the biggest advantage that Linux has over Windows. People have suggested that there is no support for Linux, that is simply not the case. :mad:

I too listen to music and watch DVD's and burn an ISO all at the same time. Windows XP would crash and snap, I would run out of memory in a hurry even though I have 2 gig of ram.
Linux does out proform Windows XP, because windows is and always will be a memory hog.

Ubuntu Linux does auto update, windows has not done for years.
Linux does auto updates on a regular basis. (opensource) many people sharing great ideas and improving the overall product.
With windows, there are also updates but not with the same GUI, there are some updates we could all do with out, sp2 sp3.
Microsoft wants to know what your using and how your using programs and applications. Which has nothing to do with the operational use of the the application. :lolflag:

Linuxdude256
May 19th, 2008, 10:26 PM
The horrific green plastic Start-button is enough for me ;P

do I did replace your windows keyboard with a Cherry Linux keyboard. :lolflag:

tekniche
May 19th, 2008, 10:31 PM
No registry. Just files. I can change anything to do anything. Try getting that kind of freedom from microsoft.... Try getting any kind of freedom from microsoft. Also, try getting their software for free!

Skeet
May 20th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Hopefully VMWare will get their DX9 support in virtualisation improved so we can open a virtual machine to run direct3d games, rather than having to reboot and boot into Windows to play games. I'd drop windows in an instant if they could get the support up to scratch with native windows, within a VM.

squid68
May 20th, 2008, 02:08 AM
Why?
Easy to Install
Totally Customizable
Different flavors of Ubuntu
Different distros
No crashes
No software lockups
There's tons of good books and documentation and now at the megalo book dealer stores
There is a substitute or better program in Linux
No drivers to install
THE LINUX COMMUNITY and these FORUMS!!!
Donations accepted but not required (but encouraged, seriously you guys)

joeschmit123
May 20th, 2008, 04:09 AM
I guess it's fitting that most everyone on this forum is heavy favor to Linux. I'm new to Linux. Have been using Linux for month or so now. Installing is easy and fast but there were so many things just don't work on Linux that Windows just works. Perhaps that I'm more used to Windows but it's pretty frustrating finding solution for every little thing that comes up on Linux. Someone said that they don't have crashes on Linux. My experience so far is that Linux has just as many crashes as Windows.
Only positive on Linux is that it's free, perhaps not free because I have to spend so much time looking solutions.

grezer
May 20th, 2008, 04:20 AM
I have to give my 2 cents worth on this my self, I use both Linux and XP, the only reason that I dont throw XP in the garbage is because I am still quite new to Linux. I love how easy it is to setup a server, it took me an hour ... MY FIRST TRY to setup a LAMP server, and when I tryed it with Windows ... I GAVE UP. Once I get better at Linux ... BYE BYE WINDOWS !!!

Jordanwb
May 21st, 2008, 02:01 AM
I wonder if the Backyard Sports series will run in Wine? Anyways back on topic. I wish I knew about Ubuntu earlier. It would be easier to switch. As Grezer said once I get better and learn more I'll move to Linux.

ektobuntu
May 21st, 2008, 12:54 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Surley it's a matter of principle. Are you on the Microsoft payroll?

geoff07
May 21st, 2008, 01:05 PM
Why not have both? Install Ubuntu native, then VMware server (free) then XP under that. You can have the best of both worlds. I did that and now almost never use XP. And I won't have to pay for an 'upgrade' to Vista when MS try to sell me the same OS all over again when XP support is dropped soon!

spectrevk
May 21st, 2008, 06:42 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I've been on/off with linux for years. My most recent (and successful) jump was prompted by:

1. Curiosity

2. Not really playing a lot of computer games anymore; X360 ftw, etc.

3. The Challenge.

Good reasons to try it out, but why stay?

1. It worked. Putting XP back on my laptop would require effort that isn't really necessary at this point, though I keep the option open.

2. The usual virus/adware/etc. reasons.

3. I like having multiple desktops as a way of organizing my active programs.

4. I find that I prefer the interface of Gnome to that of Windows.

5. Even with default installations involving a lot of stuff that I could probably clear out, it still takes up less space than XP.

6. Faster bootup time in general.

NightwishFan
May 21st, 2008, 08:07 PM
When I first learned the difference in philosophy of open source and "freeware" I was drawn toward Linux. When I learned that the operating systems were not inferior I installed a simple distro. (Ubuntu) and now I am a supporter of Linux and Open Source.

Neodragon90
May 22nd, 2008, 03:51 AM
I'm dual booting both atm I find Linux very useful for doing things either not supported, not available, and or not free for windows.

For example for school I needed to make a brochure, well in windows I didn't have a program to do this easily...

So I looked around for a free windows program to do it and I couldn't find one for the life of me.

So I im'd a friend (he uses both win/linux) of mine if he knew about a program that I could use... and he said yea scribus in Linux.

I was just experimenting with Linux at this time and it wasn't even installed on my comp yet, and he told me to pop in my live CD i had and install it.

So I did... did it more efficiently than ever before and now I keep it around for that kind of reason. :)

trikster_x
May 22nd, 2008, 04:08 AM
I was introduced to linux by a friend of mine who knew I was having trouble with winblows crashing almost daily, due to an incompatibility with hardware from a major network device company. He suggested I try it for a few weeks. Since I put linux on my computer, I have only had minor problems with compatibility, all of which have been solved with minor tweaking of the program. Now the only reason that I even use windows is because I can put a secondary desktop on my television to watch my movies on my portable HD. If I could get that to work as well on Ubuntu as it does through windows, I would never go back. I don't even connect to the internet when running windows anymore, since the SIGNED MICROSOFT DRIVERS that came with my router and USB wifi card were the software that was causing my system to crash. And Ubuntu doesn't crash from my PCI wifi card drivers like windows does. It also doesn't take Ubuntu 10 minutes to fully load from GRUB to stable usable state, if you could ever call windows stable. Restarts take less time from shutdown to login on Ubuntu than the shutdown process alone on windows. I have also used another linux program, and it was better than windows. Support is much easier to come by for linux as well. The windows forums are about 10% as helpful as any linux forum. Nobody could help answer my questions about why my computer would only crash when I was connected to the internet, whether I was using it or not. So far the people on the linux forums have been extremely helpful with me getting my feet wet on this OS. They actually answer questions, instead of letting them sit in reply limbo. To me it is less a question of why use linux, and more one of why not just work with WINE? If everyone would just switch to linux, software companies would be forced to make things cross compatible. Sorry this is so long winded, but I had to get it off my chest.

bilijoe
May 22nd, 2008, 05:58 AM
I've been on/off with linux for years. My most recent (and successful) jump was prompted by:

1. Curiosity

2. Not really playing a lot of computer games anymore; X360 ftw, etc.

3. The Challenge.

Good reasons to try it out, but why stay?

1. It worked. Putting XP back on my laptop would require effort that isn't really necessary at this point, though I keep the option open.

2. The usual virus/adware/etc. reasons.

3. I like having multiple desktops as a way of organizing my active programs.

4. I find that I prefer the interface of Gnome to that of Windows.

5. Even with default installations involving a lot of stuff that I could probably clear out, it still takes up less space than XP.

6. Faster bootup time in general. You left out the single most important reason for using Linux over Windows: Linux doesn't crash! In Linux, there is nothing even remotely equivalent to the [ever present] Windows Blue Screen of Death! I have never lost any data, while running under Linux. I am going to repeat that, because I think it bears repeating; please take note: I have never lost any data, while running under Linux. Can anyone out there, who has been using Windows for a year or more, make that same statement about Windows (any flavor)? If so, you are one lucky Windows user.

I have twice worked for companies that wrote sophisticated, complex software, for the Windows operating system. In one case, it was "big money" accounting software, in the other, it was Data Recovery software (gee, imagine that). What was our development environment? In the first case, it was Unix, in the second, it was OS2. Windows was just too damned unstable to be suitable for a development environment. (Anybody remember OS2? That product should have killed Microsoft dead! If only IBM had been able to figure out how to market anything to people who don't wear blue suits, blue ties, and blue socks... We call them "IBM PCs; how many actual IBM brand PCs have you seen in your lifetime. I've been in this game since the days of Univac--before the Altair, and I have, in all that time, seen only 3 PCs that bore the IBM brand name. Too bad too. If they had only been able to figure out how to market OS2 to geeks and hackers, Bill Gates would NOT be the richest man in the world, and you probably wouldn't have seen a Windows operating system for at least 6 or 8 years.

But I digress--sorry. I guess my bottom line here is that I think the originator of this thread got the question wrong. I would have asked, "If you have Linux, why, on God's green Earth, would you [U]ever use anything else?"

bilijoe
May 22nd, 2008, 06:02 AM
Oh, I forgot to mention what is probably the second most important reason for using Linux, over Windows. You don't sacrifice anything [of any importance], and IT'S FREE!

tedallal
May 22nd, 2008, 07:45 AM
I'm not that expert in GNU/Linux, but then, there are so many levels that it really does not matter!

I have been trying to switch to GNU/Linux several times. Started with openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, and then Ubuntu (7.10, 8.04).

Every time, I stay XP-free longer and longer. I've been using Hardy since its official release, and I think/hope that this is the last time trying to make GNU/Linux my primary OS.

The learning curve was somewhat steep. I learned a lot about a lot of things. I'm a CS student, so learning is easier for me. And that's one of GNU/Linux problems. There needs to be more standardization with regard to the major distros, at least. I understand that power users don't like everything GUI'ed, but that's the beauty of Linux; power users can customize their OS down to the bare bones if they want. We're talking about your average Win user. Give him/her the impression that everything is static and simple. And once he/she converts, slowly but surely, they'll discover the beauty of CONTROL!

Simply put, I have Windows XP but I use Linux, for the same reason I play my XBOX 360 games in HD; because I CAN!

You'd be amazed of what your PC is capable of doing.

And to top it off, it's all free!
Man, I feel guilty!
Just imagine what YOU want, then check your repo, because IT IS THERE!

bilijoe
May 22nd, 2008, 08:57 AM
I have had discussions with other users, and some of them disagree with me, but I recommend using gutsy (7.10) for, perhaps, as much as another 3 months, or so. I used to have a hard and fast rule about software--"Never buy Version 1.x of anything". and 8.04 is, essentially "Version 1.8.04" of hardy. The reason I make this recommendation, and especially to relatively new users is this. 7.10 is a mature version of gutsy. It's been in use long enough, that virtually any question you post to the forums will be met with an answer. Whereas hardy is yet a babe in the woods, and a question posted to the forums is as likely to be met with more questions, and few (if any) answers. Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of hardy, and have it on all but one of my machines--and that would be my most important machine, the one I can least afford to have do something unexpected, and the one I am least keen on engaging in an interesting process of discovery, to uncover a problem.

Your eventual switch to Ubuntu was, probably, the best move you could have made. The forums are fantastic--far, far better than the best factory support I have ever dealt with. And the community spirit that seems to pervade, albeit over long distances and through wires, is hard to explain, but it is a real kick to get one of your problems solved by someone who feels "next door" but turns out to be in Finland or somewhere in Africa. It's a fantastic feeling I don't think any of the other distros can offer. I recently saw a graph, in an article about the market share Linux has garnered recently (look out Billy, here we come--and we mean business--that is business as UNusual). The article claimed to have valid data, reflected in the chart, that showed, amongst the top ten or so distros of Linux, Ubuntu had some 45% share of Linux users. There's a reason for that. Ubuntu's the best.

Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to by stating that the learning curve is steep. I have converted several people--granted, I did the installation, and got the system up and running for them--but once I turned the thing over to them, they just took off running. One of them commented, "Gee, this is just like Windows--only , for some reason, I like it more," It's leaner, meaner, faster, more stable (essentially crash-proof, as far as I can tell), immune to viruses, spyware, adware, trojans, worms... AND IT'S FREE! I don't like Open Office quite as much as I do Microsoft Office--BUT IT'S FREE! And just as functional--no compromises need be made in using it. Anyway, Microsoft Office isn't Microsoft--they purchased it from Apple, years ago; that's why it's so nice.

Anyway, hang in there. If hardy seems a little too frustrating for you right now, go back to gutsy, and re-upgrade, in a few months. The early months of any new product are always a little rocky--and hardy IS a new product. Lots of changes. Lots of improvements. Lots of room for the kind of glitches that just won't show up in Beta testing (nobody uses a piece of software like a user--Beta testers just don't have a chance). And, if you have a problem, or question, make full use of the forums. I have had 90% or so of my questions answered, and problems solved within a few hours--some within a few minutes. It's amazing how helpful your fellow Ubuntuers tend to be.

tedallal
May 22nd, 2008, 05:11 PM
I have itchy hands! So, when I heard/read that you can get the wireless card running better with the original (Windows) driver, I went on and learned ndiswrapper and blacklisting modules. When I read that ATI had released their new driver that's supposed to have support for AIGLX, I went and installed that with all the hassle of getting it to load. Getting Beryl to work properly (~2 yrs ago) under SUSE was a bit frustrating, and a lot of small things here and there that I went out of my way to figure them out.

I'm not complaining, though! The power of customization is beautiful. I have an OS that looks the way I want it to look, and functions the way I expect it to function. And I know that I haven't even scratched the surface, yet.

All I'm saying is that most OS users in the world don't know what Command Line is! And when they want to install some program, they download, double click! Done!

Is it the right mentality towards PCs? It doesn't matter! All that matters is that Windows has created this environment and those expectations. Therefore, luring those users to the world of GNU/Linux has a lot to do with meeting those expectations. And if they choose to install a distro that does not meet their preconceived wisdom of OS, then, they'll step back and return to the prison that MS Windows.

I have "converted" a friend of mine to using PCLinuxOS, and he did use it for a while, until he got stuck with something and didn't know how to solve it, so he returned to XP.

Microsoft and their products, in general, are disgraceful, taking in mind the amount of money they put into them, and the amount of money one has to pay for them. But one thing you cannot deny them; they're the best marketing a******* you'll ever find!

Having that many distros certainly does not help, too! Therefore, when I refer to Linux to my Windows friends, I say Ubuntu!

The most important thing is actually getting people to use Linux for a while. Learning the power of the Command Line, or knowing the difference between .deb and .rpm, comes with time. From past experience, the strongest "pulling" things back to Windows (from an average user), are gaming, Windows Media Player (DRM), and iTunes!

So unless you're a person who's gonna spam WoW for a native Linux client, for example, or buy another mp3 player instead of iPod Touch, then, you'll find it difficult staying with Linux as a primary OS.

I made the effort, and I'm happy for it. Not sure every other Windows user would feel the same!

But then again, who cares! :)

Cheers

bilijoe
May 22nd, 2008, 09:32 PM
You do know, don't you, that most programs, accessories, etc., can be installed, the GUI way, through "Applications > Add/Remove" and/or "System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager" in the menus?

nautaforever
May 22nd, 2008, 09:52 PM
hey i was never much into computers before. but after i bought my first laptop which came with a windows vista i regretted it from that day on. the god-damn thing just kept crashing every week. like almost it was a regular thing to happen.

im not a huge fan of computer games. though a lot of software i use for my navigational purposes had to be re- written for me to use in linux.

on the whole my linux system has not crashed even once for the 7 months ive been using it. Its the best OS ive come across so far and it worth leaning a bit of linux to use it

ninjabob7
May 23rd, 2008, 12:44 AM
Personally, my favorite feature is the command line. A lot of people are scared of it but it's a very effective way to do things. I use tilda for a pull-down terminal in X. (Yes, there is DOS and Cygwin, but DOS sucks and Cygwin doesn't come standard.)
Linux also has a bunch of smaller things that I really miss when I use Windows. One is virtual desktops. I get this awful punched-in-the-stomach feeling when I use Windows and try to move something to the second desktop only to realize it's not there. Another is the package manager. It's so much easier to run:

$ apt-cache search hearts
awffull - web server log analysis program
floater - Free Internet bridge client
ggz-game-servers - GGZ Gaming Zone: game servers collection
ggz-gtk-games - GGZ Gaming Zone: game clients collection for GTK+
gnome-hearts - The classic hearts card game for the GNOME desktop
$ sudo apt-get install gnome-hearts

than to go through all the trouble with Google. (Bad example since MSHearts is preinstalled but you get the idea.)

starcannon
May 23rd, 2008, 01:46 AM
I keep my money, not MS.
I don't get viruses.
There are games, just not as many nor as developed in some cases.
I'm in full control of my computer
I don't deal with DRM
Oh and my favorite, I don't have to really need a reason, I just prefer Linux :)


Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

garyedwardjohnston
May 23rd, 2008, 01:55 AM
Totally ditching Windows for Linux is an unrealistic expectation. Both operating systems require the same amount of knowledge, but most people have already used Windows so know it well. There is a learning curve to Linux, but its the same as Windows. Put a person who has never used a computer in front of Windows and one in front of Ubuntu, and I bet they will learn it in the same amount of time.

I became an instructor of Microsoft Products in 2005 and with that I received every piece of Microsoft Software. That's right EVERY SINGLE PIECE.

I thought by running a totally Microsoft computer, I wouldn't crash and need to reinstall so often, but I was wrong.

Then someone told me about Linux and took me to a trade show (Linux World). There I got an Ubuntu Distro (6.10 I think) given to me.

I tried it, needed to get something done, then switched back to Windows. Windows crashed again, so I tried Ubuntu again. Bounced back and forth until I decided to dual-boot, then I decided to run Windows virtually, then eventually I got to the point where I was comfortable enough using Linux full time.

I've been using it full-time for about a year and I'm already creating my own Ubuntu distro that will be made to my EXACT SPECIFICATIONS. Try that with XP or Vista.

Fact is that once you get over the initial learning curve, Linux offers the complete freedom to do whatever you want with it and the community is awesome!!

Conclusion:


It's free ($0.00) so there is no guilt running a pirated version of Windows or other software because you can't afford the $1,000 price tag.

You can do whatever you want with it, once you learn enough.

My computer runs better now.

I don't have to worry about hackers, viruses, or spyware, or an application slowing my system down protecting me from them.

Linux users are nicer people! (Sorry for the generalization, but its true.)

tedallal
May 23rd, 2008, 09:15 AM
You do know, don't you, that most programs, accessories, etc., can be installed, the GUI way, through "Applications > Add/Remove" and/or "System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager" in the menus?

Yes, what's your point?

Is the procedure the same exactly under Fedora, openSUSE, PCLinuxOS...etc?

Even though they're all GNU/Linux, they're not consistent at the cosmetic level (the level that interacts the most with the average user). Users know what to expect from Windows (other than crashing every now and again!), but they couldn't paint a consistent visual model for Linux, in general. And that is why I said earlier that I'd rather refer to a specific distro (Ubuntu) as the better alternative to Windows when I'm trying to get someone to switch OS. If someone prefers openSUSE, then they should refer to it as such, instead of saying Linux.

Mjölner
May 24th, 2008, 03:08 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

With Ubuntu/GNU/Linux my pc boots way fast (faster than XP),
it loads apps at speeds I have not experienced with XP (and this is the first thing anyone who sees my pc in action says. I have a pc with basic three/four year old technology),
it has repositories and source code,
it challenges me,
it is a free (price) 64bit os (how much is xp 64bit, or Vista 64bit? I was (past tense ;) hehe) running 32bit XP, which I had migrated since 2001, on a 64bit possible pc),
I dont have to worry about bundled spy/add ware,
is comes with the programs I use the most,
it doesn't have IE,
Cononical doesn't need to load strange programs on my pc to make sure I'm not stealing their product(I am actualy happy to give out the info of my most used programs, and I get to turn that option on), , , ......

I could go on :) There really are more reasons.

I'm really happy with the level of support I get,
there's loads of documentation,
and I think (correct me if I'm wrong), there no CEO and deputies, raking in the $2,000,000 or more in bonuses cause they sold the OS 100,00,000 times,
it just works,
it does all I need,
I don't need to spent half an hour with the software and OS, then rebooting, and then some parts don't work when I plug in the camera/printer,
it feels like an ecosystem,


and I could go on.....

but now I won't

PMHARRIS
May 24th, 2008, 05:53 PM
I am relatively new to linux, but am a fairly competent computer user. I have started a love affair with the penguin. As with any relationship, you have to accept some flaws.

I wish I could use my coolest .exe programs in linux. Additionally, Ubuntu's absolute dependence on the internet is annoying.

Another criticism is one of the community. Because of the nature of the beast, a late adoptor will have to spend a lot of time in online research to fix what turn out to be very simple problems. I have seen some very poor attitudes and some very abrasive condescension. True, I do not know a lot about linux, but there are a few things in which I specialize, and have extensive knowledge. I enjoy teaching others what I know and try to keep my "you're not worthy" sighs to a minimum.

All that said, if I could wake up tomorrow with all the linux know-how, I would throw everything with a warped window on it in the trash. I have wiped and reloaded my personal windows CPUs so many times it's unbelievable. I also have several old computers that I am looking forward to resurrecting as new lean, mean, tux machines.

Here are some other big reasons to at least experiment with linux.

Reason 1:
Knowledge is power. The more you understand technology, the more you can use it to accomplish your goals.

Reason 2:
Greed will be the downfall of this nation. Not that microsoft is completely evil (some would disagree), but as Americans, we should support competition in a market, to motivate innovation.

Reason 3:
Technological economy. With a linux operating system you can complete complex tasks on ancient hardware. MS Word 2007 lags on an intel duo.

Reason 4:
IT'S JUST COOL. Not only can you feel "clean" for the first time while computing, I feel like a pioneer as I learn the ins and outs of Ubuntu. Additionally, the community (criticisms noted above) is awesome. Mostly everyone wants YOUR computer to operate perfectly. It's constantly growing, improving, replacing itself, fueled by the collective intelligence of passionate and devoted individuals.

So, get a new hobby -- try linux.

jb1
May 26th, 2008, 02:31 AM
I don't see the point of desktop Linux either. As the old saying goes "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." Well, my time is valuable to me. Linux evangelists will claim that it "just works," but this forum is full of people needing tutorials for the most basic of tasks, such as setting up the proper resolution, getting wireless to work or installing something that apt fails on. (Yes, dependency hell still exists.)

Vista 64 detected all of my hardware and installed all my drivers for me; no setup required. My Windows systems don't crash, because I know how to use a computer (amazingly when you have a clue just about any OS will work fine), and I don't have to find 'good enough' replacements for my applications. (Don't get me wrong, there are some amazing OSS software out there, but more often than not it falls short of the Windows counterpart.) I also don't have to search for tutorials or install random libs just to get something as simply as VMWare Server or my X-Fi card working.

That said, I'm running Ubuntu as my file server and do appreciate the savings softRAID has saved me over a true hardware controller.

RiceMonster
May 26th, 2008, 02:36 AM
Vista 64 detected all of my hardware and installed all my drivers for me; no setup required.

That's how Ubuntu works for me. Seriously, no tweaking or installing any drivers. Everything works out of the box; wireless included.

cardinals_fan
May 26th, 2008, 02:40 AM
That's how Ubuntu works for me. Seriously, no tweaking or installing any drivers. Everything works out of the box; wireless included.
That's almost how OpenSolaris works for me - as soon as the rum driver comes on line (for my wireless), everything will work out-of-the-box.

Frak
May 26th, 2008, 02:41 AM
That's almost how OpenSolaris works for me - as soon as the rum driver comes on line (for my wireless), everything will work out-of-the-box.
Same for me... except for my Intel Audio and Intel Network

X_X

jb1
May 26th, 2008, 03:06 AM
That's how Ubuntu works for me. Seriously, no tweaking or installing any drivers. Everything works out of the box; wireless included.
I know quite a few people who have had the same experience as you. However, the wireless on my laptop would not work (even with NDISwrapper), WINE is a chore to setup (not hard, mind you, but still a needless process), and Ubuntu never suspended or hibernated properly. I've also yet to find a good replacement for Foobar. Apparently these are common issues, along with the whole xserver reconfig thing. Imo, it's just not worth it to spend that much time when I can have a fully functional XP/Vista install in under 20 minutes.

charlesbw
May 26th, 2008, 04:02 AM
am a wanabe geek, so i like learning more about the inner workings of technologies...and unlike windows, linux allows you to mess around with its code...hell they even help you do it. that is fun to me for some reason, everytime i memorize a new code sequence to get the computer to do something...and i know exactly what the computer is doing because i know what the code is composed off. Linux just seems more fun, i wish i could just switch completely to linux, but some of my really nice hardware are not supported and most of my favorite games are not supported. So i dual boot for now. I do spend most of my time on ubuntu though, unless i want to play a game..then i hop on over to windows. I can browse the web safer on linux, i can interact with the computer better on linux...its so user friendly when you start learning the basic stuff. I still don't know all the basics yet, but if you know anything about people, my initial comments should make it clear to you how eager i am to learn about linux.

reiki
May 26th, 2008, 12:38 PM
This thread is old.. and long! :)
I've been using Ubuntu since August of 2005 pretty much exclusively. I still have a WinXP partition and I also have XP i a virtual machine using VirtualBox. Why? Because I still have a lot of friends and family using WinXP and if they ask me for help, it's nice to see what they're seeing.

One of the problems with this is that I have to start windows once a month or so to let it update and patch (and reboot a few times).

That whole deal about "linux is only free if your time is worthless" is a bunch of hogwash. There is a learning curve when coming from the windows world to the linux world. The same could be said going from the windows world to the Mac world. That phrase was probably coined by someone selling an expensive operating system. :)

Is money the only motivator for me? No. I get Windows operating systems (XP Pro, Vista Ultimate) for $7.95 completely legitimately. I can download MS Office 2003 and 2007 Enterprise free ... again... legitimately (no I won't share my login. It might cost me my job).

I don't use them. It's absolutely true that if you're a hard core gamer, you probably want Windows. There are more games written for Windows than for linux. That is changing ever so slowly. For myself, I only play one game, World of Warcraft, and that actually plays better here in Wine than it does in the native WindowsXP boot.

Linux has not been problematic for me because I built my computer to be linux friendly. And when I upgrade my hardware, it will be with linux in mind.

I use linux because I like it better. I can do all my graphics stuff, web development, and everyday office-like stuff just fine. No virus worries, no spyware worries, no expensive upgrades to the next version... and the list goes on. I spend far less time fretting over my operating system and far more time exploring new ways of doing things.

For many (not all) of the people who whine about things not working in linux but thy work in Windows, I've found it's because they are totally unfamiliar with linux and not really willing to put forth the effort to learn. I am not judging them. Just relating what I've learned in 3 or so years of dealing with those people. Some people have legitimate difficulties getting linux to work for them on their hardware. Almost always this involves laptops. And while I think that amazing progress has been made in this area for linux, there remain several problems in getting certain hardware to work correctly. There are pieces of hardware for which there are no linux-specific drivers, but on NEW laptops running Vista there is hardware for which there are no WINDOWSXP-specific drivers. So this should come as no surprise. The hardware manufacturers write their drivers for the intended audience.

Enough rambling. Just use what works for you.

tomski
May 26th, 2008, 03:36 PM
i use linux & windows for the following reasons:
1)
ill never trust windows as a secure firewall
2)
i need to have windows for work purposes, i work for an isp & i do out of hours support there fore i need access to my work vpn & the type of vpn they use requires windows based software
3)
whilst i do out of hours support 99.9% of our clients use windows (we have 3 mac clients) therefore i need to instruct them what to do & quickly so when i tell them to do something im doing it at the same time
4)
i love linux & so i have my main pc setup in dual boot so i have the best of both worlds & use winxp for work & games
5)
im greedy so i also have another pc that has freebsd installed once i have got my head around how it works & im confident using it this will replace my current ubuntu firewall
6)
after i have mastered ubuntu & freebsd i will go for the purest option & install PLAN9 the ultimate unix enviroment.
7)
once all that is completed i'll be as old as Hubert J Farnsworth & would have started work on inventing the finglonger©

jb1
May 26th, 2008, 05:09 PM
This thread is old.. and long! :)
I've been using Ubuntu since August of 2005 pretty much exclusively. I still have a WinXP partition and I also have XP i a virtual machine using VirtualBox. Why? Because I still have a lot of friends and family using WinXP and if they ask me for help, it's nice to see what they're seeing.

One of the problems with this is that I have to start windows once a month or so to let it update and patch (and reboot a few times).

Is money the only motivator for me? No. I get Windows operating systems (XP Pro, Vista Ultimate) for $7.95 completely legitimately. I can download MS Office 2003 and 2007 Enterprise free ... again... legitimately (no I won't share my login. It might cost me my job).

I don't use them. It's absolutely true that if you're a hard core gamer, you probably want Windows. There are more games written for Windows than for linux. That is changing ever so slowly. For myself, I only play one game, World of Warcraft, and that actually plays better here in Wine than it does in the native WindowsXP boot.

Linux has not been problematic for me because I built my computer to be linux friendly. And when I upgrade my hardware, it will be with linux in mind.

I use linux because I like it better. I can do all my graphics stuff, web development, and everyday office-like stuff just fine. No virus worries, no spyware worries, no expensive upgrades to the next version... and the list goes on. I spend far less time fretting over my operating system and far more time exploring new ways of doing things.

For many (not all) of the people who whine about things not working in linux but thy work in Windows, I've found it's because they are totally unfamiliar with linux and not really willing to put forth the effort to learn. I am not judging them. Just relating what I've learned in 3 or so years of dealing with those people. Some people have legitimate difficulties getting linux to work for them on their hardware. Almost always this involves laptops. And while I think that amazing progress has been made in this area for linux, there remain several problems in getting certain hardware to work correctly. There are pieces of hardware for which there are no linux-specific drivers, but on NEW laptops running Vista there is hardware for which there are no WINDOWSXP-specific drivers. So this should come as no surprise. The hardware manufacturers write their drivers for the intended audience.

Enough rambling. Just use what works for you.
I was a UNIX admin (HP-UX, Solaris 6/7) for 3 years, before I moved into engineering. I'm no stranger to UNIX-clones. However, certain things simply take longer to do on these OSes, due to lack of standardization, weird lib issues etc. I believe I've outlined my issues, which are all fairly common, pretty well too.

Just a bit of advice. If you want to spread your joy of Linux, the approach of assuming the user is clueless simply because things do not work the way they're supposed to, isn't exactly the greatest way to go about it.



That whole deal about "linux is only free if your time is worthless" is a bunch of hogwash. There is a learning curve when coming from the windows world to the linux world. The same could be said going from the windows world to the Mac world. That phrase was probably coined by someone selling an expensive operating system. :)
I don't recall who coined the phrase (it was on Usenet many years ago), but it wasn't a commercial software vendor. As for the relevance, I spent about 2 hours trying to get my laptop into a usable state with Ubuntu before resigning to reinstalling XP, which took all of 20 minutes. That was wasted time that I could've been spending with my family, or drinking beer. :)


ill never trust windows as a secure firewallYou should not rely on a desktop-based firewall (Win or Linux) in the first place. Your firewall should be placed near the edge of your network, and be handled by a dedicate system (appliance, old Linux/BSD box, etc).

decoherence
May 26th, 2008, 08:25 PM
The point people make... that linux is only free if your time is worthless. It's a good point I guess, but with all of the examples of people's stuff working properly, it seems to me you could just as easily say the same thing about Windows (except it's not even free, and MS still seems to think your time is worthless.)

I support a school network of ~500 XP machines. I also support personaluser machines on an as-needed basis (yes, i'm a masochist.) Our workstations, which have been very well 'field tested,' run beautifully. However the personal systems I look at vary hugely. I've done backup/reinstall/restore on many of those machine simply because it's less work than pouring over MSDN KB articles and the five billion Windows "help" sites out there that give conflicting info (not saying linux is any better in that respect... it's just a matter of scale.)

So, like a previous poster said, if you 'have a clue' you can get any operating system to work fine. If you're lucky it will 'just work.' Otherwise you have some work ahead of you, regardless of which OS you're using.

takeshi_nato
May 26th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
Does there have to be a reason to use it. Do you have a reason that you even have a computer? a job? someone to be with? money?

askreet
May 27th, 2008, 12:58 PM
there are a lot... really
plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.


Yes, Bill Gates is exactly the kind of evil corporate monster you picture him as. He has red glowing eyes and huge fangs and only comes out at night. We need to use Linux to fend of his endless evil!

See: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

askreet
May 27th, 2008, 01:23 PM
pidgin does not provide IMvironments and file transfer options and a few more thngs that yahoo messenger provides...

Ah yes, the IMvironments. There's a real deal-breaker. :)

melrom
May 27th, 2008, 02:09 PM
Vista 64 detected all of my hardware and installed all my drivers for me; no setup required.

Maybe so, but it's, um, Vista.

Don't come crying to us when it crashes or you get a virus. :)

jb1
May 28th, 2008, 12:10 AM
Maybe so, but it's, um, Vista.

Don't come crying to us when it crashes or you get a virus. :)
I won't, because I know how to use a computer (and this is a Linux forum :rolleyes: ).

Tbh, most of the OMG VISTA SUX is bandwagon nonsense perpetuated by know-nothings that haven't even used it. It's been perfectly stable for me, even moreso than XP.

jrusso2
May 28th, 2008, 04:01 AM
I won't, because I know how to use a computer (and this is a Linux forum :rolleyes: ).

Tbh, most of the OMG VISTA SUX is bandwagon nonsense perpetuated by know-nothings that haven't even used it. It's been perfectly stable for me, even moreso than XP.

I was lucky enough to get a free copy of Vista from Microsoft and I agree its not as bad as people make it out. Especially if you have new hardware.

On the other hand I don't think its worth an upgrade from XP.

But I have a dual boot with Vista and Linux and find myself in Linux almost all the time. I just much prefer Linux and enjoy the variety of programs and the sense of security and stability.

I have many Microsoft products here being a Microsoft Admin, but I just prefer Linux for my own use.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
May 28th, 2008, 07:00 AM
I don't see the point of desktop Linux either. As the old saying goes "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." Well, my time is valuable to me. Linux evangelists will claim that it "just works," but this forum is full of people needing tutorials for the most basic of tasks, such as setting up the proper resolution, getting wireless to work or installing something that apt fails on. (Yes, dependency hell still exists.)

Vista 64 detected all of my hardware and installed all my drivers for me; no setup required. My Windows systems don't crash, because I know how to use a computer...

Well a bit about stuff not working on Linux... it ain't all true. Well the ones who have everything working good don't usually post it in forums like "gee, it works right off the box" (though, some does). And then there are those who have problems, they post all the time.

It's like a cake, you see only the topping.

I don't really flame Windows, but the same pattern is with it too (like other OSs). Only thing there ain't so many Windows dedicated forums (i know of) like this for Ubuntu Linux. So you don't see as much "topping" for Windows.

I can't argue which is better, cause they can't be compared just like that. They are made for different people, different purpose. They are to be different.

heiowge
May 28th, 2008, 08:32 AM
I use WinXP to burn DVDs and CDs, Rip DVDs and CDs, create and manage my book between Word and PDF.

I use Ubuntu for everything else.

I plan on moving those items from my XP list to Ubuntu asap. I have moved from XP to Ubuntu in the last few months and already most of my time is spent in Linux.

It's just refreshing to have that level of speed and stability from a system.

oldschoolrockstar
May 28th, 2008, 08:52 AM
I have Linux running on two machines, and window's xp running on one by it's self. I'm only running xp on that computer because of some of my external hardware isn't compatible for Linux...yet. I could burn cds with Linux and make dvds just fine, or even better with Linux. The number 1 reason why I hat windows is because I'm always having to upgrade something in my computer to run apps, games, or buy licenses or warranties for tech support. I say if anybody really wants to splash right into the pool of Linux and have a great time. Just install it in an old laptop that probably isn't running well, because of window"s crappness is sucking the useful technology from it. See how greater it works when you make the change. It's useful again. You could do your homework on it now, or write a book or create a nice game for Linux. Yes, Linux needs great games. How else are we going to make window's users make the switch?

SteveNorman
May 28th, 2008, 04:56 PM
MS sells you the same product over and over again. All they really do is change the appearance, and add bells and whistles. These increased bells and whistles use a lot of memory and computer resources. The amount of resources it takes to run vista is causing a lot of people to upgrade their computers.

So in packaging alone ms is a polluter.Add in the environmental cost of unnecessary computer upgrades required to keep up with ms and their unnecessary os upgrades.

Then to top it off you dont even own what you paid for. You are not allowed to alter the os to suit your needs.

Ms's motivation is not to give you the best os they can,, ms's motivation is to continue to make money off of you; To make you dependant on them so you will HAVE to keep coming back to then and buying their crack.

As the Ubuntu and Linux community grows, game manufacturers will recognize the market and start making linux friendly games.

Recognize also there is a trend towards open office use in business, and the proprietary formats are going to become an obstacle in communication from business to business.

With Linux, you own your OS. You are free to use it however you want. It is more secure and stable than ms. The growing community means more apps for linux.

Xianath
May 28th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Just like to throw in my two cents as a long time user of both platforms

As a gaming platform, Windows has the upper hand. It also runs stuff like Adobe PhotoShop, 3D Max and Sony Vegas if you choose to buy them rather than a decent car.

I use Linux for everything else because, frankly, it runs circles around Windows what I use a computer for. I recently tried (again) to get Windows to match up by installing the bare minimum I use daily. In some cases I had to use equivalents as there are no Windows versions of a lot of things, but here is what I had to install to get somewhere close:

* GNU utils (SFU lacked some crucial options)
* GViM and SciTE (also tried Nodepad++ and EditPlus but they didn't quite cut it)
* ActivePerl
* Thunderbird (Outlook has no disconnected IMAP)
* OpenOffice
* Nero Lite (or whatever came with my DVD burner)
* Eclipse with ECJ
* Sun Java 6 JDK
* WinAmp, MediaPlayer 11, ffdshow, ac3filter, Haali splitter, CoreAVC trial
* Firefox
* Pidgin IM
* Skype
* Wireshark, libpcap, airpcap
* RealVNC
* VMWare server 1.0.5
* Acrobat reader
* WinRAR
* various nuts and bolts that came with hardware (wireless, motherboard, CPU, sound card...)
* Cisco VPN client

At that point Windows was no longer that rock-solid beast it was when freshly. It would thrash the HDD a lot, programs would freeze and have to be killed, and it would perform rather poorly performance-wise on intensive operations. It was also quite impossible to multi-task, eg. have 20+ browser tabs open, read mail, listen to music, colorize a large network capture, and parse a large text file log. Attempting to write a DVD even at 4x while any other intensive operation was in progress would result in a buffer underrun (even with protection on, the DVD would have a lot of E1 and E2 errors and thus poor quality). The list goes on.

On the other hand, my experience with playing Guild Wars under Cedega was poor both performance- and stability-wise. More demanding games presented even worse problems. I enjoy my fair share of XMoto and Pangzero, but that's about it when it comes to Linux gaming for me.

Hence, I use Windows for playing Guild Wars. That pretty much sums it up for me. To paraphrase a famous quote, Windows is a great gaming platform, all it needs is a decent OS.

Cheers,
Peter

jb1
May 29th, 2008, 12:43 AM
Well a bit about stuff not working on Linux... it ain't all true. Well the ones who have everything working good don't usually post it in forums like "gee, it works right off the box" (though, some does). And then there are those who have problems, they post all the time.This is a silly argument for two reasons: 1) I only mentioned problems I've had myself, 2) regardless of the "happy remain silent" concept, this forum is still filled with tons of people requiring long tutorials for things as simply as sharing files or changing their resolution. While these things may still need to be pointed out to a 'luser' on Windows, they don't require CLI access or long tutorials to accomplish.

I didn't intend to imply that *nix was all bad (actually, I'm pretty damn sure I said otherwise), so I'm not sure what your point is.


I don't really flame Windows, but the same pattern is with it too (like other OSs). Only thing there ain't so many Windows dedicated forums (i know of) like this for Ubuntu Linux. So you don't see as much "topping" for Windows.Agreed on the first part, but not on the second. There are MS-run newsgroups dedicated to MS support, as well as hosts of web forums.


Recognize also there is a trend towards open office use in business, and the proprietary formats are going to become an obstacle in communication from business to business.
Small trends, sure, but over 90% of large corporations are running full MS, or nearly full, networks internally. Know why? *nix has no all-encompassing solution to directory services, integrated office suites, email and mobile services. One should only have to look at *nix market share (outside of the server world) to see this. Companies that use OSS office suites are generally small businesses that aren't as entrenched in the MS world as the F500s are.

(Yes, I know all encompassing solutions are opposed to the UNIX philosophy, but that's exactly why enterprise Linux market share will not grow outside of the server market.)

The amount of resources it takes to run vista is causing a lot of people to upgrade their computers. I upgrade my computer every three years anyway.


You are not allowed to alter the os to suit your needs.What? This is FUD; MS provides an API so developers can do just that. No where is it stated that you cannot modify MS products; in fact, many 3rd party apps simple hook into existing MS code.


As the Ubuntu and Linux community grows, game manufacturers will recognize the market and start making linux friendly games.Nearly 20 years of the market resisting this points to this not being the case any time soon, sorry.


You are free to use it however you want.
You are free to use MS products however you want, so long as you own a valid license.


It is more secure and stable than ms.
Linux is certainly stable, but when run by a competent person Windows can be just as stable. As for security, most users don't take advantage of the security in either, so it's mostly a moot point imo.


The growing community means more apps for linux.
Market share disproves this myth.

AmpersUK
May 29th, 2008, 01:30 AM
This year I notice that Citroen have moved 250 servers over to Linux (SuSE) and also all their 20,000 PCs. The French Police have been clever. First they moved all their 70,000 computers from MS Office to OpenOffice. A year later they moved everyone from IE and Outlook to Firefox and Thunderbird. Then a year later when everyone was used to the software, all 70,000 PCs are being moved from Windows to Linux (Ubuntu). There are many more but I don't want to show my hand until I have written an article on it.

As for a recent remark about OpenOffice, if you take a look at the website (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments) at openoffice.org, there is a page showing all the serious deployments of openoffice around the world.

jb1
May 29th, 2008, 01:45 AM
As for a recent remark about OpenOffice, if you take a look at the website (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments) at openoffice.org, there is a page showing all the serious deployments of openoffice around the world.Pay attention to how small their North American list is. Now compare that to every F500, or even just large business in general, and you'll see that it is certainly a very small trend. Like I said, OSS is out there, but market share speaks the truth.

That said, I _would_ like to see some OSS solution that could compete with AD + Exchange + Outlook + Office + WInMobile/BES, but it simply does not exist.

silent contender
May 29th, 2008, 01:52 AM
I am pretty new to Linux, but would rather use Linux over Windows. The only upper hand Windows has the game, like others have said. Linux is much faster and more secure. I run Xubuntu on a Pentium II. The CPU load in about 3-5%~. On XP, it is around +30%.

hitenshi
May 29th, 2008, 02:51 AM
I'm still a relative newb to Linux, and I guess to computers in general outside of the Windows department. I decided to use Linux out of curiosity at how a different OS operated. I ended up enjoying it, though I still shudder at the thought of memorizing aspects of the command line. >.<

Problem is, Windows is where all the games are. Otherwise, I would be fine running Linux as my sole operating system. Frankly, it would be much more convenient since I wouldn't have to reset my computer everytime I feel like playing a game.

I use Linux because it's interesting. You can play around with it to your heart's content.

antlachance
May 29th, 2008, 03:04 AM
Pay attention to how small their North American list is. Now compare that to every F500, or even just large business in general, and you'll see that it is certainly a very small trend. Like I said, OSS is out there, but market share speaks the truth.

That said, I _would_ like to see some OSS solution that could compete with AD + Exchange + Outlook + Office + WInMobile/BES, but it simply does not exist.

Just because more people use something doesn't make it better.

jb1
May 29th, 2008, 03:15 AM
Just because more people use something doesn't make it better.
...

I don't believe I ever stated that one or the other was better due to market share.

If you'd read the thread, you'd see that the original statement that all these posts have been in reply to was something along the line of "there is a trend in business of moving toward OSS office suites." I'm simply pointing out that the trend is negligibly small - so small that it can hardly be called a trend.

AmpersUK
May 29th, 2008, 10:00 AM
[quote=jb1;5066462]Pay attention to how small their North American list is. Now compare that to every F500, or even just large business in general, and you'll see that it is certainly a very small trend. Like I said, OSS is out there, but market share speaks the truth.

==============

By North America, I presume you are referring to the USA not Mexico and Canada which are also in North America).


If you mean the US, it is just one country in the world. but I agree a major player, but if you look at the world, and how Linux has spread just in the last three years, you will find it is growing exponentially. Ubuntu alone has over 9,000,000 installations around the world. A lot of them in Asia and Africa. A small figure but not bad, considering that nowadays they are battling against well established Windows and OS X.

Oil prices are increasing, US expenditure (on their 750 bases in over 150 countries) including their battles in Iraq and Iran are costing a trillion, yes a trillion dollars, a year. The dollar is going down as it is not based on anything - but is being printed, almost daily, to fuel supply. What will this all mean?

It could well mean that people will have to start cutting costs, not just in their computer software but in all walks of life. Britain is following the same path and I have already started to move my savings into Gold (www.goldmoney.com) as have many Americans. The US Government are trying to bring in legislation to stop people doing this - so this British based business will be banned for Americans quite soon.

When I say things like; I think Linux is getting more popular, I am thinking of every aspect. As you know we, and the Americans, are pretty much hated around the world. This is one reason why a lot of third world countries are taking up Linux rather than Microsoft or Apple as their operating system. The European Governments also, I have heard, fear the American Government may have forced Microsoft to introduce code that may eventually turn out harmful to them.

Although a lot more Ubuntu Linux distributions are downloaded than this figure, Canonical estimates there are approximately 9,000,000 users of Ubuntu and its derivatives around the world. And growing with each release. Ubuntu bought out their first release three years ago!

Microsoft has also caught a bit of a cold with Windows 6 (Vista) and recently they announced they were bringing forward the launch of Windows 7 forward a year. And some say their announcement of increasing the life of the home edition of XP is because they don't want to lose customers to Linux. I didn't believe this at first but began to wonder when they persuaded the OPC organisation (one per child) to add Windows to their portable PC to co-exist with Linux. There would be no reason why OPC would have accepted this if Windows wasn't given them supplies totally free.

However, I digress, you are right in your assessment based on today. But if you see the way Linux has grown in the last three years, and watch the growth of the Indian and Chinese economies, take into account that MS and Apple are produced in countries that are not liked or respected and, in addition Asian people love to wheel and deal and love a bargain. “Free” is a bargain, if it works, and as I said, Linux is getting better every day.


I take a keen interest in world politics and world economics and it is because of this that I think Linux will come into its own within five to ten years.

G_man
May 29th, 2008, 12:17 PM
1- FREE
you don't pay for the windows over & over & over, then pay for the other softwares as well, and then comes out with a tweaked edition and asks you to pay for it as well.

2- RESPECT
Microsoft use some of its product to FORCE you to use some other products. e.g. It USE messenger and hotmail to force you to use IE.

3- OPEN
you can do what ever you want the way you want and not worry about being called A THIEF even though you PAID for it.

4- PRIVACY
windows is like walking naked on the street. Any hacker can rape you easly.

5- SECURITY
Paying $$ and and need to pay more $$ for punch of softwares to keep your PC safe. And after paying all that money, you could still get virus or something. Or the anti-virus software gets you. (Norton corrupted some of my files 4 years ago :( )

6- SPEED
You don't have to upgrade your PC each year so that you can get Windows to run on it smoothly. Or keeping it as it is and struggle with it.

7- STABLILITY
You don't need to reinstall the OS every 6 months or something. just because it gets slower and slower until it eventually die. (Some data loss could happen as well)

8- SUPPORT
You don't have to pay to get supported. You can if you want. It all depends on what you wish to have or do.

9- UPDATE/UPGRADE EASILY
I installed 6.04 a month ago. I downloaded the updates for TWO years (nearly 2000 files) and then upgraded it to 6.10 and then to 7.04 and then to 7.10 (about 3000 files) all of that in less than 2 hours while I surf the net using the same OS I am updating and upgrading. Can Windows do that?

10-LIVE/INSTALL
I can try everything and check supported hardware and surf the net while installing the OS. When it's finished. it's ready no driver installation,* no program installation

*Except if the driver is new, not available, or not opensource.

crosswalker21
May 29th, 2008, 02:41 PM
k, devil's advocate here for a minute:

@G_man


Linux is free to use, but definitely not free to maintain (for devs). In order for various projects to continue, they need funding, which comes from users who value software enough to pay for it.
You can use messenger via. pidgin, and hotmail via. firefox...they might be optimized for IE, but, considering that Microsoft knows pretty well how to code for IE, shouldn't they be?
okay, so WGA is awful, but seriously, the instances in which it's problematic, realistically, are pretty few and far between.
Microsoft has a lot of people working many hours to keep Windows secure. With the built-in, default-on firewall in Windows, you can easily avoid being hacked by behavioral habits. Before I switched to ubuntu, I'd been virus/spyware free for a number of years, without any kind of AV or Anti-spyware, just a firewall.
There are plenty of free (open source) AV suites for Windows that work well. Besides, security is all about how one behaves online, if someone opens every attachment and runs every exe they can find, the best AV won't save them. Furthermore, at least a portion of Linux's security is by nature of the fact that there's a small (relatively) userbase (albeit growing) and it's far more profitable to send out an exe attached email, than to send an email that says, open terminal and type x, once it becomes more of a potential target, you'll see bogus attachments targeted at linux, or phony downloads.
Once you get windows working properly, you aren't forced to upgrade to a new version of windows, I got along quite well with xp on a 1.3Ghz celeron with 512MB of ram for some time. It actually still works well when I run windows (very infrequently)
Most people don't actually need to re-install the OS every 6 months. A saturday with an uninstaller, a registry cleaner, a defrag, and some Microsoft utilities (sysinternals.com (http://sysinternals.com)) to adjust startup programs will do wonders.
There are plenty of Windows support forums that are free.
Amen, Amen, Amen. In uptime and multi-tasking, linux shines! Here, windows has yet to compete.
*repeat above* Live CDs are one of the coolest things about linux (and excellent for pulling files off of broken windows installs ;) Even with proprietary drivers, the latest Ubuntu has excellent compatibility!


Now, all that Microsoft defending out of the way (whew), I don't think I'll ever switch back to Windows. I use linux because it's fun, rewarding, and satisfying to have the power to pick the little grains of sand out of the cogs of my daily workflow and not worry about rebooting 20 times. I only keep an xp partition around for a couple of things

editing adobe audition session files for work
letting my little sister play her fisher-price usb art studio

Other than those, I have no reason to use xp, and plenty of reason to use ubuntu. Props to open source for making that hapen! :D

jb1
May 29th, 2008, 05:28 PM
By North America, I presume you are referring to the USA not Mexico and Canada which are also in North America).You are correct in your assumption. I was simply going by the name they chose for the list; but yes, I did mean mostly the US, although Ca is very similar.

As for everything else, I've seen the trends towards OSS in those markets, but this is largely restricted to developing countries.


2- RESPECT
Microsoft use some of its product to FORCE you to use some other products. e.g. It USE messenger and hotmail to force you to use IE.This is FUD; I use Firefox and Pidgin just fine on Windows.


3- OPEN
you can do what ever you want the way you want and not worry about being called A THIEF even though you PAID for it.But do YOU? Many people say this, but don't actually ever do it. Most people do not roll their own software, and would be perfectly fine using the already available freeware, OSS or commercial apps out there. Windows also has tons of freeware and OSS apps, so this isn't exactly something limited to nix.


4- PRIVACY
windows is like walking naked on the street. Any hacker can rape you easly.FUD. Simply keeping a pached system and running a NAT firewall (e.g, a router - you don't even need the Windows one) and not downloading random porn.jpg.bat or whatever files, you can be pretty damn safe. A good virus scanner, that you install , set to auto update and forget about, pretty much takes care of everything else.)

(Yeah, there are still 0-days, but unix has rootkits and exploits as well. Just look at the recent SSH exploit (which affects Ubuntu, btw, and is still not fully patched.)

5- SECURITY
Paying $$ and and need to pay more $$ for punch of softwares to keep your PC safe. And after paying all that money, you could still get virus or something. Or the anti-virus software gets you. (Norton corrupted some of my files 4 years ago :( )How is Norton (an app known to be garbage by competant Win users for many years) a Windows problem? :) The only malware apps I have installed on my system are NOD32 and SpyBot. I haven't gotten a virus since Michelangelo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_(computer_virus)) (link in case you're too young to remember), and don't get spyware at all.



6- SPEED
You don't have to upgrade your PC each year so that you can get Windows to run on it smoothly. Or keeping it as it is and struggle with it.Who upgrades their PC every year? Even gamers don't upgrade that often... Your sensationalist FUD is very apparent.

2k or XP will also run on some pretty old hardware; for example, XP will run quite nicely on a 500MHz machine provided you have at least 512MB RAM.


7- STABLILITY
You don't need to reinstall the OS every 6 months or something. just because it gets slower and slower until it eventually die. (Some data loss could happen as well)Again, competent users do not need to do this. I have XP installs that are 5 years old and work just fine; I've had XP machines with uptimes as good as our power will allow; and I've had other installs last until I needed to upgrade a motherboard. This argument is silly simply because it's an argument from ignorance (no offense intended). Your complaint comes from not learning one OS, but you're arguing for the switch to another due the problems cause by this, all the while ignoring the fact that you need to learn the new OS as well.


8- SUPPORT
You don't have to pay to get supported. You can if you want. It all depends on what you wish to have or do.Yeah, it sucks that all the Windows support forums on the net charge exorbitant fees. And Usenet, that's even worse!


10-LIVE/INSTALL
I can try everything and check supported hardware and surf the net while installing the OS. When it's finished. it's ready no driver installation,* no program installationLive CDs are one of the best things to come from the Linux community, ever. I can at least agree that this is a very nice feature.

hypercube24
May 30th, 2008, 09:52 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
Good question! After beating my head against problems trying to install Ubuntu on a laptop I ask myself the same question. XP works ok ( most of the time ). I just tried to install Ubuntu 8.04 on my winxp machine. It has nice dual monitors, runs flight simulator like a champ, and has an Asus graphics card. The install disc (original, from Canonical) gave me a blank screen, in fact 2 blank screens! I finally ended up installing SUSE linux, which seems to be a lot more polished version of linux. Try SUSE instead of the weird Ubuntu stuff! ;-( Bob

JohnLM_the_Ghost
May 31st, 2008, 11:20 AM
Good question! After beating my head against problems trying to install Ubuntu on a laptop I ask myself the same question. XP works ok ( most of the time ). I just tried to install Ubuntu 8.04 on my winxp machine. It has nice dual monitors, runs flight simulator like a champ, and has an Asus graphics card. The install disc (original, from Canonical) gave me a blank screen, in fact 2 blank screens! I finally ended up installing SUSE linux, which seems to be a lot more polished version of linux. Try SUSE instead of the weird Ubuntu stuff! ;-( Bob
Don't really know what problems you really had with it! It installed for me right out-of-the-box. Anyways I assume SUSE is also a good distro, haven't tried it yet though!

Mr.Glenmore
May 31st, 2008, 12:55 PM
The Day,i Installed Ubuntu 8.04 Became My Independance Day!!!

Muppeteer
May 31st, 2008, 09:44 PM
Simple, spyware/virus free porn :popcorn:

cainchild
June 1st, 2008, 12:36 AM
Prequel.
As soon as I got done writing this I had an epiphany. It is possible to get tons and tons of linux dudes on the same page and thus reduce the soup sandwich nature of the beast. I'll post the site info when I put it up.

Wow here we go.
Linux has alot of nice things, like free, like transparency.
first off, a smart nerd keeps 98/me generation windows apart from NT XP and those separate from vista.
As for the arguments against certain things like active x and the registry. Those things are obviously useless since billions of developers choose them over app by app methods. ;) They are there to put programmers on the same page even if they are 10,000,000 miles apart working on different apps altogether.

The registry supports very simple data storage and even marshaling in its crudest sense. The reason linux is so secure is one part design, and one part lack of reason to attack it. Windoze users are too busy doing stuff to attack linux boxes, secondly writing a virus for linux is about as brilliant as publishing a DVD that only plays on 2% of the DVD players in the world.
the down side of linux permissions is that you may just have to spend an hour figuring out why it won't allow non root users to listen to a cd even after the flags are set.
Linux is only faster if a nerd who won't see his first pair of breasts until he's 60 spends several days making it marginally faster. And since most processor companies build extensions and what not into their processors specifically designed to speed up windows, that margin gets smaller with every processor revision. Also the Linux model has some disadvantages. It is designed on most linux systems to be most efficient running tons of apps. This is how is sort of uses every component as a separate process. Network dies, restart networking, not linux....awesome.
The drawback is less single thread cycles available to an app, the overhead to manage those things, reliance on a swap to name a few. Development time is terrible on linux, and you have good chances of things like dependency hell that arises from too many hands in the pot and a total lack of standards. Few linux apps are commercial quality because, they aren't commercial. The ones that are, tend to be as good if not better than win apps.
Also, a person who is as knowledgeable about windows as some of these guys are about linux can get buttloads of control over it. hell even nt 4.0 has limited control over threading models and processor cycling.
Where linux is truly awesome.

The command prompt is linux. You can maul KDE and use linux itself to get everythign back. This same simplistic two layer method is teh same reason I triple boot and keep 98se around. (8 by the way, is this same principal. I have had the same install of 98se around for like 8 years, and have even copied from one partition to another several times.
THE CORPORATE THING
XP is evil, but if you want the lastest shite, you can't get around it. MS did this on purpose and were rich enough to get away with it. THe industry supported them in it to help phase out older products and make you buy new hardware. ITs evil crap.
Linux doesn't do that. ON the down side soooo much stuff doesn't work 100% or at all under linux, adn the argument that I should spend dasy researchign what hardware I can buy, instead of just getting what I want or need and trusting my OS to support it is crap. THis is 50% linux, 50% the industry. Linuxs part goes back to a lack of standards though, its lack of corporate power, but is partly on purpose on their part.

IF linux (free) was really that superior to Windows(399) then it would dominate the market, pure and simple. The biggest problem with linux, kid, is that linux refuses to admit it has problems, or that it's competition has any plus side, like solidarity.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 12:47 AM
Network dies, restart networking, not linux....awesome. On NT systems: netsh int ip reset log.txt

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 1st, 2008, 01:06 AM
@Cainchild
I'm not in mood to quote every other sentence of your post (essay).
There is a lot of truth in that, but it is quite overstated.

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 05:11 AM
Don't really know what problems you really had with it! It installed for me right out-of-the-box. Anyways I assume SUSE is also a good distro, haven't tried it yet though! There are many different distros of Linux out there, each a little (or a lot) different from the others. As the user community strongly supports a good 8 or 10 of these, the various differences must be significant to different people. In doing some recent research on Linux's [real] market share (vs. Microsoft), I came across an article (sorry, I can't remember the source), that compared the market shares of the top 8 Linux distros (vs. each other). According to that report, Ubuntu enjoys a 46% share of the Linux market. If SUSE, or Red Hat, or XYZ works [best] for you, then , by all means, that is the distro you should be using. But 46% is pretty impressive, and well more than double any of the others' numbers, so, I'd feel safe in saying, Ubuntu has something going for it that the others don't. (Though, that doesn't necessarily make it right for you.) If I had to guess, I'd say it was almost certainly the "community" aspect of Ubuntu, which, for me, is most obvious in the forums, which constitute the best technical support, moral support, and vehicle for feedback and idea exchange I have ever found, in any product. BTW, the conclusion re. Linux's market share was "inconclusive", with the following explanation. Since no one has to purchase Linux, accurate sales figures are not available. Since no one has to license, or register Linux, there is no data regarding how many copies are in use. Therefore, the data are simply unavailable to determine Linux's true market share. But of this you can be sure; for every known copy of Linux that is in use, there are many more copies in use that can't be documented. So when Microsoft, or whoever, passes of Linux as being insignificant, because it only owns 4% (or whatever) of the market, they are being exceptionally (and foolishly) naive. In the past three months, fully 50% of the computer users I know, have made the switch to Linux (all to Ubuntu, BTW), and half of those have purged Microsoft completely from their systems. Since they all still own a copy of XP, or VISTA, or Win2K, I am sure Microsoft still counts them as Windows users, ignoring the fact that they may own it, but no longer use it. They now use Linux, which, in my book, makes them Linux users. Linux is surely a tiger in the grass, and one day, perhaps one day [very] soon, it is going to strike. And when it does, it is my hope and belief that Microsoft will become a mere shadow of its former self--and the world will be the better for it. IMHO, IBM's OS2 should have whacked Windows, years ago; Berkley Softworks' GeoDos should have killed off Windows even before OS2. Why, with the clout of an organization as big and powerful as IBM, OS2 failed to obliterate Windows, I'll never be able to figure out. Bill Gates "questionable" business practices killed GeoDOS, in its infancy--it never had its chance to shine, but it totally blew away Windows, in every significant way (remarkably stable, true multitasking, full featured windowed interface, fast, very attractive, the most powerful word processor at the time, etc; a remarkable OS, especially considering it would run well, and do all this on an 8086 vintage PC [ how they accomplished true, preemptive multitasking on an 8086, I'll never know, and it was the one secret of their product they would never divulge to me--these geniuses should have ruled the operating system world, as they clearly knew things no one else did--thanks again, Mr. Gates]). Anyway, felt I had to put my 2 cents worth in, in support of Ubumtu--and I got carried away with championing Linux vs. Windows (currently a passion of mine, if you can't tell). A final word to the wise; check your stock portfolios, especially your mutual funds, for Microsoft stock. My [uninformed] advice, if you own any, SELL, SELL, SELL. And buy something "Green".

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 05:37 AM
Prequel.
As soon as I got done writing this I had an epiphany. It is possible to get tons and tons of linux dudes on the same page and thus reduce the soup sandwich nature of the beast. I'll post the site info when I put it up.

Wow here we go.
Linux has alot of nice things, like free, like transparency.
first off, a smart nerd keeps 98/me generation windows apart from NT XP and those separate from vista.
As for the arguments against certain things like active x and the registry. Those things are obviously useless since billions of developers choose them over app by app methods. ;) They are there to put programmers on the same page even if they are 10,000,000 miles apart working on different apps altogether.

The registry supports very simple data storage and even marshaling in its crudest sense. The reason linux is so secure is one part design, and one part lack of reason to attack it. Windoze users are too busy doing stuff to attack linux boxes, secondly writing a virus for linux is about as brilliant as publishing a DVD that only plays on 2% of the DVD players in the world.
the down side of linux permissions is that you may just have to spend an hour figuring out why it won't allow non root users to listen to a cd even after the flags are set.
Linux is only faster if a nerd who won't see his first pair of breasts until he's 60 spends several days making it marginally faster. And since most processor companies build extensions and what not into their processors specifically designed to speed up windows, that margin gets smaller with every processor revision. Also the Linux model has some disadvantages. It is designed on most linux systems to be most efficient running tons of apps. This is how is sort of uses every component as a separate process. Network dies, restart networking, not linux....awesome.
The drawback is less single thread cycles available to an app, the overhead to manage those things, reliance on a swap to name a few. Development time is terrible on linux, and you have good chances of things like dependency hell that arises from too many hands in the pot and a total lack of standards. Few linux apps are commercial quality because, they aren't commercial. The ones that are, tend to be as good if not better than win apps.
Also, a person who is as knowledgeable about windows as some of these guys are about linux can get buttloads of control over it. hell even nt 4.0 has limited control over threading models and processor cycling.
Where linux is truly awesome.

The command prompt is linux. You can maul KDE and use linux itself to get everythign back. This same simplistic two layer method is teh same reason I triple boot and keep 98se around. (8 by the way, is this same principal. I have had the same install of 98se around for like 8 years, and have even copied from one partition to another several times.
THE CORPORATE THING
XP is evil, but if you want the lastest shite, you can't get around it. MS did this on purpose and were rich enough to get away with it. THe industry supported them in it to help phase out older products and make you buy new hardware. ITs evil crap.
Linux doesn't do that. ON the down side soooo much stuff doesn't work 100% or at all under linux, adn the argument that I should spend dasy researchign what hardware I can buy, instead of just getting what I want or need and trusting my OS to support it is crap. THis is 50% linux, 50% the industry. Linuxs part goes back to a lack of standards though, its lack of corporate power, but is partly on purpose on their part.

IF linux (free) was really that superior to Windows(399) then it would dominate the market, pure and simple. The biggest problem with linux, kid, is that linux refuses to admit it has problems, or that it's competition has any plus side, like solidarity. Wow! I'm not sure I can tell which side of this argument you are really on--in fact, I can't tell whether or not you know. The fact that Linux is not dominant is painfully simple, and has nothing to do with superiority. Through devious (some might even say unfair, or monopolistic) marketing methods, Mr. Gates ensured that every computer everyone bought, came out of the box with Windows already up and running. Most users knew of no reason to consider anything else. And, because there is no corporate giant behind Linux, precious little advertising has ever been done, so, until very recently, most users didn't even know Linux existed, It's not superiority, but monopoly that has put, and kept, Windows "on top". Regarding the "soup sandwich" thing, I personally find the open, community-based development thing to be a very powerful development model. Take the C programming language, for example. It was "designed" by default, out of need (agreeably, shepherded by a brilliant few [as is Linux]), and grew to become, by far, the most powerful programming tool the world has yet seen. And without it, what kind of software do you think we'd be running today? Like C, Linux is evolutionary in nature, bowing and bending to the needs (sometimes even whims) of its users. It may take a little longer to get a spit and polished end product this way, but the result is, you get exactly what you (collectively) need, and want. In the end, Linux will win out. It's just the way nature works. Survival of the fittest.

Cheers,

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 08:15 AM
There are many different distros of Linux out there, each a little (or a lot) different from the others. As the user community strongly supports a good 8 or 10 of these, the various differences must be significant to different people. In doing some recent research on Linux's [real] market share (vs. Microsoft), I came across an article (sorry, I can't remember the source), that compared the market shares of the top 8 Linux distros (vs. each other). According to that report, Ubuntu enjoys a 46% share of the Linux market. If SUSE, or Red Hat, or XYZ works [best] for you, then , by all means, that is the distro you should be using. But 46% is pretty impressive, and well more than double any of the others' numbers, so, I'd feel safe in saying, Ubuntu has something going for it that the others don't. (Though, that doesn't necessarily make it right for you.) If I had to guess, I'd say it was almost certainly the "community" aspect of Ubuntu, which, for me, is most obvious in the forums, which constitute the best technical support, moral support, and vehicle for feedback and idea exchange I have ever found, in any product. BTW, the conclusion re. Linux's market share was "inconclusive", with the following explanation. Since no one has to purchase Linux, accurate sales figures are not available. Since no one has to license, or register Linux, there is no data regarding how many copies are in use. Therefore, the data are simply unavailable to determine Linux's true market share. But of this you can be sure; for every known copy of Linux that is in use, there are many more copies in use that can't be documented. So when Microsoft, or whoever, passes of Linux as being insignificant, because it only owns 4% (or whatever) of the market, they are being exceptionally (and foolishly) naive. In the past three months, fully 50% of the computer users I know, have made the switch to Linux (all to Ubuntu, BTW), and half of those have purged Microsoft completely from their systems. Since they all still own a copy of XP, or VISTA, or Win2K, I am sure Microsoft still counts them as Windows users, ignoring the fact that they may own it, but no longer use it. They now use Linux, which, in my book, makes them Linux users. Linux is surely a tiger in the grass, and one day, perhaps one day [very] soon, it is going to strike. And when it does, it is my hope and belief that Microsoft will become a mere shadow of its former self--and the world will be the better for it. IMHO, IBM's OS2 should have whacked Windows, years ago; Berkley Softworks' GeoDos should have killed off Windows even before OS2. Why, with the clout of an organization as big and powerful as IBM, OS2 failed to obliterate Windows, I'll never be able to figure out. Bill Gates "questionable" business practices killed GeoDOS, in its infancy--it never had its chance to shine, but it totally blew away Windows, in every significant way (remarkably stable, true multitasking, full featured windowed interface, fast, very attractive, the most powerful word processor at the time, etc; a remarkable OS, especially considering it would run well, and do all this on an 8086 vintage PC [ how they accomplished true, preemptive multitasking on an 8086, I'll never know, and it was the one secret of their product they would never divulge to me--these geniuses should have ruled the operating system world, as they clearly knew things no one else did--thanks again, Mr. Gates]). Anyway, felt I had to put my 2 cents worth in, in support of Ubumtu--and I got carried away with championing Linux vs. Windows (currently a passion of mine, if you can't tell). A final word to the wise; check your stock portfolios, especially your mutual funds, for Microsoft stock. My [uninformed] advice, if you own any, SELL, SELL, SELL. And buy something "Green".Your massive wall of text suffers from lack of market share as well. :)

Based on the little bit I did bother to skim: yeah, yeah Linux evangelists have been singing this tune for some 16 years now. Linux is still (arguably, by many people with a clue) not ready for the desktop, and still not seen in the enterprise outside of servers. At some point the zealots have to stop betting on their fleeting utopian future and face reality, which is that Linux is a niche server/hobbyist OS.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 08:36 AM
Actually Windows is losing desktops to Apple. Ubuntu is gaining on Windows as well. Gates is too busy worrying about Yahoo, and competing with Google. He is losing his following right under his nose. Alas Poor Bill. I know him well.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 08:43 AM
Actually Windows is losing desktops to Apple. Ubuntu is gaining on Windows as well. Gates is too busy worrying about Yahoo, and competing with Google. He is losing his following right under his nose. Alas Poor Bill. I know him well.

Sure, in developing countries. Show me where this is happening in established, infrastructure-complete countries. It simply isn't.

I'm sorry, but you're naive if you think MS is going anywhere; they have their hands in the majority desktop market, majority _internal_ server market, gaming consoles, mobile software, auto software, development platforms et al.

Also, MS's profits were up slightly (http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/11/16/microsofts-money-machine-revealed) this year. A fleeting utopia indeed.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 08:49 AM
Sure, in developing countries. Show me where this is happening in established, infrastructure-complete countries. It simply isn't.

I hate to say this but Microhard is in decline. It happened to IBM when Gates, and Jobs showed up in the picture. It will be an endless tide back and forth. Besides.... Vista was a waste just like Windows Me was a waste. I do have to say that MS makes great keyboard, and mice desktop sets.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 09:13 AM
Microhard
At least you openly identify yourself as a slashtroll.


is in decline. It happened to IBM when Gates, and Jobs showed up in the picture.
IBM never had a corner on the desktop OS market, so I fail to see your point. And, as I pointed out earlier, MS isn't just selling OSes.

Also, IBM is doing quite well these days.

id1337x
June 1st, 2008, 09:17 AM
I use Linux because I am a computer programmer and web developer and the ability to manipulate all the packages that I want just by doing apt-get source makes Windows look silly in comparison at least for me.

I use C a whole lot and not as much C++/Java other then that I use Perl/PHP a lot too and I do shell scripting so ya.

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 09:25 AM
Actually Windows is losing desktops to Apple. Ubuntu is gaining on Windows as well. Gates is too busy worrying about Yahoo, and competing with Google. He is losing his following right under his nose. Alas Poor Bill. I know him well. to jb1:
And, don;t forget, Apple's OS X is "just another" Linux distro--not ready for the desktop, indeed. (Or would you argue that Apple "doesn't have a clue?") Also, I might point out that for a little known, almost completely unadvertised operating system to have a loyal following, wiling to sing its praises, in the face of a multitude of naysayers, for--how long was that? 16 years--speaks volumes. Hmmm, let's see; just who (besides Billy) has been out there singing the praises for Windows, and for how long? Fact is, I don't know anybody who sings the praises of Windows, I do know plenty of people, who are pretty much stuck using it, who bitch and complain about it nearly constantly. Is there a group of people (who actually use Linux), who constantly criticize and complain about it? I don't think so. You can fantasize all you want, but VISTA, coupled with Microsoft's refusal to extend support for XP, has rung the death knell for Windows. I do agree that MS will be with us for a while to come, but not as the dominant force in the OS marketplace.

id1337x
June 1st, 2008, 09:43 AM
And, don;t forget, Apple's OS X is "just another" Linux distro--not ready for the desktop, indeed.

Actually Apple uses the open Darwin kernel rather then Linux, so you can say that it is a Darwin distro.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 09:45 AM
to jb1:
And, don;t forget, Apple's OS X is "just another" Linux distro--not ready for the desktop, indeed.OSX is BSD, actually, and although semi-open (a la Darwin), operates off a fully closed and commercial model. And the market share simply isn't there. It's more than a little disingenuous to try and compare the two, especially since Apple steps all over the open philosophy with everything from software to hardware-reliance.

(I own a MacBook and love it, but Apple's market share is a joke and not really growing by any size worth mentioning.)

Also, I might point out that for a little known, almost completely unadvertised operating system to have a loyal following, wiling to sing its praises, in the face of a multitude of naysayers, for--how long was that? 16 years--speaks volumes.Although this argument borders on being an appeal to tradition, I wouldn't really argue with you here. A loyal user base does say something, but not what you're trying to imply; it says that there is a small group of SAs and hobbyist that are using the OS for niche uses. I won't argue this because it's in keeping with my view of Linux. *nix is great if you're running a web or DNS server, or building a roll-your-own router, but it's simply not ready for the desktop of non-IT/tech-savvy users, or internal corporate use. Trying to extrapolate what Linux gets used for in the real world into it being poised to become a market-backed desktop OS is silly and simply based on poor reasoning.

Fact is, I don't know anybody who sings the praises of Windows
And if anecdotal evidence was useful, you'd have a very good point.

I'd wager that you've never held a job in corporate IT then. I haven't seen many shops sing the praise of trying to hack together OpenLDAP and mail integration. Or the non-existent mobile integration. Much less putting Linux on their desktops.

I'd venture to guess you don't see this because you spend all your time evangelizing rather than paying attention to the real world markets.


Is there a group of people (who actually use Linux), who constantly criticize and complain about it? I don't think so.
Yeah, Linux users take dependency hell, non-existent OSS drivers, kernel panics and the DVD-hoop with a smile. Generalizations aren't terribly useful either way though, so I'll not bother arguing this angle.


You can fantasize all you want
There is much irony in this statement.

I do agree that MS will be with us for a while to come, but not as the dominant force in the OS marketplace.
Neither marketshare, userbase nor profits point to this, so I hardly see how I'm the one fantasizing.

lisati
June 1st, 2008, 09:47 AM
At least you openly identify yourself as a slashtroll.


IBM never had a corner on the desktop OS market, so I fail to see your point. And, as I pointed out earlier, MS isn't just selling OSes.

Also, IBM is doing quite well these days.

Whatever happened to PC-DOS that ran on early IBM x86 machines and upon which MS-DOS was based? Oh, that's right, Microsoft was involved in that, and PC-DOS was in turn was partly based on CP/M......

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 10:01 AM
Whatever happened to PC-DOS that ran on early IBM x86 machines and upon which MS-DOS was based? Oh, that's right, Microsoft was involved in that, and PC-DOS was in turn was partly based on CP/M......PC-DOS was a joint venture, so I fail to see your point. MS didn't come in and steal the app if that's what you're trying to suggest.

At no point did IBM ever have a corner on the desktop OS market. Even OS/2 was a joint venture with MS.



Microsoft's refusal to extend support for XP, has rung the death knell for Windows
This is largely irrelevant for many reasons: 1) XP will remain available via volume licensing for many years (2k server is still available on MSDN), 2) XP will continue to receive updates for many years (again, 2k receives updates to this day) and 3) MS support "instances" will still cover support for XP. Since you probably don't know, these instances come with all MSDN subscriptions (although they are limited), and additional instances can be purchased. When MS says they're discontinuing support, it mostly means they will no longer offer free end-user support. Losing free support for a desktop OS isn't as big a deal as some people would have you believe, because corporations already have paid support, and residential users don't use it all that much.

XP will be the de facto standard OS for corporation and home alike for many years to come.

goldenbrown
June 1st, 2008, 10:36 AM
You have to pay big bugs for Windows XP and ubuntu you recieved for free with a lot of
software to install for free

jimbosheep101
June 1st, 2008, 11:55 AM
one thing that i have found is that when i was dual booting with vista, was just how slow windows is compared to linux, also the fact that my anti-virus software kept slowing up my PC when ever scanning or getting updates. another really annoying thing about windows is that every time u want or need a program to do a particular job u almost always have to play for it. where as in linux every thing is free so u dont need to keep paying £30 every time u need a new peace of software..

thats why i went ahead and removed windows, and now i just use linux...

as for games linux does have some quite good games if u shop around.
but if u want windows games in linux. i would recommend crossover- games, u have to pay for it but, but it can run almost any windows game on linux

Barrucadu
June 1st, 2008, 01:20 PM
I just had to use my brothers brand new, 4GB RAM, 64-bit processor XP machine to play a movie as it is connected to the TV and moving my several years old, 1GB RAM 32-bit processor Arch machine would be a hassle.
I honestly can't believe how much slower his computer was than mine. I occasionally complain about the speed of my computer, which you would expect, it being about 7 years old. However, his computer, well, it took five minutes after the POST to finish loading everything (I timed it), and even then explorer crashed when I tried to browse my portable harddrive, and crashed again when I tried to right click the movie, and finally crashed again just after I selected "Open with VLC Media Player".
Of course, when I shut down the computer, I had error messages and processes not responding galore. It took at least three minutes to shut down the GUI.

trigsenior
June 1st, 2008, 01:38 PM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.


If it wasnt for the games I could dump windows entirely but i play games on a whim and I hate having to restart just to play it. I could get used to the complexity of it. Honestly though I dont think I will switch to full install of linux or even being first on the boot up list because of the fact that I have the exact same things on windows and linux.

To me this is the real reason that linux is not adopted by the mass public, theres really no reason to go over to linux if you have windows and a casual computer user. However I do think if you dont have an OS and dont plan on being a gamer you should use linux because it is a good system. I also think its perfect for schools/governments/large business because you wouldnt have the major problems a windows network environment has curious/dumb users.

i disagree the average user can't afford the latest porgames eg , Nero,
winamp , anti virus programes . Therefore people turn to torrents which often have viruses . This is one reson why linux is so virus free as people do not to turn to illegal means to get what they need.

Hanna_Jones
June 1st, 2008, 03:11 PM
You have to pay big bugs for Windows XP and ubuntu you recieved for free with a lot of
software to install for free

Slightly miss-guided post.

Your paying for an O/S to work "Out of the Box", your paying for ease of use, for hardware drivers, plug and play etc, etc. Yes you receive Ubuntu for free, but you also get loads of software with Windows.

The fact that your paying money for all things windows, means that there is investment to improve a product. Bill Gates never intended to write an OS, he states that he started out writing software programs. Plus people have only been able to hack windows not because its substandard, but because 85% of the PC users run Windows. So all the hackers know all the tricks to make a fast buck.

Linux only has less than 10% of the market share. So hardware makers really dont want to know. So some of the programs for linux are slow in getting upgraded to maybe a windows standard. In the office I work in we have sage, and theres no linux version, gnucash & kmymoney2 dont cut it. Who in linux has the money and the time to write an accounts package for linux that rivals sage ?

Im training to get into an IT dept, and as windows is the biggest then thats what we're trained on. Linux is in a catch 22 situation here, you need the hardware drivers to make it viable, plus you need serious time and money to get the real office software to compete with windows. Aim at the children of today who will be the executives of tomorrow.

Plus with Linux you have to open the hood and get your hands dirty, to get it upto the same working standard as windows. The linux ethos seems to be security and installing from repos etc. Whereas win you can install from anywhere, hence software from any source is bad news for viruses. I feel that only the really keen geek will do this sort of work to get linux working. Unless linux can provide free multimedia codecs etc, and have linux working "Out of the box" to the same standard as windows but in the linux way.

leandromartinez98
June 1st, 2008, 04:36 PM
The trouble that windows and MacOS are going to face is that the functionality of the software is already reaching a level were the average user does not need anything else. I mean, for example, that as an office suite the MS Office has already everything someone could imagine to do, except you are very specialized. It is true that in many aspects commercial applications are ahead free ones, but anyone that knew these free applications, and the overal user friendlyness of linux, five years ago, knows that the differences are being reduced very, very rapidly. I'm quite sure that in ten years every normal office/drawing jobs will be easily done with good free applications, in such a way that paying for alternatives will make no sense. For example, I used to need CorelDraw to do some graphics, but with the current Inkscape I can do everything I need, so I quited CorelDraw deffinivelly, even while I think it has other functionalities which I don't use. When the OOffice becomes as good as MSOffice (I don't think it is already), there will be no reason for buying the MS package. The same is valid for photoshop and gimp (for me gimp already is totally satisfactory, but I'm not a designer to further discuss that).

I mean, it is quite clear, for the fast evolution of the linux desktop (again, someone that used linux five or six year ago knows what I'm talking about) in terms of instalation, user interface, etc, that only people interested in specific functionalities, probably specialized ones, will be motivated to pay for a OS and its applications. For doing your home-work, surfing the internet, playing with photos and images, which is basically everything the home user wants to, free alternatives will be satisfactory very soon, if not already.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 05:23 PM
The ignorance in this thread is killing me.


i disagree the average user can't afford the latest porgames eg , Nero,
winamp , anti virus programes . Therefore people turn to torrents which often have viruses . This is one reson why linux is so virus free as people do not to turn to illegal means to get what they need. WInamps is free - has been for years - and there are tons of free burning and antivirus apps out there.


I just had to use my brothers brand new, 4GB RAM, 64-bit processor XP machine to play a movie as it is connected to the TV and moving my several years old, 1GB RAM 32-bit processor Arch machine would be a hassle.
I honestly can't believe how much slower his computer was than mine. I occasionally complain about the speed of my computer, which you would expect, it being about 7 years old. However, his computer, well, it took five minutes after the POST to finish loading everything (I timed it), and even then explorer crashed when I tried to browse my portable harddrive, and crashed again when I tried to right click the movie, and finally crashed again just after I selected "Open with VLC Media Player".
Of course, when I shut down the computer, I had error messages and processes not responding galore. It took at least three minutes to shut down the GUI.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I can boot into Ubuntu and this Vista 64 machine (Q6600, 4GB RAM), and they run at pretty much the same speed, and it'd be marginally faster if I still ran XP.

Also, it sounds like your brother doesn't know how to disable startup processes, or use a computer in general. I've never had XP crash that much on me, or really at all (aside from hardware issues).


When the OOffice becomes as good as MSOffice (I don't think it is already), there will be no reason for buying the MS package.Exchange integration will be a huge reason until OSS has an altergative.


The same is valid for photoshop and gimp (for me gimp already is totally satisfactory, but I'm not a designer to further discuss that). Paint.NET is a very good alternative on the Win side. Not sure if it runs on Mono yet though.


I mean, it is quite clear, for the fast evolution of the linux desktop (again, someone that used linux five or six year ago knows what I'm talking about) in terms of instalation, user interface, etc, that only people interested in specific functionalities, probably specialized ones, will be motivated to pay for a OS and its applications. For doing your home-work, surfing the internet, playing with photos and images, which is basically everything the home user wants to, free alternatives will be satisfactory very soon, if not already.
There is some truth in this, but the problem is that Linux has no market share or brand familiarity. Most computer users have no clue what Linux is, much less want to use it. And even less want to switch to some crazy moon OS they've never heard of that looks and feels different than what they're use it. Linux may have been getting better over the years, but it's still utterly failed at breaking out of its extremely niche role, and probably (if the market is any indication) won't ever do so, or at least not any time soon.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:42 PM
At least you openly identify yourself as a slashtroll.

NO.... I'm a binary man. I eat binaries for breakfast, instead of swallowing Microhard's cod liver oil.



IBM never had a corner on the desktop OS market, so I fail to see your point. And, as I pointed out earlier, MS isn't just selling OSes.

Also, IBM is doing quite well these days.

Lest you not forget OS2 Warp my friend. Now that was an interesting OS. Slayed by the Demon Gates with his spawn. IBM is doing great because of Linux, and SAAS.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:44 PM
to jb1:
And, don;t forget, Apple's OS X is "just another" Linux distro--not ready for the desktop, indeed. (Or would you argue that Apple "doesn't have a clue?") Also, I might point out that for a little known, almost completely unadvertised operating system to have a loyal following, wiling to sing its praises, in the face of a multitude of naysayers, for--how long was that? 16 years--speaks volumes. Hmmm, let's see; just who (besides Billy) has been out there singing the praises for Windows, and for how long? Fact is, I don't know anybody who sings the praises of Windows, I do know plenty of people, who are pretty much stuck using it, who bitch and complain about it nearly constantly. Is there a group of people (who actually use Linux), who constantly criticize and complain about it? I don't think so. You can fantasize all you want, but VISTA, coupled with Microsoft's refusal to extend support for XP, has rung the death knell for Windows. I do agree that MS will be with us for a while to come, but not as the dominant force in the OS marketplace.


Amen Brotha. You hit it right on the nail.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:49 PM
Whatever happened to PC-DOS that ran on early IBM x86 machines and upon which MS-DOS was based? Oh, that's right, Microsoft was involved in that, and PC-DOS was in turn was partly based on CP/M......

PC-DOS was bought by Gates for a bag of peanuts back in the beginning. Why do you think they ended up in Seattle, Wash.? Windows is an extension of PC-DOS. When you click on an icon in Winblows, the PC-DOS takes over behind the scenes. Just like typing commands in a Linux Terminal. Except Linux is free. Winblows is not.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 05:52 PM
NO.... I'm a binary man. I eat binaries for breakfast, instead of swallowing Microhard's cod liver oil.I'm a bit mover myself, but I'm a tad too old to take juvenile swipes at products by altering their names. That just sounds like /. fanboyism.


Lest you not forget OS2 Warp my friend. Now that was an interesting OS. Slayed by the Demon Gates with his spawn. IBM is doing great because of Linux, and SAAS.
Lest you read threads my friend.


PC-DOS was a joint venture, so I fail to see your point. MS didn't come in and steal the app if that's what you're trying to suggest.

At no point did IBM ever have a corner on the desktop OS market. Even OS/2 was a joint venture with MS.

IBM is doing great because of their hardware, SAN systems, mainframe OSs/support and SAAS.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:52 PM
I just had to use my brothers brand new, 4GB RAM, 64-bit processor XP machine to play a movie as it is connected to the TV and moving my several years old, 1GB RAM 32-bit processor Arch machine would be a hassle.
I honestly can't believe how much slower his computer was than mine. I occasionally complain about the speed of my computer, which you would expect, it being about 7 years old. However, his computer, well, it took five minutes after the POST to finish loading everything (I timed it), and even then explorer crashed when I tried to browse my portable harddrive, and crashed again when I tried to right click the movie, and finally crashed again just after I selected "Open with VLC Media Player".
Of course, when I shut down the computer, I had error messages and processes not responding galore. It took at least three minutes to shut down the GUI.

You didn't get the BSOD?

leandromartinez98
June 1st, 2008, 05:53 PM
There is some truth in this, but the problem is that Linux has no market share or brand familiarity. Most computer users have no clue what Linux is, much less want to use it. And even less want to switch to some crazy moon OS they've never heard of that looks and feels different than what they're use it. Linux may have been getting better over the years, but it's still utterly failed at breaking out of its extremely niche role, and probably (if the market is any indication) won't ever do so, or at least not any time soon.

This is were probably public insititutions will probably take place. I can't imagine a public school paying for windows and office when free alternatives exist and are fully satisfactory. In that case, students will get familiarized with free software, which is not that hard anyway.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:54 PM
Plus with Linux you have to open the hood and get your hands dirty, to get it upto the same working standard as windows. The linux ethos seems to be security and installing from repos etc. Whereas win you can install from anywhere, hence software from any source is bad news for viruses. I feel that only the really keen geek will do this sort of work to get linux working. Unless linux can provide free multimedia codecs etc, and have linux working "Out of the box" to the same standard as windows but in the linux way.

That's the point. If You Build It, They Will Come!

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 05:56 PM
This is were probably public insititutions will probably take place. I can't imagine a public school paying for windows and office when free alternatives exist and are fully satisfactory. In that case, students will get familiarized with free software, which is not that hard anyway.
Academic institutions receive heavy discounts on volume licensing. The discounts are so large that the cost at least parallels that of RHEL or SLES enterprise support, if it's not lower.

There is also MSDNAA which allows them to offer OSs and Office, Visual Studio etc to students for free or the price of the media it's issued on. Back in grad school I paid $10 for XP Pro and Office XP.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 05:59 PM
I'm a bit mover myself, but I'm a tad too old to take juvenile swipes at products by altering their names. That just sounds like /. fanboyism.


It's called HATE and Disgust my friend. Sick and tired of losing hard earned work. In Linux I can fix anything I choose with the swipe a of code. In Winhard, if it installs incorrectly..... you have to un-install, and do it again. Causing destruction to the precious registry.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 06:02 PM
Academic institutions get heavy discounts on volume licensing. There is also MSDNAA which allows them to offer OSs and Office, Visual Studio etc to students for free or the price of the media it's issued on. Back in grad school I paid $10 for XP Pro and Office XP.

Why would you be here discussing Winhard on a Linux Forum anyways. They have plenty of Winblows forums that you can pat each other on the back for a job well done.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 06:16 PM
It's called HATE and Disgust my friend. Sick and tired of losing hard earned work. In Linux I can fix anything I choose with the swipe a of code. In Winhard, if it installs incorrectly..... you have to un-install, and do it again. Causing destruction to the precious registry.PEBKAC

If my parents can run XP without any issues, a "Binary guy" (which I can only assume means you fancy yourself a developer) should be able to as well. I would completely understand if you just said you preferred Linux, but all this "lulz M$ sux lulz" rhetoric makes it really hard for anyone sensible to take you seriously.

Why would you be here discussing Winhard on a Linux Forum anyways. They have plenty of Winblows forums that you can pat each other on the back for a job well done.
I believe you should ask the OP this, not me. I'm simply participating. I really have no brand loyalty though, as I'm a huge fan of simply using what works. The amount of ignorance and FUD int his thread just amazes me.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 1st, 2008, 06:22 PM
with Linux you have to open the hood and get your hands dirty, to get it upto the same working standard as windows. The linux ethos seems to be security and installing from repos etc. Whereas win you can install from anywhere, hence software from any source is bad news for viruses.

If you actually want to run Windows cleanly and fast you got to get hands dirty there too. Of course you don't use command line as much, but you got to get a lot of tools.

And yeah btw, my Windows is running faster than my Ubuntu, sadly.
It's just I've been with Win a lot, so I know some tricks to make it faster. Don't know as much for Ubuntu (Linux), yet.

I also kind of like installing from repos, makes you life a lots easier. You can check for updates for all of you software in the same place.
But, if you need, Compiling SVN source is a bit of hassle.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 06:30 PM
PEBKAC

If my parents can run XP without any issues, a "Binary guy" (which I can only assume means you fancy yourself a developer) should be able to as well. I would completely understand if you just said you preferred Linux, but all this "lulz M$ sux lulz" rhetoric makes it really hard for anyone sensible to take you seriously.


People fear most what they don't understand. For each his own. You can take the low road, and I'll take the high road. Doesn't matter because we all will get there. Maybe not at the same time.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 06:32 PM
I also kind of like installing from repos, makes you life a lots easier. You can check for updates for all of you software in the same place.
But, if you need, Compiling SVN source is a bit of hassle.


It's only a hassle at the beginning. Once you understand how it works, and what to do.... it won't be a hassle anymore. It's like riding a bike my friend.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 06:37 PM
People fear most what they don't understand. For each his own. You can take the low road, and I'll take the high road. Doesn't matter because we all will get there. Maybe not at the same time.
Yeah, it's obvious that I just don't understand, even though I was a UNIX SA for years, and use *nix apps (iperf, syslog, nmap etc) on a day to day basis.

My home file server would also like to have a word with you.


# uname -a
SunOS spice 5.11 snv_86 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
# zpool list raid
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
raid 3.41T 746G 2.68T 21% ONLINE -


I've already said that *nix has it's place, it's just not on the desktop of the average user's (who neither knows what CLI is nor wants to.) desktop.

*nix is also severely lacking in alternatives to AD + Exchange + Outlook + integrated Office + WinMobile/BES. Anyone that's ever been in corporate IT would know this though.

leandromartinez98
June 1st, 2008, 07:22 PM
Academic institutions receive heavy discounts on volume licensing. The discounts are so large that the cost at least parallels that of RHEL or SLES enterprise support, if it's not lower.

There is also MSDNAA which allows them to offer OSs and Office, Visual Studio etc to students for free or the price of the media it's issued on. Back in grad school I paid $10 for XP Pro and Office XP.

That's another point. So MS is feeling the pressure to make their
own software free as well... That's competition!

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 07:50 PM
Yeah, it's obvious that I just don't understand, even though I was a UNIX SA for years, and use *nix apps (iperf, syslog, nmap etc) on a day to day basis.

I've used the old At&t Unix/Xenix/FreeBSD/Suse/ and Sparc's at work for 28 years. I just liked the fact I could come home, and get on my Cookie cutter Windows setup. Take a break from work, but when the Demon's Spawn destroyed my Windblows setup. I was pi**ed off! I nurtured that setup since Win 95. Upgraded it all the way to Windows Ultimate, and it kicked me in the pants. SP1 is a joke.


My home file server would also like to have a word with you.


# uname -a
SunOS spice 5.11 snv_86 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris
# zpool list raid
NAME SIZE USED AVAIL CAP HEALTH ALTROOT
raid 3.41T 746G 2.68T 21% ONLINE -


I've already said that *nix has it's place, it's just not on the desktop of the average user's (who neither knows what CLI is nor wants to.) desktop.

*nix is also severely lacking in alternatives to AD + Exchange + Outlook + integrated Office + WinMobile/BES. Anyone that's ever been in corporate IT would know this though.

Nice..... I've got two 8 terabyte disk arrays on my system. I don't go no where without them.

Unix_Slayer
June 1st, 2008, 07:52 PM
That's another point. So MS is feeling the pressure to make their
own software free as well... That's competition!

Microhard teases you, but never gives away anything without a buck.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 08:11 PM
That's another point. So MS is feeling the pressure to make their
own software free as well... That's competition!
This is no more a point or evidence of pressure to offer free software/services than ILECs offering academia $100/yr PRIs or at/below-cost dark fiber is. Academia just gets extremely large discounts by merit of being an educational institute.


Microhard teases you, but never gives away anything without a buck.
Generally, this is true; they are a commercial vendor after all. But you can get free (non trial) versions of their software by going to certain conferences. A recent example of this is the Heroes Happen Here (http://www.microsoft.com/heroeshappenhere/default.mspx) conference.

Barrucadu
June 1st, 2008, 08:17 PM
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I can boot into Ubuntu and this Vista 64 machine (Q6600, 4GB RAM), and they run at pretty much the same speed, and it'd be marginally faster if I still ran XP.

Also, it sounds like your brother doesn't know how to disable startup processes, or use a computer in general. I've never had XP crash that much on me, or really at all (aside from hardware issues).

My brother knows how to use a computer, but not to maintain it. He tends to download and install anything, resulting in great instability, huge numbers of viruses, and the speed of a tortoise. Also, I mentioned Arch, not Ubuntu. I have never managed to get Ubuntu running as fast as Arch.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 08:37 PM
My brother knows how to use a computer, but not to maintain it. He tends to download and install anything, resulting in great instability, huge numbers of viruses, and the speed of a tortoise. Also, I mentioned Arch, not Ubuntu. I have never managed to get Ubuntu running as fast as Arch.
Well that explains it. :)

Fair enough on the Arch comment though, I've never actually used it.

Frak
June 1st, 2008, 08:49 PM
to jb1:
And, don;t forget, Apple's OS X is "just another" Linux distro--not ready for the desktop, indeed. (Or would you argue that Apple "doesn't have a clue?") Also, I might point out that for a little known, almost completely unadvertised operating system to have a loyal following, wiling to sing its praises, in the face of a multitude of naysayers, for--how long was that? 16 years--speaks volumes. Hmmm, let's see; just who (besides Billy) has been out there singing the praises for Windows, and for how long? Fact is, I don't know anybody who sings the praises of Windows, I do know plenty of people, who are pretty much stuck using it, who bitch and complain about it nearly constantly. Is there a group of people (who actually use Linux), who constantly criticize and complain about it? I don't think so. You can fantasize all you want, but VISTA, coupled with Microsoft's refusal to extend support for XP, has rung the death knell for Windows. I do agree that MS will be with us for a while to come, but not as the dominant force in the OS marketplace.

1. OS X is based on BSD. It is comprised of fully FOSS parts while incorporating some very few proprietary parts.
2. If its "not ready for the desktop" why is Apple turning over record profits over Microsoft's dwindling Vista sales?
3. These are Linux Zealots. People need to come to conclusion that every OS has issues and Linux is in NO way an exception. It even more problems than others (albeit not all the fault of the developers, but those who refuse to support Linux).
4. Yes, there is a website out there called Linsux that originates on Linux flaws that people seem to ignore as if it didn't exist.
5. True, this is why more and more enterprises are switching to Linux servers with OS X workstations.
6. Microsoft is a strong competitor. They can mince words and make dirt look like gold, so don't think they are going too let themselves lose to quickly.

/rant

athaki
June 1st, 2008, 08:51 PM
I don't use XP because I gave up my license to it when I upgraded to Vista and I dislike all the restrictions Vista does to your freedom so I went to Ubuntu where if I had the ability I could look at the source code and modify/fix any errors it might make to my system.

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 09:51 PM
At no point did IBM ever have a corner on the desktop OS market. Even OS/2 was a joint venture with MS. That's right, OS2 was (past tense) a joint venture with Microsoft--until IBM sued to have the contract dissolved, due to "ethical differences" with Bill Gates (same reason Paul Allen left Microsoft, years before). Once they parted ways, OS2 was ready for prime time, spit and polished, shrink wrapped and on the shelf at your local Egg Head store, and, having used it for years (to develop Windows apps, because Windows was just too unstable to use as a development environment), I can tell you, OS2 was one hellofa fine OS. It's only because IBM never learned how to sell to the average Joe, and couldn't gather enough evidence to file a Fair Trade law suit against Microsoft for its stranglehold on computer manufacturers (sell so much as a single PC, without packaging a Microsoft OS with it, and we'll yank your bulk licensing agreement, causing you to have to pay so much for each copy of Windows, you'll lose your ability to be competitive--I don't know if that constitutes a simple Fair Trade violation, or outright blackmail--but it's pretty desperate lengths for a company to go to, if they actually have "the best" product). At the same time, while OS2 was used by a significant number of entities, with mission-critical requirements (e.g., Banks, Hospitals, most ATM machines ran OS2, software developers, who didn't want to be bothered with the BSOD every time a bug in a development project crashed the program [under OS2, all you had to do was close the window you were testing the program in, and continue with business as usual], etc), NT remained hype and vaporware for two years (maybe more, I didn't keep track, because I was using OS2). And when it did finally come out, it was a stinking heap of... well I'll leave it at that, with it's absolute dependence on systems being comprised only of components listed on its infamous Hardware Compatibility List, and its ruthless [ab]use of users as (unknowing) Beta testers. As I recall, it was at least another year before setting up a [stable] NT system was anything less than frustrating to the point of wanting to go get your old Louisville Slugger, and have at the thing. Again, I'm not sure of the time line, because it was irrelevant to me--I was happily working on projects, instead of working on my system, because I was using OS2. (IBM's failure to effectively market OS2 is perhaps the worst thing to have happened to the PC user community since MS-DOS opened the "Gates" of Hell.)

BTW, I have to ask, if Windows is all you say it is, and Linux is all you say it isn't, why are you so vehemently defending Windows on a Linux forum? Alas my friend, "me thinks thou doth protest too much."

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 09:56 PM
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to use paragraphs if you expect me to read that.



BTW, I have to ask, if Windows is all you say it is, and Linux is all you say it isn't, why are you so vehemently defending Windows on a Linux forum? Alas my friend, "me thinks thou doth protest too much."I came here to ask a legitimate question, saw this thread, and decided to offer my opinion. Since then I've stuck around simply because the amount of ignorance and FUD coming from some people in this thread is astonishing.

Also, I've neither said that Windows is perfect (no software is), nor that Linux is useless. Both have their places, which is the point I've tried to convey over and over (and yet seems to get lost on the zealots).

id1337x
June 1st, 2008, 09:58 PM
Interestingly Steve Wozniak who is the brains behind Apple and the personal computer was a hobbyist and he gave away his code and the spec for his parts for free at first until Steve Jobs came around and told him to keep them for the sake of business purposes. Steve Jobs actually helped to destroy the "Open Philosophy" of the hackers and the hobbyists before Bill Gates did. In reality Bill Gates didn't do much for himself his whole thing was imitated from Steve Jobs.

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 10:22 PM
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to use paragraphs if you expect me to read that. That's right, OS2 was (past tense) a joint venture with Microsoft--until IBM sued to have the contract dissolved, due to "ethical differences" with Bill Gates (same reason Paul Allen left Microsoft, years before).

Once they parted ways, OS2 was ready for prime time, spit and polished, shrink wrapped and on the shelf at your local Egg Head store, and, having used it for years (to develop Windows apps, because Windows was just too unstable to use as a development environment), I can tell you, OS2 was one hellofa fine OS. It's only because IBM never learned how to sell to the average Joe, and couldn't gather enough evidence to file a Fair Trade law suit against Microsoft for its stranglehold on computer manufacturers (sell so much as a single PC, without packaging a Microsoft OS with it, and we'll yank your bulk licensing agreement, causing you to have to pay so much for each copy of Windows, you'll lose your ability to be competitive--I don't know if that constitutes a simple Fair Trade violation, or outright blackmail--but it's pretty desperate lengths for a company to go to, if they actually have "the best" product).

At the same time, while OS2 was used by a significant number of entities, with mission-critical requirements (e.g., Banks, Hospitals, most ATM machines ran OS2, software developers, who didn't want to be bothered with the BSOD every time a bug in a development project crashed the program [under OS2, all you had to do was close the window you were testing the program in, and continue with business as usual], etc), NT remained hype and vaporware for two years (maybe more, I didn't keep track, because I was using OS2). And when it did finally come out, it was a stinking heap of... well I'll leave it at that, with it's absolute dependence on systems being comprised only of components listed on its infamous Hardware Compatibility List, and its ruthless [ab]use of users as (unknowing) Beta testers.

As I recall, it was at least another year before setting up a [stable] NT system was anything less than frustrating to the point of wanting to go get your old Louisville Slugger, and have at the thing. Again, I'm not sure of the time line, because it was irrelevant to me--I was happily working on projects, instead of working on my system, because I was using OS2. (IBM's failure to effectively market OS2 is perhaps the worst thing to have happened to the PC user community since MS-DOS opened the "Gates" of Hell.)

(Is that better?)

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 10:44 PM
Interestingly Steve Wozniak who is the brains behind Apple and the personal computer was a hobbyist and he gave away his code and the spec for his parts for free at first until Steve Jobs came around and told him to keep them for the sake of business purposes. Steve Jobs actually helped to destroy the "Open Philosophy" of the hackers and the hobbyists before Bill Gates did. In reality Bill Gates didn't do much for himself his whole thing was imitated from Steve Jobs. Actually, I give credit for the entire desktop PC revolution to Dan Bricklin, who wrote the first true application, in the form of VisiCalc (the Grandfather of all spreadsheets), which ran first on the Apple II. It wasn't entirely by choice, but the fact stands that Bricklin neither pursued a patent nor a copyright for VisiCalc, allowing it to fall into public domain, and making it the first open source product in the PC world. In fact, the complete source code was, for a time, included, as an example, in Bourland's 'C' compiler. It seems the pioneers of the computer revolution tended towards the "open" model, but were overruled when businessmen became involved, and raced to secure and defend "the bottom line".

bilijoe
June 1st, 2008, 10:59 PM
I've neither said that Windows is perfect (no software is), nor that Linux is useless. Both have their places, which is the point I've tried to convey over and over (and yet seems to get lost on the zealots). Might I suggest that those you describe as "zealots" are simply persons with a passion for something they strongly believe in, and, because it is not getting much respect from [most of] the main stream, they feel the need to defend it. The term "zealot" is somewhat inflammatory, and may be contributing to the failure to recognize the wisdom of your statement, which I have quoted above. Perhaps, if we could all tone down our rhetoric a little, this thread might evolve into a useful discussion, rather than the mud-slinging mele' it seems to have become.

Just a thought.

jb1
June 1st, 2008, 11:35 PM
(Is that better?)
Yes, and I appreciate the effort. However, you have not really refuted my point, which was that IBM never had a corner on the desktop market. OS/2 started as a joint venture, and ended with each company going its separate way. The only difference is that MS did what needed to be done in order to corner the market, while IBM stagnated.

The study of free-market economics teaches us that corporations cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. We saw this with Bell, and we've seen it with MS. Both were taken down a notch, and competition exists in both markets now. What you're skirting is the fact that Linux, and OSS in general, has simply failed to step up to the plate when it comes to garnering support, brand familiarity or market share. This is largely due to failures in the OSS philosophy, community and the way OSS devs tend to jump from one new and cool project to the next, never really polishing anything. This is not the fault of MS's business tactics; they did exactly what a corporation can be expected to do.

The point I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that Linux's failings are largely due to the community. I've also tried to point out areas where Linux is lacking in the corporate world, specifically directory services/email/mobile integration. THIS is what's hurting Linux currently, yet the Linux community refuses to acknowledge it and instead simply takes swipes at "the big bad corporate machine" while playing the victim. This has been going on for some 16 years.

Linux exists in a niche bubble, and while it does these jobs well, it hasn't been able to branch out. This is not MS's fault.

Your rant about early Windows is also outdated by some 20 years. Their modern OSes are fairly stable, and used in more corporate and home environment than not, because they work and are familiar to users. This is the major hurdle Linux will need to overcome if it's to be taken seriously. Offering services that compete with AD, Exchange, Outlook/Office, WinMobile/BES etc is the other. Standardization and coherency between distros would be another major hurdle.


Might I suggest that those you describe as "zealots" are simply persons with a passion for something they strongly believe in, and, because it is not getting much respect from [most of] the main stream, they feel the need to defend it. The term "zealot" is somewhat inflammatory, and may be contributing to the failure to recognize the wisdom of your statement, which I have quoted above. Perhaps, if we could all tone down our rhetoric a little, this thread might evolve into a useful discussion, rather than the mud-slinging mele' it seems to have become.

Just a thought.
I do not see how my use of the term is unwarranted. If you're going to act like a fanatical partisan, then you should be ready to take the criticism that comes with your actions like an adult.

Also, respect is earned in business, not granted as a concession. I completely understand your backing of Linux, but you have to understand that there is a reason Linux as is not seen as ready for the desktop - and it is not because "M$" is out to get you.

That said, I would not argue with cutting the rhetoric or sensationalism.

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 02:05 AM
This is no more a point or evidence of pressure to offer free software/services than ILECs offering academia $100/yr PRIs or at/below-cost dark fiber is. Academia just gets extremely large discounts by merit of being an educational institute.


Generally, this is true; they are a commercial vendor after all. But you can get free (non trial) versions of their software by going to certain conferences. A recent example of this is the Heroes Happen Here (http://www.microsoft.com/heroeshappenhere/default.mspx) conference.

Let them give me a full copy of Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and I might change my mind. Slightly....

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 02:08 AM
I don't use XP because I gave up my license to it when I upgraded to Vista and I dislike all the restrictions Vista does to your freedom so I went to Ubuntu where if I had the ability I could look at the source code and modify/fix any errors it might make to my system.

See ... now this person knows what they are talking about. No more rule without representation. And Taxation.... and... and... more Looney Tunes for everyone.

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 02:10 AM
BTW, I have to ask, if Windows is all you say it is, and Linux is all you say it isn't, why are you so vehemently defending Windows on a Linux forum? Alas my friend, "me thinks thou doth protest too much."

Me thinks so too. OS/2 Warp was a great operating system. It was not given the chance to grow.

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 02:13 AM
Might I suggest that those you describe as "zealots" are simply persons with a passion for something they strongly believe in, and, because it is not getting much respect from [most of] the main stream, they feel the need to defend it. The term "zealot" is somewhat inflammatory, and may be contributing to the failure to recognize the wisdom of your statement, which I have quoted above. Perhaps, if we could all tone down our rhetoric a little, this thread might evolve into a useful discussion, rather than the mud-slinging mele' it seems to have become.

Just a thought.

How about we call them prophets?

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 02:15 AM
The point I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that Linux's failings are largely due to the community. I've also tried to point out areas where Linux is lacking in the corporate world, specifically directory services/email/mobile integration. THIS is what's hurting Linux currently, yet the Linux community refuses to acknowledge it and instead simply takes swipes at "the big bad corporate machine" while playing the victim. This has been going on for some 16 years.

Linux exists in a niche bubble, and while it does these jobs well, it hasn't been able to branch out. This is not MS's fault.

How about we all go and buy a Ford Focus. Then we can all drive a Ford Focus. Would make the car market more uniformed I think. Wouldn't that be nice?

jb1
June 2nd, 2008, 02:31 AM
Let them give me a full copy of Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit, and I might change my mind. Slightly....
I have coworkers that got full versions of server 2k8, Vista Ultimate 64, Visual Studio and SQL Server 2k8 at HHH this year. Granted, the licenses are restricted to non-commercial use, but they are full versions.


How about we all go and buy a Ford Focus. Then we can all drive a Ford Focus. Would make the car market more uniformed I think. Wouldn't that be nice?
I'll stick with my G37, thanks. :)

Juleshu
June 2nd, 2008, 02:39 AM
I'm sorry you've had a sour experience with Ubuntu, but I think it comes down to the expectations you had coming in. It's simply not reasonable to think that every proprietary piece of software out there written for Windows or OS X will work in Linux. Yes, other music players may be different and I too like to use iTunes, but you have to be open to new ways of doing things. This also applies to your comment about simple tasks taking hours to do in Linux. I have no clue what you're talking about, but I can think of no examples I've run into.

Also, there isn't a version of peerguardian for Linux, so you're obviously making a statement about it being difficult without having tried. On top of that, there isn't a version for Vista either, so your argument doesn't have much weight.

I know windows software is not going to work in Linux. I know peerguardian doesn't exist in ubuntu. You have to use iptables via moblock. I know peerguardian hadn't come out with a vista version yet. What I'm really saying is that the software that ubuntu has is far more difficult to get working than it's windows equivalent. Take Amarok for instance. It's a great program, but I can't let it automatically add songs by rating, and it does not let my ipod ratings get transferred to it. Volume normalization requires me to unpack a tarball for a program, with no documentation, that apparently everyone but me in the ubuntu universe knows how to use because no one will tell me how to use it. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out how to rip a CD to MP3 using it. In Itunes, I put the cd in, it converts it to whatever MP3 specs I want. Done. It takes seconds. I shouldn't have to spend hours trying to figure this out in ubuntu. I searched and found there's a scipt called amakode, but I don't know how to use it, because there is no documentation for it. I'm just supposed to know how to use it. And burning a CD? I have to install some other application and get it to interface with amarok (K3b) but I can't get this to work either.

I'll give you one very easy example. Take temperature sensors for instance. To install this, I have to perform the following operations:
http://www.techthrob.com/tech/linuxsensors.php
That's 7 commands, and 4 steps I have to do. Windows? Just install a simple cpu sensors program that takes about 30 seconds to do.

Peerguardian: run it, update the block list.

Moblock: Run it. Oops, now I don't have internet access. Search. Finally find out that I have to edit the moblock config. file to whitelist outgoing traffic on my IP. Do you really think the average person knows how to do this? No, they don't. Then Moblock still blocks half the legitimate websites I go to, and to turn it off? Well you have to run a command in terminal. Windows? Simple right click on it, click disable, it's done. All of these little things may sound simple to you, you may know how to do all this stuff and set it up, you may think it's not a big deal to have to execute multiple commands in terminal and configure everything, but for me, it takes time. I stare at a computer screen all day at work, I don't have time to come home and do it for hours to try and figure out how to do mundane tasks I can do in seconds in windows. I could be working and making an extra $100 in the time it takes me to try and figure out some retarded problem in ubuntu. There isn't sufficient documentation out there to tell me how to do things, I have to search for it. I search for things for a living as well. It's my job. I still can't find answers to my questions regarding Ubunbtu.


Hardy heron is a much better OS though. I still can't do half the things I can do in windows. I had a sweet custom desktop with a nice emerald theme, custom fonts and everything for about 5 days. I turned my computer on a couple days after setting all this up and my panel menu freezes, goes blank, and the whole OS freezes. I couldn't fix it, so I had to re-install everything. Windows has never done this to me and I've been using MS products since dos came out and my only contact with the computer world was through a local BBS and a 2800 baud modem.

So yeah, I don't like ubuntu. When I'm bored though and feel like problem solving, I'll mess around with it though. But someone like me shouldn't have this much trouble getting things to work in ubuntu. It's nerve wracking.

pbpersson
June 2nd, 2008, 03:08 AM
When I'm bored though and feel like problem solving, I'll mess around with it though. But someone like me shouldn't have this much trouble getting things to work in ubuntu. It's nerve wracking.

SO.....key question.....when you spend days figuring something out, are you documenting it and putting it on the web somewhere so other people have a road map to follow?

Or.....is every single person who travels this way re-inventing the wheel? If so, that is the larger tragedy in my mind.

Is there a community wiki where everyone on the planet can document their individual journeys through the dark unknown corridors of Ubuntu or does every single person on the planet need to be an intrepid pioneer without the benefit of the knowledge of those who have passed that way before them?

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 03:20 AM
I have coworkers that got full versions of server 2k8, Vista Ultimate 64, Visual Studio and SQL Server 2k8 at HHH this year. Granted, the licenses are restricted to non-commercial use, but they are full versions.

I've got quite a few MS certifications myself. I've received all of the above as well, still I am not impressed.



I'll stick with my G37, thanks. :)


I'll stick with my M3. http://mysite.verizon.net/mgm_mgm/bmw.jpg What's a G37 anyways? http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/free-animated-emoticons/smiley_54.gifhttp://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/Violence/Violence_17.gifhttp://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/Violence/Violence_22.gifhttp://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/anger/Colere_18.gifhttp://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/anger/Colere_8.gif

jb1
June 2nd, 2008, 03:46 AM
I've got quite a few MS certifications myself. I've received all of the above as well, still I am not impressed.What? I'm talking about software, not certs.


What's a G37 anyways?
http://www.infiniti.com/g_coupe/index.html

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 03:52 AM
What? I'm talking about software, not certs.

Have both.



http://www.infiniti.com/g_coupe/index.html


Ahhh... You should have just said Infiniti. http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/pensive/pensif_3.gifhttp://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/animated-emoticons/smiley_19.gif

novatotal
June 2nd, 2008, 04:34 AM
Actually, I kind of see where the threadstarter is coming from. For the average desktop user, Windows really does work better. However, for a power user like me, someone who wants configurability, features, and isn't afraid to tackle problems, it's great!

Linux is like opening up the hood of your car. Don't you want to know how your car works on the inside? Well, most people (such as the threadstarter) don't care about such things, they just want to push on the gas pedal and go somewhere. Linux, on the other hand, is about opening the hood and tinkering with your mechanical parts, checking the oil and transmission fluid levels, and maybe replacing a fan belt. While the typical Windows user panics when something goes wrong, then pays a monkey from Microsoft to Remote Desktop into their computer and fix the problem, Linux is all about more power to the user. Obviously, with more power comes more responsibility, which is something 95% of computer users aren't ready for.

EDIT: Oh, and to those who say that Windows is more vulnerable, yes, it is, most definitely. However, I think a lot of people exaggerate how vulnerable Windows really is. So long as you are smart about what you download, use a good firewall and anti-virus protection, and actually use your brain, you will not get infected. Now, when I say you need to be "smart," that includes disabling unneeded Windows Services, making some registry modifications, blocking vulnerable ports with a firewall (139 and 445 for example), using a standard User account, and not using foolish software such as Limewire. Yes, Windows will take about a day to get installed and secured properly, but so long as the person who is using it isn't a complete moron, you are usually pretty safe. I went for about a year without suffering from virus or spyware infection, and that was just with a periodic scan, no active anti-virus software.
Actually, I kind of see where the threadstarter is coming from. For the average desktop user, Windows really does work better. However, for a power user like me, someone who wants configurability, features, and isn't afraid to tackle problems, it's great!

Linux is like opening up the hood of your car. Don't you want to know how your car works on the inside? Well, most people (such as the threadstarter) don't care about such things, they just want to push on the gas pedal and go somewhere. Linux, on the other hand, is about opening the hood and tinkering with your mechanical parts, checking the oil and transmission fluid levels, and maybe replacing a fan belt. While the typical Windows user panics when something goes wrong, then pays a monkey from Microsoft to Remote Desktop into their computer and fix the problem, Linux is all about more power to the user. Obviously, with more power comes more responsibility, which is something 95% of computer users aren't ready for.

EDIT: Oh, and to those who say that Windows is more vulnerable, yes, it is, most definitely. However, I think a lot of people exaggerate how vulnerable Windows really is. So long as you are smart about what you download, use a good firewall and anti-virus protection, and actually use your brain, you will not get infected. Now, when I say you need to be "smart," that includes disabling unneeded Windows Services, making some registry modifications, blocking vulnerable ports with a firewall (139 and 445 for example), using a standard User account, and not using foolish software such as Limewire. Yes, Windows will take about a day to get installed and secured properly, but so long as the person who is using it isn't a complete moron, you are usually pretty safe. I went for about a year without suffering from virus or spyware infection, and that was just with a periodic scan, no active anti-virus software.

beg to difer from you, a normal user does not know how to secure ports or even what a port is leave alone wich ones should he look, for true a little smarts and chances off getting viruses are slim but no were near to zero
so any os that, does not give you that trouble is better, also antiviruses cost and need constant updates, and even then you are at risc of a new virus,trojan or what ever. so long live linux long live ubuntu
WHYMY TAXESGO TO MR GATES BANK ACOOUNT?

spoonmason
June 2nd, 2008, 04:36 AM
and really come on, u cant even change the color of the taskbar in xp. like thats not a personal computer.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::


Well said. Simply put... the basic, most logical reason for using Linux (any distro) is the 'custom built' factor. It is a person computer, why not be able to do what you want. AND ITS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it was free to get a custom built motorcycle, even if you had to learn to build it yourself, then who wouldn't have one?!?!?! I love mac for what they do but I have to say even if I had a mac I would still miss ubuntu!!!


THANK YOU TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT HELP US LEARN!!!!

spoonmason
June 2nd, 2008, 04:39 AM
oh yeah and :-({|= this is for vista... a tragidy they didn't make it right... but it is windows... ](*,)

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 05:00 AM
oh yeah and :-({|= this is for vista... a tragidy they didn't make it right... but it is windows... ](*,)


So truly said my friend. http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/confusion/Confus_84.gif


As for VISTA ==> http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/confusion/Confus_86.gif

pbpersson
June 2nd, 2008, 05:15 AM
The fact of the matter is, there are now three different scenarios in the Ubuntu world:

1. The tools are graphical - you find them in Synaptic or whatever package manager you use, you install them, and they are in the menu. It is all intuitive and much better than Windows. KStars is an example - a desktop planetarium. Highly impressive, free, and easy to install.

2. Clunky stuff - like I wanted to convert TiVo format movies and burn them to DVDs. It was all command line, I had to do some research, the documentation did not quite work for me, I had to download two or three different utilities but I got it all to work.

3. Stuff that has only been attempted by developers - they got it to work and left some hieroglyphic nonsense for documentation - "this is how I did it" - and 12 months from now even THEY will not understand what the heck they wrote. :o

Therein lies the problem from my point of view. I am hoping we can get more developers that can understand this stuff and actually type documentation in English so the rest of the planet can understand it but I know that is a tall order.

In the meantime, every month more items in category 3 eventually find their way into category 2 as more people put wikis out there. It is the category 2.5 brains that are doing it - they read the category 3 instructions, have enough smarts to figure it out, and they say, "Gee, these instructions should be more clear!" :)

FFighter
June 2nd, 2008, 05:30 AM
At the time? Anti-aliased mouse cursor, of course. Now Vista also got one... after I decide which one is prettier, I will conclude which OS will rule my HD.

elgilicious
June 2nd, 2008, 05:38 AM
I've installed Ubuntu on four different computers with drastically varying configurations, and it has worked like gangbusters on them all. Lightning doesn't strike four times, so obviously the OS is a winner.

I often compare people who besmirch Linux in favor of Windows to victims of abuse: they would rather remain with the abuser because they don't know the social service worker nearly as well.

Frak
June 2nd, 2008, 05:40 AM
Yes, and I appreciate the effort. However, you have not really refuted my point, which was that IBM never had a corner on the desktop market. OS/2 started as a joint venture, and ended with each company going its separate way. The only difference is that MS did what needed to be done in order to corner the market, while IBM stagnated.

The study of free-market economics teaches us that corporations cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. We saw this with Bell, and we've seen it with MS. Both were taken down a notch, and competition exists in both markets now. What you're skirting is the fact that Linux, and OSS in general, has simply failed to step up to the plate when it comes to garnering support, brand familiarity or market share. This is largely due to failures in the OSS philosophy, community and the way OSS devs tend to jump from one new and cool project to the next, never really polishing anything. This is not the fault of MS's business tactics; they did exactly what a corporation can be expected to do.

The point I've tried to convey throughout this thread is that Linux's failings are largely due to the community. I've also tried to point out areas where Linux is lacking in the corporate world, specifically directory services/email/mobile integration. THIS is what's hurting Linux currently, yet the Linux community refuses to acknowledge it and instead simply takes swipes at "the big bad corporate machine" while playing the victim. This has been going on for some 16 years.

Linux exists in a niche bubble, and while it does these jobs well, it hasn't been able to branch out. This is not MS's fault.

Your rant about early Windows is also outdated by some 20 years. Their modern OSes are fairly stable, and used in more corporate and home environment than not, because they work and are familiar to users. This is the major hurdle Linux will need to overcome if it's to be taken seriously. Offering services that compete with AD, Exchange, Outlook/Office, WinMobile/BES etc is the other. Standardization and coherency between distros would be another major hurdle.


I do not see how my use of the term is unwarranted. If you're going to act like a fanatical partisan, then you should be ready to take the criticism that comes with your actions like an adult.

Also, respect is earned in business, not granted as a concession. I completely understand your backing of Linux, but you have to understand that there is a reason Linux as is not seen as ready for the desktop - and it is not because "M$" is out to get you.

That said, I would not argue with cutting the rhetoric or sensationalism.
Finally, somebody with some real sense residing in the cavity above the shoulders. It's good to see people that can stop avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

bufsabre666
June 2nd, 2008, 05:56 AM
Lightning doesn't strike four times.

the empire state building gets struck on average 48 times a year

ramkumail
June 2nd, 2008, 06:00 AM
Windows is like a small lake. There are limitations to what you can do to your system. Ubuntu is like an universe. The only limit on what you can do is your knowledge which keeps expanding. Thanks to the community and excellent how tos on the net. So why float on lake while you can drift through the universe?

Frak
June 2nd, 2008, 06:06 AM
I know windows software is not going to work in Linux. I know peerguardian doesn't exist in ubuntu. You have to use iptables via moblock. I know peerguardian hadn't come out with a vista version yet. What I'm really saying is that the software that ubuntu has is far more difficult to get working than it's windows equivalent. Take Amarok for instance. It's a great program, but I can't let it automatically add songs by rating, and it does not let my ipod ratings get transferred to it. Volume normalization requires me to unpack a tarball for a program, with no documentation, that apparently everyone but me in the ubuntu universe knows how to use because no one will tell me how to use it. Also, I can't for the life of me figure out how to rip a CD to MP3 using it. In Itunes, I put the cd in, it converts it to whatever MP3 specs I want. Done. It takes seconds. I shouldn't have to spend hours trying to figure this out in ubuntu. I searched and found there's a scipt called amakode, but I don't know how to use it, because there is no documentation for it. I'm just supposed to know how to use it. And burning a CD? I have to install some other application and get it to interface with amarok (K3b) but I can't get this to work either.

I'll give you one very easy example. Take temperature sensors for instance. To install this, I have to perform the following operations:
http://www.techthrob.com/tech/linuxsensors.php
That's 7 commands, and 4 steps I have to do. Windows? Just install a simple cpu sensors program that takes about 30 seconds to do.

Peerguardian: run it, update the block list.

Moblock: Run it. Oops, now I don't have internet access. Search. Finally find out that I have to edit the moblock config. file to whitelist outgoing traffic on my IP. Do you really think the average person knows how to do this? No, they don't. Then Moblock still blocks half the legitimate websites I go to, and to turn it off? Well you have to run a command in terminal. Windows? Simple right click on it, click disable, it's done. All of these little things may sound simple to you, you may know how to do all this stuff and set it up, you may think it's not a big deal to have to execute multiple commands in terminal and configure everything, but for me, it takes time. I stare at a computer screen all day at work, I don't have time to come home and do it for hours to try and figure out how to do mundane tasks I can do in seconds in windows. I could be working and making an extra $100 in the time it takes me to try and figure out some retarded problem in ubuntu. There isn't sufficient documentation out there to tell me how to do things, I have to search for it. I search for things for a living as well. It's my job. I still can't find answers to my questions regarding Ubunbtu.


Hardy heron is a much better OS though. I still can't do half the things I can do in windows. I had a sweet custom desktop with a nice emerald theme, custom fonts and everything for about 5 days. I turned my computer on a couple days after setting all this up and my panel menu freezes, goes blank, and the whole OS freezes. I couldn't fix it, so I had to re-install everything. Windows has never done this to me and I've been using MS products since dos came out and my only contact with the computer world was through a local BBS and a 2800 baud modem.

So yeah, I don't like ubuntu. When I'm bored though and feel like problem solving, I'll mess around with it though. But someone like me shouldn't have this much trouble getting things to work in ubuntu. It's nerve wracking.
It's nerve racking because you didn't search farther.

http://moblock-deb.sourceforge.net/

Install mobloquer along with moblock. Mobloquer is a QT app that is as or more customizable than Peerguardian2.

As for why I chose Ubuntu over Windows... I didn't. I use Windows, Ubuntu, and Arch everyday.

psyntience
June 2nd, 2008, 06:09 AM
I only recently started using Ubuntu. I've tried Linux about 4-5 times over the last 8 years and have had mixed feelings each time. With the Hardy Heron install, those feelings are gone. I continue to use Ubuntu because it works with my hardware setup and includes the software I need to get my work done. Sure, I've had to make a few changes here and there; learn some new command line features and basically reinvent the way I work, but it's ended a long-standing stagnation with my computer experience. Personally, I think it's inspiring to try something new and different (don't shoot me, I know Linux has been around a while).

One of the main reasons that I don't like Windows is the Windows Genuine Advantage system. I don't like having my integrity questioned on a daily basis by some guy 8,000 miles away from me. With Ubuntu I can know that what is on my system is mine to modify and use as I (legally) require without having to ask permission from the almighty.

Sure, Ubuntu isn't perfect and to say that it or any other OS is is nothing but a pipe dream. However, it suits my needs just fine and until Microsoft learns that people don't want to be beat over the head when it comes to using the computers THEY OWN, then I'll stay away.

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 06:10 AM
Finally, somebody with some real sense residing in the cavity above the shoulders. It's good to see people that can stop avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/animated-emoticons/smiley_05.gif

bilijoe
June 2nd, 2008, 06:35 AM
How about we call them prophets? Maybe just a tad egotistical, don't you think? There is no one solution for everyone. Even Microsoft has its place, and, despite my disgust with Bill Gates business practices, and my frustration with many aspects of Windows, Microsoft has done the personal computer user community a very valuable service. You think you could buy a good, general purpose computer for $500, if Microsoft hadn't prompted the sale of millions of PCs, thus shifting the economy of scale factor significantly in our favor? That said, however, it does not justify the outrageous prices they charge for Windows, nor does it forgive the millions they outright stole, from the many nameless developers, upon whose backs Bill Gates blithely walked , in his ego maniacal march to unparalleled wealth; unparalleled, and, most certainly unnecessary. I can think of no other motivation except monumental greed that would cause a person to amass that kind of fortune. Reminds me a little of Scrooge McDuck. Myself, I'd be ashamed to show my face in public.

Unix_Slayer
June 2nd, 2008, 06:29 PM
Maybe just a tad egotistical, don't you think? There is no one solution for everyone. Even Microsoft has its place, and, despite my disgust with Bill Gates business practices, and my frustration with many aspects of Windows, Microsoft has done the personal computer user community a very valuable service. You think you could buy a good, general purpose computer for $500, if Microsoft hadn't prompted the sale of millions of PCs, thus shifting the economy of scale factor significantly in our favor? That said, however, it does not justify the outrageous prices they charge for Windows, nor does it forgive the millions they outright stole, from the many nameless developers, upon whose backs Bill Gates blithely walked , in his ego maniacal march to unparalleled wealth; unparalleled, and, most certainly unnecessary. I can think of no other motivation except monumental greed that would cause a person to amass that kind of fortune. Reminds me a little of Scrooge McDuck. Myself, I'd be ashamed to show my face in public.


I only joke in good fun. Microsoft is what it is. I just choose to use Kubuntu. That's my opinion. Everyone has one, and I choose to use my freedoms. That's basically it.

scouser73
June 2nd, 2008, 09:37 PM
I use Ubuntu because; it's ease of use, the free alternatives to programs that can be found on Windows.

I listen to my music through Rhythmbox, which is far better than Windows Media Player, play films though VLC, use OpenOffice all of which are free, and far better than similar products on Microsoft/Windows.

Sand & Mercury
June 2nd, 2008, 09:55 PM
Honestly, I just use it because I didn't want to use pirated software anymore.

Larir
June 3rd, 2008, 02:43 AM
I choose Ubuntu because it's free. I haven't bought Windows and so can't use it.

And it's nice to see how Ubuntu and linux in general is developing. I like seeing the effort put in to these projects and how people can come together to make something without being paid (well most of them!:)).

No other reason really, I still think Ubuntu or any other linux is not ready for desktop as long as everything isn't easily configurable and/or automated. That's just me! I love everything easy. :)

Ubuntu is already pretty nice, everything works about ok for me.

jb1
June 3rd, 2008, 06:24 AM
That said, however, , nor does it forgive the millions they outright stole, from the many nameless developers, upon whose backs Bill Gates blithely walked , in his ego maniacal march to unparalleled wealth;
Show me where MS did anything a corp isn't expected to do. I get it, you'd prefer a pure socialist market, but your anger is misplaced.


I can think of no other motivation except monumental greed that would cause a person to amass that kind of fortune.
Drive to succeed? If Bill was truly the Uncle Scrooge the zealots (sorry, you're living up to it yet again) like to paint him as, then why does he contribute so much to charity? I'd put money on the fact that he probably contributes more to charity _percentage wise_ than those who make this ridiculous argument.


Reminds me a little of Scrooge McDuck. Myself, I'd be ashamed to show my face in public.
So success is now something to be ashamed of? You sure have an odd outlook on life.

PinkFloydFan
June 3rd, 2008, 07:50 AM
The reasons why I use Linux (just started using it) are these:

1) It's free. Updates, upgrades, all for free.
Now I don't want to sound like a cheapskate, because I am not, but I think getting a good quality product for free is great.
Do I blame or get frustrated with MS because they charge for every new Windows version? absolutely not. It's business.
If you buy a brand new car today, you don't get the upgraded version for free the next year.

2) Linux is virus/spyware free.
Like many other pc users, I grew up with Windows.
And it's immense popularity is the cause of attacks.

3) Support.
Like this forum, it already helped me out a few times, within minutes!!
Now I have to admit, for the common linux user my questions weren't that hard, but for a newbie like me, they were. And than it is nice that help is here.

4) Software.
Ubuntu standard comes with tons of software you can use when installation is complete. And basically, the things I did in Windows (after installing paid software), I can do in Ubuntu without having to pay for that extra software.

So why do I also still use Windows?

1) because I have software (games) that won't run under Linux.

And that's pretty much the only reason why I dualboot with Windows XP.
I do know this, should my HD with Windows crash, I will not install Windows again.

Unix_Slayer
June 3rd, 2008, 08:58 AM
Show me where MS did anything a corp isn't expected to do. I get it, you'd prefer a pure socialist market, but your anger is misplaced.


Drive to succeed? If Bill was truly the Uncle Scrooge the zealots (sorry, you're living up to it yet again) like to paint him as, then why does he contribute so much to charity? I'd put money on the fact that he probably contributes more to charity _percentage wise_ than those who make this ridiculous argument.


So success is now something to be ashamed of? You sure have an odd outlook on life.

Time to get off the soapbox chief..... http://www.egameaddiction.com/posticons/mslugshoot.gifhttp://www.egameaddiction.com/posticons/bomb.gif

metjay
June 3rd, 2008, 09:49 AM
Phew, I could spend hours of writing down stuff here but I try to summarize it:


Command line: It's fun and boots your working speed massively
What are computer viruses/worms/backdoors?
The ease of bash scripting: why do repetitive things manually?
Eye candy like no other: Cube and others aren't just eye candy, they're boosting your working speed too.

bufsabre666
June 3rd, 2008, 10:31 AM
Time to get off the soapbox chief..... http://www.egameaddiction.com/posticons/mslugshoot.gifhttp://www.egameaddiction.com/posticons/bomb.gif

thinks unix_slayer has clouded outlook on life does i

sufyan
June 3rd, 2008, 11:35 AM
Always had this thing for the underdogs. Still, I miss the blue screen of death.

sufyan
June 3rd, 2008, 11:50 AM
I've pretty much had it up to here with Ubuntu. So I wanna see why other people choose this OS over the functional OS that is Windows. To me it seems if you want Ubuntu to work correctly, you have to tweak a bunch of errors. It's like having a good looking son who doesn't know how to do ****.

So Please. Tell me why you choose Ubuntu. And you can't say compiz or beryl.

Haha... nice analogy, I only knew windows and I had to try something different, Apple was an option but Ubuntu is free so I tried it first. It took some doing but with time and help from the community, I tweaked it quite a bit. Now, when I use windows; It's like having that same old wife who at times just makes you feel like ****.

Unix_Slayer
June 3rd, 2008, 08:41 PM
thinks unix_slayer has clouded outlook on life does i

So sayeth Do I..... http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/free-animated-emoticons/smiley_72.gif

N3um0rin
June 4th, 2008, 03:12 AM
Linux needs more coding..which in the long run is better because you learn more..Ive never had a problem with ubuntu that i havent been able to fix..Windows..Ive ever had a problem that i COULD fix and ended up reloading the whole thing all over..Windows is also really bulky..it takes so much power form my computer that after an hour the computer just crashes..EVERY single time ive ever put windows on it..when i first got my computer it did the same thing..Also a big thing about linux is its free...its all about free..Not about paying 700$ for a bunch of demos then paying 800$ for the rest of the basic software on it..Its WAY to expensive and horribly slow compared to linux..When you have a rpoblem with ubuntu people are there to help you and are nice about it..Windows will just charge you for fixing it..And you get it back with just some crappy internet "virus remover" that puts a ******** of spyware on your computer...Windows is horrible..Ive always had problems out of it..the whole time ive ever used it..Their costomer service is horrible too..They act like they dont care..they probably dont...Linux has everything windows have..Free...and better

djchandler
June 4th, 2008, 11:38 AM
The best thing Windows has available is Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, for XP Pro, Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. (Who actually uses the Basic or Home editions?) Use that to load another OS, such as Ubuntu or Debian and be able to use the internet in your virtual "sandbox" without getting a virus, loading a trojan, or being hacked by an activeX script. Or you can run QEMU or a VMWare appliance if you don't want to or can't use MS Virtual PC.

Linux quite simply keeps me and my data safe while using the internet. I also use Firestarter (firewall) and NoScript (Firefox add-on) to add to my safety margin.

http://djchandler.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/oses-xp-edgy-hardy-macsystem7-sml.jpg

(Am I a geek or what? Ubuntu 8.04 running on another computer, viewed via VNC, and emulating Mac System 7.5.5 in Basilisk II, Debian Gnu/Linux (Etch) emulated in Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, all appearing on Windows XP Pro SP3 desktop.)

And I don't have Norton Internet Security (or other such software) constantly badgering me to keep its database and software up-to-date and renew my subscription again and again. Lot of good that does. You're still more likely to get malware even with all that so-called protection than with Linux.

I've often wondered who writes malware. Just like I wonder about the credit bureaus and how they want you to subscribe to their service to protect your credit rating. Looks like similar scams to me. Just my opinion.
:guitar:

cardinals_fan
June 4th, 2008, 07:10 PM
And I don't have Norton Internet Security (or other such software) constantly badgering me to keep its database and software up-to-date and renew my subscription again and again. Lot of good that does. You're still more likely to get malware even with all that so-called protection than with Linux.

I consider antivirus apps to be the biggest fraud in the history of computing. They act a bit like viruses themselves, controlling your computer and using your resources for unknown purposes.

KOld Iron
June 4th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Basically I dont see any advantages to using Windows over Linux, Im dual booting Ubuntu and Windows XP. Windows XP is nice and all but I don't see anything that would make me prefer it over Linux.The only thing I have been using Windows XP for is to play the odd game, because everything else I can do better/hassle free in Ubuntu.

So what are the advantages of using XP over Ubuntu?

gameryoshi600
June 4th, 2008, 08:25 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using Windows over Linux, Im dual booting Ubuntu and Windows XP. Windows XP is nice and all but I don't see anything that would make me prefer it over Linux.The only thing I have been using Windows XP for is to play the odd game, because everything else I can do better/hassle free in Ubuntu.

So what are the advantages of using XP over Ubuntu?

Qft.

kajillin
June 4th, 2008, 09:28 PM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

LOL... one word... freedom

tdomo
June 4th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Because windows is not an operating system.

bilijoe
June 5th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Show me where MS did anything a corp isn't expected to do. I get it, you'd prefer a pure socialist market, but your anger is misplaced. I'm sick and tired of people trying to defend the [early] business tactics of Microsoft. If you really think Billy made all that money honestly, you need to read the transcripts of the anti-trust suits against him and Microsoft.

I have 3 personal friends, whose products were literally stolen from them by deceptive contract language, misleading promises, and an arrogant after-the-fact attitude towards legitimate complaints of contract violation, fraud, deceptive practices, etc. of "So sue us."

Besides the three people I know personally, who received this kind of abuse from Microsoft, back in the 90s when I was working for such companies as MDi, Paul Mace Software, and Fifth Generation Systems (who, BTW, used the same tactics to steal several programs from the little development company I owned part of, at the time), the programming community was awash with stories of how Microsoft had invoked some obscure clause in a contract, or decided the program wasn't quite exactly what they wanted, so they were dropping it, and would have their programmers write one that better fit their needs, etc., in order to avoid paying royalties. We finally all learned never to sign a contract that either a) granted exclusive marketing rights, or b) did not include a performance clause (guaranteeing payment of a predetermined minimum amount in royalties). Too bad Microsoft (and Fifth Gen., and I'm sure a few others) managed to lock up the honest work of so many legitimate programmers, before we all learned that hard lesson.

As far as charity goes, with the kind of fortune he has, I'm not going to be the least bit impressed with his [token] charitable efforts, until they start making headlines two or three times a year. "Bill Gates gives Billion dollar research grants to each of the four leading AIDS research institutes." That's the kind of charity I need to see from him, before I'll even sit up and take notice. I am glad to see that he is at least doing something, though I actually give the credit to his wife, and the fact that his PR Guy told him he'd better start contributing something, or his public image was going to go [the rest of the way] down the toilet.

With a fortune like his, he could fund enough research to actually find a cure for cancer, or AIDS. Where was he after Hurricane Katrina? Why doesn't he donate a Billion or so to Habitat for Humanity? He can't take it with him. And nobody--absolutely nobody, could possibly spend that kind of money in a lifetime.

Trying to defend Bill Gates character to me is a waste of your time and mine. I'll gladly debate the pros and cons of Windows vs. Linux, or engage in a discussion of what each could use to become better than it is, or whether or not an open source OS could ever become the default standard, but I know well, too many people who have had personal dealings with the man to ever have one iota of respect for Mr. Gates, so I see no sense in wasting any more time on that subject.

Unix_Slayer
June 5th, 2008, 02:17 AM
The best thing Windows has available is Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, for XP Pro, Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. (Who actually uses the Basic or Home editions?) Use that to load another OS, such as Ubuntu or Debian and be able to use the internet in your virtual "sandbox" without getting a virus, loading a trojan, or being hacked by an activeX script. Or you can run QEMU or a VMWare appliance if you don't want to or can't use MS Virtual PC.

Linux quite simply keeps me and my data safe while using the internet. I also use Firestarter (firewall) and NoScript (Firefox add-on) to add to my safety margin.

http://djchandler.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/oses-xp-edgy-hardy-macsystem7-sml.jpg

(Am I a geek or what? Ubuntu 8.04 running on another computer, viewed via VNC, and emulating Mac System 7.5.5 in Basilisk II, Debian Gnu/Linux (Etch) emulated in Microsoft Virtual PC 2007, all appearing on Windows XP Pro SP3 desktop.)

And I don't have Norton Internet Security (or other such software) constantly badgering me to keep its database and software up-to-date and renew my subscription again and again. Lot of good that does. You're still more likely to get malware even with all that so-called protection than with Linux.

I've often wondered who writes malware. Just like I wonder about the credit bureaus and how they want you to subscribe to their service to protect your credit rating. Looks like similar scams to me. Just my opinion.
:guitar:

Nice setup.

Unix_Slayer
June 5th, 2008, 02:18 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using Windows over Linux, Im dual booting Ubuntu and Windows XP. Windows XP is nice and all but I don't see anything that would make me prefer it over Linux.The only thing I have been using Windows XP for is to play the odd game, because everything else I can do better/hassle free in Ubuntu.

So what are the advantages of using XP over Ubuntu?

It's a matter of favorite flavors.

Unix_Slayer
June 5th, 2008, 02:18 AM
Because windows is not an operating system.

It's an operating nightmare.

Unix_Slayer
June 5th, 2008, 02:21 AM
I'm sick and tired of people trying to defend the [early] business tactics of Microsoft. If you really think Billy made all that money honestly, you need to read the transcripts of the anti-trust suits against him and Microsoft.

I have 3 personal friends, whose products were literally stolen from them by deceptive contract language, misleading promises, and an arrogant after-the-fact attitude towards legitimate complaints of contract violation, fraud, deceptive practices, etc. of "So sue us."

Besides the three people I know personally, who received this kind of abuse from Microsoft, back in the 90s when I was working for such companies as MDi, Paul Mace Software, and Fifth Generation Systems (who, BTW, used the same tactics to steal several programs from the little development company I owned part of, at the time), the programming community was awash with stories of how Microsoft had invoked some obscure clause in a contract, or decided the program wasn't quite exactly what they wanted, so they were dropping it, and would have their programmers write one that better fit their needs, etc., in order to avoid paying royalties. We finally all learned never to sign a contract that either a) granted exclusive marketing rights, or b) did not include a performance clause (guaranteeing payment of a predetermined minimum amount in royalties). Too bad Microsoft (and Fifth Gen., and I'm sure a few others) managed to lock up the honest work of so many legitimate programmers, before we all learned that hard lesson.

As far as charity goes, with the kind of fortune he has, I'm not going to be the least bit impressed with his [token] charitable efforts, until they start making headlines two or three times a year. "Bill Gates gives Billion dollar research grants to each of the four leading AIDS research institutes." That's the kind of charity I need to see from him, before I'll even sit up and take notice. I am glad to see that he is at least doing something, though I actually give the credit to his wife, and the fact that his PR Guy told him he'd better start contributing something, or his public image was going to go [the rest of the way] down the toilet.

With a fortune like his, he could fund enough research to actually find a cure for cancer, or AIDS. Where was he after Hurricane Katrina? Why doesn't he donate a Billion or so to Habitat for Humanity? He can't take it with him. And nobody--absolutely nobody, could possibly spend that kind of money in a lifetime.

Trying to defend Bill Gates character to me is a waste of your time and mine. I'll gladly debate the pros and cons of Windows vs. Linux, or engage in a discussion of what each could use to become better than it is, or whether or not an open source OS could ever become the default standard, but I know well, too many people who have had personal dealings with the man to ever have one iota of respect for Mr. Gates, so I see no sense in wasting any more time on that subject.


http://mysite.verizon.net/mgm_mgm/billgates.jpg


Ya gotta give him some credit. He learned how to rip off stuff, and when he amassed his fortune.... he let his lawyers handle them. Hats off to ya Buffalo Bill.

radical3
June 5th, 2008, 02:56 AM
i agree i also dont see any real reason. ive got ubuntu 8.04 installed and after a week of sweat, i think its working now (but for how long)
you could argue that im used to windows and i just need to get used to ubuntu. but that bull and you know it.why?
coz if i didnt know how to download and install drivers on windows and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.

what if i bought a webcam, or a usb mic, or some other peripheral and didnt get my driver cd, and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.

what if i installed a program in windows would it tell me where the program is, maybe by highlighting it in yellow?
what if i installed a program in ubuntu would it tell where it is?

i cannot wait to chuck windows in the BIN but currently ubuntu and the other distros ive tried (mandriva,suse,fedora, debian and freespire) are not better than windows OVERALL.

if ubuntu created a file system like the windows .exe file like what pc-bsd has done with the .pbi file . it would immediatley become attractive to newbies.

but right now i could do a search for "no sound in firefox" and read a post of some guy who recompiled his entire kernal from scratch to get it to work. seriously who wants to do that /

linux's priority does not lie in making a desktop OS for the newbie, linux's priority are as follows:
1.An OS for some who already knows is looking to learn how to program. ie computer geek.
2.an OS for businesses to rape and get rich off (go ahead and tell me linux dosent run the internet as we know it)
3.an os for the desktop user
4.an os for the average desktop user (who amount to over 90% of desktop users)

i want to say goodbye to windows, but linux is just not good enough for a "solo" boot.

Unix_Slayer
June 5th, 2008, 04:17 AM
i want to say goodbye to windows, but linux is just not good enough for a "solo" boot.

It's very damn close. Think about why linux isn't overtaking Windows. If you had a car that was powered by a cheap, and non-polluting energy.... You think the big oil companies would appreciate that?

bilijoe
June 5th, 2008, 10:13 AM
i agree i also dont see any real reason. ive got ubuntu 8.04 installed and after a week of sweat, i think its working now (but for how long)
you could argue that im used to windows and i just need to get used to ubuntu. but that bull and you know it.why?
coz if i didnt know how to download and install drivers on windows and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.

what if i bought a webcam, or a usb mic, or some other peripheral and didnt get my driver cd, and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.

what if i installed a program in windows would it tell me where the program is, maybe by highlighting it in yellow?
what if i installed a program in ubuntu would it tell where it is?

i cannot wait to chuck windows in the BIN but currently ubuntu and the other distros ive tried (mandriva,suse,fedora, debian and freespire) are not better than windows OVERALL.

if ubuntu created a file system like the windows .exe file like what pc-bsd has done with the .pbi file . it would immediatley become attractive to newbies.

but right now i could do a search for "no sound in firefox" and read a post of some guy who recompiled his entire kernal from scratch to get it to work. seriously who wants to do that /

linux's priority does not lie in making a desktop OS for the newbie, linux's priority are as follows:
1.An OS for some who already knows is looking to learn how to program. ie computer geek.
2.an OS for businesses to rape and get rich off (go ahead and tell me linux dosent run the internet as we know it)
3.an os for the desktop user
4.an os for the average desktop user (who amount to over 90% of desktop users)

i want to say goodbye to windows, but linux is just not good enough for a "solo" boot. Why not do what I do? Instead of googling for everything, take advantage of Ubuntu's forums. Post for post, it's the best damned tech support I've ever known. Quick (almost always less than an hour--often only 5 or 10 minutes), accurate, 24/7/365, and solutions that usually hit the target, dead on. Google is a very valuable tool, but for help, suggestions, and solutions, when it comes to Ubuntu, it's a poor substitute for the forums (and Windows is a poor substitute for Linux). I'm real curious about you people who write in, moaning and groaning about all the time and effort you had to go to, to get Ubuntu up and running. What kind of obscure, esoteric hardware you running. I have done about a dozen Ubuntu installs recently; some on laptops, some on desktops--some on main-line brands, some on user assembled hardware. Every one has gone without a hitch, and worked [nearly] perfectly, immediately (a couple took an hour or two, consulting the forums, and making some minor adjustments). They all took MUCH less time to install than Windows, and I didn't have to answer a bunch of questions, to keep the install moving along. Once running, none of them have experienced any problems, or any down time (no BSOD), and none have ever lost any data. What are you people with installs that take a week, doing differently? Even my most problematic install only took about 3 hours.

@_R_|\/|_@_G_E_|)_|)_0|\|
June 5th, 2008, 11:33 AM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called
you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org

Also, you can be a limited account and do the administration at the same time. When you want to modify stuff, it prompts you for the administrator's or that account's password. This is also beneficial against viruses. Two points:
(1)Most viruses out there are for Windows so can't do anything on Ubuntu
(2)Nobody and nothing can modify you're account, as in, for viruses to access vital system files, it will need you're password, go to you, prompt for you're password, and you can deny it, rendering it, somewhat harmless.In Windows, however, the limitations of the limited account are so strict people just go over to the admin account and stay there. This allows any viruses or person to modify that account and other accounts, possibly even the entire system, deleting crucial files.

Hope this explains properly:)
Armageddon

P.S. Mark this solved as soon as the problem is fixed or question is answered. It makes it easier for people to determine which thread to go to. Thanks:D

cardinals_fan
June 5th, 2008, 07:19 PM
coz if i didnt know how to download and install drivers on windows and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.

what if i bought a webcam, or a usb mic, or some other peripheral and didnt get my driver cd, and i googled, would the solution be more or less difficult for a NEWBIE if i was googling for the same thing for ubuntu.
I had to install drivers for my wireless adapter 18 times in Windows. Each time required a restart. Different people have different experiences.


what if i installed a program in windows would it tell me where the program is, maybe by highlighting it in yellow?
what if i installed a program in ubuntu would it tell where it is?
Windows doesn't tell you where a program "is". It tells you the location of a shortcut added by Windows. I launch programs using dmenu on Linux, rendering the point moot.


if ubuntu created a file system like the windows .exe file like what pc-bsd has done with the .pbi file . it would immediatley become attractive to newbies.
My brief experience with pbi files was not happy. Running through the wizards was idiotic compared to using Portsnap.


linux's priority does not lie in making a desktop OS for the newbie, linux's priority are as follows:
1.An OS for some who already knows is looking to learn how to program. ie computer geek.
2.an OS for businesses to rape and get rich off (go ahead and tell me linux dosent run the internet as we know it)
3.an os for the desktop user
4.an os for the average desktop user (who amount to over 90% of desktop users)

1. Not someone who knows how to program, but someone who has computer troubleshooting skills.
2. Huh? How is Linux 'raped' by businesses using it on servers? This should be #1 anyway...

Barrucadu
June 5th, 2008, 09:06 PM
2. Huh? How is Linux 'raped' by businesses using it on servers? This should be #1 anyway...

That confused me as well. Linux was designed for servers!

msidhard
June 5th, 2008, 09:19 PM
hey u can run windows applications with help of wine. and u can get crossover linux for cost. if wine does not support u .

radical3
June 5th, 2008, 09:53 PM
ubuntu is not too bad i have to make a few sacrifices but i think its worth it, good thing im not picky eh.

and yes linux is being raped in the business world but not as bad as bsd. apple took bsd's ideas and innovation , closed its source and called it OSX, then got rich off of it. well done jobs you F*$%ing ....

linux's server market is strong but the desktop market is a battle thats not going to be won without some sort of massive miraculous event.

im still gona keep my triple boot going.
xp for compatability reasons
windows server 2003 because its like xp on drugs
ubuntu because WINDOWS MUST SURLEY DIE.
http://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg1.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg2.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg3.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg4.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg5.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg6.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg7.jpghttp://home.epix.net/~tjwagner/bg8.jpg


Thats right take the linux pie

nibon
June 7th, 2008, 06:11 AM
Haha, nice pictures.
Oh well, I currently dualboot XP and Kubuntu. The reason I still have XP is so that I can play warcraft 3, guild wars and diablo 2. "durr.. you can play those games in wine!" you say? well, I'm having trouble with my ATI card, so I can't. I'm gonna switch over to nvidia at the end of the year, november, december or so, after that I will probably remove XP completely since I do everything else A LOT better in Kubuntu.

When I use windows everything loads so slowly, everythings stops responding unlike in Kubuntu.

LaRoza
June 7th, 2008, 07:18 AM
and yes linux is being raped in the business world but not as bad as bsd. apple took bsd's ideas and innovation , closed its source and called it OSX, then got rich off of it.


No it isn't. Apple keeps what they used opensource, check it out http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/GS_Darwin/

jb1
June 7th, 2008, 07:50 AM
I'm sick and tired of people trying to defend the [early] business tactics of Microsoft. If you really think Billy made all that money honestly, you need to read the transcripts of the anti-trust suits against him and Microsoft.
Could you possibly reply to one of my posts for once, instead of creating strawmen?

I didn't say he was honest or nice; I asked you to show me how he did anything a corporation isn't expected to do.

gdgardnerw
June 7th, 2008, 08:41 AM
I used Windows for eleven years and have used MACs for about seven. I have been using Linux for about three.

Windows did not allow me to concentrate on my work. I was always worried about the machine crashing, getting viruses, and the software was never intuitive. I still have windows on my company laptop (their policy, not mine) but run with linux at home. I have no compatibilty problems whatsoever. The company hasn't realized yet all of my doccuments for the last two years have been produced on Open Office on a linux system. My windows laptop had to be sent back to IT because it kept crashing (virus problems) despite the security software installed on it.

I loved Macs. However, they kept updating their OS (which is good), but it would not run on their older hardware. Even though I had just bought a machine, once the OS would be updated, my machine became instantly legacy hardware. And apple equipment is expensive on my budget. So is their beautiful software. Their software is very intuitive. My mind was always on my work at hand and never on the machine at all. It was also cross platform compatible. Windows seemed to work at not being compatible with anybody.

I switched to Linux primarily because of Open Office. The PPC version for the MAC was markedly different than that for the Intel / AMD chipset. My linux software is not anywhere as intuitive as the MAC software, but it does rival the software written for Microsoft. It is very flexible. My truely legacy hardware: Intel Pentium 3 machine (an eleven dollar garage sale special), my Semptron 2800, my kid's Celetron 1.6 Ghz and my Duron 900 mhz all run fine on linux. We do music composition through Audacity.Open Office does all our correspondence, spreadsheets, and presentations. GIMP does all of our photo work. We keep in touch through SKYLE and Pidgin and I even teach online through my own class delivery software, moodle. This software would have run me over three to four thousand dollars per machine in the microsoft environment. I am very productive and have no problem whatsoever sharing files with my students who use MACs, XP, and Vista machines. The only thing I can't do on ubuntu is edit video. But I also can't do that easily on my wife's XP machine. That can be done very nicely on a seven year old macintosh, however.

I find the biggest bang can be done on a mac. But the biggest bang for my buck is on linux. In fact, the biggest bang is, for me, on Linux, because I don't have the bucks for any type of a bang for the five computers I have to keep up and running at home on a MAC (let alone the company laptop).

All of my hardware run the latest OS from Ubuntu (8.04) (except the pentium 3). My wife won't (and wisely so) migrate from XP to Vista. And I know she won't be going to Windows 7 when it comes out either. In six months, she will be two OS upgrades behind...and probably glad she is in light of the Vista fiasco. It's just cost prohibitive for us to go with any other operating system because of the variety of software that our business and activities require. And on linux, we have not had one virus problem...and we've been running with Ubuntu since December of 2005.

Unix_Slayer
June 7th, 2008, 10:01 AM
Who left the door open again...........

LinuX-M@n1@k
June 7th, 2008, 10:30 AM
With Linux there's no BSoD! :D

yikesalmighty
June 7th, 2008, 06:09 PM
I'm a stone cold Linux nubie, and all of the reasons above sound great to me.
But I'm a geek. I started computing/programming in 1980 and Linux looks a lot like the old DOS days.
I learned assembly language (along with lots of other languages) so I could get to the bare metal and have power over the computer. Linux looks like I'll be able to do that again.
In short, I like the control you can get from Linux.
Granted I really have only started putting any effort into learning it, but it looks fun.
Linux has come a long way, but I don't think it is up to the Grandmother test (if your Grandmom can't use it, its not ready for primetime). I know a lot people won't like that statement, but thats my opinion.
I've tried Knoppix Live and Suse Live. On my main machine, no sound. On my notebook they didn't use the USB network card. In both cases,I could see the devices but didn't figure out how to tell the OSes to use them. But like I said, I have only been trying half-heartedly.
Ubuntu is the one I really want to learn on, but I'm having problems there too (see "can't get out of the gate 2" in Wubi forum).
So I guess I plan plan on using Linux to get rid of Windows. Enough is enough already!

Frak
June 7th, 2008, 06:10 PM
No it isn't. Apple keeps what they used opensource, check it out http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/GS_Darwin/
I was going to post an OpenSource link, but I've had to do it a million times over here already...

Time to add it to my sig =\

ToySouljah
June 8th, 2008, 08:39 AM
I had a relapse recently after being Windows free for almost a year. Well, I am back using Ubuntu since after a week of trying to readjust to Windows it seemed harder trying to keep it running smooth and clean than anything since I had forgotten how much was actually involved in getting all my stuff back to normal. Sure some of the things were a little easier like using my camera and stuff, but other than that Linux is just better suited for me personally. Plus I do notice the speed difference when running Linux vs Windows....Linux wins hands down as far as opening windows, running programs, installing programs (freakin love Synaptic and the repos...lol), and over all customization options available. All this and it's free :) Well, I do make donations, but that is strictly voluntary. I think the people who make these things deserve something in return for their hard work and so yeah I'll make donations for what I use often.

gareth80
June 8th, 2008, 09:34 AM
A few of reasons:-

1: I don't have to pay a ridiculous price for Ubuntu and then have to pay a whole lot more for any applications. Any time I fancy trying a new piece of software, I can.

2: I use my pc mainly for business use (it's on 24/7) and I find linux more stable. I find XP, (probably the best Operating System Microsoft produced), starts to freeze and lock up after a week or so of constant running.

3: Many of the applications are better than the XP alternatives ( I'm thinking mainly of OpenOffice compared to Microsoft Office. I'm often sent files in various formats OpenOffice reads and edits them without problems, Microsoft Office doesn't!).

4: I like the idea that Linux is what I make it and I'm free to include or take out any part of my software. (try taking IE or Outlook out of XP!)

Having said all that, I'm certainly not anti-Windows. I have most of the major distro's, (98,XP, XP-64, XP-MCE, Vista), purely because I have to remain conversant with them as most computer repairs I'm called to do will be software errors (Usually brought on by the user). I'd say it's horses for courses. If you like Windows and it's what you're used to as nearly all pc users are, fine, but it doesn't hurt to remain open minded and try out something else. You may always be pleasantly surprised as I was when I first discovered this Linux thingy.

Oh, I also find that people on the Linux forums are generally very friendly and helpful to those of us that are not experts, (noobs I believe we're called). But that's just my personal view.

starsheeep
June 8th, 2008, 03:23 PM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.

-That is not true, have you scanned your computer for spyware/adware? my guess is that, if you use explorer you will find plenty, event after your humble web surfing. Even if that alone could be effective, there are still legal and serious websites that are cracked in order to propagate viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/rootkits etc etc

its like std's you can't be too careful when you already have windows :P

-if you're too lazy to dualboot no os can help you with that

-there are still 120 green paper reasons for using linux

IMHO the only reason to boot something else than linux is gaming(windows) and professional multimedia (Leopard)

everything else you can virtualbox or wine etc, even iis, some games too (sedega)

grinningleopard
June 8th, 2008, 03:39 PM
I wonder if you asked the inverse on a Vista forum (ie Why shouldn't I kick the Dos out of Windows with Linux) whether you would get 264 pages of intelligent answers or merely one unruly post from a pre-pubescent semi-moron suggesting you 'empty your pockets or the server gets it.'

cardinals_fan
June 8th, 2008, 11:38 PM
-That is not true, have you scanned your computer for spyware/adware? my guess is that, if you use explorer you will find plenty, event after your humble web surfing. Even if that alone could be effective, there are still legal and serious websites that are cracked in order to propagate viruses/trojans/spyware/adware/rootkits etc etc

Not so. Using Opera with javascript disabled by default, and with no antivirus, I never got a virus/spyware infection in six years of XP. I scanned right after switching to Linux/BSD (with multiple different apps) and found NOTHING.

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Not so. Using Opera with javascript disabled by default, and with no antivirus, I never got a virus/spyware infection in six years of XP. I scanned right after switching to Linux/BSD (with multiple different apps) and found NOTHING.


In linux, there's vulnerabilities, not virii, nor spyware.

Frak
June 9th, 2008, 12:27 AM
In linux, there's vulnerabilities, not virii, nor spyware.

I think he's talking about scanning his Windows partition, not his Linux partition.

cardinals_fan
June 9th, 2008, 01:02 AM
I think he's talking about scanning his Windows partition, not his Linux partition.
Correct. My comment was in response to the poster who said that even casual browsing probably causes malware infections on Windows.

Marteau
June 9th, 2008, 01:56 AM
Amen. :)

After years of viruses spyware adware and all sorts of other problems today I moved into Linux UBUNTU......loaded quickly, seems to run fast...faster than XP any how.....I have it looking like my old xp desktop...well bottom line is I;ll never go back to XP or any other Microsoft apps:lolflag:

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 02:02 AM
After years of viruses spyware adware and all sorts of other problems today I moved into Linux UBUNTU......loaded quickly, seems to run fast...faster than XP any how.....I have it looking like my old xp desktop...well bottom line is I;ll never go back to XP or any other Microsoft apps:lolflag:

I don't blame you. I agree wholeheartedly.

chex313
June 9th, 2008, 02:13 AM
Originally it was the cheapest way to build a PC for folding proteins, with my team.

Now I just like it.

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Originally it was the cheapest way to build a PC for folding proteins, with my team.

Now I just like it.


Basically I just fold my carbs. I like my proteins a little rumpled.

beN..87
June 9th, 2008, 03:10 AM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.


If it wasnt for the games I could dump windows entirely but i play games on a whim and I hate having to restart just to play it. I could get used to the complexity of it. Honestly though I dont think I will switch to full install of linux or even being first on the boot up list because of the fact that I have the exact same things on windows and linux.

To me this is the real reason that linux is not adopted by the mass public, theres really no reason to go over to linux if you have windows and a casual computer user. However I do think if you dont have an OS and dont plan on being a gamer you should use linux because it is a good system. I also think its perfect for schools/governments/large business because you wouldnt have the major problems a windows network environment has curious/dumb users.

well if you have a bad- *** machine with stupid amounts of ram and and decent gaming/graphics support in msoft -- may i suggest running xp in a virtual-box - hell if you really want you can have it seamless, overlayed on to you desktop with a windows xp start menu on your ubuntu desktop

-now thats freedom:)

ps. this conversation is about xp ; which yeah does work ok, but then it should really considering its been being fixed up for years -- as for vista .... i literally turned on a brand-new machine, booted into vista, opened my wireless config from the start menu - and it hung on me, and froze up - not used it since. UBUNTU!

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 03:25 AM
as for vista .... i literally turned on a brand-new machine, booted into vista, opened my wireless config from the start menu - and it hung on me, and froze up - not used it since. UBUNTU!

That doesn't surprise me at all. Does it surprise you?

Boris and Bailey
June 9th, 2008, 04:07 AM
Did anyone mention that it takes an hour and a half to load Windows, but just 15 minutes to load Ubuntu? Then, after booting Windows, it takes about five minutes to load the anti-spyware and anti-virus programs. After booting Ubuntu, it's ready to go!

I'm a semi-geek, painter, web designer, graphic designer, and I build my own computers. Although I have Windows XP for a couple of specialized Adobe programs that I also use at my state job, the operating systems based on the Linux kernel are the best I have ever used, hands down.

And I really don't want to encourage or promote anything having to do with the monopolistic fascist freak, Steve Ballmer, and his good buddy Bill Gates, any more than I have to.

djchandler
June 9th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Originally it was the cheapest way to build a PC for folding proteins, with my team.

Now I just like it.

Alright, keep folding those amino acid chains. I do the same with 3 computers at home with F@H clients.

Go to http://folding.stanford.edu/ for more information about what we're talking about. We're supporting research to understand protein folding, mis-folding, and related diseases. You can help make a difference by contributing to this distributed computing project. BTW, there is a Team Ubuntu at F@H.

Windows does not yet have 64-bit SMP client support. Linux does, although still in beta. SMP available in 64-bit version only. But hey, we Ubuntu users aren't afraid of a little beta software, are we?
:guitar:

sidran
June 9th, 2008, 05:06 AM
I am actually using a few OS's right now (Ubuntu being one, obviously). I have all of them for specific reasons.

1. Ubuntu
This is on my laptop. I used to have XP on here for about 3 years. I did Vista for a few months but it couldn't handle it, and due to program incompatibilty (mainly w/ X servers) I had to ditch it. I installed Ubuntu because I found that, for my school-work (I'm in computer science) Linux was just the obvious choice. Pretty much all of my programming work in CS is on the Sun machines in our labs, and I can ssh into them from any computer with internet access. So, because Linux is a native programmer's environment, and with the bonus of a built-in X client and being able to painlessly ssh into the CS labs, it couldn't be a better choice. Plus, I do all my work on my laptop, so despite the fact that I like PC gaming, my laptop isn't the best suitor for it anyway.

2. Windows XP
This is on the main partition on my desktop machine. I use it mainly for gaming, but I have it as my primary because for one, it's faster than Vista, and two, I have programs that don't run on Vista yet that I like to use. Plus, I like to use cygwin on it and (as of yet) I have been unable to get it working fully on Vista.

3. Windows Vista
This I have on the secondary partition on my desktop. Despite the fact that everyone likes to hate on Vista, it really isn't that bad. True, it uses much more resources than XP, but XP is nearly a decade old, so you can't fault MS for that. It is more secure (I have not gotten a BSOD on Vista ever, while on XP I get them nearly bi-monthly at least. It's a new system, so it runs quick enough. Both Windows partitions take < 1 minute to boot up. But anyway, the only reason I do have Vista is for DirectX 10. It really is a great upgrade and does make your games prettier. That's worth it to me. (Besides, I had the opportunity to get Vista for free, legally through my school, so it was no skin off my back!)


I don't like to get into OS wars. Each OS has a purpose. XP is good for some things, many of Vista's early problems are largely solved and it does have some improvements over XP, and the vast majority of home users find no problems with it. Linux has it's own niche as well. I like my setup and find no reason to change it. Linux I use for some things and it works great, but XP fills my other needs.

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 07:02 AM
And I really don't want to encourage or promote anything having to do with the monopolistic fascist freak, Steve Ballmer, and his good buddy Bill Gates, any more than I have to.

You mean Mutt & Jeff.....

843
June 9th, 2008, 07:04 AM
I wanted to write a reply to this thread, but it somehow became a tad bit too long, so I made a new thread.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5146413

Unix_Slayer
June 9th, 2008, 07:07 AM
I am actually using a few OS's right now (Ubuntu being one, obviously). I have all of them for specific reasons.

1. Ubuntu

2. Windows XP

3. Windows Vista

But if you had to make a choice on ONE. Say you had one computer, and it only worked with one OS. No dual booting. Quick. Make a choice.http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/animated-emoticons/smiley_08.gif

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 9th, 2008, 10:16 PM
But if you had to make a choice on ONE. Say you had one computer, and it only worked with one OS. No dual booting. Quick. Make a choice.http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/animated-emoticons/smiley_08.gif
If my PC wouldn't be gaming/modelling material, then it definately would be Ubuntu!
But I'm up for buying new machine, so in this scenario it would be XP.
Fortunately I can run them both!

psychotux
June 10th, 2008, 03:25 AM
While this isn't mean't to start any arguements, I feel it's worth saying....
I'm a fierce upholder of Open Source...
I started with Linux using Linspire 5.0, but didn't like some of the practices of Linspire Inc because of them being to Micro$haftish.
So I happened upon Ubuntu, I think it's a Great Os and has Great potential, BUT....

After using Dapper which I helped test, my PC blew up built another out of Everyday Parts it wouldn't work, went to Mandrivea till next release same thing, I tried Mepis, PCLos, Zenwalk, CentOs, Fedora, Gentoo, Sabayon, all the Major Well known distros none would work SO...

For awhile I went back to Windows, still don't really like XP, but am typing this on a Vista Box, Which by the way everything I've thrown at Vista it's handled like a Champ, even things that would run in '98 but not in XP it's handle without a flinch....

I've tried any number of times through different releases to get Linux of some sort to run on this Desktop but it won't, One headache after another, One Sound, One Video, Kernel Panic, List goes on and on.... Not any one thing but a mixture...

So I finally saved up the Money to get me a Dell Laptop with Ubuntu on it, Figure hey cool I can use Linux again>>>> GUESS AGAIN <<<< :mad:

Loaded 8.04 on it Crapped out Video all Screwed Up see triple of everything, and No Wireless, Called Dell No Support for OS because 8.04 isn't stock.... :confused: Go figure the things made for Ubuntu, I could understand if I was talking Mandriva...

But any way I tried most of the other distros with NO LUCK, most wouldn't even make it into the Splash Screen....
:( :confused: :mad: I just gave up....

And Loaded Vista on it, Which by the way everything worked out of the box with....

While I realize that No OS is perfect, and things Crop Up from time to time, You would think at least 1 PC out of 3 would have at least 1 distro work on it...
Especially when you buy a Native Linux Computer that was made to run that distro to begin with....

This is why I never see Linux getting even to 25% of the market share let alone really ever threating Mac of Micro$haft, be a thorn in their sides yes but that's about it....

From one release to the next same old problems, Then a Pc it once supported it doesn't even boot in anymore.
Buy one that's made to run it and it don't Even Work, I think it's just plain......

I Support Open Source and always Will, I'll use Open Source App's whenever I can.
But to ever be tottally Window's Free????? I doubt it!!!

Even without Games Linux as a whole won't Work at all for me, and it isn't like I haven't tried believe me....

sidran
June 10th, 2008, 04:21 AM
But if you had to make a choice on ONE. Say you had one computer, and it only worked with one OS. No dual booting. Quick. Make a choice.http://www.tech-faq.com/emoticons/animated-emoticons/smiley_08.gif

If you want me to make a choice, I would easily choose Windows XP. Now, though I love Ubuntu and Linux, and they are great to work in, I can do just about anything I need to do on Windows XP. I can't say the same for Linux (no gaming support and it still hasn't worked terribly flawlessly even at this stage) and Vista just doesn't have the software compatibility that I would like. The main hurdle that I see Linux having at the moment is that it still is relatively new to the OS world. Microsoft has been around for a while, and pretty much has its hand in the game both in terms of market share, a massive library of quality software, the "cutting edge" factor, and, believe it or not, it does have the best hardware compatibility out there. Linux is getting there (I remember fooling around with other distros even a few years ago and having less than stellar luck than I have had with Ubuntu) but it still isn't fully matured yet, in my opinion. With what I need, I cannot make the full switch yet. And yes, I have tried wine, and I don't see me being able to use it to fully switch to Linux within the next year. It just isn't there, yet.

Unix_Slayer
June 10th, 2008, 06:06 AM
If you want me to make a choice, I would easily choose Windows XP. Now, though I love Ubuntu and Linux, and they are great to work in, I can do just about anything I need to do on Windows XP. I can't say the same for Linux (no gaming support and it still hasn't worked terribly flawlessly even at this stage) and Vista just doesn't have the software compatibility that I would like. The main hurdle that I see Linux having at the moment is that it still is relatively new to the OS world. Microsoft has been around for a while, and pretty much has its hand in the game both in terms of market share, a massive library of quality software, the "cutting edge" factor, and, believe it or not, it does have the best hardware compatibility out there. Linux is getting there (I remember fooling around with other distros even a few years ago and having less than stellar luck than I have had with Ubuntu) but it still isn't fully matured yet, in my opinion. With what I need, I cannot make the full switch yet. And yes, I have tried wine, and I don't see me being able to use it to fully switch to Linux within the next year. It just isn't there, yet.

Spoken like a true New Yorker. I agree with your choice. For me, I like the customization of Linux. See but if these things were added into Linux, you would make another choice.

Greetings from NYC....

Barrucadu
June 10th, 2008, 09:35 AM
Why do people say Linux has no gaming support? Just google for linux games and you'll find great games like Savage and Planeshift which, by the way, are both online multiplayer 3D games.

beN..87
June 10th, 2008, 12:53 PM
oh and as if there wasnt enough reasons to boycott Msoft and old billy boy - guess what? Bill has just gone tax-free for however many billion and just like the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations - all that money is going to fund "planned parenthood" after all, we can't have those poor people overpopulating the planet, they come from bad gene pools eh Bill.... http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uc-eX4h90vk

Shmalignant
June 10th, 2008, 04:08 PM
Amen. :)

It also gives you piece of mind considering you are involved in a community that promotes the free development of software.

jb1
June 10th, 2008, 08:05 PM
Why do people say Linux has no gaming support? Just google for linux games and you'll find great games like Savage and Planeshift which, by the way, are both online multiplayer 3D games.
Woah, two games! You've really disproved this misconception!

People say this for the same reason they say Mac doesn't have games: it really doesn't. A handful of games every few years really doesn't count when you compare the ~hundred that come out for Windows each year. And before some genius mentions WINE, not everyone wants to jump through hoops setting up games that are natively supported in Windows. And Cedega walks all over your free software mantra.


Also, I can't help but wonder how long it will take the people managing to get viruses (virii is not a word) in Windows to rm -rf /.

sidran
June 11th, 2008, 02:20 AM
Why do people say Linux has no gaming support? Just google for linux games and you'll find great games like Savage and Planeshift which, by the way, are both online multiplayer 3D games.

Sorry, but I've tried many of these Linux games. Pretty much the only quality games you'll find are casual gaming apps like card games or clones of arcade games that are ~20 years old.

Firstly, the games library just isn't there. There are no large companies investing time in creating high-quality games for Linux that are of the caliber for say, Call of Duty 4, because there isn't enough of a market. For one, there isn't much money in open-source, just by the nature of the beast. For another, the number of users that use Linux and would consider getting games for it are incredibly minimal. Besides, with the complexity and extensiveness of games these days, you need a very large staff of programmers and testers and for the most part, there isn't such an extensive organization in the open-source community (though I would appreciate it if there was).

Secondly, Linux only has native support for OpenGL. While OpenGL is very powerful and can do a lot (otherwise it wouldn't still be in use), Direct X is really the bleeding-edge of graphics technology. And since it is a Windows platform, you will be getting the best-looking games on Windows. Also, since Direct X is a Microsoft product, I don't see it coming to Linux any time soon (sucks, I know, but such is the way things are).