A few observations about Linux by a friend of mine - how far do you agree?

[Mazza558]

A few of these observations about Linux were made by a friend of mine. He's used Windows all his life and has briefly tried a liveCD of Ubuntu. How far do you agree with them? (Bearing in mind these are his words, not mine):

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.

"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"

I'll be interested to hear your opinions/thoughts, as I'll show him this thread in a few days.

[LaRoza]

A few of these observations about Linux were made by a friend of mine. He's used Windows all his life and has briefly tried a liveCD of Ubuntu. How far do you agree with them? (Bearing in mind these are his words, not mine):

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features"

"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"

I'll be interested to hear your opinions/thoughts, as I'll show him this thread in a few days.

Tell your friend that briefly using a Live CD is not the basis for an opinion.

A lot of programs are clones, and many aren't. There are many Linux apps ports to Windows as well. Applications are not the operating system. Some of the best software is free and native to Linux. The most feature rich applications are spread out. The Unix way doesn't include feature creep.

No, Linux is very innovative, it just has no marketing. Windows and Mac OSX learn from Linux. The Windows UAC is a poor copy of Linux type setups, and OSX just got workspaces, which Linux has had for a long time.

They are comparable applications, but OpenOffice implements a standardized format, and is free. If you can only use OO for basic things, that is just you.

It isn't advertised because it is not the product of a corporation. Its users spread it.

I found Windows Vista to be a poor copy of features that have existed in Linux for a long time, and a buggy implementation at best. Mac OSX, is also ahead of Windows...

If you are not familiar with Linux, don't even think to form an opinion on it.

It seems those that know nothing or very little have the strongest opinions.

If you don't want to use Linux, don't. You are free to use whatever you want.

[Whiffle]

1) depends on the program. I find that there are many programs that do more than their windows counterparts, and some that do less. I don't feel restricted in linux at all, more often empowered. For example, browsers. Just looking through the menus in Konqueror yields more capabilities than internet explorer ever dreamed of. Web archiving, split windows, web shortcuts, etc, its all here.

2) Linux has things in it have been it for years, well before OS X or windows. One example, multiple workspaces.

3)Agreed. Office 2007 can jump off a cliiff for all I care though, I'm using 2003.

4) People don't know/don't care, and nobody wants to put money into advertising. ITs more of a word of mouth deal anyway, IMO. I know I wouldn't download, burn, and install a CD just because of some ad...I need that initial curiosity to get started.

[Mazza558]

If you are not familiar with Linux, don't even think to form an opinion on it.

It seems those that know nothing or very little have the strongest opinions.

If you don't want to use Linux, don't. You are free to use whatever you want.

Remember this these are really directed towards my friend, not me. I completely disagree with him, but I'd like the input of some of the forum members.

[el_ricardo]

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features"


the more mainstream windows programs perhaps, open office obviously took a lot of inspiration from MS office for example, but with smaller freeware programs, its probably the other way round.


"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"


the few ideas that have been borrowed, like the million and one mac OS dock clones have been made better and more customizable, i see no problem here! other than the odd exception, the majority of the cool stuff in windows/mac were infact borrowed from linux



"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFge2zTSN-A


"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"


ads cost money, and a product that relies so heavily on community development can't really generate enough money for campaigns to rival mac's and windows'. people don't use linux because of this, although the number of people getting involved is growing, basically because of the phenomenon of blogging!

those are my responses on your friend's opinions

[aysiu]

There is, of course, some truth to what your friend says, but the statements are overgeneralizations that don't appreciate complexity.

For example, OpenOffice and many applications on the Ubuntu CD are not "Linux programs." OpenOffice, GIMP, and Firefox are all available for Windows as well (and, in some form another, Mac OS X, too). Open source programs are often cross-platform, and some even have their heaviest development on the Windows platform (Firefox and FileZilla, for example).

As for "more" or "less" features, I think it's a little give and take. OpenOffice can export to PDF, and Word cannot. AmaroK and Rhythmbox have global keyboard shortcuts and the ability to queue songs already built into them. iTunes and Windows Media Player do not. The general consensus is that Photoshop is more fully featured than GIMP, but GIMP is free, cost-free, and suitable for 90% of computer users' needs.

Also, I don't really care who copied whom. I'm an end user. I just want programs that work. If it's a "clone" of another program, what does that matter to me? A program's originality does not help me be more productive.

That said, the open source world, as evidenced in Ubuntu, is quite innovative sometimes. The live CD that's also an installer CD isn't in Windows or Mac OS X. Workspaces are commonplace in Ubuntu, and my wife was wowed by it when it finally appeared in Leopard. Package management is a no-muss/no-fuss way to install, remove, and update programs. sudo is a wonderful blend of user-friendliness and security that XP sorely missed out on ("Run as..." just does not compare). Keyboard shortcuts can be defined to execute any command or launch any GUI application. With xnest, I can launch a user session from within another user session. When you're missing a driver, you can go to Restricted Drivers Manager, and you should be prompted for the driver to install. In Windows, all you get are yellow question marks that give you no clue about what drivers to install.

Why isn't Linux used by more people? Well, it's a combination of several factors: Lack of awareness Lack of familiarity with Linux and total comfort with what's already familiar (Windows) Relatively weak third-party vendor support for software and hardware The desire to use what "everybody else" is using The trouble of installing and configuring an operating system instead of having it come preinstalled on the computer just purchased. A reputation for being geek-friendly and non-geek-unfriendly Skepticism of cost-free software A lack of understanding of what an operating system is or that there are different operating systems Sometimes people need Windows-only software that cannot run in Linux, even with Wine or Crossover Office

And it's not advertised, because there are very few products to advertise. What are you going to say? "Tired of Windows? Visit this website, download the .ISO, install a new CD burning program, burn it as a disk image... or create an account on this website and order a CD that'll take two months to get to you, make sure you have your BIOS set to boot, back up and defragment your Windows partition, repartition your hard drive, install this new operating system, and then troubleshoot any hardware problems that may result"? Surely not. Apple can say simply "Tired of Windows? Buy a Mac." Buy a Mac is a simple concrete action for end users. They can go to the Apple website and purchase it online or go to the Apple store and purchase it there. Macs are products that are whole (operating system and computer). Ubuntu is an operating system only.

It would make sense only to advertise ZaReason, System76, or Dell Ubuntu... and the first two don't have the budget for heavy advertising. The latter would rather keep "recommending" Windows Vista.

[mikewhatever]

A few of these observations about Linux were made by a friend of mine. He's used Windows all his life and has briefly tried a liveCD of Ubuntu. How far do you agree with them? (Bearing in mind these are his words, not mine):

How can one have an opinion from 5 minutes on a Live CD?

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.

Clones? Should there be a racing car in Linux instead of iTunes, and a space shuttle in place of MS Office? How does making a different media player or an office suite makes them clones? Anyway, I've used iTunes for Windows sometime in 2005. It was terrible. The program took ages to startup, would not close, was heavy and counter intuitive. I removed it after a day or two and happily used Zoom player. I can't compare Open Office with MS one, since the former suites my needs very nicely and I've not used the latter.


"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"

Frankly, I don't care who borrows from who. In prehistoric times, Japanese borrowed Chinese writing and are to this day accused of theft. I think sharing ideas is an essential part of human existence, and trying to obstruct it by patents and laws is wrong.

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"

I can only guess that you had no chance of discovering the wealth of OO using the Live CD.

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"

Ignorance, fear of unknown, fear of 'What if ...'. There are several indications that Linux is spreading like wild fire, but still, it may take a few years to make a noticeable impact.

[Vitamin-Carrot]

Eh?

I agree, a couple of attempts with the live cd version is not enough to form an opinion.
while he did not define the features there are actually things windows has that linux distros had first and that’s a bit of a kick in the teeth as they sell their OS for how much? while most linux distros are free.

The opinion of most users on these forums is that linux isn’t advertised as its just not ready for the wider market, you still needs some basic know how and experience to install and troubleshoot the OS.

Kudos goes to your friend for trying the live CD not many windows users I know will even think about doing that.

Windows users I have encouraged this week = 1

[aysiu]

The opinion of most users on these forums is that linux isn’t advertised as its just not ready for the wider market, you still needs some basic know how and experience to install and troubleshoot the OS. I'd phrase it a little differently, since you need some basic know-how and experience to install and troubleshoot Windows as well.

I'd say the way desktop Linux is now in terms of market forces (third-party support or lack thereof), you still generally need to install and configure it yourself. There are very few preinstalled Linux outlets for consumers, and those you would know about only if you were looking for them.

[saulgoode]

Mr Lyons has quite a history of getting things wrong (http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons_print.html).

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

I've been using Windows for a long time. I find that Ubuntu, and the Open Source programs that run on Linux are just fine for my needs.

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.

I've found programs that run on Linux that I can't find to run on Windows, and visa-versa. It depends on what programs you need to use.

"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX".

They all barrow from each other. They just try not to break copyright laws. Linux does use a more secure method for managing accounts that by its nature is superior to Windows.


"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things".

I beg to differ. I use spreadsheets a lot. I find that Open Office has features that are better than Excel. Also, with Excel you worry about the computer you transfer a file to having the "add-ins" installed. With Open Office there are no "add-ins".

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"

Windows is pre-installed on most computers. Linux is free, and developed by individuals, so there isn't a big corporate advertising budget.

[k2t0f12d]

A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features.
It isn't unexpected that the paradigms by which we work end up repeated in the tools that we use. The operation of a hammer manufactured by Ames True Temper is not meaningfully different from a hammer manufactured by Stanley. Who would say that the Stanley hammer is a clone of the one made by Ames True Temper?

It has always been the UNIX development model to produce programs that do only one thing and do that thing very well. For anything other then the most trivial program, it is also desirable to add a scripting language enabling plug-ins to extend the programs capabilities where necessary. However, the push against software bloat and creeping featurism is usually sufficent to stall the addition of frivilous features in which the userbase finds little or no value. The number of features a program has is not necessarily indicative of its capabilities or acceptence.


Linux is not very innovative. A lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX.
It can seem so from the most visible aspects of the system, however, the X Windows system predates Microsoft and Windows. The similarities in the desktop's decorations evolved in parallel between all three systems. Compiz had released working code that provided advanced compositing a full year ahead of Microsoft Vista. OS X itself is based on BSD UNIX, which shares heavily with free software developers.


Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things.
I can't really comment meaningfully on that. I have never used Office 2007. However, between OOo and MS Office 2003, I find their capabilities comparable. I did all my classwork transparently in OOo while attending a M$ ".doc only" school the entire time I was enrolled.


Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?
Linux is already used by a great many people everyday without them even realizing it. It is not only the kernel in the GNU/Linux operating system, it is also the mastermind behind consumer electronics, mobile devices, set-top boxes, etc. It has also been one of the most prominent systems used for building Internet servers and web services. You see adverts for autos of various brands, but seldom see an advert for the motor, although the motor can be from completely different manufactures between models.

Part of the reason more people don't use GNU/Linux on the desktop is because there is little advertisement. There is no monadic authority over the operation system with which to drive an ad campaign, although some of IBM's ads supporting Linux are viewable on YouTube. GNU/Linux passes primarily by hearsay and word of mouth.

[LaRoza]

Remember this these are really directed towards my friend, not me. I completely disagree with him, but I'd like the input of some of the forum members.

Yes, I know. You indicated your friend might read this, so I didn't want to say "Tell your friend that..." every time.

[luisito]

It seems that your friend looked at the LiveCD looking specifically for replacements for his everyday software on Windows.

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.

A lot are.

"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"

Maybe we can skip Windows here. It seems that everyone borrows ideas from Apple.

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"

Who cares about office? Sure, the learning curve of LaTeX is a bit steeper. But the end result is so much better. Otherwise, for a wysiwyg word processor I would choose is LyX that does not look any similar to MS Word.

[incogn(egro)ito]

My opinion may not mean much here (since I am still a newbie), but most Windows users will not like Linux (in this case Ubuntu). I have been a Windows users for a long time and even consider myself an advocate of M$ products. The reason for this is that Windows is made for a MASS market of people. People often site that Mac OSX is more stable than Windows software, but this comes at the cost of price, since you have to use their hardware. Look at all the effort many of us have had to put into getting certain drivers to run on our machine, I know my nvidia drives almost had me considering uninstalling Ubuntu and I am currently trying to get wine to work.
M$, in my opinon, does a fairly decent job for all the stuff it has to micro manage from a macro level. You have to remember that most Winodows users probably do not even know what .exe stands for. These are the kind of people who often use their products. People like myself, I am stuck with them because I am and always will be a gamer first. I need to have the ability to play the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out.
Ubuntu in my opinion has A LOT of good things in comparison to other distros from what I researched before I chose this particular distro. The boards are always loaded with people willing to help and are EXTREMELY patient with newbs, like myself.
tl;dr
Linux (Ubuntu) is not for everyone and M$ products are made for ease of use; its like comparing Starbucks to McDonald's.

[suibhne]

The license system of the GNU GPL on which GNU/Linux and a lot of the applications we use are based is one of the most innovative constructions in the software licensing world -and outside of Software it has been the inspiration of wider social movements-CC and wiki being two of the most obvious.

I don't think your friend understands what innovation means.

As for being 'copies' etc, does he think someone sits in a room and suddenly a pure 'idea' pops into their head without influence or grounding by any other entity?


uffffff, i am not going to say anymore since my blood pressure is rising.

[AnonCat]

My opinion may not mean much here (since I am still a newbie), but most Windows users will not like Linux (in this case Ubuntu). I have been a Windows users for a long time and even consider myself an advocate of M$ products. The reason for this is that Windows is made for a MASS market of people.

It'd be nice of MS would change their product so it's not so easy for a mass of psychopaths to install whatever they want on your computer and use it as they see fit unless you install a crapload of security software that eats up memory and wears down your drives. It's idiotic that a multibillion dollar corporation won't incorporate better security measures into their OS. Until MS fixes the security issues with their OSes I'll be avoiding them.

[jcwmoore]

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"

I agree, MS office 2007 is far better than OO.o 2.0. OO.o 2.0 is from 2004, and Office 03 is from 2003... now really office 03 is on par with OO.o 2.x, so it is no suprise that office 07 was released in 2007 and then OO.o 3.0 is due out the next year (this year...) You can't really compare apples to oranges, and you can't really compare Office 07 to OO.o 2.x wait till OO.o 3.0 is out to compare it with office 07....

[mikewhatever]

My opinion may not mean much here (since I am still a newbie), but most Windows users will not like Linux (in this case Ubuntu). I have been a Windows users for a long time and even consider myself an advocate of M$ products. The reason for this is that Windows is made for a MASS market of people. People often site that Mac OSX is more stable than Windows software, but this comes at the cost of price, since you have to use their hardware. Look at all the effort many of us have had to put into getting certain drivers to run on our machine, I know my nvidia drives almost had me considering uninstalling Ubuntu and I am currently trying to get wine to work.
M$, in my opinon, does a fairly decent job for all the stuff it has to micro manage from a macro level. You have to remember that most Winodows users probably do not even know what .exe stands for. These are the kind of people who often use their products. People like myself, I am stuck with them because I am and always will be a gamer first. I need to have the ability to play the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out.
Ubuntu in my opinion has A LOT of good things in comparison to other distros from what I researched before I chose this particular distro. The boards are always loaded with people willing to help and are EXTREMELY patient with newbs, like myself.
tl;dr
Linux (Ubuntu) is not for everyone and M$ products are made for ease of use; its like comparing Starbucks to McDonald's.

Of cause MS makes things for masses. Otherwise, how would malware be spread around and wreck havoc, who would pay for the license to use their products, and who would upgrade to newer versions again and again?

[spasticteapot]

What your friend says seems to be true. Rythmbox, for example, is a pretty much dead copy of the interface of iTunes. It's why I use it. Similarly, openoffice, abiword, and even the configuration of XFCE are copies of MS products.

The advantages of Linux are primarily "under the hood". While I severely doubt even one marketing major or time-and-motion specialist has ever looked at a single thing on my PC, the sheer number of man-hours of coding that turned a bad pun on Multics in the late 60s into the amazing software I use today dwarfs the efforts the created the Empire State Building, the Taj Mahal, and the Pyramids of Giza. Combined.

As such, there are many benefits to Linux not readily apparent at first glance. For example, someone interested in music recording could install the JACK audio system and reduce his recording latencies by half without spending a dollar. The wide array of scripting services in Linux make it possible for even an idiot like me to automate complicated tasks, and the security is second to none. And I haven't even mentioned the amazing networking tools, low hardware requirements, multithreading support, and other nifty things that Microsoft has been lagging behind in for years.

[tsali]

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.

I think he's right - to a degree. The desktop metaphor works extremely well. There's not much deviation between Win/Mac/Lin. I think it's a good thing because it let's me move from system to another without a steep learning curve.

There is nothing wrong with cloning an excellent interface or metaphor.

Your friend should understand that exaile is designed as a modular app that can have plugins installed for only the features he needs. It can be configured to perform all the tasks that iTunes does.

Also, I agree with your friend that Office 2007 is superior, however, he also needs to understand that OO takes a bit of different approach to word processing. If approached from an MSOffice mindset, it appears quite backwards, but when one becomes familiar with more powerful features, it works quite well.

That said, unless you're in the business of enterprise document management, I find Abiword to be more than capable for consumer level word processing. I use Abiword for Windows and Linux.

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"

It's not used by more people for a couple of reasons. One reason is that most computers come with a very capable OS (Windows or Mac) already installed. There isn't really an overwhelming reason to use it if you already have one of the others.

Another reason is that despite the rapid improvement of linux on the desktop as of late, it still requires more computer savvy on the part of its owner than either Win or Mac. I think this is due primarily to the overwhelming support infrastructure that's available to Win and Mac users.

It's not advertised because advertisement costs a lot of money. Last I checked, linux distros are most often given away, so the cash flow looks a little negative. Also, last I checked, companies that decide to charge for it AND advertise tend to get eviscerated by the linux community.

[2hot6ft2]

Ask your friend if they would prefer to purchase Adobe's Creative Suite 3 I think the price is around $2000 USD or have practically all the same features in a Linux app for free. http://www.gimpshop.com/

Might as well throw that in there with MS Office and OO.

It's all about choice if they don't like linux or don't want to know what they're missing then that's their choice. Linux is just better IMO.

[blazercist]

why revive a thread that the OP hasnt posted to in an entire year?

[Mazza558]

Just noticed that this thread got bumped. My friend's actually a bit more understanding of Linux now, which is a good thing to see. He still prefers Windows, but he's a gamer so that's fair enough.

[ubuntu27]

Just noticed that this thread got bumped. My friend's actually a bit more understanding of Linux now, which is a good thing to see. He still prefers Windows, but he's a gamer so that's fair enough.

And what did he learn? ;)

A song:

\\:D/ And so here we have learn a new thing everyone, and now it is time to show it to us :-({|=

**I don't know where did I got that sentence from**
*Oh, yeah VeggieTale's "What did we learn today" song :P

[ricardisimo]

Look... ultimately, who cares? It's your friend's comp and his money. Let him do what he wants with it.

I caught myself aggressively evangelizing Linux and Ubuntu for a few weeks after I first started using it myself, and then I realized I was no different than some of the Christians in my life who make me want to throw up. Just leave it alone. If he wants his software soul to go to hell, that's his business. ;)

[dasunst3r]

A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less featuresI got two words: Tabbed browsing. I think that was one of the ways that Firefox started cutting into market share.

Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSXCompiz, anybody? That was on an enterprise-grade distribution (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) six months before Windows had desktop effects.

Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things... and that's just what some people need. If Office 2007's features are really worth my money, I'd buy it. Otherwise, I have something that does a darn good job at what I need it to do... and at a very good price at that.

Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?Because most of the money comes from donations, and a significant amount of money is spent on actual development. Granted, Linux has a long way to go, but its reach is far and wide. It runs the Internet infrastructure, some avionics on planes, among other things. Also, I personally find word-of-mouth advertising among us desktop users to be the best form of advertising -- it comes at little to no cost and is backed by the referrer's credibility.

[MikeTheC]

I think the recently-surfaced business problems Microsoft is facing (a la 5000 layoffs) is indicative of the fact that they are slowly losing their monomaniacal grip on the fabric of computer society. And while much if not most of the "desktop" credit for this should go to Apple, clearly the "server" credit most properly can be laid at the feet of Linux.

Without a doubt, there are certain traditional advantages to offering a commercial OS platform, and public recognition is chief amongst them. However, as time goes by, I believe we will see a shift in the software development prioritization paradigm, largely as F/OSS's fruit produces a "flattened" distribution model for software.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Two good reasons reason why OO is better then Office 2007:
I hate the @$%&^&** ribbon, useless trash!!!!!
OO is FREE BABY!!!

[zolookas]

"A lot of the programs on Linux seem to be clones of Windows versions, but not the exact program you want and usually with less features" - here he gave a comparison between exaile and iTunes, and MS Office and OpenOffice as examples.
Regarding iTunes, try Banshee and/or Amarok if you are not satisfied with exaile.
Regarding MS Office:
1) Microsoft has their own proprietary Office 97-2003 format, which took/takes a lot of time for OpenOffice to reverse engineer and i think it slows development a lot, because you have to be compatible with a format which is undocumented and support the same features the same way Microsoft does.
2) OpenOffice guys had to implement a huge number of features and since microsoft is keeps releasing new versions, it is a moving target.
3) Sun could be more open to contributions. You may not know, but Ubuntu and other distributions use Go-OO (http://go-oo.org/) instead of OpenOffice (although it is called OpenOffice), because Sun does not accept some contributions which are useful for users.

"Linux is not very innovative - a lot of the ideas are borrowed from Windows or Mac OSX"
I think that sometimes it is inevitable, otherwise you will be reinventing the wheel. Just like Apple implemented Xerox's ideas about graphical user interface and then Microsoft copied that (there is even a movie called "Pirates of Silicon Valley" about that). Also there are many things that are being copied from Linux to other OS'es, so innovation happens in Linux (5 minutes ago i have read a comment in osnews site, which said that Microsoft copied a lot of features from KDE), but if other's idea is good why not use it?

"Office 2007 is a lot better than OpenOffice, OpenOffice can only do really basic things"
I think you are incorrect, OpenOffice cab di much more than "basic things". I must admit, I am not a "power user" of office programs, I use them very rarely and I need only the basic features (something that Wordpad on Windows offers + insert a picture and maybe build a table of contents sometime), so i don't need even 1% any office suite offers.

"Why isn't Linux used by more people and why isn't it advertised?"
I suppose you are talking about Linux on the desktop. One of the reasons might be that it is unclear if spending a lot of money on advertising will pay off or companies don't have that amount of money to make an impact. But we a nice exception here: Canonical distributing free Ubuntu CDs also you can buy Dell computers with Ubuntu (http://www.dell.com/ubuntu).

[Cope57]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Linux is almost the same...

[sydbat]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi Linux is almost the same...We're in the "then they fight you" stage right now...