PDA

View Full Version : The true cost of linux.



PatrickMay16
April 27th, 2007, 04:16 PM
I was thinking a long time today. I had to seriously admit to myself the truth about things, and confront it in myself. I couldn't live a lie anymore. And then, I realised.

While the cost of windows is money and occasional problems with spyware and adware, and the cost of apple is the money for the hardware and the software... the cost of linux is the amount of time it takes up. I was reading an article on jwz.org ( http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html ) and came across this in it:



But as we all know, Linux is only free if your time has no value...


And realised that he was right. It took me several months of messing around and reading on forums for me to be able to work with linux. And in recent conversation with my main man Deven Gallo, I asked him what operating systems installed. He said he used windows xp and had ubuntu installed, but he didn't use it much. I asked him why, and he said that since he had a job now, he had less free time, and he had to make the most of it. So for convienience, he used windows xp.

So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.

Sorry if this post annoyed you or offended you.

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Did you and Deven Gallo buy Ubuntu preinstalled?

Even if what you're saying is true, the cost of time isn't because of any inherent flaw in the software--it is really the cost of switching from something you already have to something you don't have.

It'd be the same "cost" I would have "switching" from my native language of English to a foreign (to me, anyway) language of Chinese, Swahili, or Icelandic. Why waste time getting to know something else when you can stick with what you know? It doesn't mean Chinese is any less worthy of a language or a just a hobbyist's language. It means it's not my native language, so I'll have to expend extra energy and time learning it. Read more here:
The Chinese Language is not "Ready for the Desktop." (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=120489)

The other part of that switching is that most people not only buy Windows preinstalled computers, but they buy all their software and hardware with only Windows compatibility in mind (i.e., they buy whatever's out there, since any hardware or software manufacturer who doesn't support Windows is missing out on a huge business opportunity). So what happens when your compatible-with-Windows-only wireless card doesn't work? Well, you have to buy a Linux-compatible one. But, once again, this is the cost of switching to Linux from Windows--it is not an inherent cost in using Linux. After all, Linux-compatible wireless cards aren't more expensive than Windows-compatible-only wireless cards.

There was a guy (poofy and hairy, apparently) who used to frequent here (he was a moderator too), and he sold his non-compatible hardware to offset the cost of the compatible hardware he bought. So it doesn't have to cost you a fortune to switch.

Luckily for me, all my hardware just happened to be Linux-compatible (I didn't do research before switching).

We would be lying if we told people that switching from something you're familiar with and have bought various components for will consume no time or money. That doesn't make Ubuntu any different from Windows, though. Switching from Ubuntu to Windows would also consume time and money.

PatrickMay16
April 27th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Did you and Deven Gallo buy Ubuntu preinstalled?

You mean the first time we both used it? Nah, we installed it ourselves. But just so you know, the installations were successful straight away for the most part. (with the exception of no 3D with my Radeon 9000 until a few months later when I tried some options in xorg.conf, and something I tried just happened to make it work properly.)

But I did get a laptop with ubuntu 6.10 preinstalled, from Shafetech.

maxamillion
April 27th, 2007, 04:29 PM
I understand to a point where you are coming from, the GNU/Linux environment is far different from the Windows environment so those who are accustomed to a Windows machine will find Linux to have a learning curve but I can't say I entirely agree with you on your conclusion because I think it would be the same for a Mac user switching to Windows or a Windows user switching to Mac ... or either user switching to Linux. I think it more of a migration between platforms then it is a "Linux requires more time."

Case and Point:
I've been a GNU/Linux user for many years and as a result I have become far more productive on a Linux machine than I am on a Windows or OS X based machine (Though I have had experience using all three). I am currently a college student who has a student level systems administrator position for the campus library and I was hired mainly as the programmer for the department and I had a meeting with my boss to plead my case and be permitted to install Linux on my workstation because I would be able to write software more comfortably and in a more timely fashion. He allowed me to do so and since the majority of in house custom software we write is done in Java it doesn't matter that I use a different platform other then the fact that I am more productive then I would be on a Windows or a Mac OS X machine.

In my situation it turns out to be the opposite and I think it would be the same for a decent number of developers especially in the upcoming years as students who graduate from college that have had more experience writing software on GNU/Linux for class then they do on a Windows platform.

The way I see it is that it is more specific to a situation or a person, its about comfort and using the right tool for the job but I really don't think that ultimately Linux is only free if your time is.

..... my two cents.

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 04:36 PM
I understand to a point where you are coming from, the GNU/Linux environment is far different from the Windows environment so those who are accustomed to a Windows machine will find Linux to have a learning curve but I can't say I entirely agree with you on your conclusion because I think it would be the same for a Mac user switching to Windows or a Windows user switching to Mac ... or either user switching to Linux. I think it more of a migration between platforms then it is a "Linux requires more time." Part of the problem, though, is that Mac has guaranteed hardware compatibility because the hardware and software are locked in together, and Windows has virtually guaranteed hardware compatibility because it comes preinstalled and because hardware manufacturers always include Windows drivers with their products.

Linux almost always appears on people's computers:
1. Without research on whether or not components are compatible and then the purchasing and replacement of the incompatible parts
2. With the new user downloading, burning, installing, and configuring Linux herself--including probably a dual boot, which makes the installation process more complicated than a standard installation
3. Without hands-on support from friends and family who've used it. A lot of times, the only help you can get is online, since most people don't use desktop Linux.

Bottom line: I think the OP's conclusion is correct, but the way it's phrased is misleading

volksman
April 27th, 2007, 04:37 PM
My grandparents say that a pen and paper is less time consuming than a PC. We as users know that isn't the case but they don't understand the machine so they find it time consuming and problematic.

Windows to a new user is time consuming and confusing for a good few months. Remember? When you started out? It was confusing to you too. Installing applications was a scary task and when you messed up you usually had to call the friend who got you into computers to help clean up. There is no difference here.

Linux is time consuming to the masses right now cause it's so drastically different than what you are used to. Get used to it and your argument is mute....

diskotek
April 27th, 2007, 04:37 PM
i would like admit that it doesnt sound so wrong. i didn't bought windows pre-installed computer, but i didn't spend much time as much as i spent time on linux. but this is not the point i'm spending time about learning how linux works. this is personal... if i was a causual (right word?) user: i wouldn't spent that much time...and i would take less time than that i would spent on windows... for example: ubuntu came up with many useful software for end-users....

last words: it depends on our attitude towards using computer.

maxamillion
April 27th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Part of the problem, though, is that Mac has guaranteed hardware compatibility because the hardware and software are locked in together, and Windows has virtually guaranteed hardware compatibility because it comes preinstalled and because hardware manufacturers always include Windows drivers with their products.

Linux almost always appears on people's computers:
1. Without research on whether or not components are compatible and then the purchasing and replacement of the incompatible parts
2. With the new user downloading, burning, installing, and configuring Linux herself--including probably a dual boot, which makes the installation process more complicated than a standard installation
3. Without hands-on support from friends and family who've used it. A lot of times, the only help you can get is online, since most people don't use desktop Linux.

Well, yes ... I agree with where you are coming from in that respect 100% but I was mainly just talking about differences of getting used to the Human-Computer-Interaction design differences.

darrenm
April 27th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Interesting really. I have a young family and work a lot and I don't get very much spare time at all. I am forced to run Ubuntu because I don't have time to mess around when Windows XP decides to something random again.

lucia_engel
April 27th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Now that you've got Linux working after messing with it for a few months, hopefully with all the hardware problem fixed, are you still wasting valuable time? What exactly is still taking up your time when using Linux?

I too am lucky to have almost everything working after installation, the only maintenance I need to do is to apt-get updates every once in a while. I may come across some new apps or tricks browsing the forum and play with them for awhile.

When I'm on my XP partition I find myself habitually updating all my apps, antivirus, defrag, cclean temp files while trying to work, I'm not sure how that is helping my productivity.

justin whitaker
April 27th, 2007, 04:48 PM
I was thinking a long time today. I had to seriously admit to myself the truth about things, and confront it in myself. I couldn't live a lie anymore. And then, I realised.

While the cost of windows is money and occasional problems with spyware and adware, and the cost of apple is the money for the hardware and the software... the cost of linux is the amount of time it takes up. I was reading an article on jwz.org ( http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html ) and came across this in it:



And realised that he was right. It took me several months of messing around and reading on forums for me to be able to work with linux. And in recent conversation with my main man Deven Gallo, I asked him what operating systems installed. He said he used windows xp and had ubuntu installed, but he didn't use it much. I asked him why, and he said that since he had a job now, he had less free time, and he had to make the most of it. So for convienience, he used windows xp.
So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.

Sorry if this post annoyed you or offended you.

That's a good point, although I would say that all computers take time to use and administer....even XP.

I can't recall how many times I have to run anti-virus, anti-spyware, update for security patches, and the like taking away my productive time...so let's just agree that administering a system takes some effort.

The more you want to do, the more you need to learn, no matter what system you are doing. If you are just writing letters and surfing the web, that takes no time at all on any platform. Learning new things takes time, time that you could otherwise be productive....I don't think that is any different if you are researching a XP problem, or researching a Linux problem.

Linux does take time and effort, you are right. But I question whether it takes more time and effort once you have made the switch. For me, I think I am more productive (or at least have more gaming time) than ever. Maybe that is just me.

The other part of it is, I take time and troll (in the peruse sense, not in the I'm a troll!) forums and help others with what little I know...which adds to the cost of Linux for me, if you follow your line of reasoning.

I guess that you just need to answer is the time you spend on Linux worth it to you?

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Things I wasted my time on in Windows:

* Researching anti-spyware solutions (pay money? don't pay money? install? don't install? which one?)
* Researching anti-virus solutions (same questions as anti-spyware)
* Always trying to figure out if magically reappearing folders and processes were "real" spyware or normal Microsoft processes (which may be spyware, too--who knwos?)
* Googling around to find "free" programs that did not contain spyware
* Reading over license agreements with a fine-toothed comb to see if the "free" software I was installing contained spyware, adware, or other malware
* Setting up proper security (since Windows defaults to one administrator account, I'd have to create a separate limited user account and use Run as... for certain tasks or log into administrator to perform certain tasks
* Installing Windows updates and going through all the prompts and reboots
* Keeping track of activation codes and original CDs for software
* Keeping track of driver CDs for hardware
* Researching ways to get the UI customized and never finding a satisfactory solution (yes, I know about Windowblinds, Litestep, BBLean, and all that)

Things I wasted my time on in Ubuntu:

* Researching what proprietary codecs to install to get certain functionality
* Researching how to set up dual boot
* Researching what each Ubuntu disk does
* Researching how to set up my Xorg.conf for the proper screen resolution
* Experimenting with various programs available in Synaptic to see which ones I liked best

Summary:

And that's it for Ubuntu. Notice how the Ubuntu ones are one-time deals. Once I have Ubuntu set up, all the research is done, and I can get to work. Of course, I still "waste" time on Ubuntu for fun, but I don't have to. I "waste" time writing documentation, helping new users, and experimenting with different desktop environments and window managers. But all that stuff is my choice. I don't have to do that stuff just to use Ubuntu. In fact, maintaining Ubuntu is so boring/unnecessary, it usually drives people to seek out something to do (I had to do all this maintenance on Windows... I have nothing to do no Ubuntu... maybe I'll break my system by playing around with Beryl!)

cunawarit
April 27th, 2007, 05:01 PM
This interview is from 1998, the claim that Linux takes more time to administer than Windows is no longer valid.

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 05:04 PM
This interview is from 1998, the claim that Linux takes more time to administer than Windows is no longer valid.
Wow! I hadn't even clicked the link. Here's a quotation from the article:
I used Linux exclusively for most of 1995 and 1996, or thereabouts; back then, I found it to be a total nightmare. It took me three weeks to get X to drive my monitor at better than 640x400, even though Windows did 1280x1024x16 without flinching. I spent weeks fighting IRQ conflicts, trying to get PPP working, trying to find a three-button mouse that worked, and all manner of gross indecencies which do not bear mentioning in polite company. In contrast, I'll say that when I first started using Linux full-time, Mepis detected my monitor resolution, my three-button mouse, and my internet connection without flinching. Couldn't say the same for the few times I've reinstalled Windows (one time I actually had lost the Dell driver CDs... total nightmare!).

cunawarit
April 27th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Couldn't say the same for the few times I've reinstalled Windows (one time I actually had lost the Dell driver CDs... total nightmare!).

Agreed, in general nowadays the easier Linux distros to install are much easier to install than XP. I don't know about Vista because I have never installed it.

DoctorMO
April 27th, 2007, 05:14 PM
But as we all know, Linux is only free if your time has no value...

Time is not used up like a resource to turn on and off when needed, it's utilised as it flows so the analogy to a typical capitalistic and communistic resource is bogus to start with.

When your 'fixing' (setting up) anything in linux as you say, your really learning about the system; it's not a waste and it's not used up on simply maintaining something because what you end up with is both an education and a working system that won't break; why dod you thing gentoo is popular even though it's a royal pain to install if you just want something quick.

It's not that peoples time has no value, it's just more prudent to initially invest time in Linux, in learning GNU and getting Ubuntu working than constantly maintaining or spending money on Windows and proprietory software. at least it's better than watching American TV.

I'd love to be able to dispel the FUD around about linux costing time; but then I'd rather much more dispell the stupidity around a capitalistic notion of time is money. Time indeed is LIFE and you should live it not work it to death.

Hex_Mandos
April 27th, 2007, 05:25 PM
I don't think Linux is more time consuming. I installed Ubuntu and XP several times each in the last few months, and Ubuntu is much less painful to configure to my taste. If you refer to the time you spend using it, Ubuntu is in fact faster than XP for me, as I spend less time doing stuff like checking for viruses and spyware. Installing software is also easier.

To each their own, though.

zgornel
April 27th, 2007, 05:31 PM
I lost more time installing / defragmenting windows during my life span that installing/configuring linux. This is a fact. Back in the day when windows 95/98 was at its peak I had to reinstall once every two month. Linux once every 6-8 month. Not to mention all 30 software suits that I had to install after installing Windows. Plus, people do have spare time. If they want to use it learning linux ok but linux=time=money equation seems like cr*p to me.

Tomosaur
April 27th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Linux wouldn't need configuring if it was sold preinstalled - which is the real problem here. Installing Windows yourself is more time consuming than installing Linux (in my experience anyway). Windows doesn't come with any decent software - it has no drivers for anything, and it always seems to have far more problems than Linux has ever had, post installation.

Yes, Linux needs tweaking after install - but the issues with Linux are generally brought about by the nature of the computer industry. We struggle with drivers because of legal issues, not technical issues. If vendors sold Linux preinstalled, everything would be set up fine, just like how Windows is. A pre-installed Windows, and a self-installed Windows, are vastly different. The latter is usually a mess.

zubrug
April 27th, 2007, 05:51 PM
If someone with little knowledge of auto mechanics decided to change the engine in their vehicle to one that was more efficient or more powerfull etc. it would be time consuming!

I remember it taking me day's to install and try distro's, now I can do it in a tiny fraction of the time.

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 05:56 PM
On a personal note, time isn't really money for me, since I'm "exempt."

For those who aren't familiar with this phrase (not sure if it's US-specific or if it's global terminology), exempt means you have a yearly salary regardless of how many hours you put in. If you work "overtime," you'll still get paid the same. If you work "undertime," you'll still get paid the same. non-exempt means you get paid by the hour. So if you work overtime, you get paid 1.5 your usual hourly rate for that overtime amount, and if you work undertime, you don't get paid for the time you would normally have worked... but missed.

If I stopped messing around with Ubuntu, I'd probably just pick up another hobby. So instead of reading, writing, playing guitar, watching TV, snuggling with my cat, talking with my wife, going to church, and messing around with Ubuntu, I'd be doing all that and messing around with something else... unless I wanted to get a second job, which I don't.

Ubuntu is an investment, though, as DoctorMO indicates. By learning Ubuntu, I now have a guaranteed free/Free operating system for an indefinite number of years. Even if another Linux distro becomes dominant in the desktop arena, I can take the skills and knowledge from Ubuntu and adapt that to the other distro. By learning Windows, all you do is learn to be locked in. And then when Vista comes out (or Vista+1, whatever that is), you just end up having to relearn everything and having to upgrade your hardware just to get up-to-date software.

And learning Ubuntu isn't just learning Ubuntu. I've learned things from this community that have helped me do my work better at work (on a Windows computer) and helped me support my wife on her Mac computer. As an example, both my wife and I used to back up files by copying them over--that took a really long time. Because of this community, I became aware of rsync and set it up for both me (on Ubuntu) and my wife (on Mac). Copying over only the changed files makes backing up easy and quick.

Quake
April 27th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Ok, first of all, that article is from 2000, and linux nowadays, had made a tremendous jump.

Every computer "newbie" has to learn an OS from scratch. I know a lot of people who call me every now and then to fix their XP problems or when they don't know to do something. And most of the times, their computer is filled with Spyware and Virus.
Now, that's TIME consuming because they have to bring their computer to me and then clean it up.

It also depends on what they want to do with the comp.
I don't think someone who only check his e-mail, write documents, browse the internet, view some videos... is going to bother about the inner working of Windows OR Linux.
If it's working, that's all that matter.

Maybe Linux isn't QUITE ready for the desktop for some people... but It's a hell lot better than when I used Linux from Mandrake 7.1.

And with with the automatic codec downloading from Ubuntu 7.04, I have to say it's LESS time consuming to have a working system. Because lots of people don't know where to begin to view those .AVIs, they don't even know what's divx.

For games... that's a different matter. Unfortunately, Linux isn't close to Windows in that matter :(

So, it really depends on how the person is adventurous and how will he use the OS.

justin whitaker
April 27th, 2007, 06:21 PM
Maybe Linux isn't QUITE ready for the desktop for some people... but It's a hell lot better than when I used Linux from Mandrake 7.1.

Those were bad times. You know,every time someone complains that Linux isn't ready, we should sit them down and force them to install Mandrake pre 10.1, or Red Hat pre Fedora. :)

karellen
April 27th, 2007, 06:27 PM
If someone with little knowledge of auto mechanics decided to change the engine in their vehicle to one that was more efficient or more powerfull etc. it would be time consuming!

I remember it taking me day's to install and try distro's, now I can do it in a tiny fraction of the time.

these kind of discussions are very tricky, all the time consuming thing is very ambiguous. time consuming for who? for the average user that does an entire different thing and uses the computer just as a tool (and so he is by no means tech savvy and probably has no idea of choice or he simply doesn't want to change something familiar/doesn't have time etc)? for the computer hobbist who makes a purpose from the computer (and so he is well aware of things like linux, open source, choice, reliability and so on) and who si willing to learn new things and improve his knowledge in this area? so you see....it's a matter of perspective and priorities...:)
from my point of view, there's no problem. I am pretty proficient with all this IT stuff, I like change and I am curios of learning new and interesting things about computers, operating systems, web technologies and so on. I really like linux and I'm not gonna abandon it any time soon. I prefer "losing" time reading about linux/open source ideology etc instead of hanging around in clubs.

just my 2 cents. keep the change ;)

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Those were bad times. You know,every time someone complains that Linux isn't ready, we should sit them down and force them to install Mandrake pre 10.1, or Red Hat pre Fedora. :)
I even had a frustrating time with (Fedora-based) Blag back in 2004 on my Dell laptop--gave up on Linux. Setting up a dual boot was too hard, screen resolution was off (to the point of being non-functional), and I ran into dependency hell.

Three years later, everything works perfectly on the same laptop with Ubuntu Feisty Fawn--suspend, sound, screen resolution, dependency handling, etc.

scrooge_74
April 27th, 2007, 06:39 PM
I spent 10 years learning the ins and outs of different versions of Windows, it was a long learning experience and probably would have stayed using XP for the next five years. But I like to learn new things and experiment. So I have spent the last 15 months learning the ins and outs of Debian base systems.

Did I had to spend a lot of my time learning Linux? Yes, but it was the same with Windows. Now I am more or less proficient using it to the point of having my own small network at home.

When I am not thinkering with my PC I am very productive when I had XP installed I had to waste time fighting viruses, corrupted files, problems at boot time, etc, etc, etc

I took this chalengen as hobby first and after it became my work tools.

So my cost benefit analisys says I am comming ahead.

Quake
April 27th, 2007, 06:42 PM
I think people forget how the early days of Windows 3.1 were also time consuming. Configuring config.sys, autoexec.bat to get the most performance from the system. Trying to run a Dos program only to find that it doesn't have enough memory in 640k... configuring the CD-ROM, sound card (Sometimes, it was hell)

So Linux is making some serious progress here. Just compare 2007 with 2004. And perhaps in 2010, we're going to see a different kind of beast.

reclusivemonkey
April 27th, 2007, 07:04 PM
On a personal note, time isn't really money for me, since I'm "exempt."

I always wondered how you mods had the time to do what you do ;-)

argie
April 27th, 2007, 07:21 PM
I don't think mods are paid.

In any case, I see the relation like this (It may be a bad analogy, but it's worth a shot): You can pay a translator to read out German letters to you, or you can learn German and read it yourself. Make your own assessment. If you're comfortable with Windows XP and you don't have the time to learn a new interface, don't, otherwise, do.

aysiu
April 27th, 2007, 07:26 PM
The mods are not paid. When I spoke about being exempt, I was referring to my day job.

My time on the forums is fully volunteer (same for all the other forum staff).

reclusivemonkey
April 27th, 2007, 08:02 PM
That's exactly what I meant. You have the time so you can do it. I never mentioned being paid.

jerrylamos
April 27th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Well, for me, Ubuntu Dapper worked "right out of the box" easier than the XP's. Dapper was a revelation having been bitten by Red Hat bugs in the past.

I still have fits with XP file sharing on the local LAN. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I also spend time with XP virus checkers, XP firewall, XP spy bot, XP boot record checker. They do indeed find malicious junk. Knock on wood, Ubuntu for me has had none of that.

Now I do admit Ubuntu Feisty has taken some time (I'm a retired IBM main frame tester/developer) especially since I started with the Alpha and Beta releases. At least at this point, Canonical's objectives for Gutsy Gibbon are to smooth and polish existing function. We'll see.

I'm somewhat colored by my 42 years at IBM - relations with Microsoft are "a bit stormy". IBM's been increasing Linux usage on their main frames, I don't know, maybe up to 25%. Since Linux is supposed to be "open source", what we've heard is IBM main frame Linux is distributed by Marist College in Poughkeepsie, not by IBM itself. I'm not sure that's completely true. Of course since IBM main frames are made in Poughkeepsie you might guess that they support the local colleges...

However, jobs are where you find them.

Cheers, Jerry:)

psionyk
April 27th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Ubuntu is an investment, though, as DoctorMO indicates. By learning Ubuntu, I now have a guaranteed free/Free operating system for an indefinite number of years. Even if another Linux distro becomes dominant in the desktop arena, I can take the skills and knowledge from Ubuntu and adapt that to the other distro. By learning Windows, all you do is learn to be locked in. And then when Vista comes out (or Vista+1, whatever that is), you just end up having to relearn everything and having to upgrade your hardware just to get up-to-date software.

Couldn't agree more with this point...

To me, the investment of time in learning things and setting up Linux is a small price to pay for the rewards you get back in exchange. Using Linux reminds me of the old days of using DOS, where the computer didn't work or do anything unless you told it what to do, and did so correctly. As archaic as that may seem by today's standards, the important fact to remember from it is that people I think were much stronger in using computers back then. The more things changed to point and click, and then let the OS do everything else (I'm looking at you Microsoft), the weaker and more dependant on that safety net people became, until now, a lot of them don't know, don't accept, and don't want anything else. And that's a downright shame.

-Psi

joriad
April 28th, 2007, 01:22 PM
Linux, $0
Windows Vista, $399.00
Watching Vista fail, priceless.
See it here (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-1123221217782777472)

rustybronco
April 28th, 2007, 02:02 PM
There is a cost with everything in life, when you go to school to learn you pay for it whether state funded or not, if you are going to a school of higher learning you pay for that also, there is a cost for our learning something new whether it is research we do on the internet or books that we buy, I may pay for that with my time or I may choose to pay for someone else's time, my choice to pay for an operating system and all the learning I receive because of it, is my time, how you choose to pay is yours.

BLTicklemonster
April 28th, 2007, 02:17 PM
Linux is an investment. Investments cost. Good ones have returns that are worth the investment. Windows is a bad investment (for ME), because I have to spend money if I want programs. Linux is a good investment, because...

And the time I invest in learning Linux when compared to the time I took to learn Windows (come on now, how many of you ever used windows for the first time and were able to do the stuff you can do in linux after the first month? I thought so) is nothing by comparison.

xpod
April 28th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I`ve always got something better to do than sitting in front of a bloody computer.....so the wife keeps telling me anyway:)

BLTicklemonster
April 28th, 2007, 03:17 PM
I`ve always got something better to do than sitting in front of a bloody computer.....so the wife keeps telling me anyway:)

Your wife is in denial and needs help bro. I'll be praying and doing the moon dance for you two.

(ooh wait, where do you live so I can face the opposite direction and wiggle meh bum and go naaaaannny naaaanny poooo pooo = the moon dance, you know :) )

PhatStreet
April 28th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Past distro installs have been somewhat of timewasters for me, but after installing Kubuntu on my laptop and having nearly everything detected out-of-the-box (fixes took < 1 hour), I've really been happy with it. On the other hand, I also installed Windows XP on it, and I can't get wireless at all after wasting a bunch of time on it, which is kind of ironic, because previously XP installs took less time for me.

Oh, and the XP install also wouldn't validate. http://smiliesftw.com/x/laugh.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

tictacman
April 28th, 2007, 03:38 PM
I also spent a few months getting to know ubuntu and it has paid off for me. First time configuration was slow, but when I went to install it on other machines it was pretty straightforward. I can honestly say that my thinkpad 50e runs better than it ever did with xp.


also installed Windows XP on it, and I can't get wireless at all I had a similar experience with a netgear adapter under xp sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Under ubuntu it works every time, can't fault it.

I have to wonder how much time people are spending configuring vista?

Arisna
April 28th, 2007, 03:49 PM
PatrickMay, I can understand where you're coming from, since I've been there myself. Things started getting really busy for me around a year ago, and I needed an operating system that wouldn't take up as much of my time. The only difference is that rather than going from Ubuntu to Windows, I went from Gentoo to Ubuntu. :)

PartisanEntity
April 28th, 2007, 04:32 PM
I am pretty much in agreement with a lot of what has been said here, switching naturally requires an initial investment in time, regardless of whether one is talking about switching to a new OS, language, sport etc..

But to use this fact of life as criticism against Linux or Ubuntu is a little unfair and missing the point.

If we all had the luxury of growing up with Linux then switching to Windows would also require time, does that make Windows worse? Well yes, but for different reasons... :)

I am also in agreement with aysiu, Ubuntu is so stable and functional that I too have to experiment around to keep from becoming bored, of course I do this due to the fun of learning more about Linux.

Tharkun
April 28th, 2007, 06:39 PM
I would have to say the true cost of Linux would have to be the time it takes to learn how to do things you already knew/know how to do in Windows.

Time is money

steveneddy
April 28th, 2007, 06:41 PM
My two cents:

One just needs to use the new OS for a period of time that it takes said user to become accustomed with the nomenclature and inherent differences between the environment the user is coming from and the environment the user is going to.

The differences between any two environments will always be so different that there is going to be a learning curve. We as a society have come to the point that computers are so commonplace that if one is comfortable with one computing environment, usually most of the common ways of doing things are pretty much the same. Click to open a file or program, for instance. Mouse manipulation for another.

The user that is unwilling to learn and sees this as an obstacle, or a "cost" of using Linux, or Mac, or Vista, will always see this as an obstacle and may never change.

Users who embrace change as a good thing usually don't have as many problems as a user that is unwilling to learn. How long did you spend with Photoshop before you got past the cost of using it compared to any other phote editing software. How about the same scenerio about Media Center PC's? How long did you soend looking around in there before you figured out where it was storing your pics?

Educated users will overcome obstacles effortlessly while the user that is unwilling to learn will be left behind. My self and my family, we prefer to be educated consumers, computer users and citizens. We use Linux of many flavors in our home and left windows behind two and one half years ago and have never looked back. We are free and we know it. Freedom is most important in this day of malware and spyware, frequent reinstalls and buggy software from the largest software manufacturer worldwide.

My two cents:

-SE

DoctorMO
April 28th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Time is money

But that doesn't make any sense, time is a corporeal dimension of movement expanding in one direction; money is a fantasy dreamt up by talking apes to get other talking apes to do things, so long as everyone believes in money, it has power. a bit like god really.

So no not the same thing at all.

freebeer
April 28th, 2007, 07:41 PM
I've always been of the opinion that education, of any type, while requiring time and effort, is always an investment not a cost. To use an analogy from the accounting world:

Investments are not costs. If I buy a piece of machinery that produces widgets, the cash that I paid for the machine doesn't appear on the income statement, it appears on the balance sheet. It's a long-term asset that will provide me with an equitable return on that investment. (If it doesn't provide an equitable return, then one would not make the investment.)

To me, educating myself about Linux, with a focus on Ubuntu, has started to produce returns for me. It is my full expectation that the returns will only increase in magnitude as I learn more and become more proficient with it. Linux (and Ubuntu) doesn't cost, it pays.

However, your mileage may vary which is why each person must evaluate the investment on their own terms. But don't make the mistake of under-evaluating the proposal. Look for all the returns, not just the short-term "expense".

eljalill
April 28th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Doctor Mo:
In economics time can be translated into money. That is called the opportunity costs of a certain action.
When you have a salary of, let's say $100 per hour (just because it's a nice number), and you spent 1 hour doing something that does not help you earn money, the opportunity cost of that hour is $100.
In economics, you would calculate the lost chance of earning money as lost money.

Than the cost of $400 of getting a computer with an OS ready and running preinstalled and spending 4 hours of installing an OS yourself is exactly the same.

And the OP has a point: Although I would never want to pay money to Microsoft for troubleshooting (this implies I am using windows), but rather spend the time on the forums to find things out myself (this implies I am using ubunut), it has some logic to say that I might as well go out and earn some money and then pay someone to do the troubleshooting for me.

It is of course a totally different notion whether or not you would want to measure anything at all in money terms, and whether things are not better measured in time (after all you could also say the money you earn is buying you value free time) or food or flowers or what ever else, for which you would find the value more intuitive than the value of money.

aysiu
April 28th, 2007, 08:20 PM
When you have a salary of, let's say $100 per hour (just because it's a nice number), and you spent 1 hour doing something that does not help you earn money, the opportunity cost of that hour is $100. Many people (including me) do not get paid by the hour. For us, learning something that saves money always saves money.

esaym
April 28th, 2007, 08:26 PM
I can really go either way, I just depends on your knowledge level.

For what I do (basic home user) I find I have more problems with windows.

eljalill
April 28th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Well, that with the hourly payment was just an example to illustrate a part of economic theory...

And playing devil's advocate here: Anything that costs you time would according to that line of argumentation also cost you money. Anytime you spend on anything you could also spend on another activity which would earn you money... (Well, maybe not always and anything but up to a certain physical limit of your mind and body), which in turn means you are loosing money, because you have a lost chance of earning money.

For your argumentation, the amount of money saved later on, would have to be greater than the amount of money/time spent today (inlcuding interest which you would get in other investements). In that case, while that might still apply, it is a condition, and learning something that saves money does not always save money overall.

I hope that is somewhat clear...

That said, there are of course also conditions for the economic line of argumentation: we are in this part of economic theory talking about rational profit maximising actors, who can indeed exchange money and time with a constant exchange rate. Also neither is per se valued higher than the other. And it is another question, whether these conditions apply.

PartisanEntity
April 28th, 2007, 08:33 PM
When you have a salary of, let's say $100 per hour (just because it's a nice number), and you spent 1 hour doing something that does not help you earn money, the opportunity cost of that hour is $100.


That is assuming you are fiddling around with Linux on your work time.

eljalill
April 28th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Partisan Entitiy:
That is assuming you have during the same time, the opportunity to earn money ($100 in this simplified example) through another activity (which most likely true).

DoctorMO
April 28th, 2007, 08:42 PM
In economics time can be translated into money. That is called the opportunity costs of a certain action.
When you have a salary of, let's say $100 per hour (just because it's a nice number), and you spent 1 hour doing something that does not help you earn money, the opportunity cost of that hour is $100.
In economics, you would calculate the lost chance of earning money as lost money.

And it's wrong, not only in the mind set that not earning money has no value (which is wrong) not only that money trumps all other forms of value (which it doesn't because it's the lowest form of personal value) but that the opportunity cost of a salary are proportional to supply in a fixed state. you have 1 hour to spend on working which earns you $100, if you had 2 hours to work you'd get $180 because suddenly your prepared to work more thus the supply went up of 'labour time'

All of this is ultimately a load of dingoes kidneys as at the end of the day people work to either earn the lowest possible amount they can liver on comfortably or work in a job they enjoy; in both senses the demand on money is lower for most people than economists like to think.

The one problem I've always had with modern capitalists is that they put money before value and before people. which when you think about it is rather stupid.

PartisanEntity
April 28th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Partisan Entitiy:
That is assuming you have during the same time, the opportunity to earn money ($100 in this simplified example) through another activity (which most likely true).

That doesn't seem to make sense. If I work from 9 to 5 then anything I do outside of that time is free time.

If you walk through life assuming you could be making money every hour of your life then most of your life will look like a loss to you.

xpod
April 28th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Your wife is in denial and needs help bro. I'll be praying and doing the moon dance for you two.
(ooh wait, where do you live so I can face the opposite direction and wiggle meh bum and go naaaaannny naaaanny poooo pooo = the moon dance, you know )

Cheers,if she gets up in the morning and starts downloading iso`s i`ll let you know it worked.:)
She sends the odd e-mail up North but other than that she`s never really used the things the year we`ve had em around.....i once had her on msn at opposite ends of the house but thats about it:)

The kids though are a different matter and they were really the one reason why i ever sat down at one myself.I did`nt want to be one of those parents who knew jack s**t about the things like so many i know of now.

eljalill
April 28th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Well, while I agree with you on a general critic of the classical economic theory, not only its social implication but also its theoretical shortcomings and limited predictive value due to unrealistic assumptions, I somehow think that this theory does have some explanatory capacity in this case. (Your argumentation seems to me to through "the baby out with the water").

For the supply and demand equilibrium to change the additional hour of work would have to add significantly to the supply side.. which is also unrealisitic looking at the size of most economies. And even if the return from work is decreasing with additional hours worked, that would just mean, that the opportunity costs or also decreasing, not that they don't exist.

And at least most economists I've met do admit, that money is just a way to exchange things (work for pleasure or so), which means there is not really demand for money, but demand for things you can buy and for purchasing power.

To get back to the OPs topic that means:
if working on ubuntu is not value in itself for you, but a burden, than there is a costs to Linux (time or money exchanged), although you don't have to pay to install it.

eljalill
April 28th, 2007, 09:01 PM
@partisan entitiy
For some economic theorists any time not "making money" or generating and harvesting added value (to be correct) would be time that costs.

But hey, I never said that economic theory should be the theory anyone should live there life by. I am just saying it explains part of the OPs post. And it is arguably used to explain much of what is going on in the world, if only as a metaphor.

DoctorMO
April 28th, 2007, 09:51 PM
if working on ubuntu is not value in itself for you, but a burden, than there is a costs to Linux (time or money exchanged), although you don't have to pay to install it.

Yes to get back to the original OP - This shows us a number of factors about the OPs computer state. 1) That he never has or has very few problems with windows which is unusual 2) that being free has little or no value 3) that understanding the linux system has little or no value 4) that the prediction is that windows will continue and that the cost value is less than the gains in productivity times the number of upgrade purchases and 5) that the OP can not account for all value in the system, including time spent in learning windows, time spent dealing with windows problems and time spent working in order to pay for windows or as the case may be time spent in jail for committing copyright infringement.

so the OP is either highly unusual or just plain missing a fruit basket.

FuturePilot
April 29th, 2007, 12:15 AM
Well this is true. as I myself have put in a lot of time learning how to use Ubuntu. But, it's a one time cost. Once you learn the stuff, it stays with you. Every release of Ubuntu is free, however every new version of Windows is going to cost you.

jimrz
April 29th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Those were bad times. You know,every time someone complains that Linux isn't ready, we should sit them down and force them to install Mandrake pre 10.1, or Red Hat pre Fedora. :)

or xp from scratch ... I recently had to do this and just the basic xp install (disc = xp sp1)+ win updates (via fast cable modem) + install anti virus ONLY took far more time (several hours)than I subsequently spent doing a fresh install of feisty on this machine last weekend. And yes that does include the few little tweaks this old box needs + getting all my toys from synaptic + FF extentions, etc and getting it setup the way I like it. Add to that that the feisty install was done on a machine with roughly 1/2 the horsepower of the one that the xp install went on (laptop/PIII 500/392 Mb pc100 ram/5400rpm hd VS desktop/PIII 933/512 Mb RDRAM pc800/7200 rpm hd) and it is apparent that, at least as far as setting up a system goes and given a level playing field, it was xp that suffered by comparison.

Tthe above scenario discusses only the very basic xp install VS a complete "ready to go to work and play " setup of feisty. From this point I still had several hours to spend adding/updating all of the additional software needed to bring xp up to approximately the same level of functionality as feisty.

based on this rescent experience, I must conclude that the linux=time=money argument does not, all else being equal, hold water.

Teg_Navanis
April 29th, 2007, 01:48 AM
And it's wrong, not only in the mind set that not earning money has no value (which is wrong) not only that money trumps all other forms of value (which it doesn't because it's the lowest form of personal value)...

The model of opportunity cost is not limited to monetary values, even though costs are often expressed in money terms. Whenever you make a decision, you have to think about what options you're trading off for them. If you hate your work and would rather be with your family, the opportunity cost of working overtime is higher than if your work gives you satisfaction and you have nothing else to do. Enjoyment you're missing out on is definitely a factor you can express in terms of opportunity costs.

You're making similar decisions on a daily basis, opportunity costs are just a method of talking about them and quantifying them. If two TV shows you like are on at the same time, you will have to choose one, deciding which one you are more willing to miss (final of the world cup of your favourite sport > favourite comedy show > some daily soap you watch when you're bored).

Edit: To say something on-topic: I'd rather spend a bit more time doing something I enjoy (exploring Ubuntu), knowing that it will ultimately be easier to maintain, than using an operating system I might be more proficient in, but that becomes less and less pleasant to deal with, for a variety of reasons.

impeesia
April 29th, 2007, 01:50 AM
i would say this is a lot less true than it used to be. I started out with Slackware 7 and it would take a lot longer to get everything to work, as well as research how to accomplish what you want. I cant even guess how many hours I wasted trying to get my first wireless card to work with linux. I decided to try ubuntu today after one of my roomates told me about how much he loved it, and he has never used linux before yesterday. I was having a hell of a time with my wireless in zenwalk for some reason, and so i borrowed the cd from him today. I am already pretty much completly happy with everything that is running. Really the only problem I have had was when I was never promped to set a root pw, and had to do some research on that guy.

regomodo
April 29th, 2007, 02:06 AM
I'd have to agree with the 1st poster.

I spent an age trying to sort my setup out. I have it 90% done but still lack some things (excluding games for obvious reasons).

When people say they have to spend an age in XP updating apps sorting out virii, spyware etc all i think is that you should stay away from dodgy sites (you know what i'm talking about) and don't install suspect "freeware". I've used AVG and adaware for ages and (touch-wood) nothing major has happened.

In xp it's no different updating stuff when compared to ubuntu updates. If you do insist on downloading dodgy apps, at least go to "reputable" sites not the 1st place you googled.

XP you pay for ease of initial installation. You pay in the long run for it's insecurity/instability, lack of customisability, and the guilt for giving money to a technology stealing company (I have no intention of buying Vista, ever).

Ubuntu/Linux you pay with your time for installation of all your hardware (my Epson 4180 refuses to be recognised despite using iSCAN plugins etc, monitor not setup right) but you get customisability, security(sure that could easily be proven wrong) and that warm fuzzy feeling that you are doing the right thing

Tundro Walker
April 29th, 2007, 02:29 AM
I like QUAKE's perspective. The folks with Windows that don't find it "time-consuming", fall into 3 buckets...

1) Average users who don't do any maintenance on their machine, and about once a year call for help from some techie person who has to either do a full re-install or scour it for hours for viruses and spyware, defragging, etc. This leaves them w/o a computer for about a week.
2) Above avg users that will take the effort to buy (and USE) anti-virus, anti-spyware, auto-defraggers, etc, then want to complain about how they have to buy a faster computer because the one they have currently running all that ON TOP of Windows is really slow
3) Power Users that take about 1+ hour every week to do all the maintenance themselvesWhen I was using Windows, I fell into category "3". However, my point is, the extra time and effort put into a Windows machine to baby-sit and maintain it is just so common-place that it isn't considered anymore. It's almost like the major construction on the freeway that backs up traffic for miles every day. It's just such an every-day occurance that the radio stations don't bother mentioning it on their "traffic" announcements.

Now, with Linux, a majority of your "time consumption" is spent in the learning curve. I was a dual-booter, and, like many, I relied on my WinXP mostly, and just piddled with Ubuntu some, kinda getting annoyed at using command-line for some things. But, my WinXP decided to commit suicide, which forced me to use Ubuntu solely.

I was miffed at first with the learning curve, since my whole computer foundation was with DOS & Windows (that one computer class I had in 7th grade using Apple ]['s doesn't count...LOL!) But, I sat down and learned it, which is really the major complaint most folks have...they just don't want to learn it. (Which is understandable. In our modern society, we're bombarded with information daily, and it's overloading sometimes, so learning new things can be a hassle. But, the person who can sit down and learn something new has a very large advantage over the person who just wants to complain about having to learn something.)

I "wasted" about 2 weeks of time becoming pretty proficient with Ubuntu. What I got out of it was:
1) A free OS, with free software, free updates, free community support
2) I learned a Linux-based system, which is compatible with Unix-based systems. So, even if I switched distro's, I still have a solid understanding of Linux and Unix.
3) I have several hours more free-time each week, since I no longer baby-sit my computer doing maintenance work on it, or surfing the web for better freeware to baby-sit it for me.
4) A greater appreciation for Open Source software, Linux, and the people who want to focus on making the greatest things they can without budget or profit getting in the way of their decision-making paradigmI work for a company that only uses MS Windows on desktops, so I still get plenty of time on Windows. In comparing it to my Ubuntu computer at home, I find it frustrating, since my work computer randomly slows down for no reason (or at least no reason I can tell). It decides to run virus-checker in the middle of the day, because for some reason, the IT dept felt it would be a good idea to schedule it to do such, thus slowing me down when I'm trying to grind through tons of data for a report. After you get past the Linux learning curve, it's almost like the "grass is greener" syndrome, except in my case, I really do feel the grass is greener in Linux-land.

And, like it was said previously, folks don't take free things seriously. In the United States especially, folks put more value on things the more it costs. Linux is free. Obviously, if something really is valuable, it wouldn't just be given away. Likewise, it costs tons of money to support the MS infrastructure of a company, so obviously it far more valuable. I mean, you have to have twice as many IT guys, company-wide spy-ware, virus-checkers, etc, all kinds of money spent on licensing and such, and then money spent for the fines for that one person who decided to bring in their home copy of Dreamweaver to use instead of the company's copy of MS Front-page to do their web work. LOL!

(SIDE NOTE: Has anyone else noticed that the posting form that spell checks your post thinks "Ubuntu" is a misspelled word. LOL!)

Tundro Walker
April 29th, 2007, 02:45 AM
Ubuntu/Linux you pay with your time for installation of all your hardware

I still get annoyed by this. Regomodo, I'm not flaming you, I'm just using your statement as an example...

Folks want to blame the OS when their hardware doesn't work with it, because they think it's the OS' job to work with all hardware. However, that's not the case. It's the hardware vendors job to make their hardware work with OS'... If your hardware doesn't work with Linux, it's because the hardware vendor didn't think it should work with Linux.

To remedy this problem you should be on the hardware vendor's forums saying you're never going to buy their products again since they don't support Linux.

It's human nature to blame the thing nearest to you for a problem. But, and this sounds cliche', you're blaming the messenger in this case. Ubuntu is merely the messenger, but because folks don't like the message, they blame Ubuntu/Linux.

aysiu
April 29th, 2007, 02:52 AM
It really depends--I had almost all my hardware detected with a regular installation because I lucked out, but some people spend literally weeks just trying to get basic functionality (video, sound, internet).

ali4949
April 29th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Some of the obvious advantages for using LInux/Ubuntu ::

1. No more reformating of the hard drive due to data corruption from spyware / malware.
2. Upgrades to newer "operating systems" will be free in the future showcasing the latest and greatest in desktop effects.
3. Virus scan engines will not slow your system down by eating up processing cycles.
4. Defragmentation is not an issue ( I may be wrong on this one but as far as I know its not an issue under Linux distros).
5. No registry bloat slowing the system down especially "older" systems and by older system I mean my 1.6 Ghz Pentium 4-M).

Now of course the time spent in configuring hardware which sometimes may not work correctly is a major issue. Lets face it, every one is not willing or have the time or the expertise or patience to make things work. But is that any different from using one of the OTHER operating systems. We all know they also have hardware compatibility lists which will allow the users to install the operating system with certain functionalities disabled.

I personally dont want to go out every two years and buy a new system so that my new OS can run on it. I would rather spend the time now, and be able to save the money in the long run. Also the money I am saving from not buying subscription for anti-virus services is not even included in the cost of using a microsoft OS.

I can go on and on about the pros and cons but I think it all comes down to personal choice and preferences.

Cheers

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 07:51 AM
What is so hard about double clicking a *.deb file to install software?

The only thing that's complicated these days is installing Windows Software, and that can't be blamed on Linux because that is software that was never meant to be install on Linux. With that said, CodeWeaver has done a lot of progress in making Windows emulation accessible to more users with their CrossOver Linux. It's commercial, but it's worth it if you "value" your time when it comes to windows emulation. I actually did this to play WoW, and I have no regrets with this product.

The other issue is getting certain hardware working properly. If hardware manufactures don't want to write drivers, do what Apple does and boycott it. When buying a videocard, buy Nvidia. If your soundcard doesn't work, buy Creative, and so on.

The rewards is that you can browse, e-mail, or do whatever you do online without any fears of Viruses, Spyware, Malware, Keyloggers, etc.

kelvin spratt
April 29th, 2007, 08:10 AM
i've used windows since 3.1 to xp i've spent all that time learning about the windows operating system yes in the real word windows is not one click i now use fiesty its very different or is it? no its not remember most people have windows preinstalled they don't get the full benefit other people build their own these are the ones that complain about linux as being to hard won't work etc as the first post says the only time is your own
but its in your own interest to learn linux is not harder to use if you dont try to run before you can walk
and windows does not work straight from the box you need drivers for everything not msoft

Tundro Walker
April 29th, 2007, 08:29 AM
With that said, CodeWeaver has done a lot of progress in making Windows emulation accessible to more users with their CrossOver Linux.

You know what's going to be absolutely hilarious. In about 10-15 years, creating a perfect Windows emulation environment will probably be so cracker-jack simple it'll be like folks today making Nintendo, SNES, Commodore, etc emulators in their spare time.

I'm sure we'll all be using virtual computers -- nothing but a set of sleek sunglasses over our eyes that show a virtual display in front of us, and monitoring our finger movements for typing or what-not -- But, there will be some nostalgic programming whizzes creating Windows emulators just to resurrect old games to play.

You know, I've kinda wondered what kind of legal issue there is with running programs in WINE. I mean, they're technically programs meant to run in Windows, and by bypassing that, is it a legal infringement on Microsoft?

dspari1
April 29th, 2007, 08:38 AM
You know what's going to be absolutely hilarious. In about 10-15 years, creating a perfect Windows emulation environment will probably be so cracker-jack simple it'll be like folks today making Nintendo, SNES, Commodore, etc emulators in their spare time.

I'm sure we'll all be using virtual computers -- nothing but a set of sleek sunglasses over our eyes that show a virtual display in front of us, and monitoring our finger movements for typing or what-not -- But, there will be some nostalgic programming whizzes creating Windows emulators just to resurrect old games to play.

You know, I've kinda wondered what kind of legal issue there is with running programs in WINE. I mean, they're technically programs meant to run in Windows, and by bypassing that, is it a legal infringement on Microsoft?


Neither Nintendo nor Sony were able to stop it, so why would Microsoft?

hannaman
April 29th, 2007, 09:08 AM
A recent SMS push wiped out several hard drives at work, I remeber saying "They wouldn't push a virus through SMS", but I guess the results were the same. Anyway, it took a week for Windows XP to be reinstalled. Once installed it was two days before anyone could login because the SmartCard drivers weren't loaded (users can only use SmartCards to login). Once we could login there were a full page and a half of updates that needed to be installed. One admin gave up on installing the updates because the machine would reboot after each one and we still couldn't login and use the machine because the first update removed the SmartCard driver. A day later, the admins finally got the updates to start installing with no interaction. It took a full 36 hours for the updates to complete. So two weeks these machines were out of commission and a lot of work was put on hold because we had to share the few machines that were still working. Where is the time and cost savings from Windows?

regomodo
April 29th, 2007, 10:07 AM
well, in one instance that is the case. My Belkin wifi card

When i started with Linux;
My monitor was not recognised correctly first off. I know how to edit xorg.conf, now.
G'card not automatically installed despite the drivers in the repo
Grub didn't get it right
If you did auto install (for the partitions) your extra HDDs were not in fstab

Figuring out those things for a newbie takes time, granted most of those problems were with Edgy(i updated to Feisty)

And to those who still think XP is hard to install has never tried Ultimate Windows XP which some script kiddie made. Very good, complete auto install with tonnes of software included, free and cracked. Tried it after my HDD corrupted including the partition containing my XP backup (it was preinstalled) so my recovery disk was useless.. 30mins tops and all devices found.

Guitar John
April 29th, 2007, 12:49 PM
I don't disagree with you, it has taken time to learn. I'm not done yet, and hopefully never will be. In spite of the occasional frustrations (I am a complete Linux newbie), I have actually been enjoying the learning process. Because in the end, I have something to show for it.

FWIW, when I bought my Dell 4700 with Windows XP pre-installed, I had quite a time with it. I had a lot of crashes and spent literally HOURS on the phone with tech support, who I sometimes could not understand....and that was an OS that I had PAYED for.

Ocxic
April 29th, 2007, 02:42 PM
thats because thech support like that doesn't have any techniocal people woriking there, they just read instructions off there screen and tell you what to do like the windows troubleshooting guide in help and support.
it's pathetic really...

bar10der
May 10th, 2007, 08:07 AM
So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.



I consider the time I am spending learning Linux an asset, not a cost. Most people pay for the time they spend in a classroom at college learning very similar things that I am learning in my free time. i just want to thank everyone on this forum for donating their time so I can expand my horizons.
Just my 2cents
Newby Ubuntu fan

karellen
May 10th, 2007, 08:21 AM
I consider the time I am spending learning Linux an asset, not a cost. Most people pay for the time they spend in a classroom at college learning very similar things that I am learning in my free time. i just want to thank everyone on this forum for donating their time so I can expand my horizons.
Just my 2cents
Newby Ubuntu fan

I second this :)

shanike
May 10th, 2007, 08:38 AM
Did you and Deven Gallo buy Ubuntu preinstalled?
Even if what you're saying is true, the cost of time isn't because of any inherent flaw in the software--it is really the cost of switching from something you already have to something you don't have.


this is a good point. just remember when you were young :) - didn't windows take it's toll to learn your ways around? definitely it has.
i'm new to ubuntu and currently i'm learning to do things which i had already mastered in windows, but that's fine with me - there were too many things that bugged me with m$ products..
:popcorn:

N. A. Corbier
May 10th, 2007, 08:56 AM
I've been using various distros for awhile, and gave Ubuntu (Dapper) a try awhile back. When I build a Linux box, it gets Ubuntu on it. Coming from Gentoo, the land of "only 150 emerges to go," I found it nice that most Ubuntu stuff just works, and is put together well visually.

There is always a "cost" to an operating system. This is why some organizations won't upgrade their copies of MS Office, let alone switch to OpenOffice. It takes people trained to support the new product, time to migrate the users, and time to deploy the new product. All these things cost money, because they take away from the task of running the business.

But, one should look at the long road. Worries about licensing and compliance nearly disappear, as do security issues (setting up proper system security is part of the cost of deployment.)

Luke Davis
May 10th, 2007, 10:00 AM
I have a reasonably old computer AMD 64 3500+ and 1 gig or RAM. I think of linux as giving me time as I am able to multitask several things at once without having to have the latest computing hardware. I save time which saves me money. The things that I am able to do stimutaneously with this operating system I was never able to do with windows. Sure I had to learn a bit but now that I have I would not go back to windows. So i see linux as a saving on two fronts

rai4shu2
May 10th, 2007, 10:06 AM
I think what I'm seeing in this thread is:

Short term cost: a bit higher.
Long term cost: much lower.

aysiu
May 10th, 2007, 04:11 PM
No one was born knowing to Control-Alt-Delete

koshatnik
May 10th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I was thinking a long time today. I had to seriously admit to myself the truth about things, and confront it in myself. I couldn't live a lie anymore. And then, I realised.

While the cost of windows is money and occasional problems with spyware and adware, and the cost of apple is the money for the hardware and the software... the cost of linux is the amount of time it takes up. I was reading an article on jwz.org ( http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html ) and came across this in it:



And realised that he was right. It took me several months of messing around and reading on forums for me to be able to work with linux. And in recent conversation with my main man Deven Gallo, I asked him what operating systems installed. He said he used windows xp and had ubuntu installed, but he didn't use it much. I asked him why, and he said that since he had a job now, he had less free time, and he had to make the most of it. So for convienience, he used windows xp.

So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.

Sorry if this post annoyed you or offended you.


I've wasted more of my precious time screwing around with windows than I ever have with linux. Double whammy, hit in the pocket to buy the software, as well as draining my productivity time.

Also, this time is money thing is so 80's. Who actually thinks like that, apparent from corporate tossers? We all have to spend time doing things we don't like, or dont want to do. What should we all start doing, invoicing everyone for our "lost" time?

koshatnik
May 10th, 2007, 04:43 PM
By the way, in answering this thread, the thread starter now owes me 10.50. Yeah, I'm cheap. :)

MOS95B
May 10th, 2007, 05:32 PM
First off, I don't think the OP was complaining, just making a statement. It does cost time to get to know anything new. His source that he quoted may have taken it to an extreme, but I saw nothing overly negative in the OPs post.

And to the folks that want to bicker about whether or not Time is Money... How 'bout a nice compromise and agree that Time has Value. Said value being determined by the person using the time (yeah, yeah, time is non-corporeal and can't be used, just experienced, blah, blah, blah... You get the idea)

use a name
May 10th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Costs, costs... If you insist on fixing things instead of spending a little on out of the box working hardware. Other than that, you can waste a whole lot of time discovering new features, playing with all the nice toys and finetuning your desktop...

Henry Rayker
May 10th, 2007, 06:43 PM
With just a little knowledge, the costs drops to zero. I have never encountered a problem on my machine that I couldn't fix in Ubuntu (or now in Fedora) with just a little time. However, on my Windows machine, sometimes it just won't work on the network. It gets an internet connection, but it just won't see the other machines connected to the network...after a couple rounds of restarts on both machines, it may work, or it may not. I had that problem for a year.

So the way I figure it, the amount of time I spent rebooting my windows boxes just to transfer a couple files is greater than (or at very least, equal to) the total amount of time I've spent tweaking and fixing my Linux boxes...Toss in the initial cost of the Windows OS and you're already in the red...

Of course, these are just my experiences...I find it more fun to actually learn about the machine than to just pay for a newer model; I'd much rather keep that money in my pocket. Also to note, I counted time I spent tweaking this machine and getting it "just right"...I spent AT LEAST double that trying to get my WinXP machine to look just right. ResHacking all the apps I used to get a common look, finding apps to do simple things like shade the windows on double click (instead of maximize), and all sorts of other ridiculous things that the OS should just do.

robcarr2
May 10th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Windows to a new user is time consuming and confusing for a good few months. Remember? When you started out? It was confusing to you too. Installing applications was a scary task and when you messed up you usually had to call the friend who got you into computers to help clean up. There is no difference here.


Those were the days :)

richardjennings
May 10th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Linux provides a very nice way to 'waste' / use time, 'playing' / learning. It is by no means necessary to do so. My mother who still, after 10 years, cannot operate a VCR, would be able to turn my comp on, log on, fire up my choice of browser and hit the website she wants.

Maybe if she decided she wanted to get my voodoo 3 to kick out 3dfx she might experiance a 'cost'.

lyceum
May 10th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Ubuntu took me less time to master (or at leat, figure out) than Windows. It maybe because I already knew another OS before loading Ubuntu, but GNOME is very easy to understand, and I can read, so finding "Add/Remove" to get me started was simple enough. The only thing that took me time was figureing out which programs I wanted to use over others. I can live with that. The thing I hated the most about Windows was going to the store, buying a program, getting it home, then going back to buy something else as what I got was not what I wanted. I could not get my money back, so guess what people got from me for Christmas? :) With Linux.FOSS, there are options and you get to test drive. I love that! So the true cost of Linux? Freedom, Choice, and shared information.

:guitar:

duchamp.fitz
July 30th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Morty the Mime: Whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah, whoah. How come you got so much here?
Mime Waiter: I don't know, they're not eating it.
Morty the Mime: Did you do the wind?
Mime Waiter: I did the wind, I did the wind.
Morty the Mime: No, you don't push the wind away, the wind comes at you. Ok change those, get the little dwarf canolies. Come on, don't talk back, mime is money, come on, move it.

init1
July 30th, 2007, 01:14 AM
I was thinking a long time today. I had to seriously admit to myself the truth about things, and confront it in myself. I couldn't live a lie anymore. And then, I realised.

While the cost of windows is money and occasional problems with spyware and adware, and the cost of apple is the money for the hardware and the software... the cost of linux is the amount of time it takes up. I was reading an article on jwz.org ( http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html ) and came across this in it:



And realised that he was right. It took me several months of messing around and reading on forums for me to be able to work with linux. And in recent conversation with my main man Deven Gallo, I asked him what operating systems installed. He said he used windows xp and had ubuntu installed, but he didn't use it much. I asked him why, and he said that since he had a job now, he had less free time, and he had to make the most of it. So for convienience, he used windows xp.

So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.

Sorry if this post annoyed you or offended you.
Not really. Messing with Linux is fun. So I consider it leisure time, not wasted time.

Sayers
July 30th, 2007, 01:16 AM
This is true but I found it worth the time. Also now a days. Ubuntu to get working with drivers and such [lets ignore problems] takes 2 hours tops ...

swoll1980
July 30th, 2007, 01:33 AM
I know what you mean. It took about 80 hours learing new things to get me to a point that I feel as comfortable with linux as I was with windows. If time is money than the switch to linux cost me about $1,200
American thats at a modest $15 per hour this is 80 hours of time that if I didn't switch would have gone to doing other things

cmat
July 30th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Linux cost me 5 hours on a snowy evening. The problem was getting Windows only hardware working, and learning how the OS actually worked. If all hardware was compatible the only cost would be the 15 minute installation and the 4 year old hardware it runs flawlessly on. In that case it saved me money and I don't have to pay for lots of the software I need.

The only true cost is the lack of AutoCAD and Photoshop and the time taken to boot into Windows.

original_jamingrit
July 30th, 2007, 02:21 AM
Not really. Messing with Linux is fun. So I consider it leisure time, not wasted time.

Same here, I enjoy mucking around. For one thing, mucking helps me to learn new tricks and make things look nicer.
The only way I could see someone really calling it a waste of time is when they're just beginning to learn the environment and when there are compatibility issues with new or proprietary hardware drivers.

mr.farenheit
July 30th, 2007, 02:54 AM
for me to do a fresh reformat and installation including upgrades only really eats 2 1/2 to 3 hours of my time granted i mainly use it for multimedia and programming. windows is just and easy button with a candy coated shell and its later down the road when you're waisting your precious time with it when its bombarded with malware and virus's. at least with linux you're doing everything yourself and knowing full well the structure of your system and if you're sucessful in obtaining what you were trying for then the time wasn't really waisted. also with waisting time getting linux to work theres an old saying that goes if you want something done right then do it yourself.

aysiu
July 30th, 2007, 04:11 AM
This is my take on the issue:
http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/my-time-has-no-value/

original_jamingrit
July 30th, 2007, 04:18 AM
This is my take on the issue:
http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/my-time-has-no-value/

^ win

Depressed Man
July 30th, 2007, 04:25 AM
I was thinking a long time today. I had to seriously admit to myself the truth about things, and confront it in myself. I couldn't live a lie anymore. And then, I realised.

While the cost of windows is money and occasional problems with spyware and adware, and the cost of apple is the money for the hardware and the software... the cost of linux is the amount of time it takes up. I was reading an article on jwz.org ( http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html ) and came across this in it:



And realised that he was right. It took me several months of messing around and reading on forums for me to be able to work with linux. And in recent conversation with my main man Deven Gallo, I asked him what operating systems installed. He said he used windows xp and had ubuntu installed, but he didn't use it much. I asked him why, and he said that since he had a job now, he had less free time, and he had to make the most of it. So for convienience, he used windows xp.

So, linux is not free, it costs you devoted time and effort.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not switching away from linux. I'm just realising that there are costs involved. Since I recently got a job at Microsoft, and had less free time, I realised this.

Sorry if this post annoyed you or offended you.

Reinstalled XP on my desktop. Spent hours tracking down the drivers for both my LAN ports, my wifi card since I lost the CD that came with the motherboard. Especially since it's hard to figure out what specific driver I need with the NF4 Ultra D (so many revisions >.<).

Installed Ubuntu, got everything working minus my extra buttons and buttons on mouse on my Logitech keyboard and mouse. Which in Windows also doesn't work if I don't install setpoint.

When it comes to actually installing an OS. And yes I mean actually installing, not buying a preinstalled OS I'd say Ubuntu is more hassle free then XP since it comes with more built in drivers.

My laptop on the other hand worked pretty well with an Ubuntu install but had some features missing (extra buttons, camera, suspend) which required more time. Yep, more time.

But then again Vista came preinstalled on it. So I'm betting if I had to install Vista on this laptop I'd be spending just as much time trying to get everything working. Hell even with Vista my camera wasn't working half the time until I tracked down the hotfix from Microsoft.

I'd say if Microsoft didn't get their OS sold with every hardware (preinstalled with pretty much everything working) their OS would take just as much work to setup as Ubuntu. Till then it;s a pretty uneven arguement since it's easy to get things working when you have your OS sold with the system and hardware companies working on the drivers for it.

Edit: Vista is a pretty good example actually if your trying to install it. For a while with its release, it was hard to find the drivers for your hardware. ATI and Nvidia were both slow with getting them out. In that case, is the true cost of Vista = your time + whatever vista costs?

vexorian
July 30th, 2007, 05:51 AM
This is the real cost of windows.

It is your initial purchase of windows what forced you into an style of doing things (That is wrong) when you had time to learn and know you are paying for that (and I, and many did).

It is the true cost of Microsoft locking everybody in, including software and hardware vendors, to their ways and making everything difficult to switch just because they love their Monopoly so much.

That's the true cost of windows, millions of people that find it hard to move to the operating system they want, simply put allows MS to survive by not innovating, by not caring about their customers, since people simply cannot choice .

..
But I am forced to say that I have wasted way more time cleaning spyware and reinstalling windows than I have ever done trying to figure out how things work in Ubuntu... and these last weeks I must admit I used too much time on ubuntu and not doing anything else, but that's because I was having fun tweaking it and customizing its look which is something I find fun...

HermanAB
July 30th, 2007, 05:58 AM
Well, it depends on what you studied. If you studied MS or VMS or IBM DOS360 and now try to use Linux, then of course you are going to have a retraining problem. However, if you studied Unix, then you won't have a problem.

The same applies if you learned COBOL long ago and now have to use something else.

Things change, generally for the better. All the people that are complaining that they learned the wrong stuff and now have to relearn stuff - that is life - get used to it!

Cheers,

Herman

Jhongy
July 30th, 2007, 07:34 AM
Linux requires a lot of time and effort while you are still learning to use it. Once the learning stage is over, it requires significantly less time to runa nd "keep healthy" than Windows.

Believe me -- every week when I'm at my father in law's, I spend 10 - 30 mins virus checking, spyware checking and defragging, and fixing things he's broken. I NEVER have to do that on Linux.

-grubby
October 2nd, 2007, 01:23 AM
sure. there's a learning curve it took me about 2 weeks to actually get java installed(silly me,it's in synaptic) but now that I've learned everything it's pretty much a breeze installing updates for 10 minutes every 2-3 days isn't hard. In windows I had to defrag, update antivirus, run virus scans..etc,etc and that took about 2 HOURS every day.

science4sail
October 2nd, 2007, 04:19 AM
Not necessarily, windows maintenance (I suppose everyone here knows what I am referring to) consumes plenty of time.

pcjoe
October 2nd, 2007, 05:03 AM
Please don't take any offense to this, but I don't understand posts like nathangrubb's. I currently run Windows Vista on my desktop, and Ubuntu Feisty (upgrading to Gutsy when it comes out) on my laptop. I like windows and linux quite a bit. I use them for different things, but I love hooking them both up with synergy and having the best of both worlds.

With that out of the way, I don't understand where you guys are coming from. Can someone please explain to me how someone spends TWO hours every day cleaning out their system to keep it 'secure'? I know you guys love linux, but I'm sorry, there's just no way. I've been running windows my entire life, and I haven't had a virus for years. I'm not trying to say I'm some godlike computer user, but windows isn't vulnerable to the point where you're just browsing around on yahoo/google and POOF, virus. Ya, if dad hops on some 'questionable' sites or mom clicks on some random spam, maybe something will happen if they decide to install 'free_cake.exe' from http://231.41.3.12/. If you're decently intelligent and computer literate though, there should be next to no reason for you to get a virus in the first place. There's no cure for people that lack common sense. The same person that runs free_cake.exe will run cake_recipes.deb which replaces your xorg.conf file or something so you can't boot (and mom isn't going to know how to fix that).

I dunno, I just see a lot of flaming targeted towards the security in windows and the countless amounts of spyware they got, but then the same person is compiling new applications from source, piping stuff to multiple applications in the terminal, etc... It just makes me wonder.

Sorry about the long rant though, guess I should get back on topic. When I first started to actually use Linux, it burnt through my time like no tomorrow. I spent weekend after weekend trying to get things to work, but now since I'm decently fluent and I have a good understanding how things work, certain tasks are a lot easier than windows. I've also grown quite fond of vim, wish I could find a free vim visual studio plugin, lol :)

Overall though, even though it has a relatively steep learning curve (at least for doing stuff beyond guis), I think it's time well spent. I don't look back and say "Damn, I wish I never learned how to use Linux!", lol. So eh.. If your time is literally money, yeah, you'll be spending quite a bit, but if you enjoy tweaking around with computers it's quite an enjoyable experience.

multifaceted
October 2nd, 2007, 05:44 AM
I disagree... I spent just as much time configuring and re-configuring Windows to my liking. Especially when you know how to... it's addicting.

An hour here, a few minutes there... over time yes, it can add up but seriously... can we all admit that we went through the same type of curve when first started using Windows back in the day?

I see no difference. Anything new requires time, be it a language, manual transmission or an operating system!

toupeiro
October 2nd, 2007, 06:52 AM
Flawed argument.

Microsoft products reinvent themselves historically every so many years, and about once a decade they completely rewrite something at the ground level (vista and Office 2007) that requires an enormous amount of retraining and file converting..

Linux, however, is developed on a framework that has relative roots and functionality tracing back to the late 1960's, yet remains superior in stability, financial cost and return on investment.

Can you really say windows has saved anybody anymore time? and that the time spent learning windows changes which will benefit you only until microsoft changes everything on you again is worth more than something based on real standards and practices that have been continuously developed and built on?

Seems like kool-aid talk to me...

KaYnemO
October 2nd, 2007, 06:59 AM
This is an excellent thought! I have devoted a few years of my free time getting the hang of the linux systems. But in my case it was a lot of fun (swearing and bitching about it, but fun), 'cause it was a revolution for me and yeah I am a rebel in this sense. I have to say though, that distros are getting better and better (i tried RedHat 6.0 way back - so I know) and someday this great OS is going to be as easy to setup and use as Windows XP or whatever. Also I was watching a friend who dumped windows in the favor of mac and it took him about a week to get the hang of that, believe it or not. When I recently switched from a KDE distro to Ubuntu under Gnome it took me one day to get the hang of that. So there you go.

rsambuca
October 2nd, 2007, 07:01 AM
sure. there's a learning curve it took me about 2 weeks to actually get java installed(silly me,it's in synaptic) but now that I've learned everything it's pretty much a breeze installing updates for 10 minutes every 2-3 days isn't hard. In windows I had to defrag, update antivirus, run virus scans..etc,etc and that took about 2 HOURS every day.

Uh, credibility has just left the building!!

thisllub
October 2nd, 2007, 07:10 AM
Since I put Linux on my kids computer I have only had issues with my stupid Windows only GDI printer, codecs and Frostwire.
With XP it got to the point where I was fixing something a couple of times a week. An XP computer operated by teenagers will almost certainly need reinstalling twice a year.

argie
October 2nd, 2007, 03:16 PM
Uh, credibility has just left the building!!

I don't know about you, but the last Windows I actually used (I have the preinstalled XP still lying on this computer but don't use it) was Windows 98, and atleast there, this fellow could be right. Every time I ran that set: Scandisk, Defrag, Update and run antivirus, I'd do it overnight, it just took way too long. Defrag would get shorter if run more frequent, and updates were a problem only when they where there, but scandisk and virus scan, they can take hours.

In XP, so far, those tasks don't seem to be so bad. But I cannot tell, habit forces me to do the overnight thing and I don't use the Operating System much, so I can't say.

mightyzug
October 2nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
total kool-aid talk

vista has consumed far more time w/ incompatabilities and just plain broken **** on the laptop that it came preinstalled on than the time it took to install and properly configure everything under ubuntu on the same laptop

ATrentino
October 2nd, 2007, 03:33 PM
I have switched to Ubuntu three weeks ago as my XP machine died and I realized that Vista is rubbish. Yes, I still have to spend time to see how things work, but I don't see that as a waste but as an investment. I have learned more about computers in 3 weeks of Linux than an average year of Windows. And I see this as a positive aspect of having switched, not as a drag

dysolve
October 2nd, 2007, 03:40 PM
My work bought 10 new IBM desktops and laptops running windows vista.. these machines cost over $2000AU each.. The first desktop I setup to work with our domain and all related in-house systemsand hardware took all day (8 hours) I had the last install down to just over 2 hours.. I now spend around 1 hour a day keeping the vista machine running correctly. We have also about 10 XP machines I need about 1 hour a week keeping these running. Now what was the real cost to my work for the install of windows vista?? My work see's vista as the way forward in regards to operating systems so they do not see the time spent on the systems as a waste of time or money.
This maybe a little off topic but , I race cars in my spare time I had an old carby rear wheel drive car that I knew a lot about and found easy to drive but I was spending a lot of time fitting stupid things because of its age. so I upgraded to a newer EFI front wheel drive car.. now I have spent a lot of time learning to get the new car running properly and had to learn how to drive it also but now after a few months it like I have always had the car and I am spending less time working on it....

If I have learnt one thing in life change takes time.. and before making a change way up everything..... If time is money then why change at all?

Yfrwlf
November 18th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Thankfully there's a Linux distro called Ubuntu for those who don't want to tweak around with their computer's functionality and settings much, but you can if you want. Linux needs to appeal to both types of users to be truly successful, even though the fact is most users fall into the first category, for those who want something that just works and gets out of the way so they can do the things they need to get done and access the applications they need to access.

ntowakbh
November 18th, 2007, 08:08 PM
I don't believe this is true. I had next to no problems (one being my faulty video card, the next being little things like configuring my five button mouse, and not displaying my mounted partitions on my desktop.) My little problems were all quick fixes, once I found how to fix it. As far as installation, seven steps through the live CD, then go off and play a video game for a half hour, come back, remove CD, restart the computer. Easy as that, with minimal time lost.