Five reasons NOT to use Linux

[matthew]

Here's one guy's opinion:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

[manicka]

LOL :lol:

[mstlyevil]

My brother was just in here telling me if Linux was such a great operating system, then why aren't people buying it up. I told him it was sheer ignorance and that they use linux much more then they realise. This article makes some very good points about Microsoft.

[drizek]

im glad i actually read the article. i was going to just post something like

"
Reason Number 6: You dont have to put up with crap like this on forums.
"

[poofyhairguy]

Thats funny. Trollish but funny.

[nickless]

Heh nice :D didn't knew windows claims to be cheaper :-P

[lothar_m]

Heh nice :D didn't knew windows claims to be cheaper :-P


Yeah they do. Specially with corporate customers, which are targeted by the companies like red hat or suse (novell) ..... they advertise that windows based solutions are cheaper than open sourced ones if one takes in consideration the costs of support and training.

[endy]

I love the article, it tidies up some of the main arguments I have used in the past and adds a nice twist of humour. Bookmarked!


Heh nice :D didn't knew windows claims to be cheaper :-P

You may want to check out Microsoft's FUD machine, I mean website (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx) ;)

This Microsoft-sponsored study found that the Windows Server environment was more reliable and easier to manage, achieving higher levels of end-user service.Amazing :p

[macgyver2]

One of the most sarcastic articles I've read in a long time. I love it!

[jdodson]

those reasons are why i am switching tommorow.

[N'Jal]

That's very clever, i like it.

[BWF89]

I liked it.

[WildTangent]

i agree with windows server being cheaper, because anyone can go and get their free trial of it, activate it with microsoft legally, and then use one of the many programs out there to remove the timebomb. there you go, free server OS. oh wait, its only free because microsoft makes it easy to pirate it, i guess it doesnt count

-Wild

[linuxkg100]

WOW, that was the most explosive article I read today. hehehehe that was funny. Windows destroys cause of the lack of knowledge. \\:D/

[Kapre]

I liked the 6th reason!

Some joke!

K

[egon spengler]

I think it was a bit dishonest of the author to take issue with the false claims of Linux being expensive and then counter them with examples of expensive windows software when he know doubt knows very well that there are many gratis alternatives to Mcafee and Norton.

[drizek]

I think it was a bit dishonest of the author to take issue with the false claims of Linux being expensive and then counter them with examples of expensive windows software when he know doubt knows very well that there are many gratis alternatives to Mcafee and Norton.
not for deployment in a corporate setting there arent.

two reasons why the free AV's cant be used by a business:
-no remote configuration support
-its illegal to use them for non-home use. you have to sign a EULA. they have "pro" editions which you have to pay for.

[npaladin2000]

The author forgot to mention that Novell, SUSE and Red hat make you pay for support because they are emulating the Great Microsoft, who pioneered selling the sofware and then selling the support seperately. Some assembly required.

First question you have to answer when calling Microsoft tech support is your credit card number.

[egon spengler]

not for deployment in a corporate setting there arent.

two reasons why the free AV's cant be used by a business:
-no remote configuration support
-its illegal to use them for non-home use. you have to sign a EULA. they have "pro" editions which you have to pay for.

That's a good point, I had forgotten that they are generally free for home use only.

Nonetheless the article didn't seem to be aimed at any particular end of the market and so I maintain that as much as it is dishonest to pretend that using Linux will cost you a fortune it is equally so to pretend that using Windows is also prohibitively expensive. Yes the OS itself costs but there are comparable amounts of gratis software with Linux (gimp, blender, firefox, thunderbird, open office, foobar, html-kit etc)

[tseliot]

Mmm... he must be right. I'll switch back to Windows, I really miss its blue screens of death :razz:

[Lord Illidan]

That's a good point, I had forgotten that they are generally free for home use only.

Nonetheless the article didn't seem to be aimed at any particular end of the market and so I maintain that as much as it is dishonest to pretend that using Linux will cost you a fortune it is equally so to pretend that using Windows is also prohibitively expensive. Yes the OS itself costs but there are comparable amounts of gratis software with Linux (gimp, blender, firefox, thunderbird, open office, foobar, html-kit etc)

Using Windows is prohibitively expensive if you use commercial software and pay for it, instead of pirating it..

Let's see...

You have to pay a large sum of money for XP itself. If you pirate it, you pay 5 bucks. If you get Ubuntu you pay nothing, unless you take into consideration telephone and electricity while downloading it, or you get it free by ShipIt, it is free, anyway.

You have to pay another large sum of money for Office 2003. Again, this depends.. If you get it from a friend, you might pay nothing. However, Ubuntu has Open Office, for free.

Anti-virus, firewalls, etc. Well, there are a lot of free alternatives, like AVG anti-virus, Outpost firewall, and Zone Alarm Free... However, most people like getting the all in one solutions, like Norton or Mc Afee.. and they cost more..

I got Ubuntu, downloaded some 1000 packages, consisting of useful apps, games, etc, and I didn't pay a cent. While with Windows, you have to pay something in the region of a hundred dollars, only for a bare-bones OS!

[egon spengler]

You're not actually disputing anything I said. Yes the OS costs but you can get all free software. You can't possibly not know that open office (and abiword for that matter) is available for Windows as well as Linux, why bother spin half truths to pretend as if Linux users all get to use this marvelous program while Windows users are forced to either pay an extortionate fee or pirate MS office?

As far as the point about anti virus and firewall software I couldn't claim to know what most people use but that doesn't alter the fact that you *don't* have to use expensive commercial products if you are a home user.

I think that Linux stands up very well on it's own two feet, we can leave the truth twisting and skewed comparisons to MS

[Lord Illidan]

You can't possibly not know that open office (and abiword for that matter) is available for Windows as well as Linux, why bother spin half truths to pretend as if Linux users all get to use this marvelous program while Windows users are forced to either pay an extortionate fee or pirate MS office?

No, I can't possibly not know, but many "average Joe users" whose only proficiency in MS is "ECDL standard", might not know that there are free alternatives to most commercial software..

Also, about companies, etc.

If I have a company with 50 computers, then to install Windows XP on each computer, I probably need a licence to cover 50 computers, because of the activation. This can come to thousands..

Now imagine the other way round.
With Linux, one can either burn 50 Ubuntu CDs, at a cost of .... i dunno, perhaps 2 dollars.. (I am not american).. or else use a file-server for installation. Or use 10 cds at a time...
Already the installation costs are much lower for Linux.

Then you have the costs of MS Office... Ok, everybody can use Open Office on Windows too, but let's say for the sake of argument that the boss doesn't know about it.. You have to buy another large licence..

Then you have other software, like accounting software and the like..

With Linux the costs are minimal for software, usually just a download away, or very low prices.

Then the costs of training. Ok, so maybe it costs more to train a linux expert. But then, I don't have to train 50 experts, only 1 or 2 for maintenance.
And I will have saved thousands for installation, and saved lots of time because there are no downtimes associated with viruses and the like.

So I think that MS is lying big time about this.. and it is not the 1st time..

[egon spengler]

That some might not know that there are cheaper alternatives to Norton and MS office does not make it untrue that you can get as much gratis software for Windows as you can Linux.

What are we dealing with here, facts or what "most people think"?

If it's the latter then we might as well accept as true that Windows is the only and/or best operating system

[Lord Illidan]

It is a fact that there exists free alternatives, but if most users don't know about the alternatives, then for them, Windows remains the only option.

[nickless]

There is also a open office and staroffice version for windows :) So you don't need to buy ms office

[pmj]

A rebuttal: http://darnitwebdev.blogspot.com/2005/08/this-is-in-response-to-sarcastic-and.html

[mstlyevil]

You're not actually disputing anything I said. Yes the OS costs but you can get all free software. You can't possibly not know that open office (and abiword for that matter) is available for Windows as well as Linux, why bother spin half truths to pretend as if Linux users all get to use this marvelous program while Windows users are forced to either pay an extortionate fee or pirate MS office?

As far as the point about anti virus and firewall software I couldn't claim to know what most people use but that doesn't alter the fact that you *don't* have to use expensive commercial products if you are a home user.

I think that Linux stands up very well on it's own two feet, we can leave the truth twisting and skewed comparisons to MS


Most people i know that use windows either do not know they have free alternatives to word or are to scared to change because they are afraid they might have a compatibility issue. How many people do you know who have switched completely to Open Office as their word processing software?

I paid almost 200 bucks for OEM XP Pro and I did not have wordprocessing, DVD playback and a host of other software to make XP the OS I wanted in the first place.
It cost way more to use Microsoft, and besides most people are too honest to use pirated software. ( Or just too scared to get caught.)

[sapo]

Mmm... he must be right. I'll switch back to Windows, I really miss its blue screens of death :razz:
woah.. i miss that too... since i unistalled windows from here.. 6 months ago.. i miss it badly :(

[Kvark]

and besides most people are too honest to use pirated software. ( Or just too scared to get caught.)
Really? I know of only one Windows user that doesn't use any pirated software. Most people (or at least most people here) pay for maybe 1 or 2 programs and their favourite games but all other programs and games they download from the net or copy from relatives and workmates.

[matthew]

Really? I know of only one Windows user that doesn't use any pirated software. Most people (or at least most people here) pay for maybe 1 or 2 programs and their favourite games but all other programs and games they download from the net or copy from relatives and workmates.
I think a lot of that depends on your age, stage of life, and experience level with computers as well as your point of view on the authority of the law. I know a LOT of people that never copy/pirate software. I never did, not because I couldn't, but because I chose to live within the law and therefore either paid or just found a freeware/shareware/open equivalent or simply did without. I wasn't afraid of getting caught, I just want to treat others the way I want to be treated...I want people to respect me, my rights and the license I choose to give to any work I do so I'll do the same. Not a pride thing, it's just who I am.

[lothar_m]

The author forgot to mention that Novell, SUSE and Red hat make you pay for support because they are emulating the Great Microsoft


I think you are mistaken. about this.

Open source companies make you pay for support not because they are emulating microsoft but because thats what they sell.

Unlike microsoft, open source based companies make their money from selling support to their customers. Proprietary software based companies get most of their revenue from selling the software itself (licences). for these support its just another source of revenue (and not that big).

On the other hand, for open source based companies providing support is the primary source of revenue.

Acording to "revolution os" the developers of the open source business model where the guys at cygnus.

[mstlyevil]

Really? I know of only one Windows user that doesn't use any pirated software. Most people (or at least most people here) pay for maybe 1 or 2 programs and their favourite games but all other programs and games they download from the net or copy from relatives and workmates.

You are the exception then and not the rule. Out side of College students, Most adults prefer to just buy their software, music, ect. I do not know what country you live in, but in the US most people are afraid of getting caught using pirated software. It is all over the news here how P2P usage is plumeting across the country and around the world because of crackdowns and Law suits. I know people that have one time or another used pirated software. Most of them have stopped out of fear of legal action. That is why Apples Ipod and Itunes are becoming so popular as people shift from pirated to legal music.

[Kvark]

You are the exception then and not the rule. Out side of College students, Most adults prefer to just buy their software, music, ect. I do not know what country you live in, but in the US most people are afraid of getting caught using pirated software. It is all over the news here how P2P usage is plumeting across the country and around the world because of crackdowns and Law suits. I know people that have one time or another used pirated software. Most of them have stopped out of fear of legal action. That is why Apples Ipod and Itunes are becoming so popular as people shift from pirated to legal music.
Actually friends of my relatives who are around 40-50 years old also pay for only some of their software, they don't use P2P like my friends but rather borrow CDs from workmates and get only cracks/CDkeys from the net. Perhaps it's different in different countries.

Well, linux should become more popular once people realize that windows software costs more then $1 for a CD-R and linux users like me go around talking about being 100% legal and get 100% free software at the same time. :smile:

[WirelessMike]

I found the list extraordinarily amusing and uplifting. So true... so true.

I think it's just a mindset, a behavior taught early on. We are trained to believe that the only software worth having costs money. You practically have to sell OSS to a windows user to make them try it.

The cycle of spending is hard to break, but people must know there is an alternative, and that there is no risk in it.

[matthew]

Well, linux should become more popular once people realize that windows software costs more then $1 for a CD-R and linux users like me go around talking about being 100% legal and get 100% free software at the same time. :smile:
That's a key benefit in my estimation: I can be ethical and get great software without having to pay. Not only that, but it is free in the sense of ownership and use as well--I can even modify it if I want to (or want to learn how).

[Parkaboy]

it is good, I liked the page in general

[drizek]

That some might not know that there are cheaper alternatives to Norton and MS office does not make it untrue that you can get as much gratis software for Windows as you can Linux.

What are we dealing with here, facts or what "most people think"?

If it's the latter then we might as well accept as true that Windows is the only and/or best operating system

ok, let me break this down.

linux > windows
linux = $0
windows = $150ish

DUH!

who cares about the availablity of free and/or opensource software for windows? its not the point here.

also, think about hte hardware costs. running a firewall, AV, and spyware app can cost you 5-10% in performance. that means people are sitting 10% longer staring at the screen doing nothing in windows than they are in linux. it means taht you need to get the athlon 3000+ instead of the 2800+. it means you need to upgrade your ram to 512mb instead of 256. this all costs money as well.

Also, look at what happened to valve when the hl2 source code was stolen. the delay and bad publicity and crap surrounding that could have cost them hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. All that because they were using outlook express. if they were using thunderbird, the whole thing would never have happened. kinda ironic when you think about it, cause thunderbird is opensource and it would have protected their source code.

[firenurse4]

A rebuttal: http://darnitwebdev.blogspot.com/2005/08/this-is-in-response-to-sarcastic-and.html

Now that was a piece of work ](*,)

[aysiu]

Suppose I install Gnome as default and want to install KDE and use that as the default. How easy is that? Well, every time I try, I have to search through several configuration files with 100s of lines to find the one that specifies the default GUI, and then it often doesn't even work.

Trying way too hard to prove a point--his credibility is shot here. You don't have to edit a config file. You just pick the session and when you log in, you select "make default."

[egon spengler]

ok, let me break this down.

linux > windows
linux = $0
windows = $150ish

DUH!

who cares about the availablity of free and/or opensource software for windows? its not the point here.

No actually that is precisely the point. If you are so determined a Linux fanboy that you want to lie to try make Linux look better then go ahead. What the guy said though was that Windows is more expensive partly because of the need for commercial programs. That is patently untrue, you are NOT obligated to run commercial programs on Windows, there are many free alternatives. When Microsoft print their half truths and lies about the expense of Linux we all rightfully call them out as liars. What you are doing is the same as Microsoft.

MS operating systems cost, we all know this. That is the cost of using Windows. Anyone who says Windows is more expensive because you have to buy Norton for it is lying because YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY NORTON.

It's interesting how the guy who wrote the Windows response also drifted off into similar talk about how Windows is cheaper because it's faster, I guess the only difference between zeaots is which side they are infatuated with

[drizek]

"there are many free alternatives"

like the one i listed in the post you quoted. if you want to use opensource alternatives to windows apps, why not just go all the way and use an opensource alternative to windows itself? whats teh difference between openoffice and ubuntu? windows costs money the same way that MS office does, so why is it ok to use OOo but not ok to use linux?

" Anyone who says Windows is more expensive because you have to buy Norton for it"

i never said it was. you should argue with the guy who wrote the article, not me. i just simply stated that the free alternatives to norton and even the home edition of norton AV itself are unfit for corporate environments.

also, apps like winrar are free in linux(using ark + the opensource unrar) whereas you have to buy winrar in windows to get rid of the registration messages, and there is no free altrernative. obviously, its not a big deal, but it was just an example.

[poofyhairguy]

Trying way too hard to prove a point--his credibility is shot here.

It was shot from the start. That is what happens with light satire.

[aysiu]

I know one of the reasons I became interested in Linux was the fact that it's difficult to customize Windows' look and feel without paying money or dealing with nagware. There's Microsoft's own Plus! Themes (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Plus/windowsxp/themes.asp). There's Windowblinds (http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/). But in Gnome, there's native support for the easy installation of themes you download off of Gnome-look.

[GreyFox503]

Age seems to be the biggest factor for pirating software. I'm in college now, and the ratio of legit Windows installs: bootlegged ones is around 1:8. (That's of people who install Windows themselves, does not factor in people buying computers with legit copies preinstalled). And this is on a campus where MS discounts will sell you a copy of XP Pro for < $70.

I was one of the few people I know who has a legit copy (at least when I had Windows installed...)

This is only about operating systems. An even greater percentage download their utilities for "free", whether it be MS Office, Photoshop, games, Visual Studio, etc.


No actually that is precisely the point. If you are so determined a Linux fanboy that you want to lie to try make Linux look better then go ahead. What the guy said though was that Windows is more expensive partly because of the need for commercial programs. That is patently untrue, you are NOT obligated to run commercial programs on Windows, there are many free alternatives. When Microsoft print their half truths and lies about the expense of Linux we all rightfully call them out as liars. What you are doing is the same as Microsoft.

MS operating systems cost, we all know this. That is the cost of using Windows. Anyone who says Windows is more expensive because you have to buy Norton for it is lying because YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY NORTON.

It's interesting how the guy who wrote the Windows response also drifted off into similar talk about how Windows is cheaper because it's faster, I guess the only difference between zeaots is which side they are infatuated with

It's true that home users and even corporations don't HAVE to buy anti-virus software. But the vast majority of companies (at least as far as I'm aware) run such software, and home users as well. Even though it is not required, it is realistic enough to include that as an average expense of using Windows if the majority do it. I think that was his point.

You can buy anti-virus for Linux and Mac too, but because so few do it, it is never included as an expense of using the software.

[mstlyevil]

No actually that is precisely the point. If you are so determined a Linux fanboy that you want to lie to try make Linux look better then go ahead. What the guy said though was that Windows is more expensive partly because of the need for commercial programs. That is patently untrue, you are NOT obligated to run commercial programs on Windows, there are many free alternatives. When Microsoft print their half truths and lies about the expense of Linux we all rightfully call them out as liars. What you are doing is the same as Microsoft.

MS operating systems cost, we all know this. That is the cost of using Windows. Anyone who says Windows is more expensive because you have to buy Norton for it is lying because YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BUY NORTON.

It's interesting how the guy who wrote the Windows response also drifted off into similar talk about how Windows is cheaper because it's faster, I guess the only difference between zeaots is which side they are infatuated with

For one I am not a zealot. Linux is not for everyone and I will not pretend it is. But you may be right in the fact people do not have to use paid apps on Windows. Where you are wrong is that most people believe they are better off for using the paid apps vs the open source apps. Take a look at Word. Most people regardles if they are at home or at work use word for word processing. I only know of one other person who even uses OOo. Most people buy a antivirus package. People still believe that paid versons are somehow better than the free versons. It goes on and on. Microsoft, and other companies have people convinced that they get a better bargain by paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars in extra software. Spyware and adware have only fueled this belief. Many so called free applications are so loaded down with crap that ruins a persons computer that they just do not trust free software anymore. Do you really blame them. Many of these same people do not know the difference between these apps and opensource. That is why it cost more to use Microsoft.

[lol]

I usually find it useless to compare Linux and Windows. I tried several times in the past, I read a lot of article trying to do so and I had a lot of debate on this subject with people having different point of view. Yet in the end it's always the same: both systems have good and bad points and none is superior to the other, no matter how you try to compare them.

You can try with the ease of use, performances, cost, software availability, security, eye candiness, or whatever you want, in the end, no OS is better than another (at least if you compare Windows, Linux and OS X). The only thing that really matters is: which one do YOU believe is the best for YOU.

Now, IMO, Linux is certainly the best one for me. If you ask me, I am going to answer that Linux cost me less money, if faster, more secure, easier to use and to setup, and more beautiful. But if I need to install an OS for my mother for example, I will go with Windows, because it would be easier for her, it would be just as secure as Linux would be and because she already paid for it with her laptop (and therefore doesn't cost more than Linux). And there is no contradiction here, that's just the plain truth.

I had a good laugh when reading "Five reasons NOT to use Linux", but honestly, depending on the case, those five reasons might just be good reasons not to use Linux :)

[xequence]

I (and everyone else) thought you were telling us 5 reasons and everyone was getting ready to yell at you :P

[lol]

oh, and I forgot in my previous post... the 6th good reason NOT to use Linux: "You may need Word, or Publisher or whatever app the is going to run only on Windows".

yeah, yeah, I know, there is OOo... and I use it. But when I have to send a CV in a .doc format, I still need to open it with Word just to make sure that OOo actually produced a correct file, which is not always the case...

And a lot of people just don't have the choice of which app they have to use. If there is no Linux version, they don't really have the choice not to use Windows. Crossover is not free (arg! It can actually COST money to use Linux!!!) and the free alternatives are way too unstable and too difficult to use.
As for solutions like VMware... well, you end up using Windows, so why bother with Linux in the first place? :)

[weasel fierce]

I've never had a problem with open office, but I dont do a lot of fancy stuff so that might be why. If in doubt, create a PDF (which MS office cant,a dealbreaker to me)

[poofyhairguy]

oh, and I forgot in my previous post... the 6th good reason NOT to use Linux: "You may need Word, or Publisher or whatever app the is going to run only on Windows".

yeah, yeah, I know, there is OOo... and I use it. But when I have to send a CV in a .doc format, I still need to open it with Word just to make sure that OOo actually produced a correct file, which is not always the case...

Thats when you export to PDF. Almost every Windows machine has acrovat that can edit and view PDFs.



And a lot of people just don't have the choice of which app they have to use. If there is no Linux version, they don't really have the choice not to use Windows.

True.



Crossover is not free (arg! It can actually COST money to use Linux!!!) and the free alternatives are way too unstable and too difficult to use.

Wine does a decent job, but none are perfect. Even Crossover.



As for solutions like VMware... well, you end up using Windows, so why bother with Linux in the first place? :)

To keep the monster in a box, away from you most important data.

[lol]

Thats when you export to PDF. Almost every Windows machine has acrovat that can edit and view PDFs.

Yes, when you can... Unfortunately, some people do have stupid requirements and will accept nothing else than a Word document. Sad, but true...

And anyway, you can always find other cases for which you will need Word, like for example working on a document with several other people using Word.

Also, as long as complete compatibility will not be achieved at the file format level, legacy documents (or legacy software producing "non portable" documents) will often dictate the need for a specific tool, which in turn can lead to the need for a specific OS...

[Lord Illidan]

This is my belief:

Linux is not perfect.
Windows is not perfect.

They are very hard to compare.

But, one is free, and one is not..

And, Redhat, Suse, Mandriva, Linspire and the others have a good reason to charge for support. Reason being is that although opensource ideals are fine and dandy, just a donation and lots of free downloads isn't going to keep a programmer with a wife and kids with a full stomach and a roof over their heads.
Most programmers who work on free distros do so in their spare time, not as a full time job. Dissing these "money making companies" for charging money is not a good idea, in my opinion, especially when they make good products and offer lots of their software for free. Ok, so maybe Linspire doesn't but Suse, Mandriva, and Redhat do. Also, I have used the Xandros system from picking it up on a magazine, something which Windows would never have been on, except maybe an old copy of 98 or 3.1.

I am not a zealot, but I know which appeals to me most. Currently Linux appeals to me, because I like the opensource ideal, i like the fact that it's free, and I like the fact that it gives me control. I also like Windows because I like playing games sometimes, and I have no money for Cedega..

Also, piracy in the UK and US might be decreasing..but in other parts of the world where people are not so well off and legislation is less severe, I think it's on the increase..

And MS efforts to combat it are pathetic.. XP Starter pack edition...3 programs multitasking.. it is expensive crippleware..Even if it was the same price or cheaper than a pirated XP Home, I would get the XP home pirated...or even Windows 98.. or I would get Ubuntu...

[drizek]

Yes, when you can... Unfortunately, some people do have stupid requirements and will accept nothing else than a Word document. Sad, but true...

And anyway, you can always find other cases for which you will need Word, like for example working on a document with several other people using Word.

Also, as long as complete compatibility will not be achieved at the file format level, legacy documents (or legacy software producing "non portable" documents) will often dictate the need for a specific tool, which in turn can lead to the need for a specific OS...
thre letters:

rtf

[poofyhairguy]

Yes, when you can... Unfortunately, some people do have stupid requirements and will accept nothing else than a Word document. Sad, but true...



Very true. Thats why OpenOffice2 is really working on compatibility. Now it can boast its more compatible with all versions on the .doc than Office 2003 is!

[egon spengler]

But you may be right in the fact people do not have to use paid apps on Windows. Where you are wrong is that most people believe they are better off for using the paid apps vs the open source apps.

Actually that is NOT where I am wrong because I said absolutely nothing at all about most people's preference regarding free or paid for software. The single point that I made is that it is an untruth to say that you MUST use expensive software when using Windows.

You agree. The other guy agrees. Everyone agreees, I really don't undersand what it is that you are all trying to argue.

I can only speculate but I wonder if it might because one of the oft touted advantages of Linux is that all of the software is gratis. Maybe some people feel threatened to concede that after the initial outlay Windows can be equally as free in cost as Linux because it erodes one of Linux's advantages.

It's very interesting how so many seem so keen to form an argument against Windows based on what the average "uninformed" user might think/do. Of course though when an argument is made against Linux using the fact that the average "uninformed" user (of the few who knows that Linux exists) thinks that Linux is that hard to use OS for geeks that isn't ready for the desktop yet I'm sure that you will instantly discount the opinion of the average user

[aysiu]

It's very interesting how so many seem so keen to form an argument against Windows based on what the average "uninformed" user might think/do. Of course though when an argument is made against Linux using the fact that the average "uninformed" user (of the few who knows that Linux exists) thinks that Linux is that hard to use OS for geeks that isn't ready for the desktop yet I'm sure that you will instantly discount the opinion of the average user I think there's a big difference. First of all, the degree to which Linux newbies are uninformed about Linux's capabilities is far greater than the degree to which Windows users are ignorant of open source options for Windows. Secondly, one is based on limiting the OS. The other is based on limiting the user. For example, one time, I found out my employer was using an extremely expensive piece of software. I proposed she use a free, open source alternative that I knew how to set up, but she refused. She'd rather pay an exhorbitant amount of money and know that it "just works." It's the same for Norton anti-virus. Maybe there are free alternatives, but it's not like if you say, "Hey, here's a free alternative," Windows users will just jump all over them. Hell, I have problems convincing people to use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer! I've also found that the port of made-for-Linux open source apps to Windows is sometimes shaky (GIMP, Sodipodi, for example).

I agree with you that saying you must pay for Windows applications is silly, but your claims of double standards are just "ha ha" holier-than-thou theoretical blah blah blah. Misconceptions about Linux are far more rampant and far more harmful than misconceptions about Windows, and you know it.

[egon spengler]

I agree with you that saying you must pay for Windows applications is silly, but your claims of double standards are just "ha ha" holier-than-thou theoretical blah blah blah. Misconceptions about Linux are far more rampant and far more harmful than misconceptions about Windows, and you know it.


I don't think so at all. Either judging the OS based on the opinions of the average person who isn't very interested in computers is wrong or it isn't. How can it be wrong to bash Linux based on "Joe six pack"'s opinion but not to bash Windows based on "Joe six pack"'s opinion?

Also seeing as there are far more Windows users than Linux users I would say there is a very real chance that in actual fact the misconceptions about Windows are far more widespread than any about Linux

[aysiu]

I don't think so at all. Either judging the OS based on the opinions of the average person who isn't very interested in computers is wrong or it isn't. How can it be wrong to bash Linux based on "Joe six pack"'s opinion but not to bash Windows based on "Joe six pack"'s opinion? I almost never see "Joe Sixpack" criticizing Linux. It's usually Windows power users criticizing Linux "on Joe Sixpack's behalf."



Also seeing as there are far more Windows users than Linux users I would say there is a very real chance that in actual fact the misconceptions about Windows are far more widespread than any about Linux This logic doesn't hold. There are far more white people in the US than Asian-Americans, but there are for more misconceptions in the US about Asian-Americans than about whites. The widespread population usually controls conceptions and misconceptions. Everybody has to interact with Windows at some point, so they are more likely to understand it. Everybody has to interact with white people at some point, so they are more likely to understand them.

The minority is far more often misunderstood. Take it from a leftist Christian feminist Asian-American man.

[egon spengler]

I almost never see "Joe Sixpack" criticizing Linux. It's usually Windows power users criticizing Linux "on Joe Sixpack's behalf."

Unlike this situation of course where it is Linux power users criticising Windows on Joe Sixpacks behalf


This logic doesn't hold. There are far more white people in the US than Asian-Americans, but there are for more misconceptions in the US about Asian-Americans than about whites. The widespread population usually controls conceptions and misconceptions. Everybody has to interact with Windows at some point, so they are more likely to understand it. Everybody has to interact with white people at some point, so they are more likely to understand them.

The minority is far more often misunderstood. Take it from a leftist Christian feminist Asian-American man.

You state that it is a miconception held by some that is is better to use commercial software than free software. Either that is a widespread misconception or it isn't. If it isn't a widespread misconception then it does not bear mentioning. If it is widespread though being that it is widespread among a larger user base then it is quite likely more widely "known" than any negative myths about Linux.

Take that from a leftist Muslim Black British man

[aysiu]

Unlike this situation of course where it is Linux power users criticising Windows on Joe Sixpacks behalf Touche.



You state that it is a miconception held by some that is is better to use commercial software than free software. Either that is a widespread misconception or it isn't. If it isn't a widespread misconception then it does not bear mentioning. If it is widespread though being that it is widespread among a larger user base then it is quite likely more widely "known" than any negative myths about Linux. It's not that it's either widespread or it isn't. There's widespread and then there's more widespread. If 85% of Windows users hold the misconception that commercial software is better than free software and 99% of Windows users hold misconceptions about how difficult Linux is to use, then they are both widespread misconceptions. The Linux one is more dangerous, though, because it's even more (relatively) widespread, and it prevents people from even trying Linux. Most Linux users have, however, not only tried Windows but may even use Windows on a regular basis still (for work or whatever other reason).



Take that from a leftist Muslim Black British man We're a peculiar lot, eh?

[egon spengler]

It's not that it's either widespread or it isn't. There's widespread and then there's more widespread. If 85% of Windows users hold the misconception that commercial software is better than free software and 99% of Windows users hold misconceptions about how difficult Linux is to use, then they are both widespread misconceptions. The Linux one is more dangerous, though, because it's even more (relatively) widespread, and it prevents people from even trying Linux. Most Linux users have, however, not only tried Windows but may even use Windows on a regular basis still (for work or whatever other reason).

To be honest I would be very surprised to find that 99% of Windows users know that Linux exists let alone have any negative impression of it but that is something I doubt that either one of us could prove or disprove.

My point throughout this thread though has been that Linux is a great OS and we don't need to resort to shady MS-esque half truths and misreported facts in order to promote it. I don't think (in an ideal world at least) that the only way to make Linux appear better to a Windows user is to capitalise on certain urban myths they have heard about Windows, I think that Linux stands up very well in an honest, head to head comparison

[aysiu]

I agree.

[mcrofutt]

I just left my two-cents worth for him,,,,

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that I just sat here and read all this bunch of balogna! I'm an end user! I've never taken ONE computer course in my 47,almost 48, years of life. Being an end user, I like things that "just work". After your beloved Windows XP crashed on me for the umpteenth time, (By the way, did you know you can only LEGALLY use your liscense key 4 times?)(I know this because I had to go BUY a new one after XP wouldn't start back up and I had to re-install it MORE than 4 times!) I got so unhappy with it that I finally said OK,enough.
SO, I started messing around with some FREE (as in speech) LIVE CD/DVD distributions and thought THIS IS SOOOOO COOL! The entire OS runs from the cd drive! AWESOME! The first I tried was KNOPPIX 3.3, not for me. Simply Mepis next, NICE but no WINmodem support. I could go on and on. I decided on Ubuntu 5.04 and use Kanotix for the occasional look into the kde interface. Since I've been using these. I've had to reinstall XP on my wife's box,it got caught in one of those reboot loops. DAMN I hate when that happens!
So for the "end users" out there. Do what ya' gotta do to make YOU happy! Even if it means "rewindowing" your wife's box. ;-)

8:34 PM

And that kinda sums it up as far as I'm concerned!

[mstlyevil]

I just left my two-cents worth for him,,,,

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that I just sat here and read all this bunch of balogna! I'm an end user! I've never taken ONE computer course in my 47,almost 48, years of life. Being an end user, I like things that "just work". After your beloved Windows XP crashed on me for the umpteenth time, (By the way, did you know you can only LEGALLY use your liscense key 4 times?)(I know this because I had to go BUY a new one after XP wouldn't start back up and I had to re-install it MORE than 4 times!) I got so unhappy with it that I finally said OK,enough.
SO, I started messing around with some FREE (as in speech) LIVE CD/DVD distributions and thought THIS IS SOOOOO COOL! The entire OS runs from the cd drive! AWESOME! The first I tried was KNOPPIX 3.3, not for me. Simply Mepis next, NICE but no WINmodem support. I could go on and on. I decided on Ubuntu 5.04 and use Kanotix for the occasional look into the kde interface. Since I've been using these. I've had to reinstall XP on my wife's box,it got caught in one of those reboot loops. DAMN I hate when that happens!
So for the "end users" out there. Do what ya' gotta do to make YOU happy! Even if it means "rewindowing" your wife's box. ;-)

8:34 PM

And that kinda sums it up as far as I'm concerned!

BUL@#$%

I have a legal OEM copy of WIN XP PRO and I have activated it about 7 or 8 times in two years. When I changed my hard drive for a larger sata drive, I had to call and explain the change. They gave me a code over the phone to reactivate it. I then reinstalled it again later and it activated over the internet without a call. If you use that OEM copy on the same machine, Microsoft is required to reactivate the key any time you reinstall. Just read the EULA. Yes it is in there. You should have called and gotten it straighted out. It is a pain in the @#$, but MS will reactivate it as long as you did not change more than three components on the PC, or you have not changed the motherboard or the CPU. I am not defending MS here, but I cannot stand by while you spread misinformation about reactivation.

[GreyFox503]

BUL@#$%

I have a legal OEM copy of WIN XP PRO and I have activated it about 7 or 8 times in two years. When I changed my hard drive for a larger sata drive, I had to call and explain the change. They gave me a code over the phone to reactivate it. I then reinstalled it again later and it activated over the internet without a call. If you use that OEM copy on the same machine, Microsoft is required to reactivate the key any time you reinstall. Just read the EULA. Yes it is in there. You should have called and gotten it straighted out. It is a pain in the @#$, but MS will reactivate it as long as you did not change more than three components on the PC, or you have not changed the motherboard or the CPU. I am not defending MS here, but I cannot stand by while you spread misinformation about reactivation.


I agree here. Though the process is not fun (and time consuming), you can always call MS up and ask for a new code every time you install Windows.

[poofyhairguy]

MS will reactivate it as long as you did not change more than three components on the PC, or you have not changed the motherboard or the CPU.

I didn't know that....and it sucks.

[Lord Illidan]

To be honest I would be very surprised to find that 99% of Windows users know that Linux exists let alone have any negative impression of it but that is something I doubt that either one of us could prove or disprove.

My point throughout this thread though has been that Linux is a great OS and we don't need to resort to shady MS-esque half truths and misreported facts in order to promote it. I don't think (in an ideal world at least) that the only way to make Linux appear better to a Windows user is to capitalise on certain urban myths they have heard about Windows, I think that Linux stands up very well in an honest, head to head comparison

But many Windows users might read one of those "Linux is not ready for the Desktop" or "Linux sucks" threads from a newcomer to Linux who expects everything to work like Windows, and then, bang, he's alienated to Linux.

Also, many have the perception that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and if I say that I have a free OS, they think I pirated it..

About activation, it's a strange life.. My friend's copy of Windows XP didn't work after 4 activation attempts..
Mine on the other hand worked through 5 installs on a Celeron 2.04 GHZ processor, and 1 install on a completely different 333 Mhz Celeron. Of course, the motherboard, graphics card and everything else are different too.. No calls to MS or anything, I dunno why..

[mstlyevil]

I know someone who has a pirated corporate copy of XP Pro. He doesn't need to activate it, but if he tries to upgrade to SP1, Windows update tells him he has a pirated copy and refuses to update his computer. Also I failed to mention you should not try to reinstall more than three times in 6 months or you will be making that call begging MS to activate your copy of XP. Pretty demeaning for something you paid at least 100 bucks for.

[nic2]

The following quote sums it up for me:

"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows or gates?"

Williams, G. (2005). Debian GNU/Linux Desktop Survival Guide, http://www.togaware.com/linux/survivor/

[ElemonGW]

lol really nice article, and all of what it says is true!!!!
EDIT: This thread was vreated two years ago, oh my god, how did I digged this out :P :) ?!?!?!

[Pumalite]

You're not actually disputing anything I said. Yes the OS costs but you can get all free software. You can't possibly not know that open office (and abiword for that matter) is available for Windows as well as Linux, why bother spin half truths to pretend as if Linux users all get to use this marvelous program while Windows users are forced to either pay an extortionate fee or pirate MS office?

As far as the point about anti virus and firewall software I couldn't claim to know what most people use but that doesn't alter the fact that you *don't* have to use expensive commercial products if you are a home user.

I think that Linux stands up very well on it's own two feet, we can leave the truth twisting and skewed comparisons to MS

It's not the price. It's the headaches, the lies, the newspeak. Linux is a philosophy and an idea without paragon.

[@trophy]

Now that was a piece of work ](*,)

I uhh actually agreed with almost all of the rebuttal. File permissions are a pain in the ****. They just are. No sense denying it.

I think one of the major limitations of open source software is that 90% of it was made by some hacker because that hacker needed it to do something... so it does what he needed it to do... and nothing else. In fact, it probably doesn't do EVERYTHING he needed it to do, because he got it working just good enough to get the job done in combination with other tools he happened to have at the time.

There was a quote about that from someone: I forget who:
"Open Source Software: 80% as good as the last guy needed it to be."