Jason Dyok is a regular in the PCMech LIVE chatroom as Ded_Ryzing. You can view his tech blog at The other day I got into a somewhat heated discussion about why Linux is a viable alternative desktop OS. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to move the other side past the rhetoric and myths that seem to surround Linux. It is because of this discussion that I am writing this…as a way to give accurate information. Let’s start by looking at some of the most common myths.
Myth 1: “Linux is hard to install”
This could not be further from the truth. Many Linux distributions are as easy, if not easier. to install as Windows. Ubuntu, Linux Mint and PCLinuxOS are but three of the most popular. The install is nothing more than a few mouse clicks and basic options like timezone, language and name. All these are explained well and you need to provide the same information when installing ANY operating system.
Myth 2: “Linux does not recognize my hardware”
Like all Operating Systems, Linux requires “drivers” in order to use a piece of hardware like a sound card or modem, etc. Also like other OSs, if your system is cutting edge with the latest and greatest, there may be challenges at first. This doesn’t happen with Microsoft Windows? A year after it’s release, Windows VISTA is still suffering from poor driver support! The fact is, if your system is 6 months old, hardware support is usually a non-issue.
Myth 3: “Linux is too complicated to use”
In what way? It has a graphical interface with a mouse and windows. It has an auto-updater to keep things current. It has software add/remove capabilities that allow you to install programs with a couple mouse clicks. It even has many apps found in Windows and Mac OS X like Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, Audacity, etc. It’s as easy as Windows…just different. Let’s put it this way, if all you ever knew was Linux and you decided to try Windows for the first time, I’m sure you would find Windows complicated and hard to use too.
Myth 4: “There are no applications available”
One of the points thrown at me during my discussion went something like, “Walk into a computer store and try to find a single Linux app on the shelf…you won’t find any”. Until now I’m not sure what that had to do with anything. There are many thousands of applications available, for free, and are readily available for download. Many Linux distros even come with a point and click interface to download and install these apps without effort. To say there are no applications available is not only a myth but a flat out lie.
Some reasons to use Linux
There are many more “myths” hanging over Linux, but those were some of the more common ones. Let’s now look at a few reasons why one should consider Linux.
Reason 1: Security
Viruses are less of a threat on Linux. The very way a Linux system is designed makes it very difficult for a virus to function as it does in Windows. This also applies to spyware, malware, etc. The fact that almost no viruses are written for Linux also adds a nicer sense of warmth. Wouldn’t be nice to read the almost endless stream of security holes in Windows and know it does not apply to you?
Reason 2: Updatability
Linux is in a constant state of development and improvement by professional and semi-professional developers who donate their time and skills to the various projects. In addition, the majority of the system and available applications are Open source, so if you wish and you had the ability, you could add any feature you needed. Linux also has the ability to expand the life of many systems as it’s reduced overhead and need for system resources means that it will run great on older machines.
Reason 3: Support
Yes, support. As hard as it is to accept, you can easily get support when you do run into difficulties. In addition to the plethora of online forms, both independant and those provided by the distro supplier, there are also more and more 3rd party service providers that offer service contracts for Linux systems. Good to have in a corporate/business environment. There is also support offered by more and more traditional Technology names such as Dell, IBM, Novell, Sun and others. And finally, for support a little closer to home, most major cities have Linux User Groups that can and do offer help and advice. Help and Support IS available and does not usually mean spending hours on hold to speak to someone in a call center on the other side of the planet.
Reason 4: Self-improvement
Personally, this is one of the most important reasons why I switched. Linux gave me the chance to learn new skills, gain deeper insights into how computers work and provided an excellent platform to develop on. Some people may be satisfied with going through life with blinders on and living the “status-quo”. For those that enjoy the how/what/why of life, Linux is an excellent choice.
Reason 5: Cost
Most people would put this at the top of the list. For me, cost is one of the least important reasons to switch to Linux. However, the cost advantage of Linux is huge. In a nutshell, you get the complete OS, thousands upon thousands of applications AND support for the grand total price of….$0! We’re not talking a watered down, feature deprived OS either…we’re talking a full-blown, complete, enterprise ready OS…for free. “But my time is worth something and the extra effort needed with Linux cost me money.”, alright…and how much does it cost you when Windows bluescreens in the middle of editing a large report that hasn’t been saved? Or how about when a virus or spyware prevents you from even using your system…probably costs you a lot.
So you see, you are going to hear a lot about why you should not use Linux, and they are going to give you many reasons why you shouldn’t…just very few good reasons.
If you are interested in trying Linux, I would recommend Ubuntu, Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS. Download their LiveCDs. Booting to a LiveCD allows you to try and use a complete Linux environment without making any changes to your hard drive. Once down, just reboot and go back into windows as normal.
Subscribe To the PCMech Feed for more interesting posts and exclusive feed-only freebies. Our weekly newsletter will keep you up to date each week.
4/11/2008 12:34 pm
All good arguments except the applications. Yeah Linux has an office suite, web browser but that’s hardly the extent to which people use software. Games is probably the biggest reason. To say that there is an equal amount of quality software compared to Windows is not only a myth but a flat out lie.
[Reply]
spuffler reply on April 14, 2008 8:16 pm:
Lespaul20: to say games are the only things a computer is used for is misleading and a flat out…
Yeah, Games, that is all there is that we can measure an operating system with. Lespaul20, you sounded like a fool with that remark.
Seriously, we can successfully say that gaming *IS* a large percentage of computer revenues and there are a *LOT* of Games in XP, but Linux users can also say that ‘Linux + OpenOffice’ works exactly the same as ‘XP + OpenOffice’.
Yeah, Games, that is all there is. Lespaul20: If you can’t grasp the concept that businesses run on office suites and not on Games, then you are choosing to not looking at very much of the business world. In response to your choice to ignore business productivity, I should be able to ignore games. Waaah!
I also know that Linux is running all over XP on the computers of MANY MANY MANY important entities:
-Industrial Light and Magic dropped XP in favor of Linux,
-the US Navy doesn’t like XP and is trying to use Linux,
-NASA has Linux running on the Mars rovers…
but yeah, China loves to bootleg XP and even then, Microsoft doesn’t charge them as much for XP as they charge us. That is the mark of great software, the revenues it generates… from perpetually obsoleting millions of computers with each new release of Windows. That kind of forced obsolescence isn’t the rule in Linux, it is the exception.
I have successfully used Linux for over 6 years, on 33 MHz 386s to my CelM 3.3 GHz. I was forced back into XP only because some necessary websites refused to remain HTML and have become Flash only. That return to XP was only when Flash was not working on the distributions I chose to use (I had other choices… not like running XP or dead slow).
And even that issue is now moot - I have Flash running under PCLinuxOS, so XP can go fry.
[Reply]
4/11/2008 11:34 pm
Linux may be great and all, but it doesn’t really matter because I’m stuck with Windows for gaming.
[Reply]
Samuel reply on April 14, 2008 8:50 am:
Wine runs a lot of games, and if you want even more gaming support and are willing to pay a little there’s always cedega.
ET: quake wars runs natively on linux, and there are a number of great free games as well
[Reply]
hagfish reply on April 14, 2008 4:24 pm:
I realised the other day that I hadn’t booted XP for months, so finally decided to ditch it - I needed the space for my wine directory. WoW, GW, TF2, EVE, Glest - everything I want to play seems to run better on Linux. Older games, maybe, but mine is an older rig (X2 4600, 8600gt).
[Reply]
spuffler reply on April 14, 2008 8:18 pm:
Oh, yeah. Games. The only thing more important than a Red Bull is the WOW crowd.
[Reply]
4/12/2008 7:43 am
I’ve had a few forrays with Linux installations. The only one I ever installed that worked was Mandrake (9 i think) in 2002 or so. Every other refused to boot or had weird quirks with my hardware. One of the times, I bought was Xandros in 2005. It didn’t support SATA hard drives and they had no ETA when that would be added and no one cared to answer any of my questions in their support forum. Since it was offered on the cheap, I tried Linspire in ‘06, but they didn’t support widescreen displays without going and hacking the video settings some kind of way. After the linspire, I tried Ubuntu, but all it did was funk up my hard drive leaving me to wipe it again and reinstall Windows. For the two years I ran WinXP64, I had many fewer problems than I did in the perhaps five days total I ran Linux. Even worse, so far, no Linux distro save that early Mandrake ever had a functioning bootloader enabling me to run Linux and Windows together.
I’m smart enough to build my own pc. I’m smart enough to hack drivers for XP so they would work on XP 64, but I am absolutely not smart enough to run Linux yet. I do have hope for the new thingie that installs Linux inside of Windows so you can manage it like any other installed app.
As far as software, I cut Linux some slack, but let’s not go overboard telling how great they are. There are huge holes in their library that are currently only filled by WineX. But don’t get me started on my experience trying to run it on that Mandrake install I tried.
[Reply]
spuffler reply on April 14, 2008 8:23 pm:
Again, we hear only about *Windows* applications.
Try PCLinuxOS MiniMe 2008…. Wine works fine for me. I only installed Wine on a whim, to see if it works. I do not really NEED to run Windows programs for myself. I installed Wine because so many folks seem to think that only Windows deserves to exist.
If you want system that runs games, you are talking about a game console; Microsoft sells the XBOX series (and we’ll put Linux on them, too). If you want to create something useful, try Linux.
[Reply]
Cem Kalyoncu reply on April 21, 2008 7:20 am:
Interesting… Today any distribution comes with Grub the Bootloader, supporting many options as well as multi boot. Any GNU/Linux I have installed recently supports not only SATA but also SATA2 beating XP. But what I recommend is using Fedora with KDE. Hope you don’t try to install Fedora Core 2. The recent version is 8.
[Reply]
4/12/2008 11:00 am
It’s not a lie. There are MANY MANY MANY more applications available for Linux than there are Windows. As stated these are all available for FREE via download.
Your argument about games is not valid either. Several companies make native Linux versions of there games. Id Software the leading maker of 3D accelerated games in the world always releases Linux versions of their games. I have DOOM 3, Quake 4 and Enemy Territory:Quake Wars installed. Epic games, the number two maker of 3D accelerated games in the world makes NATIVE Linux versions of their games. Unreal Tournament 2004, Unreal 3 etc. They are not the only ones.
If there is NOT a NATIVE port of the game you wish to play, you can use W.I.N.E. to run the game. W.I.N.E. is available for FREE and runs many games. If a game is very new and “bleeding edge” and does not run in W.I.N.E. you can purchase CEDEGA and usually run it through that. Games such as World of Warcraft have run flawlessly since launch via it.
Saying there isn’t an equal amount of quality games in Linux is an outright lie. You either have never tried Linux or you’re just plain ignorant to what’s available. Microsoft stock holders thank you for mindlessly defending their product though.
[Reply]
KGE, wtf? reply on April 14, 2008 8:49 am:
Ok, so buy a game, go home, and spend twenty minutes to two days configuring WINE to run it. Face it, gamers can use linux, but with the handicap of WINE. As for your native Linux games, that’s true, but a majority of games are Windows-exclusive. You also mentioned “Mindlessly buying Microsoft products.” Well let me assure you I have never bought a Microsoft product.
Or any other piece of software that’s more than $39.99
[Reply]
tj reply on April 14, 2008 1:34 pm:
There is no reason to steal commercial software when viable alternatives are available for free. Spending 20 minutes to configure WINE to play a game is nothing compared to attorney fees. Suck it up.
[Reply]
spuffler reply on April 14, 2008 8:27 pm:
And how many businesses run games, anyways?
Game game game game.
Go get an XBOX if games are all you want in life. We run on them too.
4/12/2008 1:13 pm
Jus a personal opinion.
Truth be told, I have used Linux mostly because some college courses required the use of it, but I never switched, importantly because Linux has a hard time with some of my hardware (mostly with creative sound card), I’m more confortable using drivers provided my the hardware manufacturer than with 3rd party drivers developed by some teenager that has no knowlege of software engineering and testing.
Second is lack of applications, Yeah I know what you’re going to tell me “Linux has an incredible amount of apps ready to download”, etc. But what I want to point is linux users have made a great failure in commercializing them, telling the non hard-core users that they are really there and why are they worth it.
Third is the community, there are so many distributions of the Linux platform and they each have their own community. The problem is that they are always bashing each other and demeriting their software that in the end it only ends with the user thinking “why should I listen to this people acting like children? I’m going back to WIndows…”
I believe that Linux will never gain more than a 30% marketshare if it continues like this… mainly it has the same problem that Windows Vista has, too many editions, in the Linux case is too many distros. Until people take notice and decide to create only one and focus only on one the user will be undecided and go with the crowd (Windows).
The author perspective is on the developer hand, what about the hard-core gamer, like Lespaul20 said? Some people use their PCs for other reasons than development, the author should also include an analisys at least a short one on the pros and cons for other types of users.
[Reply]
4/13/2008 6:52 am
I’m glad that this article has generated some great feedback.The point I was trying to make is that Linux is a great OS that should not be so quickly dismissed. It can also be said that all OSes have their own strengths and weaknesses and there is no “best” OS. The one you should use is the one that works for you.
The great thing about modern OSes and current hardware platforms is that you have the ability and choice to use any and/or all of them to get what you need to get don, done. One should only be limited by their imagination, not by the tools they use.
[Reply]
4/13/2008 9:21 am
Linux is a great operating system - though that sentence is incorrect as hell, because it largely depends on what distro you are using.
I like Linux as a one-floppy-router (fli4l). I like Linus as a NAS (freenas). I like it as a desktop for surfing the web and getting some conding done (Ubuntu).
It´s NOT fit for gaming.
Cedega and Wine are powerhogs par excellence. World of Warcraft achieves double the framerate when run under a properly configured Windows than under Linux. Many abilities of graphics cards are simply not emulated nor properly implemented. Unleass a game uses OpenGL for its display output, chances are high you cannot run it with all details to the max, despite having high-end hardware.
3D-Audio is also not supported well, and not fit for gaming (yet).
Most distributions also eat up memory and disk space. Because everyone wanted them to be “user-friendly”, installers, graphical front-ends, configurations wizards and the likes have been added to a point where the OS is as complex and blown up as Windows, if not even more so. A typical Suse install will leave lots of crap on your harddrive you´ll never ever need. On the other hand, if you compile a Gentoo specifically to your needs, you´re looking at a loooooong time for installing/compiling until you can use your computer again.
And the same thing again every time you might wish to update your kernel.
A WinXP can be configured via several tools, stripped down of unneeded drivers, languages, utilities, and - in that state - will eat less than 800MB on your harddrive - fully patched with all the latest security fixes. Do an apples to apples comparison - if it´s allowed to customise your Linux install, allow it for Windows too.
And then, after you did it properly, let´s see what is faster.
One example: Stripped-down XP with SP2 on my EEE-PC: Bootup-Time: 10secs, Shutdown-Time: 2secs.
Also, my XP64 on my main machine had a bluescreen only once in 2 years - due to a faulty driver from Creative. Never ever had a Virus, never ever had malware on that thing. But don´t get me startet on that apache server at work… thing is, you can´t always just restart a running server to install security fixes if clients are depending on the services that thing offers. Then you tell them that you have to patch that stuff to make it more hack-proof and they say: “Why do you have to do that? Aren´t you running Linux?” Yeah, ofcouse we do, but - suprise surprise - Linux is a favourite target of hackers, too! Mainly those components which can be found in nearly all distributions ofcouse.
Summary: Linux is great for specific tasks, but it isn´t going to replace Windows as a Desktop OS anytime soon. The thing is: It doesn´t have to! The two can happily co-exist. As soon as everyone gets that into their heads, 90% of all stupid flamewars (and articles like the one which made me write this) can happily fade away into oblivion.
Oh, and btw, I can get a whole set of Applications for almost every task for free on almost every OS, be it BeOS, Linux, Windows or MacOS. That´s really a weak argument, on my old Amiga I even built a complete Workbench environment from freeware tools which was smaller and faster than what Commodore provided.
[Reply]
4/13/2008 2:12 pm
Sorry, but again we have another clueless Linux devotee. You have lost all objectivity.
Linux isn’t even close to “easy to use”.
It’s ridiculous the hassle you have to go through to install drivers or even programs. Exponentially harder and you know it.
TO install a driver on Windows I run the install for the driver or at the very worst I point to an inf file. NOT SO IN LINUX. It can be a nightmare to even unzip something where you want it. The bottom line is Linux is unnecessarily difficult to use. It just is. Yes, it has a browser and a GUI and Openoffice. But really there is NO reason to use Linux at all. None. I don’t care that it’s free. I don’t care that the apps are free. The apps are coded for the most part by people like you and me and that means beta class apps at BEST. There are TOO MANY apps for linux. Sometimes one app might have 10 different versions of itself. It’s silly.
So you keep using Linux and denying why it hasn’t gone mainstream. It’s just not practical to use. For the most part people want to just plug something in and it work. It doesn’t work that way with Linux most of the time. There is a reason that Dell tried the whole OEM linux thing on new pc’s and then very quickly backed away from it.
Linux will NEVER EVER be mainstream. Please accept this. I have been running Vista since early Beta and it has always be very very stable. At this point it is more stable than XP ever was. The people complaining about Vista are people like you, people with agendas. The other segment that complain about Vista are people who don’t have the hardware to run it properly.
Vista is pretty. Vista is fast. Vista is stable.
Linux is good for being
As for gaming, well we all know the score on that one don’t we? Linux is 10 years behind.
Linux is for throwing on the old laptop and playing with for a few hours on a boring weekend. Of course, after playing with it a few hours you realize what a waste of time it is. You realize that it only exists because people want be rebels and use something non-microsoft. Well, you have that right. But me? I will stick with the better OS. That mean anything Microsoft at this point.
[Reply]
Payment from Microsoft you take? reply on April 14, 2008 9:54 am:
How much did Microsoft pay you to surf blogs and promote Vista? Vista is a terrible application, yes I used it, yes I beta tested it and yes I even have an MSDN account to get everything MS offers to test/use. I was excited to try out Vista and I was very happy with XP, but when it wouldn’t even INSTALL on an older(read:not leading edge) PC, I knew it was crap. It crashed, came with driver problem galore and nagged me constantly with pop ups for allow this/that. Ubuntu on the other hand, installed within 15 minutes on that same computer and was DONE in that timeframe. It was ready to work on straight from the initial boot. I was surfing the net and sending mail, downloading torrents immediately. Show me windows that can do that? Show me windows that takes less than 30 minutes from partitioning to first boot, can’t can you? Please take you Vista promotion payment from MS and plague another board.
[Reply]
Barius reply on April 14, 2008 2:08 pm:
You should not compare driver installs on Linux to Windows. The two OSes deal with the driver issue fundamentally differently. In Linux the drivers are all included in the kernel. If you use Linux you know that you should buy your hardware with Linux in mind. If you do, you never need to worry about a driver install period.
Windows on the other hand does not update it’s kernel every few months and so new drivers are not included. However, MS has solved this problem by making it as easy as possible to install drivers manually.
Is one way better than the other? From my perspective Linux wins because in the past 2 years I have installed Linux a dozen times and never once had to think about drivers. But I admit that in each case I had either pre-sourced the hardware or it had been an older (>6 months) machine. If I had to install Linux on a brand new machine I might have had some problems. On the other hand, when was the last time a home-user ever installed the OS themselves? With Dell selling Ubuntu equipped machines there is simply no reason to worry about drivers on Linux at all.
[Reply]
Karl G reply on April 14, 2008 4:03 pm:
Hi Kyle. I’d like to disagree.
> Sorry, but again we have another clueless Linux devotee. You have lost all objectivity.
Pot, meet kettle.
> Linux isn’t even close to “easy to use”.
Please explain. What about it isn’t easy to use? While this is a handy (and suitably vauge) comment to throw out, it isnt very easy to argue, as you dont have a point which can be argued.
> It’s ridiculous the hassle you have to go through to install drivers or even programs. Exponentially harder and you know it.
Lets look at installing a driver.
I’ll use Windows XP and Ubuntu for this example, since I’ve used both, and we’ll install a driver for an nVIDIA card we just put in our system. (not necesarily the latest version, but one that works).
To get the driver:
XP:
-> visit nvidia.com
-> download drivers menu
-> choose your product
-> your product series
-> product
-> OS (may be pre-filled)
-> language (may be pre-filled)
-> select search
-> agree to TOS
-> select download
Ubuntu:
-> open system menu
-> open administration menu
-> open “synaptic package manager”
-> select find
-> type in “nvidia”
“Exponentially harder” this will need explaining as well.
> TO install a driver on Windows I run the install for the driver or at the very worst I point to an inf file.
And what happens when you “run the install”? lets go over it.
In XP: -> run installer
-> installer asks where to unpack
-> installer unpacks -> installer asks you to agree to TOS (again)
-> installer asks you where to install
-> installer asks what extras you want installed
-> installer offers to place icons in various places
-> other things i dont remember may be here …
In ubuntu:
-> tick box next to relevent nvidia driver
> NOT SO IN LINUX. It can be a nightmare to even unzip something where you want it.
Sorry, but this sounds like PEBKAC to me.
> The bottom line is Linux is unnecessarily difficult to use.
EG…?
> It just is. Yes, it has a browser and a GUI and Openoffice. But really there is NO reason to use Linux at all. None. I don’t care that it’s free. I don’t care that the apps are free.
So there is reason(s), you just dont care to pay attention to them.
> The apps are coded for the most part by people like you and me and that means beta class apps at BEST. There are TOO MANY apps for linux. Sometimes one app might have 10 different versions of itself. It’s silly.
Who are you? whats your coding skill? if its the skill of someone whos been using UNIX for 20+ years, and C for as long, it may well be written by people like you.
> So you keep using Linux and denying why it hasn’t gone mainstream.
“mainstream” *on the desktop*
> It’s just not practical to use. For the most part people want to just plug something in and it work. It doesn’t work that way with Linux most of the time.
Did you know Linux 2.6.x supports more USB/external media devices “out of the box” than *any* kernel (Linux, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, BSD, etc) before it?
> There is a reason that Dell tried the whole OEM linux thing on new pc’s and then very quickly backed away from it.
I see no evidence of backing away from their latest foray into shipping Ubuntu:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&dgc=IR&cid=11973&lid=471885
> Linux will NEVER EVER be mainstream. Please accept this. I have been running Vista since early Beta and it has always be very very stable.
Vistas stability doesnt have a lot to do with the mainstreamness of GNU/Linux
> At this point it is more stable than XP ever was. The people complaining about Vista are people like you, people with agendas. The other segment that complain about Vista are people who don’t have the hardware to run it properly.
“The other segment that complain about Vista are people who don’t have the hardware to run it properly.”. Over 90% of the worlds population (if not more!).
> Vista is pretty. Vista is fast. Vista is stable.
So is Ubuntu, Fedora and all the major GNU/Linux distributions. Whats your point?
> As for gaming, well we all know the score on that one don’t we? Linux is 10 years behind.
Is it? Do you have some sort of proof for that claim? Last i checked the following games (as a sample) were available:
Major lables:
Major lables:
Quake IV
Unreal Tournament
Doom III
Home grown:
Nexuz
Battle for Wesnoth
Neverball
and many others…
Also, i think you’ll find that many of the best childrens games are available on GNU/Linux (eg planet-penguin-racer, tuxmath, gcompris).
> Linux is for throwing on the old laptop and playing with for a few hours on a boring weekend. Of course, after playing with it a few hours you realize what a waste of time it is. You realize that it only exists because people want be rebels and use something non-microsoft. Well, you have that right.
You have absolutely no idea about the philosophy that drives it do you?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
> But me? I will stick with the better OS. That mean anything Microsoft at this point.
Totally unsupported statement.
Please stop making vauge FUD comments and provide some backing to your claims.
Karl,
(Who ran Windows XP for 5 years, has run GNU/Linux for 4, and manages hybrid XP/Ubuntu networks)
[Reply]
Iuvat reply on April 16, 2008 3:13 am:
Thank you. I was about to have to post a rather large reply disputing all of what he said, but you already have, and it has turned out much better than how I could have ever put it.
[Reply]
Cliff reply on April 17, 2008 9:42 pm:
Kyle starts out by calling the original author a “clueless Linux devote” and stating he (the author) has “lost all objectivity”. A rather telling opening and oxymoronic (no, it is not a word but it conveys the idea). Let us read on and have Kyle illuminate us to the truth.
He tells us Linux is not easy to use, that it is a hassle to install drivers and programs (Exponentially harder and we know it). On the great Windows we run the install or at worst point to an INI file. Nothing more needs done, I am sure he would have mentioned it had there been additional steps. Now that cursed Linux makes the user unzip a file (they are called tarballs Kyle and they are only one way of installing software in Linux). The tar command has 5 options (that I worry with anyway) they are f, x, v, z, and j and the last two are for determining which compression scheme is used. Now install does not need options (who really wants options anyway?) Just click and go. Well I like command line (I am old school so deal with it) so a handful of options top open a tarball is fine by me. I can use RPM if I want, it has a dozen options but it will catalog my software and with the APT or YUM is can automagically (I am making up words again) upgrade any or all of my programs. A script and task manager and well I will always be up to date (not too bad of and old timer) He doesn’t care if OpenOffice is free, it is so hard to use and there are too many apps (I wish Widows fanboys would get their arguments straight, are there too many apps or none at all?) but they are all beta since they are written by people like “you and me” (tell me Kyle, what applications have you written) and sometimes there are 10 versions of the same application. “It’s silly” (his phrase not mine) While we are here, how many Breakout/Space Invader variants are out there in Windows land?)
Kyle says the author continues to use Linux but denies why it has not gone mainstream. Simply put, it is not practical. Dell tried to OEM it and then quickly backed away from it. Did they back away because it was impractical or because Microsoft ‘urged’ them to. Maybe he should GOOGLE it (if you are not snickering now, you missed the joke.) But Kyle is right Linux will never be mainstream and used daily. I could GOOGLE all manner of websites to prove this. (by now there are Linux users rolling on the floor (no I do not text, nor use cheesy abbreviations … why is abbreviations such a long word? FOCUS!!!))
Kyle assures us that Linux will “NEVER NEVER” (and that is pretty assuring to me) be mainstream. He has been using Vista since ‘early’ beta and it has always been stable. Now I have run some beta systems in my life and I have to say that beta is an old Greek word that means “Why the hell did that happen? Stable and beta are not synonyms (in ANY world, Windows, Linux or (heaven help us) MacOS). But Kyle corrects me, people who complain about Windows have agendas. (What about the people who complain about Linux?) The other segment that complains about Vista (there is more than one?) do not have the hardware to run Vista properly. What Kyle is tacitly saying is the whole reason the economy is going to Hell in a hand basket is because us cheap Linux-loving bastards will not get off our sorry collective ass and go out and replace all the hardware we bought last year to run this almighty Vista as it was meant to be run.
“Vista is pretty. Vista is fast. Vista is stable” (He said it not me, I knew a girl like that in high school, sort of. She was pretty, she was fast, but alas not always stable … FOCUS!!!!) Linux is only “good for being“. Not quite sure what that means really. Sounds pretty deep. Maybe I am still back thinking about high school.
“As for gaming, well we all know the score on that one don’t we?” Actually I do not keep score, it makes me to competitive and I get angry .. you would not like when I am angry (egad, bad TV flashbacks …. FOCUS!!!) Hate to break this to you Kyle, I work in corporate America for a living and there are no games in the office (ok, Solitaire and Minesweeper but do they really count?) “Linux is 10 years behind.” So that would make it run games like Windows 95/98 did? I had some good times playing those games. No, in Kyle’s world Linux is for throwing on the old laptop and wasting a few hours on a boring weekend. (Not to be confused with sitting in front of XP or Vista playing games for a couple of hours on a boring weekend) Linux only exists so us losers and be rebels and own something non-Microsoft (Where can I get a fancy Microsoft house or Microsoft microwavable meals?) he does acknowledge that we have that right (darn nice of him to do that, not all MS Fanboys will do that for you.) But as for Kyle he wants the better OS so that means anything Microsoft.
Now I could argue this up one side and down the other, but we all know who it is going to end. Kyle tried Linux once (maybe) and ditched in favor of a more comfortable Hell (One man’s trash is another’s treasure you know). Nothing I say will budge him so why fight? Kyle would tell you that it is because he is right and I can not do anything to prove him wrong.
I say “Never fight with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and pummel you with experience.” And as Ron White says, “Ya can’t fix stupid”.
Yes I have been sarcastic (it is one of many service I have (use service –status-all to view the others (the Linux fans are snickering again)) But for now I must select all this text and copy from OpenOffice Writer to the text box in FireFox and shut down my Vista laptop and go take a test for my Linux class. Googling as needed to find answers.
Goodnight moon, (_|_)
Cliff
[Reply]
Cem Kalyoncu reply on April 21, 2008 7:50 am:
Want a distro for install and launch, try Ubuntu or Suse. Ease of use?? You have to be kidding. What you should do when some one asks you to open a photoshop file (I am not talking about connecting a server or god forbid using svn) for instance. What is easy to use. Go buy photoshop or at least ACDSee and waste your money or just find the name of GIMP and type “yum install gimp” to see that it is already installed for you? I use computer extensively for every job. Programming, designing, reading, writing, playing games, movies, music, even I design my garden or aquarium using it. And when using windowze I feel I have missing one of my fingers. I find it too hard to find an application. I find too hard to configure windowz box. Hell there are sites devoted for mikizoftz undocumented settings buried deep inside the registry or worse.
funny. Anyway Fedora 8 is the one for me. Of course with Livna as yum repository.
When I see a nice application within a friends PC, in a mag, or on the internet; I dont just say neat, I write “yum install neat-application” and try it first hand. If I dont like it “yum erase uncool-app” thats it, everything that application has installed will cease to exist with configurations backed-up. Nothing is left behind without explicitly stating backing up somefile. Hell, when using windowz I really afraid to install something. If you install many programs your box NEEDS formatting. How is this thing, needs formatting
[Reply]
4/13/2008 2:43 pm
Linux on a home desktop for the average user - it’s viable. For the advanced and power user who fiddles with unusual apps it’s not.
Linux on a Small to Medium business desktop - NOT viable - they want 100% compatiblity GUARANTEED with everyone they deal with and Linux cannot offer that.
Enterprises usually work pretty much within themselves so can dictate standards.
If there’s a migration over to linux it’s going to be a very slow process - probably more to do with future generations starting their computer use with linux and the older generation of windows users dying out.
[Reply]
Peter reply on April 14, 2008 4:58 pm:
Tryed Ubuntu, by hard for several months.
No I consider it as a waste of time.
I need an operating system to solve my daily problems, and not and operating system (linux) which creates every day new preoblems.
drivers
wireless
program installation
lots of important apps without gui!!! (f.e truecrypt)
[Reply]
4/13/2008 2:45 pm
Everyone knows that passions run deep with respect to OS choice. At the risk of starting a flame war, here are a few more points to consider:
1) Linux and Open Source software is not written by some teenage kids. The code is maintained by professional and semi-pro developers who have a passion for it. I wouldn’t be suprised if there were contributors who worked for Apple or MS as their day jobs.
2) By having the source code available, it is possible to perform a thorough inspection and verify the correctness of the code and the implementation scheme used. This leads to a more stable, less buggy product.
3) The majority of the world’s stock markets are either running on, or switching to Linux, including the NYSE. While this may not talk directly to gamers, what it should do is drive home the point that Linux is not tossed together by two-bit hacks who know nothing about software engineering.
The biggest difference between Linux and other OSes is not really about capability, it’s about marketing. There are not billions of dollars spent in convincing the masses that it is the answer to their prayers. The fact that it is as popular as it is based solely on it’s merit should also speak volumes about it’s worthiness.
I have used Windows (how can you not?). I play games (currently own both a Wii and a PS3). I choose to use Linux because it does what I want it to do and I can use the tools I need without having to “torrent” them because the vendors charges an outrageous price. I like freedom of choice and freedom to use my computer how I want…not how some corporation thinks I should (can we say DRM?).
I knew when I wrote this article it was going to draw strong opinions. It is the classic “Ford vs. Chevy” argument that has no answer and will never cease to rage on.
[Reply]
4/13/2008 3:05 pm
Not Ford vs Chev. Don’t make out linux to be some sort of powerhouse OS equal in every way to Windows. Just because you can code anything you want doesn’t mean my 64 year old mother needs to learn to code in order to look after her recipes. Don’t give me that crap about free stuff on the web, there’s lots of retarded crap you have to sift through before you find anything worthwhile.
The main reason there are no virus and spyware being written for linux is the same reason there were no security holes being exploited in Firefox when it first came out. Market Share. No-one uses it, and the few who do are tech-savvy enough not to fall for even the most brillant dupes. There’s no money in hacking linux. When -yes, I said when- Linux gets onto enough computers, then the virus and exploits will start. The days of malware for fun and destruction are gone, only malware for profit remains, and that’s the most devious reason there is.
[Reply]
wiscads reply on April 14, 2008 4:05 pm:
“No-one uses it”
You use it.
Every time you make google-search, every time you make a DNS query, every time a packet goes through you router, you use Linux.
Don’t say Linux doesn’t have marketshare when more than half of the internet(even this very site) runs Linux. 85% of supercomputers run Linux. It’s not a coincidence that Linux is used for ultra-high-security job, like making sure United States nuclear arsenal is safe.
[Reply]
David reply on April 22, 2008 12:20 am:
I don’t use it. Some other computer or electronic device someone else spent a retarded amount of time setting up uses it. Just because the new heads for my mustang was delivered in a Sprinter doesn’t mean I use German vehicles. I used FedEx, not Mercedez.
Your attitude is typical of the elitist mentality, whether Linux, Apple, or the fact you stopped playing CounterStrike when Minh Le “sold out” and the player base increased past 42 people.
You sit there and pick out one generalization I made, completely ignoring the fact I said, “The main reason there are no virus and spyware being written for linux is the same reason there were no security holes being exploited in Firefox when it first came out. Market Share.”
When Linux matures and becomes consumer-friendly and not the tech-heavy, edit-a-file cuz I’m SuperCoderMan OS it is right now, all the problems Microsoft has, it will have. No OS is unhackable, remember that. The fact that the information MUST be changed in a computer means that it can be changed for ill. The only unhackable logic device is a light switch.
…and even then someone will turn it off when you’re taking a shit.
[Reply]
Johnson reply on May 8, 2008 7:20 am:
Well you are making assumptions that it will play out that way.
Ubuntu outlasted Vista on the Pwn to Own Contest.
http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/03/28/pwn-to-own-final-day-and-wrap-up
4/13/2008 5:03 pm
“The biggest difference between Linux and other OSes is not really about capability, it’s about marketing.”
This is the point. With out marketing and commercialization open source will be severely limited. Some people seem to forget most computer users are not tech savvy and don’t really care how it works but just as long as it does. And they are not going to switch to something that isn’t as polished just to make the “screw MS” statement. Linux based systems are great for large commercial instances because it’s free and it can be tailored to that particular firm. Most users don’t care about that because an OS (Windows or MacOS) come with the new computer they buy and they don’t use customized software specific to them.
I don’t think it’s as simple as a “Ford vs. Chevy” debate.
KEG- I still don’t believe that there is an EQUAL amount of QUALITY/CURRENT games available for the Linux platform.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:33 am
I agree 110% *but* a lot of users are not comfortable using the command line. I’m not sure that you can get away without it in most, if not all, distros.
[Reply]
Barius reply on April 14, 2008 2:22 pm:
Using the command line is entirely unnecessary for day-to-day usage. Only power users have a need for the shell these days, and for those users Linux is 110% better than Windows.
Remember, Windows was originally built on DOS. I remember still needing to use the command line in Windows 95, but eventually MS created GUI components for all the important stuff and the ‘cmd’ line essentially disappeared for everyday use. The same is happening on Linux today, the difference is that the Linux shell hasn’t been neutered by neglect as it has on Windows.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:36 am
i would claim that the biggest difference between windows and linux is that windows comes pre-installed and tweaked for the machine more often then not.
compared to what one can do with a linux install system these days, the windows one (excluding vista, as i have yet to experience it) is down right limited.
but as some 90% of the users never have to perform that task, and as more and more computers come with recovery systems rather then plain windows install media these day, windows is “simpler” in that area…
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:43 am
The truth lies somewhere in between. As long as Windows controls most of the corporate desktops you will most likely run into roadblocks running Linux. My current job requires a Windows app that will not run under Wine. My previous job had a similar issue. Solution: VMware. I run Windows for that one app and run OpenSuse 10.3 for everything else. I thereby minimize my exposure to Windows vulnerabilities and gain the ability to use all of the free Linux apps which are often superior to the Windows paid for versions. Not exactly a purest approach but I’m happy.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:45 am
I hate Linux. I have suffered numerous times with a numerous versions of Linux. I am a graduate student in Computer Science and still I have hard time getting things working on Linux. My room mate who is also a CS student and a Operating Systems guru, is not able to fix his problems with Linux (He is using Ubuntu). Some day his wireless driver does not work, some day he is not able to listen to music on his laptop, some day the GUI just goes for a toss and so on. Every day there is a new story.
Don’t even try to compare it with Windows. Windows is expensive but guaranteed satisfaction. I have been using XP for years now and have never had any problems with that. I doubt if Linux will ever be able to compete with Windows.
[Reply]
Joe Momma reply on April 14, 2008 12:16 pm:
I’m an Xubuntu user. I still run XP in VMWare because there are still apps out there that don’t have a great equivalent in Linux. With that said, I work professionally on a development team, writing web apps that will be primarily used on Windows. Linux has made me a much better developer, hands down, no questions asked. When I see college level CS students say that they quit on Linux because they couldn’t get it configured right it makes me think that I don’t want you on my team, that stuff provides you experience and as the author said in the article, a deeper understanding of how things interact on the tool that you have chosen to dedicate your career to.
As for Linux being difficult, well it has gotten alot easier in the past few years, but it’s not for everyone. I would not install Linux for anyone in my family, because it’s not for them in my opinion. Linux is a wonderful OS for someone who has the knowledge to really get in there and mess with things though. I can easily say that my install looks better than OSX or Vista, and combines some of the best UI elements of both. As a development environment, everything is configurable, so after the up front work configuring, setting up templates for your files, and picking the right text editor. My development flow shames anything I’ve seen on Windows or Mac.
Anyway, the point is, if you have the knowledge and patience to configure Linux the way you want it, you can end up with an OS that is exactly suited to the way that YOU do your work. I don’t think I’ll ever go back. I use Xubuntu as a base for my system, but it would work just as well with most other flavors.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:46 am
Look if you can’t convince someone to give Linux a go then… SCREW THEM! Let them go waste their money on a crappy OS.. Let them get virus after malware after trojan when they click YES to “Are you sure?” on that new Vista junk security model.
The truth is, these people do not deserve a good operating system, and chances are they will not contribute in a positive way to a very, very good operating system , it’s associated applications/tools (salute the GNU) and fair licensing model (GPL/BSD/etc). They don’t deserve your/our help, only our pity.
Those willing to have an open mind, allow their home or business server to be Linux or another open source system, to have their website powered by say LAMP rather than an owned Windows server, or are brave enough to install Ubuntu or another distro in a virtual machine or dual boot - these are comrades-in-waiting! These friends are open source’s future.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:47 am
Reason 4 is use Linux is not well written. The LAST reason to use another OS is to be diffrent. Look where that ad campaign got Apple.
Improvement is one thing, but believe it or not, people who use Windows aren’t all stupid, and calling them it isn’t gonna get them to switch.
Don’t insult your prospective user base. Its not a good idea.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 2:50 am
It’s just the lack of adobe products that hold me back, nothing else
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:03 am
I currently have Ubuntu on a partition on my otherwise Vista machine and when I use it I feel very much like I am visiting poor relatives in the Ukraine. Windows is so much smoother going back to it after a few hours of Linux is like sinking into a hot bath at the end of the day. Linux is more complicated to use, all that getapt install etc business may be interesting but it is not easy.
Having said that, I’m not giving up on linux. It may be less pretty and smooth + more complicated but the challenge of changing and the mystique makes the whole experience worthwhile, but it will be a few years before I could use it exclusively.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:07 am
You start with the weakest point: security.
Yes, Linux can be very secure, especially when compared to MSWindows. But if you bring those same users with their bad habits to Linux, in sufficient numbers to make the Linux platform the dominant platform, you’d soon see security problems everywhere.
Let’s consider: Linux has that mysterious “root” account that is needed for all sorts of things. When you install software, you need to be “root”. When you update the system, you need to be “root”. When you get those mysterious “permission denied” errors, you need to be “root” (or at least if you are root, the errors go away).
Take a user who happily downloads and runs files from any old website; a user who enables javascript, flash, java, active-X, and trusts every single CA in their browser; a user who, when confronted with a dialog box that says “You need administrative access to accomplish this task, please enter your password”, will immediately do so. Take such a user, and put ‘em on a Linux box, and that linux box will be toast.
Sure, we have SELinux and friends. But those aren’t going to be used by the average end-user, trained by Microsoft for decades to do the stupid thing (because the system is so lame you can’t do the right thing); rather, the average end-user will disable all that crap so they can play the game their brother-in-law forwarded to them.
Viruses and Trojans are no more difficult on Linux than any other system. They WOULD be, if the default installs had /, /etc, /var, /tmp, and /home mounted no-exec, and /usr mounted read-only, and so on and so forth. But that’s not what we see.
Really, the only reason Linux is “more secure” from viruses and trojans is that the community has a far higher per-capita paranoia rate, and a much smaller population. Reverse both of those, and what is Linux left with?
“You can compromise the user-account but not the system”?
If you can compromise the primary user’s account, you own the system. It’s just a matter of time.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:09 am
“I believe that Linux will never gain more than a 30% marketshare if it continues like this… mainly it has the same problem that Windows Vista has, too many editions, in the Linux case is too many distros. Until people take notice and decide to create only one and focus only on one the user will be undecided and go with the crowd (Windows).”
That is one of the best things about linux, there are many distros, different people have different needs for example poeple who need video editing/production, music composing and stuff can use linux distro designed for that purpose, it’s not a weak point.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:15 am
This is really good article Jason Dyok, Thank You. If you have spear time, I welcome you to email me about some blogging.
Anyways, I’ve used all windows versions up till vista, for 11 yrs. The most I’ve used is Windows XP. I’ve tried vista but never liked it. I’ve also used linux on and off for many years. Most of it dual-boot then virtual os (vm). I’ve switched to linux completely three weeks ago and I love it. Never going back.
I agree with Jason Dyok, Quote “The one you should use is the one that works for you. The great thing about modern OSes and current hardware platforms is that you have the ability and choice to use any and/or all of them to get what you need to get don, done. One should only be limited by their imagination, not by the tools they use.”
Use what works for you, don’t listen to anyone
All this flame wars only get you to ground zero =D
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:16 am
every time a linux apologist faces the ‘games’ issue they throw out quake 4 and doom 3. news flash: nobody gives a shit about quake 4 or doom 3! it’s time to face reality, ok? those games came out like ten freaking years ago.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:26 am
I appreciate the idea of this article, but you are incorrect about the hardware and software issue… linux is an amazing fileserver and is good for general office computing, but as far as games, multimedia, and creative professional needs, linux is nowhere near the level of microsoft or even apple…
don’t get me wrong… i actually use linux as a development php/mysql server… i used to use straight up debian, but my current favorite is ubuntu because it is the cleanest and easiest to me… in my search i tried a lot of different systems, but all the ones i liked we based on debian…
games i could care less about, but it is a fact that there are not nearly as many “modern” games for linux as there are for windows…
hardware vendors just do not support linux as much windows… apple even has issues with missing drivers… i have had a lot of problems with getting just simple soundcards to work in linux, nonetheless newer video cards…
as a creative professional, apple just plain owns, although windows is my choice only because of general compatibility as well as price… there are drivers for everything and it “just works”…
let me give a quick list of my daily needs that linux cannot supply… adobe, macromedia, steinberg, roland, yamaha, korg… yes there are alternatives, but they exactly that… alternatives to the real deal…
linux has a use… serving files… just like a hammer has its use… a computer is a tool to be used to its best function… you wouldn’t use a tablesaw to turn a screw…
a piece of advice for you… try not to get defensive or angry when someone tells you that they don’t like linux… maybe one day linux will be the most compatible and awesome system available, and the evil domination of microsoft will come to an end, but as it is right now I wouldn’t give a linux computer to my own sister…
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:28 am
I am a regular tinkerer with Linux but being a developer for corporate based applications unfortunately linux just doesnt run the required (mostly microsoft) technologies I need to use on a daily basis.
I just wanted to say while on the most part I agree with these types of pro Linux article im getting abit bored of seeing the BSOD argument. Are people really still seeing the dreaded bluescreen on a regular basis. I for one havent seen it for a long time and I put the OS under some pretty reasonable stress everyday. Also to be fair if you really wanted to it’s pretty easy to force any OS to crash ( I for one managed to make a right mess of ubuntu trying to get dual screens to work with my graphics card )
My 2c
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:28 am
free argument Bs when you buy a pc you still pay for windows
[Reply]
Johnson reply on May 8, 2008 7:12 am:
Try Dell.com they sell computers with linux. Perhaps buy a computer at Walmart that doesn’t have a os pre-loaded.
If that doesn’t suit you then build your own. It might be a learning curve but you will get a better bang per buck ratio in performance.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:31 am
i dual boot XP and ubuntu(the terribly easy-to-use distribution), and i find both to be solid OS’s
yes, linux is superior… probably by far in terms of structure, safety, and all that other jazz. but windows has a huge market share. and naturally, almost all commercial are released for windows. I’ve tried the free games on linux before… and in comparison to windows-only games, they kinda suck
linux was definitely a joy to use. i still dont understand most of the terminal commands. XP feels more cumbersome. even moreso than vista(say what you will, but i find it to be a very user-friendly OS).
Also, i LOVE the effects you get with beryl on ubuntu. definitely superior to vista.
so in short… if you aren’t a gamer, give linux a try.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:33 am
Myth 1: “Linux is hard to install”
Firstly, this isn’t a Myth.
Secondly, just because people don’t agree with you, doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
Thirdly, most of the problems that non-linux people have with linux is that they don’t use linux often. Which means if they have a problem inside linux, say an installation fails, they’ve got no idea what to do. On windows, more people have some sort of idea what to do.
This extends to the explanations in linux may appear to be explained well, to you, but often the explanation isn’t done well for a layperson to really understand, or it’s done in a different way that they are used to (making it harder to understand).
Myth 2: “Linux does not recognize my hardware”
Again, this isn’t a Myth
Virtually not an issue and not an issue are two different things.
Myth 3: “Linux is too complicated to use”
Again, just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it isn’t a myth.
A graphical Interface with a mouse and windows doesn’t make an intuitive interface.
Auto-updaters don’t make an intuitive interface.
Add/remove software capabilities doesn’t make an intuitive interface.
Having a bunch of applications doesn’t ensure an intuitive interface.
Yes, windows is “just different” to linux, but it’s like learning another language. German has words, syntax, structure, verbs, nouns, it’s just different to English isn’t a very resounding argument for why someone should learn German.
Myth 4: “There are no applications available”
I’ve never heard anybody say that there are no applications available. Maybe that it’s harder to find the applications that you want to use, and don’t make your interaction with your system worse.
Even assuming that people say “there are no applications available” would you consider for a moment, at least before calling people liars, that they are generalising. Much in the same way that people go “there are no games on linux”, they don’t mean games that you play through a VM, spend 9 hours configuring with wine, is 5 years old or is tux racer.
Reason 4: Self Improvement
Most people don’t want a computer to develop on. They want to download pornography in a manor that they are most comfortable in. Because, let’s be honest, who wants to be uncomfortable when downloading porn?
Reason 5: Cost:
I can count the number of times my XP box has suffered from BSOD; even then, most office software that’s been around for the last 10 years auto-saves frequently. I’ve probably lost more time due to my hard-drive corrupting than I have to your shitty example. Being a non-moron, I’ve got virus scanners, and firewalls installed.
All up, I probably have 2 days of lost productivity due to Windows being a shit operating system, compared to the dozens of days due to stupid systems administrators who configure network profiles incorrectly, and hardware failures.
Here’s one of my own that you should add in:
Reason 6: Being a smug cunt.
If you install Linux you can postulate about how awesome you are because you use a fringe operating system. I mean, nobody can rant and rave about how awesome they are because they use Windows, but in just a few minutes of using the easy (I promise) installer, and you’ll be a know it all God who can tell people what they feel, even if they’ve never experienced it from their point of view.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:36 am
Actauly my view on why Linux has not taken off is really a pretty simple one.
One particular monopolistic company has made it nigh impossible to allow OEMs to install Linux on their base systems for sale. They are only now starting to break this stranglehold. Look how amazingly well a linux machine like the eeePC is selling as well as some others out there. Think of all the Routers and switches running Linux firmware. Linux is being used far more than people believe, just not in the public view.
If you had to remove all the Windows sold through OEM’s and just looked at the store bought versions to the downloaded versions of Linux, you should see that the numbers are not that different.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:40 am
I definitely do not believe that Linux has a broad game base. I use Linux for work and anything I want secure. I use Windows for games and browsing. I let Linux access the hard drive. Windows runs off a disk image in Virtual Iron.
Being a reverser, I’ll admit to having never agreed to any EULA, and to having reversed windows.
“If you can’t open it, you don’t own it”
Regards,
Dan
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:46 am
I’m going to compromise the security of my documents/work/etc because it plays ‘insert game title’ well.
Silly.
I like the priorities of the computing masses today.
I think the point of this article isn’t directed towards convincing you to switch your OS but to discredit some of the misnomers attached to Linux distros.
I don’t think Linux requires any more ‘tech savvy’ abilities as it does to boot and version of Windows. Every OS runs into these same issues attached to drivers/hardware.
Now which do you think is easier to sort.. issues on a system the is closed off or a system where your entire back end is completely transparent?
No system ‘just works’, look at Vista even being this far into a release or XP even.. still run with instabilities. And for OSX, my MBP is constantly receiving firmware/software updates to keep it running. So people really need to get off of the “they just work” kick.
If your system is fulfilling your needs then what’s the problem? Stick to what you know if you’re not having an issues.
You wanna hear people act like children? Go anywhere and state your opinion on Mac vs. Windows.
Go Linux!
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:50 am
This article suffers from the classic misunderstanding about operating systems in general: It’s not the desk that’s important, it’s what’s ON the desk that matters. If you’re not a geek you care about as much about the manufacturer of your OS as about the manufacturer of your desk. If the maker of your desk made as much fuss you would tell him to shut up so that you can get on with your work.
Oh yes: Reason 4: Self-improvement also contradicts the rest of the article, admitting that Linux will demand a considerable amount of your time so that you learn how to use it. That’s your desk taking time away from your work. Only recommended if you really enjoy that kind of thing. Otherwise you choose Windows or OS X and get on with the more important things in life.
[Reply]
glc reply on April 14, 2008 3:07 pm:
“It’s not the desk that’s important, it’s what’s ON the desk that matters.”
EXACTLY. My Windows 2000 desk holds everything I need on it just fine, and has for almost 8 years now without a reformat.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:52 am
Myth 5
Linux has no decent pc games…
uh…
uh…
whoops it’s true
[Reply]
4/14/2008 3:58 am
hi thanks for the article. I’d no idea I could try it without doing a full install. Can’t wait to try it out when I get hpome tonight.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:09 am
I have to agree with the games comment. There are games available for Linux, even games I play (EVE Online for one) but they are not without varied bugs and quirks, and in the case of EVE offer reduced graphics relative to a Windows platform. And getting support for games within Linux is ridiculously sketchy due to the number of distros available. Issues seen within SUSE may be entirely different than those in Ubuntu, and getting specific answers for a specific symptom in a particular distro can be near impossible.
If more games were written for and not ported to Linux you might have an argument, but as it currently stands the majority of games do not offer the same experience in Linux that they do in Windows.
I have no problem using Linux but I’m not going to dualboot and restart my system into XP or Vista just so I can play a game at full resolution, or with HDR, or to access the one or two Windows apps I literally need. That’s an inconvenience I refuse to put up with.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:16 am
Linux so far is not for gamers, besides, I don’t think they’re such a huge portion of the market, noone I know spends 400 bucks every 6 months to have the latest video card. Developers are much more interested in releasing for consoles than PCs, less piracy, zero hardware compatibility issues, bigger profits.
To Brian, give ubuntu a try, I’ve been installing hardy beta on lots of different hardware with NO issues, if you managed to survive with the support lacking xp64, you’ll do much better with ubuntu.
Right now linux is targeting over 60% of the home market in my opinion, regular users who use the pc for web surfing, email, light office work, IM, file sharing, media playback. For all those uses linux excels, my dad’s first computer has ubuntu, he couldn’t be happier, my sister will be next.
If you bought a machine a few months ago, it came loaded with vista and you’re starting to get tired of it (or been since the first day), before installing a pirate copy of xp, really, try ubuntu, if you’ve never been exposed to linux you are in for a treat.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:18 am
I had some work related encounter with Linux using Red Hat Linux (Enterprise Edition- I do integrated applications with computers- engineering, a bit fancy stuffs but not too complicated not that too geeky with programmings and stuff, just configurations and integrations- i.e. practical applications…
Two days ago, I almost bought another laptop- the cheap ones, just so I can put my hands on installing Linux, Ubuntu in particular, but the I already have HP_Compaq V6000 with Vista HP pre-installed and I decide to just do dual-booth… Perfectly great decision on my part! I downloaded Ubuntu Desktop 7.10- the Gutsy Gibbon, and gutsy indeed… the installation was so smooth, even my grandmother can do this… it was very straigh forward as easy as Windows, did not have any problem with drivers and I was surfing with FireFox in no time, and the best thing is I can easily switch between Vista and Ubuntu…
Somehow I think I will be booting on Ubuntu more…
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:20 am
I might be wrong, but I’ve never seen any kind of innovation from Linux based OS. It seems that they are just trying to catch where Windows/MacOS are at their current state. They probably do lots of things better but nothing different. So why switch ?
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:32 am
Simple, stop being an evangelist and understand why people use Windows / Mac OS X.
1) Binary compatibility (hint: it’s a big deal on the desktop)
2) Hardware support - Windows gets the drivers first, and they come from the manufacturer. They are usually fully functional right out of the box.
3) Consistency - One of the greatest things about the OSS movement is that there are 100 ways to skin a cat, and if you don’t like my way, you can do it your own way. Fine. But with a desktop operating system, there shouldn’t be ten different ways to execute the startup scripts, two different sets of sound modules, thousands of different libraries, many different subsets of implementation behavior, etc. These things are great for people who desire the utmost control and for servers. For the desktop, it’s simply not that way.
4) Configuration - every distro is different. the update systems, how to modify your bash prompt, how to configure your mouse, how to configure your monitor, how to set up your file extensions, how hardware is managed, how drivers are installed, etc. There are subtle nuances among the distros to too many common configuration tasks. A desktop user can’t even configure Windows, and it hasn’t changed much in 8 years (save Vista, and even that’s relatively similar).
5) Commercial software. Like it or not, gnucash is not a substitute for Quicken/Quickbooks. OpenOffice is not an acceptable substitute for MS Office in a corporate environment. Games using WINE are not an acceptable substitute for games running natively on Windws (why would you run games at 60-80% of their native speed?) And what about all of the vertical apps that are not, and will not be ported to Linux? Accounting, appraising, legal, engineering, art, medical, etc. There are programs that people rely on every day that you haven’t heard of. People can’t just drop their software because Linux is more secure.
6. Installation - if you really think this is so easy, you’re fooling yourself. I’ve installed hundreds of distros since 1997, and they’re not easier than Windows. Hell, I installed Ubuntu three days ago, and after installation, it wouldn’t boot because grub couldn’t mount my partition. How hard is it to check and see if a special driver was needed, then make sure to warn me about potential issues with Grub? Sure, it has gotten easier over the years, but since most people have Windows, and it’s the only OS on their computer, they don’t have to know anything about installation.
7. Familiarity - this goes a long way. People can sit down in front of Windows or a Mac, and be generally competent with no training. They could most likely manage to keep the computer updated, customize their wallpaper, maybe set up a screen saver, install a printer, do a few things here and there. With Linux, I doubt they could get much farther than browsing the web. Adding a printer? Ha! Figuring out how to mount a USB thumb drive when the automount feature is not working properly? Mount another filesystem? Appropriately manage the various user/group accounts on a Linux system?
Listen, every year we hear the same thing about Linux on the desktop, and every year we tell the Linux community what the issues are, and every year they politely tell us to go fsck ourselves. We get it, you think Linux is cool. I personally think it gets in the way. And I use it quite a bit. I use a computer to do work. The computer is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
Until Linux can fix its shortcomings, it will have a hard time on the desktop. Remember, just because you like figuring out “issues” with your computer, and you like installing lots of free software, and you support the movement, and you like knowing every little thing that going on in your system, etc. doesn’t mean that everyone does.
Stop arguing about your choice of operating system, and start working to make it better. You’ll do much more for OSS, because whether you know it or not, every time you argue with someone (and belittle them because they don’t share your opinions, so they MUST be stupid), you make Linux look bad, and you essentially guarantee that that’s one more person who’ll never touch Linux.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:44 am
Well, people play games without knowing they are actually playing on platforms with customized linux kernels. Say, PSP, PS3, and let’s not forget the most widely available gaming platform, PS2 (Unfortunately, there is a witty way to keep the customized kernel src only “Open” to offical devkit owners while being compliant with the kernel’s GPL license).
But I must stated clearly here: Most x86 PC Linux distros are not exactly geared towards gaming purposes and the display driver support lag quite a bit behind windows’ equivalent(Nvidia’s making progresses but in some sense, not really justify the extra spending of the driver dev cost for linux platform). The popularity of 3D gaming on Linux PCs is…. you know. If you are heavy gamers, you better stick with your favourite gameing console(s) and/or MS Windows for DirectX-based Games at this moment. (Unless, you are causal gamers who can be easily satisfied with Tetris and Tux Racers
Doom & Unreal series are the very few special cases, but you can always play these on popular game console(s) with even better gaming experience.
On the other hand, ever notice linux desktop environments like Gnome and KDE become increasingly sluggish and resource hogging as their new versions coming out? (Some really low-end, age-old PCs can’t run them smoothly. e.g P3-667, 128MB RAM but less resource chewing is supposed to be the strength of Linux Destop, Right?) Not sure how their developer are going to fix the over-bloated src tree. The kernel is fast but the desktops and “some” of the linux apps line-up are not. Don’t tell me the end-user have the src and they can always fix the problems themselves as they please.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:47 am
yeah sure, linux is great, that is until something goes wrong, or something does not work, then you have to read 50000 how to’s, visit at least a million forums and after a week or so of reading u will find a partial fix to the problems, but guess what, that fix will mess something else or worse yet, the os wont even boot.
i have installed several distros or linux and they all lack on something, one would not do this, the other one wont do that etc, i remember i installed fedore core 5 and it would not recognize one of my drives, despite my best efforts, so i tried out ubuntu and sure it did install the drive but my v card would not funtion properly, so i set out to get the proper drivers and OMG, the how to that comes with the package from nvidia was like 100 pages!!!!!! i just want to install some drivers for christ sake!!!, but fine, i followed the instructions and beholddddd, upon reboot, the os would simply refuse to boot, lol lol, i just had it, i removed the partition and simple used partition magic to fuse it with my windows xp partition.
also, u say security, ok thats true, but the only reason is cuz no one cares about linux, i mean, if i was a hacker/craker and i set out to write some spyware/malware/virus to steal credit card info and such i would make it to yield the best results possible, and if we take into account the number of users using each os, the choice is clear. 90% of users vs a 6% the most.
remember when firefox was being pushed as more secure that IE?, now that firefox has gained a lot more of market share, is it not patched as regurlarly as IE? how can this be, if the browser is supposed to be secure, a lot more secure that IE?.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:49 am
I’ve only read untill myth3 and I don’t agree with myth3. Linux software installation is easy as long as you stay within the “safe-zone”. When you want to install a small exotic app. you’re mostley doomed. How are you going to install that freddy the fish which was a free dvd inside a box of cereals. They don’t support linux.
What about that latest game you or somebody else wants to play? doesn’t work.
some say: wine-hq! I say nothing works on it.
others say: buy crossover I say how am I going to explain to someone new to linux that he has to pay to be able to install old windows software.
To be able to play such amazing games as GTA2.
Their answer is but you said linux was free.
Let’s be honest. Linux is for 2 groups of people:
-enthousiasts: people who have fun fudging around in pc’s like stated in an article.
-people really basically using pc’s: the elderly, people who just surf and don’t install anything, learning pc’s for children and other specific needs.
The latter group uses what people give them. Saidly enough mostley windows although lately they also choose apple.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 4:53 am
I think that sometimes proponents of Linux over-advertise the fact that the OS’s and the software are FREE.
As a generalization, the monetary value of a product can sometimes be an easy way to judge its “worth”. The fact that MS WINDOZE costs x hundreds of dollars and that Linux costs $000.00 could be a deterrent for some people.
Maybe focusing on it’s strengths more than the non-existant price would be more useful.
[Reply]
4/14/2008 5:06 am
An interesting read. I can’t say that I entirely agree. Compared to Windows Linux is better in a great many respects but the elephant in the room is Mac OS X.
My thoughts here: http://atomac.aucs.com.au/?p=84
[Reply]
4/14/2008 5:26 am
I installed Ubuntu on my Acer Aspire 5000 Laptop.
It installed fine but wouldn’t recognise my broadcom wireless adapter but after many frustrating hours and after reading many forums I finally got it to work.
I then had the joy of installing flash via the synaptic installer which also failed. After much tinkering I managed to get some psuedo flash player to work with firefox.
At the end of the day just getting 2 basic elements of desktop computing to work was challenging and enough to put me off. People say it’s the tinkering and getting things to work is what makes Linux fun but I don’t