Linux better than Windows?

[ChaosMastero]

In one of my college classes I'm suppose to do a 5 minute persuasive speech. I was thinking of doing one to persuade people to use Linux over Windows. Any good ideas on what I could use as main topics?

[misfitpierce]

Unix was built off networking making it more secure period...
Open Source software
Free Distributing amongst The World
Unix based OS takes way less resources but can do everything windows can (but gaming)
Bill Gates is a tard

then add this to end...

In a world without walls or boundaries, who needs windows or gates... Sure thriller!

[blithen]

In one of my college classes I'm suppose to do a 5 minute persuasive speech. I was thinking of doing one to persuade people to use Linux over Windows. Any good ideas on what I could use as main topics?
One of the biggest points is defiantly security, just hammer away at that. Linux doesn't even need virus protection or a firewall.
One of the biggest down falls is not being very user friendly. Don't get me wrong linux is great, but you need a large understanding of the terminal.

[RussianVodka]

Tell them it's like using a Mac, but without people calling you gay.

[kebes]

Below are a few points that you might want to think about. Most are copied verbatim from a post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1860745&postcount=30) I wrote awhile back on a different thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=314774).

Why use Linux? Because:

-You can obtain it at no monetary cost. You can give a copy to a friend. You can reinstall it as many times as you want, on as many machines as you want. You will never be hassled with registration screens or piracy checks. The operating system will treat you with respect, as the owner of the machine.

-The system and software are constantly updated and improved. All these updates and security patches are automatically available to you, at no charge and with no hassle.

-You essentially don't have to worry about viruses, adware, malware, etc.

-You have the freedom to tinker, modify, and change any part of the system you like.

-Access to the source code means no lock-in, better security, and no "user-hostile" features. You can trust the programs you run because there is a large community of experts openly discussing the code, looking for weaknesses, and so on.

-Once you get used to Linux, you may very well be more productive. The system is designed with productivity and usefulness in mind (as opposed to trying to lock you in to buying more software).

-You have access to a helpful and technical community of volunteers.

-You will be supporting a competitive free market for software, and helping 'the little guy' and intangibly contributing back to a community of people that want to make software free.

[7Priest7]

Use brute stats...

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam

That is the top 500 supercomputer sites and what they use...

Alex

[vambo]

Tell them it's like using a Mac, but without people calling you gay.

Feckin brilliant =D>=D>=D>

[adamklempner]

One of the biggest down falls is not being very user friendly. Don't get me wrong linux is great, but you need a large understanding of the terminal.

I guess it depends on what you want to do and which distro you are using, but my experience was quite the opposite. My introduction to Linux was via Linspire and for two to three years I don't think I even had to touch the terminal. Aside from the file system structure, I think most of Linux is easier that Windows. With KDE it is certainly more configurable.

------

But anyway, to answer the original question, I would hammer away at the safety and security. No viruses, no spyware, no pop ups... Then I would also talk about its long term stability advantage. With XP I needed a reinstall at least once a year as the computer got slower and less stable. Linux does not do that. I would also talk about the rapid development of Linux as compared to Windows. Ubuntu gets a totally new version every year. How long was it between XP and Vista? Talk about the advantages of a package manager: easy to use, fast to install programs, lots of good free app's, and much easier and safer than tracking down .exe's on the net. Then there is the cost...

I would also touch on open source and its benefits, but try to avoid the debate about open source vs. proprietary as that is a whole (lengthy) debate on its own.

[Zzl1xndd]

One of the biggest points is defiantly security, just hammer away at that. Linux doesn't even need virus protection or a firewall.
One of the biggest down falls is not being very user friendly. Don't get me wrong linux is great, but you need a large understanding of the terminal.

Im gonna disagree on this point, I have dropped Linux cd's in peoples laps and walked away and had them come back telling me how great it is and that they could never go back to windows. These people are not the best with computers as a matter of fact most of them came to me for help more often then not.

Also I would like to mention as anther poster said that Linux is not good for gaming I will also disagree with that Linux is a great gaming platform we just need more games being developed for it.

[executor]

for me it just "feel" better .

[daynah]

Pick three points. (a little over a minute for each, 'cause your intro and conclusion is going to be a little less than a minute)

(in whatever order)

1) Security. Protection from Viruses

2) Ease of use! This is important to talk about because IF someone in your audience knows about Linux, they're going to ignore what you're saying because they'll be thinking "Yeah, it's secure, but I wont know how to use it." If you can hook your computer up to the display, or use a live cd or flash or something, maybe show how easy it is to use Synaptic, or other basic programs.

3) What "free" means. Explain free as in beer (if you have a small class and cheap cds, made enough copies for the class to illustrate that, I doubt you have time to wait for cds), and explain free as in speech. Passing out cds, or going to a URL to download will easily explain Free as in Beer simply enough, don't waste your time. Free as in Speech is more important.

Slap on an Introduction and conclusion.

Do not use a powerpoint. Powerpoints are difficult to do correctly and are very boring, they simply draw the eye away from the speaker. That may be what you think you want, but you actually want to look brave and make the audience be amazed at your speaking skills, kay? Kay.

With any speech though, DO have something creative! Since this is on technology, use technology (linux) just not a boring powerpoint. Like I said, if you are confident you can hook up your computer to a projector the day of the speech no problems bam bam bam, that would be fantastic. I don't trust technology on the day of projects... it always breaks on me... especially printers... So I'd go a little lower tech like a live cd or thumb drive (I believe on a thumb drive you can save settings is that right?). And in case the school computers have locks preventing you, have a slide show ready, and have a laptop on the side to let people try it. If you don't tell them it didn't work, they wont know. ;)

If you can, try to have Beryl on it. Since it's on LINUX and not Ubuntu, that means you can use a distro that has Beryl by default (Sabayon jumps to mind, but I know that I myself am not smart enough for gentoo-based).

Good luck, make sure you practice your time, there's a stop watch program in the repos that will record your times so you can see your progress.

[AlexenderReez]

if i were you...i will talk more about free code ....and secure....and a little bit about meaning of 'free is not as free beer,but free as free speech'

:)

[M$LOL]

One of the biggest points is defiantly security, just hammer away at that. Linux doesn't even need virus protection or a firewall.


I recently had a huge argument about this with an experienced Windows user.

He said that Windows was more secure, and that the only reason Linux was free of spyware and other Windows crap was because fewer people use Linux, thus making it less of a target.

He pointed me towards this, http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html#UnixLinux

According to him, this shows that Windows is more secure, because more exploits were found in Linux.

[aysiu]

As for security, do a demonstration.

Have one computer set up with Windows XP and a limited user account (currently logged in) but also an administrator account (not logged in), and see how much fun they have trying to use "Run as..." Get them to install software. Have them try to change the time. Have them change internet settings and do a bunch of other administrative accounts from the limited user account using "Run as..." to operate as the administrator.

Then, have another computer set up with Ubuntu and a sudoer account, and see how much they like just automatically being prompted for their passwords when trying to install software or change system-wide settings.

Setting up Windows securely can be done... it's just a pain in the ...

[savantelite]

Old people stuck in there ways use windows. Everything cool going on in computers is in free software.

If you have your computer for the speech make sure you have an awsome backround. Also do as many beryl tricks as you can. Chicks dig sweet graphic effects.

O you can also mention the story when you installed ubuntu when you were drunk. That always gets some laughs.

[dca]

You should also touch base on the enterprise side of things. Ubuntu 6.06LTS on the desktop = FREE, Ubuntu 6.06LTS Server Ed = FREE

Now do a comparison, WinXP = $299, WinVista = $499, Win Server 2k3 = 1k$, Win Server 2k3 DCE = 4k$, MS Sql Server = x amount, add'l CALs for accessing each = x amount, and let's face it even with a volume agreement through MS it still isn't worth it. I don't care what their TCO reports say...

[mangar]

Tell them that the windows/mac developers works on a project until it is good enough to sell, ignoring various bugs, and having no incentive for fixing architectural mistakes.
OSS is peer reviewed, so the pressure for excellence is never off. Things get optimized until it's no longer possible; furthermore they do not get feature bloat because once the software piece is perfected, there's no pressure to market, and thus no need to add "value" that doesn't exists

[Shin_Gouki2501]

not better, diffrent! More freedom and therefor some compromises.
Who know with driver in userspace maybe we get some real driver "acceleration" :)

oh and i strongly disagree with the post above.


Things get optimized until it's no longer possible; furthermore they do not get feature bloat because once the software piece is perfected, there's no pressure to market, and thus no need to add "value" that doesn't exists

That sounds very optimistic but in reality u have no idea whats going on :)

IF it would be like u said , OSS would be like a swarm were everyone understands each other ;) but reality is not like that.

Example:
BeOS its known that the kernel was better then Linux kernel but see were it is today. "Perfect" is a mean word?Every and i mean EVERY human beeing has a diffrent understanding what that means.

U see that a lot in software because , programms are coded like the coder sees his problem , not always the user ;)

The Problems of Linux are known yet progress is going where the masses see demand:eyecandy desktop.

Me forexample thinks: EASY USB boot even BETTER WLAN would be more important ( or a working scanner ;) )

so better or worse is WRONG.. Linux ( or windows) and Perfection is also wrong, there are jsut peoples expectations towards software and that what the coders do with that...

[koenn]

One of the biggest points is defiantly security, just hammer away at that. Linux doesn't even need virus protection or a firewall.

Do NOT claim that Linux doesn't need a firewall. It's simply not true. Any system connected to the internet (or another untrustworthy network) needs some sort of protection.
I suppose this guy here ( http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=501600 ) also read all these post claiming linux is so secure he didn't need a firewall

The correct claim would thus be that "any system connected to the internet needs at least a firewall, so linux comes with a firewall included"

[phrostbyte]

In one of my college classes I'm suppose to do a 5 minute persuasive speech. I was thinking of doing one to persuade people to use Linux over Windows. Any good ideas on what I could use as main topics?

I did the same exact speech (it was informative though - so I had to be somewhat neutral). Basically go through the features of Linux and possibly the evils of Windows (WGA, DRM, MS FUD, etc.)

Remember if this for a class and it is persuasive speech, you allowed (and actually) encouraged to use facts to prove your point. Do not be neutral, be forceful and MAKE people want to use Linux. Remember the what the goal of the speech is, not to teach people about Linux (eg. informative speech), but persuade them to use it. Be passionate. If you are good at that your teacher will give you many points.

This is an important life skill, by the way. So practice hard!

[Nezing]

Koenn.Valid point.If it did not need a Firewall (iptables),it would not be built in.Windows is a BIG target,because it is a monopoly.Gates has been the target of hackers,crackers,loonies et el,for as long as I can remember.The nightmare in XP,of having to install a "good" Firewall,anti-virus,anti-spyware,adware software,and a disc defragmentor,became all too much for me.You can install Clamav,if you want,but linux is not the main focus of "attack",simply because it is Open Source,and fixes,updates,checks,etc,can be mended very quickly,as the community is world wide (universal),where as the coders at Redmond (closed source),have to go via management,discussions,sub-group checks,before anything (if any),is done about it.
Would I download an Open Source Firewall,if Ubuntu came without one? Yes,especially having a broadband connection,and wanting to protect my years-of-collected-media files.I do regularly back-up my data however.

[hessiess]

windows needs insaling at lest once a year to ceep it usable, if you use a computer*allot* like me, this can go to every few months!

vista uses far to much system resorses for what it actuay dus.

open sorce is usless to anyone who cannot code

linux curently needs a semi power user, or somone who like resertching allot to get it running corectily

[Nezing]

hessiess.Vista was also "years too late" in coming out.People were expecting it in 2004,2005,and then early 2006.Was it worth the wait? No.I use it at work (have too),and it seems to run "hot" to me,and is just a pain.The eye candy Aero desktop is pointless,especially if your graphic card does not support shadder 2,to give it the glass-look.Our company was (is) daft in upgrading to it,but that is upper management for you.I have tried to convince a few senior staff to install Ubuntu,but I just get stern looks,and a speech about MS Office,contract agreement issues,etc,etc.
When will they ever grow up.Maybe I will just (nuke) the server,and install linux.Oh,if only...:)

[Matakoo]

He said that Windows was more secure, and that the only reason Linux was free of spyware and other Windows crap was because fewer people use Linux, thus making it less of a target.

I agree with that, to an extent. On the desktop, it certainly is a lot less popular. That is not the case on the server-side of things. Granted, servers are usually and hopefully better secured than your average desktop but there's no shortage of Linux machines to try to exploit or compromise in one way or the other.

No, I think the real reason why Windows is more prone to viruses and malware is down to the following four factors:

1. No Linux distro, as far as I know, has ever set up the default user as root by default. And I hope none ever will!

2. Traditionally, Linux users has had to be more tech-savvy than Windows users. Thus, they were more likely to know how to protect themselves. With Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS and every other newbie-friendly distro out there this distinction is no longer necessarily true. You no longer need to be tech-savvy to use Linux.

3. Microsoft, and many other windows-only companies, has valued ease-of-use higher than security. If an increased security was thought to interfere with the ease-of-use, ease-of-use trumps. Case in point: allowing insecure attachments to run in e-mails without even as much as a warning. This, too, has changed.

4. Linux, and other *IX variants, was built with network and security in mind from the beginning. In Windows, security has been added on a piecemeal basis.


According to him, this shows that Windows is more secure, because more exploits were found in Linux.

That page is highly inappropriate in such a comparison. First off, there are instances of MacOS X vulnerabilities on that page. It is BSD and therefore *IX based, but Linux it is not. You also find Solaris and Unixware there. If you want to make a case of Windows being more secure than Linux, then compare against Linux and not every *IX based OS out there. Otherwise it gives Windows an unfair advantage even if you take the different Windows-versions into consideration.

Secondly, different companies treat security threats differently. What Microsoft considers a moderate threat, Apple might consider a severe threat. Or the other way around. And to stick with Linux, just measuring the number of security threats is not sufficient taken in isolation. There's a different amount of packages between say, Ubuntu and OpenSuse for instance. And that's not even taking dependences into consideration.

Thirdly, under Linux/Unix they take up software that are not necessarily installed. An acrobat reader vulnerability is not an issue if you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed. Same thing with apache, an IMAP server or whatever. And some of those vulnerabilities would have been present on a Windows machine with the same software installed as well.

[Compucore]

Those are good points to some extent in similarities. You could add something like thie to it as well about networking in general along side to push the point about ubuntu linux linus/unix in general. Here is a link to a video that I had used for a presentation at one point about networking in general without getting into technical specs and the what nots. http://www.warriorsofthe.net/

Compucore


Unix was built off networking making it more secure period...
Open Source software
Free Distributing amongst The World
Unix based OS takes way less resources but can do everything windows can (but gaming)
Bill Gates is a tard

then add this to end...

In a world without walls or boundaries, who needs windows or gates... Sure thriller!

[Atomic Dog]

Tell them it's like using a Mac, but without people calling you gay.

:lolflag: I thought it, but you actually said it.

[tashmooclam]

The reasons FOR Unix/Linux are also the reasons AGAINST windows.
Windows is unstable. Unix/Linux is inherently much more stable.
Windows is insecure. Viruses, Spyware, etc. are a constant threat. The use of software to stop them "live" slows the computer down. Unix/Linux is much more secure.
Windows may be easier to install than Linux, although I have installed XP on this computer several times because of several "windows problems".
Putting Linux on a computer is still less expensive than buying Apple/Mac.
Windows is the worst operating system of the 3 major desktop systems. Do you say "Give me the worst!" when choosing anything?
Free software like Openoffice run on Linux, so running windows is not necessary.
ETC. :)

[iceportal]

The reasons FOR Unix/Linux are also the reasons AGAINST windows.
Windows is unstable. Unix/Linux is inherently much more stable.
Windows is insecure. Viruses, Spyware, etc. are a constant threat. The use of software to stop them "live" slows the computer down. Unix/Linux is much more secure.
Windows may be easier to install than Linux, although I have installed XP on this computer several times because of several "windows problems".
Putting Linux on a computer is still less expensive than buying Apple/Mac.
Windows is the worst operating system of the 3 major desktop systems. Do you say "Give me the worst!" when choosing anything?
Free software like Openoffice run on Linux, so running windows is not necessary.
ETC. :)

You're very right, in most aspects... But I see one glaring problem:

"Windows may be easier to install than Linux..."

This is baloney! In all actuality, the Windows (XP and earlier, I haven't tried Vista) installation is just as arcane and bothersome as a Slackware installation (very command-line, somewhat difficult for new users). Not only do you have to push random keys to progress (as opposed to <tab> and <enter>), but you have to worry about partition tables, account management, time zone setup, and all sorts of other things that would leave the average joe scratching his head. Now, this isn't to say that Linux doesn't require all the same things (It does, usually), but generally speaking, Linux is much friendlier about how you do things.

Installing Windows XP takes a lot of configuration and around 30 minutes to an hour. Once it's done you have to go in and configure your graphics card and sound card, install drivers for your internet, wireless, sound, graphics, etc. and then you have to register your software and OS before the expiration period is up. If you've installed the OS more than 10 or so times, the software key no longer works immediately, and you then have to call up the Microsoft automated registration robot and get them to help you register. Sometimes that won't work, and you have to actually wait on hold for their human counterpart to assist you. So, if you factor in the OS installation, registration, and driver install, this could take you around 2 or 3 hours and a good bit of stress and confusion. Just too much for new users.

Now, looking at Linux (Ubuntu in particular)... You pop in the CD, boot into the LiveCD environment, double-click the "Install" icon, and it steps you through the installer (with help if you need it). Most of the time you can accept the default options and you'll be just fine. Graphics and sound drivers are (in most cases) automatically detected and installed, as are most other drivers. There's no need to register your software, and pretty much everything can be done within the nice, easy-to-use graphical installer. Heck, even the partition editor is easier to use than Microsoft's. All in all, you'll have your computer up and running with Ubuntu in about 20 minutes, tops. (Not to mention, you can play solitaire or sudoku or a whole slew of other games to pass the time while Ubuntu installs, since it's a LiveCD.)

So, to say that Linux is more difficult to install than Windows is (for the most part) untrue. While some distros, such as Slackware, Gentoo, and Debian, can be more challenging, most distros (especially those geared towards new users) are MUCH easier than Windows.

[M$LOL]

XP installation is simple, and Vista is even easier. I wish M$ would give us the option of a text-based setup as a default. Now, BSD on the other hand, is tricky to install ;)

[hessiess]

hessiess.Vista was also "years too late" in coming out.People were expecting it in 2004,2005,and then early 2006.Was it worth the wait? No.I use it at work (have too),and it seems to run "hot" to me,and is just a pain.The eye candy Aero desktop is pointless,especially if your graphic card does not support shadder 2,to give it the glass-look.Our company was (is) daft in upgrading to it,but that is upper management for you.I have tried to convince a few senior staff to install Ubuntu,but I just get stern looks,and a speech about MS Office,contract agreement issues,etc,etc.
When will they ever grow up.Maybe I will just (nuke) the server,and install linux.Oh,if only...:)


i hate eyecandy anyway, withh is one of the resens i switched. gnome is difarent but without eyecandy, my windows install curently takes 10 munites to boot, then it runs like a slug! and hogs 40 gig of hd space!

how can 70% of web servers run linux, but some people still think windows is the best:confused: oo is way better than micro$oft office.:guitar:

[M$LOL]

Because Microshaft fail at making software, but excel at marketing.