Linux is not Windows

[mairving]

Not trying to start an argument but I found this article. It's one of the best that I have ever seen explaining the Linux vs. Windows debate.

Some good quotes:

So, allow me to explain something that is fundamental to understanding Linux: The Linux community is not trying to provide the average Windows user with a replacement OS. The goal of Linux is not "Linux on every desktop". Really. It honestly isn't.. Yes, they're both an OS. Yes, they can both be used for the same things. But that makes Linux an alternative, not a replacement. It might seem an insignificant distinction, but it's actually a vitally important one.

Another good quote

If the answer is "I want Windows without the problems": Do a clean install of Windows XP SP2; set up a good firewall; install a good anti-virus; never use IE for browsing the web; update regularly; reboot after each software install; and read about good security practices. I myself have used Windows from 3.1 through 95, 98, NT, and XP, and I have never once had a virus, suffered from spyware, or been cracked. Windows can be a safe and stable OS, but it relies on you keeping it that way. If the answer is "I want a replacement for Windows without the problems": Buy an Apple Mac. I've heard wonderful things about the Tiger release of OS X, and they've got some lovely-looking hardware. It'll cost you a new computer, but it'll get you what you want. In either case, don't switch to Linux. You'll be disappointed with both the software and the community. Linux is not Windows.

[David M]

Nice description. I was one of those people who thought Linux should be more like Windows and as easy to use as Windows. I see how I was wrong. More choice is always a good thing.

[rightcoast]

I've quoted the computers/vehicles comparasion before, and find it very useful i really explaining why the two OS's are different.

The user-friendly discussion is quite apropos too. I like the way vi is used to illustrate the functionality aspect sometimes missed. Like how it is much much harder to learn than notepad and word, but once you do, at least 5 times and possibly a dozen times faster to do common text editing tasks. That's just how it is, and if there was a better way, I would be all for it.

And believe me, if he can make a text editor that is as "user-friendly" as Word and as functional as vi, he'll be met with nothing but applause. In fact, he'll probably be awarded the Nobel Prize For Extreme Cleverness, as nobody else has been able to do it yet.

I forget if this is the article that points this out, but a steep learning curve can markedly improve functionality. User-friendly is not the same as learn-friendly IMO.

Excellent article on why and how *nix is different than Windows, and why that means it isn't for everyone. Or even 5% of home PC users, and why that's OK for everyone.

[glc]

Here's my take (and I did not read the linked article, by the way) - Linux is like DOS - it's a command line operating system - and an excellent one at that. There are various GUI's that run on top of it. You cannot compare Linux to Windows. However, you *can* compare KDE or Gnome to Windows. In this respect, you almost have to compare the whole package to Windows 3.1, which runs on top of DOS. Yes, Win9x/ME also ran on top of DOS, but DOS was very well hidden from the average user, and almost everything you needed to do could be done through the GUI. NT-based operating systems (2K, XP) do not run on top of DOS.

Now, Linux GUI's are getting better and better, but they still have a long way to go to get to the point where even Win95 was as far as being able to do *everything* in the GUI. I have what I think is the most advanced package out there in this respect - Kubuntu - which is KDE 3.5 on top of Ubuntu. I'm very impressed with what the GUI can do, but there are things where you have to drop to a console and type all kinds of stuff - and I honestly don't care to learn all the arcane commands required. I spent enough time learning DOS many years ago - and don't want to go through all that again.

Therefore, I have to make the following statement - until there's a GUI for Linux that will allow the casual user to do *everything* it's not a viable OS for the masses. If you care to learn the Linux command line environment, then go for it, you are choosing an OS that a lot of people consider technically superior to anything M$ has ever done. I just think it's a pain in the butt - it took me 2 hours the other day to get mine able to print to a shared Windows printer across my network. Linux drivers can be a nightmare. With 2K/XP it would have been a few simple mouse clicks - find it in My Network Places, right click, connect.

[flcpge]

Yeah, I remember that article from osnews. I think people can't help it when they compare any OS to windows since it's ubiquitous. It's inevitable questions arise about the differences between the two, or if Linux can or can't do the same things for them like in windows. When I first switched to Linux, I was looking for a replacement for windows. I soon accepted that Linux was a different discipline, but wonderful to use.

[Marke522]

Linux <=> Windows is like Motorbikes <=> Cars: Both are vehicles that get you from A to B via the roads. But they're different shapes, different sizes, have different controls, and they work in fundamentally different ways. They are not freely interchangeable. They have different uses and different strengths & weaknesses, and you should pick whichever is appropriate, not pick one and expect it to do everything that the other can do.

Great article, I'm glad I read it. I have a cd of PC Linux OS that I've been meaning to use for about a year now, and keep putting it off. I'm sure by now it's out of date and I should use it as a coaster and get the latest Kubuntu or Mandriva.

I've owned and riden various motorcycles over the years, and they are NOT cars. Even my Jeep Wrangler was different than a typical car. No trunk, no back doors, windows didn't roll down, BUT... the top could come off, the doors could come off, the windshield could fold down, and the list goes on. Different does not mean better, or inferior. It simply means different. My wife prefers her minivan, that doesn't mean it's better. It just has a different mode of function that suits her needs or wants.

That article, and this thread, will remind me of that once I start using the CLI again.

Thanks mairving, good find. Thanks glc too, nice reply.

[catacon]

I have never really thought that Linux was a replacement for Windows. As others have said, it's like cars. Some like to buy a car and run it with everything stock and take it in for regular check ups and the local dealer and never do anything things themselves. Nothing wrong with that, just how some like to do it. Others like to find a car, fix it up, replace the stereo, paint nice, and do all the work themselves. Both will drive and get you places,iIt's just a matter a preference. Windows offers a quick and easy solution to getting to work. Whereas Linux will achieve the same stuff just in a more complicated (or fun, depending on how you look at it) way.

[edfair]

I like GLC's description but would change it to say that Linux is like DOS's daddy, since the original implementation was an attempt to get a Unix like command line.
I've tried several versions of Linux and the problems in loading have always driven me back to SCO because I didn't have the time to address the issues. I'm not one to put an OS on a machine just to have it, machines are tools and if they don't do the job right they are useless. Like any tool, if they are hard to use, I'll try to find one that is easier.

[Alaron]

Excellent article. It makes me want to spend more time with my Ubuntu installation.

[HAL9000]

I agree with GLC here... I ran Linux on a machine for 4 years... running as my web/FTP/file server... ran great.. never did a dang thing with it though because I never had the time to learn from scratch again... I'll point and click.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Better to have "awful" but well known, than "could be awesome" but yet to be known.

[faulkner132]

Linux isn't hard at all (I use Ubuntu). After only a month of using it exclusively at home, I was very comfortable with it. I haven't had Windows loaded on my home machine in about 4-5 months now.