For this article I’d like to take a different direction concerning Linux. Is it all too typical on the internet to hear a Linux user go full-on zealot style and say, "YEAH! I use Linux! F**k Microsoft! You people are sheeple! Down with the status quo!" Blah, blah, blah, frickin’ blah. Nobody cares. It’s as if a Linux user can’t possibly say anything about the operating system he or she uses without mentioning Microsoft and/or what most people use for their personal computing and how it’s "wrong/bad/evil", etc. To those zealots, I say unto thee: Shaddup. You’re not helping.
Truly happy Linux people couldn’t care less about Microsoft whatsoever. Instead, they just get down to business and make things work. Whether it’s for desktop, laptop, media center use or what-have-you, instead of bickering about Microsoft they’re getting things done, which of course is what matters the most.
The good Linux users I know don’t even talk about Microsoft. Never will you see a "windoze", "winblows", "M$" or "Micro$oft" in anything they blog about. To note, those that do write those childish things are morons because as said above, nobody cares. You don’t see me calling Linux users tux turds, penguin poopers or GUI-challenged, do you?
Good Linux users tell good stories about the things they’re doing now, such as:
"On my 32-bit system I can now access all 4GB of my RAM. Now I don’t have to buy a new computer!"
"I’ve been able to keep my computer running for two solid weeks straight without a single reboot."
"I really like the Evolution mail client. I really like the iCalShare connectivity too!"
"I love the games I’m playing. Great stuff!"
These are the types of stories I like to hear. And yes, they’re out there on the internet. Sometimes it takes a little time to seek them out but they do exist. You can find happy Linux users that say nothing of Microsoft because it simply doesn’t matter.
At no time from these folks will you see, "Well I was using Outlook.. what a PIECE OF CRAP THAT WAS.. I HATE MICRO$OFT! Evolution rulez!!11!1 KDE! GNOME! (penguins.. tux.. uh.. no mouse.. yeah!)"
No, no, no.. stop. Just stop.
I suggest a new line of thinking for fervent Linux users: Cut the anti-Microsoft crap. Cut it completely out of your conversation. Cut it out of your spoken word, your blogs, your videos and so on. Why are you giving Microsoft free advertising? People don’t care about your anti-Microsoft opinions because they’ve already heard them a million times by at least a million other people, so you are not adding anything new or helpful to the conversation.
Tell us what you do with Linux. Tell us the apps you use. Tell us why you prefer specific Linux apps over others. Give us useful information.
Computer use as far as operating systems is concerned is to the point where people will use what they use because that’s what they’re used to. Windows people will continue to use Windows. Mac people will continue to use OS X. Linux folks their distro o’ choice. Yes, very obvious, but that’s the way it is.
Those who are interested in Linux want to hear about (duh) Linux, and not your anti-Microsoft point of view. So please, try and be helpful, because after all, all computers are sh*t.
And to Linux zealots, fsck you.
Oh, and I forgot to add:
If it’s not an alternative, what do you have to say about the Halloween Documents where Microsoft so much as admits that Linux is a valid and looming threat to their Windows empire?
It always pisses me off when someone says Linux isn’t a competitor when even Microsoft admits they’re a competitor in leaked internal memos?!
I do complain about Microsoft, but not uselessly like your ‘linux zealots.’ I complain when they actually make a good game or piece of hardware and actually go out of their way to keep it from working on anything other than windows.
I believe Linus said is eloquently.
Really, I’m not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.– Linus Torvalds, 2003-09-28
You’re assuming that the Linux users are always the aggressors.
Where I work, I’m one of three Linux developers who’ve been conscripted from doing Linux platform support to “assist” another group in adding Linux support to their Windows-centric product. The three of us are constantly battling the all-PCs-are-Windows mindset and quite frankly, it inspires quite a bit of anti-Microsoft snark from us.
None of us would be doing it if the Windows zealots weren’t constantly in our faces. Does it make us bad Linux users? No, it makes us human.
Despite the inflammatory language of this post, I go along with the basic line. I’ve also seen that the “I use Linux because I hate Microsoft” meme has infected the public consciousness so much that people expect it when they hear you run Linux. I tried to illustrate that point in this strip:
http://www.penguinpetes.com/Doomed_to_Obscurity/index.php?strip=0000036.jpg
I’ve actually had that conversation with computer-store clerks in real life!
Bury your head in the sand all you like, Microsoft will kill Linux because of ignorance.
[...] we fall victim to some loud mouth’s comments that make us want to lash out in frustration. This article here explores the problem at length and even points out some actual examples of this type of [...]
I believe that disliking Windows for its functional failings / limitations or its manufacturer’s lack of integrity is not the same as Windows-bashing. When a Linux user has a valid objection with regard to the Windows OS or its manufacturer, (s)he should have the right to express that opinion, although it would be advisable to accompany that opinion with verifiable facts rather than outrageous accusations.
I have used Mandriva (Mandrake) Linux since about 1998 (shortly after they started business). I migrated to using Mandriva as my day to day production OS by about the year 2000 or 2001 (this was a gradual process for me). Now, when I attempt to work on a Windows computer, it feels awkward. When I attempt to help a friend re-configure their Windows computer, I am reminded just how much power I really have by using Linux. There are just so many parts of Windows that the user can not configure. For example, when Windows starts, you have no choice of what graphic is displayed during the boot process. In Windows XP it is the Windows XP graphic. In Windows Vista, it is the Windows Vista graphic. In Mandriva Linux, I can choose what I see from the moment the BIOS passes control to the system kernel till the moment the system shuts down. Even more importantly, I have complete control over what software is installed on my computer (right down to individual packages if I so desire). I can choose one of four or five predefined security levels, or create a custom security configuration of my own design. I can customize my Mandriva installation as much or as little as I choose. The bottom line is that with Linux I have access to all aspects of the OS, so I can make my system look, feel, and work the way I want it to.
The following are my reasons for preferring Open Source Software over Proprietary Software:
The Linux Operating System is Open Source Software. Open Source Software is all about freedom and sharing ideas. With Open Source Software, millions of people look at the source code every day so security and functional weaknesses are found and fixed in a time frame usually measured in days or weeks. Users have the ability to communicate directly with software developers, so they can make feature requests or suggestions.
The Windows Operating System is Proprietary Software. Proprietary Software is Closed Source, and is all about keeping ideas secret (hidden). With Proprietary Software a limited number of people see the source code, so when security or functional weaknesses are found, they are fixed in a time frame usually measured in weeks or months. Users have no access to the software developers. Instead, they communicate with a Technical Support Agent (Telephone Operator) who usually knows less about the Operating System than the user so any feature requests or suggestion gets lost in the shuffle.
As stated above, a user will use the OS with which (s)he is most comfortable (or to one that comes installed on the computer), and that may never change, but if you use Windows and you reach a point where you are fed up with WGA and that Security agent constantly asking you to confirm that you really want to do what you are trying to do, give Linux a test run. You can get a Live! CD image for most Linux distributions. Burn the image to a disk, then boot your computer from the CD (no installation required). If you like what you see, take the next step and install it to a Virtual Machine where you can use it until you become familiar enough with your distribution of choice to make an informed decision. If the decision you make is to switch to Linux, install it to your hard drive (replacing Windows). Chances are that you will never regret it.
my2cents
Gotcha. So people who call unethical corporations names are “zealots” and “fanboys”.
[...] http://www.pcmech.com/article/good-linux-users-dont-talk-about-microsoft/ [...]
I don’t see Windows zealots rubbing their OS in my face. What I see (an I think is the only real “problem”) is a 98% of the desktop PC market with Windows pre-installed. People who buy computers basically have no choice. People who approach a PC for the first time don’t have any choice either.
If it were for them, we would all have computers with coin slots: to access each function or update on your computer you need to put a quarter in it. So far, that has been basically their philosophy. If that hasn’t happened yet, we have to thank companies like IBM, Nvidia and Sun, and the Open Source Community.
Windows was the first OS to bring computers to the masses. To most people, PCs are Windows, period. And the computer market today tends to reinforce that concept.
To many, installing an OS is a mystical operation, and some even think is something done in the factory. It’ll take years for humanity to change these concepts, but I think it will happen eventually.
And MS Windows isn’t that bad. Its only problem is it’s a Microsoft product.
That said, I think this thread should no longer be on this site, for it has become a passionate political discussion (which I love, don’t get me wrong), rather than a collection of technical insights. This is an IT enthusiasts website, not a political forum.
The trouble is that Microsoft goes out of its way to corrupt the experience of Linux and other FOSS solutions. Take for example the most open platform available: the Internet. Microsoft intentionally added a slew of non-standard hooks that were compatible only with its browser, IE. The intention was to corrupt the experience for users of other browsers. Web developers everywhere will attest to what an expensive, time wasting nightmare it has been.
From what I see, FOSS developer seek to make their products better technically and more usable. Microsoft only seeks to hook the public on technology it controls, no matter how inferior, serve them with expensive, hard-to-manage solutions, and maximize its profit agenda. It is this attitude, the moral inferiority and outright lies of Microsoft that drives the behavior this article describes. That a large majority of the computing public has fallen prey to Microsoft’s rapaciousness has got to be understandably galling.
I must admit I am guilty of those words and actions. Thank you so much for a thoughtful article.
We have right to critisize people who several years have suffered MS-nightmare – and still wanna suffer. What kind of masochists they are? And why are these idiots ready to pay for that MS-crap? Please tell me. What’s that whole Redmond-Bandwagon all about?
A key to good propaganda is to assume your central point but not to mention it. Never flat out say, “Linux is better than Windows,’ or ‘Windows sucks.’ Instead, assume these points are true and illustrate them. “I never have to reboot my computer now that I use Linux” implies that Windows sucks without stating it. This slips past people’s intellectual defenses instead of making a doomed frontal attack on them.
I use Linux because I’m not really doing anything professional with my computer. I also don’t play games. I could very well use the Vista that came preinstalled, but I had the time and patience to tinker with Linux so I went for it.
I’ve never met any sort of business willing to give up Microsoft for Linux, simply because they’ve never agreed to abandon what they’re used to for the sake of zero price tag of Linux.
I tend to agree with you, but I think this comes from both sides. I find a lot of the vocal Linux “zealots” who bash Microsoft tend to be people who after they switched over started receiving a lot of crap for their choice from the Windows fanboys (ever read the comments of a Linux article on a non-Linux specific site?). But what really irks me about these arguments (aside from the ones made about MS’s behavior, as those are correct) is that both sides always use outdated “facts” to prove their points. Like Linux people always bringing up the BSOD (I’ve used XP since it came out, and while I haven’t used it for a while for anything except gaming and on the rare occasion I need to stream encrypted media into WMP, I have had a grand total of one BSOD which was caused by a bad memory stick and not the OS itself). and then you see the Windows people complain that they have to edit a text file to set their screen resolution. Aside from security concerns, which IMO the user is always the worst security problem and there is no fix for dumb users, XP wasn’t a bad operating system for it’s time and it looks like Windows 7 will be good too. My only real big issue with Windows is that they try to lock you in with proprietary formats and I don’t like being locked to one vendor. However there is no reason the two can’t exist side by side. Linux will never kill Microsoft (although it is possible for Microsoft to kill itself but if that ever happens it will be a LONG and SLOW death) and Microsoft is never going to kill Linux. Neither of those need to happen for either one to still be successful and the more viable operating systems that are out there the more innovation there will be which is only good for the end user.
It’s fine to say that MS shouldn’t be talked about in derogatory terms. Tell you what. If you can make it so that 98% of PC’s are sold without an OS, I’ll make it so that 98% of people who know, love and use a BETTER OS, don’t mention MS when evangelising the choices they are ALLOWED to have.
Not only is this article badly written, it’s major point is that as a Linux user, I can’t possibly criticize another operating system because it makes me immature and moronic.
What do you think Microsoft’s “get the facts” campaign is about, perchance: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
I am an avid Linux user, and I am constantly reminded why, when I use my software and have an altogether less frustrating and more productive experience. Why shouldn’t I criticize Windows for all its flaws. Why on earth not?
Most of the time, I can just happily use Linux and ignore Microsoft’s
existence. I deplore Microsoft’s business practices, agree that they threaten
free software, and will gladly defend the latter as required, but I much
prefer to discuss the virtues of Linux and other free operating systems than
to criticize Microsoft’s software.
Apart from the mild annoyance of having to convert the MS-Word files that come
my way, and having to deploy filters to reduce the spam propagated by
compromised machines running Microsoft Windows, it’s quite easy just to get
work done without paying attention to what is happening in the Windows world.
Okay, it’s official: that is the one thousandth time I’ve seen that article. It uses the laziest and cheapest form of argument: the straw man. To paraphrase the author: “Linux fanboys are bad and I’m not.”
To be clear, in the absence of these articles I hardly ever think of Microsoft. Please stop.
Since Windows is the most successful OS out there, it will naturally be the main target of exploits… everyone’s out to get them.
I can imagine if it was Linux that was the dominant OS, it would have as much security holes as Windows has now because everyone’s out to get the “Big Fish”.
But don’t get me wrong, I love Linux too, but drivers are always a problem. An average user wouldn’t want to go through all the trouble to DO MORE WORK TO MAKE IT WORK. Majority of software are still exclusively for Windows, which is the main reason people cannot switch entirely. I pray for the time that vendors finally support Linux and write software and drivers for it. When that time comes, only then the playing will be equal.
I guess we could hate Microsoft for their business practices, but people would still get them for the painless setups and support it has for both software and hardware. PC gaming is an example, while you’re hoping that that new video card would have linux support and if the game could run on Linux. Emulation still is slow at this time unless you have a really bad-ass machine.
While it’s true that Linux has gone a long way and has matured into a better OS, it is, in my opinion is still for hardcore-tech people. It requires a bit more tech skills, curiousity and a lot of research.
“Since Windows is the most successful OS out there, it will naturally be the main target of exploits… everyone’s out to get them.”
That myth has been dispelled simply by citing Apache vs. IIS. Apache is by far the most popular… yet IIS is the most targeted. Popularity may be a factor, but insecurity is insecurity no matter how popular an OS is. Windows is targeted because it is EASY, not just because its popular. Otherwise you’d see a lot of non-Windows systems targeted outside of the desktop market, which as of right now, that is not the case.
“I can imagine if it was Linux that was the dominant OS, it would have as much security holes as Windows has now because everyone’s out to get the “Big Fish”.”
It may seem logical, except the fact that Linux is actually designed to be secutre. And the reason Linux is hard to compromise was actually well-described by Eric S. Raymond, who said that the fact the source code is out there in the hands of thoousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, security flaws do *not* last long. I seem to recall one common exploit found in all OS’s at one point. I forget what it was, but Linux had it fixed within a DAY of the discovery of the flaw, Windows took nine months.
It is NOT exclusively because of popularity.
“But don’t get me wrong, I love Linux too, but drivers are always a problem. An average user wouldn’t want to go through all the trouble to DO MORE WORK TO MAKE IT WORK. Majority of software are still exclusively for Windows, which is the main reason people cannot switch entirely. I pray for the time that vendors finally support Linux and write software and drivers for it. When that time comes, only then the playing will be equal.”
I take exeption to that, Linux has way more hardware working out of the box than Windows in my experience, and it has been proven, time and time again that Linux has the larger driver library of the two. Linux hardware support for Linux is better. Note that you likely never experience the crippled nature of a fresh Windows install if all you use is OEM releases and system recovery disks, wherein the OEM already did the dirty work of making the hardware work properly. Try installing the same version of Windows, only retail, on the same box, and it’ll make more sense.
As for software, you have GOT to be kidding. Except for games, Linux can do everything Windows can do and way, way more. Being a POSIX system, Linux has source compatibility with software from dozens, if not HUNDREDS of operating systems, thus getting hundreds of thousands more apps than Windows just be actually being standards compliant. Unless you need to play games, you have no reason to actually stay with Windows.
“I guess we could hate Microsoft for their business practices, but people would still get them for the painless setups and support it has for both software and hardware. PC gaming is an example, while you’re hoping that that new video card would have linux support and if the game could run on Linux. Emulation still is slow at this time unless you have a really bad-ass machine.”
Again, see my note on actual out-of-box hardware support. Linux is way ahead of Windows in this arena. Every time I install Linux, everything is working out of the box. With Windows I usually have to have my drivers downloaded ahead of time, since Windows doesn’t even support most ethernet or wlan out of the box. The only driver I have to download for Linux is my nVidia driver, and that’s largely because so many distros are scared of supporting binary drivers ot of the box. And I don’t even have to hunt on the web to get it, thanks to software repositories, yet another thing Windows utterly lacks.
“While it’s true that Linux has gone a long way and has matured into a better OS, it is, in my opinion is still for hardcore-tech people. It requires a bit more tech skills, curiousity and a lot of research.”
Ubuntu and its derivatives are so freaking easy, even my sister can use Linux with no problems. I hate to say it, but I think you’re in the minority if you were having hardware problems with Linux these days.
@yaro
Opinions are opinions. I will stick to what I said, that most drivers are still stuck on Windows, especially on Notebooks and Laptops. I need Photoshop, I need games and other software without having to bother with emulation or running APIs to make them work. Even on the internet, software for Windows are everywhere, that’s a fact.
The reason why i said “Everyone’s out to get them” is that because if you’re a hacker, you would like to damage the majority. It just so happens that Windows is “easier”, but as I said, If Linux was the majority, no matter how secure it is, IT WILL BE ATTACKED.
All of this isn’t bashing on Linux. As I’ve said, I know it’s just a matter of support, as you also said, the fear of supporting binary drivers. I’d like that time to come when every software would say :
“Supported Operating Systems : PC/MAC/LINUX”
Anyway, it seems that this debate will never end and I’d only get quoted and waste my time. So, I’ll just leave the figures out there that Windows is still the majority for its ease-of-use, despite the alternatives available which is most of the time, can do less that its Windows counterparts. I really find it immature to bash on it.
“The reason why i said “Everyone’s out to get them” is that because if you’re a hacker, you would like to damage the majority. It just so happens that Windows is “easier”, but as I said, If Linux was the majority, no matter how secure it is, IT WILL BE ATTACKED.”
Please, EXPLAIN why, if the majority of the the Internet is on a LAMP stack (The L stands for Linux, in case you didn’t know.) that WINDOWS servers are still attacked?
The most popular web server in the world is Apache, and yet IIS is the one constantly attacked.
No. I don’t think popularity is actually the deciding factor. Otherwise LAMP stacks would be attacked a lot more being more commonly used than any Windows stacks on the ‘net.