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 23

psychicsaw
July 2nd, 2009, 12:05 AM
Why do I use Linux over-against Windoze? Windoze is utter garbage. I'm using Linux on Mac hardware - there isn't a better combination for the "PC" :] I don't care for games, as games don't make me any money.

richard270384
July 2nd, 2009, 02:11 AM
Why do I choose Ubuntu over Windows?

Virtually every kind of program I need is at my fingertips. Everything else is just a simple download away.

None of this "Windows Genuine Advantage" rubbish.

None of that sure you have a genuine copy of windows installed, with a valid key and you've got that little sticker on the box with your codes... but i'm sorry you don't have a CD to install it from - You cannot re-install.

Oh you found a Windows CD... wonderful... but thats the OEM version... your product key won't work with it. Great you have another CD.. OOps... that one is the Professional Edition... sorry your key still doesn't work.... Oh where'd you get that new cd... Im sorry, your product key doesn't work with the Service Pack 2 disc...

So I say bugger it i'll just use the product key and CD from the other computer... So then 6 months later I need to re-install windows on the old computer and I run into product key problems...

And if I ever had to take a computer to get repaired, they would only load drivers and things like that from the original Windows disc that came with the computer... so no Windows disc - no repair.

For me, Microsoft screwed me over by assuming I was trying to rip them off - perhaps they should have assumed I wasn't trying to rip them off first.

I've been using Ubuntu now for near 2 years, and it's been my main OS for at least a year.

I have a dual boot system, and Ubuntu starts faster and runs smoother than Windows Vista. Ubuntu has everything I need except for 2 programs which I don't use often, but still need access to them for when I do need them.

Without even trying, the people around me are growing more fond of Ubuntu too. My fiance jumps on my laptop sometimes and she is comfortable using it now (and will no doubt make the switch in the near future - and she knows nothing about computers.) And my old man was talking about getting a new computer in the next few months, he wants to give Ubuntu Studio a shot.

Ubuntu makes everything easy, it runs faster, Ubuntu updates are smaller than the Vista updates, Ubuntu has never crashed on me, I also make websites and it's a lot easier for me to test and code in a linux environment, and finally you know that you have the support of a dedicated community behind you - I know there are windows forums out there, but in all honesty I always found it hard to get reliable, quick support when I had a problem with windows.

ranch hand
July 2nd, 2009, 04:27 AM
For help with Winwhatever search for "pc-newbies". Great mailing list, nice folks. I am still on it and I don't have Winanything but I do use a PC.

RussellEngland
July 2nd, 2009, 11:59 AM
Loving it!!!

Just got so fed up of Microshaft Windows being so slooooow.. I started out with DOS on x86 PC's many years ago developing Clipper applications and the applications then were a million times faster than Windows is now with 1000 times the processing power.

And why do I have to reboot everytime there is a flipping update or install new software? Or put up with the control-alt-delete when things go wrong, which they very often do. Or the many many viruses and security alerts. If it was a car or a TV people would be taking it back to the shop as faulty.

A classic was when a very large corporate company I was working for put one of our Clipper applications onto Citrix (we called it something else...). The Clipper application was incredibly reliable and worked 24/7 on Novell when suddenly it kept crashing every night. Turns out it was because Citrix recommended rebooting every night because of Windows... Oh how we laughed...

I started switching over my development skills from Microshaft last year using php and mysql, wished I had switched years ago but never mind... And only recently switched to Ubuntu earlier this year. I have to say I have been extremely impressed. Its so fast and increbily reliable. I have a dual boot and really hate switching to Windows, but sometimes have to for support calls.

One testiment to its ease of use is that my 70 year old mom is using it now... She had a Windows computer before but found it too complicated and was impatient. So I installed Ubuntu instead and she now uses it every day. I've been trying to convert everyone I know... Its a slow process but those that have converted love it and never want to use Windows again...

I read a classic quote on a message board somewhere "It said install Windows 98 or better, so I installed Linux"

servicetech
July 2nd, 2009, 01:24 PM
Why Linux:
1: Can you say FREE? Ubuntu is perfect for people who build their own systems therefore don't get Windows for "free". Dropping $200 on Windows adds substantially to the cost of a build.

2: Very little system resources required, Linux utilizes hardware more effectively IMHO. Entire OS fits on a CD.

3: Most Linux programs that replace Windows applications tend to be simple but effective. Many are installed with OS for free vs. buying/installing for Windows.

4: No DRM, everything plays with a simple install of ubuntu unrestricted extras.

5: Automatic updates for the entire system, no updating one program at a time.


Why Windows:
1: Myth TV still requires a bunch of terminal/manual configuration to get everything working correctly, good for advanced Linux users (I am not one). WMC7 basically works out of the box.

2: Running windows specific programs such as TomTom, Logitech, don't work well under wine.

3: Learning a new OS requires some effort, some people don't want to give up Microsoft Office or other Microsoft products.

4: Linux doesn't have a good, simple DVD backup program. The K9 assistant works but why 3 different applications for a simple DVD backup?

5: Poor ATI chipset support. I still haven't got DMA to work on my 740G board.

Pyker
July 3rd, 2009, 01:22 AM
Why I choose Ubuntu over Windows?

Here are some reasons:
- Ubuntu is FREE
- Ubuntu and other Open Source things have a great community (like this one, for example). With this I mean, if you were to ask anything related to a Windows problem that wasn't return by a Google search, you would have to go Microsoft's forum, which is a complete mess.
- Ubuntu (and Debian-based) is much more secure than Windows
- There are several less services running on Ubuntu than on Windows
- Windows Vista had to be re-done from scratch because of the several errors that were present on Windows XP (remember that?)
- You want to upgrade Windows, you pay (a lot). You want to upgrade Ubuntu, it's free.
- There are no viruses on Ubuntu (unless you give your root password to the viruses).
- Ubuntu login is faster than Windows.
- Ubuntu loads less stuff to RAM than Windows.

There are, of course, some things I do not like, like:
- Games that are ran on Wine are often slower than if they were run on Windows.
- Some graphic card vendors, like ATI, don't really like Ubuntu and work just awfully.
- As servicetech said, Windows-specific apps don't run well on Wine (even though I hope that will be fixed).

Here's some things that I don't like in ANY OS:
- Each time that a new version is released, the necessary space for installation gets higher and higher.
- There will be a time that, with so many security updates and all that stuff, a 1 Terabyte (1024 Gigabytes) hard drive will be necessary to store the OS (only).

I can't really remember more but you have a good list over there.

EDIT: I guess I was a little dramatic on the last one :D.

But, yes, I am dual-booting Vista and Jaunty Jackalope (Ubuntu 9.04).

bear24rw
July 3rd, 2009, 03:04 AM
The repositories and the ability to change anything i desire.

privatejarhead
July 3rd, 2009, 08:39 AM
Racecar56,
If you are trying to slowly migrate away from Windows XP but still would like to keep a dual boot option, I would highly recommend you give Windows 7 RC a spin around the block! To learn more, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the “under the hood” features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

wow, i've never seen a microsoft employee here before. must feel strangle being in a sea of (sometimes hostile) window-less users >.>

brawd
July 3rd, 2009, 09:16 AM
Software Cost(ish) Time to install

XP £80 Half hour
Office £80 "
Virus £30 10mins
Nero ? ?
Paint shop pro ? ?
etc ££££ hours
etc £££££ hours

Advice ahd help Difficult ?



Ubuntu 0 35mins
Advice and help Easy and freindly Almost immediately

Beat that Microsoft.

brawd

monsterstack
July 3rd, 2009, 10:02 AM
Software | Cost(ish) | Time to install
------------------------------------------------------------
XP | £80 | Half hour
Office | £80 | "
Virus | £30 | 10mins
Nero | ? | ?
Paint shop pro | ? | ?
etc | ££££ | hours
etc | ££££ | hours
Advice and help | Difficult | ?
------------------------------------------------------------
Ubuntu | 0 | 35mins
Advice and help | Easy and friendly | Almost immediately

Beat that Microsoft.

brawd

fixt

SeanOScare
July 3rd, 2009, 11:06 AM
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?

In my opinion it would be the challenge. I feel software available on Ubuntu is more difficult to get the hang of, but that is an advantage to me. I believe once I've mastered how to use programs such as Cinelerra, GIMP etc. then I'm pretty much ready for anything. Bring on After Effects!

richard270384
July 6th, 2009, 01:04 AM
Be fair here Ms routinely gets criticised for trying to include such software, I believe in europe windows 7 won't even have IE or WMP installed by default, not by MS choice but to please Europe who are concerned about giving this MS software an unfair advantage (however, it will be made very easy to install them). So why would they even think about providing MS office when they can't even get away with software they give away.

I know this is a little off-topic, but:

I personally don't see the problem with MS including their own software with their OS. I kind of think it is wrong to stop them - it gives them an unfair disadvantage.

In fact, I think including additional software should be promoted. The more programs that are included with an OS the better. I always hated having the Windows OS, then having to get an Office program, an antivirus, and god knows what other apps to get any real use out of my computer. If there are no restrictions on what software can be included, then I think all OS's would eventually evolve to include everything a person could need in a nicely ribboned bundle - like Ubuntu.

I think that as long as Microsoft allows all programs to be uninstalled (without affecting functionality of the OS), there should be no problem with installing extra MS programs in a default Windows installation. I'm sure 99% of Windows users know how to uninstall programs, and install new ones - and they are aware that there are plenty of alternative programs that they could use.

How about those little packs you get in the supermarket that have crackers, some ham and some cheese all in the one handy little packet? Should we be putting a stop to that? Afterall, shouldn't people be free to choose the brand and type of cheese that they have on their crackers? If the cheese is included in the pack with the crackers, then the customer will never be forced to make a decision about their cheese... it's just not fair.

While we're at it, for decades car manufacturers have been shipping their cars with their own accessories - floor mats, mag wheels, spoilers etc... It's about time that they faced the music and stopped this anti-competitive behaviour. All cars should be shipped with nothing more than 4 basic wheels, an engine and an empty shell of body. Customers should be forced to make a decision on what brand of car seats, seat belts and other accessories they want, without the car manufacturer making things difficult for them by including their own versions of these products with the car.

alliance1975
July 6th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Ubuntu good:
No viruses, no adware, etc.
very cheap dollar cost
open office can read/use ms office

Ubuntu bad:
installing programs
no quicken
can't use my sony ericsson software, (A BIG, BIG BAD)
very expensive time cost
most solutions to problems only come from forums

durand
July 6th, 2009, 01:15 AM
I know this is a little off-topic, but:

I personally don't see the problem with MS including their own software with their OS. I kind of think it is wrong to stop them - it gives them an unfair disadvantage.

In fact, I think including additional software should be promoted. The more programs that are included with an OS the better. I always hated having the Windows OS, then having to get an Office program, an antivirus, and god knows what other apps to get any real use out of my computer. If there are no restrictions on what software can be included, then I think all OS's would eventually evolve to include everything a person could need in a nicely ribboned bundle - like Ubuntu.

I think that as long as Microsoft allows all programs to be uninstalled (without affecting functionality of the OS), there should be no problem with installing extra MS programs in a default Windows installation. I'm sure 99% of Windows users know how to uninstall programs, and install new ones - and they are aware that there are plenty of alternative programs that they could use.

How about those little packs you get in the supermarket that have crackers, some ham and some cheese all in the one handy little packet? Should we be putting a stop to that? Afterall, shouldn't people be free to choose the brand and type of cheese that they have on their crackers? If the cheese is included in the pack with the crackers, then the customer will never be forced to make a decision about their cheese... it's just not fair.

While we're at it, for decades car manufacturers have been shipping their cars with their own accessories - floor mats, mag wheels, spoilers etc... It's about time that they faced the music and stopped this anti-competitive behaviour. All cars should be shipped with nothing more than 4 basic wheels, an engine and an empty shell of body. Customers should be forced to make a decision on what brand of car seats, seat belts and other accessories they want, without the car manufacturer making things difficult for them by including their own versions of these products with the car.

I agree. I normally support the EC but this is a completely moronic decision.. Microsoft has a right to include their own software, after all, it is their product. The problem here is the incompetence of people who don't know to check if alternatives exist. This is not microsoft's fault.

durand
July 6th, 2009, 01:18 AM
Ubuntu bad:
installing programs
no quicken
can't use my sony ericsson software, (A BIG, BIG BAD)
very expensive time cost
most solutions to problems only come from forums

How is installing programs bad in ubuntu. To me, it's a huge improvement over windows where each program seems to have its own installer and its own way of updating itself if any. With ubuntu, running a system update updates pretty much *every* program.

Also, the forums are a good source of solutions. On windows, where would you find solutions?

sdlynx
July 6th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Windows+:
-plays commercial games
-Aero (but only sometimes)
-has mainstream of people using it
-easy for non-techy people

Windows-:
-viruses
-useless security
-1 workspace
-not very customizable
-closed-source
-not free
-requires better specs
-no drivers for generic installation
-crappy support
-no compiz awesomeness
-not as secure
-slower
-no live disc options
-cannot be run off a flash drive
-probably more I can't think of

ranch hand
July 6th, 2009, 02:14 AM
I know this is a little off-topic, but:

I personally don't see the problem with MS including their own software with their OS. I kind of think it is wrong to stop them - it gives them an unfair disadvantage.

In fact, I think including additional software should be promoted. The more programs that are included with an OS the better. I always hated having the Windows OS, then having to get an Office program, an antivirus, and god knows what other apps to get any real use out of my computer. If there are no restrictions on what software can be included, then I think all OS's would eventually evolve to include everything a person could need in a nicely ribboned bundle - like Ubuntu.

I think that as long as Microsoft allows all programs to be uninstalled (without affecting functionality of the OS), there should be no problem with installing extra MS programs in a default Windows installation. I'm sure 99% of Windows users know how to uninstall programs, and install new ones - and they are aware that there are plenty of alternative programs that they could use.

How about those little packs you get in the supermarket that have crackers, some ham and some cheese all in the one handy little packet? Should we be putting a stop to that? Afterall, shouldn't people be free to choose the brand and type of cheese that they have on their crackers? If the cheese is included in the pack with the crackers, then the customer will never be forced to make a decision about their cheese... it's just not fair.

While we're at it, for decades car manufacturers have been shipping their cars with their own accessories - floor mats, mag wheels, spoilers etc... It's about time that they faced the music and stopped this anti-competitive behaviour. All cars should be shipped with nothing more than 4 basic wheels, an engine and an empty shell of body. Customers should be forced to make a decision on what brand of car seats, seat belts and other accessories they want, without the car manufacturer making things difficult for them by including their own versions of these products with the car.
I am a ranch hand. this is not a bunch of folks noted for ***** footing around.

I, note the I, think that this poster is an employee of MS. This is ******** put out by a multi-national corp. that has no morals against BUYING entire governments to further its attempts to reap profets from people without even offering decent service.

Just because people are too stupid to see that they are being ripped off by greedy mother f***ers is no reason to say that the buggers are OK. People that prey on the retarded and young are not given a free ride. Greedy bastards don't need one either.

I would pay for Ubuntu or Debian if that was the way it was set up because you get value for your money. I have used MS crap for years and all it does is go up in price and down in value.

This is my opinion and I, unlike MS, respect peoples right to differ with me. Do not try to tell me that inc.s that buy governments wholesale so that they can regulate what is on peoples computers is a good thing for computing, consumers, freedom or capitalism (the last I am in favor of, I do not believe that the biggest bully on the block is right).

I am sorry (not very) if I come off a little strongly. I do NOT like facist pigs and that is what I think of MS.

I realize that this may be censored by these forums. I respect the right of free individuals to disagree (I would die for that right). I also think that MS is an evil bunch that are part of a trend that will be the death of freedom and slavery for productive people all over the world.

The reason that some legal jurisdictions have ruled against MS is because THEY (MS) do not believe in competition, and MS. with it's finacial might, has not bought that legal system.

I am sorry if I have offended folks. I am NOT attaching richard270384;7567218. He is free to express his oppinion and I will defend that freedom.

I do think that people better wake up and see what is being done to them by wonderful, benevolent, greedy bastards.

afroman10496
July 6th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Ubuntu good:
No viruses, no adware, etc.
very cheap dollar cost
open office can read/use ms office

Ubuntu bad:
installing programs
no quicken
can't use my sony ericsson software, (A BIG, BIG BAD)
very expensive time cost
most solutions to problems only come from forums

I'm sure you can find open source software for the Sony Erricson, and It's easier to install a program in Ubuntu than it is in any OS. And how does it take time? Ubuntu is awesome. And it has amazing support, online or offline.

richard270384
July 6th, 2009, 03:28 AM
I, note the I, think that this poster is an employee of MS.

For the record, i'm currently unemployed - I have never worked for Microsoft, but if they have a Sydney office (which I don't think they do), I'd take any job I can get.


Do not try to tell me that inc.s that buy governments wholesale so that they can regulate what is on peoples computers is a good thing for computing, consumers, freedom or capitalism

I've never heard of any regulation that controlled what is on people's computers. I disagree with regulating what is on people's computers, which is why I disagree with the EU's decision that stops MS from distributing it's extra programs with Windows.



I am sorry if I have offended folks. I am NOT attaching richard270384;7567218. He is free to express his oppinion and I will defend that freedom.

I'm not offended - so I don't see why anybody else would be. I also didn't see your post as an attack on me - well maybe the part about me working for MS. :) I appreciate that despite our differing opinions you have the view that I am free to express mine - I share the same view that you are free to express yours.


I do think that people better wake up and see what is being done to them by wonderful, benevolent, greedy bastards.

I wonder if in 20 years time, will you view Google in the same way that you view MS now? I think that MS is viewed negatively a lot of the time simply because they are a large corporation. We have all paid Microsoft a seemingly high price at some point in our lives. I think at the moment, Google is lucky because their power and size means that they don't need to actually charge user's to use their services most of the time. This business model takes away their 'large corporation' identity a little bit and makes them look more like a not-for-profit organisation. But the fact of the matter is that Google is trying to make as much profit as possible, just like MS is...

monsterstack
July 6th, 2009, 04:01 AM
I wonder if in 20 years time, will you view Google in the same way that you view MS now? I think that MS is viewed negatively a lot of the time simply because they are a large corporation. We have all paid Microsoft a seemingly high price at some point in our lives. I think at the moment, Google is lucky because their power and size means that they don't need to actually charge user's to use their services most of the time. This business model takes away their 'large corporation' identity a little bit and makes them look more like a not-for-profit organisation. But the fact of the matter is that Google is trying to make as much profit as possible, just like MS is...

I honestly think that Google's monopoly came from them being the best at what they do. Although they have started aggressively head-hunting employees from Microsoft in recent years. It seems to me they have a desire to crush Microsoft. Well, that's up to them I suppose.

Here are some reasons why lots of people hate Microsoft.


Microsoft modified Windows 3.1 to crash and burn on DR-DOS.
Microsoft made OEMs buy licences for every processor they shipped to discourage them from installing rival operating systems in the late eighties.
Microsoft priced IBM out of the game to kill off OS/2.
Intel wanted to make Native Signal Processing chips to play rich media on any operating system, and Microsoft threatened to make Windows not work on Intel chips to force them to stop.
Microsoft withheld crucial APIs to make Wordperfect crash and burn on Windows, and then disallowed OEMs from pre-installing it on new computers.
Microsoft offered WISE, a tool to allow programmes written for Windows APIs to run on Unix and Apple computers, and then they extended the API without telling anyone, making sure that the programs people wrote would crash on Unix and Apple machines.
Microsoft made Internet Explorer a central feature of its operating system, and made Apple stop installing Netscape by threatening to stop selling them Microsoft Office.
Microsoft ruined the web with terrible css and javascript and ActiveX, guaranteeing that the internet looked completely crap in anything other than Internet Explorer running on Windows.
Microsoft hijacked Java and tried to make it into some proprietary development platform for Windows, full of Windows-specific code that destroyed the interoperable nature of Sun Microsystem's original Java.
Microsoft extended their server technology so that only Windows terminals were usable with Windows servers. And then once they'd killed off the competition, they didn't release another Server edition for five years.
Ed Curry, security specialist, was hired to test the security of the Windows operating system for the NSA, and he found it was full of security holes. Microsoft hounded him, destroyed his reputation, forced him out of a job, and engaged in lengthy legal battles against him to further ruin his claims, which were eventually proven to be completely legitimate. Yeah, he died of a stroke brought on by stress, dontcha know.
Microsoft change their document specifications for every version of Office they release, forcing people to upgrade, and other software to become incompatible.
Microsoft, once they were on top, sat on their laurels, and didn't upgrade their crappy operating system for seven years. And then gave us Vista, which, among others things, deliberately removed the ability for executables to be run from rival filesystems, screwing up a whole load of people's back-ups. Considering they're suing people for using their filesystems now, this seems like pretty anti-competitive behaviour to me.
Microsoft engaged on a FUD campaign that persists to this day about the number of patents the Linux operating system infringes upon.
Microsoft bullied, bribed and co-erced the ISO into accepting the OOXML standard, which was a flaming pile of crap that not even they themselves have fully implemented.
The ODF support in Office SP2 ruins documents. Considering Microsoft funded the development of the CleverAge plugin, which was given a BSD Licence, and which has zero problems with ODF files in Office, it makes you wonder. They funded it, the code is BSD, so they can just copy and paste it into Office. They have the ability to interoperate with ODF as good as anyone. They haven't. Why not?
Microsoft are still gimping the internet with IE8, forcing people to write ugly, ugly hacks to get their sites to work properly.
Silverlight, which only works in Windows, is another one. Us Linux users get Moonlight, which will never have the features of Silverlight, Microsoft will make sure of that. yet another attempt to make the web bearable only when it is viewed from a Windows machine.


Microsoft have lied, cheated, bullied, bribed and scammed their way to being at the top of the pack. And when they went unrivalled, they harmed consumers, harmed businesses, harmed choice, harmed interoperability, and generally harmed everything. And they're still doing it.

richard270384
July 6th, 2009, 04:42 AM
Nice list. In all honesty, I didn't know half of this stuff.

I think a couple of the points are a little trivial: E.g.


Microsoft priced IBM out of the game to kill off OS/2.

This happens all the time in business - sometimes it's wrong, other times it's not - when it's not wrong, we call it competition. Look at the price war we have going on between airlines at the moment.

and


Microsoft ruined the web with terrible css and javascript and ActiveX, guaranteeing that the internet looked completely crap in anything other than Internet Explorer running on Windows.

Every browser had its own proprietry HTML tags a few years back (on top of the standard) - I think Netscape introduced the marquee and blink tags (i could be wrong) - talk about making the web look bad. I'll admit that IE frustrates me (as a hobby web developer), but 99.9% of modern web designers make sure that their sites look just as good on FF as they do on IE. I tested one of my sites on IE8 for the first time the other day, I was actually quite impressed with how compliant it appeared to be when it came to CSS. As for Silverlight, I don't see it taking off. I had a quicklook when I first heard about it ages ago and I wasn't really that fussed over it. It seems to me like it's aimed at competing with Flash. But in all honesty, I think MS would have to pay developers to use Silverlight, after all, there is nothing wrong with Adobe's Flash. So why would a developer choose to alienate such a large proportion of their potential viewership (and learn a new design tool) by using Silverlight...


But there are some points that really surprised me: E.g.


Microsoft made Internet Explorer a central feature of its operating system, and made Apple stop installing Netscape by threatening to stop selling them Microsoft Office.


I always hated how IE was so intertwined with Windows, I understood why to a degree, but found it frustrating. I think if this statement is true about Netscape and Office, MS should have been in major trouble - I hope heads rolled at MS for that.

I guess if all of this is true, I have to wonder why Linux is taking so long to take off?

monsterstack
July 6th, 2009, 04:48 AM
I always hated how IE was so intertwined with Windows, I understood why to a degree, but found it frustrating. I think if this statement is true about Netscape and Office, MS should have been in major trouble - I hope heads rolled at MS for that.

I guess if all of this is true, I have to wonder why Linux is taking so long to take off?

All of the stuff in the list came out at the various antitrust trials Microsoft faced over the years, except for some of the newer things in the list, obviously. Search for ECIS's "A History of Anticompetitive Behaviour" to see the long version that's full of actual evidence and not just me ranting. Except for the stuff about Ed Curry. Information about that little incident seems to have been almost completely wiped off the face of the earth, as I could only find about six documents even mentioning him. Shame.

Mr. Picklesworth
July 6th, 2009, 05:14 AM
Spooky stuff about Ed Curry. Found this article from a quick search:
http://cryptome.info/ed-curry.htm

Regrettably, in the 10 years since it was written, every web site that is linked to has succeeded at breaking the founding principle of the web (that being the "web" thing, where hyperlinks actually work) and changed their URL schemes without having fallbacks.
Archive.org has the articles, so here's the Wired one:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991114025934/http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/12121.html

Curiously nothing on Wikipedia. Someone should pop together an article there.

ranch hand
July 6th, 2009, 06:26 AM
richard270384
I know that I am strange but I don't really like Google and don't use it. So far they do seem to hold thier position from delivering what the majority of thier users want.

MS does not do that but they have a solid user base of folks that can't figure out how to use anything else.

As for regulations - MS damn near bought the legislature in Denmark a few years ago and had just about gotten a law all the way through that would have made access to public records possible only with MS machines. The uproar there when people found out was so loud that it went away. This has been tried in most EU countries with varying success.

If you are speaking of Sydney MT it would be hard to get MS to be there. It is not as big as the "campus" in Redmond. Nice town though. Quite a hike from here but then everything in MT is.

If you drive from the NW corner to the SE corner of MT it is about the same as from Chicago to DC.

I am happy to hear that you are not a member of the evil empire.

I am only partially employed myself. The owner/boss of the ranch that I have worked on since 2000 up and died on me. The hiers busted the outfit up so I am now in the big city (county seat Pop 500) and working on an outfit just out of town for the summer. The dog (working stock dog) can live with me but I had to put my horse on another ranch where she is earning her keep as a spare mount (they had thier doubts about her but now want to buy her).

I have got to get something full time.

Viva
July 6th, 2009, 08:43 AM
I honestly think that Google's monopoly came from them being the best at what they do. Although they have started aggressively head-hunting employees from Microsoft in recent years. It seems to me they have a desire to crush Microsoft. Well, that's up to them I suppose.

Here are some reasons why lots of people hate Microsoft.


Microsoft modified Windows 3.1 to crash and burn on DR-DOS.
Microsoft made OEMs buy licences for every processor they shipped to discourage them from installing rival operating systems in the late eighties.
Microsoft priced IBM out of the game to kill off OS/2.
Intel wanted to make Native Signal Processing chips to play rich media on any operating system, and Microsoft threatened to make Windows not work on Intel chips to force them to stop.
Microsoft withheld crucial APIs to make Wordperfect crash and burn on Windows, and then disallowed OEMs from pre-installing it on new computers.
Microsoft offered WISE, a tool to allow programmes written for Windows APIs to run on Unix and Apple computers, and then they extended the API without telling anyone, making sure that the programs people wrote would crash on Unix and Apple machines.
Microsoft made Internet Explorer a central feature of its operating system, and made Apple stop installing Netscape by threatening to stop selling them Microsoft Office.
Microsoft ruined the web with terrible css and javascript and ActiveX, guaranteeing that the internet looked completely crap in anything other than Internet Explorer running on Windows.
Microsoft hijacked Java and tried to make it into some proprietary development platform for Windows, full of Windows-specific code that destroyed the interoperable nature of Sun Microsystem's original Java.
Microsoft extended their server technology so that only Windows terminals were usable with Windows servers. And then once they'd killed off the competition, they didn't release another Server edition for five years.
Ed Curry, security specialist, was hired to test the security of the Windows operating system for the NSA, and he found it was full of security holes. Microsoft hounded him, destroyed his reputation, forced him out of a job, and engaged in lengthy legal battles against him to further ruin his claims, which were eventually proven to be completely legitimate. Yeah, he died of a stroke brought on by stress, dontcha know.
Microsoft change their document specifications for every version of Office they release, forcing people to upgrade, and other software to become incompatible.
Microsoft, once they were on top, sat on their laurels, and didn't upgrade their crappy operating system for seven years. And then gave us Vista, which, among others things, deliberately removed the ability for executables to be run from rival filesystems, screwing up a whole load of people's back-ups. Considering they're suing people for using their filesystems now, this seems like pretty anti-competitive behaviour to me.
Microsoft engaged on a FUD campaign that persists to this day about the number of patents the Linux operating system infringes upon.
Microsoft bullied, bribed and co-erced the ISO into accepting the OOXML standard, which was a flaming pile of crap that not even they themselves have fully implemented.
The ODF support in Office SP2 ruins documents. Considering Microsoft funded the development of the CleverAge plugin, which was given a BSD Licence, and which has zero problems with ODF files in Office, it makes you wonder. They funded it, the code is BSD, so they can just copy and paste it into Office. They have the ability to interoperate with ODF as good as anyone. They haven't. Why not?
Microsoft are still gimping the internet with IE8, forcing people to write ugly, ugly hacks to get their sites to work properly.
Silverlight, which only works in Windows, is another one. Us Linux users get Moonlight, which will never have the features of Silverlight, Microsoft will make sure of that. yet another attempt to make the web bearable only when it is viewed from a Windows machine.


Microsoft have lied, cheated, bullied, bribed and scammed their way to being at the top of the pack. And when they went unrivalled, they harmed consumers, harmed businesses, harmed choice, harmed interoperability, and generally harmed everything. And they're still doing it.

Lets not forget pumping money into SCO

afroman10496
July 6th, 2009, 10:16 PM
MAN this thread is big!

justinmiller87
July 6th, 2009, 10:30 PM
MAN this thread is big!

No manual entry for this
No manual entry for thread
No manual entry for is
No manual entry for big!
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Viva
July 6th, 2009, 10:34 PM
No manual entry for this
No manual entry for thread
No manual entry for is
No manual entry for big!
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Hehe, I was about to post that

mdsmedia
July 6th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Nice list. In all honesty, I didn't know half of this stuff.

In all honesty, it all boils down to yes, a company should be allowed to include what software it sees fit, on its OS, but Microsoft is a monopoly corporation, not just a big company, and it uses its monopoly position to try to squash its competitors. That's not competition. That's anti-competitive behaviour.

The main reason Linux has not gone ahead, in terms of market share, is that Windows is sold on nearly every new PC, users get used to Windows and the applications that only run on Windows. Even most successful Linux-based apps also run on Windows, because they're open.

People don't switch operating systems all that often, simply because there is an alternative to Windows. They use what they have. When the rare user tries Linux, it's not LIKE Windows, or doesn't run their favourite app, so it's Linux's fault it's not Windows.

MS uses its dominant market position to ensure that this remains the case.

The EU is simply saying "you can't do this". The EU is simply saying that you can't use anti-competitive measures to maintain your dominant position.

mistypotato
July 7th, 2009, 04:37 AM
Plain and simple....

I was ushered into Linux by WindowsXP viruses.

Up until about 6 months ago, I was a 100% Windows Camp. I had looked at Linux once or twice...bought an Office Depot copy of Mandrake once...but really never got far.....Then a tragic event proved to be a blessing in disguise.

I got an infection because a laptop in the network was accidentally started with WiFi on and with no security enabled. It sat on top of a file cabinet running like that for about a month until it was discovered. Sloppy but an all too common mistake. A few neighbors admitted they had been on it. But I'm sure my network was compromised to hell and back.

Anyway, the whole network came crashing down finally and that's when the laptop was discovered. The top was closed and I didnt even realize it was on all that time. It took an act of GOD to finally get past the ensuing nightmare that lasted for about 2 months. Conflicker and a host of nasty things were all over the network. Passwords stolen...just a mess.

After checking the Windows options, I decided to replace the OS on the two servers and all 5 PC's with ubuntu.

It's been at least 6 months now and I can say I have settled into Linux permanently.

As usual there ARE those far and few in between apps that I HAVE to use Windows for so I have one Computer that is still WindowsXP that runs the Administration Console for my Watchguard Fireboxes, Dreamweaver and TurboCad11....oh and one online game....that's about it. If I didn't need Windows for those apps Microsoft would be history in my camp.

Linux is not for everyone. But it has something for everyone I think.
I have since installed ubuntu on a friends computer (he's 60ish) and not terribly computer savvy but he loves it and uses it daily. Last time I went over his house he had ubuntu set up so it looked almost exactly like his old WindowsXP computer. I just laughed. He was really getting into Linux.

Anyway, I am now permanently entrenched in the Linux camp. Sometimes every now and then I get frustrated with ubuntu but I cannot argue against the freedom from Microsoft and the License headaches and so forth (not to mention reduced fear of virus infections) which are WELL worth ANY minor problems I may have with ubuntu.

So currently I have two servers, 3 PC's and two laptops running ubuntu as their PRIMARY OS and one PC that dual boots with WINXP and ubuntu.

VERY grateful to all those who have sacrificed to make this available.

user11
July 7th, 2009, 06:31 AM
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?

lol, you state basically every common computer usage for ubuntu, but then you say you use XP for games. Sounds more like a X-Box vs. PC thread. Some people do more with their PCs then play video games a $300 console can play :P

estyles
July 7th, 2009, 01:39 PM
lol, you state basically every common computer usage for ubuntu, but then you say you use XP for games. Sounds more like a X-Box vs. PC thread. Some people do more with their PCs then play video games a $300 console can play :P

Umm, you're quoting and responding to a post from 4 years ago. Posted by a user who hasn't posted in 3 years. I doubt he's still looking for an answer. The thread is still useful because it's turned into just a place for people to list reasons why they prefer Ubuntu over Windows, but pointing out fallacies in the OP is probably not going to do anything at this point... =)

afroman10496
July 11th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Umm, you're quoting and responding to a post from 4 years ago. Posted by a user who hasn't posted in 3 years. I doubt he's still looking for an answer. The thread is still useful because it's turned into just a place for people to list reasons why they prefer Ubuntu over Windows, but pointing out fallacies in the OP is probably not going to do anything at this point... =)
So, this thread is a perfect place for anti-Microsoft guys to point out the many +'s of Ubuntu and the many, thousands of -'s of Windows.:p

applecake
July 11th, 2009, 09:41 PM
Hmm.. I don't see that Ubuntu is way more bettter than Windows, but somehow I feel "dragged" to Ubuntu, cause it's funnier, you can change more things and try out, and I like the idea of opensource.. :)

ubudog
July 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Well because windows is slow and ubuntu is fast.
Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't.

Dougie187
July 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Hmm.. I don't see that Ubuntu is way more bettter than Windows, but somehow I feel "dragged" to Ubuntu, cause it's funnier, you can change more things and try out, and I like the idea of opensource.. :)

I feel like ubuntu is better personally.

As far as my experiences go, ubuntu has never felt bogged down after using it a lot, as windows did for me. With windows I had a yearly re-installation schedule where I would just wipe it and start fresh to make it snappier, and I have never had to do that with ubuntu. Granted, I typically upgrade when a new release comes out. But upgrading is a lot more painless than reinstalling windows was.

Also, windows doesn't (natively) have the things that I am looking for, and even the things it does have are not as easy to use as the tools I look for.

I tend to use the command line to program a lot, and I use vim, I know windows has gvim, and cygwin, but neither of those are as simple (or quick) to use for me as a terminal in ubuntu. Also, I just like customizing everything.

ubudog
July 11th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Oh and because ubuntu is free and open source.

Dougie187
July 11th, 2009, 09:47 PM
Well because windows is slow and ubuntu is fast.
Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't.

You should make sure to clarify "Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't (yet)".

I would assume with more linux based systems getting put out (Chrome OS) by bigger companies, more people might start to develop viruses for linux too.

Chame_Wizard
July 11th, 2009, 11:09 PM
I honestly think that Google's monopoly came from them being the best at what they do. Although they have started aggressively head-hunting employees from Microsoft in recent years. It seems to me they have a desire to crush Microsoft. Well, that's up to them I suppose.

Here are some reasons why lots of people hate Microsoft.


Microsoft modified Windows 3.1 to crash and burn on DR-DOS.
Microsoft made OEMs buy licences for every processor they shipped to discourage them from installing rival operating systems in the late eighties.
Microsoft priced IBM out of the game to kill off OS/2.
Intel wanted to make Native Signal Processing chips to play rich media on any operating system, and Microsoft threatened to make Windows not work on Intel chips to force them to stop.
Microsoft withheld crucial APIs to make Wordperfect crash and burn on Windows, and then disallowed OEMs from pre-installing it on new computers.
Microsoft offered WISE, a tool to allow programmes written for Windows APIs to run on Unix and Apple computers, and then they extended the API without telling anyone, making sure that the programs people wrote would crash on Unix and Apple machines.
Microsoft made Internet Explorer a central feature of its operating system, and made Apple stop installing Netscape by threatening to stop selling them Microsoft Office.
Microsoft ruined the web with terrible css and javascript and ActiveX, guaranteeing that the internet looked completely crap in anything other than Internet Explorer running on Windows.
Microsoft hijacked Java and tried to make it into some proprietary development platform for Windows, full of Windows-specific code that destroyed the interoperable nature of Sun Microsystem's original Java.
Microsoft extended their server technology so that only Windows terminals were usable with Windows servers. And then once they'd killed off the competition, they didn't release another Server edition for five years.
Ed Curry, security specialist, was hired to test the security of the Windows operating system for the NSA, and he found it was full of security holes. Microsoft hounded him, destroyed his reputation, forced him out of a job, and engaged in lengthy legal battles against him to further ruin his claims, which were eventually proven to be completely legitimate. Yeah, he died of a stroke brought on by stress, dontcha know.
Microsoft change their document specifications for every version of Office they release, forcing people to upgrade, and other software to become incompatible.
Microsoft, once they were on top, sat on their laurels, and didn't upgrade their crappy operating system for seven years. And then gave us Vista, which, among others things, deliberately removed the ability for executables to be run from rival filesystems, screwing up a whole load of people's back-ups. Considering they're suing people for using their filesystems now, this seems like pretty anti-competitive behaviour to me.
Microsoft engaged on a FUD campaign that persists to this day about the number of patents the Linux operating system infringes upon.
Microsoft bullied, bribed and co-erced the ISO into accepting the OOXML standard, which was a flaming pile of crap that not even they themselves have fully implemented.
The ODF support in Office SP2 ruins documents. Considering Microsoft funded the development of the CleverAge plugin, which was given a BSD Licence, and which has zero problems with ODF files in Office, it makes you wonder. They funded it, the code is BSD, so they can just copy and paste it into Office. They have the ability to interoperate with ODF as good as anyone. They haven't. Why not?
Microsoft are still gimping the internet with IE8, forcing people to write ugly, ugly hacks to get their sites to work properly.
Silverlight, which only works in Windows, is another one. Us Linux users get Moonlight, which will never have the features of Silverlight, Microsoft will make sure of that. yet another attempt to make the web bearable only when it is viewed from a Windows machine.


Microsoft have lied, cheated, bullied, bribed and scammed their way to being at the top of the pack. And when they went unrivalled, they harmed consumers, harmed businesses, harmed choice, harmed interoperability, and generally harmed everything. And they're still doing it.

AMEN :lolflag:

sXeChris
July 12th, 2009, 12:09 AM
For me, there billions of reasons but I'll say one of them; Ubuntu is much more customizable.

I think you haven't been on Ubuntu enough/haven't gone in depth with it.

afroman10496
July 12th, 2009, 12:45 AM
You should make sure to clarify "Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't (yet)".

I would assume with more linux based systems getting put out (Chrome OS) by bigger companies, more people might start to develop viruses for linux too.
I don't think Linux and Mac don't have viruses because less people use them; I think that it's the Unix structure. Windows has a very lousy filesystem (NTFS), while Linux and Unix have a secure, good one.

monsterstack
July 12th, 2009, 01:33 AM
I don't think Linux and Mac don't have viruses because less people use them; I think that it's the Unix structure. Windows has a very lousy filesystem (NTFS), while Linux and Unix have a secure, good one.

The existence of viruses on Linux doesn't have anything to do with the file-systems we use. The only logical response to the people who say we'll be hit with lots of viruses and other malware eventually is, "show me the evidence." It hasn't happened yet, despite the fact that half of the internet runs on Linux. And it'll continue to not happen for a long time yet.

diggedy
July 13th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Ive just moved over to Ubuntu but ive been experimenting with different linux distributions for a while. and so far, other than gaming linux does everything I need but faster than vista.
The way I see it is, in the last ten years there have been 6-7 windows releases for the desktop, each costing stupid amounts of money. It was only last year I moved to 64 bit and bought vista 64 for around 80 quid and now windows 7 is here (almost). In another 10 years, if I stick with windows I will have spent a few hundred quid keeping up to date or I can move to linux now and save the money. I may have to buy another windows once vista is no longer supported for gaming if linux never catches on with regards to game designers but thats for another day. But who knows, with a major player like google starting to use linux more in its mobile and now upcoming desktop OS`s things may change.

Ekeluo
July 14th, 2009, 01:23 AM
Various reasons - Love the challenge, refreshing difference and it's speed on my computer, free, compositing and all such fancy tricks, and kde4 (no, I will Not be trying the windows version, just don't feel right).

mamamia88
July 14th, 2009, 01:29 AM
my bad

Revolutionary101
July 14th, 2009, 01:42 AM
I use Ubuntu because it is free and it is fast. The only problem I have with Ubuntu is that when doing CPU intensive tasks (SETI@home, Video Rendering) it doesn't go as fast as Windows does. Although Ubuntu does let me multitask a whole lot better while doing these task then Windows did.

Eupho
July 14th, 2009, 04:41 PM
FREEDOM!

That's it.

triplesquarednine
July 15th, 2009, 02:35 AM
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?

if your a gamer, i would stick with windows. as that is what gamers use.
games can be a pain to setup in wine, depending on the game and your hardware...
even on a mac you would need to setup bootcamp/parallels to run them.

i am no gamer, so there are tons of advantages to linux.


1st - no viruses and better security.

2nd - windows is built on DOS, which is quite dated, and lacks flexibility.
realistically, not that microsoft has the option, they should start from scratch.

3rd - linux is modular, and you can tailer your OS to work in ways not possible
in any microsoft product (and even apple for that matter) linux allows granular control and extreme customization. and can be embedded into all sorts of devices.

4th - it is open-source and free. the price is right, and you can actually help develop
the software you use, either through testing/debugging, writing code or contributing ideas to developers. you are free to modify anything that you want. this isn't true
for microsoft. that is why they are pushing windows 7, as having a better console(terminal) and why they are advertising they are doing more open-sourcing, which is all nonesense being as their OS is not opensource. and many of the projects
listed at microsoft are just ports of linux software.

5th. Winxp is on it's way out the door, and won't be supported in the semi-near future. vista is garbage(as anyone knows) and windows 7 doesn't look that promising either. and in general windows reminds me of the 90's, and has no style...
and not very appealing compared to MacOSX or Linux.

unix/linux are better for operating systems. because of the inherent design.

the problem has always been because the corporate world uses windows,
alot of companies don't release linux drivers/software...

this is going to change though!

Xilient
July 15th, 2009, 06:13 AM
Ubuntu is just more fun to use than Windows (in my case it is Windows 7). I have never gotten viruses on Windows, it has never crashed, and it runs about as fast as Linux does for me (which is VERY fast). So I guess I'm one of the lucky windows users with no problems? Anyway, it all comes down to Ubuntu is way more fun.

triplesquarednine
July 15th, 2009, 06:57 AM
Ubuntu is just more fun to use than Windows (in my case it is Windows 7). I have never gotten viruses on Windows, it has never crashed, and it runs about as fast as Linux does for me (which is VERY fast). So I guess I'm one of the lucky windows users with no problems? Anyway, it all comes down to Ubuntu is way more fun.


i second that notion of the "way mor fun" factor...

however, i have never seen windows run faster than a finely tuned linux distro, so.....?

what's your setup in ubuntu, and have you customized/optimized/tweaked it very much?

cheerz

afeasfaerw23231233
July 15th, 2009, 07:21 AM
Windows is an idiot. If the printer or scanner hang, the whole OS also hangs. Reboot is the only way to get it alive again. With Ubuntu I can kill the freezed processes.

Jimleko211
July 15th, 2009, 08:29 AM
Windows is an idiot. If the printer or scanner hang, the whole OS also hangs. Reboot is the only way to get it alive again. With Ubuntu I can kill the freezed processes.
You can do that in windows, as well. Just close the app and tell it to exit, and then either wait for it to not find a solution or manually stop that.

I use Ubuntu because it's free, I don't have to go hunting for software or drivers every time I reboot, most of the software (and all the ones I use) are free, and it's just a lot more stable. Sure it's got its ups and downs, but so does every OS, and this one has a whole lot downs and more ups than either Mac OS X or Windows.

afeasfaerw23231233
July 15th, 2009, 06:47 PM
You can do that in windows, as well. Just close the app and tell it to exit, and then either wait for it to not find a solution or manually stop that.


No, I couldn't do that. It happened many times. When it crashed the scanning application freezing in a funny way. I terminated it and it cannot be connected again. If I unplugged the cable BSOD appeared.

maccawolf
July 15th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Cos I hate being a SHEEPLE.....

I REALLY don't like the fact that M$ knows "what's best for me" UHHHHHH, no, they don't!

TrustyLiebowitz
July 16th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Because for the amount of money I have been shelling out for various windows machines since it first existed, (yeah I'm old) it annoys me that for all those years I have always put up with: expensive, slow, buggy, virus susceptible, crashing, reboot requiring, anti-virus software requiring, money sucking, garbage!

I tried Linux a few times over the years and it reminded me of women I used to find in night clubs, really fun for a while but after the novelty wore off it just didn't do everything else as well as the fun stuff.

The last time I used Linux was around 5 years ago when a windoze machine lost a hard drive. I went to the local puter store and decided to upgrade to a new motherboard, chip set, and bought a nice big pair of new hard drives. At least it was cheaper than upgrading wives.

When I got home I found my winblows disk was only an "Upgrade" from 98 to xp disk and not a complete installation disk. So, I went back to get a new disk an it is was like 300 freakin dollars. They said if I had bought it when I bought my hard drive and motherboard, it would have only been some other outragious ammount which was slightly less. Even with my reciept they still wanted full price. Unfortunately I kinda had some anger issues back then.

As the arteries in my neck began to pulse like a mutating comic book villan, I wondered how much damage I could cause and how many floor managers I could take down using openly displayed full tower cases as weapons before the cops arrived. Just as I was about to grab my antagonists little name tag and frisbee it across the store to get things rolling, a sales guy who knew me from the real world pulled me asside and said the magic freakin word....... "Linux."

I told him I had played with that years before and I needed more than free Unix command lines. He explaiend to me that I could use LInux SUSE and have a nice GUI that put windhosed to shame. That night I was runnin SUSE and it was good. For years.

Eventually I had to get another winslows machine when my wife got the video editing mac in the divorce.
I rebuilt the old box again and begrudgingly stuffed in a new xopy of xp. For the next few years I created mediocre comedy videos for youtube on that thing and they were fairly well recieved.

I then moved to the middle of nowhere so I could be near my kids. I don't make that many videos any more. Money is tight out here. The machine was runnin slow like a pig on qualudes (told ya I'm old). My boy had an old machine of mine runnin xp and blew the OS to smitherines with torrents of movies or games or some such. I had since lost the disks to this machine in the move so I couldn't help him there.

I nabbed an old mac G4 off ebay for 25 bucks an gave it to him. He was pretty happy till he changed the password and musta misstyped it cuz he could never get into it ever again after that. I told him he was on his own after that. Then one day I was goin through an old box an found all my old Suse stuff.

I thought it woudl be a good thing for him to try out so I gave it all to him. Disks, books an so on. He had it up an runnin in no time and he loved it. He was annoyed that updating it was so hard so he learned how to trash it and go redhat installed instead. I was proud to say the least:) Then the power supply fried on him lol. Oh man I felt for him on that one lol.

He is with his Mom this week so I thought I'd look into LInux again. I started with redhat and then read all sorts of reviews which all pointed at Mint and Ubuntu. Ubuntu seemed like a bigger community so that's hwo I chose it. Just like pickin a fast bike. Pick the one which wins all the races cuz there are lots of parts and options being sold for it!

After a windsnows program unlearned my CD hwo to burn iso files I added old hard drives and force fed Ubuntu into my half dead wincrows box. Towards the end it was like it was fighting back. IT went slower an slower, swearing at me that there were no viruses making it crash an lag and eat CD's one after another.

The first drive I put in failed. It wasn't even 12 years old yet and it just up an died. Who'da thunk it? Eventually I wrestled wingoes to the floor and shoved a shank in it's heart with a final reboot which came back to a screen asking me if I wanted wintoads or Ubuntu. Uhhhhh.....that was like askin a 5 year old "would you like firecrackers or spinache?"

I arrowed down to Ubuntu and hit enter and it was like a rebirth. Not like a baptism kinda thing, more like a trade your pinto in for a Ferarri kinda thing. MMmmmmmm the sweet taste of victory!!!!.

Now if I could just get my webcam to record videos and edit them into youtubeable files which I couldupload I could spend the rest of my life writing songs about how winnoes must die and LInux must take over the freakin galaxy!!!!

And yes we don have one lightsaber here but it belongs to one of the kids and I only play with it an night when they are sleeping :D


If you just skipped to the end to find out what my answer in short was, it's cuz Windows sucked on day one and it still sucks. (Curtsies)

DarthZimmeris
July 16th, 2009, 01:51 PM
Absolutely. Win-doze will always be for games, and Linux for everything else.

It just runs better!

Chaos Punk
July 16th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Because you don't have to fool with so many drivers, (most) hardware just always works in Ubuntu.

estyles
July 16th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Absolutely. Win-doze will always be for games, and Linux for everything else.

It just runs better!

I dunno about always - Windows is far from an ideal environment for games. Too much overhead for non-essential stuff. In the early days of Windows, most games ran in DOS protected mode so they could more easily address the hardware at a low level. Playing games in Windows is kind of running the 100 yard dash through quicksand. It's just that the running shoes currently in production don't work on turf or track... =)

Not that Ubuntu doesn't, by default, also have a lot of services running that eat up resources as well, but it's lighter than Windows. I've always thought about a true gaming OS that has native drivers for stuff like OpenGL and that really devotes its resources towards making games run as well as possible without requiring crazy coding hacks for addressing hardware...

avacomputers
July 16th, 2009, 05:10 PM
I am just tired of WIndows Crashing and decided to move to Linux. NO Dual Boot, I don't want the option of going to windows or I won't fully embrace Linux and give it a fair shot.

durand
July 16th, 2009, 05:17 PM
Absolutely. Win-doze will always be for games

I'm getting tired of people saying that. I would consider myself a gamer, and I've never played any games on windows. Linux is a far better platform for gaming, the only problem is with game developers, not the OS itself. Sure, I don't buy the newest PC games but in the same way, if I had a PS3, I wouldn't be buying 360 games..

gamerchick02
July 16th, 2009, 05:22 PM
I dual-booted for a long time. I kept Windows around for some games (I'd like to get a shiny copy of Vista or 7 so I can play Sims2, but I digress) but when I bought my new computers I didn't want to fight with drivers.

I'd been using a Gateway MX3225 with Ubuntu, but it required messing with xorg.conf before I could actually use it. I just got tired of dealing with it, installed a new hard drive in the machine, installed Windows XP and sold it to a friend. The old Gateway tower is now my mom's computer; it still dual-boots.

The computers I have now are from System76 and just work. I have no issues (besides a wireless one with the Starling; reported) with the laptops. I love them both and I don't have to worry about any spyware, adware, viruses or other issues.

It's a brilliant operating system. I love Gnome because of its simplicity.

Amy

fballem
July 16th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Here's my list:

Pluses:


A full re-installation of ubuntu, including configuration of applications takes approximately 3-1/2 hours. I have some files on backup - such as my evolution backup - that I restore early in the process. This helps.

Once the installation is done, then I setup a restore of my Documents, Pictures, Music, and Videos. This takes about 4-1/2 hours, but I can forget about it and go to sleep.
To help the process, I have my 'cheat sheets'. If I follow these, then I will get a consistent installation every time.
In Windows, by the time I'm done with all of the upgrades and finding all of the drivers all over the place, I have a basic working system in about 7-10 hours. Then I have to do the remaining restore, which takes a very long time.
I've reinstalled Windows so many times on the same computer, that I know have to call Microsoft every time to activate it.
The Outlook files get well hidden and it's a challenge to consistently back them up. With Evolution, there is a utility that produces a perfect backup. I then save the backup to the external drive, and I'm safe.

I really like the multiple desktops in GNOME - they just work!
Extremely easy to mount an ISO image. Most programs, such as VLC, treat them as files, so I can just right-click on the file, tell it to open with VLC, and we're done.

There are utilities in Windows that support multiple desktops and ISO file mounting, but they are hard to find, and don't always work well.

I like the top and bottom task bars in GNOME. I am not looking forward to GNOME 3, but we'll see when that shows up.
All programs in one place. In some cases, I've added additional repositories to my Software Sources, but on the whole, once I've done that, then my applications can be installed using Synaptic. This is a whole lot easier than installing Windows Applications.

The two exceptions are Eclipse and LightScribe. Both are relatively easy to install from their websites. I have my cheat sheets to make sure that I install these correctly.

No viruses so far.
If you have used Windows XP and Office 2003, then GNOME and OpenOffice 3.0 are much easier to learn than Vista / Office 2007. There are some quirks, but once you know them, it's a shorter learning curve.

The difficulty of the learning curve for me on Office 2007 was one of the major reasons that I first looked at ubuntu. A friend had recommended it to me, saying it might be easier for me. He was right!
I've converted two clients to ubuntu for the same reasons. They are having a much easier time of it.
Now if only I could persuade my kids and my wife.

Evolution is tightly integrated with GNOME. Since I have my appointments in my calendar, I get reminders whether or not I'm running the program.

In Windows, I have to run Outlook and keep it minimized in order to get the reminders.

The obvious one - cost!

Most systems are sold so that you create System Restore discs. If you want to upgrade windows, you still have to re-install the old version of Windows from the System Restore discs, then apply the upgrade. Windows upgrades do not work well. The other solution is to purchase a full retail version of Windows, but at CAD 300+ for each machine, this gets expensive.
Add to this the cost of Office Professional, with the same issue of needing to install the old version in order to upgrade it.
If you want to develop programs, then Visual Studio is the ticket. And if you want those programs to work as extensions of Microsoft Office, then you need the Professional edition of Visual Studio.
Not to mention the annual cost for security software.



Minuses

I miss Visio and there is no Linux equivalent that will read/write/update Visio files. The technical drawing programs are primitive.
Enterprise Architect from Sparx Systems does not work well under WINE and they have no plans to do a Linux port.

aged hippy
July 16th, 2009, 07:02 PM
I've reinstalled Windows so many times on the same computer, that I know have to call Microsoft every time to activate it.


Yup... that's familiar. :P

I'm thinking that next time XP breaks i'll stuff a 2000 install disk in and use that instead.

There's only three or four games i use it for, so 2000 should perform as well as XP.

chakraborty.shuvam
July 18th, 2009, 03:37 AM
This is one question every one has been asking me evr since i dumped my windows xp.... though i must say that it was pretty difficult for me to switch over but the following advantages of ubuntu kept me going ..
1. no viruses, spywares, adwares etc etc........ so no antiviruses and no money to be paid for their upgradation etc....:mad:
2. stable..... really god knows what gates was thinking when he released XP.....its good no doubt but should remain stable..... you open ten sites and pray to god that system shouldnt hang.... u open a really heavy file and LO!!!!!!!! xp is hanging...... i was fedup of it all.....
3. games ........... hmmmm this is something that pinches me a bit..... but i feel that there are enough good linux programmers out there who would make some good games for linux users....... you see hope keeps a man going :D
4. i am a researcher and to be very frank doing ur research work with windows as ur operating system.... makes ur life hell specially when a database has to be searched and protein sequence parsed and then all the modelling stuff has to be done...... linux is far better.......

i suppose these are enough for a person like me to give up windows once and for all.....
i will give more reasons as and when i find them out

konnorrigby
July 18th, 2009, 03:56 AM
i choose ubuntu because it's free it does what i tell it to :P and no viri and there arnt any laws against changing anything and redistributing it un like windows it's 120 for xp like 300 for vista i dont know for 7. i try to get rid of mi windows partition and have some fun doing i try to delete system 32 lol nop it's a core windows folder. so i just go download a torrent with a virus in it.

AlanRick
July 18th, 2009, 03:16 PM
Ubuntu is quiet and fast. I don't have to listen to my hard-disk thrashing around every time I start a program.

afroman10496
July 18th, 2009, 04:07 PM
I just HATE the Genuine "Advantage" stuff. Although it is one of many, many thing I hate about the whole OS, it is just annoying. Microsoft thinks they're "helping" the customers. But then why did they make it up in the first place? Nooooooooooooooo, they don't trust their customers; they think we could pirate Windows. With Ubuntu, there is no need for pirating- it is always free and 10000000000000000000000000000x better than Windoze:D

MikeTheC
July 18th, 2009, 04:32 PM
I don't choose Ubuntu -- or indeed any Linux distro over Windows -- because I don't choose Windows in the first place.

Windows -- and the hades-spawn which produces it -- can burn, so far as I'm concerned.

Boaslad
July 19th, 2009, 02:45 AM
If you can't make it good, at least make it look good.
Bill Gates

Since when has the world of computer software design been about what people want?
Bill Gates

You see, antiquated ideas of kindness and generosity are simply bugs that must be programmed out of our world.
Bill Gates

Thanks, Bill. Now we know how you really feel.

justinmiller87
July 19th, 2009, 02:52 AM
I don't mean to be a butt, Boaslad, but source please.

cooper77z
July 19th, 2009, 02:59 AM
Because my computer performs better with ubuntu linux than windows xp. So, there.

networm1230
July 19th, 2009, 10:28 PM
I chows Linux because of performance and lass maintenance. unlike windows users must defrage there hard drives to mintan the performance. on Linux there is no need to do that.

afroman10496
July 19th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I chows Linux because of performance and lass maintenance. unlike windows users must defrage there hard drives to mintan the performance. on Linux there is no need to do that.
In the, oh, lets say 20 minutes that I actually used it, it was not really the performance; it was just that every week you have to do it so it actually works:-)

arch0njw
July 20th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Cost.
Easy tinkering.
I dislike where Microsoft and Apple have gone with their OSs.
Relative ease of upgrade even if I have to do a full install.
Support (forum, bug) response attentiveness.
Great community (Ubuntu, especially).
Flexibility of window manager selection without laying something else on top of the OS+WM.
No current viruses for *nix (there were "back in the day") (it is possible to write them, no one cares to though).
Easier possibility to roll up my sleeves and help.

I agree with Linus Torvalds, and I'm paraphrasing and hoping like crazy I'm crediting the quote properly: the operating system should be free. If someone wants to charge for applications, window managers, support, and so on, so be it. But keeping all the pieces separate to allow for choice and that just isn't available with Microsoft, Apple, or SUN (I'm also a Solaris appreciator).

Little Bit
July 20th, 2009, 02:01 PM
I find Ubuntu far less "geeky" than Vista was! I say that because I spent so much time before maintaining the unending vigil of installing, updating, scanning, defragging, and cleaning registry errors. All that work was necessary in Vista in order to make it run like - well, like Ubuntu runs without all that work!

A brand new Ubuntu girl,
Amy

VipX1
July 20th, 2009, 02:09 PM
The Community. The FREE software and endless amounts of it. Not supporting MicroShaft anymore, *WPA??* .. Lets face it "Bunty (http://ubuntuforums.org/images/misc/ubuntulogo.png)" as I like to call it is exellent! What's the point in bad mouthing something that cost you absolutely nothing and you can get free support for. Anyone who does is just plain THICK!
VIVA LA Bunty!=D>

mhurst102282
July 20th, 2009, 02:12 PM
Right now I would love to just be using Ubuntu mainly because I like it better then WIndows, but I can't get my internet to work in it :(

collinp
July 20th, 2009, 08:55 PM
I choose Ubuntu and Linux in general because of its flexibility, reliability, security, and the ability to do whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want.

vastus
July 20th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Better fps in games and there isn't that much of a viruses in linux world. My 2 main reasons.

EDIT: And ofc ubuntu community is by far, more friedly than what windows's is.

Boaslad
July 21st, 2009, 01:17 AM
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/bill_gates.html

Sorry for the late reply, justinmiller87. It's been a busy couple days.

mamamia88
July 21st, 2009, 01:18 AM
didn't have a choice my laptop was unusable with vista and didn't want to drop more money to downgrade to xp

Marlonsm
July 21st, 2009, 01:41 AM
I know this thread is old and probably nobody will read this, but as many people posted their reasons, I'll post mine:
-It's cheaper: almost no need to buy software
-It's customizable: you can't draw your own close, minimize and maximize buttons anywhere else that I'm aware.:D
-Compiz is nice: having multiple workspaces is great, and nothing can match it's appearance.
-After set up, it just works: no more updating antivirus, running virus scans, cleaning registry, defraging HD...
-It's just faster to use, IMO.
-It has a great community over the internet, it's very easy to get help.


"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good" - Bill Gates

It sounds more like something we'd hear from Steve Jobs.:D

jeckstrom135
July 21st, 2009, 02:13 AM
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 haven't read all the way through the thread, so this has already probably been said, but, I use wine (winehq.org) for any gaming or windows programs I need. It takes some tweaking, and it's not always 100% compatability, but it improves with every realease. For a complete list of the programs that work (some well, some not so well) go to appdb.winehq.org.

I personally use Ubuntu, though because I like the fact that it's free. Also, I like the Ubuntu community (which you now have experience with) and the fact that when I need help, I get to talk with people who speak English as a first language and I can actually understand.

cooper77z
July 21st, 2009, 05:38 AM
I like ubuntu because ubuntu forces me to learn something new. That's good for mental health. :popcorn:

Unanimated
July 21st, 2009, 05:55 AM
Everything. I used Linux for a while, then switched over to Windows for some strange reason, then switched back when Windows pissed me off for not letting me have my own background because I guess I have a pirated copy. Also, I read that the Windows 7 beta will stop working on a certain date, and that freaked me out - Microsoft can easily end the world through one single update, and I know that they would never do that, but the thought of having everyone rely on one company freaked me out a bit. I switched back to Ubuntu 9.04, and I'm going to build a pretty nice computer sometime soon that will also run Ubuntu and future updates.

Also, I don't have to pay $120 to get a registered CD key, and the only game I play is Tremulous and OpenArena. If I want to play something else, it usually runs well in Wine.

ballerh3
July 21st, 2009, 06:51 AM
Firstly, I'm a dedicated console gamer so the need for Windows for games is not needed.
Most of the software that I used on Windows was either open source anyway. I feel at home when using Ubuntu than I do with Windows or Apple. At work, it all depends on my mood.

At work = Windows
Everything else = GNU/Linux (Ubuntu)

Crunchy the Headcrab
July 21st, 2009, 07:48 AM
Well I'm using Fedora, but the reason why I switched to Linux is because I am studying computers in college and thought that it would be useful. Also I got addicted to it from the moment I set eyes on it. Love everything about it. I love gnome, Yum (like apt for Fedora), shiki, conky, gimp (was using that on windows anyway), amarok, exaile, etc.

cooper77z
July 21st, 2009, 07:52 AM
I don't know too much about windows, but my apple computer was pirated so badly that there was not even any sense in playing video games, let alone creating them.

masux594
July 21st, 2009, 07:55 AM
I love linux for his modularity.. I'm a developer and modularity is my "bread" =)

Sysc, A

cooper77z
July 21st, 2009, 08:01 AM
Not that, but windows was made to be broken. A typewriter would be more secure.

Sorry, I misspelled tytpewriter.

dimeotane
July 21st, 2009, 05:54 PM
When I boot to windows XP immediately I am disappointed at how long it takes windows to get up and going. Same with the windows machines provided at work. You think windows has started, but oh no, theres another half minute of loading more crap (Norton, trial software, system tray apps). You click on the start menu... still hardly a response and the hardrive light is still spinning... GOD when will this POS be ready yet?

With Ubuntu, once I've logged in, it's ready to use.

Ubuntu feels clean, fast and well made in comparison to windows.

Ubuntu software installing is simple and nonsense free: sudo apt-get install easypeasy

Windows involves finding the CD, locating that company's web page, getting the correct reg code... User Licence Agreements... AUGHH!!!

afroman10496
July 21st, 2009, 09:45 PM
Even if you actually need Windows, you can virtualize the waste of software. Check this out- picture one, cool right? Picture two- even cooler!

u235sentinel
July 23rd, 2009, 12:01 AM
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?

that's easy. I don't have to deal with an predatory monopoly and I get the computer working the way I want it to without fighting it to do what I want it do do.

Did you catch all that ;-)

jimhenry
July 23rd, 2009, 12:39 AM
For the last few years, using a Windows 2000 machine to work from home, I've been spending nearly all of my time in four programs: NT Emacs, the Cygnus bash shell, Firefox, and NetSupport to connect to various machines at the office. After I got laid off/retired, I no longer needed NetSupport, and all the other programs I use work as well or better under Linux.

avacomputers
July 23rd, 2009, 12:41 AM
Simple: F R E E.

ufmace
July 23rd, 2009, 05:10 AM
I have a Windows computer for work, and it's constantly bogged down with anti-virus and anti-spyware/malware scans. Takes forever to get to a usable desktop, some windows randomly take forever to open, all kinds of annoying crap like that. And you can never be sure exactly what downloadable software for it you can really trust (except of course for open source stuff).

So I'm building a new computer and I think, all of the software that I actually use is either already free/open source or has a good enough for me free/open source alternative. So why should I pay more money to get a locked down OS that needs to waste half of my CPU power and a bunch of time to make sure that it doesn't get infected with a virus? I already played with Ubuntu and it does everything I need to do and is about as easy to use as Windows.

Also, I built this computer to replace an old Power Mac G5. I like Mac OS well enough, but with Apple, my only choices are to pay a little more than I did to get a Mac Mini with worse specs and no expansion capability, or pay a lot more and get an iMac with worse specs and no expansion capability. Or pay a whole heck of a lot more money to get a power mac tower with decent expansion capability and roughly comparable specs in a kinda oversized case that still isn't as expandable as an entry-level homebuilder case (did I mention that it costs 5 TIMES more?).

Ahem. Pardon my ranting. Ubuntu is cool so far.

HappinessNow
July 23rd, 2009, 05:19 AM
Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows?

I choose Ubuntu over Windows, because Ubuntu was on the top. O:)

cooper77z
July 23rd, 2009, 06:07 AM
2 more reasons, 1 cause in ubuntu my hard drive doesn't start spinning without my command, 2 because I never really even have to turn the computer off.

crinus
July 23rd, 2009, 08:00 AM
A very practical reason one day was the need of tools like Kismet, wireshark and cowpatty. I took a look at the Windows versions, but either they didn't exist or there were limitations or some cross-compiling with a lot of work ahead. So I chose Ubuntu because I've always liked the linux attitude - well, apart from the most hardcore configure-it-all-yourself course. :D
But currently really happy with the package manager aptitude and there's so much already done and polished with Ubuntu. It's a platform that inspires.

mark.giblin
July 23rd, 2009, 09:19 AM
I am beginning to wonder why I am using Linux as its one constant lurch and stutter from problem application to problem application.

I have not customised, it is a straight forward install and email has not worked (outgoing) other than incoming emails. Applications are constantly failing and I am fed up of putting a disc in and the system tells me it can not mount the disc or that its blank when it is not. I do not get any of this crapola under windows.

Things do not work coming out of hibernation like the modem. It takes a hard boot to get the system back up.

Applications are only half (baked) the app of its windows counterpart and some software is absolutley awful.

Well I can say that I have given up on Audacity, the thing works for about 2 minutes and then locks up.

Just tried Jokosker and while it worked and exported a file, it NEVER!!! applied the filters.

Theirs several other apps that just do not come up to the mark and shutdown on load or fail to open files.

The CD burner reckons that DVD and CD's are blank when it is clear from the burn marks on the disc that they are not blanks. I have yet to be able to play a full DVD and the only DVD's that will play are ones I rendered on a windows machine.

I am beginning to wonder how ubuntu / linux has come this far in the greater scheme of things. IMHO the people behind the development need to spend more time on getting the inner workings and compatibility issues ironed out rather than spending god knows how long on developing the actual desktop environment.

I run Linux to use it not look at it.

I appreciate the effort and why Linux users think its the best but the truth of the matter is that Linux has got a hell of a long way to go to be a real contender against Windows in the home markets, this is the one area that Linux lack, a distro that come with everything that a home user needs and no need to download additional software or codecs.

Maybe when internal issues with linux are sorted out, I will give it another go but for now, I have to go back to windows as it presents the least problems at present.

Ciao.

floydv
July 23rd, 2009, 09:35 AM
Windows has to much bloat with it and I know Linux has some quirks now and then but so does windows, I mean one update from windows could screw the whole system and with windows you are not in control like you are with Linux and besides I like the Gnome desktop better anyway, and for what I do Linux serves the purpose well.:D

CBers
July 23rd, 2009, 11:42 AM
I'm trying to use uBuntu as I want a HTPC that uses hardware acceleration and Windows isn't fully there yet, although Windows 7 RTM may do.

I must admit, uBuntu, or any linux distro, won't become the OS of choice unless it is packaged up to look like Windows, as that is what 90% of the world's popultion with a PC use and love (or hate), but they know how it it works, or knows someone who does.

With uBuntu, it's a whole new ball-game and it is not easy to pick up.

And as linux is open-source, there is more than 1 way to do anything, which makes it confusing for windows people, me included. Why is re there more than 1 way to install an application !!

I know linux people wouldn't want this, but I think it would make life so much easier for windows people to convert to linux if there were similar applications, such as LINUX UPDATE (Windows Update), easily created short-cuts, and networking (with windows PCs) to work "out of the box" instead of having to faff around in terminal windows.

Also, all this talk about there being no need to have anti-virus software and the like is hogwash, as all internet-facing computers need protection from the crud out there. There have been reports on techology sites in the last week that there are huge security gaps in the linux OS.

Anyway, that's my tuppence-worth for now.

charactereducation
July 23rd, 2009, 12:15 PM
try listening to music in amarok, try using kontact/evolution for PIM stuff. there are a lot of free linux apps which are much better than windows ones.

ubuntizer
July 23rd, 2009, 01:09 PM
I dual boot ubuntu and windows (for games) on my laptop.
But i love being on ubuntu rather than on windows.
I like the ubuntu command line.. way better than cmd on windows

Arup
July 23rd, 2009, 01:43 PM
Everything is there in Linux if you just care to look, some of the programs are far better than their Windows counterparts, problem is Linux is not Windows, so neither will it behave or look like one. It just takes getting used to but once done, you never have to look back.

I can't believe any self respecting magazine worth its salt would make a blanket statement about security being weak in Linux or come out with a statement like Linux is full of holes unless its MS fanboi sponsored crud. Once for all get it through your thick Windows infested skull, Linux doesn't need AV, none of AVs writted today would work in Linux. Nothing is safe but out of box, a Linux machine can't be pawned unlike Windows or Mac counterpart, this discussion has been done to ground and still I keep seeing Windows fanbois repeating the same mantra from time to time to a sickening redundancy. If you guys feel so insecure why the hell are you using Ubuntu in first place, I guess you have every desire to make Linux distros the slow bloated AV CPU hogging HIPS laden clone of Windows, only then would you rest I guess.

heyyy
July 23rd, 2009, 01:55 PM
wow this thead started on 2005

bobbob1016
July 23rd, 2009, 02:13 PM
You should make sure to clarify "Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't (yet)".

I would assume with more linux based systems getting put out (Chrome OS) by bigger companies, more people might start to develop viruses for linux too.

Yes it is "yet" but most Linux systems will be fine. Since a virus actually needs root permission to do real damage, and most Linux systems/users are using user permissions. All versions of Windows so far are based off of older versions that were made without permissions strongly built in, and most programs require root permissions in Windows. Meaning it is trickier to be a normal user on Windows than Linux. It is easier to be a User on Linux than it is on Windows.

This is why Windows security is harder to maintain than Linux security.

CBers
July 23rd, 2009, 04:13 PM
Everything is there in Linux if you just care to look, some of the programs are far better than their Windows counterparts, problem is Linux is not Windows, so neither will it behave or look like one. It just takes getting used to but once done, you never have to look back.

I can't believe any self respecting magazine worth its salt would make a blanket statement about security being weak in Linux or come out with a statement like Linux is full of holes unless its MS fanboi sponsored crud. Once for all get it through your thick Windows infested skull, Linux doesn't need AV, none of AVs writted today would work in Linux. Nothing is safe but out of box, a Linux machine can't be pawned unlike Windows or Mac counterpart, this discussion has been done to ground and still I keep seeing Windows fanbois repeating the same mantra from time to time to a sickening redundancy. If you guys feel so insecure why the hell are you using Ubuntu in first place, I guess you have every desire to make Linux distros the slow bloated AV CPU hogging HIPS laden clone of Windows, only then would you rest I guess.

Where did you get your high-horse from !!

rapattack1
July 23rd, 2009, 05:28 PM
Typical experiences really. I was pulling my hair out over problems with XP or any previous versions of windoze. I had no real understanding of Linux and don't have a long computing background. A friend suggested I use Linux and we tried some different distros. IN the end I still run a windows machine as there are just some things Linux hasn't got down pat yet but the windows machine is offline. I don't want the hassles I had wth virus protection crap and love that linux gives me so much freedom.
I have also tried Debian, Damn Small Linux, Puppy linux and Dream Linux. All great distros but too advanced for this dummy.

DJonsson2008
July 23rd, 2009, 05:41 PM
Native Flac for lossless compressed audio is a plus.

Although I've put a bit of work into my modified Xbuntu
is a joy to work with, fast elegant and extremely flexible.

I don't have a lot of faith in Microsoft to always deliver
Windows ME and Vista are 2 strong cases and places I definately
did not want to go. Windows updates as well can be a roll of
the dice. Xbuntu and Ubuntu command line runs circles around
cmd or command Windows with its customization of macros, memory
of sessions between reboots and so on, there is a maturity there
on the command line Windows does not seem to have.

Once I get more used to Wine, Windows will be used less, as well
I find my Xbuntu HD walks between different workstations as a
primary drive easier than XP, although I stick with VESA video
drivers and use an external Creative/USB sound card to keep
the drive portable.

Skype sometimes remains the only reason I open XP because I can't
seem to get it to stabelize on Xbuntu. Windows Movie maker and Macromedia DreamWeaver and Audition are a couple of other reasons
why XP gets used here.

I'm also skeptical of Windows activities in the marketplace, many of their 'evolutions' over the years have burned me and others over the decades in more ways than one.

ufmace
July 23rd, 2009, 10:15 PM
You should make sure to clarify "Windows has viruses and ubuntu doesn't (yet)".

I would assume with more linux based systems getting put out (Chrome OS) by bigger companies, more people might start to develop viruses for linux too.

It seems to be a common claim that Mac and Linux don't have viruses just because they aren't popular/common enough. Nobody really knows if that's true or it's more because they really are more secure, or maybe even both. What we do know for sure is that right now, the virus/spyware/malware threat to Linux and Mac is negligible, and no matter which argument is true, that's fairly certain to remain the case for the lifetime of your next computer.

Even the most optimistic people don't expect Ubuntu or all of the distros combined to reach 20%+ market share in the next 5 years. Apple is at least approaching that, and the viruses have yet to appear.

So if you run Ubuntu, you'll be as sure as you can be that you'll never have to waste half of your CPU power and slow your whole system to a crawl running half a dozen anti-virus and anti-spyware programs that must be constantly updated, and even then risk getting your system hacked at any moment anyways.

cooper77z
July 24th, 2009, 01:07 AM
bobbob1016 wrote, " It is easier to be a User on Linux than it is on Windows."

And it's easier to be a producer on Linux than on Windows.:D

Thinking of how one identifies ones self, either as a consumer or a producer. Everyone is both to an extent, but Linux OS's are more producer oriented, in my opinion. And I suspect the average Linux user has an above average IQ, just saying...

Eupho
July 24th, 2009, 02:45 AM
Freedom. Plain old Freedom

munky99999
July 24th, 2009, 03:27 AM
1. update the majority of your software with a single command or click + password.

2. you can pretty much update everything on the computer except the kernel and not need to restart. ksplice might change that perhaps in the future :)

3. No need for antivirus-firewalls-antispyware and massive paranoia. Which frees up system resources; which is already a valued scarce thing already.

4. Do it free. No $$$ involved. Your $$$ goes to where it is deserved. Buy windows and you are paying for support. You very likely arent using that support. Why should you pay for something you arent using.

5. Open source and transparent OS workingness. Lets say I'm a CSIS or CIA operative. I can know for a fact what my OS is doing. I can even go in there and fix any potential problems my 1337 spy software might be having with the OS. As opposed to hoping Microsoft fixes it... perhaps.

6. Not limited to 10 peer network connections. If you have a samba share... it's not hardcoded to deny access to me. If X people go beyond. If 12 people are trying to grab a log or report... I wont be saying NO! to those 2 people. Why? Because microsoft puts that in so you're forced to buy their Server product which is far more. AKA they have the working code... the code is there.. you simply have a limitation forced on you.

7. You arent forced to have endless #s of practically useless services and other bloat running constantly.

I can keep going and going.

Needless to say. Linux/Ubuntu is superior to windows is 99% of the time. The only plausible time you would use windows over linux:
1. Bleeding Edge gaming. Crysis 4 isnt likely to work on Wine for awhile.
2. Active Directory Domain controllers. Samba is in alpha right now trying to get this working; being optomisitic; at best they are going to be a warzone in about 1-2 years. Meanwhile microsoft will work on making their server products lock-in service.

ranch hand
July 24th, 2009, 06:16 AM
bobbob1016 wrote, " It is easier to be a User on Linux than it is on Windows."

And it's easier to be a producer on Linux than on Windows.:D

Thinking of how one identifies ones self, either as a consumer or a producer. Everyone is both to an extent, but Linux OS's are more producer oriented, in my opinion. And I suspect the average Linux user has an above average IQ, just saying...
I like your thinking, I admire your smarts too.

Actually don't think you have it quite right. It is not the IQ that really matters here. It is whether or not you are willing to go out and learn something new.

There are a number (I am not one of them) folks on these forums that LIKE winwhatever. I have never run into that in "real" life. Everyone hates MS but they are too scared to try something else. Now the folks here that like MS are people that are not scared of adventure, have tried other things and are not trapped in the control of their box. This gives them the freedom to like MS without resenting being serfs.

ghmason
July 25th, 2009, 10:45 PM
I learned about PC's after having a commodore 64 and a 386 with dos 2 and can remember when windows was a shell. I have used them all through the Windows 7 RC1. (That's the one that probably really got me looking at Ubuntu.) I dabbled in Ubuntu around the 6.xx realease and could not get comfortable quick enough to feel like I could be productive with it. So, back to windows.
Since retiring from the military last year, and really taking the time to learn as much as I needed to learn about linux to be as productive with it as I was in windows, I have no desire to continue to buy an operating system. With everything as web based as it seems to be, I have no desire to continue to buy proprietary software either.
- I enjoy firefox, thunderbird with lightning, and OpenOffice.
- I just learned the value of an account on an imap mail server so I read and answer the same "sync'd" email from my desktop in my den or my notebook in my RV.
- really like the minimal threat deal
- one big thing that caused me to select the juanty install in my boot manager when I was dual booting this desktop was that jaunty loads in less than the semester it takes vista to load.
- I like the power of the command line
- when I installed jaunty on my new notebook, with vista, everything worked - "out of the box" - everything - and I have a usable desktop in a fraction of the time it takes a relatively fresh vista install to load.
- Just dabbled in Samba enough for my wife and daughters to use the color laser attached to this jaunty desktop from thier Vista laptops.

Like the folks above I could go on and on. If I have any reservations, it's about not installing a long term support realease - 8.04 I think? Otherwise I don't regret the move.

afroman10496
July 31st, 2009, 04:53 AM
I think Ubuntu is much better for many reasons. It is cleaner, faster, nicer (doesn't always check to see if they can arrest you if you pirated their software :D), and much stabler. Open-source is amazing, and propriety is junk. Even if you actually want to use Windows software, get the open-source ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/). Ubuntu is always great. Go Ubuntu!

Grifulkin
August 1st, 2009, 12:24 AM
The laptop I am on right now is Ubuntu, and it is a great OS, my desktop at home is Windoze but I like playing games, I just built a new PC, and the main reason is my girlfriend and I are going to dfferent Grad Schools 4 hours apart and my webcam does not work very well on Ubuntu, but works great on Windoze. On here I have a 20 gb hard drive and Ubuntu runs great, absolutely no problems Pidgin is awesome minus the fact there is no video/audio support but oh well, can't win them all I guess.

Liv3dN8as
August 1st, 2009, 01:06 AM
I currently am using Wubi to dual boot(I have been running straight Ubuntu on my laptop for almost three years). We recently bought a new pc from WallyWorld and I have since been converting my wife to Ubuntu. She only uses the internet the majority of the time anyways.

I will be getting rid of windows all together as soon as I purchase a new hd. If I really need windows for something I have VirtualBox installed.

I love linux becuase I don't have to use pirated software anymore. And it sure is nice to be spyware/malware free.

Also, my pc is 64bit so it looks amazing, compiz fusion is where it is at!

triplesquarednine
August 1st, 2009, 05:08 PM
I think Ubuntu is much better for many reasons. It is cleaner, faster, nicer (doesn't always check to see if they can arrest you if you pirated their software :D), and much stabler. Open-source is amazing, and propriety is junk. Even if you actually want to use Windows software, get the open-source ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/). Ubuntu is always great. Go Ubuntu!

i love ubuntu, but in general, ubuntu isn't more stable than windows(or OSX). yes it is faster, at certain things and depending on your setup, and can be have a much "nicer" interface. however, in real benchmarks it will not out perform windows or osx, maybe in certain cases doing certain tasks, but in general - ubuntu still has alot of bugs and
cannot do certain things that are easily accomplished in "propriety" software. so, not all propriety software is junk! in fact, some of my favorite programs i use in linux are closed sourced - windows apps(wine) and linux apps.

as for ReactOS - it sucks! a fun and interesting idea maybe, but it is very VERY buggy, and is no substitute for using a solid OS...so myself, i would never recommend it as a replacement for windows(and i don't even use windows!).

i am all for opensource, but let's not be ill-informed about the status of things.
and lets also have the right intentions!

Ubuntu doesn't handle GFX very well at all, particularily OpenGL. can't resize windows,
if you move a windows the opengl stays in the same spot. and opengl benchmarks very poorly compared to OSX or Windows. this is something ubuntu/linux is working on, but in no way is it perfected or stable...

Java has certain bugs in Ubuntu that will make your computer crash or reboot(go take a look around www.openprocessing.org). look at a few sketches on their site and ubuntu will crash by the third or fourth for sure.... another semi-serious issue, especially if you program in java, or like myslef use Processing(programming language for visual).

as for audio, OSX and windows both handle audio better. although it is possilbe in linux to get lower latencies, linux doesn't handle this as well. thread handling can be quite poor sometimes and produce unwanted FX, sometimes you must disable hardware/modules and you have to build your own RT-kernel - just to be able to use a few softsynths/drummachine at the same time. this isn't the case in windows or OSX, where you can just open your app and start playing... this will change in time i am sure, but we're not there yet. and things can get slighty glitchy with far less going on then if i was using OSX or Windows. don't get me wrong, i use linux for audio/music production but it has a ways to go.(and i am sure it will get there! :)

lastly, i love linux/ubuntu and i have faith that it will shape up, where it currently performs poorly. but picking ubuntu because it doesn't search for your pirated software is kind of stupid and silly and mis-represents the whole scene...

..it's about open-source, and community - redifining the infrastucture of development, sharing ideas and cynergy... and not so much - sticking it to microsoft,
or circumventing software...!

Bill Day
August 1st, 2009, 05:46 PM
i love ubuntu, but in general, ubuntu isn't more stable than windows(or OSX). yes it is faster, at certain things and depending on your setup, and can be have a much "nicer" interface. however, in real benchmarks it will not out perform windows or osx, maybe in certain cases doing certain tasks, but in general - ubuntu still has alot of bugs and
cannot do certain things that are easily accomplished in "propriety" software. so, not all propriety software is junk! in fact, some of my favorite programs i use in linux are closed sourced - windows apps(wine) and linux apps.

[snip]

..it's about open-source, and community - redifining the infrastucture of development, sharing ideas and cynergy... and not so much - sticking it to microsoft,
or circumventing software...!

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of Ubuntu's strength's and weaknesses. I agree that ultimately the issue is community and Freedom. However, my anecdotal experience suggests that Ubuntu is significantly more stable than Windows XP (although I find Windows SBS 2003 quite impressive). It's one reason I use Ubuntu almost exclusively at home, regardless of such other advantages as a real shell. Are there any metrics on stability, or are we confined to individual impressions?

Arkanus666
August 1st, 2009, 11:46 PM
I use it because I feel free to use anything I want. Obviously, there are some things that I cannot do because I dont know how to do them, but not because Linux has stopped me!

Since I installed Ubuntu, I feel my computer was made exclusively for me. It looks and works as I want.

thedoommaker
August 2nd, 2009, 12:06 AM
oh how i love this human theme!
i cant express enough
i've been using linux just for a month or so
and i think i am disgusted now by the look of xp,
and its limitations and for not being user-friendly
i would as well choose ubuntu over windows for several "minor" details
the community
being able to upgrade every 6 months
stability
freedom
price
security
multiple desktops
no reboots
no viruses

pepperphd
August 2nd, 2009, 03:29 AM
Vista crashed every day. Ubuntu never crashes.

afroman10496
August 2nd, 2009, 03:41 AM
Vista crashed every day. Ubuntu never crashes.
You forgot XP, 2000, ME, 98, 95, etc. :P

triplesquarednine
August 2nd, 2009, 05:17 AM
i do not think we are confined to personal impressions.... benchmark your system.
i do not use windows, but i do however use OSX and Linux on the same laptop, as well i have a desktop with windows7 , OSX and Ubuntu Jaunty...i almost never use windows7 as i installed it so my dad, who is an IT, could have a look at microsoft's latest, so i haven't benchmarked it...mainly becuase i almost never use it, why would i with Jaunty and OSX leopard running? however, when i do use windows7, i use it in Parallels - so it runs side by side with MacOsx on my desktop - which i cannot benchmark, being as it is virtual...

i have benchmarked against linux and OSX. i use several utilities, including "phoronix" - from phoronix.com, which is a very detailed peice of benchmarking software designed for Unix/Linux based systems....

as you can probably imagine OSX beats out Ubuntu(and would beat out windows7 too!), although in certain cases ubuntu wins, very specific though. overall, and for the generally more important reasons, OSX kills Ubuntu in benchmarking. don't get me wrong ubuntu shows a good fight, but it just isn't as streamlined, or robust. hmm, i don't think they make a utility for windows, so you would need something else...being as windows is DOS...in essence..and phoronix is all about linux/unix...

so no, you do not have to base it on individual experiences, you can see for yourself..

but back to stability....you say Ubuntu is more stable...how, i would like to know?

like i said b4 i love ubuntu, but there is no way anyone would be able to convince me that Ubuntu is more stable than Windows. less virus prone yes, more stable no! i never had real issues using windows when i did. i still do sometimes, fixing other peoples computers... the odd virus maybe, or a glitchy peice of software. but the OS, no, it was pretty stable(winXPpro). worked with the hardware as required, handles all the important stuff very well :

GFX, Audio, Networking, harddisk. etc. - not so much memory though! linux handles memory better,
as Windows has a habit of leaving a bunch or crap in memory even after you've closed something, so your system becomes bogged down with crap you aren't even using/accessing. linux also has less overhead in general. where as Ubuntu andOSX only require 2-300MB to run(with bells and whistles)
windows doubles those requirements(sometimes more). of course i am mainly speaking of Vista and 7 in this case, i imagine XP runs on very little RAM as it is old and outdated.


there are loads of things linux can do that windows or even OSX can't, by nature...but i still don't think it is more "stable"......as a server - linux is very stable - for sure!, but as a desktop - doing regular desktop stuff. - internet, multimedia: Audio/Video, office related things - Ubuntu and all linux distro's still got some catching up to do....in most cases, if you want your system to work and work glitch-free, you have to go down one road and tailer your system to do only a few specific things, otherwise things will be less than ideal... - be totally glitchy or not work at all.
sometimes it requires having seperate partitions for linux, tailered for what you need.
that can mean setting up a whole install, custom build - for only 4 or 5 applications...

so basically what i am getting at is that Ubuntu is not more stable and actually can be quite
inflexible, being that sometimes you can't even do things "under the same roof'.
OR your stability goes right out the door!

ranch hand
August 2nd, 2009, 09:00 AM
Bench marks are great for comparing unknown systems to give you an idea of what to expect.

What has actual effect on the user is subjective experience, by them on their box. That is what this thread is about.

I used 98 for 10 years. No virus problems. Didn't crash much if I reinstalled about once a year. Jumped straight to Vista on a new box designed for Vista.

I don't care what bench marks say about Vista. I keep that pig of an OS for 3 weeks and installed Ubuntu. Why? Because we had to boot and reboot, on most occasions, to get it to run at all (yes we turn the box off when we are not around). The bugger crashed at the drop of a hat. Our old computer (P2-350Mhz with 128Mb ram) was faster at most common tasks (word processing, opening photos, etc.), we were on dialup and Vista was slower on that than the old box over the same wires.

With the same hardware (see sig) Ubuntu runs like a striped ape. No need to reboot 3 times to get it to run. On dialup it was 25% faster (we moved where there is DSL now). It is faster at everyday chores than the old 98 box (the feat that Vista never got).

Now, I am not claiming that this is the experience of other Vista users. I am saying that after using MS for 16 years (started with MSDos with DosShell) I assumed that Vista would be better than 98. For us it was not. It was so much worse that I will not even have wine on my box unless I am testing an OS that ships with it and I will not run a MS app - period. I feel truely screwed and hold a grudge.

No this is not bench marks. This is about getting rid of an OS that was going to give me a stroke.

On the other side. LINUX IS FUN.

satriaulie
August 2nd, 2009, 12:09 PM
I'm using Linux only!
I've been using XP, Vista, Windows7, Open Suse, FreeBSD, Kubuntu, Ubuntu, gOS, Mandriva, and a couple more that I don't remember.
Ubuntu is by far the best!

Of course you still need some basic "know how" to get everything up and running, but when it's up everything works great and with much less cpu usage and heat. And the best thing; It's rock stabil!

I've installed Ubuntu 9.04 on my old desktop computer. p4 2,4ghz, 2gb ram, 120gb HD, Nvidia Geforce 4 mx 440. only hardware upgrade since I bought it in 2001 is adding 1500mb of ram.
Originally it came with XP Home. I'v got a 22" widescreen monitor wich just didn't work with XP and that old Graphicscard.

Now, running Ubuntu, it works perfectly.
It even runs all the desktop effects without any problems.
XP is just not good enough!
Windows7 is good though, but still I prefer Ubuntu.
No need for antivirus programs and all the additional software just to be "safe".
I don't play games so I really don't need that to work, but wine also gets better and better.

ratcheer
August 2nd, 2009, 01:56 PM
Because I prefer the idea of free, as in speech, software. I want to be able to decide what my system can be allowed to do without having to depend on the dictates and licenses of commercial OS's. And Apple is just as "bad" as Microsoft.

But "bad" is not exactly the correct term. They are just doing what they have to do to participate in the world of commerce. I just prefer freedom.

Tim

lg8302
August 2nd, 2009, 03:03 PM
I love Linux better as long as it does not come to the point where I have run any terminal commands! The mistake I did is that I fully switched to Ubuntu 9.04 and now look like an idiot because I cannot even accomplish simple tasks like getting a BT earphone to work! Already spent hours installing Always VPN to listen to internet radio which requires US IP to start. Win XP has an easy plug & play software HSS for this! The same is now with Motorola BT earphone not getting recognised as BT power is probably off on Dell Inspiron and I have not figured out how to turn it on to get the deviced recognized for pair. sudo commands get bluetooth OK....but no reaction to earphone! Whatever you do...DO NOT fully switch to Linux until you are sure that everything you need is working. I will have to switch back to Windows if I cannot get the problem solved with a BT dongle which is plug&play in Ubuntu 9.04...I would recommend DUAL boot only unless you are a Linux crack.

harecanada
August 2nd, 2009, 04:48 PM
Because there is so much freedom, community and unity associated with Linux. And of course.... it's so much fun!!!!

harecanada

ranch hand
August 2nd, 2009, 05:32 PM
Because there is so much freedom, community and unity associated with Linux. And of course.... it's so much fun!!!!

harecanada
+1

I just built a custom menu list with background, labels for 8 OS' and color for font and highlight color for font in grub2 on my 64bit test drive (USB external enclosure).

Try that on MS. You will have at least one large problem, MS won't boot from there. What a stone age OS.

afroman10496
August 3rd, 2009, 03:00 AM
i do not think we are confined to personal impressions.... benchmark your system.
i do not use windows, but i do however use OSX and Linux on the same laptop, as well i have a desktop with windows7 , OSX and Ubuntu Jaunty...i almost never use windows7 as i installed it so my dad, who is an IT, could have a look at microsoft's latest, so i haven't benchmarked it...mainly becuase i almost never use it, why would i with Jaunty and OSX leopard running? however, when i do use windows7, i use it in Parallels - so it runs side by side with MacOsx on my desktop - which i cannot benchmark, being as it is virtual...

i have benchmarked against linux and OSX. i use several utilities, including "phoronix" - from phoronix.com, which is a very detailed peice of benchmarking software designed for Unix/Linux based systems....

as you can probably imagine OSX beats out Ubuntu(and would beat out windows7 too!), although in certain cases ubuntu wins, very specific though. overall, and for the generally more important reasons, OSX kills Ubuntu in benchmarking. don't get me wrong ubuntu shows a good fight, but it just isn't as streamlined, or robust. hmm, i don't think they make a utility for windows, so you would need something else...being as windows is DOS...in essence..and phoronix is all about linux/unix...

so no, you do not have to base it on individual experiences, you can see for yourself..

but back to stability....you say Ubuntu is more stable...how, i would like to know?

like i said b4 i love ubuntu, but there is no way anyone would be able to convince me that Ubuntu is more stable than Windows. less virus prone yes, more stable no! i never had real issues using windows when i did. i still do sometimes, fixing other peoples computers... the odd virus maybe, or a glitchy peice of software. but the OS, no, it was pretty stable(winXPpro). worked with the hardware as required, handles all the important stuff very well :

GFX, Audio, Networking, harddisk. etc. - not so much memory though! linux handles memory better,
as Windows has a habit of leaving a bunch or crap in memory even after you've closed something, so your system becomes bogged down with crap you aren't even using/accessing. linux also has less overhead in general. where as Ubuntu andOSX only require 2-300MB to run(with bells and whistles)
windows doubles those requirements(sometimes more). of course i am mainly speaking of Vista and 7 in this case, i imagine XP runs on very little RAM as it is old and outdated.


there are loads of things linux can do that windows or even OSX can't, by nature...but i still don't think it is more "stable"......as a server - linux is very stable - for sure!, but as a desktop - doing regular desktop stuff. - internet, multimedia: Audio/Video, office related things - Ubuntu and all linux distro's still got some catching up to do....in most cases, if you want your system to work and work glitch-free, you have to go down one road and tailer your system to do only a few specific things, otherwise things will be less than ideal... - be totally glitchy or not work at all.
sometimes it requires having seperate partitions for linux, tailered for what you need.
that can mean setting up a whole install, custom build - for only 4 or 5 applications...

so basically what i am getting at is that Ubuntu is not more stable and actually can be quite
inflexible, being that sometimes you can't even do things "under the same roof'.
OR your stability goes right out the door!
If you're using a new Mac and not the 64-bit Ubuntu, it's because the Mac OS X is 64-bit by default, which is probably why it's so fast.

jocampo
August 3rd, 2009, 05:54 AM
Well...1st...let me repeat and say that I'm MCSA and MS-SQL dba :-) ... Mr. Gates, some way, helped me find the job I have now which helps to pay mortgage and bills... but, couple of months ago, my wife was using my home laptop and caught a horrible spyware which took me 3 hours to fix without reformating. That was the beginning of the end. I studied Linux when I was in University, 1995 so I decided to give Ubuntu a try and here I am :-) ... 6 months later and my wife is happy browsing the Internet and me, much more, worried about nothing: no viruses, no antispyware software and my laptop is fast as lighting!

Learning curve (especially at command prompt or console level) is a bit high but I've getting better after some reading and of course, thanks to this forum

Yeah...I choose Ubuntu because I do not have to worry about viruses and spywares anymore.

triplesquarednine
August 3rd, 2009, 06:41 AM
Bench marks are great for comparing unknown systems to give you an idea of what to expect.

What has actual effect on the user is subjective experience, by them on their box. That is what this thread is about.

I used 98 for 10 years. No virus problems. Didn't crash much if I reinstalled about once a year. Jumped straight to Vista on a new box designed for Vista.


No this is not bench marks. This is about getting rid of an OS that was going to give me a stroke.


well, heart attacks aren't great, and i am glad that you enjoy ubuntu over windows.
i do too...

but, my conversation about benchmarking, was a reply to someone else about comparing system performance and i was pointing out some of my own observations about all the "big players" - linux/macosx/microsoft - from my own PERSONAL experiences and benchmarks as well, as they are useful. i think you missed the first part friend -

....and i understand what this forum is about. So, thanks chief. :)
i started off saying how i would never choose windows and dropped it long ago for Ubuntu and OSX.. furthermore, when showing these comparisions, it matters - as they do affect one's individual and personal experiences, as well as others potential experiences - mixed with hard fact - as it shows what i system can do, has done and will do...

if you do anything beyond wordprocessing and dialing up the internet
these differences can become huge! as i mainly do multimedia : music production, live performance, video processing and animation. - these things have greater requirements. and i was pointing out some + and - things in ubuntu, along with some comparisions with other OS's and stability.

PS: ....98 to Vista? where have you been for the last decade??? why would you use 98 for all this time?? it was the "Vista" of it's own time in microsoftland....

triplesquarednine
August 3rd, 2009, 06:53 AM
If you're using a new Mac and not the 64-bit Ubuntu, it's because the Mac OS X is 64-bit by default.

way to point out the obvious ;) , comparing a 64bit system to a 32bit system would be
pointless and sort of silly, in this context....so obviously when i speak of both systems, i am referring to 64bit.

cheers

ranch hand
August 3rd, 2009, 07:22 AM
triplesquarednine
We had the old box built for us in 98 so that is what was on it.

My son got a box a couple years later and kept upgrading and thought they were all worse than the one before so we just stuck with it.

When it finally gave up the ghost, my wife bout this box with vista home premium on it. Took me 3 days to realize it had to go. Took her three weeks.

By that time I had a new HDD with Hardy on it. One reason forthe new hDD was that the one in the box made a LOT of noise. Sounded like it was in pain. This is a very quite box but with that drive it was louder than the old one.

Thought I would save it for any emergency that we may need it for. It sat for a long time and I thught it was a waste. Got an external enclosure so I could get at the "faulty" bugger in a hurry. Installed acouple linux OS' on it and never heard a peep out of it.

The way vista uses ram and swap is weird. It uses 15% of your ram capacity in swap at all times and sometimes uses more. This box has 3Gb ram. No wonder the HDD was moaning all the time.

I am sorry that we did not update to Winwhatever before. We would have been using Linux much sooner. I looked into Red Hat when we got the old box but we went with something at least based on what we knew. I think it was a mistake.

The main thing that is done on this box that sucks up power is World community Grid and editing photos in Gimp.

The 4 2.4GHz cores and 3gb ram, even running all four at around 100% with boink, can still handle 12 5Mb photos being manipulated with out any real noticable reduction in speed. Now open a couple more photos and it doesn't slow down either, it just locks up tight (happens when ram usage hits about 67% and swap at about 21%).

For a box designed for Vista it really loves Ubuntu and Linux in general although there are a couple that just don't play nice with it.

mihnea.radulescu
August 3rd, 2009, 07:53 AM
I've read some of the reasons people gave and must say that I've found many of them having merit, but also quite a few being unreasonable, hypocritical and biased. Such as:

"Linux is better because in Windows you get a lot of spyware and viruses" - You get spyware and viruses with Windows only if you are a weak user who doesn't obey common sense, elementary rules. Such as, don't use Internet Explorer and install ActiveX "controls" and "plug-ins", use a good browser (say Firefox, or Opera), don't open executable e-mail attachments from unknown people, scan dubious files (such as from p2p networks) with a free antivirus (such as AVG or COMODO), that you only need to use on demand, etc. Such a user is unlikely to take the time to understand even the fundamentals of a UNIX-like OS, since much less time would have been needed for him / her to avoid the so-much-trumpeted Windows problems in the first place.

In my case, Windows (the other dual-boot OS) works virus-free at optimal parameters without reinstalls, because I obey a few basic rules and try not to be stupider than strictly necessary. :lolflag:


My reasons for using Ubuntu are, in large, related to five aspects:

1) experiencing the inner-workings of the Linux OS
2) comparing system programming in Linux vs. in Windows (at the university, we only did elementary system programming in Linux)
3) developing code as portable as possible
4) ideological reasons, the ideals of Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular
5) belonging to the best on-line community of people in the whole software world :D

sideaway
August 3rd, 2009, 10:39 AM
Just did a benchmark (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/) on my triple boot hackintosh/w7/ubuntu setup:

Ubuntu 3671
OSX 3969
W7 3607


But to be honest, I wouldn't read too much into them synthetic benchmarkls don't mean sweet jack all really. Hardware: e8400 (stock) + 4gb ddr2-800.

It helps you can optimise Linux in anyway you wish to optimise the system. TBH, W7 & OSX are fine OS's but I use primarily Ubuntu, with a side serving of W7 when I want to game. Only installed OSX as a play thing. I like the fact nearly every thing is drag and drop, and the two finger scrolling when on a touch pad, but linux can do both of those things... And the linux terminal is just so damn powerful. I found OSX wasn't far removed from W7, Just had more of a designer? feel to it. You can't play my favourite games on either linux or OSX, so I would've needed W7 anyway.

But in answer to the initial question;

I use ubuntu because of the freedom to do whatever I want.

pantera10
August 3rd, 2009, 04:46 PM
ITS FREE xD

xenosaga456
August 3rd, 2009, 04:58 PM
ya i like to dual boot so i can play my games and do all of that other stuff in ubuntu :wink:

ranch hand
August 3rd, 2009, 05:50 PM
Sorry posted in wrong thread.

How do I do that? Beats me.

AsianSpanker
August 3rd, 2009, 06:00 PM
I use Ubuntu because it doesn't ask me for money every time I want to try something. Graphics? Gimp. Music? ogg. And I can play with it all day and not face the trickery of the big M. Also I have dealt with M personally and found that they are morally bankrupt. Try dealing with a big M attorney sometime. No scruples. No honesty.
Why would I want to do business with a company that has proved to be dishonest?

afroman10496
August 3rd, 2009, 07:07 PM
I like Ubuntu because it has a whole community of people who actually like the OS :-) With Windows, everyone hates it but may have to use it for specific apps (poor people).

mihnea.radulescu
August 3rd, 2009, 09:59 PM
I wonder why many of the GNU / Linux users on this forum seem to believe deeply in free software (as in free beer), rather than open-source software (that is free as in free speech, but not necessarily free of charge). The GNU ideal (at least Richard Stallman's) was never software that didn't cost anything, but software that you can delve into, see all the code, modify and distribute it to your heart's content.

I can give two significant examples of open-source software, that are not free of charge for commercial purposes:
- QT from Trolltech / Nokia (cross-platform GUI toolkit and general purpose framework for C++)
- db4o from Versant (an object oriented database management system for .NET and Java)

It's easy to depict big companies (such as Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) as singular malevolent entities that owe their illicit success only to marketing practices. It's much harder (and realistic) to picture these companies as being made out of hundreds, if not thousands of people, that work 8 hours or more a day, for months and years at a time for a software product.

Setting aside politics, biases and "sublime" ideologies, why does one think that these people do not deserve payment for their work? I myself have graduated from a Computer Science department as M.Sc. Why should IT software professionals be perceived using the assumption that their work should best be left unpaid, considering that most people would find it natural for professionals of equal qualification from other domains to be paid and paid well?

I know that offering paid consultancy for free (as in free beer) software seems to be the future trend for financing many software projects (such as Java, or even Ubuntu), however this does not alleviate the flawed mindset that, in general, people developing software (who are behind the "corrupt companies") should not be paid.

I have nothing against offering software free of charge (I have one such Google Code project myself) or developing software as a hobby. My complaint is against projecting the general rule that software should always be free of charge (rather than just open-source) and thus undermining the efforts of people that were trained to and are willing to do software development for a living.

As a side note, I find it funny that people making the "always free" software (as in free beer) comment are mostly westerners, who could easily afford the license to the quality software they need, rather than people who are really financially-challenged and who honestly cannot pay for software products.

ranch hand
August 3rd, 2009, 10:15 PM
I would pay for an OS with no problem.

I will not ever again pay MS for another piece of crap or even a great OS because of my experience with Vista (yes I hold a grudge). I not only do not think that nayone involved in that does not desearve payed but should not be permitted to reproduce.

Ubuntu I would pay for, Debian and maybe Mandriva. I actually even do donate when I am not out of work.

The people that do that work definately deserve payment.

Alma-Lover
August 3rd, 2009, 10:37 PM
because of the OS structure (even if it uses cpu as bad as vista). windows with a lot of it's automatic crap allows it to be victim to itself and viruses while systems in linux don't usually suffer this poor programming. also even if you get malware it can only really touch a limited area of the computer because no one is really an admin on a ubuntu. kind of like using a non admin for your internet browsing on windows ~pukes at name~....mainly security and stability. windows doesn't kill itself and ubuntu can't. it's not that it doesn't but it can't....

though in my brief research i do believe this model of linux has it's own form of perverted masochism a.k.a. registry....registry is the stupidest idea for an OS in the history of computers....but it is no where near setting certain load presets like windows....

i remember a day when computers were dumb ad couldn't be touched by malware. i have seen it in my dreams (not really). where this purity comes back....

to put it simply Ubuntu and other forms of linux are basically immune to self and malware inflicted damage while windows is almost a virus in and of itself....

the only reason you have XP is for gaming because vista needs an extra third up in hardware power. or use windows 7 ultimate RC for that matter....but other than gaming and for idiots windows has no purpose....

ArkansasAdam
August 4th, 2009, 05:06 AM
In my opinion, the only reason to really use Ubuntu over any edition of Windows is for pure dislike of Microsoft.

Kredible
August 4th, 2009, 05:11 PM
Quite old thread, but still up, wow!
Most of the reasons have been said but me as a Ubuntu freshman have to leave my mark, hehe, basically it's because



the clean look it has (it's way sexier than any Windows version)
many, but many ways of customizing your interface to your needs
don't need to care much for security.
awesome applets!

Of course, it's not perfect (YET!) and as everybody else I get frustrated when I need to edit something in Adobe Photoshop, and (sorry for being lazy) although, almost the time you have a bug/question related to the OS, there is a solution, but for that solution you have to type several weirdo commands in the console and 98% of the times I don't even know what I'm doin :P instead of 'please-fix-it packs'.

I don't like the idea of having your 'customers' forced to use what your company designed, and I feel Ubuntu took usability to a different level than XP/Vista (mainly Vista)

Still keeping Windows, of course.

justinmiller87
August 4th, 2009, 08:12 PM
I really love the customization of the software. Right now, my desktop looks (almost) like Mac OSX Leopard (Well, it would if I was loaded into Ubuntu. I can't get the wife away from XP so I dual boot.). Basically, I had two reasons to use Windows XP, and that was iTunes and school. The only reason I really used iTunes though is because I'm stubborn. I like how it organizes my music (into the Compilations Folder for all VA CDs). I have now found a suitable replacement for that in the form of ABCDE and I have a newfound love of banshee as well. So that leaves me one reason to use XP, and it's for class. I could spend hours trying to figure out how to make the specific programs work in WINE, but I'd rather just graduate and get Windows off the system ASAP.

For me, it's not about the Spyware, Malware, and Viruses. I keep my XP partition very well-maintained. I log in as a normal user, right click to run as an administrator, and occasionally log in as said administrator to perform system updates and other services. I regularly check for Viruses, using ClamWin, I run Firefox and Thunderbird as my mail programs, and I perform regular Spyware checks, just in case. I don't download from P2P sites and I always download legal torrents when I do, so I have no worries about stupid things trying to invade my system that have no business getting in. Am I secure? Yes. Am I open to an attack? Of course. That doesn't mean that I'm not taking the measures to prevent that from happening though.

It's about the fun of trying something new for me. I use XP at work all the time and make my money managing that. When I get home, I don't want more of the same-old same-old. I want to use something different, and Ubuntu works great for that.

pizza-is-good
August 4th, 2009, 08:14 PM
All of the above stated, with emphasis on

!!!!!!!!!!!!!IT'S FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fennec_fox
August 4th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I prefer Ubuntu over Windows because Ubuntu takes care of me as a user. It's very polished but it's subtle. Everything in Ubuntu just kind of handles itself. It never crashes, it updates all of my software instead of just Canonical software, it lets me know of any problems, the performance is much better (especially with preload and tweaks), it has much better memory management, I can customize anything I want and any functionality I would like to add can be found for free and many times in add/remove or synaptic. All of this is done and yet I don't think I've ever seen an error message. It's like a Rolls Royce or Bentley. It has everything but, it's all tucked away so that the ride is very comfortable and you can just concentrate on whatever you want to do.

It took me three months of using Ubuntu to realize this. Windows was like watching regular tv. Ubuntu is like watching HD tv but, I didn't notice until I used it regularly for a few months. When I went back it was like going from 1080p to low quality interlaced tv. I switched back my laptop to xp and my desktop to vista and quickly noticed this severe lack of quality, performance and usability. Without multiple desktops, compiz with custom keyboard shortcuts and preload, my productivity decreased considerably and everything just had this glitchy feel to it. Vista and XP looked smooth until I switched back and then I just became frustrated with it. This is not a hit against Windows but, when I updated it only updated MS software, when I got software it just told me I needed to install "package x" which I had to find on my own, when I was working I had to keep using 'show desktop' instead of just switching desktops or sliding an application to a new desktop. I couldn't just highlight with my mouse and take a screenshot of what was highlighted with a button. I didn't have mouse only copy/paste. I couldn't just scroll to make windows transparent so I could copy things behind them. Everything in Ubuntu is just so perfectly integrated with everything else that all of the software just kind of seemlessly works together without me knowing it and still manages to be very flexible to fit any users needs.

Windows has worked fine for me in the past. I've had my fair share of blue screens, runtime errors, the occasional sneaky virus off someone's flash drive, a few exploits in college and so on but, to the most part everything I needed to do I could do in Windows without too much frustration.

I choose Ubuntu over Windows because all those little annoyances, headaches and frustrations just don't exist on Ubuntu. Ubuntu keeps up with me as a user. Windows just didn't do that for me. I think Ubuntu has surpassed everyone else in the idea of identifying user needs and user flexibility. Ubuntu has ease of use but can be as unique as the person using it. I can setup my desktop how I want, to fit me as a user, to increase my productivity and to express myself and make me feel unique.


A couple additional pluses for me
-big fan of the community. Finding help trying to customize something or change something is extremely easy
-I love the idea that I can build on someone else's software/themes/etc
-Ubuntu and open source software in general have literally saved me $500+
-6 month release cycles and long time support versions

afroman10496
August 5th, 2009, 02:36 AM
The way Microsoft markets is to
1: realease a crappy OS.
2: end the previous OS's support.
3: create a new and more expensive one.
4: do the whole thing over again.

Ubuntu's way is to
1: release a good OS
2: release a better one
3-infinity: keep doing the same thing over and over again :D

HappyFeet
August 5th, 2009, 03:19 AM
I prefer Ubuntu over Windows because Ubuntu takes care of me as a user. It's very polished but it's subtle. Everything in Ubuntu just kind of handles itself. It never crashes, it updates all of my software instead of just Canonical software, it lets me know of any problems, the performance is much better (especially with preload and tweaks), it has much better memory management, I can customize anything I want and any functionality I would like to add can be found for free and many times in add/remove or synaptic. All of this is done and yet I don't think I've ever seen an error message. It's like a Rolls Royce or Bentley. It has everything but, it's all tucked away so that the ride is very comfortable and you can just concentrate on whatever you want to do.

It took me three months of using Ubuntu to realize this. Windows was like watching regular tv. Ubuntu is like watching HD tv but, I didn't notice until I used it regularly for a few months. When I went back it was like going from 1080p to low quality interlaced tv. I switched back my laptop to xp and my desktop to vista and quickly noticed this severe lack of quality, performance and usability. Without multiple desktops, compiz with custom keyboard shortcuts and preload, my productivity decreased considerably and everything just had this glitchy feel to it. Vista and XP looked smooth until I switched back and then I just became frustrated with it. This is not a hit against Windows but, when I updated it only updated MS software, when I got software it just told me I needed to install "package x" which I had to find on my own, when I was working I had to keep using 'show desktop' instead of just switching desktops or sliding an application to a new desktop. I couldn't just highlight with my mouse and take a screenshot of what was highlighted with a button. I didn't have mouse only copy/paste. I couldn't just scroll to make windows transparent so I could copy things behind them. Everything in Ubuntu is just so perfectly integrated with everything else that all of the software just kind of seemlessly works together without me knowing it and still manages to be very flexible to fit any users needs.

Windows has worked fine for me in the past. I've had my fair share of blue screens, runtime errors, the occasional sneaky virus off someone's flash drive, a few exploits in college and so on but, to the most part everything I needed to do I could do in Windows without too much frustration.

I choose Ubuntu over Windows because all those little annoyances, headaches and frustrations just don't exist on Ubuntu. Ubuntu keeps up with me as a user. Windows just didn't do that for me. I think Ubuntu has surpassed everyone else in the idea of identifying user needs and user flexibility. Ubuntu has ease of use but can be as unique as the person using it. I can setup my desktop how I want, to fit me as a user, to increase my productivity and to express myself and make me feel unique.


A couple additional pluses for me
-big fan of the community. Finding help trying to customize something or change something is extremely easy
-I love the idea that I can build on someone else's software/themes/etc
-Ubuntu and open source software in general have literally saved me $500+
-6 month release cycles and long time support versions

Wow! Great testimonial. I could not have said it better myself. I was going to post something, but after reading that, not much needs to be said. Thanks for taking the words right out of my mouth.

iSubliminal
August 5th, 2009, 03:13 PM
I personally love Ubuntu, and I've never even thought about switching back to any Windows OS.

I used Ubuntu over Windows, because I just find it a lot less hassle to use and set up. Ubuntu to me is like a ready to use out of the box OS, whereas when you install windows you have a lot of programs and drivers to install however with Ubuntu it's already there and ready to use.

ubudog
August 6th, 2009, 04:43 PM
Well, because it's not Windows. It's faster,cleaner,no "Not Responding" windows all the time, and it's just better in general. :)

arch0njw
August 6th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Well, because it's not Windows. It's faster,cleaner,no "Not Responding" windows all the time, and it's just better in general. :)

Yessssssss.

About once a week, my XP laptop (work) boots to a black screen. I have to power off/on to get into a working startup.

About twice a week, shutting down is a cascade of those "waiting for application to end" messages.

Inevitably, my system slows down as each week of use goes by.

64-bit support is terrible in Windows. Under Ubuntu, it is what I primarily use.


Ubuntu isn't crap that irritates me on an alternating daily basis. I'm a less pissed off user when using Ubuntu. Call it a "quality of life" choice. ;-)

jimmyhacker
August 6th, 2009, 07:01 PM
The Complete Freedom and Revolution Spirit.i`m a total Anarchist Cracker&Hacker and i love to use Ubuntu because of it`s free crazy apps and spirit.i love the spirit much much much,more than Redhat-Based commercial XP looking distros.

decoherence
August 6th, 2009, 07:07 PM
I didn't choose Ubuntu over Windows; it chose me!!

(plus i've never willingly used windows)

afroman10496
August 6th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Sorta strange that Ubuntu vs Mac OS wasn't mentioned yet... maybe because anything is better than Window$.

mystmaiden
August 8th, 2009, 05:18 PM
viruses.

vegmunky
August 8th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Adding my pebbles to the avalanche of reasons:

* This support/community forum makes a mockery of anything resembling Windows support.

* It took me 45 minutes to get to my desktop on a brand new laptop with Windows Vista pre-installed. It took me 10 minutes to replace it with Ubuntu and start surfing the web. :D

The only reason I'd stay with Windows, if you can call it a reason, is for Netflix Instant Viewing.

afroman10496
August 9th, 2009, 06:55 AM
viruses.
+ crap + WGA + a lot of other things I'm too tired to list

Hiankun
August 9th, 2009, 08:35 AM
I works in Ubuntu because there are many good tools of Linux. Especially when I need to write code or analyze some data, it's very convenient to use something like vim, gcc, awk, sed, cat, wc, and pipes, among those unmentioned.

I cannot do that complex things with simple tools in Windows. In Windows, when I need to do something simple, I might need to find some new software to install. In Ubuntu, I could solve my problems with shell scripts.

Also, Ubuntu is easy and reachable for users (as me) who have no enough advanced skill to use other Linux distros.

Ubuntu is not everything, but it is something really useful.

tsali
August 9th, 2009, 04:07 PM
I works in Ubuntu because there are many good tools of Linux. Especially when I need to write code or analyze some data, it's very convenient to use something like vim, gcc, awk, sed, cat, wc, and pipes, among those unmentioned.

I cannot do that complex things with simple tools in Windows. In Windows, when I need to do something simple, I might need to find some new software to install. In Ubuntu, I could solve my problems with shell scripts.

Also, Ubuntu is easy and reachable for users (as me) who have no enough advanced skill to use other Linux distros.

Ubuntu is not everything, but it is something really useful.

I love your answer. It's straightforward, humble, not emotionally charged.

This is the kind of answer that makes Windows users stop and think.

I like this guy.

OldGnome
August 9th, 2009, 08:42 PM
I'm no coder, but I have been using computers since 1979.

I took the leap into Ubuntu recently because I had to replace the hard drive on my mother's laptop computer and was going to be forced to buy a Vista license, since I can't seem to get another XP license, except by buying a new computer. (I got Mom a netbook and kept the nearly new Acer notebook.)

So, cost is one factor - the operating system alone would have cost me in the neighborhood of $150.

Another is that Windows PCs have been getting slower and slower every year. I had my hands on a PC for the first time in 1983. PCs are incredibly fast today compared to then, yet it still takes the same amount of time (3-5 minutes) to go from power off to usable state. That's why my work laptop (XP Pro) is almost always shut down with the hibernate option.

The final factor is that I had lost touch of my technical capabilities over the years. I used to know every DOS command and all its options, could navigate my way through that OS and tweak everything I wanted to tweak. I suppose I could learn those things in Windows, but I'm just not interested in becoming an MCSE.

I don't hate Microsoft and I do not consider them any better or worse than virtually every other for-profit company in the world. They're trying to maximize shareholder return in environments where some of the rules and regulations are either unclear or at cross-purposes. Anyone who believes Microsoft is the evil empire is entitled to that opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

J A Smith
August 9th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Bought to Ubuntu due to Vista.

Main reasons:
Ease of install/use (though getting wireless to work on previous releases was a learning curve)

Security

Uses much less resources then Vista. (3GB vs 20GB!!)

Customisable.

I like the open-source philosophy.

Better support.

twiltse
August 10th, 2009, 02:18 AM
Sorry but i have not seen that the programs are better! I farmatted a 2nd drive using gpart worked great except for a small thing like it didn't give me permissions to the drive (rendering it useless). after 4 hours of investigation and many concatenated answers from different users I had to manually mount the drive and give the permissions using dos like commands!(HMMM!) I installed webmin as router, after 2days and many issues I have to reboot 2 times a day!! Webmin will not load on boot, and have had to add dns addresses manually. I then install deluge bittorrent and it locked up last night and will not start back up! 4 hours of investigation and more partial B.S answers, I deleted it! I used to think open source was the way to go but many of these programs seem like a work still in progress!! Be carefull when u say the programs are better because that has not been my experience at all!

on closing, Please people, when u answer a noobs question please try to as complete as possible!! Don't assume that people know as much as u do!! most times a few more key strokes would solve the whole problem!!!

rajcan
August 10th, 2009, 02:33 AM
No viruses, runs a lot more efficient, far easier to install programs, far more extensible, regular updates, and workspaces

badvegan39
August 10th, 2009, 02:35 AM
Not for monetary reasons whatsoever, I just like the freedom to create my own computing experience. Besides, its so nice to not see a blue screen of death

mikeblah
August 10th, 2009, 04:55 PM
Faster broadband. Yes its true! 1.4Mbs says my router. So windows can't load a YouTube video without buffering every ~10seconds. Ubuntu plays them all perfect. File downloads 40-50kB/s max on WinXP, 120-150kB/s on Ubuntu 8.10. Magic!!

System:-
AMD 64 3400+
1GB RAM
Ethernet 10/100

pempem
August 10th, 2009, 05:45 PM
ubuntu is faster than my vista. i'm loving it now. :KS

hookandbook
August 11th, 2009, 03:14 AM
my first post!! New user BUT I have Ubuntu installed on a system used in our office used by children and people just wanting to surf the web. Went to Ubuntu after the 6th reinstall of XP from XP Antivirus 2008, XP Antivirus 2009 ( that stupid malware, virus package ) since Ubuntu install NO PROBLEMS Thanks all involved!!!!!!!!!

mwparis
August 11th, 2009, 03:02 PM
You're going to find as many different answers to this question as people you ask. They'll range from the bombastic to the banal to the sublime.

I'll give you my opinion -- taste. And if you've ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance then I won't be the first source you've heard say, "There is no algorithm for aesthetics," paraphrasing, of course.

So here's my reason -- Linux (inter alia) is OPEN SOURCE. Period.

ZankerH
August 11th, 2009, 03:04 PM
Ubuntu isn't my preferred distro, but I use eeebuntu on my netbook because it has the best hardware support.

SolarOnline
August 12th, 2009, 05:49 PM
I duel boot Ubuntu with Windows.

One thing I do like about Ubuntu is the fact that is doesn;t come with bloatware and it also pretty resistant to exploits like no adware/spyware etc.

hoppipolla
August 12th, 2009, 06:00 PM
I just think that if we all work hard, Linux is way on the way to dethroning Windows :)

Although, actually to be fair that wasn't the main reason, it was mostly because on Ubuntu you get free updates/upgrades, the very latest modern GUI for free, better desktop effects... I dunno, it's just a great package :)

hoppipolla
August 12th, 2009, 06:04 PM
ubuntu is faster than my vista. i'm loving it now. :KS

yeah believe it or not I actually find Kubuntu with KDE 4.3 and Compiz to be significantly faster than even XP! At least on my pc!

Regenweald
August 12th, 2009, 07:18 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?

wow, started way back in '05. :P well fast forward 4 years and i'd still say the basics: speed, stability(my Ubuntu has never crashed on me, not even the alphas), a virus free environment and i can fully customize its look to suit me.

As for what is going on in '09, the tech constantly being introduced and improved takes my experience way past anything i could have in windows. just a lexmark printer holding me back.

pvicc
August 13th, 2009, 02:27 AM
I am new to Liunx. My thinkpad Z61T with XP, though the interface was easy produced lot of BSOD even after upgrading all drivers. At important times it will freeze. After Installing Ubuntu 9.04, No such regrets.
I dont know how to make the following allright.

1. My integrated camera is not working
2. I am not able to sync my Blackberry 8900 with evolution contact and calendar
3. My thinkpad slightly more warm than in XP.
4. I did not check my sd card if its working
5. I dont know how to use my Bandlux 3D modem with gsm sim card.

Please help

Thanks
Ram

dvigue
August 13th, 2009, 01:06 PM
I love "tinkering" with things, so linux is the way to go. and it is fast, fast, fast, and love the security of it...

and oh, LOVE the mac OS X theme...

Chame_Wizard
August 13th, 2009, 03:30 PM
The Virtual desktops and all of my hardware are recognized.:lolflag:

rhiannonthewolf
August 13th, 2009, 11:48 PM
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.

BULL i'm a fairly literate computer user, and I try to be safe on the internet, and because of this i have FEWER problems with spyware, but it still persists on my windows computer.

Windows persistant spyware issues remind me of a Dilber cartoon, where Catbert is explaining to the PHB that the company is making anti virus software, and therefore the company is making viruses that only their anti virus software can detect.

While I agree that the issue being minimal is not the primary reason I am trying to convert fully to Ubuntu, it helped. The primary reason for me is money and software usage. I can game in WINE the couple games i still have time to play. I dont have to pay several hundred of my hard earned dollars for an OS that will not run on my current hardware, or runs so slowly its not worth my time, when the hardware is perfectly good, its the OS thats the problem. And speaking of the OS, Microsoft will only be supporting XP for another couple years, even if it still does everything you want it to do. They wont upgrade it, you'll have to pay them for something new. New features are nice, but why pay for 50 when you are going to use 3 of them.

If microsoft allowed me to build a customized OS without the bloat, and pay for the features I want, without requiring me to install and update the ones that are proven security holes in my computer or prove to them repeatedly that YES I PAID FOR THIS, I might not be here right now. I have no problem paying for a good product, but what Microsoft provides for the money is not in my opinion a good enough product for the price anymore.

Spencer Caplan
August 13th, 2009, 11:54 PM
Why would I choose Ubuntu over Windows? Because I would choose almost anything over Windows. Microsoft is a money hungry company that creates sub-par products. Also, Ubuntu is awesome. It is completely FREE. It is safe from malware. It is free from bloatware. It is faster than windows. It is opensource. It is fully customizable. Why would anyone not prefer to use Ubuntu, or any form of Linux?

running_rabbit07
August 14th, 2009, 12:07 AM
To each their own, right? I love my Ubuntu, my Fedora, and my Windows. All three have glitches that I have to fix.

I have never seen the BSOD on any of my Windows systems and I have never had Virus Annihilation like so many claim is so bad about Windows.

kenji_03
August 14th, 2009, 09:20 AM
the biggest reason of all to switch to Ubuntu over Windows...

This forum

100% Free tech support and a reply within 5 minutes at 4am (pst). Try getting that kind of help from the Indian (from India) and tell me you still prefer windows XD :lolflag:

Screwdriver0815
August 14th, 2009, 10:04 AM
one reason is on my desk right now...

I have a Windows Laptop for work (its a companys Laptop - not my own). Today I have checked my job-Emails and closed the Mail-app at 10.04 am... at 10.43 am the machine has managed to close it because during closing the app, Windows crashed horribly...

now since 10.43 am I try to shutdown Windows... now it is 11 o clock am and it doesn't shutdown... maybe in 1 hour I have finished this disgrace. I could make a hard shutdown = simply switch the machine off. But I want to see how long it takes. Maybe 2 hours more?

This is the reason why I do not use Windows for my private stuff.

Edit: now it is 11.41 am and Windows is shutting down... its a great operating system :rolleyes: so reliable so comfortable and so stable... :rolleyes:

Edit2: now (11.57 am) Windows has shutdown completely and the machine is switched off... great job! :D

afroman10496
August 14th, 2009, 03:28 PM
I wonder if the same thread is on Fedora or Red Hat or Solaris forums XD

running_rabbit07
August 14th, 2009, 08:17 PM
Because Windows just doesn't look this hot!

pizza-is-good
August 14th, 2009, 08:48 PM
the biggest reason of all to switch to Ubuntu over Windows...

This forum

100% Free tech support and a reply within 5 minutes at 4am (pst). Try getting that kind of help from the Indian (from India) and tell me you still prefer windows XD :lolflag:

That is a good enough reason, even if Ubuntu was just exactly the same as Windows, only a different name, the support is just no there.

Has anybody ever been to vista forums? DON'T! It is just sad.

running_rabbit07
August 14th, 2009, 08:52 PM
That is a good enough reason, even if Ubuntu was just exactly the same as Windows, only a different name, the support is just no there.

Has anybody ever been to vista forums? DON'T! It is just sad.

I remember trying to get help when for some odd reason I did a disk cleanup I lost my MS Paint. That was one of the few programs they made that I liked. Easy yet I could edit anything. I never did get it back untill I reinstalled Windows for some other problems. But, now the only windows I have are for looking outside. 100% Karmic Ubuntu!

jocampo
August 15th, 2009, 02:48 AM
I've read some of the reasons people gave and must say that I've found many of them having merit, but also quite a few being unreasonable, hypocritical and biased. Such as:

"Linux is better because in Windows you get a lot of spyware and viruses" - You get spyware and viruses with Windows only if you are a weak user who doesn't obey common sense, elementary rules.

Not true! The problem with viruses and spy-ware is not Internet Explorer only, is the operating system itself and additional components or additions: Word, Excel, Outlook Express, sometimes MS-SQL (a Microsoft Product which runs on top of Windows), the registry itself, we do not have such thing in Ubuntu and root is disable for default. What's your advice, disable everything and unplug the cable cord?

I am not a weak user and I've had viruses and problems still taking care of my Windows machine. So yeah, someway Ubuntu is better and I love it, but not all Windows problems are because their users but the Os itself.

afroman10496
August 15th, 2009, 09:53 PM
Lol, just tried to file a bug report on my VirtualBox Windows 7 and Windows said:

Your computer crashed because of an application not responding. (like always, like when I use Notepad for example)

Was this information helpful?
()Yes
(o)No

and they asked me to explain. I wonder if they actually read user responses? Windows doesn't even care about users, they just want $. B$. Ubuntu doesn't even need money. Open source FTW!

jrothwell97
August 15th, 2009, 10:12 PM
Not true! The problem with viruses and spy-ware is not Internet Explorer only, is the operating system itself and additional components or additions: Word, Excel, Outlook Express, sometimes MS-SQL (a Microsoft Product which runs on top of Windows), the registry itself, we do not have such thing in Ubuntu and root is disable for default. What's your advice, disable everything and unplug the cable cord?

I am not a weak user and I've had viruses and problems still taking care of my Windows machine. So yeah, someway Ubuntu is better and I love it, but not all Windows problems are because their users but the Os itself.

Yes, but the principle is the same. You only get viruses/spyware/etc if you don't install security updates, disable UAC and always run as a privileged user (this is important: using Windows with an Administrator account day-to-day is asking for trouble), and don't exercise caution with your software.

Windows is relatively safe without anti-virus or anti-spyware software, as long as all the security patches are applied and you don't do anything silly. The only reason more malware hasn't been targeted to Ubuntu and other Linux systems is because the systems aren't as widely used, and its users tend to be more tech-savvy and therefore more likely to exercise caution.

Criticise the monolithic and outdated Registry, the p*ss-poor user privileges system, MS's questionable business practices and the fact the most trivial task requires elevating to administrative privileges and possibly rebooting, but don't criticise the fact its popularity has made it a target for malware writers who prey upon gullible users.

And once more: don't run in Windows as a privileged user, ESPECIALLY not with UAC disabled.

Bachstelze
August 15th, 2009, 10:48 PM
Your computer crashed because of an application not responding. (like always, like when I use Notepad for example)


If Notepad crashed, you really have a problem on you PC.


Ubuntu doesn't even need money.

Oh yeah? And the servers that host the repositories, CD images, foums, etc. are free, I suppose?

This thread really frightens me. So much FUD and lies...

afroman10496
August 15th, 2009, 11:55 PM
I meant Ubuntu isn't so money hungry that they need a ridiculous amount of money from everyone and give them a horrible OS.

Bachstelze
August 16th, 2009, 12:13 AM
I meant Ubuntu isn't so money hungry that they need a ridiculous amount of money from everyone and give them a horrible OS.

Horrible OS?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/flyingoct/opinions.jpg

I know a lot of people that are perfectly happy with Windows (myself included, at least for certain tasks).

running_rabbit07
August 16th, 2009, 12:13 AM
This thread really frightens me. So much FUD and lies...

Of coarse, because it is a political thread. Kinda like why did they choose Obama over Clinton. (Rhetorical Question)

Frak
August 16th, 2009, 03:45 AM
If Notepad crashed, you really have a problem on you PC.



Oh yeah? And the servers that host the repositories, CD images, foums, etc. are free, I suppose?

This thread really frightens me. So much FUD and lies...
Entire team... IS BABIES.

But, yeah. This happens a lot no matter what zealot community you come across. I was told that GNU/Linux was insecure by some new MSDN developers because it was Open Source (collegiates). I was told that Linux and Microsoft could never be as safe as BSD. I was told that Ubuntu is better than Linux (true story). I was told that 7 would beat every operating system ever created ever.

Then I quit watching elections. Ya, knah, cause we're ruled by terrorists and stuff brah.

Three minutes thought would suffice to find this out; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time. Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care.

/offtopicness

Silent Warrior
August 17th, 2009, 07:58 AM
Ubuntu is much easier (without prior knowledge of how to do it in either XP or Ubuntu 9.04) to set up guest-accounts with predictable privileges.

(See, we're having a guest coming soon, and I'm not at home to monitor the proceedings and instruct her on-site. Ubuntu and Tomboy FTW! I couldn't even get XP's guest-account to appear on the log-in manager... 'Course, my XP-install has been... tweaked. :) Nearly as extensively as Ubuntu. So, letting her into Ubuntu feels tons more safe than opening up XP.)

epsolon77
August 18th, 2009, 03:20 PM
I think part of the issue with this discussion is that it is so broad, just like modern OS's. The focus of modern computing, is, well, not focused. One moment you could be listening to MP3's and surfing the web, the next moment playing an interactive game, just before checking to see how your piddly test web server is running. Microsoft is biting off more than their multi billion dollar research budget can support. In my opinion they are attempting to make a do it all gadget, when one can not exist. I like Ubuntu because I can have a command line, stripped down server that is a secure base, then add a gui that fits my needs, and add on packages I choose. I think that if Microsoft had a more focused development plan, and sold products Ala cart they might do better. I say this, but then I don't know if that would actually work. I do know that this has worked well for the open source community, in part because no one person, or team, would have the resources to code and maintain and entire operating system. Thus I use Ubuntu because I can tailor it to my systems needs. The fact that it is free allowed me to discover it, because my research budget is...well...zero.

The point about Microsoft's system being secure even to seasoned users I do not feel is a valid point. I manage 50 plus computers for an insurance company, and have seen my share of viruses. Viruses do not all require users to activate them. Despite having many many layers of security, and still have gotten viruses though emails, windows security issues, and just plain clicking the wrong icon. And what took windows so long to enact a Run as Administrator feature? I feel that I do not need to be asked every time "potentially unsafe" execution code could be run. If I need to be asked if I did click on an icon, or did change my background I feel that there is a larger issue. I mean we don't require our toaster to inform me that I have turned it on even though it could catch my kitchen on fire. And just yesterday I was surfing the net with Firefox, and Vista decided Mozilla was a virus and shut it down. I was on yahoo's mail program. There are serious bugs in Microsoft's security software.

randywilharm
August 26th, 2009, 04:12 AM
Why choose Ubuntu over Windows?

Because linux is practically invulnerable to a lot
of things Windows is'nt --viruses,malware,spyware.
Also, working commands with the terminal in linux opens up
even more doors to capability,file permissions,etc.
That's only the start of it...

2 years ago I paid 250.00 bucks for a so-called
Windows "ultimate" upgrade, thinking I would get
more file permissions (bad expectation).
It does'nt work that way. I never should
have spent that money and I won't do it again.

I have not paid one dime for my 8.04 hardy OS.
All I did was download an .iso file from MIT
Media Labs onto my
computer.

I did'nt have to spend a dime or even leave my house!


Windows measures up like this:

Vista easily runs the CPU at 650mBs IDLE unless I start it (reboot)
with the CAT9 (modem) cable pulled out.
Then it can go down to 400, but only after dozens
of modifications I was compelled to do in
the task manager....that took a little time studying in itself.

The fact that the CPU usage drops like that is a little spooky too.
A 200mB spike just by plugging in the CAT9 cable?
Something's a little strange, here.

My 8.04 Hardy OS idles at 175mB and does'nt go far above 400
much at all.

CPU usage is'nt even affected by wether or not the
modem cable is plugged in.

Firefox is usually a little "expensive" -especially
when a web-based media player is operating- but not much
above 400mB draw on the CPU (AMD64 dual-core).

How insignificant when opposed to Windows' constant
hammering of my poor 320gB hard drive that purrs like a kitten
when i'm running linux for an OS.

Also:
I have been using Ubuntu 2yrs and I have yet to see a problem
arise that I could not pull out of.

Usually the last resort is Ubuntu forums and I always got an answer to my
inquiry, even if it took a week (that happened only once) and I
think that was out of about 20 times, most being non-urgent questions.


So there's a few reasons anyway why I choose Ubuntu over Windows.

It was a little tough to remember all the reasons
Windows inconvenienced me because I have'nt used Vista in 2yrs+.


I don't think ignorance is bliss,
but ignoring Windows is bliss
from what i've experienced.

THANKS FOR THE UBUNTU!......
I have all confidence in it. ---Randy

ranch hand
August 26th, 2009, 04:34 AM
How insignificant when opposed to Windows' constant
hammering of my poor 320gB hard drive that purrs like a kitten
when i'm running linux for an OS.

I love it. We bought this box with Vista Home premium on it and I thought that the 320Gb drive was bad because of the noise. Got a new WD 320Gb and put it in with 8.04 and keep the old drive for an emergency.

Then I realized that I could dual boot with another 8.04 and do my "playing" on it and didn't need Vista. Got an external enclosure and put some other Linux OS' on the old "bad" drive. Couldn't hardly hear the sucker run. Still can't. I don't think it was bad. I think it had a HDD eating virus called Vista.

Watch out for that sucker.

running_rabbit07
August 26th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Why do I choose this over that.

Ability to customize. No more worries about malware.

The support community has a lot of smart and helpful people.

It works great on my machine.

Can tell my system to restart, go to the can, and when I get back it is completely loaded with the HDD not doing anything.

I don't have to run to Best Buy with the wallet out for a new program to get my work done nor spend money on an annual renewal for anti-virus.


If I have to reinstall my OS, I can be up and running in less than an hour from the time I place the install disk in the tray. Not to mention it only take two disks and doesn't require me to break out all the other install CDs to get my programs reinstalled.

I have respect for Windows, without MS Linux wouldn't be progressing so fast to get ahead of them. They have a great OS, but not for my system.

running_rabbit07
August 26th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I love it. We bought this box with Vista Home premium on it and I thought that the 320Gb drive was bad because of the noise. Got a new WD 320Gb and put it in with 8.04 and keep the old drive for an emergency.

Then I realized that I could dual boot with another 8.04 and do my "playing" on it and didn't need Vista. Got an external enclosure and put some other Linux OS' on the old "bad" drive. Couldn't hardly hear the sucker run. Still can't. I don't think it was bad. I think it had a HDD eating virus called Vista.

Watch out for that sucker.

I know where you are coming from with the loud hard disk with Windows. Mine was really loud when I was dual booting. After evicting Windows, my drive is quiet.

estyles
August 26th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Vista easily runs the CPU at 650mBs IDLE unless I start it (reboot)
with the CAT9 (modem) cable pulled out.
Then it can go down to 400, but only after dozens
of modifications I was compelled to do in
the task manager....that took a little time studying in itself.

The fact that the CPU usage drops like that is a little spooky too.
A 200mB spike just by plugging in the CAT9 cable?
Something's a little strange, here.

My 8.04 Hardy OS idles at 175mB and does'nt go far above 400
much at all.

I am confused by these numbers. Is that mB as in megabytes? I don't know how to measure anything CPU-related in megabytes... Am I just reading it wrong? Enlighten me...

afroman10496
August 26th, 2009, 05:55 PM
I am confused by these numbers. Is that mB as in megabytes? I don't know how to measure anything CPU-related in megabytes... Am I just reading it wrong? Enlighten me...
I think he meant mBs as in Megabits per second, because "B" is capitalized. And probably he meant how many megabits it processes in a second... are you enlightened?:)

afroman10496
August 26th, 2009, 05:58 PM
I know where you are coming from with the loud hard disk with Windows. Mine was really loud when I was dual booting. After evicting Windows, my drive is quiet.
The reason that the hard disk is so loud is because the poor hard disk is screaming and trying to tell you to remove Vista:)

ranch hand
August 26th, 2009, 06:26 PM
The reason that the hard disk is so loud is because the poor hard disk is screaming and trying to tell you to remove Vista:)
I figured that out after removing an OS that ran slower on this box than 98 ran on our old P2 machine. Geeze.

RabbitWho
August 26th, 2009, 06:53 PM
Everything seems to work so much faster and better. And using the computer becomes a learning experience. And when I had a problem before I said "oh well, my computer can't do that." Now it's a matter of finding out how.

running_rabbit07
August 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
The reason that the hard disk is so loud is because the poor hard disk is screaming and trying to tell you to remove Vista:)

Mine had XP, but yeah. It didn't start doing that until I dual booted. Once XP was gone, hard drive is happy.

leverettson
August 26th, 2009, 08:36 PM
For me it's not one or the other. There are advantages to both. I've never met an operating system I didn't like, OK the original palm OS was close but for the most part it's all good. Ubuntu is certainly a lot more fun to learn. Windows 7 pretty much rocks, vista not so much. Ubuntu gets better every day, it's not a one or the other proposition, it's all of the above.

Stan_1936
August 26th, 2009, 08:40 PM
- The system runs faster with Ubuntu than it does with Windows.
- The security
- The free part of things.....for an average computer user, ther is NO need for Windows...in my opinion, anyways.

cusinmex
August 26th, 2009, 08:49 PM
I've been using Ubuntu for months
and I can only honestly say that
it does pwn Windows.

I haven't had any security problems.( because there aren't any)
I can customize Ubuntu any way I want to..
Almost ALL apps are free :P
Computer runs WAY faster than Windows..

and the list goes on..
but those are the basics..

I dualboot Windows and Ubuntu but
i rarely use Windows nowadays..
just for gaming and all that stuff.

gnomeuser
August 26th, 2009, 08:59 PM
The last Windows version I choose was Windows 98SE, back then it was the attraction of new challenges and the desire to rely on free good legal software.

I've been here full time for a decade and I have no big desire to go anywhere else. I've use just about every distro but Ubuntu is a decent one so that is what is powering me today.

stefcep
August 27th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Ubuntu 9.04 was the first Linux that worked out of the box for all my hardware. i also liked Mandriva until they brought out KDE 4. As an OS ubuntu is nice. And as an OS to run a Web browser Instant messaging and email its fine, actually better than Windows. But the Apps lack the polish, if, that is, you can get what you need: I need either Lightwave or Cinema 4-ain't gonna happen. So for me ubuntu is my net machine, XP is or everything else.

durand
August 27th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Ubuntu 9.04 was the first Linux that worked out of the box for all my hardware. i also liked Mandriva until they brought out KDE 4. As an OS ubuntu is nice. And as an OS to run a Web browser Instant messaging and email its fine, actually better than Windows. But the Apps lack the polish, if, that is, you can get what you need: I need either Lightwave or Cinema 4-ain't gonna happen. So for me ubuntu is my net machine, XP is or everything else.

If you're only using it for browsing the net, you might like to try Crunchbang Linux. It's based on ubuntu but it is stripped down with lightweight programs and a lightweight desktop called openbox. It also loads really fast.

http://crunchbanglinux.org/

BCPlanner
August 27th, 2009, 08:08 PM
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.

My reason for moving to Linux/Ubuntu is bottom line. How much is a Windows app? Price, if you will, MS Office 2007. Now, price OpenOffice latest (or even StarOffice).

I hesitated to install Ubu because it lacks shrink wrap apps, but so far basic 9.04 has (almost) everything I need. Granted, OpenOffice is not quite as functional as MS Office 2007 (I have it on a Vista box) but even for a documentation person, it is "sufficient" ; certainly the price is right. :) Caveat: I am not a gamer.

I'm still not 100% Windows-free, but I expect (hope) to be by end of 2009.

John Glenn, MBCI
Enterprise Risk Management practitioner & Scrivener
JohnGlennMBCI at gmail dot com

Redsandro
August 28th, 2009, 12:30 PM
- The system runs faster with Ubuntu than it does with Windows.
I hear that a lot, but is that actually true?

I use Linux for over a decade now and I'm an Ubuntu fan because it's so easy. I always have one Windows license on my main workstation and [x]Ubuntu on the rest (server, media center, desktop). I like free, reliable, customizable, stable (and did I say customizable?) software.

But I've never ever had an out of the box Ubuntu on a previous out of the box Windows machine that was equally fast or even faster. I think it's a myth.

I think it's because Ubuntu just has a lot of scripts that require real time interpretation. A lot of the applications also. They cannot be compiled or optimized, where in Windows pretty much everything is.

Funny detail: I play games through wine. I do think the games run a bit faster than on Windows!

ranch hand
August 28th, 2009, 01:14 PM
I know that when I switched this box from Vista to Hardy it became a lot faster. So much so that I was shocked.

I had 2 drives but only one could be in the box at a time (then) and I would swap them out. Except the HDD (both 320Gb) everything was the same hardware. Boot time was about 1/3 under Hardy. Was on dial up and on a good day Vista would get about 3.6K/s out of my USR5610c internal modem. Ubuntu got 4.4K/s normally.

I am not sure how fair this is because this box (see sig) was a lot slower than our old P2 (350MHZ, 128Mb ram) under W98.

Vista may not be the fair thing to compare speeds with.

It is the last chance that MS had of ever having it tested on a box of mine.

Redsandro
August 28th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Wow. Don't know what to say, except that many (and even some people from MS) consider Vista to be bloatware. I never used it.

My experiences are from 7, XP, 2K and 98SE (way back).
What about boot times? I also find Windows superior in that area.

I use Windows 7 now on my main workstation (Intel Quad Core @ Asus mobo 4G mem) and it's lightning compared to 9.04, which is like a falling brick (and I mean that in a good way, what else is the next best thing after lightning? :P)

When I get my pre-ordered Win7 I'll remove Ubuntu because I only use Windows on my work machine, but everything else stays Ubuntu. I really like it but I'm just unlucky speedwise I guess.

ranch hand
August 28th, 2009, 10:46 PM
Well I can tell you that my vista would boot fast. the only problem was that you had to do it an average of 2 times each boot to get it to work (maybe 2.5 average).

Worst thing I have ever run. I would rather use MSDos as long as I could have Shell with it.

credobyte
August 28th, 2009, 10:47 PM
Personally, licensing is the main reason why I choose/prefer open source stuff ..

Redsandro
August 28th, 2009, 11:16 PM
True.

I use licensed software for work, running Windows. But apart from that, I actually use a lot of OSS with Linux origin on Windows (Pidgin, Open Office, Cygwin, Planner) and a lot of (free) Windows apps on Linux (because in my opinion they are superior) like foobar2000, uTorrent, emulators..

I just really need both OSses. I am happy I don't 'need' MacOS. :P

jmorsman
August 29th, 2009, 04:28 PM
I use Ubuntu over windows because it just works. In the many years I have had different forms of Linux running on my computer I never received a virus. I do not spend a lot of time having to find drivers for appliances and If I need a specific program there is usually one online for the need at hand. as I grow better at programming I also understand that if I want to change a program and make it better or more convenient to use that option is open.

afroman10496
August 31st, 2009, 04:04 AM
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?

Too many to list.

bukueOner
September 1st, 2009, 10:23 AM
I do like the customisation 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.

pretty and deceptive exe files aren't the only problem with windows security. its random drive-by virus sites, tricky emails and the list goes on. even the most experienced user can still fall into these traps. that's what makes linux better, because most of these viruses etc. don't affect the system.

SwedishWings
September 1st, 2009, 05:40 PM
My past 15 years as developer in the M$ paradigm was many times extremely frustrating and costly.

Open source is superior in product development. If something does not work, i can just have a look in the source code and solve the problem. The only downside so far is video driver issues, but except for that i have saved an enormous amount of money, time and frustration thanks to the open source concept. I also feel so much better when i share my work so others can use it. It's truly give and take in a positive way!

I'll never go back to M$ again, ever!

lackhand
September 1st, 2009, 05:51 PM
I went to Ubuntu when I first tried to install Vista and it kept crashing. I was sick of it.

But I still use XP daily at work, and I have a Mac too. They all have their pros and cons. At the end of the day, I just prefer the open source model of software development. I like having the freedom to do whatever the hell I want with my stuff.

Ubuntu is faster and more stable and flexible, and comes with an application to do pretty much whatever you could want. All for free. Not a bad deal at all.

ThaDoctor99
September 2nd, 2009, 09:49 PM
The reason why I switched from Windows, back then Vista didn't really exist and people still believe it was supposed to come in like 12 variants. Which was really not all that true.
Well however the reason why I switched was, that I was rather impatient with windows, instead I ended in a system where I knew nothing, and had to work my way from the buttom.

ubudog
September 2nd, 2009, 09:50 PM
Why do I choose Ubuntu over Windows? Well, because it's not windows. :)

Hogosha
September 2nd, 2009, 09:52 PM
I switched cause i was bored. I wanted something new. I still use windows but i also use ubuntu. My desktop stays with windows cause i game on it and the laptop dual boots but windows is a rare occurrence i need it. Mac just sucks.

Frak
September 3rd, 2009, 02:15 AM
Mac just sucks IMO.
Crazy OSU fans stating opinions for facts.

^^Joke thar

coldReactive
September 3rd, 2009, 02:27 AM
Because Flash CS3 no longer activates.

tcoffeep
September 3rd, 2009, 02:30 AM
I didn't. I chose -linux- over windows.

Capt. Blackwood
September 3rd, 2009, 08:14 PM
I chose ubuntu as an alternative windows. Though most of my stuff may be drunk on wine :) (once i configure it)

Suiname
September 3rd, 2009, 08:21 PM
I already disliked a lot of things about Windows, but vista put me over the edge. Having to support so many people at work using vista showed me I needed to ditch windows. Way to go m$

Johny79
September 3rd, 2009, 08:34 PM
Seriously I don't know where to start...

1) Faster, both boot wise and launching applications etc.

2) I'm addicted to having multiple workspaces, how can anyone live without them??

3) Level of customisation, every aspect looks, feels, and works just how I want it to.

4) Stability, I went 8.10 > 9.04 > 9.10 on my laptop without a complete reinstall and without any detrimental effect on performance / stability.

5) OpenSource, this has many advantages in itself, and in my opinion is the future of truly platform independent software development and the key to bringing real competition to the operating system market.

6) I worked with/for M$ for far too long and learned some hard truths about both the way they do business and how they regard their customers / clients.

I could go on all day but I'll resist and stop there :D

Sin@Sin-Sacrifice
September 4th, 2009, 12:24 AM
Open source... has a lot of benefits. Awesome for development and learning about software and actually... learning in general. Things are just better with linux. I still use windows but only for gaming and better wireless compatibility.

Windows Nerd
September 4th, 2009, 02:30 AM
Seriously I don't know where to start...

1) Faster, both boot wise and launching applications etc.

2) I'm addicted to having multiple workspaces, how can anyone live without them??

3) Level of customisation, every aspect looks, feels, and works just how I want it to.

4) Stability, I went 8.10 > 9.04 > 9.10 on my laptop without a complete reinstall and without any detrimental effect on performance / stability.

5) OpenSource, this has many advantages in itself, and in my opinion is the future of truly platform independent software development and the key to bringing real competition to the operating system market.

6) I worked with/for M$ for far too long and learned some hard truths about both the way they do business and how they regard their customers / clients.

I could go on all day but I'll resist and stop there :D
Ditto.

That and ... (starts talking really fast) the fact that Linux has no registry or ActiveX. And the fact that is is more stable, and so on and so forth. The only reason I still have Windows on my computer is for gaming. I know Wine can allow most games to be played within Linux that were previously only for Windows, but Wine isn't perfect yet.

Scott

tcoffeep
September 4th, 2009, 09:16 PM
The only games I play on Wine over Windows is games like Baldur's Gate 2 ( in Vista, I get random lag like a ****** for no reason whatsoever. Not so with wine. :wub: planescape )

Grifulkin
September 4th, 2009, 11:56 PM
The only reason I haven't fully swtiched over at this point is because I like to video chat with my girlfriend. And ubuntu doesn't really like my webcam or for that matter a program that lets me use video chat.

Dy1anW
September 5th, 2009, 01:00 PM
I'm dual booting WinXP and Ubuntu on this lapbomb. I'm in Ubuntu for developing mostly, as the whole environment just runs a LOT faster (even starting up is about 4 times faster), and is far more flexible than Windows. I keep Windows on here as I still need to run AutoCAD, which just doesn't work too well under Wine (I've tried). If I weren't involved in design/construction, I'd have Ubuntu on here exclusively.

As of a couple years ago, I also decided to keep games off my computers, so bought a console for gaming.

Also ran an ISP-style server at home which was exclusively Ubuntu. That was pretty neat. Wouldn't want to risk doing the same in Windows (not to mention it'll likely run extremely slow as well).

Oh yeah, and I also had this annoying habit of typing linux commands in Windows' CLI. :P

oldefoxx
September 11th, 2009, 04:10 AM
450 pages to this thread to date. All you people talk about is what you tend to like or don't like about a dual boot process. There are two easy answers to that issue: Get a second PC and use a KVM switch to toggle the keyboard, vido, and mouse between them (generally under $40), or install a VM Manager like VirtualBox or VMWare so that you can add a second, a thired, even more OS clients that you can toggle to if and when you want to go from one to the other on the same PC. No more need for a dual boot startup, you just boot the one, start up the VM Manager when it suits you, and have the alternate OS do its own boot up under the VM.

Sure, it lacks some high end aspects (games generally do not perform to their maximum under a client OS), but you can pick your host OS, get a VM Manager for that host, and then add your clients. You may still employ dual booting if you want to choose between whether a certain OS is acting as host or not, meaning you can get back the high end stuff when it suits you. No problem there.

I've worked Windows issues for many years, and I'm getting really tired of its flaws, oversights, limitations, and being hounded if my legal copy of one of their OSes currently fails verification. To me, Ubuntu is not only getting it right, but it is getting better every day. Anything found wrong will eventually be addressed. Not so with Windows. There you are just advised to wait for the next release.

The only real reason that Windows has the best action games is that there is money in selling things that work under Windows, and there may not be if you target Linux instead. The better action was not an accident, as it required Direct3D and DirectX as parts of Windows just for this very purpose. Doesn't mean similar functionality cannot be had for Linux, but game developers know where the sales are and are not inclined to go after a smaller, less certain market, especially if they may have to develop all the core graphics capabilities themselves.

murderslastcrow
September 12th, 2009, 05:53 AM
OpenGL, brudduh.

I totally agree- if you're that fed up with not being able to use both, just get another computer for the other one. I'm sure they'll have chips pretty soon though that will facilitate multiple cores to boot separate systems through the BIOS, however.

And, if it's not necessary for your work, why would you bother making your life harder by complaining that Windows programs don't work in Linux, something that was never a planned feature in the first place?

staf0048
September 12th, 2009, 06:01 AM
Freedom. Plain and simple.

check out /usr/src - this is not provided with ANY propietary system. If you have the source code, you have the power, which means you are free to do what you want. This is not a moot or unimportant in my humble opinion.

M&StL
September 12th, 2009, 06:24 AM
I had heard no support unless Windows. Knowing damn little of what I am doing, the forum help with Ubuntu has gotten me through. Quirky, interesting, so far, doable.
I am tempted to try installing a dual core board on a junker and see what happens with 64 bit. Is it worth it?

Machiavelli
September 12th, 2009, 06:45 AM
I prefer ubuntu over win becouse of the simple reason that the hardware is imo better utilized under GNU/Linux. Therfore, it brings a faster computer.

Shobuz99
September 13th, 2009, 03:19 PM
I haven't chosen Ubuntu over Windows, yet...
however, I dual-boot and have been using Ubuntu more frequently because of the help I've received here on these Forums.
I'm an old geek (60 yrs old) from IBM and typically entrenched in IBM behaviors;
when it comes to learning new things and trying alternatives. Still..I'm not a lost cause.
I personally HATE Windows(any version) and still despise IBM for abandoning their alternative to Windows (OS2 WARP)
way back when (before linux knew the taste of it's first byte)...but I digress.

I really do appreciate all the help I've received on this Forum, as I trapsed through the fundamentals of Ubuntu.
Most everyone has been kind. Some have been quite firm.. but NEVER nasty, or mean.
I was able to get help installing Dreamweaver MX 2004 v6.0, using WINE;
so that I could continue building web sites and not be affected by WIndows crashes/DWMX crashes. I escaped the maddness.
I don't 'game' much at all, so there aren't any real reasons why I still use Windows.
The only one I can think of is some of the windows apps and email residue is still 'rat-packed' on most of my computers (I have 6).
I even have music software for use with an old Roland Midi card (SCC1) that is an ISA bus technology
(I told you I was old ;) ) and the only computer I can use that on is a Windows 95 box. anyway...

It may take a while to totally remove the Windows hypodermic needle from my USB port :)
...but eventually, I WILL leave Windows for good.

I even have a greeting for new ubuntu users.. Ubuntu 2 U 2!

BTW.. where can I donate a bit to the cause?

Rick (shobuz99)

azmo35
September 13th, 2009, 07:59 PM
I have to say at 3 years ago i start using a computer with windows xp never before ad a computer,but the fany thihg is i learn more about computers sence i start using Ubuntu/Lilux at 10 to 12 mounths Than 2 years with windows.