Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows [Archive] - Page 3

hizaguchi

April 10th, 2006, 04:27 PM

I like to own my software, not pay for the privilege to use somebody else's. I also like knowing that it isn't against the law for me to change the settings on my computer the way I want them to be set.

But on top of that, there is KDE. It just behaves in a way that I like much more than Windows. I like the built-in spell checker (I just used it to spell "privilege"). I like Kopete, Amarok, and Kate. I like browsing the web with Konqueror because I can download a file and then do what I need with that file in another tab in the same window... or manipulate a picture in my browser... or zoom in on a pdf I'm reading online. I like that I can do all of this with 128 megs of ram without slowing my computer to a crawl.

I also like installing software via apt-get instead of clicking through wizards. And controlling my wireless card with ifup/ifdown so I can diagnose problems instead of having a GUI tell me "there is a problem, your connection might not work correctly." And not needing to run 3 spyware scanners from safe mode every week, despite never going to any obviously questionable websites. I like mounting remote drives locally with sshfs so I never have to mess with an ftp client. Likewise, I like using graphical software remotely via "ssh -X" without needing cygwin... it extends my software catalog to include some expensive research software that I couldn't use otherwise.

Most of all though, I love how much I have learned about my computer in the past 3 months or so that I've been using Linux actively. Windows was holding my hand too much... which was convenient when everything was working correctly, but crippling when something went wrong and I had no idea how to solve the problem.

davebgimp

April 10th, 2006, 05:35 PM

There's a few reasons. Some took longer to realize or appreciate than others. I tried Ubuntu on a whim back with Warty after being a long-time XP user at home and Mac user at work. An avid gamer, I have a dual install between Kubuntu and XP and still run it this way presently. However, over the many months, I've booted XP less and less and now could probably count the times I've run it in the last three months on one hand. I only boot it for gaming, using Ubuntu and then later, Kubuntu for all my other needs. Various reasons I choose (K)Ubuntu:

I've learned more in two years than I have using Windows for over ten.
It's free and I have access to tons of likewise free programs.
I don't have to worry about virii and spyware/adware, nor pay fees for bloated programs that protect me from them.
I have the privilige of using an OS that promotes freedoms as opposed to one who removes them and actively cooperates with corporations to limit what I can do with my computer and my data.
I can affect that jaded "I'm so completely cooler than you" attitude when showing off my super-sweet desktop to my cromagnon XP-using friends. I love that. :cool:
I like being in charge. With (K)Ubuntu, if something bothers me, I can get under the hood and change it. The only thing that limits me is my knowledge, not some multi-billion dollar corporation doesn't give a damn about me.
(K)Ubuntu makes me happy.:D

That's just a small list. There's many more reasons why I choose (K)Ubuntu over XP (and OSX, though I have a much, much higher opinion of that OS).

In regards to dual-booting, I've decided to keep XP for now, but I won't be bothering with Vista and I foresee myself stopping all use of Windows in the future. As much as I like PC games, I violently hate DRM and the shady, unethical crap that goes on with it. I've never stolen a game in my life, so why do companies like StarForce need to install anti-piracy systems on my machine? So I'm a criminal for purchasing their client's products?

I've decided that for me, game consoles are the answer. If it's going to be loaded with copy protection, might as well keep it on a closed system and away from my data. I'll keep my computer my own. Free, secure and moving forward.

sitedesign

April 10th, 2006, 06:38 PM

I have been using linux for about 5 years now, dual booting with windows XP for most but switched completely at home to ubuntu since 5.04.

I still have to keep a copy of windows on a hard disk just for loading tom tom onto my XDA.

Games I just use my Xbox for that (have put linux on that too just to spite plus the media centre on it is great).

I mainly switched to Linux due to the virus threats, having an antivirus system running just slows the machine down (paying for extra computing power just to protect it sucks).

Switched my wifes laptop to ubuntu and put the task bar at bottom with a start button so it looks just like *******, she hasn't noticed yet. I had put open office on her windows for 6 months prior so she wouldn't spot the switch.

Productivity wise I find great programs in Linux that are free and very useful, CD burning and DVD editing etc.

It would be great if the software giants started to produce version of their commercial programs for linux as well, I am sure I could switch most of the systems at work as well (Photoshop, Dreamweaver etc).

lone_marauder

April 10th, 2006, 06:43 PM

I just recently ditched XP completely and have begun using Linux exclusively on my work laptop.

Reasons:

- Application availability. Windows is a OS only. There is nothing remotely similar in function to the synaptic package manager. There is no central source for Windows software - I have to download or buy as I go and take my chances with malware and viruses. I also have to pay for every *little* thing in Windows. Want a word processor? Cha-ching. Want a graphics editor? Cha Ching. You can't even get a broad spectrum decompression tool in Windows without having to pay for it! In fact, because Windows holds absolutely no regard for user applications, I wonder how much QA really goes in to making all of them work? I know that people like the Ubuntu maintainers look at all the applications in synaptic to make sure they play nice with everything else. Does anyone do that with Windows? Can that by why Windows slowly degrades over time and becomes unusable?

-Ease of use; polish; consistency. The things I need to manage a Ubuntu system are easily and sensibly located. With Windows, some things are in control panel, others are in adminstrative tools, and some critical functions are spread out into other tools - like right click-manage on the computer icon. For example - in Windows 2003, IE comes by default unable to access the Internet. To correct this behavior, do you go to IE preferences, or maybe tools? No. You go to system level - add/remove programs - just to make one simple configuration change in the way IE behaves. It's crazy. There's no consistency at all. It almost seems deliberately inconsistent. Just look at the registry! A centralized database with system and application settings would seem to be the hallmark of consistent design. But how is the registry used by Windows? Most registry entries are deliberately obfuscated. Information related to a single application is spread among many different branches, and each datum is bizarrely named. The natural consistency the system would seem to offer is destroyed - obviously intentionally.

-reliability and performance. You never have to reboot Linux to solve problems. Documents do not rot. The machine does not become inexpicably slow after running all day, or gradually slower over a long period of time - such as a year or so. The computer simply does what I need it to do, every day. The system is also much faster than Windows. There is no waiting around for something to happen in the background before the mouse will start moving again. I can do multiple things at once without the system slowing to a crawl. In fact, in my office, I've been able to use a machine known to have massive overheating problems with other users - the Dell 5150 laptop, much longer than anyone else. This is because mine has not cooked itself yet. The system runs cooler with Linux because the processor is not working as hard. A booted up and runnning Windows system will usually run the fan at its middle speed constantly, and often crank up to full for several minutes. As I sit here and type this, my fan is running at idle. I can barely hear it. The only way I can spin it up is to cat /dev/random to /dev/null or something like that.

-security - Using Windows is such an inherent security risk that it almost stretches the bounds of sanity to talk about using Windows for anything related to a business. Anyone remotely connected with IT knows that security is the watchword for our day. Of all Windows' weaknesses, its single most devastating failure is indisputably security. Billions of dollars have been lost to the great Windows uber-worms and viruses, and they just keep coming. At the time of this writing, there are no less than 2 unpatched Internet Explorer vulnerabilities which are actively being exploited in the wild and which can result in the total takeover of an affected machine. How is it reasonable to even consider using that as a personal computer, much less for business.

Clearly, and this is going to sound like a troll but it isn't, Windows is not ready for the desktop. It is not ready for anything. It is the single worst possible solution anyone could use in any category of IT. A comparison to Linux is therefore meaningless. Windows is self-evidently a train wreck. The sooner the world stops using it, the better.

WoodyMahan

April 11th, 2006, 12:59 AM

Because My Dad, my brother, and I can get together and talk about all the new little tweaks we have found while playing around with it. So in short, Linux promoted family values.

hoarythehedgehog2009

April 11th, 2006, 02:39 AM

Switched my wifes laptop to ubuntu and put the task bar at bottom with a start button so it looks just like *******, she hasn't noticed yet. I had put open office on her windows for 6 months prior so she wouldn't spot the switch.
How do you do that?:) I would like to know...
Thanks

LMP900

April 11th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Because I love to learn. I use XP, OS X, and Ubuntu... so far OS X is my favorite but I'm still new with Ubuntu and it is slowly becoming my new favorite.

Sidk

April 11th, 2006, 06:30 PM

i use linux because there is less spying :p :p

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30877
http://www.okgazette.com/news/templates/cover.asp?articleid=423&zoneid=7

This is the reason why I'm moving platforms

newbie2

April 11th, 2006, 08:24 PM

This is the reason why I'm moving platforms
"A third key?!
But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders."
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5263/1.html
"The European Parliament reports have sparked Continent-wide anger. Questions
have been raised by officials in Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Holland,
while the Swedish government has launched an investigation into whether
Swedish companies have been victims of covert NSA surveillance.
In Italy, a Rome deputy district attorney has opened an inquiry to determine
whether NSA activities violate Italian privacy law.
More important, perhaps, the reports encouraged France and Germany to lift
their restrictions on the use and sale of strong encryption software, which
Washington has been trying to limit."
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1999-September/005968.html
"Germany's Bundiswehr is banning Microsoft software (and presumably other major American software packages) from use in critical environments due to concern over "back doors" suspected to have been placed for the use of U.S. spy agencies, particularly the NSA (National Security Agency).
China, last year, declared Linux, particularly the home grown Red Flag Linux, the official operating system for Chinese government and commerce due to similar security fears."
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010318.html
:rolleyes:

eshcodon

April 11th, 2006, 09:34 PM

It is a good question: XP or Linux? I just installed Linux on my PC (laptop) and dual boot. I enjoy using them both. Additionally, after learning how to mount my NTFS partition I have not used Windows for two days. All the files I need are accessible.

I like the freedom with Linux; however, I am still learning. I get frustrated on installing files and not be able to use. I am sure learning how will come with time.

Compucore

April 12th, 2006, 06:17 AM

The reason why I still have one machine with windows 2000 pro over here. And two linux machines over here. That Linux came with the compilers, office suites, and games by default. (And that are not those that you can easily go into ad just highlight which ones you want added in via add/remove programs.) And what you need as for other software. You do not really have to pay for the software. Where as windows when you buy a new computer. The software that they preinstall are not as good the regular offices suites that you would buy. And see your credit card melt when you initially get them. And thats extra that you have to pay for. Here with Ubuntu you get it all on one cd. ANd what is not available on the CD. you can easily download it from Ubuntu. And give or take a couple of megs. Windows 2000 default install is about 1.5 gigs. Where as Ubuntu linux by default is 1.8 gigs including the software that is on there.

Compucore

Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Lin-X

April 12th, 2006, 01:00 PM

The person who owns your operating system, owns your computer, and no one who uses MSWindows owns their operating system, except Bill Gates.

BoyOfDestiny

April 12th, 2006, 01:52 PM

The person who owns your operating system, owns your computer, and no one who uses MSWindows owns their operating system, except Bill Gates.

For many people of "zombied" boxes, malware and trojan writers own [read as pwned] their machines too.

dasunst3r

April 12th, 2006, 02:07 PM

I remember the days when I installed Linux for the first time. I was surprised at the things I could do, and it just stuck to me despite all the difficulty I had to go through.

I could fairly say that I use Linux because it is:
1. Something spiffy to use
2. Great for someone who is serious about learning more about computers
3. Secure from many viruses and security issues
4. Costs little to get (if you want to be extreme, $60 per computer)

sitedesign

April 17th, 2006, 10:05 PM

How do you do that?:) I would like to know...
Thanks

Fairly easy.

First right click on the bottom task bar and remove it (delete panel).
Then drag the panel from the top to the bottom.
Then remove the bar (right click on it and remove)
Then right click on the panel and add to panel (add a main menu and any other items that you like such as a recycle bin etc)
Also make sure you add window list set to the bar, plus a few seperators to tidy things up.
Next have a hunt to change the icon for the menu bar, refer to this post:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=156462

phewl

April 18th, 2006, 07:18 PM

[QUOTE=Slicedbread]If it wasnt for the games I could dump windows entirely but i play games on a whim and I hate having to restart just to play it. I could get used to the complexity of it.
QUOTE]
you could play games with ubuntu, i have found that out very easly and it was done fast, most of the drivers were loaded when I first installed, all i had to do was install the ati drivers and i was set to go, doom3 runs smooth as **** and quake 4 runs very nicely, the only problem i've had is with wine trying to use steam applications and games(counter-strike source)but i will soon be trying that with cedega, if you have a nvidia card it would be even better with all the support of the drivers, im sure you could and definately should make the complete switch from windows to linux, i have, and i would recommend ubuntu to anyone who wishes to do so. good luck my friend](*,) :evil: :-D :eek: :D

not28

April 18th, 2006, 07:29 PM

I used windows XP on a custom-built machine for over a year without any problems at all. It crashed recently because I tried dual-booting Fedora :-/

Basically I'm trying Linux because I want to teach myself how to use it. Everything I've learned about computers I've been able to teach myself, and opening up to the open source community will let me teach myself even more. I don't really see why I would use Linux exclusively (to be honest I find OS X to be the best out of all three major operating systems), but it's ridiculous to keep myself ignorant of all its features and benefits just because it's not as widespread.

Omnios

April 18th, 2006, 07:33 PM

My personal perspective is XP is a Tool and Linux is both a Toy and a Tool so therefor much more fun to use.

white_tiger_daniel

April 19th, 2006, 06:11 AM

I use linux over Windows (especially :evil:XP:evil:) because I hate Micrsoft and Bill Gates. It must be hard making a free operating system while Bill and his cronies are trying to snuff out the flame of open source. XP is just a plastic and foam rubber shell on an OS made of cotton wool.

Go Linux!

D

jerrad.brown

April 19th, 2006, 06:28 AM

I use linux for "network troubleshooting," I mean sure, there's generally a Windows port of many of the tools used, but sometimes they don't work quite the way you would like... such as nmap... if you run WinXP and try to scan against yourself, it gets angry.

I don't think Windows is a bad operating system, I mean common, they have DirectX... thats a fairly great achievement. Although I am looking forward to ReactOS, however, until then, I'll stick to this OS that I enjoy and dual booting with Windows.

btnheazy03

April 19th, 2006, 06:33 AM

no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.
that deserves a quote

Kishajnalka

April 19th, 2006, 08:36 AM

I can NOT develop anything in windows, so just use linux to it... and to hear music, to watch my dvd-s and to get relaxed from the multicolored xp. BUT my modem still doesn't work under ubuntu, so to get here, I switch to windows. I don't hate it, but I'm sure, that to try the new one (Vista), I won't buy the needed hardware and will leave them (hopefully forever). Have some months to get me online on linux. :-))

Costas

April 23rd, 2006, 07:24 PM

1) no viruses
2) no adware - spyware, etc
3)much better environment for office applications
4)never again having your pc crashing
5)free software/knowledge
6)advanced programming
7)not all programms run on windows....have you tried programms that need the Lapack libraries?
8)tired of MSw...the same over and over again...money makes the world go round...

Golden Warrior

April 24th, 2006, 12:46 AM

Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

Absolutely!

Another thing I hate about Windows is all the forced integration with everything and the really poor users and groups setup. One should never be a local administrator on the machine by default. It's a huge reason why all those viruses spread so easily.

Meanwhile in Linux we can do everything we need to do for everyday use and only use administrative priviledges when we absolutely have to. Hence we are already shielded from the start. ;)

Nordoelum

April 24th, 2006, 12:54 AM

aysiu

April 24th, 2006, 12:57 AM

Because Linux can never replace Windows. Not for everyone--but it has for me. Likewise--Windows can never replace Linux for everyone either.

Nordoelum

April 24th, 2006, 01:03 AM

I don't see no reason for not using both!(?)

aysiu

April 24th, 2006, 01:07 AM

I don't see no reason for not using both!(?) Well, if you don't need Linux, there's really no reason to install it. If you don't need Windows, there's no reason to install that either.

You're right, though--if you want to install a dual-boot, that's always an option.

Everyone can be happy!

AiBo

April 24th, 2006, 01:32 AM

So I dual boot on both computers I use on a regular basis. At work I use 95% linux and 5% when I need to use an Adobe product...another evil empire if you ask me! At home it is reverse 95% windows, 5% linux (to check my work email). Why because at home I play games and use iTunes.

So anyway this weekend wanted to scan something. Had an old scanner from back in the day. My windows partition is fairly recent thanks to a virus one month ago (something that I never worry about on Linux). No drivers for the scanner, everything online is no dice. Then after beating my head against the wall for 1 hour and rebooting no less then 8 times, I boot into Linux. Recognized right away, no additional effort needed! Scan, gimped and away I went. Very nice! Isn't Linux suppose to be the one with hardware support problems?!

bilange

April 24th, 2006, 01:36 AM

(the) ability to play formats other than mp3/aac.
I know this post is from long ago, but let me add that foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) is the way to go on Windows-- supports so many formats that its not even funny.

and most importantly, you are forced to install quicktime if you use itunes. quicktime is a worthless annoying POS.
You know whats strange? If you want to download and use quicktime , you have to download the iTunes+Quicktime package-- but if you look closely in the download pages, theres a small link "quicktime only". Thats sad, isnt it?

--

Back to the main topic.

Ill answer to that with an example.

I have a TV Tuner with FM Radio support, and I wanted to record some humorist who broadcasted his two-minutes sketches on air, everytime of the day on weekdays.

Thats a hell of a task: record from the FM Tuner, save as a .WAV file, crop the 15 minute WAV file so I keep only the humorist part, encode and correctly name (tagging) in MP3.

Try to automate that on Windows!! I managed to get it working, but using commercial software, unfortunately. That, and I had to manually add the correct informations/tags (artist name, title) inside the MP3 file, to the best of my knowledge.

With Linux, and using only free software, i was able to get it working automaticly-- the only thing that needs human intervention is to crop the 15 minute .WAV file to keep only the interesting part.

Now thats flexibility! :D

aysiu

April 24th, 2006, 01:38 AM

Isn't Linux suppose to be the one with hardware support problems?! Well, basically, this is how it works...

In Linux:

If it works, it works like magic--you don't have to do anything; it just works.

If it doesn't work, be prepared to go online here, describe your situation, ask for help, edit configuration files, be frustrated... possibly find out there is no solution and that you just have Linux-incompatible hardware.

In Windows:

If it works, you usually have a CD that came with the hardware and you have to tell XP to locate the driver from the CD, and then it works--you might have to reboot.

If it doesn't work, you'll have to track down that driver from somewhere, but if you find the driver, you're usually okay.

Nordoelum

April 24th, 2006, 02:52 AM

I am using Windows XP on a regular basic, mainly because of WoW. And I isn't that good with linux yet. Dual-boot yes.

And I am installing SUSE Linux now in an virtual enviroment. Using Parallels Workstation with Windows XP.

Of course there is a reason to use both. Since Windows works as a desktop. Linux is good for server.

Strid

April 24th, 2006, 03:00 PM

My computer is hooked up to a lot of coumputers in a huge network in the building where I live. I have 100 mbit internet and all, so that is fine. The problem is when you try and install windows, the average time before I catch a virus with no antivirus and no updates (becaus I just reformatted my computer and wanted to download updates and antivirus) is far less that the time it take to get virus-proof.
The ammount of viruses that wants to get to my computers is so high because other people don't take care of their own computer so they try to infect the computer of others (me :)).

Ubuntu doesn't catch viruses. I don't play games and I can get all the programs I want. The only thing that keeps me from deleting my windows partition is the occational homepage that for some reason doesn't work in Firefox aswell as the TV-out on my graphics adaptor. And, what the ... - if I wanted to, I could probably make this work. :)

Also, I don't recall the last time my Ubuntu got a 'blue screen' or similar. It simply haven't ever locked up for more than a year now. I've been using, first warty, then upgraded to hoary when it came out. Upgrading to dapper when it comes out - perhaps. My computer works fine as it is, so I'm not sure if I'm going to do that. It works - don't try and fix it!

But the main reason is ... I'm able to say that I use Linux and make people go "Whoa!". I love to be diffrent. :)

shane2peru

April 24th, 2006, 03:13 PM

Why do I use Ubuntu/Linux? I'm waiting for the day that Linux will tumble the worldwide monoply that Windows currently holds. The reason I don't switch to 100% Linux, is because it is still lacking in software that I use on a regular basis with Windows. Palm (I sync with ACT and Quicken) - ACT!6.0 (PIM & Calender my life organizer!) - Quicken - are my main work programs. Yes, Linux has it's program equals, but it is like stepping into the dark ages after using these programs. And the others don't compare. I use Linux for fun, and learning, hoping that in the very near future it will come up to speed and take yet stronger foot hold in the world.

Shane

BoyOfDestiny

April 24th, 2006, 03:16 PM

darquemeye

April 24th, 2006, 04:16 PM

Ive hated windows for some time. I was always virus and spyware scanning, only to find that the thing wasnt supported or found by all of the 9 virus removal programs i have.:mad: It was a weekly event. some times id spend 4 hours trying to get rid of one piece of spyware. And once you get them your computer gets so bogged down that it feels like youre running at 300MgHz. I have 5 users on my computer and with 4 out of 5 being pretty much computer illiterate, you can imagine the havoc that is wreaked on the computer. you turn on the pc and then 2 1/2 hours later... it finally logs in.](*,) but when i boot ubuntu. It boots right up and theres almost no waiting. IMHO ubuntu is lightyears ahead of anything windows could ever produce and the simple fact that it is free and still kicks butt proves that. now i just have to convince the rest of my family that ubuntu is the way to go. 8)

shane2peru

April 24th, 2006, 04:27 PM

BoyofDestiny,

Yes, I'm currenlty running ACT in wine, and Quicken as well. I haven't dared branch out and get my palm syncing with all those apps under wine yet. That is a big step and with a lot of danger involved of messing up data. I do have everything backed up, however I use this data every day, and need it, it isn't something I care to play around with. It was a big step to run those programs in wine, and then run off the same database, which I'm doing (a little risky). I just updated Quicken and haven't updated on Ubuntu yet. Also it would include running installing Pocket quicken with wine. I have also found that wine doesn't run the programs like in windows, there are a few bugs with it, and my dialer (to make phone calls) doesn't work with linux on Act since my modem isn't configured with linux. Over all there are many little problems that hinder work, and progress. So meanwhile I continue to dabble with Linux and would readily reccommend it for those who only use a computer for email, internet and word processing!

Shane

swpalmer

April 24th, 2006, 08:44 PM

This is a very good question.

I've been trying to get Ubuntu to work properly for a while now.
It doesn't.

The SMP kernel crashes. (Breezy & Dapper)
The latest Dapper updates keep reseting my mouse position to the lower left area of the desktop - making the UI almost impossible to use.

Previously i have tried Slackware (long ago), Red Hat, SuSE...

I like Ubuntu because it is full of less crap... and the Debian basedpackage manager appears to be better.

But ultimately Linux has been a more frustrating experience that Windows when I just want stuff to work out of the box.](*,)

Not having much in the way of malicious software is one bonus for Linux... but not working very well in general and being tedious to configure is one major bummer.

Rik64

April 25th, 2006, 04:23 AM

I'm greener than Spirulina re: Ubuntu/Linux-but I just aquired the latest Ubuntu program and will install on a brand new drive-also might upgrade motherboard-tower soon etc.[ double boot best for us greenies?]
You sound like an adventurous rebel(I am a rebel in the sense that I am so disgusted witht he MS monopoly)-which is why I am asking you:
What is the quickest way to become facile with the Ubuntu language and overall knowledge base?
I don't have a clue what Hoary and Dapper and Breezy are all about-
Help?
thanks, Rik

srenkert

April 25th, 2006, 05:06 AM

I am trying Linux in the form of ubuntu for 1 reason. It's legally free.

If you are running "free" copies of Windows, are are safe about how you compute, then you are in the clear, other than being illegal.

Also, there is really nothing (aside from popular gaming) that you can't do on linux. Free and Legal.

deadgobby

April 25th, 2006, 06:38 AM

Well with one thing, you so not have big brother micro soft installing spy ware. It only going to get worse with Vista version in 2007. Like if you want to burn some CD's or rip a DVD in the state for example. Once you are on the net, it going to send a message of your wrong doing. Not only that, if you want to install like Open Office. It is not going to let you. M.S. is one big ***** and scared of any thing that may kick its' *** around the block. Cripes, MS want to lobby US congress on Linux. Well mainly cause the hackers use linux to hack Micro soft. Here is some proof in the pudding.
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-winvista
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=review-winxp
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17162
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3946960552.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/
Now you can take and give. I hate why people ask why change OS systems. You need to know one thing the Linux is not windows. You cannot do things you like to do on windows on Linux. That is like trying to mate with a cow and hoping that you spawn a child from some god. Linus is far better than Windows and it is going to surpass windows.

stalkier

April 26th, 2006, 01:41 AM

I have been using various versions of Linux off and on for a couple of years now and I have to say that I can see the definate advantage over Windows OS. I am still a noobie at Linux though I know enough to get around (barely). I am currently in college and have kids so time isn't something I have a lot of to learn a new OS. I have been dualbooting on both my Compaq Presario desktop and now my Compaq Presario V2000. I have Ubuntu 5.10 installed on my desktop and Dapper Drake installed on my laptop. Everything works superbly except for the WiFi on my laptop. One of the downfalls of Linux I guess. I will get it going eventually though.

John

nudnik

April 26th, 2006, 07:44 AM

I wanted a secure alternative I could run alongside Windows where I could enjoy some measure of privacy without constantly checking for spyware, viruses.

For these reasons it is probably best to deal with financial matters and email via Linux.

I beleive the Ubuntu team and those of many other distributions probably have more respect for me as an individual, for my rights, than any US corporate giant, and will not sell my vital organs to the highest bidder.

I think that with enough education, I will be able to customise the system and whatever open source software I require in such a way that I will be able to build my ideal hard-software configuration.

The Nudnik's Nudnik

bb002

April 27th, 2006, 07:14 PM

Windows only exists on my machine to run programs I can't get running with wine and run to slow under qemu. The qemu problem is major jerkyness with games refreshing the screen and the old clunker of a video card it emulates.

tc10b

April 28th, 2006, 01:32 AM

Just my two cents.

I am a complete beginner with Linux, I have no pretence about that, I can get it to do what I want (just about) and that's all I need and if I need more I will be able to get it easily, legally and freely from Linux!

Windows, I have found is unstable to the extreme, plug in a piece of hardware it doesn't like it freezes, one of the main reasons I switched to Linux was the constant need to have to reboot thanks to a Blue Screen of Death.

As far as Wifi goes it is worse it windows than in Linux. In Linux I plugged in my card and away I went on the net. Tried to do the same under windows and had to waste time with drivers etc.
Another advantage to Linux is that if you have a problem there is a public forum like this one, where you can discuss it and get answers, quickly and again for free. Unlike complicated long Windows "Technical Support Lines" which cost you a small fortune and aren't very helpful.

The main thing I love about Ubuntu is that I can just install it and 99% of what I want is already there and the rest can be downloaded from the repositories for free, and that even with all the applications I have installed only half the space is used on the linux partition.

OK Linux has it's downfalls but it's the way forward and I'm happy to go in that direction. I like part of a community and that I'm wanted, rather than just another cog in the corporate machine.

Mr Green

April 28th, 2006, 10:32 AM

Still dualbooting Windows/Linux since gaming on Linux sucks. Especially the fact that alt-tab or the volumecontrol on the keyboard don't work when playing fullscreen games.

Windows games under Wine is just terrible, at least resourcehungry games.

facefur

April 28th, 2006, 06:33 PM

I made the switch while I still had Win98SE on my machine. It had become so unstable that I could not rely on it for anything requiring networking, and having to reinstall periodically (which, amazingly, is actually a recommended parctice) was a true PITA.

I did NOT like either RH or Mandrake, but when I installed Ubuntu, I as amazed at how far the desktop had come and how much better the drive support is. I'm now a Breezy user.

I've just converted "upward" to WinXP Home, and it is far superior to Win98 (but then again, almost anything is). I unfortunely require some Windows version to run my engineering CAD program (TurboCAD) which is non-functional with WINE, to run Quicken, which is marginally usable with WINE, and to use a couple of small freeware programs that only function in Windows.
ADditionally, my daughter's online college program is bascially tied/lashed/super-glued to Windows, so for the time, it's dual boot.

For normal use, there is nothing else I can't do using Linux as the OS.

SpEcIeS

April 28th, 2006, 11:00 PM

As said above... FREEDOM. M$ does not offer that, or to say.. at a price it does. An inflated price. Is Windows XP, or Vista for that matter, really worth the money spent? Personally I would rather have freedom and more access to hardware.

Anyway, what is M$ hiding when they do not publicize their code?

I own a copy of Windows XP, but rarely use it. When Vista comes out, whenever that is, I will walk right past it and smile. ;) Besides that little bird told me that dual booting in Vista is not going to be possible. Well, until some smart linux user cracks their stupid efforts to stop freedom.

aundwer

April 29th, 2006, 02:51 AM

I don't have Windows XP, and thank god for that. What I do have, is Windows 2000, which I consider is both the first and the last reasonably good operating system coming from Microsoft. The only problem is that it is getting old now :(

I have never used my computer for playing games. You wan't to play games? Buy an X-Box or a Playstation !#!

As stated "above" (and probably "below"), there are a whole lot of reasons to switch your OS to Linux (if you don't use your computer to play games).

I will make the switch this summer (Dapper), and I don't think I'll be looking back.

groggo

April 29th, 2006, 02:52 AM

Ok ill go from the start

Windows Security Flaws
Windows Screen Freezes
Inability to run normal every day apps
Continous security updates which inturn open new ones
pricing that sugguest a solid product but in fact another beta
no flexibility in use of o/s portability
ramming the ms produced products down our throats
Restriction and hard coding out of some 3rd party software

ok thats just for starters

i was a happy user while the win 2000 pro was around it was a solid o/s

then they went backwards reviving the lame ME gui and xp lagware and bloat ware

Now i started out on

Ibm 286 running dos
Ast laptop 486 with 3.1 for workgroups
Compaq 486 win95
pentuim 166 runing win95 then win98
pentuim 2 350 running win98se then win2000 (after reflashing the bios to fix a com port conflict)
pentuim 3 500 win2000
pentuim 3 733 win 2000 then Suse linux 8
Pentuim 4 2.4 win xp then redhat 9 / fedora core 5 /Kubuntu breezy/ Unbuntu Breezy
Pentuim 4 3.0 win xp then redhat 9 / fedora core 5 /Kubuntu breezy/ Unbuntu Breezy

now im still learning the penquin (linux) but after all that over the years

i have

3 licenced winxp cds
2 licenced Win 2000 cd
Every version linux has released in the last 3 months gotta love big pond

To end it off no i probably wont go back to windows :mrgreen:

aundwer

April 29th, 2006, 03:06 AM

i was a happy user while the win 2000 pro was around it was a solid o/s

It still is, Groggo :)
But it is getting old, and eventually, there will be no more security updates for it . This was a real problem for me until I found Ubuntu. Now, it doesn't matter anymore! :mrgreen:

Compucore

April 30th, 2006, 06:07 AM

When is that suppose to happen? I know with 98 & 98 SE is coming this summer. They should at least wait until 2008 for that don't you. At least 10 years per OS. ANyways lets not argue that its their decision and not ours here. And we are here as happy campers in our computers and our ubuntu linux. Which ever version it may be.

Compucore

It still is, Groggo :)
But it is getting old, and eventually, there will be no more security updates for it . This was a real problem for me until I found Ubuntu. Now, it doesn't matter anymore! :mrgreen:

aundwer

April 30th, 2006, 10:25 PM

Compucore:

The last time I checked on the $ website, it said that SP4 will be the last servicepack for win2k, although they will continue to support the system with security updates to 2007... After that, the system will become obsolete (when speaking of vulnerabilities).

Hmmm....but as you stated; there is something called "Ubuntu"... Lucky for us, hehehe :)

brickhead20

April 30th, 2006, 11:54 PM

Well it works.

All the time. Though it can be tricky to get working every now and then :D. Basically I use it because the open source world has so much more to offer than a the corporate ogre that is Microsoft. Cooperation rather than profit is the way forwards, and linux is a perfect example of it. Synaptic rocks too.

I still keep a version of windows running for those occasion when I decide I might need it. Its much easier nowadays, I did try a few years back to run Red Hat with a Winmodem, never quite got it working properly, so went back to windows :(. Nevertheless wireless on Ubuntu can get interesting, though perseverance pays off...

mrgotea

May 1st, 2006, 01:40 AM

For the FUTURE...

"They" are watching. The growth of the linux community is a signal of the power of the people. Any way to stop supporting the corporatocracy of America/theWorld is a vote for a better future. $ome companies just make too much money without and should be reminded that the consumer is where the money comes from. We give it to them and we can take it away.

I still use some corporate goods, but I support alternatives when possible.

.. oh yea, ubuntu, it ROCKS!

theking2

May 1st, 2006, 10:50 AM

Basically freedom. You have freedom to do whatever you want with Linux. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, you won't have to pay for the upgrade. There is no professional version with more feature that costs.

Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

As if customizing WindowsXP is not possible. Well it is really the kind of customizing you need to do ofcourse. One cannot recompile the Windows Kernel that is true. Oh and btw I have never payed the Redmond folks for upgrades, they come for free! Which they probably learned from the linux folks. Whereas the linux folks have learned from Apple and MS for usability. I would say 2 to 1 for Windows.

louis_nichols

May 1st, 2006, 11:03 AM

As if customizing WindowsXP is not possible. Well it is really the kind of customizing you need to do ofcourse. One cannot recompile the Windows Kernel that is true. Oh and btw I have never payed the Redmond folks for upgrades, they come for free! Which they probably learned from the linux folks. Whereas the linux folks have learned from Apple and MS for usability. I would say 2 to 1 for Windows.

Linux folks still don't have to reboot their machine for ANY upgrade other than the kernel, whereas under xp you are sometimes asked to reboot even after updating Adobe Reader. So, shall we make that 2 - 2 ? :p

aundwer

May 1st, 2006, 02:39 PM

|...| under xp you are sometimes asked to reboot even after updating Adobe Reader.

That is because Adobe want to have their "acrotray.exe" to autostart (and it might need to be killed and started again after updating). Actually, there is no *real* need to reboot the system after installing or updating a program. A lot of other software also do this ****. Putting some of their software to autostart for no adequate reason whatsoever, and then asking the user to reboot the system after installing or updating...The only thing the end user gets out of this is a longer boot time, bigger load on the hardware resources and a not so nice "bloatware-like" experience...

A look at the process tab in my Windows system reveals that it has 18 processes running after boot and that includes antivirus and firewall.
A clean slate!

The typical Windows system (with no config/customization of the installed software) would have about 35-40 processes!

Astinsan

May 1st, 2006, 07:52 PM

I like it better than OSX on my apple.

stormoog

May 2nd, 2006, 08:11 PM

Because you can turn off anything you don't like. :-D

mohawknate

May 3rd, 2006, 08:25 PM

I've been using Unix-like OSes for about 12 years now; prior to that I was a dyed-in-the-wool MacOS lover. For me, there are a host of reasons to choose Linux over any version of Windows. In fact, the only reason I ever boot into Windows at all is to use a couple devices whose drivers are as yet unsupported in Linux; when I do so I never allow it to connect to the Internet.

Why, you ask? Simply put, because Windows is so deeply, exploitably insecure. Without a trusted copy of the latest virus definitions being preinstalled before connecting to the Internet, you are apt to have a compromised system in approximately 1/10 the time it will take to locate and download said definitions. (As of this writing, the mean time of unprotected system exploitation, from connection to compromise, of a fresh install of WinXP was just three minutes.) Furthermore, Windows is known to "call home" on a regular basis. I do not trust Microsoft at all, and therefore do not wish to have my computer sending them unknown information without my knowledge or consent. And Microsoft's monopolistic stance toward operating systems has made hardware manufacturers repeatedly produce devices whose drivers are Windows-only. I will not support this.

So, enough for the negatives. The nice things about Linux-family OSes are almost too numerous to mention. First, and foremost: Linux is FREE. Almost all the software you can run on it is also FREE. As in, no money comes out of your account, and you still get a phenomenal range of functionality. While the learning curve in transition from Windows or older iterations of MacOS can be somewhat steep, it's getting far better in terms of ease-of-use for the casual computer user. And for the fiddling-prone, it is nearly infinitely customizable, and profoundly powerful to boot. Linux can allow the user to get the very most out of their computer hardware, if they know a bit about programming and system architecture. Perhaps most importantly: the system's underpinnings are not a closely guarded trade secret. Flaws and vulnerabilities are constantly subjected to peer review, made public immediately, and (for those who understand code) easily reparable at home.

OS choice is a lot like religion for a lot of people - it is frequently informed as much by emotion and dogma as it is by a surplus of facts. So I've long since given up on trying to convince anyone of the superiority of a given operating system. However, having actually used the "big three" - Windows, MacOS and the Linux family - I personally have concluded that Windows sucks sharp, scum-encrusted rocks. And it is very telling that the guys in Cupertino have completely changed over to a Unix-like OS also. Their look and feel is superior, which I have long since come to expect from Apple, but there are a few minor things about OS functionality I like being able to manipulate more precisely from the command line that they have chosen to locate in the GUI only; also, their hardware, while very nice, is also very expensive. So in the end, for me, Linux is the big winner - I can run a Ferrari of an OS on my inexpensive hardware and not pay a cent for it.

user1397

May 5th, 2006, 04:57 AM

Here's my story:
I started getting interested in linux when my friend showed me an ubuntu live cd. I thought it was so awesome how a whole os with so much functionality was so easy to get and was SO free. Then I started to get more seroius about it, and after trying the ubuntu 5.10 live cd numerous times for system compatability, I decided to dual-boot with windows xp. That turned into a disaster, because I messed up in the partitioning part and accidentally deleted my windows partitions. I got really pissed off then, but not at linux or ubuntu, at myself. I regrouped, and looked around the room for my options. I had 0 windows installation cd's and 1 ubuntu 5.10 installation cd........So i decided to take the plunge and do a default installation of ubuntu. After about 2 months of software installations, problems, and tweaks, (and i have learned tons about linux and ubuntu through this process) I've got to say I'M AS COMFORTABLE WITH UBUNTU AS I WAS WITH WINDOWS XP. I don't play computer games, and I don't like malware either, so linux is perfect for me. So i'm actually glad i completely screwed up my dual-boot attempt. :D

josys36

May 9th, 2006, 03:18 AM

Hello!

Thought I should write down and share my two cents on this issue. I have used both Mandriva and Ubuntu in the last few weeks, and basically I am impressed with both. It has been a long time since I picked up a Linux CD ( 5 or more years ) and thought well if it going to be just as awfull as it once was? Nope, I loved the install on both installs, and both installs come with enough software to be able to be at least productive. OpenOffice as come a long way, and with apps like GAim you are not tied down to folks like AOL and MS anymore.

OK now for the drawbacks. I have had various problems getting my windows apps that I need to work correctly. Basically I am going to try GEMU and see if that will solve my issue. For one there isn't a good 5250 emulator for my iSeries systems here at work. I have tried IBM's iSeries access for Linux and it sucks. I have tried TN5250 and I hate it too. I would really love to get the real full blown PCCOMM working under Linux. However I think for now I am going to have to resort to running windows in Linux, and just waiting for better products to come out.

I ( like I said before ) tried Linux years ago. Believe me the install was awfull and there were NO i mean NO apps to use. At least with today you have another option at your fingertips that aint a quacking mac or a windows install. I really feel now that there is a good light at the end of the windows tunnel. MS will start to feel some pressure from more and more Linux clients, and after all, in capitolism competition is great!

So keep working on your Linux installs, and please be sure to let Ubuntu know what works great, and what don't work at all. No one is going to fix the issues unless they know about them!

Thanks!

Jason

Hellraiser

May 12th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Mr_J_

May 12th, 2006, 04:31 PM

For me.
There are a few good things about linux over windows.

It's sane in linux, while in windows for some unknown reason stuff like missing Dll's appear a day after I installed Photoshop.
Just an example...

Windows is slower than Ubuntu. Even if I turn everything off in windows it's still slower.

The only reason I still have to use Windows is Flash and Photoshop.
In that order, because if Flash was available natively for Linux I'd forget about Photoshop and use The GIMP.

I don't give a lot of thought about games as I've started to find most of them boring to the spine of me.

Linux is safe, sane, it's faster, and more responsive than windows.
The real question is why do you still go into windows after going threw Ubuntu?

My answer is! I have to.

Unknowndeepness

May 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM

Phew. Howto XGL in windows? ^^

oyvindaa

May 13th, 2006, 08:18 AM

I have Windows XP, but I use Ubuntu because I think it's better.

I use Windows occasionally because my studies require it, but 97% of the time I use Ubuntu. Very satisfied with it.

Reshin

May 13th, 2006, 08:42 AM

Playground. Yes, it gives more freedom to tweaking but aside from that and being free, there's nothing that absolutely would make me convert. I've gotten windows to work just my way. Some of those things can be done better in linux, but what I have is just enough.

3rdalbum

May 13th, 2006, 11:33 AM

I bought a new computer about a week ago, so I've been using Win XP and Ubuntu x86 for about a week.

Ubuntu is much, MUCH faster. It's so EASY to install software on Ubuntu too - on Windows, there's too much "Click the Next button to continue" and "Restart to activate the 120 security updates". Windows even interrupted me while I was playing a game to tell me that I should restart to activate the security patches. I mean, how rude is that?

Windows just has too much feedback. It pops up a notification to tell me that I've connected my ADSL modem, it pops up a notification to tell me that I've disconnected it, it pops up two notifications to tell me that I've connected a flash drive, it pops up a notification to tell me that it doesn't recognise my antivirus software (ClamWin)... for goodness sake, just leave me alone!

Windows also has SO many configuration dialogs... you have to click on so many "Advanced..." and "Properties" buttons just to get to the settings you need. And even then, I can't have Windows automatically log me in on startup. I'm the only user on my computer, yet I still have to click my name before typing my password.

God, don't get me started on Windows. I'm a Mac OS 9 guy and I found switching to Ubuntu to be quite frustration-free. Switching to Windows annoyed me and frustrated me in ways I've never been annoyed or frustrated before.

Can you believe that Microsoft expect professionals to use audio encoding software that doesn't even do BATCH ENCODING without using the command line? That's right: Windows, with its legendary ease-of-use, requires you to use the command-line if you want to encode more than one song at a time. I don't mind using the command-line, I just think that if a tremendously-complicated GUI is provided, it should at least have the ability to walk and chew gum.

louis_nichols

May 13th, 2006, 12:43 PM

Windows also has SO many configuration dialogs... you have to click on so many "Advanced..." and "Properties" buttons just to get to the settings you need. And even then, I can't have Windows automatically log me in on startup. I'm the only user on my computer, yet I still have to click my name before typing my password.

You can download Tweak_UI. It has an option tht can be checked and does it. (Sorry to jump in...)

pb_

May 13th, 2006, 03:43 PM

if u ask me i believe that linux is the best OS but i cant use it without windows because i have trouble with my work that is to develop tin win platforms (.NET) and windows developers is difficult to change to linux OS. but as server i have two ubuntu servers one in my office and one in my home and im very happy that i dont have win server with all problems(format,unstable,spywares and many other..) sorry for my english ..:)

dr_psikick

May 22nd, 2006, 05:19 AM

Is better, safer and more complete.
...If the question was the other way around: IF YOU HAVE LINUX WHY HAVING WIN? I would say just to play Pro Evolutoin Soccer 5!

vinodis

May 24th, 2006, 10:18 AM

mine was not a legal copy of windows xp at home. got rid of the hassle with kubuntu. its working great. i found having a family member wallpaper on your new o/s screen helps in migrating to it faster.
i missed picasa and ultraedit in linux, but is able to run now with wine. now there is no going back to windows.

runes

May 27th, 2006, 12:10 PM

Hi, I was a prevous support specialist in Windows 9x-2000 server

Why switch? Or why stay..

Stay: if you are a heavy gamer..spent $$ on a new video card and the latest game controller with the bleeding edge of audio cards Linux is not for you---yet.

It's been 10 years since I last dabbled with Linux at that time I was running Slackware and Redhat on two different machines spending hours configuring.

Today is different--
I downloaded Ubuntu 64 bit Dapper beta 2 burned the iso, left my windows partition on to migrate. booted into dapper (sound and network all active had to install the nvidia video driver)
set up my basic user accounts in less than 20 minutes

Sadly I wish I had this distribution 10 yrs ago would have save me $$ over windows

Why use Linux (regardless fo distribution you choose)

Security-security-security
when's the last time you saw a posting of a web broswer hijacking Linux? or an autodialer calling 900 and 976 number racking your phone bill with 1000$ or hundreds of smut window popups? When was the last time a Linux user said "oh man I have to go buy office studen version for 150 dollars!!----and since I am programming I have to spend another 100 on the compilers for my class"..and pls tell me why should a browser be ABLE to take over an operating system???? A browser is just that to browse, while some interation is necessary for the os it shoudl not be that integrated! I can understand a green system admin not knowing what to load up in windows or how some configurations work but releasing a beta OS sellign it for 200 dollars then sellign a beta SERVER (2003) with that many seurity holes? nope..I uninstalled server 2003 took the loss on the cash and went to linux..yes it's a learning curve yes it's not that easy--at first..but much more rewarding..no licenses to worry about, support is amazing..you can even go to the point of loading wondows fonts to be compatible with office documents if you really need to...so if you're a games wait a bit dual boot with dapper release and get comfortable...after trying CentOS, Mandrake, Debian (the actual distro) for any window user I strongly recommend Ubuntu! You will need to understand how permissions work/users and groups as it it all nice to have a graphical desktop but you need to learn the commands..if you really feel intiimdate just think of it as a fancy version of what msdos wanted to be :-)

Also if you really have to try playing with windows emoulators to get your games running in Linux if you really want to...it'll give you a good challenge on understanding the OS.

infamous-online

May 28th, 2006, 12:29 AM

well the reason why i haven't dropped windows is things are very easy to do/find on windows. some examples are:

1.java on windows no comparison here
2.most videos won't play in mplayer due to the codecs and such, but they'll play in window media player just like that.
3.program installation: let's face it, if you're not prepared to do work then i'd advise you to stay on a windows platform. it took me 3 weeks and fresh re-install of ubuntu to finally get a hd and cpu monitoring temperature program working. while with windows you just run an .exe or a zip file and that's it.
4.windows gui is nicely laid out, and so it linux but why 2 panels to display all of your stuff though.

i have windows xp on a new machine, and i have ubuntu on my old system. ubuntu/debian is by far one of the best linux distros beside suse that are stable and won't break if you know what you are doing. i dropped fedora for that very reason, i mean when you upgraded the packages using yum, and tried logging into the root account for a quick moment without fail an error saying your login lasted less than 10 seconds would appear!! suse,debian and ubuntu have not done that to me.

ubuntu is the only one i use now for a linux distro, and it's still taking some time to get adjusted to it, because of the switch from rpm's to deb packages kinda throw me off from time to time, but it's not something you can't do.

no way am i dissing linux, but windows still has linux beat in the areas where it matters the most, the ease of use. most want an os, where they do not have to compile and have to worry about missing this dependencies for it and such. so until linux can fix those small woes, then i believe it will become a serious rival in everyday use, instead of just server use.

louis_nichols

May 28th, 2006, 01:28 PM

allow me to disagree in some aspects:

1.java on windows no comparison here
java on Linux and Windows is provided by Sun, so has the same functionality. In my experience, java under Linux runs faster than on Win in most cases. Even if... if there were something java could do under win, and not under Linux, that would not be Linux's fault, but Sun's entirely. Let them get better coders, if they haven't been able to implement all the functionality in both!

2.most videos won't play in mplayer due to the codecs and such, but they'll play in window media player just like that.

Well, not according to this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Media_players). I'm not saying it can't happen, though. But that doesn't show anything else other than the length that some companies would go to force us use a certaion OS. Why can't they use open-source and fully available codecs? Because of money. Inventing tweaks to existing codecs, to make them hard to decode is not that difficult.

3.program installation: let's face it, if you're not prepared to do work then i'd advise you to stay on a windows platform. it took me 3 weeks and fresh re-install of ubuntu to finally get a hd and cpu monitoring temperature program working. while with windows you just run an .exe or a zip file and that's it.
Actually, ubuntu's deb system seems MUCH easier to me. Let's face it: most install kits for windows come as several files, whereas debs are always only one. Once again, though, it's not Linux's fault that a company making a certain piece of hardware doesn't have the decency to release a single deb file containing drivers for Linux, or at least enough info to make it possible to be created by the community, without putting in a lot of effort into reverse-engineering protocols and stuff.

4.windows gui is nicely laid out, and so it linux but why 2 panels to display all of your stuff though.

Actually, again, the XP theme seems to me painfully colored and very rigid, in the sense that customizing it is not possible without third-party software, which is most of times not free. Hell, a windows window doesn't even have a simple but sometimes very useful feature such as always on top! Plus, it will never be that hard to make a Linux desktop environment look like windows, whereas the opposite is not true. As for the panels... that's just a matter of distro choice. Removing a panel is as easy as a right click and a left click. On the other hand... considering the opposite: trying to make panels in windows be transparent for example, or separating the tasks panel from the start button and the system tray... well... I've actually not even seen a third party software be ale to do that

i have windows xp on a new machine, and i have ubuntu on my old system. ubuntu/debian is by far one of the best linux distros beside suse that are stable and won't break if you know what you are doing. i dropped fedora for that very reason, i mean when you upgraded the packages using yum, and tried logging into the root account for a quick moment without fail an error saying your login lasted less than 10 seconds would appear!! suse,debian and ubuntu have not done that to me.

ubuntu is the only one i use now for a linux distro, and it's still taking some time to get adjusted to it, because of the switch from rpm's to deb packages kinda throw me off from time to time, but it's not something you can't do.

no way am i dissing linux, but windows still has linux beat in the areas where it matters the most, the ease of use. most want an os, where they do not have to compile and have to worry about missing this dependencies for it and such. so until linux can fix those small woes, then i believe it will become a serious rival in everyday use, instead of just server use.

compilation is hardly ever needed under ubuntu, and other distros as well. We must also keep in mind the degree of freedom that compilation offers. I'm not talking here about the GNU GPL kind of freedom, but simply the large numbers of software you can use this way, from the OSS movement. This will always be the same under win, too.

vayde

May 30th, 2006, 12:53 AM

I use Linux because it works. I can't say the same for windows in my experience.
I bought a new Dell Inspiron 9300, and didn't want to lose pieces of my hard drive to dell's system partitions, so keeping the default installation was out, I had to reload from scratch.

Installing Breezy took 20 minutes. Installing XP and getting all the drivers dragged over the course of a week. Correction: I gave up before I could get XP installed completely. Gaming would have been nice, but it wasn't worth the hassle.

My small business depends on the software that I have written for it. Every time microsoft 'updates' something, some sort of functionality breaks. In Access, their own help files contain code that doesn't work.

In Linux, my applications are safe- the open source community understands the term 'backward compatibility'. The OS loads everytime I push the bright shiny 'on' button, and there aren't problems. If a problem surfaces, I have this excellent community to help fix it.

dapperjohndoe

May 30th, 2006, 08:10 AM

try listening to music in amarok, try using kontact/evolution for PIM stuff. there are a lot of free linux apps which are much better than windows ones.Are Linux alternatives for Foobar 2000 and Microsoft Outlook available?

(Evolution is nice, however, it cannot compete with Outlook yet.)

John

mdsmedia

May 30th, 2006, 08:32 AM

Are Linux alternatives for Foobar 2000 and Microsoft Outlook available?

(Evolution is nice, however, it cannot compete with Outlook yet.)

John

I don't know about Foobar 2000, but I use Kontact as my PIM, in Gnome BTW. I don't use it as my email client, so I switched the email module off.

I tried Evolution for email and PIM but found it buggy, so I switched to my tried and true Thunderbird. Then I discovered Korganizer and loved it. Then I installed the entire Kontact package and love it even more. Some things could work better, but it does the job (and more).

benplaut

May 30th, 2006, 09:57 AM

free (as in freedom)
speed
not having to mess with much upkeep
No reason not to...

rgavel

May 31st, 2006, 01:02 AM

It's only a matter of time before Vista will become the present day XP. As I don't have Vista, and have no desire to spend oodles of money on upgrades or full versions (I'd need four or more, totalling hundreds of dollars), I'm stuck looking for a viable solution.

That solution presented itself in the form of Ubuntu (99 cent CD), which I installed on my computer a week and a half ago. So far I've left the kid's and wife's machines on XP, mainly for gaming purposes. In time, I fully expect to run Linux on them as well.

I spend a great deal of time mucking about with anti-viruses, firewalls, spyware, and hijackthis logs on clients computers (though I've not had problems with spyware on any of my systems), and it's nice at the end of the day to sit down to a computer that just works.

RayG

AaronThorpe

May 31st, 2006, 03:57 AM

Yea not only all umpteen million posts that preceded mine, Windows and Microsoft might as well be called "George Bush Jr. Jr. Jr."
With Windows Vista, once you install the software, it will capture everything about your computer and send that information off the microsoft so they can put it in a nice little database....probably on your credit report too.
For those, like me, who do not necessarily agree with supporting microsoft financially, but still like to use the software, as most software should be either free, or fairly priced, it's becoming harder and harder..to enjoy freedom.
Anyway, yea, so I work for Qwest, "Who can not publically comment on matters of national security" but if you see what's been all over the news lately, you'll know exactly where I'm going with that :D

celem

May 31st, 2006, 04:41 AM

I've been using Linux in some way since it was downloaded as a series of floppies and there was no GUI. However, I stayed with Windows for desktop use. Every few years I would load the then popular distro to see if Linux was anywhere near ready to replace my Windows desktop. I would try them for a while and then remove the distro. Ubuntu is the only distro that I haven't removed. I feel that Ubuntu is close, bit not there yet either. Despite this statement, I keep Ubuntu (currently Dapper) on a laptop and use it for all of my laptop purposes - mostly web and email. My serious work remains with XP on the desktop. To make the next step to desktop use, Linux needs to be shipped by a major supplier, like Dell. Then, it will be atrue competitor with Windows.

B0rsuk

May 31st, 2006, 05:29 AM

I may have posted in this topic already (not sure), but here's a link to my post in another topic:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1071016&postcount=60

Blind-Summit

June 9th, 2006, 09:47 PM

I've not read all the 60 odd pages, but I'm sure I'm not alone in the group of free M$ OS users. Like I've read in many other posts - can you actually buy a PC system without windows - no. I have to build my own, which is fine as I love doing that. Clearly you need an OS and it's always been easier to get XP up and running and get right into using the PC. I've had ubuntu now for many months and I've used it as much as I could. I realise I've not given it all the time I could have, but it just seems so clonky.

It's taken me 4 days just to install nvidia drivers to get my dual screen working. My wifi doesn't work at all and the fixes I have been told have broken the boot - ubuntu is now useless unless I can fix this boot problem.

I hate how slow XP is, the lack of free software for M$ systems, and the relentless spyware. Viruses and the like are not the threat as I have good firewalls and antivirus - but that slows the system down so much. I had 4 anti spyware / cleaners installed - but not 1 detected this bloody adware I had. I even scanned the specific exe with AVG and it said it was fine. Couldn't remove it at all - and I know my way around the registry, how to scan the exe for dependent dlls and these file killers that supposedly remove the running file from taskmanager and destroy it - let me tell you - they didn't work.

This is why I then love Ubuntu! It's like a protected baby - nothing dares to go near it and you feel safe and clean. Windows conversly is like a filthy ***** of the internet - used and abused!

Then we swithc again - Ubuntu sound support is terrible. I can't get 5.1 output and the sound / video recording and playback seems primative. The packages are easy to install, but then such a bugger to get working to my needs. I've not even dared to try and home studio recording yet!

I love the fact that Ubuntu like others is a community driven package - it's amazing that something this advanced can be developed and distributed by so many great people. I'm so thankful to have this choice. Again, because it's so small compared to the money bath that is Micro$oft, they just can't compete as asily. Driver support is limited to the few companies that spare pity.

I can't wait to get this running and not have to rely as I do now, on XP for the net to bail me out whe Ubuntu goes wrong and I need to login to these forums for help. I can't wait to start getting good at it - to be able to encourage new people to give it a go and to help them get setup.

I love this community because the software and the people using and supporting it have made me feel so welcome. My problems are getting attention and gradually getting fixed.

That didn't really answer the question I guess, but I just wanted to get that out

Alex

nathansnook

June 10th, 2006, 03:58 AM

d.j.schroeder

June 10th, 2006, 04:08 AM

I just started using linux a few weeks ago, even though I have XP on 3 other computers in my house. I did it because:

1) I felt like learning about it, for no very good reason.

2) I wanted to figure out how a simple web server works, and I didn't have to pay or steal to do it with linux. I have Apache2 running and serving some things for a business I own, it works pretty well. I was a little surprised it was as easy as it was.

3) I wanted to build a file server, which is what I installed Dapper on. It works but still has a few issues I want to fix. More to learn I guess.

hawat

June 10th, 2006, 02:03 PM

Im one of those linux freaks who using it all time ( but not for games). Im using it for years now, starting from the end of the 90`s and Slackware as my distro.
The biggest problem that I have with linux is "there is no flash" - some time in the past macromedia was screaming that they will do it... But they not. We are stuck with 7.0 plugin and no way to actually do some flash movies.
But...
I just love programming under linux - it`s probably the most programer-friendly os (well, all unix-like are friendly for programmers).

yes - i have xp... One that comes with my laptop (not used at all), and other one on my "workhorse" that is dualbooting with ubuntu. As I see here in Poland the main problem with windows supremacy is that most people here just use pirated windows - they dont care the cost they didint pay .

ahaslam

June 10th, 2006, 03:50 PM

spiritraveller

June 10th, 2006, 04:47 PM

The main reason that I use Linux is because I feel that it is supported more by my peers and the people in the Linux community are always willing to help one and another. Also when M$ decided to create WMA that had a closed code DRM to protect the content that made my switch even faster.

The single most compelling reason for using Free software (that's Free as in freedom (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html), not just free as in beer) is that my computer should do what I want it to.

If it's my computer, I don't want to let someone else have unbridled control over what it does. And that's what people do when they run proprietary software that is closed source. If only the author can see the code, only the author knows what it does.

Microsoft setting WMA with copy restrictions as the default format is a good example. I know a lot of people who thought they were ripping their CD collection to mp3, only to find that they wasted hours of their time, because Microsoft wanted to appease the record labels by preventing you from copying your own music. Of course, these people could have changed the settings, but the point is that Microsoft set a default setting based on Microsoft's want... with no respect for what the user would probably want.

Another example, the Sony rootkit cd. Why would Microsoft set your computer to automatically run an executable on a cd when you put it in a drive? Because they know it makes things appear more convenient... until something like this happens... Microsoft thinks that the initial cost-benefit of choosing frivolous over-convenience above sensible security works out in its favor... but it obviously does not favor of the actual person using the computer.

With Linux, the source code is open, and not controlled by a monopoly. The incentive is not to create a flashy product that the average dumb consumer will want, but to create something that works well and doesn't expose the user to all manner of security exploits. It may not always be perfect, but at least it has the right motivation.

So even though I do very little programming, the motivation of the people who do the programming is more in line with my motiviation for using the software. And because the source code is open, you're not likely to have things like the daily phone home "feature" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_monitoring_piracy;_ylt=AujEpciXDaznfIp7r oidcYMjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-) that Microsoft placed in Windows XP.

Slicedbread

June 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM

Haha, I started this thread 10 month's ago. I do like the whole gnome customization thing and XGL is sweet, that is why I decided to try it again. I installed Vista beta over it my Dapper but reinstalled xp when I got rid of it because I just did not want to go through the trouble of setting it up for now.

Link (http://browse.deviantart.com/skins/windows/visualstyle/)- You can make it like that, even though that reminds me of the OS X tiger theme (http://osx.portraitofakite.com/).

Don't get me wrong I like Linux and open source but in my case setting it up is a pain. Eye Candy<< Functionality

Edit: Also I don't recommend it to friends because those who can install it play pc games alot and those who can't would probably overwrite their years of useless crap and cry when installing. -I don't feel like being their tech support.

Also I am not downplaying OSS, all my software is either free or opensource, but the linux distrubtions as a whole need to have a compelling reason to make average users switch. Security and customizability are good points to some but then they get a mac which satify their needs or just download the free security software that is out there rather than going with a complete OS overhall.

bsell

June 10th, 2006, 05:43 PM

Also I am not downplaying OSS, all my software is either free or opensource, but the linux distrubtions as a whole need to have a compelling reason to make average users switch. Security and customizability are good points to some but then they get a mac which satify their needs or just download the free security software that is out there rather than going with a complete OS overhall.

I can't run a Mac OS with my hardware. I can run Ubuntu. All my hardware and peripherals worked out-of-box with Ubuntu including wireless. That didn't happen with XP. I had to load the drivers and configure the software to get it to work. It took more time to set up my Netgear wireless system in XP than it did to install and set up Ubuntu. Ubuntu boots faster and runs faster than Windows XP on my computer as well.

I'm not a PC gamer, so that whole issue is moot.

I'm not sure why Linux needs a compelling reason to switch; its desktop ranks have been growing steadily over the years and in some areas - cell phones and servers - it has significant market share.

Windows XP is a solid OS. Quirky, but solid. So is Ubuntu. I just enjoy using Ubuntu more. I'm glad I have choices.

Slicedbread

June 10th, 2006, 06:38 PM

I am not trying to convince you to switch, I was saying that the people I know have crap loads of files that they want to keep or they like playing the latest and greatest games -they would need a compelling reason to overwrite their stuff and install another OS, going through the trouble of installing a new OS for the same functionality (which may or may not support their hardware). If they had security concerns or had trouble with installing drivers I would point them in the direction of free software or their computer vendor's website instead of telling them they need to install a whole new operating system.

bsell

June 10th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Your OP poses the question, why use Linux? I gave my reasons. I didn't think you were trying to convince me to switch. I still use Windows.

I didn't overwrite my Windows files when I installed Ubuntu. I dual boot. I can pull files off either partition in either OS.

Will there be a compelling reason to install Vista? When I upgraded from Win98/ME some of my software and hardware didn't work. I actually had to pay for new drivers. Some software and peripherals ended up on a shelf. Why should anyone go through the trouble of installing a new, non-free Windows OS for the same functionality (which may or may not support their hardware)?

The hard drive with Win98/ME is now a slave drive with Ubuntu on it. Was there a compelling reason to install Ubuntu? Yes, Ubuntu plays nicely with WinXP.

Installing and configuring Netgear drivers in XP for the router and wireless USB took about an hour for two computers. The USB drivers take 20-25 minutes to install from CD. I installed Ubuntu in 10 minutes and had wireless working in 2 minutes.

The point of my reply is that asking why I use Ubuntu when I have XP is akin to asking why I drive an Oldsmobile when I have a Ford. It's a personal choice. Ubuntu does what I need it to and it's fun to boot.

maddbaron

June 10th, 2006, 07:38 PM

after a rough start. i must say linux rocks! best os i ever used and now i was told i can import mac osx to my pc even tho its an amd. if i can do that i am dumping windows quickfast and in a hurry lol...ubuntu and apple and i will be happy!

as for games they can be ported over somehow, wine or something...

microsoft makes u think u need it. but in essence everything there is here minus the bad stuff....i can dig it.

Slicedbread

June 10th, 2006, 07:42 PM

I thought you were replying to my previous comment, I havent been to this thread or forums for about ten months so excuse me for that. I personally like Ubuntu's interface over XP but my desktop acts as a file server right now, and some applications I need to use are windows only. My laptop which is my main computer now has xp because I removed vista and before that dapper- I am unsure if I want to get Dapper up and running again because of my some negative experiences. Broadcom 4318 + linux + firefox + IE only site/Flash 8 = teh suck.

FYI: I would never recommend Vista to anyone, I usually speak against it.

AaronThorpe

June 10th, 2006, 09:12 PM

Not only that, windows keeps itself as the only provider. In 1984 when the federal government split up AT&T for being a monopoly.....seems like the right time for Microsoft. Somehow they dodged the bullet though. Probably payed the judge a billion dollars. Linux, everything is free. Every single program i've used has been free. Think about windows
Windows = $100
Office = $100
Security = $100+
Programming software = $300+

Linux = Free
Office = Free
Security = Not needed...but if it is, it's already included
Programming software = There's seperate software for that?

Microsoft bleeds the population with poor products....that don't work. So to fix the poor product it costs almost double the original amount of the software. Call a tech??? Yea that's like $50 an hour billed to your phone bill. Linux, just go on a forum and there's a whole community for support. People who know more about it than the programmers themselves.
So yea.....bah ramm yooo microsoft

louis_nichols

June 10th, 2006, 09:48 PM

You know, I keep being amaized by this one thing: microsoft antivirus and spyware remover. Separate installers. Free only because they're beta, then you'll have to buy them...

I mean, if they make the damned OS, why can't they incorporate all these in it? How silly is that: I'm selling you a crappy OS, so that I can later squeeze even more money out of you by selling you the security it needs?!

I just can't get this...

vladozan

June 10th, 2006, 10:31 PM

I am using both windows and linux. Linux has its advantages in securitz and honestly it is more fun to "play" with it than with windows. Anyway i miss in linux something like flash player 8 or skype 2.5 and the confort and chance to have everything at hand when i need it. But i am using linux more often and enjoy the community that is around and other advantages as the free live cds and finally the joy of always learning something new about my computer as i am using ubuntu. But well not everyone likes those things and for example none of my friends would leave windows.

spiritraveller

June 11th, 2006, 03:30 AM

Also I am not downplaying OSS, all my software is either free or opensource, but the linux distributions as a whole need to have a compelling reason to make average users switch.

No they don't. You seem to think that everyone wants linux to take over the world. As Linus himself said (http://groups.google.com/group/pt.comp.so.linux/msg/9eb7db59e32fe08a), "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect."

Linux is already good enough for me. And because it is Free software, I don't have to worry about whether a company goes out of business or decides to end support for it. It will always be around, will never expire, and it allows me to keep my freedom and follow the law both in my profession and at home.

It also has gotten me out of the annoying tech support role that comes with being the most computer-literate among one's friends. Now if people want me to help with Windows, I just tell them I don't use it. It happens a lot.

These are compelling reasons to me. You have the freedom to disagree. But of course, if you are trying to change anyone's attitude about Free software and Linux, you have come to the wrong place.

Security and customizability are good points to some but then they get a mac which satify their needs or just download the free security software that is out there rather than going with a complete OS overhall.

So they could go with a complete OS overhaul by buying a Mac... or they can go with a complete OS overhaul by installing Vista (in 2023) and that is somehow going to be easier? Whatever.

When Vista does come out, it is going to result in a huge number of people and businesses switching to Linux, but that's just a statement of fact. Whether it actually takes over and destroys Microsoft, I couldn't care less.

aysiu

June 11th, 2006, 03:33 AM

When Vista does come out, it is going to result in a huge number of people and businesses switching to Linux, but that's just a statement of fact. I don't know if that'll really happen. If it does, it'd be cool.

What I imagine happening is more likely that home users will stick with XP as long as they can, and when their computers get "too old," they'll buy new ones. Guess what will be on those new ones--Vista.

Many businesses fear Linux on the desktop/workstation. Microsoft has them convinced the total cost of ownership will be more because of training issues and whatnot. They will go to Vista, most likely.

bsell

June 11th, 2006, 05:12 AM

What I imagine happening is more likely that home users will stick with XP as long as they can, and when their computers get "too old," they'll buy new ones. Guess what will be on those new ones--Vista.

There are thousands of "legacy" machines in government storage across the U.S. Many of these would be suitable for those who can't afford a new computer or whose computing needs are web surfing, chat, email and word processing. Some could run Ubuntu or Xubuntu and be an adequate replacement for Win98 or XP. The inevitable upgrade to Vista will only add to the growing number of serviceable computers that will never be booted again. I can't help but think of how many people would like to have a computer with a modern operating system, even if ithe hardware is old.

Many businesses fear Linux on the desktop/workstation. Microsoft has them convinced the total cost of ownership will be more because of training issues and whatnot. They will go to Vista, most likely.

The fact that Windows comes preinstalled on nearly all computers sold is a big factor in business adoption. Most businesses aren't going to search for computers without operating systems and can't justify paying for an OS and not use it. If computers were sold without an OS and people had to choose between installing Windows Vista Premium at 140 USD and Office 12 Pro at 500 USD or installing Ubuntu with Open Office, I think people would flock in droves to Linux if they didn't have mission critical software.

spiritraveller

June 11th, 2006, 06:32 AM

I don't know if that'll really happen. If it does, it'd be cool.

Well, I confess that in my excitement, I overstated it a bit. But I do think that in a relative sense, there will be a huge number of people and businesses switching.

That is, "huge" relative to the current rate of adoption. Interest in leaving Windows will start to rise when people see their OS being obsoleted by Vista... and especially when MS stops providing updates for XP and 2000, there will be a lot of incentive to go with Linux.

vladozan

June 11th, 2006, 12:10 PM

That is, "huge" relative to the current rate of adoption. Interest in leaving Windows will start to rise when people see their OS being obsoleted by Vista... and especially when MS stops providing updates for XP and 2000, there will be a lot of incentive to go with Linux.

i would say that Microsoft will invest so much money into advertising (it already does) that many people will not even know what the linux is. (or they will think that linux is even more expensive - i saw this kind of argumentation in one microsoft comercial in some slovak papers).

sbuntu

June 11th, 2006, 03:15 PM

i am tired of Windows.very tired.Sick
Sick of viruses,slow booting and the only thing that prevented me from switching over to linux was lack of much knowledge about unix.

3 months ago i started learning unix and yesterday my boss gave me an old
400mhz and 256mbram pentium II on which i intalled xubuntu.

since i rdesptop to my work computer everyday, i decided to keep my windows machine as a sideby as i wanst sure if linux had something in similar

Did some research on rdesktop for linux and bam! there it was.

Tried it and it works like a champ.

Infact i noticed that rdesktop on this much lower cofigured computer than my windows machine( which has 1ghz speed ) is much more faster and better.

What more,i can now visit sites that contain potential viruses( you know waht i mean.... :) ) without the fear of getting infected

I just love my xubuntu.Once i get comfortable with xubuntu, i would like to try ubuntu,xgl on better,faster computer.

Until then goodbye to windows and keep exploring the whole new world of xubuntu

:)

spiritraveller

June 11th, 2006, 03:16 PM

i would say that Microsoft will invest so much money into advertising (it already does) that many people will not even know what the linux is. (or they will think that linux is even more expensive - i saw this kind of argumentation in one microsoft comercial in some slovak papers).

They have been making this argument for a long time, and it works for them to throw a lot of money into advertising and fool the public. This is the same phenomenon that the big movie studios exploit. They will take a crappy movie and spend as much on advertising as it cost them to make the movie, so that on opening weekend, when the movie opens on every screen in the nation, hordes of people will pay money to see it.

But if it is a crappy movie, attendance will usually drop sharply after it opens and words gets out about how bad it is.

Here, it is the same movie over and over from Microsoft. And I think people have had some time to learn and they will be a little more likely to wait and see if their friend liked it before they spend their own money.

I'm just theorizing... that and 25 cents will get a piece of candy. A part of me hopes that people will open their eyes, but I'm fine with the current state of things as they are. As long as I can keep buying Windows-less PCs from the independent computer stores in my town.

charles woodward

June 11th, 2006, 03:45 PM

I use both Ubuntu and Xp - although I would love to convert ny last PC to ubuntu - but its the only place where I can get my scanner and webcam to work so I use it as a sort of server.

I've read all this stuff about Microsoft, and to be honest I don't think their advertising is key to the problem. Microsfot, some years ago, made hardware manufacturers pay them a fee to be placed on the Mircosoft approved hardware list (why do you think some things like scanners and webcams are diffiult to get drivers for?) - so windows is shipped on almost every make of PC as a default - very few even offer a Linux variant (I think dell does, but only to business customers who buy mutliple machines).

As for Microsoft being cheaper to deploy than Linux, that research was carried oout under a projject sponsered by Microsoft. Funnily enough a project sponsoered by IBM came to the exact opposite (could this be because IBM backs Linux)
But reading in the U.K computer trade press I have read a number of things that suggest Microsoft may be going to far. One is that Vista will require some sort of encruption device, approved by Microsoft, to be included in the PC. Unfortunately this device will rendere the machine invalid if, for example, you replace the hard disc. (this is what I've read). It's something to do with licence keys being tallied with machine and hardware ids. I have also read that the same problem arises if you decide to wipe the disc - for example you want to make sure that there is no private info when you sell the machine. But of course, you then don't have an O.S. so will you be able to sell the machine (Ubuntu?)

It may be that Vista is a step to far - because from what I have read there are so many features in there to prevent piracy of Microsoft software that it will be almost impossible to use.

A note of caution should be raised on this - I remember when 2000 came out - there were similar sorts of rumours and suggestions then .

christopherdorrell

June 11th, 2006, 05:06 PM

I have been trying to love linux for quite a while. (Since Redhat 9). Windows for me has always just worked. Like a drug addict, I have been using Windows up until just recently when I deciced that I was tired of reinstalling Windows every couple of weeks because of program slow downs or file corruptions, and then having to call some dolt in India everytime I re-installed because their piece of crap broke on me and I am only allowed to reinstall so many times. I have tried Redhat 9, Mandrake 9, 10.1, Suse 8.2, 9.3, 10.1, Startcom Linux MCE 4, CentOS 4, Xandros 3, Linspire Five-O and Ubuntu 6.06. My main complaints about Linux have been media codec configuration, hard to make wireless networks work, lack of good programs for making legal back up copys of my dvd's, and lack of hardware support for integrated computer systems ie integrated sound cards etc. I have had the most success with Ubuntu. With the release of Dapper, Linux runs on my Asus nearly perfectly and Ubunu has shown me that Linux has come a long way from the Red Hat days. I had sound when running the live cd, After install I used the forums and found Automatix (Which I recommend to every noobie installing Ubuntu for the first time) and my ati graphics card is working quite well with the drivers supplied by Ubuntu. Also k9copy works great helping me archive my dvd's. I am now loving Linux much more than I was. I only wish Dapper would run on my wifes Laptop, but it is time for her to have a replacement anyways and this time I will make sure I find a linux friedndly laptop. I am tired of paying homage to M$. Mr Bill has seen enough of my money and I plan to never purchase a M$ product again. I want to say Thank You to Ubuntu for saving me from the M$ deamons and I hope to be using Ubuntu well into the future. LTS was a great move for Ubuntu and I hope that this is a philosophy that will be kept up in future releases. Thanks a again for making a great free product that I can actually use daily without fear of viruses, corruption, or spyware watching my every move. I am now commited to using Linux daily. Windows Vista, you are one Ubuntu too late to see my business again.

dapperjohndoe

June 11th, 2006, 05:16 PM

I am forced to continue using Windows XP on some systems because Ubuntu Linux does not support some ATI graphics cards and DVT-B via USB is not supported either... :(

John

bsell

June 11th, 2006, 05:56 PM

Vista will require some sort of encruption device, approved by Microsoft, to be included in the PC. Unfortunately this device will rendere the machine invalid if, for example, you replace the hard disc. (this is what I've read).

You can encrypt your discs and files in Linux now. Strongly, I might add, and without the Trusted Platform Module. Vista is Microsoft's DRM version of Linux security.

It's the Trusted Platform Module (gotta love those euphimisms) that keeps users from downloading copyrighted movies, music and software (http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,124774,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp). The BitLocker encryption in Vista "optionally uses a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to provide enhanced protection for your data and to assure early boot component integrity (emphasis added) (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/c61f2a12-8ae6-4957-b031-97b4d762cf31.mspx)". If you have a TPM, BitLocker will use it; TPM is only optional if you don't have a compatible TPM for BitLocker.

robins_web

June 11th, 2006, 06:40 PM

On my XP box, there are several things I must do on an almost daily basis to keep it running:

1. Check for updates for my anti-virus software
2. Check for updates for my anti-spyware software
3. Read about the latest "improvements" Micro$oft wants to install on my system, most of which cause more problems than they solve.

On a weekly basis, I research what new freeware is available to replace my ever-diminishing array of over-priced proprietary software.

while I don't have to do it, I find myself wondering more frequently with each passing day, "Why do I even bother with ******* anymore?" Answer: mainly because 20+ years of using Microsoft software has gotten me used to being a molly-coddled user who doesn't have to use any effort or even conscious thought to use a computer.

LittleB69

June 11th, 2006, 08:35 PM

Well to me the reason for choosing linux above windows is the price.. as you say there is actually nothing you cant do on linux that you cant do on windows and vice versa... but window scost money and most of the software cost money.. well linux is free and most linux software is free as well

Shonkin57

June 13th, 2006, 03:29 PM

I love Linux... and at times, hate it. I have never loved Windows, but at times respect it, esp. when I want to do something simple (like use a network printer). None other than the esteemed Open Source guru Eric Raymond has bashed Linux lately over the hideously difficult-to-configure CUPS utility.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html

Really a good read, if VERY painful. And I think his reasoning does indeed ring true -- end users are end users, and if we really want people to use Linux we're going to have to come up with way better ways of doing things.

All that said, I dual boot on two of the four computers I have w/ WinXP and Linux (two old boat anchors I use for servers -- they are pure Linux). Linux is, no surprise, a GREAT server OS, despite the infernal print server problems.

Why the dual booting on my desktop box (work) and my laptop (work and home)?

* First, and this is no small thing, having a second OS to in effect "back up" the first OS is just smart, in my opinion. Though putting both OS's on the hard drive is less necessary now, due to the way wonderful "live" linux cds and dvds work to in effect do much the same thing, having a second OS "on board" means when something goes wrong with one, I can go to the other to retrieve files, fix stuff, figure out stuff, and so on.

* Second, when (not if, WHEN) a hard drive finally starts going bad, my experience has shown me Linux is stunningly good at letting me in "one more time" to get data files I may not have backed up. I once dropped this very laptop I'm typing on now, damaging the hard drive. It would not reboot at all to either Windows or Linux. I took the little hard drive to work, hooked it to my windows / linux work box as a secondary drive (unhooked my cd roms for the moment). Windows failed to read it at all, and I despaired. But on a lark I left it hooked up and rebooted into my work machine's linux partition. I got back ALL the data from the drive! (I also tried reformatting it, just for fun, once I'd retrieved everything, but the hardware was indeed hosed and even linux couldn't fix that.)

* Third, as everyone else has said, Linux is free. And let me remind you of the GNU folks' riff on "free" -- it isn't just free as in without cost -- it is free as in freely open to individual and community tweaking, improving, knowing all about the guts of it all (or knowing as much as one wants to, which in my case is often not all that much). It is the idea of an OS that is "our" vs. "their" OS.

* Linux's main weakness is the desktop. It is NOT as easy to configure things and do things if you are someone not wanting to be as "geeky" as many of us on these forums are. But that weakness is also, well, kinda fun for those of us who (a) like computers and (b) enjoy conceptually the visual vibe of Xwindows under Linux, the tweakability of the whole thing, and the edgy sensation one gets as he/she hacks around and (invariably) breaks something irreparably and has to reinstall the whole mess! Sick. I know.

* Finally, I doubt I'll be running ONLY linux any time soon, if ever. But I also doubt I'll ever run solely M$Windows on any of my boxes. If you have ever done so, and suddenly (maybe after a blue screen, or maybe just after yet another encounter with proprietary software designed to keep you from doing it any way but Redmond's way) you feel like "I WANT OUT!!" -- that's why we run linux. And always will?

Shonkin57 ~

k225yt

June 13th, 2006, 04:40 PM

Why? Because Linux is the best computer game ever created ! You spend days building your world and have a chance to build it again and again after each new upgrade. At the same time you can do with it something more usefull than just killing monsters. :razz:

Naglfari

June 13th, 2006, 04:50 PM

I mainly started using Linux on a older, slower system to do my online banking and online billpay. I didn't like the idea of typing my passwords into a windows computer that has software factory installed that is constantly harrassing the firewall, wanting to call people I don't know in places I've never heard of and telling them things that it won't let me in on!!

Breezy had no sound on my "Media Center PC", but hooray, Dapper works perfectly, even working properly with a 5 speaker surround sound system. So now that I've finally figured out how to import my Quicken files into KMyMoney...

...Windows doth be banished!!!!!!

MarkSheely

June 13th, 2006, 05:09 PM

I use linux because its fun. No other reason than that.

Linux has taken me back to the days when computing was enjoyable. Soon, I'll be running linux exclusively, even though I can't get my wireless work (yet).

--Mark

steabert

June 13th, 2006, 11:33 PM

If you have Dapper, why do you use Windows XP? :confused:

I started with linux out of necessity, to edit loads of files at the same time for
my work.
Then I began to do more and more in Linux, and when I realized I didn't need
windows anymore, I formatted the sucker.

However, I still keep it around because of gaming, so that's essentially my
answer to the question I put in the beginning of my reply. :-&

raffytaffy

June 14th, 2006, 05:16 AM

Only reason i ever used windows ....back in early 90's most of the available computers only had windows....since my introduction to linux some time back..i havent used or touched windows:) im not angry at the operating system itself..( even thou it can use a kick in the behind) but for what and who it represents..and im sorry to say...its evil:)

Dr_Deadmeat

June 15th, 2006, 12:33 AM

I have a Windows XP instalation, but I nearly never uses it... It just uses 10gb out of 30gb so I really want to delete it, and I will with edgy eft, but problary I won't delete it before because of my lazyness. I went pure linux when I had hoary 5.10, and I never used 5.04 or earlier...

Anyway, the main reason for me to use linux is that it is funny with chalenges like MS-DOS were (I am only 16 and the only one in my class who knows about MS-DOS =P)... I also use linux because it is free (even though I got a legal winXP copy) I preffer linux and the tweaking possibilities... (my newest project is to tweak ubuntu to boot in less than a minute on a old P3 machine... AKA: my main computer :sad: ) At the moment ubuntu boots 7 seconds faster than a clean WinXP install on the same machine =D

ar0n

June 15th, 2006, 07:19 AM

Whats a Windows XP?
:D

Khannie

June 15th, 2006, 09:32 AM

Wow....quite the contentious thread. 63 pages and counting.

I recently removed windows entirely from my computer.

Having said that, I think it has a few advantages over linux for the average user (stress "average"). Windows is definitely a more user-friendly OS. Definitely. Don't get me wrong; Linux (and ubuntu in particular) is really getting there in the last 18 months or so, but windows is still a fine OS. Cries of linux being more stable are not really an issue IMO. I think that windows has been pretty rock solid since 2K (or possibly even NT4). Granted, the 9X OS's were very unstable, but since they switched to the NT kernel, I haven't had any issues.

For me, I wasn't prepared to pay for XP, and support for 2K is waning. I've also reached the point that I'm capable enough to solve problems that I encounter with linux. I stress though, that it has taken me a /long/ time to get to this point.

Virus and spyware considerations are definitely there. I just don't run any checkers, as I don't need to. I like that. I didn't run any virus / firewall with 2K either though (I did run the occasional spyware check, but for the most part I was careful (and experienced) enough to avoid getting nailed).

In a bake-off....for the average user....windows is still the desktop OS of choice IMO.

/me awaits flames

aysiu

June 15th, 2006, 04:26 PM

Khannie, you say you "stress 'average'" but then use yourself as an example of not running virus checker and avoiding malware.

You're not average.

When you say "Windows is definitely a more user-friendly OS," can you be a little less abstract and a little more concrete?

I can give you an example or two, but I don't think these two examples make it a more user-friendly OS overall:

1. Windows remembers stuff copied to the clipboard when you close an application. Gnome and KDE have implementations of a clipboard helper, but...

A. Gnome's is crippled
B. KDE's Clipper is confusing
C. Both are separate applications that need to be installed

2. When you're in Explorer and within a file hierarchy, you can press Control-F and do a find from within that directory. Nautilus now lets you press Control-F, but it defaults to searching your home directory, no matter where you're currently browsing. Konqueror will search the folder you're in, but as far as I can tell, there's no easy keyboard shortcut for it.

3. Networked computers can be browsed graphically.

On the other hand...

1. Gnome comes with a "show desktop" button standard, and Windows XP does not. Most of the average users I know had to have me tell them how to show the button in Windows (right-click on the toolbar, add the "quick launch" toolbar).

2. Gnome also lets you change the background by just right-clicking the desktop and selecting... "change background." In Windows, you have to right-click and select from the Properties dialogue, which seems like a lot of extra steps for an average user.

3. There's no easy way to show seconds in the Windows clock.

4. Add/Remove Applications is far less intimidating to an average user. (We're not talking power users here--average users.) I actually know people who are afraid to just click through a setup.exe

5. Ubuntu rarely asks you to reboot your computer to have a change take effect.

I could make the lists go on and on for both sides. I don't think it makes any sense to just throw out a blanket (and very abstract) statement like "Windows is definitely a more user-friendly OS."

Give examples and you won't be flamed.

Brunellus

June 15th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I don't think it makes any sense to just throw out a blanket (and very abstract) statement like "Windows is definitely a more user-friendly OS.

Given that the biggest expansion in the population of personal computer users coincided with the dominance of Microsoft operating systems, I think the more valid point is that users are more Windows-friendly by default.

Slicedbread

June 15th, 2006, 09:14 PM

This thread just won't die...

Brunellus

June 15th, 2006, 09:16 PM

This thread just won't die...
Dapper went stable, so we have to go back to these same 'pseudostickies' with every batch of disappointed users.

Dr_Deadmeat

June 16th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Actually it took me 8 years to learn windows. Only 1 year to learn linux and make me more efficient in linux than I ever were in windows... (I am 16 now =P) I also have some MS-Dos experience, and I think that might helped me (3 of 8 years with windows was with win3.11, and as a addon MS-DOS) So I think linux is more effiecient and more user friendly if the user wants to learn linux as much as the user had to learn windows...

MSatterwhite

June 18th, 2006, 06:07 PM

Linux doesn't phone home

Windows does. More and more Windows programs are doing this.

I value privacy - hence dump windows. If privacy isn't important to you by all means continue using M$oft.

philetus

June 18th, 2006, 07:24 PM

If you have Ubuntu Linux, why would you buy XP?

MSatterwhite

June 18th, 2006, 09:38 PM

I wouldn't buy Windows, but I can think of legitimate reasons. Mainly people who do consulting work and have to work in the OS their clients do.

Mr. Wizard

June 18th, 2006, 10:08 PM

>there are a lot... really

>a few practical ones:
>no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called

The word you are looking for is "malware". Ubuntu is not immune to malware. No non-trivial OS is, AFAIK. Windows just happens to be the most egregious example of a poorly designed OS that got popular despite its lack of security and kept growing with security concerns being almost an afterthought until it was too late. Vista promises to be more buggy, bloated, user hostile, and expensive to keep running than any previous version of Windows, compared to other current OSes. Ubuntu, like Linuxes in general, benefits from its roots in Unix, an OS designed by computer scientists for computer scientists (the same folks who brought us C and many other things that make for fast, functional, reliable, maintainable and sometimes even useable systems).

Windows has its roots as a GUI shell that ran on top of DOS, a simple but sloppy CLI-based OS. NT, the first true 32-bit version of Windows, had a lot of good ideas MS took from DEC's (VAX) VMS operating system. If I had any say in the matter, we'd be in a world where VMS and later OpenVMS had become the dominant OS in the marketplace and someone decided to come out with a free OpenSource version of it. I guess the world just isn't ready for me...yet. :cool: But VMS was somewhat tailored to the VAX architecture, unlike Unix and now Linux which seem to port nicely to most any reasonable hardware platform and still work efficiently. The main thing we can thank Windows for is pushing the world in the direction of the GUI interface much faster than it was heading there before. One of the main drawbacks to Linux GUIs is that they add yet more confusion to a marketplace full of GUIs that are needless different from each other.

One place where automotive technology is still far ahead of computer technology is the development of a very standardized user interface. I defy you to find a popular production car made in significant quantities since 1946 (the last six decades) that I can't either just drive or learn to drive within a few minutes. I already know how to use the legacy interface used with a manual transmission and have driven all over the USA as well as a bit around the UK. The point is that operating systems have to do mostly the same sort of things, so why aren't there standards as to how users deal with them?

>you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu

That is a *HUGE* plus! I hate having to constantly reboot Winblows after almost any upgrade or configuration change. This is an area where the design and planning of Unix (and now Linux) really shines through.

>stability. it just _is_ more stable.

Yep. Seeing an important Unix/Linux system that has been up and running, with significant upgrades and patches applied, for many months or years, is not uncommon.

>and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as >you want it, customize it to your needs.

Yeah, that's where I want to be. I just need to figure out the brain-damaged interface. For me, Ubuntu has been a waste of disk space. Linux suffers greatly from the fact that it is not a mature technology. It isn't common or standardized enough that the typical computer user who has little or no Linux experience can quickly and easily figure it out. The only reason I am so interested in Ubuntu Linux is that I *know* it is a more powerful, robust, clean technology than Windows ever has been or likely ever will be. I know too many smart Linux geeks to believe otherwise.

>plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

Good point. Ubuntu does not suffer from being a Microsoft Genuine Disadvantage.

>my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and >ubuntu (everything else)
>go here: ubuntuguide.org

I have been there. It leaves a lot to be desired.

Regards,
FractalZone@gmail.com

P.S. Why does this forum keep logging me out? I have learned I must copy my messages because I'd have to log in again to post them once I've finished writing them. :-( It should just let me stay logged in until I close the browser window. [I just had to log in again, as expected, and am posting this comment quickly so I don't get booted before I Submit my Reply.]

MSatterwhite

June 18th, 2006, 10:45 PM

>you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu

That is a *HUGE* plus! I hate having to constantly reboot Winblows after almost any upgrade or configuration change. This is an area where the design and planning of Unix (and now Linux) really shines through.<

Don't count on that with Ubuntu - although it did work that way with Debian.

dist-upgrade on Breezy left me with a completely unusable system on Dapper. After giving up on fixing it (nobody on the forums had clue how), I decided to reload from scratch. As the installation disk they've got doesn't load, I reloaded Breezy. I'll try upgrading Ubuntu again when the *NEXT* version comes out. They blew it on this one.

If you go read the forums, you'll find quite a few people with the same problems. Lots of problems, no one knows how to fix. You can only do a Debian style upgrade with a fully working next version - and Ubuntu doesn't have one.

bruce89

June 18th, 2006, 11:15 PM

Don't count on that with Ubuntu - although it did work that way with Debian.
Have you tried upgrading Windows, mind you I haven't, but apparently it doesn't work.

The word you are looking for is "malware". Ubuntu is not immune to malware. No non-trivial OS is, AFAIK.
It is a lot more difficult. The only way I can think is getting somebody to modify their sources.list, install the software, and then run it. Even a script would have to get the appropriate permissions.

MSatterwhite

June 18th, 2006, 11:37 PM

Have you tried upgrading Windows, mind you I haven't, but apparently it doesn't work.

I wouldn't even dream of trying to do an upgrade of Windows .... I know a nightmare in the making when I see one. My post had nothing to do with Windows - it was a statement that the dist-upgrade of Ubuntu isn't clean. A quick perusal of the installation forums for Dapper confirms that beyond a doubt.

Mind you, it should work that way. I'd worked on Debian for quite a while before Ubuntu and a dist-upgrade was like falling off a log. Never had a problem with it.

Doing a dist-upgrade on Ubuntu left me with a broken system that no one seemed to know how to fix. Seems to be a fairly common occurrence.

Personally, I think Dapper would have been helped if they delayed it another 6 weeks; it wasn't ready when they did release it.

jbinto

June 18th, 2006, 11:48 PM

MSatterwhite

June 19th, 2006, 12:14 AM

I'm sure it's been said many times before, but as a programming environment. Windows does not come with perl or php or C/C++ compilers, plain and simple. Some may be installed, but in the case of C/C++ compilers, they may be commercial or incompatible.

Using your reasoning, neither does Ubuntu. I *THINK* perl is initially installed (I'm a python type myself), but php and C/C++ most definitely are not. Granted they're only and apt-get away, but they are not on the installation disk. I don't see *THAT* much difference in running a setup program and apt-get.

Of course, the fact that the compilers are compatible and free does go a long way.

aysiu

June 19th, 2006, 12:21 AM

Granted they're only and apt-get away, but they are not on the installation disk. Actually, build-essential is on both setup disks (Alternate and Installer)--it's just not installed by default.
I don't see *THAT* much difference in running a setup program and apt-get. I see a huge difference, especially since you can install multiple compiler (or any) programs with a single command.

If I want several programs installed, I can just type
sudo aptitude update
sudo aptitude install build-essential banshee mozilla-thunderbird firefox acroread kjots krename inkscape easytag gtkorphan gparted ntfsprogs gksu Try installing 13 programs in Windows and see how long that takes you and how many clicks...

Drakkor

June 19th, 2006, 02:16 AM

I think with Bill Gates leaving,and the new Vista OS,(which will have many people having to buy new computers just to run it) will mark a significant people adopting Linux or Macs.

thero

June 19th, 2006, 02:27 AM

I use both since windows is well suited for playing games. I installed windows xp February 2005 and I have not reinstalled since. Windows xp is very fast for webbrowsing and games. I like windows because of that compiz stuff plus some of the software. Both have been good experiences.

ballgofar

June 19th, 2006, 05:42 AM

What about memory management? XP is bloated and will use the page file no matter what. Unless, of course, you disable it. I've got a Latitude D600 with 2 GB of RAM and for work I have to do a lot of demos with Vmware. I do a lot with clustering so most of the time I can get away with running a domain controller and two nodes in VMware at the same time.

Now, if I were to start up a 4th VM on XP it would take an hour just for the start menu to pop up. The system would almost grind to a halt. But on Linux I can get 8 running before I see the same lag. 8!!!!!! And at that point, it is barely using any swap space at all. Did you hear me.....8!!! 8-)

So now I run Ubuntu as my main OS and will never switch back to Windows unless I am forced to by an employer. I then run an XP VM in vmware and keep regular snapshots. I don't even have to keep it updated with patches and such because if I run into a problem, I revert back to the last good snapshot which takes about 5 minutes and I'm up and moving again.

If it weren't for my companies proprietary software for time tracking and expenses, I wouldn't even have XP installed.

Bottom line:

XP=Bloated
Ubuntu=efficient

Also, so far I have tested SUSE and FC5 and Ubuntu is still the winner for my performance.

[S|G]

June 19th, 2006, 06:05 AM

Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

1st reason - Some people might disagree strongly with me on this one. It's easier to install. This might not have been true some time ago, but now installation is pretty straight-foward. You place the CD. Boot. Make 3 or 4 choices, wait 20 minutes and you're ready to work, listen to music (well, mp3 support might take another 10 minutes) and browse the web. On windows you boot, make 3 or 4 choices. Wait 45 minutes. Activate the product online. And then you're presented with a 640x480 video with no drivers installed, your sound card isn't detected and after 10 minutes surfing your computer is ready to go to virus cleanup and adware quarantine.

2nd reason - Linux is a complete system out of the box. After that install, you have a productivity suite installed, browser, media player, instant messengers, image editor and a lot of accessories. On windows, one can hardly call wordpad a text editor or paint an image editor.

3rd reason - Repositories. You want a program, you apt-get install it. I took a while to understand how this worked, but now I just can't live without them. It's incredibly easier to install a program using the repositories than to browser the net, find the program you want, download, install.

4th reason - Flexible. I can actually choose what parts of the operational system will be installed. If I don't need a GUI for a server, I just don't install it. If I don't need server software for my computer, I don't have to have them. Have you ever looked at how many services are running in your windows box?

5th reason - Free. That's actually the last reason. I'll gladily pay for good software, and I have contributed to open source projects before, and will do so whenever I both have the funds and think the project deserves it. I just don't think that paying for an OS that is incomplete as windows is worth it. If windows package included MS Office, decent compilers, graphics tools and drivers for my hardware out of the box, I might consider it again.

Linux is no hassle, mind you. It's actually a lot easier to deal with after you learn its way. If you make an effort and spend six months using it and not a bit of windows, you'll understand that. Maybe you won't be able to play all the games on it, but there are a lot of games avaliable for linux as well.

aysiu

June 19th, 2006, 06:23 AM

']
3rd reason - Repositories. You want a program, you apt-get install it. I took a while to understand how this worked, but now I just can't live without them. It's incredibly easier to install a program using the repositories than to browser the net, find the program you want, download, install. I agree with all your points, but I just wanted to highlight this one in particular.

A lot of users come with the wrong mindset. They think, "I have to have this program. How do I get this program to work in Linux? I used this program in Windows. I need to get it to work in Linux." Or they find (through a Google search) some obscure, natively Linux program that needs to be compiled from source and say, "I need to install this. How do I install this?"

If you have the right mindset, you go the other way around. You always start with Synaptic. Always. And you do a search by Name and Description for the task you want to accomplish--not the program you think you need in order to accomplish the task.

Once you do that, you end up finding a lot of gems. Half the time when people ask me how they can do something, I have no idea. I just do a quick Synaptic search, and that's how I find out how to do it.

For example, someone recently asked for a notetaking program. I didn't even know what a notetaking program does. I still don't. So I just fired up Synaptic, searched for notetaking, and kjots popped up. The person needing the program was on dial-up and couldn't download all the needed KDE libraries, so I did a search for jots just to see if there was a Gnome version. Lo and behold--gjots2.

What did I do when I wanted a bulk renaming program? I fired up Synaptic and searched for rename. I found KRename, a great program. When I wanted a good graphical backup program, I fired up Synaptic and found KDar.

When someone wanted help combining MP3s and the cat command was corrupting the sound, Synaptic popped up mp3wrap and that solved that person's problem.

The repositories are full of wonderful programs, and I much prefer it to searching the internet for programs and wondering which ones may or may not contain spyware or which ones are free or only a free trial with nagware or a free trial for 30 days or free but missing features from the "real" version.

You just have to have the right attitude. Look for a task, not a program.

bsell

June 19th, 2006, 01:29 PM

You always start with Synaptic. Always. And you do a search by Name and Description for the task you want to accomplish--not the program you think you need in order to accomplish the task.

Can you fire up Synaptic and find a good AutoCAD replacement? How about Photoshop (forget the GIMP)? I need Adobe's Shockwave Player to use certain educational websites. Is there a viable alternative in the repositories?

tornhelm

June 19th, 2006, 02:38 PM

I mainly use xp for my graphic editing and gaming needs, with ubuntu for my general internet and downloading ones. My router and WindowsXP really don't get along (especially with bittorrent or DC++) so I tend to switch over because it doesn't mind when I am using ubuntu for it. And because I am more comfortable with photo/video manipulation on xp, I do that over there.

[S|G]

June 19th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Can you fire up Synaptic and find a good AutoCAD replacement?

Well, you can give blender a try for that O:)

Master_J

June 19th, 2006, 05:32 PM

On sunday I a message poped up in windows. We cannot verify your windows key, because your hardware spec has changed too much since installation. WTF i though, I haven't change a god damn thing nor is my key illegal.

On top of that a little program started in the systray with messages like, "have you been a pirate and installed windows illegaly?", messages which indirectely said that I was using pirated XP, even though it's a legal copy. It was like Microsoft stamped me as a low level thief.

I was so angry upon Microsoft for this episode that I changed to Ubuntu right away.

this is why I changed, I will not be stampled as a thief or pirate!

BrokenKingpin

June 19th, 2006, 05:48 PM

I use XP for programming in Visual Studio. I use Linux because all the software I need is free, I also find it more stable, and I use it for C++ programming.

bsell

June 19th, 2006, 05:58 PM

']Well, you can give blender a try for that O:)

Blender isn't engineering software. AutoCAD is (almost) an OS unto itself, and the DWG format is pretty much the industry standard.

aysiu

June 19th, 2006, 06:14 PM

bsell

June 19th, 2006, 08:49 PM

bsell, the repositories won't fit every need, but I'd say in most cases people stubbornly cling to software they found... somewhere... rather than just looking for what's right under their noses.

Asking for Shockwave in Linux, though, is exactly what I'm talking about--you're talking about specific software, not the task you're trying to accomplish. You can educate children fine with Linux. If certain websites decide to use software that Macromedia has not made available for Linux... well, what do you expect? Geez.You can also educate children without computers. My point is this: There isn't a 1:1 correspondence between programs found in the repositories and professional software available for Windows. In many cases, there aren't any alternatives or viable workarounds. If an educational institution requires you to use certain web-based facilities (Prentice Hall's Exchange comes to mind), you can't use those with GNU/Linux. I've asked Macromedia about developing Shockwave for Linux. They sidestepped the question.

As for AutoCAD, it's not in the repositories, but you can try http://www.linuxcad.com/Linux CAD is fairly well-known for being a complete rip-off.

Some people shouldn't use Linux, and I think you may be one of those people. Whether or not I should use Linux is irrelevant. Anyone who points out the shortcomings of Linux faces ad hominems ad nauseum. I'm like you, I dual boot. I use Linux everyday and love Ubuntu, but I think it is misleading to suggest workarounds exist for nearly every software problem. Why haven't you overwritten your Windows partition?

If GIMP doesn't suit your needs, you need AutoCAD, you need Shockwave, and you have a Lexmark printer... well, then you have special needs. Yeah, I need OpenOffice, Firefox, Evolution, Krita and amaroK too. Ubuntu recognized every piece of hardware I have, even old hardware that XP didn't recognize (a Saitek P150 game controller comes to mind) and ended up on a shelf after my last upgrade. I was even able to get old software working under wine. I guess I have special needs.

That doesn't negate the fact that most of the time when people ask for obscure programs, they could just as easily find a program in Synaptic that would suit their needs.
Most people on these forums understand there is an abundance of packages in the package manager. Some just aren't up to the required tasks. Geez.

aysiu

June 19th, 2006, 09:01 PM

rai4shu2

June 19th, 2006, 09:03 PM

I use Linux because it's free. Every time I pay for software, I always end up regretting it. With Linux, I feel obligated to ask for improvements, but with Windows, I feel obligated to sit and wait for someone to maybe make improvements if they feel like it even though I'm paying them.

bsell

June 20th, 2006, 01:52 AM

Actually, I don't think most people do understand there is an abundance of packages in the package manager--that was sort of my point. It isn't that the repositories cover every single need (which seemed to be your understanding of my point, which I've since clarified). It's that new users often underestimate the needs the repositories do satisfy.

There are plenty of things, by the way, that require a computer but do not require Windows. Your remark about educating children without using computers sidesteps the issue.

And I dual boot mainly to do tutorials like this: http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/iso.html

That's why I dual-boot.

By the way, you don't appear to know what an ad hominem attack is. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I never tried to discredit what you said because of who you are. I was making a recommendation that if you have software needs that aren't being met by Linux, you shouldn't be using it.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with this term, though--straw man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Because rather than actually trying to understand what I'm saying, you appear to want to argue with some twisted version of what I'm saying or some group of Linux users that you may have had arguments with in the past.

I'll state it once again: The repositories do not have software to meet the needs of every single user on the planet. People often do, however, underestimate the vast array of software available in the repositories. If you want to start arguing with some imaginary person who says, "The repositories have an equivalent to Shockwave and AutoCAD," well, then I'm not going to argue back, since that's not my point.

You've made a number of points in a manner that is both patronizing and condescending. You're suggesting I'm twisting what you said and engaging in a straw man? Let's take a look:

Can you fire up Synaptic and find a good AutoCAD replacement? How about Photoshop (forget the GIMP)? I need Adobe's Shockwave Player to use certain educational websites. Is there a viable alternative in the repositories?Some people shouldn't use Linux, and I think you may be one of those people.

Looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the term hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization). You concluded I shouldn't use Linux because I asked if replacements for some types of industry standard software existed.

My remark about educating children without computers was meant to highlight your (pointless) response, "You can educate children fine with Linux," after I pointed out my need (requirement) for Shockwave to use certain educational sites. Your response is an example of a ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

I can appreciate your need for wild speculation and pedantry, but it isn't particularly educative.

lindyslack

June 20th, 2006, 02:36 AM

Choice... I get to choose... I have been using Linux for 7 or 8 years now... Being in the computer industry I have to use ******* as well but I preffer Linux... My fav machine is an IBM ThinkPad A22e 800 Mhz Celeron w/ 256 Megs RAM... Try runing XP on it... LOL... Runs Ubuntu wonderfull.. I also like to use an old HP OmniBook... PII 233 (I run FreeBSD on that w/ fluxbox) and it runs great too! MY XP laptop (Dual boot w/ MEPIS Linux) has to have a lot more power as well as alot more RAM and my XP desktop (AMD64 2800 w/ 2 gig RAM) is a nice system but runs the AMD64 Ubuntu a lot faster then XP...

Still gotta keep both around. I have to support a lot of folks that will never have any interest in switching to Linux so...

Since I started at the company I work fro we have converted several servers to Linux, sold Linux servers for file serving, groupware, email, etc. and developed a BSD based router / firewall / proxy server with anti-virus / content menagment appliance. We have converted several companies from SCO and AIX to Linux and have been able to save our customers piles of money in licensing fees.

But I love to write little shell scripts for my everyday tasks like connecting to WLAN and shelling into servers at work... I can tweak every aspect of my Linux systems and I can change the screensaver and wallpaper in *******... LOL (jk) ... Probobly my biggest complain about windows is the price you have to pay for a broken product... If I bought a can and it broke as often as ******* I would fill a lemon law suit!!! Sure I break my Linux systems all the time... then I fix them... really fix them... Windows breaks you wipe it out and re install... There is only so much fix you can do before it's just messed up... Do hundreds of updates, reinstall anti-virus, and then all your apps... My desktop at work has been running Ubuntu for a year and a half and I have been doing Dist upgrades untill 6.06 which I decided to install clean... No real reason other then I wanted to...

I choose Ubuntu Linux because I like the Debian base... I love apt-get!!! To many years of RPM hell I guess... I agree with the philosophy and I just like the way it runs...

As far as programs go, most of the software I run in ******* is the same as in Linux... Firefox, Thunderbird, gimp, OpenOffice, inkscape, gaim, NVU, VLC, etc... SO i guess I am saying it's a matter of choice... In ******* my choices are limited by financial restrains and what I can modify. In Linux I can basicly do as I like... Freedom to choose the way my system works for me... Freedom to download a the latest version for free... Freedom to give my copy to a friend.. etc...

AceRimmer

June 20th, 2006, 04:30 AM

I use both and have no real issues, other than Ubuntu not properly using my video card. Anyway I use both becuase they both work and I like to mess with computers and different OS. I canibalized my Power Mac to get the parts to put this Linux machine together.

spiritraveller

June 20th, 2006, 05:58 AM

You've made a number of points in a manner that is both patronizing and condescending. You're suggesting I'm twisting what you said and engaging in a straw man? Let's take a look:

Looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the term hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization). You concluded I shouldn't use Linux because I asked if replacements for some types of industry standard software existed.

My remark about educating children without computers was meant to highlight your (pointless) response, "You can educate children fine with Linux," after I pointed out my need (requirement) for Shockwave to use certain educational sites. Your response is an example of a ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

I can appreciate your need for wild speculation and pedantry, but it isn't particularly educative.

bsell,

Sometimes people give recommendations that unintentionally insult the person on the receiving end. Having read the exchange between you and aysiu, I don't think that it was aysiu's intent to be condescending or insult you.

Remember, on the internet, we don't show our faces. We don't have tones of voice. We don't really know what the other is thinking other than by their words. And the words aysiu has used are not insulting by themselves.

It's just the interweb. No need to take it personally.

rai4shu2

June 20th, 2006, 06:31 AM

I can appreciate your need for wild speculation and pedantry, but it isn't particularly educative.

=D> Bravo. You win the thread. :wink:

machia

June 20th, 2006, 06:48 AM

I think I have come to a point that I don't 'get' anything from using Windows. Like distrowatch quote:"but the fun back in computing, use linux". I mean like yes you bang your head to the wall because you don't know everything and getting something to work that takes few minutes in Windows might take hours in linux. But the feeling when you get something to work after hours is so great :P

I think some people are overcome with frustration and they stop using linux, just because it's "too hard" (read different). I know because I was like that as well :) So how one can stay in Linux-world rather changing back to Windows? Take everything in small peaces, you don't start program something big before you know the basics (hello world :P). It's the same in linux (for me any way). Gradually work your way up. Install 'automatix' in one day and get the mostly used apps and learn how to use them. Get your camera and ipod to work, your ext-drive etc.

I have been using linux on and off for couple of years but after they released Dapper I have been using it for 24-7. If I need to do something in Windows I start vmware :P Now that I have been using it for 24-7 I'm learning more and more and I get a feeling that this is the OS that I want to use. Although my job for the summer is to battle with windows problems, so I dont separate completly from the Win-world :D

My #1 post :P

Daniel Ibrahim

June 21st, 2006, 11:11 PM

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

You must be joking. Just open your Microsoft-Explorer and get thrown everytime again into the same folder, just look often enough at the same boring Desktop, just look into IE Explorer and get square eyes and then start to just use a Desktop you want to see the way you think, you can do that in Linux.

you can have a few thousand applications, for free, no hassle after a few weeks to update to the next paid version etc.

if you don't think so, what are you doing here?

If you have style, why do you use Windows?

Lfrb

June 22nd, 2006, 01:23 AM

In fact, when I received my laptop from Dell after it broke, I decided to format my computer and try Linux ... I was a little bit afraid so I let a empty partition to install Windows..just in case..

But I'm now using Ubuntu since January and I never need Windows at all !! I'm a student in computer engineering and I believe is really easier to work on a linux machine. (Think for example to the facility to install a web server on your computer when you are a web programmer - designer)

Also, the open-source programs I liked to use on Windows are usually created for Linux so they are more stable (think to Inscape..the best software for vectorial graphics or Gimp) of course..it also more stable ..because the OS is not windows.

Now..for my next laptop I "desesperement" try to find a vendor that is not forcing us to buy Windows...and it's really hard to find !!

Brando569

June 23rd, 2006, 03:02 AM

the main reason: windows is a major pain in the butt when it comes to alotta things, its like a high maintenence girl :lol: you always have to keep up with stuff.

you have to defrag the harddrives constantly, you have to run virus scans constantly, you have to run spyware scans constantly, you have to buy programs to get stuff to work right, if your using shareware you get nagged about registering the program constantly. XP itself nags you about a ton of things and they dumb it down too much at times but make it too hard to do simple things

xp_newbie

June 23rd, 2006, 04:49 AM

I have Windows XP (came with my laptop) but I installed Linux in a dual boot and use it much more than XP because I have become sick of Microsoft's monopolistic practices. For example, if you want to run another instance of XP in a virtual machine on the same exact hardware you got the XP license for, you have to buy another license. While this kind of EULA is legal, it stinks.

We users built Microsoft and brought it to where it is now. That time has come for us to speak up - with our fingertips...

There are very few things that I could do with XP that I cannot do with Linux - and that too is changing.

Odisej

June 23rd, 2006, 10:49 AM

Here is my story: I like it. I like the looks of it and I just feel more productive when using OpenOffice under Ubuntu than Word under Windows XP. Probably because I am tired of Windows. I've been using them since 1991 (or when did the version 3.0 come out) and it became boring to use. But I don't have any issues with them. I never had a virus or any other problem, I would even say that in my experience XP is slightly more stable than Ubuntu. They are just, well, cliché.

I enjoy the free spirit of Linux and Ubuntu, I enjoy the community (all of you, people), I enjoy being challenged by issues popping up once in a while which keep me awake (I like to find solutions to problems and Windows became way too boring in that way)...

And finally: it is in line with my political ideology. Call me communist or whatever but I do believe a community of people can produce better things than gigantic companies which try to find newer and newer ways to s**** the humanity. Take Windows Vista, take Apple, take almost any stupid commercial and you will see what I am talking about.

You will see, Linux will prevail, even if in a paradoxical way. By its existence it is making possible that people in the less fortunate parts of the world can enjoy quality software. Either by challenging Microsoft (making their products more affordable) or directly by giving free software solutions to those who cannot afford to pay for such things.

But we are blind if we think Linux is easy. It is hard. Hard to learn its new tricks, hard to set it up so all things work (sometimes that is just impossible). It is getting better though. Look at EasyUbuntu and Automatix. They have shown the way how to deal with some issues. In a year or two there will be more solutions making it easier to use even for a wider general public.

Keep on going.

Odisej

t0mc4t

June 24th, 2006, 07:29 AM

Because Linux is safer then Windows, and it's FREE... :)

beast2k

June 24th, 2006, 10:50 AM

When I first started using a PC it was for games I'm talkin back in the asteroid days, I know I'm dating myself. I tried XP and all the rest of the "windows family" but I found it just cost to much to keep buying into the windows way of doing things. Windows works fine for me but it is just to expensive and time consuming to maintain. Linux (Ubuntu) works as good now as windows family of products ever did, I'm still a gamer at heart and with alot of hacking I can manage to get almost any game or any thing to work on a computer. Ubuntu is generaly much more powerful than XP. Windows is for average PC users, linux is for people who want it all.

phoenixleo

June 25th, 2006, 01:25 AM

Choice.

Choose Distro. Choose Desktop Environment. Choose an Office Suite. Choose Web Browser and Email Client. Choose Media Player and Image Editor. Choose to overload your system with a zillion services or strip it down to the bare essentials. Choose to apt-get your software and get it served on a silver platter or download the source code and compile it yourself. Choose to roll your own distro and lean back in your chair feeling smug in the knowledge that you are in fact in control of your own rig.

Choose Freedom.

Choose OSS.

Rule

June 25th, 2006, 01:34 AM

Now..for my next laptop I "desesperement" try to find a vendor that is not forcing us to buy Windows...and it's really hard to find !!

you can buy a laptop here http://www.emperorlinux.com/ or http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html

:mrgreen:

jonsen4

June 25th, 2006, 01:03 PM

MSatterwhite

June 25th, 2006, 02:07 PM

HI SLICEDBREAD

I only wanna say that u should use what u want, also windows!!
I think only u can find out what is right for u
Both systems have advanages and disadvantages!!
SO don´t think about what is right or false just begin to think what makes more fun!!
I think UBUNTU!!
Windows for a moment, LINUX for a Life!;)

Unfortunately, there's a lot more than fun to computing.

Most of my clients are ingrained on Windows; I have to run windows.

When doing web work, I can stick to Linux - and do.

Then there's the security issue. Microsoft's software phones home every day. While they claim not to be sending personal identifying information, they've already been caught in several lies about what their phone home software is doing - why should we believe that there's no personally identifiable information? I'm pretty sure they're sending a serial number - that would let them track what's sent back to you. Do you really want them doing this?

It's a lot more complicated than just what's fun.

rai4shu2

June 25th, 2006, 06:58 PM

kar-tar

June 25th, 2006, 07:20 PM

I don't play games or use office software.

Frankly I don't see how anyone uses an OS without a command line.

My reasons for avoiding windows can more or less be summed up as this: imagine you're at a tech convention, and every operating system from the past 10 years is there, represented by one user on a laptop. All these guys want to start working on some projects together, network, share files, do some distributed computation etc.

Which two computers are causing all the headaches? The windows one and the mac "classic." Everyone else is working on standards and protocols that have been around since the 60s.

Windows is a computer system for people who neither particularly enjoy nor understand computers. I suppose it's the best system for turning cheap off-the shelf hardware into a gaming console with a web browser, but that's not me.

MSatterwhite

June 25th, 2006, 07:57 PM

WGA sends just enough information that Microsoft can reasonably be assured that that one copy of Windows is only running on one machine. If they really really wanted to, they could connect the dots and use that information somehow.

It would be nice if that could be counted on ... but it can't apparently MSoft is going beyone that.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060608002958907 (http://http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060608002958907)

obrient

June 26th, 2006, 09:18 PM

If I could get wireless to work I would boot linux all the time. I can't eliminate windows from my machine yet due to my job. The only reason I keep windows around is due to the $ that I have spent on software and such. I personally think that Linux is a lot more fun. So far I haven't spent a dime on linux, just my time which is fine with me.

-Tadge

newlinux

June 30th, 2006, 09:31 PM

After 10 years away from Unix systems in general and 11 years away from Linux, I just installed dapper last week dual booting with XP. Haven't booted XP since, and don't plan it. XP is now for my wife, but I may get her to migrate to Linux just for GIMP, and any other photo editing software I can find.

I don't game, and don't really use much specialized windows software. I keep XP around because I bought it and have a lot of stuff stored on NTFS and don't feel like transferring quite yet. I also will probably keep around because that's what I have at work, and something may come along that will require it. We'll see, though. I suspect I will rarely ever use XP when I'm at home. My biggest frustration is no flash 8.0 for some of the web sites I go to, and I think that will be remedied.

Eddie Wilson

July 1st, 2006, 05:54 AM

Well its like this. I first started with computers in the early 80s. I've just about seen it all. I've worked with all kinds of os from OS9/Level2, all kinds of basic os to Windows to Linux. Linux is the only one that I don't have to worry about. I do a lot of work on computers for the general public and most of the time the problems has to do with the Windows install. If you've ever had to call the Mircosoft support line then you would know why people have so many problems. Of course I do make quite a bit of money off of Microsoft by having to fix Windows computers. That is why I've choosen Linux. I've just received 20 disc of different flavors of Ubuntu. I'm going to pass them out to try to help people become more than just a dollar sign. The future is grand.

GuitarHero

July 1st, 2006, 06:04 AM

I use linux because windows is ******* me off. Making me reactivate my copy, and then having to fight with an indian for 30 minutes to do it.

NutrOn

July 1st, 2006, 04:11 PM

Let's see....
Dapper Upgrade failed and took two weeks to fix. The disks I requested never showed up. There are applications that I use that don't currently run on linux, like ghost recon. You can't install bzflag with ease and they aren't supporting the current version.
It's a hobby that teaches you more about unix like systems although I could use a mac for that as well.
On the plus side, it's more secure. there is interesting free software, and a community of helpfull users and developers.

SpEcIeS

July 1st, 2006, 06:42 PM

Let's see....
... You can't install bzflag with ease ...

This is simply not true.

... and they aren't supporting the current version.
Try and compile your own.. it is not that hard.

John T. Monkey

July 1st, 2006, 08:33 PM

I started using SuSE about 3 years ago because I had Windows ME and it was abit of a mess, I didn't know the whereabouts of my install discs and I couldn't afford a copy of XP at the time.
I enjoyed using SuSE, and I learned alot about my computer.
I'm currently using a laptop that runs XP and I have this desktop computer that is now running Kubuntu.
My use of Windows and Linux is about half and half. I mostly use Linux for generally playing about with and learning, listening to music and using the internet, and Windows for everything else (DVD's, games and printing mostly).
I think Windows is a good system if it's properly looked after (mine isn't but its looked after better than average and works fine) and used with common sense, but Linux is a good system anyway, is more fun and pleasant to use, has lots of good and free software available and is always getting better at an impressive rate. :)

nmsmith

July 1st, 2006, 11:22 PM

In the past fortnight the answer to that has been because I foolishly got a virus in XP and haven't dared boot it since. A couple of things stopped working, and since most of my data is on a shared FAT partition I could continue like this if I wanted.

Plus points are that I got compiz to work last week, which is great fun, and that I recently got a digital SLR and have discovered that digiKam has some sort of RAW support.

Minus points are that I would have liked to try out the Pentax RAW software, and that I can't play Live For Speed or Microsoft Flight Simulator anymore.

I have also been running Ubuntu on my free-from-school cheap laptop, since they installed some ridiculous proprietry networking client software that provided 20 minutes to an hour's worth of updates whenever anything had been upgraded network-wide. It was horrendous, and entirely unsuited to a portable, personally owned machine. The only downsides are that with 192 Mb of RAM nothing runs too quickly, not least openoffice, and that I will shortly be getting an interactive whiteboard and projector in my classroom, and I don't think Linux has any software that would be suitable for using with that.

bruce89

July 2nd, 2006, 12:34 AM

I have also been running Ubuntu on my free-from-school cheap laptop, since they installed some ridiculous proprietry networking client software that provided 20 minutes to an hour's worth of updates whenever anything had been upgraded network-wide. It was horrendous, and entirely unsuited to a portable, personally owned machine. The only downsides are that with 192 Mb of RAM nothing runs too quickly, not least openoffice, and that I will shortly be getting an interactive whiteboard and projector in my classroom, and I don't think Linux has any software that would be suitable for using with that.
Xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/) might be a better bet on such a low amount of RAM.

Malta Soron

July 2nd, 2006, 07:18 PM

dewclaw82

July 9th, 2006, 04:00 AM

Because Ubuntu doesn't want my computer to phone home with a list of all my software!

rgsproductions

July 9th, 2006, 10:47 AM

I still dual boot to XP just for Sonar producer 4, cell phone and need for speed. For work I need cisco vpn. Other than that I used Xandros for fun. When I found Ubuntu, I have since used it 99.99% of the time. Windows protection programs and reg cleaners, 140.00 this year. Xandros 39.99, Ubuntu FREE. and no windows genuine advantage which pops up on my legal work laptop every thre days to check up on windows. Xandros is great but Ubuntu has worked way better. In closing, I tell my computer what to do, not the other way around.

bnastic

July 11th, 2006, 01:54 PM

If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

Good question. I'm not actually using it, more like playing around with it.
I'm running Windows, Mac and Ubuntu now. Out of three, Windows is used only for work stuff - you can't beat Visual Studio, period. I gave Linux development tools a go, but the experience is far from satisfying. Mac is used for everything else (and for Unix and Web coding). And that's it - Ubuntu is not really used for anything "serious", I don't know if it ever will be. I like playing with OSes, so I'll keep it as dual-boot.
Virii, spyware, bluescreens, "freedom"... I never really had any issues with any of those, and I will only give an OS a fair chance, it's up to that OS to prove its worth. From my point of view, Linux is lacking commercial support - free software is admirable attempt, but if it's not up to the task I give it, then it doesn't matter how "free" it is.

metaltailz

July 12th, 2006, 02:58 AM

Well what really annoyed me most about windows, surprisingly happened today. I have 3 computers in my house, this one running Linux, my brothers' running Windows XP and the media computer (TV, DVD, radio, and all that jazz) running Windows XP and ATI Multimedia Centre.

Now if I get a movie sometimes I take an ISO copy of the disk and put it on the hard drive of the media computer so I can watch it with out having to worry about late fees then delete it later. To mount the ISO's I use a program called Daemon(imaginative). Now this program happened to have a movie mounted, but if I put a DVD into the drive then when I start up the DVD player the physical drive should be chosen over the virtual daemon.

Unfortunately that didn't happen so I used Crtl+Alt+Del (The god of windows users) and I closed down everything not immediately needed to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the computer decided to load the ISO movie and I have no idea why.

So as I'm trying to get this to work windows is constantly ******* my off with this damn pop up saying my firewall has be deactivated.

NO **** I JUST TURNED IT OFF!

*sigh* After finishing the movie on an old DVD player connected directly to the TV I came to this computer and was so relived at the sight of no pop ups or anything else.

Digitallysick

July 12th, 2006, 03:02 AM

I use it for the challange, to me , its like the difference in Buying a stock car (windows xp) and Building a hot rod. Sure you can get xp, and just "drive" it simply works (for the most part), but some of us want more, to be able to configure, everything and enjoy the challange, a hot rod would be difficult for just anyone to build, but once you have done it, you will blow away everyone on the road =)

fluffington

July 12th, 2006, 04:56 AM

I like to tinker with stuff. I can't tinker with Windows.
Windows' support for multiple screens is crap.
I like having multiple desktops (yes, Windows is capable of doing multiple desktops if you install an extra program, but it's a hack and doesn't work very well).
Windows' terminal is crap.
UNIX permissions make a lot more sense than Windows permissions, and are easier to manage.
The system requirements for Linux are quite a bit lower than those for Windows. I have a webserver that's doing quite well on hardware that Windows 98 would (did) choke on.
Linux has better software.

mech7

July 12th, 2006, 10:31 AM

I like to try things out.. but indeed i think it still lacks a bit.. especially what is missing is support from commercial software vendors :-k

tastefulasever

July 12th, 2006, 08:09 PM

As a matter of principle, I don't have Windows at all. I refuse to be locked in by power hungry proprietary giants. That is just too much B$ to deal with. I love linux.

Babo

July 12th, 2006, 08:53 PM

Just because Windows sucks! ;)

adanms

July 14th, 2006, 04:40 AM

Well the reason I still have Windows XP on my computer is because I cant use my <TOO EXPENSIVE> Flash Professional 8 <\TOO EXPENSIVE> and other Macromedia software on Linux... And also because there isn't a good Flash Player, the last stable version for Linux is 6, and for some new things you need Flash Player 8. (Yeah I really use Flash a lot :-D )...

gratefultux

July 14th, 2006, 04:59 AM

I still have XP (the cd that is), but i replaced it on my computer because i simply didn't need it anymore. I dualbooted for a while, but the the only thing i needed windows for was iTunes and CounterStrike. I don't game a lot anymore, so i figured why use windows just to listen to music.
I pretty much like everything about ubuntu, which isn't something i can say about windows.

denisesballs

July 14th, 2006, 05:34 AM

nrwilk

July 14th, 2006, 05:43 AM

The latest Flashplayer is 7, not 6.

Methinks he knew what he was saying when he said the latest stable version is 6. Perhaps implying that 7 is not stable enough for his liking.

shrimphead

July 14th, 2006, 07:23 AM

i can sum up why i still use windows in one word: Eve!

yes I know, I'm an addict and I need help :(

rs3

July 14th, 2006, 08:06 AM

I first switched to remedy an insane frequency of hardware failures on my (antiquated) laptop, which was then running the included copy of Windows XP Home. For whatever reason, the laptop would seemingly shut down (blank screen, no backlight, absolutely comatose except for a powered but inactive HD) at unpredictable intervals, whether I was browsing or playing Fallout. :)

Then, when my desktop system's XP Professional install had to be rehashed, I was prompted (required) to call Microsoft for permission to continue using it. (Apparently, I shouldn't have to reinstall and reactivate my copy?) Rather than play along, I canned the install altogether and committed to a switch.

I still have my laptop recovery disks and my XP Professional install disk, but I haven't put them to use as most of my needs are very easily accomodated by Ubuntu--browsing, gaming (seriously; I only currently bother with UT2004 and the occasional console emulation--working on using WINE to play some w9x games), ripping/encoding music, instant messaging, and, come Fall, classwork.

I do want to see Ubuntu support ASIO-quality low-latency audio (music production and whatnot) but life goes on without it. ;) Everything else is head and shoulders above XP and all the headaches its continued use entails--rootkit/malware fears, ethical issues, downtime, frequent reboots, expense, and so on and so forth.

PryGuy

July 14th, 2006, 08:19 AM

1. Linux is wise! "Windows is money, *nix is philosophy" as I say. I had many wows as I was diving into Linux myself.

2. Ubuntu is really going to be a nice and powerful alternative to Windows soon! Not all people play games, you see, many need just an office tool and they'll get if FOR FREE!!! Gaming is very important though (Ubuntu team, do you hear me???);)

3. It's Free!!! I like the Open Source idea, think this is the future (if we won't get it in Windows' 1984 way of course)

PryGuy

July 14th, 2006, 08:23 AM

i can sum up why i still use windows in one word: Eve!

yes I know, I'm an addict and I need help :(

Eve? Woman on board you mean? ;)

Ubuntu is about addiction. That means you just like it! ;)

shazbot

July 14th, 2006, 09:59 AM

He means eve-online and i totaly agree with him, Linux is great but for games the world is still *******

Long live EVE-online, "trebormints" in game :mrgreen:

anasofiapaixao

July 16th, 2006, 09:33 PM

I saw someone saying they have no problems with windows when not executing random exe's... I would add a "and having antivirus+firewall/intrusion detection+whatnot consuming even more of your memory".

Just a disclaimer: I HATED backgour/tray apps in windows. I was truly excessively purist on that aspect: "not *fundamental*? computer doesn't crash without with? couter goes to net w/o it? What are you waiting for, TAKE IT OUT!!" And was forced to see the antivirus as a necessary harass.

Hum, hey guys, does the string "msbb.exe" comes to anyone else's mind?

For the "you're safe in windows if you're not stupid" and the service-pack-2-brainwashed guys, let me tell you my experience (service pack 1)

Once upon a time, there was this little program called "msbb.exe". It would run on the very moment I connected the internet cable on a windows xp CLEAN install. NO JOKE. And that little app, for those whose memory is more blurred, would download at least 10 different spyware programs. It would end up rendering the workstation unusable and frozen unless not connected to the internet.

PLUS windows xp is NOT limited-account-friendly. The average joe simply creates a BOMB admin account, able to do anything. And i was not the average joe but i would do the exact same thing, as WinXP wouldn't let me auto boot to my account otherwise, and the perpesctive of having to switch users anytime i had to do an administrative operation (like, almost always) was just too annoying.

PLUS as windows is by far the most know operating system, the average joe OS, malware and whatnot is focused on it. damn rubbish systray apps, even if with no evil purposes in their unglorious attempt to be user-friendly (which for an advanced user become "stupid-friendly") just clutter your desktop and your memory (*cough* quicktime *cough*).

PLUS I don't like blue pills. I want ease of use, yes, I want user-friendlyness, yes, i want nice looks and layout, yes, but I want to see the engine behind the scenery clear and dive in it if i want. In windows you can never peer enough, everything is blurry.

So... Well. I prefer linux because I am a geek:P

homeboy

July 16th, 2006, 10:19 PM

If I could find a simple and easy way to record sound and video on linux, I could and probably would move over totally.
But I use WinDVD Recorder for television recording and MusicMatch
for sound recording.

I have found no programs for linux that will do these two things
in a simple and non-complex manner.

Otherwise I think Ubuntu is great.

inf4my

July 17th, 2006, 02:52 AM

Amarok is pretty good, but the only thing it has over iTunes, in my opinion, is being able to fetch the lyrics of whatever song you're playing--though, that's a pretty awesome feature!
And about a billion other things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmaroK

The main reason you should consider moving to linux is that most programs on linux are free, and not just free like you dont have to pay for it but that anyone can change the source and configure it to fit a certain need. Also it doesnt crash as much as windows, but yes i still keep a dual boot for counter-strike although i have it on my ubuntu it doesnt run quite as smooth i do get higher fps though.

hothamp

July 17th, 2006, 10:27 AM

I have completely left windows within the last 2 weeks I used ubuntu for roughly 3 weeks and said screw windows. I can't do a few things but that is only because of my own lack there of knowledge but I'm slowly learning and will be able to do it. Everything I can do in Linux I can do BETTER than windows just as fast and more efficiently. Soooo get used to seeing me around here heh :)

squee

July 18th, 2006, 06:22 PM

I moved to Ubuntu about a year ago from Win 98 and I'm at the stage now where I have Broadband and can help my self (with the IRC and here). If anyone has been reading the papers (in Ireland at least) Microsoft have been hit with a huge fine by the competition authority over not realeasing their source code to competitors, or software developers (or something like that).

The reason why most people stick with Windows is for the games and ease of use. With the source code (hopefully!) on its way more companies will be able to spend less money on Microsoft and more on production for Linux.
Once the games are sorted, the only reason people will stay with ******* is because of their own incompetence. Its all out there even if you're like me and know sweet FA about Linux.

These are just the Ramblings of a 17 year old, so ignore me if you will, but the day will come when the publics eyes are opened to the monopolisation of ******* and they will cross into the Dark Side.

Miguel

July 19th, 2006, 07:08 PM

If anyone has been reading the papers (in Ireland at least) Microsoft have been hit with a huge fine by the competition authority over not realeasing their source code to competitors, or software developers (or something like that).

It has little to do with source code. I say little because Microsoft tried to avoid the fine by selling, under NDA, the source code of certain parts to the competition. The EU doesn't ask for the Windows code. The EU doesn't stop Microsoft from selling the code. What the EU wants is Microsoft to reveal, for free, the protocol of communication between Win machines.

It does so because MS has 90%+ of the market, and having closed protocols is simply killing off the competition. It's like everybody around you speaking chinese and refusing to teach you.

And I don't know when I posted, but I use linux because I am much more comfortable and more productive. And because Windows is clearly not ready for high performance computing.

fadumpt

July 21st, 2006, 03:44 AM

I went Windows free at home becuase I was just sick of using it. I have to use it at work...and repair it at work, and after spending hours fixing Windows and staring at that depressing GUI, it's just an awesome relief to be able to come home to OS X and Ubuntu.

Linux is just more pleasant to use, especially if you do the few required maintenance tasks that's standard in any OS. In this case, that basically means you have to run Automatix and configure gnome how you want it.

UltraMathMan

July 21st, 2006, 04:34 AM

I just bought a Dell Inspiron E1505 for college, with XP Pro as per the recommendation of my schools IT department. Well after removing layers of "crap-ware" and discovering they had partitioned by HD to give Norton Ghost 20 of my 100GB (which I either didn't ask for or wasn't given a choice) I decided just to reformat/reinstall the OS (using the CD I had to order with my system). After reinstalling Windows I had to track down the drivers for everything online because they sent my the wrong driver CD (which I also had to request) ](*,) . I had run Linux in the past on varying hardware (mostly old PCs) with varying degrees of success (Slackware, SuSE, Redhat, Ubuntu, and some others) but nothing worked very well (especially the wireless stuff) and it's much harder to run Linux without easy access to support when you need it (at least in my experiences thus far). Someone told me about Ubuntu so I decided to give it a go on this new laptop of mine. I still have XP installed, not knowing if I may need it in college, but thus far I have been amazed with Dapper Drake. So why do I use Linux? It's clean, unlikely to be taken down by malware, free, and I have a level of control I've never experienced. The auto-detection of 95% of my hardware (including my wireless card :D ) caught my eye, and the features and support I have received point to a long and happy path with Linux.

andlinux21

July 21st, 2006, 04:40 AM

I use linux one as a learning tool and two because it nice to be able to take older hardware and give it new life. Wether I use linux for a server (jinzora, web page, shoutcast), or just as a everyday desktop I like it and the fact that the updates come fast helps a lot too.

jmhickman09

July 21st, 2006, 04:41 AM

It's awesome to be able to control so much, yet still have a more intelligent operating system. Plus, I feel like less of a n00b using linux. And things actually make sense in linux. Every once in a while, something intelligent is put into Windows, and by the time it's dumbed down so the "average user" can understand it, it's worthless. You spend a lot less time cutting through the crap in linux.

masonium

July 21st, 2006, 11:26 AM

I initially made the switch linux because I have two computers and because I needed to program in common lisp for a class (there are no good IDEs for CL in Windows). I tried Mandrake and Ubuntu and Fedora Core before falling in love with Kubuntu :-p. In any case, another reason I like it is because i like tweaking stuff. Another is because of apt-get and the instant access to thousands of useful free software packages.

TecnoVM64

July 21st, 2006, 11:36 AM

Because Amarok rules, seriously. :)
Oh and the control, let's say I like to play with aptitude and all the commandline things I have to do for Quake II :-P

fdrake

July 22nd, 2006, 01:15 AM

Because it's free (as freedom and free beer):D

Boomy

July 22nd, 2006, 02:25 AM

Ok, here's my story. We had an old AMD 700mhz that we used for office and internet stuff, and I had a custom built Athlon XP system that I used for audio production that was not connected to the internet. Well, I lost inspiration for producing music and I had a $1500 box gathering dust. I thought, damn, what a waste, so I proceeded to put another boot of XP on that machine so we could use it to browse the net, creat documents, etc. The problem was, I needed a floppy drive so I could install the sata drivers (didn't even have an IDE drive or floppy in the machine). Damn, the floppy drive I do have is shot. I can't even install XP.

A few months prior to all of this I had downloaded an Ubuntu iso (recommended by my nephew) and burned it. I tried it dual boot on the old crap machine, but I broke the installation when I was upgrading drivers (actually far from broke, just didn't have the knowledge to fix it from the CLI). Ah, what the hell, I'll install Ubunto for the time being, we can use it till I get a floppy drive. I install it without much hassle. I crossed my fingers that I formatted the right partition and it installed in like 10 minutes. A few days later I went out of town for a week. During that time my wife and I were swapping emails. Damn, how was she doing this? Ubuntu is on the main machine??

By the time I got back, she was totally comfortable using Ubuntu. She discovered the Gnome games and could play her card games. She liked them better than her Yahoo games on XP.

Wow!! I had tried various distros througout the years and she always complained that she wanted Windows back, she could not do this or that in this "linux". Not so this time. It just works!

So I thought, damn, I'm not going on the net with XP again. I'll leave Ubuntu because it does everything we want (with the exception of my music production stuff). I'll just boot into my good ole XP partition when I want to record some tracks, because I know it will be safe from any viruses, etc. since it has not access to the net (nic is disable in hardware profile) and I won't have to worry. So here I am, secure, satisfied and learning new things. :cool:

theconley

July 22nd, 2006, 04:48 AM

Linux, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

First thing first, UNIX vs DOS. You honestly can't appreciate Linux without learning a little bit of command line.

I love being able to ssh into my machine and do nearly anything.

I love package managers...they are hot, beyond reason. That is something you really won't find in a non-opensource world.

Customizability: Already been mentioned several times.

Cutting edge: Try running 64-bit Windows...I dare you...

But really, I can't begin to tell you how powerful Linux is, if you don't know how to use the command line.

~Conley

slimdog360

July 22nd, 2006, 07:37 AM

I wanted to try something new and always heard about linux. So yeah, one day while I was on holidays I decided to give it a try.
First I tried Ubutnu and didnt like it to much, more the look than anything else. The resolution wasnt right and I couldnt change it. After I figuured out how to use it properly I couldnt go back.
During my next break Im going to give Gentoo and a BSD distro a go.

nerval

July 22nd, 2006, 09:50 AM

I believe the choice is between dominating or getting dominated.

This is kind of a life choice though, some people likes to control life and some people allows life to control them :)

paul cooke

July 22nd, 2006, 12:19 PM

Well, I've had my copy of XP for years, quite a bit before I jumped into Linux. I'm trying to get my $120 worth before I decide to ditch it.

HAH, I ditched mine the day I bought the computer... just stuck the Suse 8.1 pro disk in and let it have the entire disk... never even bothered to boot the existing XP at all... :)

Bumblescrump

July 27th, 2006, 07:30 AM

I personally have switched to linux because I feel that access to information should be free, and I see microsoft and other companies trying harder and harder to control every aspect of what you can and can't do on your computer. Linux makes sense if you enjoy the freedom of computers and would rather help linux grow than just use windows simply for convinience. I do still have an XP partition for gaming, but that I think linux is becoming more game friendly.:D

Enigmus

July 27th, 2006, 11:26 AM

Well for the first reason, experience. Lot's of big companys use Linux based systems, so I thought I might as well learn. Second of all, the fact there are few to no viruses. I have a great virus scanner for windows, but it's stilla a plus. Stability over Windows is a major plus considering the amount of crashes I have. And finally, the software. It's both great and free.

However since I've been using Windows for a long time, most of my programs and games run on it, and finally since all my family use XP, I keep it on my Primary Drive

carontis

July 27th, 2006, 11:42 AM

I think that people that want use Linux/Ubuntu, should not use the partitioning on their pc c'asue it will always be a little coming back to that system. I use 2 pc and every one has only 1 system, so for this I can't understand why they won't leave windows. Surely many are afraid to use only Linux, but they will take more time to understand and learn Ubuntu.
You have always to decide in your life between two ways, 'cause it's impossible have a foot in two shoes!!! I decide for Ubuntu, and also if sometimes someting it's hard for me to understand (I come from 13th years of windows), I know I will understanding later, exactly as it was when I started long ago with windows. Remember: more peoples in Linux cooperating, less errors we will find and better distros will be! Don't jump from one to another. I simply say this for customers, normal peoples, not for companies, 'cause they usually search for the less expansive and more usable...during years. So how can we all pretend to have a super-extra system totally for free, when we know it's made from peoples like us? I say: enjoy it, use it and help (for what you can) to make it grow better..!

Aikon-

July 27th, 2006, 03:26 PM

I see alot of people toting the "no adware/spyware/viruses" card, but I have to say that if you are smart about your browsing habits and have set up a secure network using a quality router/hardware firewall, you shouldn't have to worry. In the past 16 months, my antivirus has warned me of only TWO viruses.. both of which I was expecting before it even popped up.

As for spyware and adware, again, same thing.. I run three different spyware programs once a month, and the only thing they pick up is my RealVNC install which I tell it to ignore each time.

With respect to being able to change themes, I just patch my uxtheme.dll and install whatever themese I want in XP. I'm currently using a customized version of Sou.Luna mixed with components from some other themes by the same person.

Drivers: you all say that Linux loads everything right out the launch gate. For me: Everything in XP works immediately except for the onboard audio for which I need motherboard drivers. Its not optimized, and installing drivers makes everything a bit faster, but at least it works. In Linux, immediately after I install I have to change menu.lst because GRUB simply cannot get (hd0,1) vs (hd1,1) straight. Although sound works out-of-the-box, video performance is shoddy at best (and I've yet to tackle getting ATI drivers on) and neither network interface will play nicely (my Linksys wireless card is of the BCM4618 variety :-( )
Personally, I'd rather have no sound and be able to download drivers than have no internet and need a second computer to fix the thing.

Available software: Please don't tell me that there's an enormous amount of programs available for linux, because there's a GINOURMOUS amount available for Windows, including most of the Linux variations. I use Firefox, Thunderbird, GAIM etc. on my Windows box anyway, so no difference there.

Free: If I go out to by a pre-built system or laptop from a system distributor, I'm getting XP on it. Not because I think I desperately need it, but because (for highly suspicious reasons) most distributors will charge you more for the same system if you get it without an operating system. So getting XP saves me a few bucks.

Free (the other kind): Ya, the OSS ideal is great, I've even started a couple projects of my own, but it comes down to a base of people that WANT to do what they're doing. When it comes down to it, if I have a choice between an OSS program that kind of works some of the time versus a Freeware, Shareware, or Payfor program that just plain does the job, I'd use the working program for the sake of getting it done. If said OSS program makes a comeback, I'll look at it again, and if its a better choice at that time then I'll switch. But again, you don't need Linux to enjoy OSS, its out there for EVERYONE, that's the whole point.

I'm not saying that Linux isn't the infinitely customizable, good-looking powerhouse you all claim it to be, but face it: it does require some expertise to run properly and get the most out of it. But someone with equivalent expertise in Windows could do just the same.

My system has been stable going on 16 or 17 months now. I disable services I don't need, saving memory and CPU, I remove programs I'm no longer using.. no reformat, no viruses, not hardware failures, no spyware problem, no data theft.. I'm afraid I just don't see this "floundering pig" of an operating system you keep talking about.

Having said all that, I really like Linux. I have alot of fun playing around with it. As I'm sure its been said a million times before, the hardest part about Linux is forgetting how you would accomplish a specific task in Windows and learning how to do it in Linux without preconceptions. I think I do a fair job of this, and yes its getting easier to do things in Linux, but its not pulling ahead of XP in anyway that I personally have experienced.

Also having said all that, XP is about as far as I'm willing to follow Microsoft; I don't mind purchasing their software if it benefits me in some way, which XP most certainly has, and I've been willing to put up with some very silly things like WGA. Come Vista though, the sheer amount of disregard for my rights is sickening. In fact, the whole Trusted Computing Platform has me worried.

If I buy a computer, its to make said computer do what I want. Same as buying music. I want to buy music and be able to copy it to my iPod, CD's for my CD players, DVD audio for parties, and various other media devices; I want to buy the music, not lease it. Same goes for Vista and the "trusted computer": I want to buy the computer, not lease the right to use it.

Okay well.. this rant kind of was longer than I expected.. and flip-flopped a lot more than I planned back and forth between Windows and Linux..

I guess all I'm really trying to say (besides the fact that I hate sauerkraut) is that Windows, despite the yelps of indignant OSS programmers, is a solid OS that's come out of years of development. However, so is Linux. They both do what they were designed to do, and they do it fairly well. Windows can't load audio drivers, Linux can't load WiFi drivers. If the OSS ideal is not the be-all-and-end-all of your decision, then the rest of the differences are pretty trivial if you are an experienced computer user that is willing to take the time to learn how to properly operate their systems, in terms of both functionality and security.

If you're trying to get into Linux and you're struggling to adapt, then the differences seem like massive roadblocks blocking your way. But if you've given yourself completely, then the differences are really opportunities to advance your ability to use a computer.

If you're trying to get into Linux and it isn't for you, then don't. Stick with Windows. Try Linux again some time down the road, see if it fits your usage model better at that point.

Sorry for taking so much of your time, have a great one!

wdo_will

July 28th, 2006, 05:09 PM

Aikon-

July 28th, 2006, 05:58 PM

WOW, I just read this entire thread, all seventy-three pages.

Why do I use Ubuntu? Because it is better and because I can. If you had the choice between a free Porsche and an overpriced Ford, which would you choose?
That depends.

If my plan was to haul around furniture, I'd probably go with the Ford, because any Ford truck is infinitely better at such a task than any Porsche could every be. Its all about the right tools for the right job

Of course, it would be Chevy instead of Ford, but that's just a familial bias ;)

On a side note, after making my (admittedly impressive) long-winded rant, I have to say that Ubuntu and Linux in general is looking significantly better this time around. I haven't encountered a single error through apt or synaptic while installing various packages I need, my mp3s and movies all work already, I've been seeding from Azureus for the past 24 hours, and I can even play games in Firefox. Compared to my last Ubuntu venture (5.04), where every other sudo apt-get resutled in lists of errors and broken packages, and my OS quickly going "insane" (not knowing what was installed and where), this is a significant improvement.

I'm going to stay in Ubuntu and if I come across something I can't do, I'm going to spend some time to figure it out. More than an hour on a simple task and I'm booting Windows, coming back to it later.

rjz35

July 28th, 2006, 11:39 PM

Same here,worked al my compu life with dos/windows [only 15 years or so], liked it, lots of tweaking, but in the end always stuck with cost, i want more but didn't had the money, therfore hacking was the thing, but as you grow, you see the need of do good and money was becoming less an issue, so no more illigal stuff for me, bought my license for xp etc. but in the end i had to install al thinks at least 2 times per year. having said that, my xp is running perfect and i'm still happy about it, because i'm used to it.

back in the "old" days i started with suse and redhat, stopped again, to much of a hassel and no time, now ubuntu makes it al a bit easier for me, i have some extra time, and i would like to help building something against microsoft just for the sake of it. i mean i hate it the way they push things down my throat.

So untill i see no use of rebooting back to xp, i'll stick with ubuntu. which is already 1 week and still going strong.

newagelink

July 30th, 2006, 12:53 AM

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)Amen!

Windows for me is only games, iTunes (until I can use my iPod in Ubuntu), and webcam. Everything else is Linux.

Since I've been using Ubuntu 6.06, I have never had any delay of any kind, and the only times I've had a program crash have been when I'm trying to use my 5th gen. iPod. In Windows, I have delays constantly, and crashing frequently.

That's enough for me to call it quits with Windows. And Ubuntu 6.06 looks so much better visually than Windows XP Home.

Now I just have to figure out how to use it...

anindya_m

August 6th, 2006, 07:19 PM

I am a student and just as a hobby I administer part of the theory dept. network in my institute. I have 24 linux machines and a few windows xp pro machines.

My requirements: I want a system that will just work and I should never have to tinker with it except for updates. And reboot is not an option, since people run jobs/login remotely to run other software. I love computers, but I don't want to waste my time fixing systems that don't work (I'd rather spend my time programming). Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) fits the bill perfectly. Once I have the machines up and running, they just run! I have yet to have a crash (except a few HDD failures and power cuts). I frequently get uptimes close to a year (on both Ubuntu and the earlier Fedora). Most of these are not servers but primary desktops running everything.

To be fair, my windows systems have yet to get a spyware/virus infection. All users are limited users, and apps that need to be run as root use a special account that can run only those programs (not foolproof, but it works). However, I had to work harder to configure all a/v codecs and the installation takes much more space with fewer things than the linux boxes. I do have to defragment the drives once a month. And windows is just not as stable as linux. On the average, after every 2-3 weeks of continuous running with heavy user activity, it will hang and in some of the cases after waiting for an hour or so I have to reset the machine (sometimes it may go for a month or more). Most times I can reboot though, but I have to reboot as it becomes unresponsive. Few machines are ok but a dozen of these will be quite a headache. Also my feeling is that there is probably no package manager better than apt (and I have managed windows, some other linux distros, bsd's, hp-ux, solaris and irix machines at various times), although I'm also a fan of gentoo and bsd ports tree. Provided you have set up the repositories properly, apt just works!

So in my experience, assuming you are well versed in both OS's and have set them up properly (drivers, updates, etc) - linux scores better on counts of stability, security and resource usage. Windows has an advantage when it comes to applications, but many of the best ones are not free as in linux.

As for user-friendliness, I've been at this for three years now and most of my users like the linux interface better after a few weeks of getting used to. The UI has improved much in recent years and it shows.

To sum up, windows is not as bad as OSS proponents sometimes make it out to be, but at least in my setup linux just works better. And ubuntu is one of the best things to happen to desktop linux (for servers, we always had debian).

thepoeticdragon

August 12th, 2006, 10:22 AM

i didn't get to go through this whole thread, so maybe i missed it...

however... am i the only one (or one of the few) that started on Ubuntu solely on the desire for a change of pace?

i'm running dual boot with windows xp because there are just some things that i do which can't be done on linux (adobe indesign cs2). however, the notion of rebooting just to do a task isn't that daunting to me because both environments are comfortable to me. when i go to windows to do something, it's not immediately 'alright, i'm done, let's go back to linux'. i'd probably stay in windows for a while, and the next time i boot would be when i go back to linux. my goal is to have both environments to be accessible, so the notion of 'booting around' doesn't affect me.

anyway, the reason why i even started to mess around with linux was because i wanted something fresh to do. with every restore i do of xp (i do one every year so that things are faster and stuff), within half an hour i can get everything back to 'my normal'. in this way, i felt like i've done everything i could with customizing windows. i just wanted something new to mess around with. i tried suse, and it was a little too daunting for me. i then did ubuntu, and the interface was already set up in a clean fashion. plus, the interface was easier to get used to, like apt. so i could get what i wanted, even if some googling and forum hopping was in store.

i guess you would call me the 'windows-based linux user'. i depend on a good gui to get around in any OS, and i think ubuntu does a good job with it. for the life of me, i can't get around in a terminal/console without some sort of guide telling me what to type and what some commands are. i do not mind searching for the solution to what i want, and if it requires console usage, tell me what i have to do. in the end however, i need a graphical interface to get around and tweak things.

aktiwers

August 12th, 2006, 10:38 AM

Because after trying Linux, I dont need Windows.

Bragador

August 12th, 2006, 01:30 PM

Because with linux, my computer is responding faster to my commands since I don't need to have that much programs running in the background.

Also I like the way ubuntu works (synaptic is great)

Ocxic

August 12th, 2006, 06:02 PM

ever scince windows ME came out I had been pirating windows software, and while that was all fine and dandy, it was a pain trying to find a good copy, and was tired of having to re-install every few months.
the same goes for almost every piece of software i ran it was all pirated, viruses and spyware aside (although still a big problem for me) i was tired of having to go through the tourble of cracking everything.

thats why i use linux/ubuntu, plus thx to the terminal I now have a reason to use my keybaord. plus my net connection has never been so fast, now ussually 250-380kb/s.

vcrfix

August 15th, 2006, 02:42 PM

A matter of maintiaining marketability in the profession.

Pat...

Tomosaur

August 15th, 2006, 03:43 PM

I am studying Software Development, and find Linux to be a much better development environment. We use both Linux and Windows in the uni labs, so rather than spending long nights locked away in uni, I can just come home and carry on working on my own computer since I have a dual boot system.

I also prefer Linux for many things, it's a lot more stable, and faster, than Windows XP.

I also enjoy playing around with the thousands of toys at my disposal thanks to the terminal :P

dbennette

August 15th, 2006, 04:53 PM

Choosing Linux over Windows is a personal choice. I toyed with the idea of switching to full Linux for years before I decided to. What held me back, and what holds many others back as well, is the lack of gaming on Linux. But the more people demand support for Linux from game developers and hardware vendors, the more change the Linux community will see. It all really boils down to supply and demand.

As for the lack of games, they are out there. id Software is one of the leading game developers who make native binaries for Linux. Add in programs such as Wine and Cedega, and most Windows games are then available to Linux gamers.

ba5e

August 15th, 2006, 05:31 PM

minipars

August 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM

did you heard somethin about Viruses , Trojans , Security Holes &... :-k
But now...
You can't hear somthing Like this about Linux...

vcrfix

August 17th, 2006, 01:05 PM

Skills that the Industry Looks when adopting Linux:

Administration
Kernel Development
Application/Database Migration
Point of Sale Systems
Embedded

... the list is ever growing ....

J44xm

August 17th, 2006, 02:25 PM

Are Linux alternatives for Foobar 2000 and Microsoft Outlook available?
As I understand it, the closest to foobar2000 that you can come to under Linux is Amarok, and while I support the work being done on Amarok, it ain't no foobar2000. In terms of multimedia applications, I miss foobar200 the most, hands-down. (At least I have VLC in Linux.)

seantellis

August 17th, 2006, 02:39 PM

- No malware
- No licensing hassles
- Simple access to hundreds of apps via apt-get
- Something new to learn, with marketable skills
- Smug glow of self-satisfaction :-)

That first one was what got me to move away from Windows in the first place, as I was spending more time maintaining my antivirus/antispyware apps than doing "real work" (or real play).

And I don't really play games, so that's not a downside for me.

mithion

August 17th, 2006, 06:58 PM

The desktop aspect of Linux is very nice. Either gnome or kde are very cool software with many features and customizability that far surpasses Windows. But I feel the best feature Linux has to offer is its superbly advanced memory management system. I do a lot of simulations using very large matrices. In windows, many of those calculations aren't possible because of the way memory disorganized in RAM. In Linux, everything is very orderly and such the programs I use can secure larger chunks of RAM to perform large simulations. Besides that, speed and stability are much better in Linux (which also affects simulations too, I mean I don't want a system wide crash in the middle of a 10 hour long simulation). And also the fact that the Linux world is virtually virus free (for now). I still use windows for gaming, but for everything else, Linux is equal or exceeds ******* by far.

CcA DoGG

August 17th, 2006, 07:54 PM

Like others said, Linux does not have spyware or viruses, and a lot of what you need is free, and once you get to know ubuntu, you can do alot of cool stuff with it. :D

garba

August 17th, 2006, 08:57 PM

because people who use an avatar like yours just plain suck

jonah1980

August 17th, 2006, 09:25 PM

i have ubuntu on two machine and don't have windows or use it at all. why would i need windows?

there's stacks of linux software just there in the apps list so you can just pick and choose and use apps as you need them for jobs. it's so much easier.

and if you're desperate for a windows program you usually can mess with wine and get it working well enough.

ok so i'm not a gamer though... maybe if you're a gamer you might want windows, but i use windows at work and it just all round tends to suck, it's nice coming home to reliable and stable ubuntu with all of this software.

KazuyaDarklight

August 17th, 2006, 10:06 PM

I'm semi new but Im running Kubuntu on my laptop. I did it because I felt it would take better advantage of the hardware resources and to keep me from playing to many games at school. Also I feel linux does have its place and I want to be at least semi savy at it so its good practice.

Monsuco

August 18th, 2006, 01:31 AM

Benifits of Linux over Windows:

1. No spyware/adware/virus's/trojans/crap

2. Lower hardware requirments. Gnome and KDE want 128 MB of ram, XFce wants 64, and fluxbox will probably work on anything less. XP wants 256, and Vista will want at least 512 and for the Aero thing, 1 GB and a high end graphics card. (Heck, Looking Glass will only need 512).

3. Lower total cost of ownership. Windows XP is about $100, and more if you want full multimedia or multiple processors. Linux also comes with a free office suite, If you stick with MS software, you will pay another $100 for office. To get a good propriatary image editor, there's another $300 for Photoshop. To make PDF's shell out more for Adobe's PDF Acrobat thing. A good web design suite, buy Dreamweaver. Good CD burner, buy Roxio or Sonic. Any special things like audio editors also cost $$$. Games $$$. With linux, you can use either Open Office, KOffice, or Gnumeric/Abiword. Usually they are preinstalled for you. You can usually use the GNU image manipulation program instead of PS. OOo can make PDFs, NVU is excelent at website design. K3B and Gnomebaker are better than most burner apps. You have kino, audacity, and similar multimedia editors avalible. You can play tons of FOSS games you can find on Freshmeat and SF.

4. Wine. With Wine you can get most regular Win32 apps to run at native (or in some cases slower, in a few, faster) speeds. I have gotten Real, IE, Quicktime, WMP 6, Shockwave, Flash9, Wordviewer, PowerPointviewer, Excelviewer, Winamp, DCOM98, the MS Fonts, 7-Zip, FileZilla, and Outlook Express all running on Wine just fine. Most Shockwave and FLash games work on Firefox on Wine just fine. With tools like Winetools, and using www.frankscorner.org and the wine app DB, I have gotten most things to run on wine. Even games are getting better. If you truely need a game

5. For programmers, Linux is usually something nobody can do without. PHP and HTML can be tested by running your PC as a server. You have Apache for Linux. Emacs and Vi are excelent. Java runs well on linux. There is the GNU C Compiler. The Java develompment kit.

6. Increadable multitasking. Linux is amazingly good at doing a lot of stuff at once. It rarely seems to slow down if you have a lot of stuff open and virtual desktops and tabbed everything is great.

7. Ease of use. Once you get used to linux, you can do almost any task quickly, efficiently, and safely. I figured out how to to basics (document editing, e-mail, web browsing, and IM) in one day on linux. Considering it took me 2 months to learn all that on windows and be comfortable with it, I would say linux wins in ease of use.

8. Hardware support. I read a compairison of SuSE linux to Vista Beta, and this may surprise you, but SuSE actually not only beat Vista at hardware support, this guy said it pretty much blew it away. It said the retail box set SuSE imediatly found this (it was a laptop) guy's wifi card, monitor display, and set up everything he neaded. He only needed to tweek power managment, and tell his graphics card to use acceleration. With Vista, he said he could not get his wifi card to work, his display was wrong, and it just sucked battery power. In my experience, Linux usually only has dificulty with Winmodems, Windows only Wifi cards, laptop lids and ATI/NVidia graphics chips, and most of these problems are easy to look up and copy what someone else did. Out of the box with no driver disk, windows will have tons of issues with everything from Modems, to sound cards, to wifi cards, to laptop lid closier, to power support, anything can screw up.

9. More programs. This may surprise you, but if you look in your repositories and at www.apt-get.org you can find a massive number of linux programs, too many to count almost all linux programs cost $0.

10. It looks cool. I like KDE and I think KDE is cooler looking than Windows Luna, Vista Aero, OSX Aqua or anything else I have seen. Gnome also has a unique sense of elegance to it, and I would say Gnome is my second favorite UI. XFCE and Fluxbox look cool for how light they are. Looking Glass (currently in development) is increadable.

11. Reliability: I have yet to see linux crash. I have seen programs crash, and sometimes even X crashes or KDE crashes or Gnome crashes, but linux never seems to. If a program does crash, you can almost always kill it compleatly with CTRL+Alt+ESC and click on the offending program. Bye. Well with windows, if a program crashed on ME, 98, or 95, then BSOD to the face. If it crashed on NT, 2000, and XP, then it would slow the whole machine down until it either figured itself out or you rebooted it. Sometimes, if Windows crashes then you see the Blue Screen Of Death.

12. Ease of maintinance. Linux was designed for both use on desktops, and for use on servers. From it's server use, companies demanded very low downtime. Some companies could loose thousands of dollars over 1 hour of downtime. Thus linux was made to be easy to maintane so that it wouldn't have to be brought offline for repairs and maintinance. This skill slipped into the desktop world too. You can upgrade every piece of software on the entire Box using apt in a matter of minutes, while with windows you need to go to MS Update, office update, and the website of everyone who makes your program or run that programs updater. Also with linux the PC can remain in use while maintinance is being performed in the background. At the end of the updating period, you don't usually have to reboot, unless you upgraded the kernel or some other critical component, and even then it isnt usually urgent. With Windows, you may need 5 reboots to update the whole thing. If there is a newer copy of Windows or Office, then to get a full upgrade, you may need to drop a few $100. Free on linux. The high performance EXT3 filesystem is tons better than FAT, FAT32, or NTFS, and doesn't demand to be defragmented every few weeks. Not to mention the security of linux and the fact that you dont need to disinfect it or tweek it's firewall or modify the registry. Linux can take an increadable amount of abuse and keep working.

There are other reasons, such as lack of vendor lock in, ease of being able to copy directions via command line, better command line, choice, simplicity (which is different than ease of use), GNU stuff, FOSSness, and just the fact that people automatically think you are a computer wiz if you use linux, but those 12 are the main ones.