Am I just missing something, or are there no advantages to Linux?

[charlybob]

Been thinking about getting round to installing a Linux distro for a bit, to see how it compares to Windows. I finally got round to installing Ubuntu last week, so I've given it a little time first.

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Windows though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Ubuntu.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Linux could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.

One thing I've got to say is, as much as people complain about the UAC on Vista. Ubuntu's worse for asking for your password.

[jimmy the saint]

Well lets see,
Better user control. You are encouraged to NOT run as the administrator.

Better security. Security is taken into consideration at build, not as a sales point for a multi million dollar AV industry. In other words you are not running a vulnerable OS that requires an additional investment to keep virus free, another to keep it spyware free, another to keep it adware free, another... well you get the point.

It is free. You can see how it is built, change how it is built, change how it looks, behaves, in fact you can change every last line of code if you so choose.

It is free, as in if you aren't satisfied, write the folks at Ubuntu and I'm sure they will give you a full refund!! Try that with the other OSs and see what happens.

[amingv]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=57494

UAC (and all Windows security) it's just an illusion of safety (my humble opinion), and thus only an annoyance to deal with, in Linux at least the annoyance pays off.
EDIT:
'nother one:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=820800

[Rocket2DMn]

Here are a couple links you might be interested in:
http://linux.about.com/cs/linux101/a/linux_2.htm
http://www.tuxmagazine.com/node/1000133
http://thecomputingexpert.com/start/?p=261

Linux isn't for everybody, but it is free and easier to use than most people think. You have to decide for yourself if linux is right for you.

[sox fan Matt]

1. Agreed. No antivirus/antispyware needed. Makes machines more responsive in the long run.
2. Custimization-you can customize till youre blue in the face right down to the login screen and more..Enough said
3. As stated before, free. I moved to linux because of 2 big issues. One being I kept getting the BSOD and I couldnt pay $150-$400 for Vista or a new copy of XP.

[damis648]

I would like to point out the differences in UAC and Ubuntu's Security. The UAC is in more of a warning that you are running something as an administrator, which is not very secure anyway, as most programs have to run as administrator anyway. Ubuntu's security has a definite purpose: It is asking for your password so that a settings manager or special application can run as root. Root is a special superuser that has all and does all, windows has no such thing. If windows if about to run something as Administrator, it just pretty much warns you that it will happen. Besides, the Ubuntu security is not a warning, it is a prompt. You are encouraged to not run things as root, but for installing software or running administrative tasks, you must. Sorry if that is not perfect... its just one of those things that is hard to talk about. You have to show it.

[TJCIB]

It may seem like the programs are just trying to emulate Windows, but they really are not.

The programs are a means to an end. The goal of a word processor is to have a nice document, with words spelled correctly, and some other features. Does Open Office look like Microsoft Office, sometimes, but its pretty different too. Remember, programs are there to accomplish tasks, its usually the task that determines the program (its functionality, graphical interface, etc.)

The free thing is nice. Support on Ubuntu is way easier than Windows.

In the same way a musician swears by his own instrument, some people swear by their operating system. I could give a trumpet player a beginner trumpet and they would sound good and play the right notes, but they would most likely not be satisfied with the amount of effort, sound quality, and various other parts of the student instrument.

All in all, operating systems are personal preference...

[LaRoza]

Been thinking about getting round to installing a Linux distro for a bit, to see how it compares to Windows. I finally got round to installing Ubuntu last week, so I've given it a little time first.

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Windows though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Ubuntu.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Linux could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.


First off, Linux != Windows. For me, as a Linux user, I see no reason to use Windows. You are looking for Windows, and seeing something else. Try to look at it from the point of view of Linux.

What I see as an advantage?

It is 100% free, why pay for an inferior legacy operating system (Windows)?
It works and is more efficient, why get something that uses your hardware for DRM and other uselessness?
It is customizable, my setup of Ubuntu is like nothing you can get with Windows (see blog if you are interested)
Freedom, in every sense of the word
Stability
Flexibility


Why give this up to use an expensive, legacy operating system with lots of restrictions?

Also, the beauty of it is you can choose to use it or not. I don't go on Windows forums and say there is no advantage to it.

[steveneddy]

1. Security
2. Dependability
3. Stability

In the long run you will be very happy that you are running Ubuntu.

You will notice that you don't get virus or trojan software.

You can do more on Ubuntu.

The entire install updates with one click, not just the OS.

As long as the hardware is supported, the Linux installed on any machine will run just as well in two years as the day that you installed it.

My server runs 6.06 LTS Server Edition and it has done this without fail since the day I installed it. I update it once a month and never touch it. Web pages, music for the house, video and file server, all in one, on an Intel PIII with 512 mb RAM.

I wanna see any Windows install do that, every day, without fail, with no input from admin with the exception of updates.

After an update, Linux does not have to be restarted, so we never miss a beat. Ever.

[forger]

well this will receive heavy flaming...

Since you can't see the difference, why not just admit that free sounds much more attractive than $500 for Vista and 16gb of hard disk just for your operating system is a lot of space wasted?
Want to talk about the needs? Ubuntu can run fine on a 256mb ram pentium 4, while Vista probably needs a mega-computer and a wallet to buy $1500 of upgrades.

I dedicated 2 years to Ubuntu and read gnu/linux documentation bit by bit in my free time and now giving back to the community. When will you make a patch that Vista developers will accept? Oh wait, you need the code right? :P

P.S. I can still remember the RPC worm in Windows XP.. getting infected upon installing, that was a wonderful experience!

[Sealbhach]

Some good reasons here:

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/


My main reason for switching is security - I'm sick of virus database updates, scans, paranoia.

Secondly, it's free, applications are free, no more license key validation headaches.

Thirdly, I've discovered how easy it is to install new stuff and change my system into anything I like.

Fourthly, superb support on the forum here.


.

[ardvark71]

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Windows though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Ubuntu.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Linux could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.


Hi...

For myself, I see advantages and disadvantages to both operating systems and to an extent, you are correct in stating a lot of the software is designed to "emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac." The key difference here is price. I recently had a system running Kubuntu 6.06 that had a TON of software that I downloaded from the repositories for free. In Windows, I would have had to purchase the majority of it and probably would have paid well over a thousand dollars. ;)

I think the adamant behavior you see is, in part, dislike of having to pay so much money for an operating system that you are heavily restricted from using in certain ways. Other reasons include the free price tag of Linux, the concept of open source and the GPL and the ability to modify the software to your taste.

Best Regards...

[days_of_ruin]

Been thinking about getting round to installing a Linux distro for a bit, to see how it compares to Windows. I finally got round to installing Ubuntu last week, so I've given it a little time first.

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Windows though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Ubuntu.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Linux could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.

One thing I've got to say is, as much as people complain about the UAC on Vista. Ubuntu's worse for asking for your password.
Maybe a brain?
no offense I just couldn't resist, you set it up perfectly.
:lolflag:

[madjr]

if you want to know what you can do in linux that you can't do in windows then look at this thread:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=399997

also read this news:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39429910,00.htm

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well I can only assume this is his last post, as this is the kind of thing you see in a last post using linux.

[eldragon]

well, in fact i see it as the other way around.

lets see.
UAC came after sudo. who emulates who?
aero came after osX. there you got another who emulates who. even though osx is not linux, im stating that ms is just a frontend for a bunch of copycat pirates, that just steal ideas, ignore standards, and break apps that do follow them.

the fact that windows is closed source, gives me the creeps, with these days where the US government wants to have control over everything, what makes you think they havent set a kill switch / backdoor on their OS for bush's sake? this kind of scenario is not possible in the open source world. this is one of the mayor reasons ive decided i needed to learn how to use linux.
they already have set a backdoor on the multimedia recording software built in vista. (broadcast flag).

bloatware sucks on windows.
the registry could run for the worst idea in the software history.
apps like rhythmbox and mythtv alone make me want to use linux instead of windows.

[mickelobeoltra]

I just have one question. How do I get iptables configured correctly and do I need this firewall on.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I just have one question. How do I get iptables configured correctly and do I need this firewall on.

Firestarter is your answer, and yes firewalls are a good thing :D

[mickelobeoltra]

i used lokkit and said no to everything.

[cardinals_fan]

In other words you are not running a vulnerable OS that requires an additional investment to keep virus free, another to keep it spyware free, another to keep it adware free, another... well you get the point.

Windows only requires an additional investment if you don't take basic security precautions.

[gdgardnerw]

I used Windows for eleven years and have used MACs for about seven. I have been using Linux for about three.

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

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

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

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

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

[cytg]

Allready been said, anyway

1. Security. Dont underestimate this one.
2. DRM. Just wtf.
3. Observe the business of software over a period of time, study the history and what part microsoft has in it. Recognise it for what it is. Microsoft will screw anyone and anything over sideways, anyways, barely legal, to make a buck. Pure 100% megath capatalism hard at work. You may not care about these things(you should), and if not, refer to point 1 & 2 ..
It's like the Novell case .. if microsoft extends you anything, no matter how sweet it looks, its ultimatly designed to screw you over.

[karellen]

this thead is dead, the OP didn't bother to answer to any of the posts

[Barrucadu]

Of course, every thread like this must have a parody of the original post:

Been thinking about getting round to installing a Linux distro for a bit, to see how it compares to Windows. I finally got round to installing Ubuntu last week, so I've given it a little time first.

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Windows though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on a Windows or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Ubuntu.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Linux could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.

One thing I've got to say is, as much as people complain about the UAC on Vista. Ubuntu's worse for asking for your password.

Been thinking about getting round to installing Windows for a bit, to see how it compares to Linux. I finally got round to using Windows on my mums laptop for a while.

I'm not really seeing any difference between this and Linux though. What am I missing here? Everything seems to be just programs to emulate stuff you would get on Linux or a Mac, nothing seems to be reason to choose to use Windows.

I think I'm just missing something, because I wouldn't understand how Windows could get some people who stand by it so adamantly when if it was just trying to be the other systems.

One thing I've got to say is, as much as people complain about Linux copying Windows, Windows copied far more from Apple and Linux (aero and UAC anyone?).

[MickS]

Never mind the serious stuff, Ubuntu is heaps more fun than windows and it's good not being one of the herd, reason enough for me.

Mick