Sunday, April 20, 2008

This is why i love LINUX


1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Unknown said...

yeha true.. very true.. Linux is better.. after a few years.. it will doninate!

Anonymous said...

What's Linux?

Unknown said...

hahha shit... you penguin lovers have been saying that for years. never gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

That is because Linux is so bad. It will dominate with the techies, but not in mainstream, unless some company actually supports it by making:

A. Drivers - Installing Windows drivers does not count.
B. Installer - OMG, without an installer Linux will never make it. People do not like jumping through hoops to install apps, only techies do.

Other than that, Linux is ok!!!

Clifford Campbell said...


So which distro are you using that doesn't have an installer?

Unknown said...

It's been a while since you've used Linux, eh Roberto? The latest Ubuntu makes it easy if not easy-ER than windows to install software (centralized software repositories: apt-get and yum) and multiple reboots are not necessary. Ever. Most if not all mainstream hardware that you could buy is supported, and you never need to fiddle with install disks since the drivers are kept in the central repositories and installed automatically.

So... learn before you spew.

Unknown said...

roberto. non-techies don't like installing anything. How many non-techies do you know that have installed windows.

But dell is taking care of A and many linux distributors is taking care of B (it's easier to install programs on linux than windows)

Kavey said...


A. Linux has better hardware support than Windows. As a matter of fact, I'll go out on a limb and say Linux has better hardware support than any other system out there. Does it support everything? No, but neither does Windows.

B. Linux has excellent installers. The problem is that people don't want to wait for the application to become available to them in an easily installable format. Case in point. A friend of mine installed Linux and But the latest was just released and he wanted to run it now.

Windows users are a little spoiled in that it is the norm to automatically include an installer for most Windows applications (mostly because Windows doesn't even come with the ability to compile for most users).

As long as you don't NEED (who really needs this anyway) to use the latest and greatest bleeding edge version, then you're just fine.

Personally I would like to see a unified installer for Linux, and all Linux apps be made available for install on all distros the day it's released. Some day that will happen, at least for Desktop distros, but I think we're still some way off from that.

FYI, at work, all Linux distros don't even install any applications. They install a base system, and all needed applications are linked into the system. So they are all installed and upgraded centrally, and run locally. Try THAT with Windows.

Unknown said...


yes and we've also been talking about manufacturers like dell distributing linux on the desktop for years... and guess what... it's coming to fruition.

Unknown said...

Try installing an instant messenger on Windows. By the time you've found, I have already realized that it comes preinstalled on Linux and just clicked on it. And even if it wasn't preinstalled I would just click on Add/Remove Programs and clicked a checkmark. Oh and everything on my laptop just works, I didn't have to do anything with drivers.

Reverend Witon Tap said...

My ubuntu 8.04 distro CD HAS an installer on it, but it doesn't work on my computer :(.

Vista installed just fine, and is working like a charm

Anonymous said...

If Linux had better support for hardware, then it should have recognized my Trendnet wireless card and given me the option to connect to my Airport network.
I will say, with Ubuntu 8.04 there is a WINDOWS wireless driver that makes Ubuntu now see the card and my network. Now connecting to it has not happened yet. Synaptics I guess I'm not use to, I would like to have and be able to install packages from a CD, Flash drive or whatever other method I choose.

I'll stick to my Mac OS X machine and play with my Windows/Linux projects. Maybe someday Linux will be ready.

Wakers said...

Excuse me? Linux doesn't even support ATI hardware properly (or vice versa) so you cannot say it has better hardware support.

That and, for people who havn't spent years using a computer (and even for those who have) its not at all user friendly when you first start to use it..

There's no welcome screens on any piece of software that tells you what its for. You find out what the pre installed packages do by opening them and looking around.

You have to use ther terminal to get alot of applications working. How user friendly is it to start installing and configuring via command lines? It isn't.

hardy heron is a great step forward, but there's a long, long way to go yet before it can even think about toppling windows or mac.

otherworldninja said...

Linux is better. ive been working with windows and mac for almost 10 years. and for the non-tech people afraid to make the switch. are merely people afraid of the change that will always be there. ive been hooked on ubuntu for pushing 3 months now. i felt stupid wasting so much time learning windows. when there was a vastly superior OS out there one that is free and completely customizable.

and anything with a creative commons license is pretty much of the chain.. w00t

Unknown said...

If you want out of the box wireless support, look for a card that uses an Atheros chipset. I just had a 2-3 year old card be recognized and installed automatically with an older version of Linux Mint (an Ubuntu derivative).

The problem with wireless is with the hardware manufacturers, not Linux. Trednet makes some really lousy hardware to boot ;)

Unknown said...

Walmart green machine. Out of box linux, no install. Not that I wouldn't do it myself because it's so damn easy and fast to install these days. My 4 and 8 year olds love it. They can play good educational programs for free. Beats the hell out of shelling out money for crappy Windblows software that is full of spyware and other crap which in my experience is so common among windows educational software that it's pathetic. Is what developers do with their software windows fault? No. But when while there is a cheaper, better alternative, I'm there.

Matt said...

IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A POINT, USE A PROPER WINDOWS CD. We'd all use linux if it ran programs.

Random thoughts about life's journey said...

I believe a lot of you missed Roberto's point. I don't think he was talking about the OS installer, I think he was talking about applications installers.

Having worked on MS boxes since the DOS days I can say that Ubuntu 8.04 is a giant leap forward in making things easier, however somethings are not easy.

For example getting flash to work on the 64-bit version proved impossible for me so I switched to 32-bit. Making a VPN connection to my corporate network hasn't worked and getting connected to my windows server file share is not working.

Don't get me wrong it's very liberating to be free of Microsoft's clutches but there is still work to be done.

Shtuff said...

Vista Premium + Office + AV software = $500+
Ubunta + Open Office = 0$

Manufacturers who have no linux drivers don't deserve any custom.

Chibigodzilla said...

"We'd all use linux if it ran programs."

Yeah! To hell with linux and it's "applications" and "executables," we want programs dammit!

Davin Studer said...


Yeah, it's called Citrix. Been around for along time.

Davin Studer said...


Can't even get Ubuntu to boot on my laptop.

Kavey said...

That's the worst logic ever.

"My wireless device doesn't work in Linux, so Linux sucks."

By that logic, Windows is a terrible OS because it really only supports a small subset of systems. Don't believe me, install Vista on a 10 year old computer. How about a mainframe. How about a Solaris system. How about an iPod.

Instead of buying stuff that's not supported, how about doing a little research and finding out what IS supported and buying that.

Linux supports hardware because the Linux community wants it to work. Windows supports hardware because the manufacturer wants it to work so people will buy it. Windows holds the majority market. Makes sense. Linux does not have the support of the manufacturers yet (with a few exceptions). Once it gets the support of the manufacturers, then you will see the changes you seek. (FYI, my nviida cards and my samsung printer runs great in Linux).

When you really think about it, it's amazing what Linux supports. People spend lots of time making hardware work with no help from the people who created it.

Dan said...

Ubuntu 8.04 is very impressive - but not desktop ready. I use it as my only OS on my Laptop, but I've been using computers since the Atari ST, and am a Computer Scientist. I can't count the number of times I've had to venture into the console since my initial installation, and for me, that is a benchmark for desktop readinehss - when a user can have their computer fully set up, configured, and working without having to use the command line. Linux is some way off this point, unfortunately.

Davin Studer said...


I think you missed the point of what was being said. He wasn't saying that Linux sucks because his wireless isn't supported. He was countering the claim that Linux has better hardware support.

Mmmkay, no said...

When's the last time you had to open a command prompt in Windows to install software?

Anonymous said...

did anyone read the post on one of the geek sites where he had an average computer user take a distro and start from scratch with an install, then do basic tasks (check emails, change desktop, etc)? anyways, she (the test subject couldnt do half the stuff.

i have no problem with linux but id hate getting calls from my mom when something is wrong with her Linux machine. i have to set the TiVo for her. i can just see hardware issues when she comes home with some high end HP camera.

linux wasnt made for regular folks OR the desktop. you sys admins can fart around with network apps and such, but keep it away from my mom! she WILL call you when its time for her to download pictures or install a new printer.

when i installed Ubuntu a release or so ago, the screen of my Dell laptop wouldnt draw correctly. all i was told was that it was 'a known issue' with the video card and that it would be fixed. i am relectant to try with this new ubuntu as its a HUGE was of time to put XP back on. sheesh. youd think it was compatible with all the video cards Dell uses. a simple screen draw. known issue! kiss my ass! it wasnt a big deal, but i like a crisp screen to work from!

ok, i feel better.

subgenius said...

You want to stay in the rut of point and click and never evolve and never learn, and contribute to evil monopolism of corporate microsoft, and never beable to truly make your pc your own, then Windows is for you. You want to actually feel like your doing something, and actually develop some new brain tissue and enjoy the stability and power and highly customizable flexibility in making it ur own, then Linux is for you.

My dog can use windows :/

Unknown said...

ahhhh another Linux/Windows/Mac war, cant we all just get along??

Ramrod said...

Yeah, I love linux, it allows me to play all my wait....nevermind.

Anonymous said...

and just because you SAY linux has better hardware support doesnt make it so.

try working with verizon broadband on a linus laptop. you have to write a driver.
just plug it in with vista and it configures itself.

try some of the Coolpix cameras with linux. doesnt work.

most 'linux boxes' are just a windows-like UI sitting on top of a linux OS. mac already does that.

hionestly, you guys are so defensive!!! LISTEN to those of us who arent as geeky and let us tell you whats wrong. dont shoot the messenger! you need user emulators out here or you will never build a better UI!

linux has so much potential. but you guys have to stop arguing and think about whats being said. what if we are right? we are the general populace you need so badly.

Unknown said...

Don't want to go too crazy here, so I'll just name off one of my peeves about Linux.

NO FILE ACLS! (don't give me that crap about third-party modules that can be compiled into the kernel, or the stuttering POSIX ACL support)

Primitive file permissions in the form of RWX on Owner/Group/World isn't enough and quite frankly it's generic as hell.

Give me NT/2000/XP/Vista ACLs over that garbage, anyday.

You know I may want more than one individual user/group to access file resources - am I crazy because I want finer-grained control?

Linux still has a LONG way to go. Install a base system for your Grandma - when watch the fun as she may need to install an e-mail client later...

Anonymous said...

Linux is great, if you don't need any multimedia entertainment out of your system.

Anonymous said...

iam said:

>You want to stay in the rut of >point and click

linux doesnt do that?

>and never evolve and never learn

i want to evolve and learn, but not about OSs and UIs.

>contribute to evil monopolism of >corporate microsoft, and never >beable to truly make your pc your >own, then Windows is for you.

i love driving but im not building my own car. i dont even want to custoomize one. just get me one thats sturdy, fast, fun, and easy to operate.

>You want to actually feel like >your doing something, and >actually develop some new brain >tissue

like i said--i do that. not with computers thought. i dont ant to waste time on the tool. i want the tool to work and let me dig what i want to dig.

>and enjoy the stability and power >and highly customizable >flexibility in making it ur own,

just give me something that lets me do what i do. i dont want to waste time on what allows me to do what i do (theoretical math).

>My dog can use windows :/


Kavey said...


Maybe I wasn't clear in my reply as all the devices I was talking about installing Vista on work in Linux. I can run Linux on a variety of hardware. Sure I can't run every device, but that's true with every system.

I have friends who are running Linx on their gaming consoles, ipods, old PPC systems Sun SPARC systems, etc. etc. etc.

MY point is you can't take one set of brand new products and then say "look this system doesn't support it, it sucks." Especially when the manufacturer doesn't supply any drivers or even data to create the drivers.

My friend bought a new Windows laptop with Vista preloaded on it. He doesn't like Vista and wants Windows XP instead. Oops, XP won't run on that laptop because there are no XP drivers for many of the onboard devices. Therefore, XP sucks, right?

Unknown said...

That's what I see too. Vista sucks because it won't run on that old piece of crap pc that barely would run XP. So Vista must be crap. Wonderful logic, not.

Gopinath M said...

It's true that Windows has problems. But can you live without Windows? Hardly 15% of organisation can run their business without using Windows. The rest of 85 % need Windows.

Windows is great.Its very simple to use and as one of the comments in the thread said, "A dog can easily learn to work with Windows in a week time".

But a software guy takes couple of months to fully understand and use Linux system.

If the user interface is made more friendly then Linux can grab the huge share of Windows, as Vista a big flop.

berfarah said...

Great, more fanboyism. I really don't care who loves MS or Linux... Why the hell do I keep seeing this kind of stuff with shitloads of Diggs whilst REAL tech articles don't make it? Seriously, there seems to be about 5 "I <3 Linux/Mac/MS" daily.

Herval said...

very nice reason to love linux. If not the *ONLY* one...

Wakers said...

The one thing that really stops Linux going forward is the the developer community just will not believe poeple when they say its not easy enough to use for someone who doesn't know their way around computers.

The whole attitude seems to be along the lines of "well if they don't know how to type commands into terminal they shouldn't be on a computer"..which is completely the wrong way to go.

For some reason, the Linux community wants everything to work brilliantly, but have something against making things plain and simple.

Matthew said...


"Install a base system for your Grandma - when watch the fun as she may need to install an e-mail client later..."

Install a base system of windows for your Grandma - when you watch to fun as she may need to install an e-mail client later...

If you download the iso of Ubuntu 7.10, or just get the free cd from canonical, and install it on a computer (assuming your hardware is compatible), it comes with the office suite, the email client, the web browser, the chat client, some games, and several other little goodies. Usually you don't even really have to look for drivers.

If you go to the store and buy a cd for Windows Vista, and install it on a computer (assuming your hardware is compatible), you have to install the office suite, the email client, the web browser (unless you really like IE), install the chat client, and some of the other little niceties of a tuned machine. And, to get it to look nice, and be able to use your speakers properly, you need to install all the drivers.

However, if your grandma goes and buys a system pre-installed with any operating system on it, be it linux, mac, or windows, it's going to come tuned to work right out of the box.

I wouldn't say that it's never going to happen. If Windows Seven isn't amazing, or at least better/ more reliable than Vista, there will be a chance for linux to become an actual option for many people. We can't all afford Macs, you know. What it comes down to is to get the word out and educate the public about the fact that they have a choice. And while Linux may have some difficulties right now, just boot into a copy of 6.07 and then boot into a copy of 7.10. That's the difference of one year. , and it's getting better all the time. That's why I love linux.

Wine is getting better and better as time goes on. If I'm not mistaken, there should be a front end to it too ( I think it's called PlayonLinux). And if you really must use a certain program, and you have a good enough machine, you can run a virtual machine to run them. Besides, gaming on Linux isn't what a lot of people think. There is actually some pretty good stuff. I could post resources for games (a lot will run on Windows, too) if anyone is interested.

Davin Studer said...


Amen, and amen.

Anonymous said...


Every system serves its purpose, different systems support different things. I plugged my usb wireless adapter into vista, and it couldn't even find a driver on the internet, plugged it into linux and i was connected to the wireless in less than a minute. Plug it into my macbook and it didn't know what to do with it. I just bought a new computer, and nVidia was up and going in less that 10 minutes after i installed, the reason ati doesn't work is because they don't freely distribute the specs to their hardware, and linux being a free os doesn't have deals with them to provide support. and to the os/x people that say their stick to their machines instead of linux ... you mean linux like Mach Linux? or a variant like FreeBSD? ohhh Snap.

Alex ;) said...

I always loved on Microsoft software where it says "Do not make illegal copies of this disc." I wonder if that's ever stopped anyone. It's like "Oh, well I was about to duplicate Flight Simulator 2004 and give a copy to my buddy, Bux, but since it says not to on the disc, I don't think I will now!"

Mike said...

hey, as soon as linux works as well as windows I'm in.

PENIX said...

Before any fanboy makes some stupid comment about me not knowing what I'm talking about, consider this: I've been using Linux on a daily basis for over 10 years. This is way, way before you became an Ubuntu expert. This is back when xeyes was a featured product on the RedHat retail box. I've managed dozens of *nix based servers, and Linux is my OS of choice for all servers.

No Linux distribution is going to dominate the desktop market any time soon. Ubuntu is a huge step forward, but it's still not ready. Not even Linux Torvalds, the creator of Linux, thinks it's ready. Here are a few reasons why:

Hardware support:
Native drivers are not available for lots of hardware. When a new chipset comes out, Windows drivers ship with it. For Linux, it could be months or years before someone reverse engineers a driver for it. The reason is market share. Windows has well over 90%. If you don't support Linux you lose what, 2% of the market? If you don't support Windows, you just committed suicide.

Console requirement:
For the tech savvy, the console is a blessing. For everyone else, it's a curse. It doesn't matter how good your manual is, because average desktop users are not going to read it. If the user has to open a console to do anything, it's too hard. Everything needs to be intuitive button clicks. Desktop distrobutions are doing a pretty good job these days of hiding the console, but more seasoned Linux users still know that there are many times where the console is still a requirement, not an option.

Binary packaging systems:
There are multiple problems with the current packaging system implementations. For starters, there is no unified format. Developers must release their binaries in multiple packages. This takes time, so many just choose one, not all. If there is no binary package available, you must compile. Current packaging systems are not smart enough to fully detect software that was not installed through the packaging system, which can cause serious program conflicts. Uninstalling doesn't always remove all files to the program.

Legacy file system layout:
The standard file system layout is very old, and has not aged well. The location of program settings is a great example. So you install a new application and want to change the settings. Is it going to be under the program folder? No, it's located somewhere in that mess of a settings folder. So you go to /settings... but wait that would make way too much sense. The folder you're looking for is /etc, which stands for et cetera, which is a completely inaccurate name for your settings folder. GoboLinux is the only distrobution I'm aware of that has done a good job fixing this problem, but until Gobo is merged with Ubuntu, this doesn't really matter.

GUI stability:
The Linux kernel is rock solid, but the available GUI options are not. Often times when the window manager flips out or crashes, an experienced user can SSH in and restart it. This is WAY too hard for an average desktop user. Both OSX and Windows have a more stable GUI than Linux, and when they crash, they auto-restart.

Lack of industry standard applications:
This is an easy point to make. One word: Photoshop. No, Gimp doesn't cut it.

I'm purposely using a lot of generalizations to make my points. I'm sure some of them are technically inaccurate. I don't care about the technicalities, or where the root cause is. The point is these issues do exist, and they need to be addressed before Linux can make a solid push to the desktop.

051 said...

By the time linux is ready for the average person, it will have lost its appeal in the process. I don't want linux to be user friendly. I want it to be good, free, and awesome.

Should I say it once more? FREE.

Anonymous said...

I love Linux.
Even though Windows has some programs that I can't live without and can't seem to find the perfect replacements for, I still love linux more because it has no annoying bubbles popping up from the notification area ten times a minute, and it is way more customizable and easier to fix.

Anonymous said...

"I can't count the number of times I've had to venture into the console since my initial installation, and for me, that is a benchmark for desktop readinehss - when a user can have their computer fully set up, configured, and working without having to use the command line."
Sorry, but for a CS, you are just so wrong. Please, describe the things you couldn't configure in Gnome.
Had you ever tried to install 3rd party themes in windows? Do you remember anyone actually installing programs through the windows' Add/Remove utility?
How much time do you usually spend on installing drivers in windows?
Is windows distributed with a complete office suite?

In my opinion, Ubuntu is a distro that can get you working in 20 minutes or less, depending on your needs. Windows can't even be compared to that.

P.S. I prefer Arch, anyway, because it's faster.
P.P.S sorry for my english

Wilson Kwong said...

Linux good, eh? The only good thing is that it is cheap, and of course it is reliable, but it is a pain in the ass to work things around. Try having a newbie do the following without going through a lot of problems. Install printer, install camera driver, install graphic card, best of all, WIRELESS ADAPTER ... Can't freaking get ATI drivers to work correctly ... it might have been fixed now, but I've tried so many attempts, since RedHat 6.0 back in the days, I've always had problems with at least 1 hardware issue, and the last Ubuntu distro 7.10, I couldn't get get Compiz to work correctly with my ATI card. Took me 45 minutes to get my wireless adapter to work ... of course, once everything is working, it is perfect, same as Windows ... but the problem is, trying to get everything to work is a problem itself ... Windows ain't a perfect OS, in fact, no large software is perfect ... the first law of software engineering is that ... there will always be another bug ... no matter what ... so stop being fanboys, and get things straight ... Windows is expensive, but it is worth every cent ... at least with XP, I don't know about Vista though ... didn't like it ...

Andy said...


XWindows for desktop use has only now begun to mature, and that is one of the biggest reasons you're wrong. In the past 10 years, "Linux" has only now become a household name. It took that long for "MS-DOS" and "Windows" and "Mac".

Oh yeah, and in case you weren't aware, Mac OS X is essentially a Linux/Unix, and that's clearly a massive failure. /sarcasm


I literally just bought a new low-end Vista machine at Best Buy for $380 and put Ubuntu on it. Installing Ubuntu was easier than even CONFIGURING preinstalled Vista.

And yes, because I am elite, I spent the next day tweaking the %#^@ out of it with a) software that Windows could never even hope to run half decently, and b) customizations that would have taken ten times as long in Windows.

And you say, "it will dominate with the techies". You ever hear of the internet? Yeah, the jury's already settled that case.

As for drivers... everything was included for this new system in Ubuntu's single installation disc. That's better than I can say about the Vista setup. Lots of stuff still doesn't have functional drivers for Vista, and even the Vista drivers are buggy in some cases. I run Vista on a laptop, which I don't have any trouble with, but I'm calling b.s. on all of your comparison claims because I've experienced way more problems in Vista on other people's systems.

As for installing... Ubuntu's installer is way more streamlined and professional than Vista's, in my opinion. Seemed quicker too.

You're right, Linux is "OK". That's why every modern OS other than Windows is based on it.


It's more like ATI doesn't care to support Linux. They as a company decided that, not Linux. The Linux community has been seeking this for ages. Back in the day, the last time I owned anything ATI, the Rage and Rage128 series were supported just fine, btw. Hey guess what, Subaru doesn't make diesel cars in the USA, so they obviously aren't a real car company. If we compared Linux-capable hardware to Windows-based hardware, you'd find that Linux does win hands down because its support of LEGACY hardware and its LOW OVERHEAD. I could run a web server on a system with 128MB of ram in Linux. You wouldn't have much hope of booting Vista with even 4 times that much.

Dell is not selling ATI-based Linux desktops for this reason... who's really losing out here is ATI and their fanbois due to their brand lock-in through IP trolling. Same case with Creative. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't hurt me because they're both total crap.

I can imagine that the Terminal application could be confusing. I mean, it could be anything. And the stuff in the Preferences section... Jesus, wtf is that for? Windows' welcome screen is so helpful, anyways... but what if you don't know how to look at a monitor or click a mouse button?

In fact, that's the best way of really learning a system. Being fearless. And on a Unix platform, you can afford to be just that: fearless. Because you can't make any changes that could hurt the system. Go ahead and be fearless in Windows and see how many times you have to re-install. Many people just consider that to be part of the Windows learning experience. I personally know I've reinstalled probably a hundred times in my day. But never with Linux (unless I was say, rebuilding the Kernel as the root user.)

You know what's great about the command line? Automation. I can copy 12 lines from a google search page, and paste it into the terminal. It will download, unpack, compile, test, and install everything --customized and optimized for my system-- with no further action. All this while you're still reading the terms and conditions on Windows. Lets not be afraid to type some things sometimes. How do you get to websites? You ever have to type out a URL? That must have been impossible!

I agree that Linux has a long way to topple Windows (and Mac is Unix, so we'll put that on Linux's side.) But I think it's because of brand-lockin on Windows and the community-development nature of Linux.

A common argument to support Windows is that it still runs applications from the Windows 95 era. That's amazing, right? Well, half of the Linux utilities people use on a daily basis are as old as I am, and they work fabulously -- on virtually any hardware.

Lets also consider the fact that the current generation of children are SO comfortable and unafraid with computers that all of the points voiced here against Linux will be lost on them.

It's easy to say that "only techies pick Linux", but EVERYBODY is becoming a techie, and Linux is becoming more accessible.

Have you ever thought that maybe the techies are onto something?

Lets say you need to pick a new brand of toothpaste... who are you going to trust, your dentist, or somebody that brushes their teeth once a week.

When you are using ALL of these systems 12+ hours a day every day, I'll take your opinions seriously. Since I in fact make a nice living doing just this, maybe you will take my opinions seriously.

Sorry if my tone was harsh at places. I'm just trying to set the conversation right.

With all due respect,

Anonymous said...

@gopinmath m

You said: "Windows is great.Its very simple to use and as one of the comments in the thread said, "A dog can easily learn to work with Windows in a week time"."

Ha, that's not true at all. The reason people can work with Windows easily? It's not because it's easy to use and intuitive. It's because it's familiar. You're right in saying 85% of organizations use Windows, and that's why people think it's easy, it's only because they're familiar with it.

Familiarity does not equal ease of use.

In fact, of Linux, Windows and Macintosh, I'd say Windows is the least user-friendly. But "everyone" can use it because, well, that's what everyone uses.

Matt said...

If people first played with Linux instead of Windows, and they were to switch to Windows, it'd be the same as it is right now from Windows to Linux.

David T. said...

It's 2008, and you STILL can't change color depth in your X-based GUI (GNOME/KDE) without modifying a text file. Get it together, linux-heads!!!

Allison J. said...

Someone brought up the results of the "Great Ubuntu Girlfriend Experiment" [which can be summarized briefly as FAIL] earlier in the comments, and I wanted to throw in my two cents as an Ubuntu Girlfriend.

My boyfriend is a grad student in CS, whereas I am a grad student in psych with no more than average experience with computers, and all of that on Windows machines. He convinced me to install Ubuntu on my new laptop, and while there has been a learning curve, I've been totally thrilled with the experience (not least because, being a grad student, I can ill afford proprietary software).

Being on a pretty hairy deadline at the time I received my new computer, my bf was not around to give me guidance with installing the new OS and fixing everything up to my satisfaction. However, I was able to:

Install Gutsy
Download a good GUI for R
Download a Tex editor
Download an awesome music player (Amarok)
Rip files from audio CDs and convert to mp3s
Upgrade to Hardy
Fancy up my desktop how I liked (THE CUBE)
Get flash working
Fix a few other minor glitches

...All without any huge difficulties. Whenever I encountered a bug or problem, I found excellent documentation online about fixes; there were also great intros to things like the terminal and the synaptic package manager readily available. (Google was definitely my friend in this process). Sure, dialog boxes weren't popping up every ten seconds telling me what to do, but I sort of appreciated that. All in all, I felt that my investment of time in learning how to negotiate the system was MORE for made up for by my savings in $$. Additionally, I now have a system running that is tweaked out exactly to my specifications (rather than having Windows assuming what I want every step of the way and forcing it down my throat, whether I _actually_ want it or not) and gives me greatly improved functionality over my old system.

So, at least for me, my great Ubuntu-girlfriend experiment has been a resounding success.

Unknown said...

Just gotta say this. If any of you are professional tech folk... have you ever even ONCE had some bonehead from work call you at home with a linux question???

Anonymous said...

I don't recall ever HAVING to use a terminal to do anything; I simply prefer to use it for many tasks (especially when I am copy + pasting XD). I could use Synaptics, Add/Remove, Alt + F2, mouse over/double click, etc. to do any task the basic user would want to do. IMO the terminal is used often because it allows more advanced/technical users to easily instruct a user to copy + paste code or run a script than it is to get them to look for 20 different icons and have them risk doing something wrong.

Regarding drivers - Vista lost support for older hardware so that obviously isn't Windows' strongest point. Linux supports far more hardware than Windows does overall (Last time I checked Windows could only run on 3 architectures).

Unknown said...

@ crud

"You know I may want more than one individual user/group to access file resources - am I crazy because I want finer-grained control?"

If I want Tom, Dick and Harry to have rights to, I just add Tom, Dick and Harry to group baz and chgrp baz

If I want groups baz and bing to own I add baz and bing to group qux and chown qux

Anonymous said...

Sure, Linux has better hardware support than Windows if you don't mind occasionally having to compile drivers, recompile your kernel, manual edit xorg.conf files and spend countless hours of research reading threads to figure out how to make stuff work....

Anonymous said...

I'll give you a scenario when Linux will have a chance:

When a user can go to the store, buy an ipod, download iTunes, install it without having to use any emulations and funky install techniques, plug up the ipod and natively download music from the iTunes store.

That doesn't work. I know that many many many Linux users get their media like they get their Until Linux is accepted to the point that manufacturers and software development companies like, yes, even Microsoft, write software that will run natively on it, it doesn't have a singular hope in hell of being a legitimate contender as a desktop OS.

Think about it, if you are willing to say that Linux is a better desktop OS than OS X, you would really be delusional, and OS X has at it's best had 6% market share.

I know you can run Linux on much more hardware, but this is all about OSes and Linux is just simply out of it's element when you leave the terminal.

elamb said...

I'm dual booting to get off of my windows addiction. Vista is a serial rapist.

Anonymous said...

1999: Linux will dominate in a few years...

2008... Yeah whatever... Nobody respects it in realistic corporate world... More likely to go to Mac OS based servers first...

Alessandro Delgado said...

I've been worried about Global Warming. So I read there are people using solar energy.

I decided to try it on my car: I opened the screw, took out all of the gas, and let the car sit in sunlight for a couple hours.

After that, my car wouldn't start. I had to go through ALL the hassle of putting gas back in.

As the Windows-user Linux-hater I am, I thought to myself "Damn!! This SOLAR ENERGY thing REALLY SUCKS! It doesn't even supports my car!"

Seth said...


What the hell are you talking about? Linux is all over the place on servers.

Feekes said...

Linux is ready for primetime, I spoke with Canonical just a few days ago on support, they support you. For Enterprice support it is 250 a machine per year, but that is expert support. Educational Institutions get a 30 percent price break. 8.04 has likewise built into it, which will let it join Windows Active Directory Domains with ease. Those who say Linux isnt ready, obviously have tried it in the past year. Roberto, there is installers, but most of the time you dont need them, its easier to use APT and YUM.

SammoJG said...

@iam 1:39 PM

Before you talk about brainpower, can you please justify your intelligence by using proper English (your != you're)? Also, what do you mean by "rut of point and click?" Are you saying we should transition back to the command line? Correct me if I am wrong but haven't software engineers been working to make software more user friendly for users with a wide range of technical abilities?

While I currently do not have a favorite, I regularly use Ubuntu, XP, and OS X. All OSs have their strong and weak points in my eyes.

Zach Durst said...

Linux is just too much work for your average user. People want things that just work... Not that Linux doesn't have its place.

Legit Freebies Guy said...

Haha, nice!

joank said...

I hate relying on corporations to make my software user friendly, but alas! I'm not a techie. Learning Linux is on my to-do list.

Barsoom said...

Linux will never replace windows because there are too many ignorant people out there who will go with something that cost more rather than something better. After all if it was that good why would they give it away!

Country Boy said...

I switched from Windows XP to MEPIS (one of the Linux versions) about a year ago. I made a few mistakes during the install (don't do everything as ROOT), but I still liked it better than Windows. I recently rebuilt my system with Ubuntu's Hardy Heron (that ROOT thing reared its ugly head a few times), and now I'm truly sold on Linux. It's faster, easier, and more stable than Windows. Add that to the lack of a price tag and you've got a great system. I'll keep a Windows machine around for those things that won't run on Linux, but only until I can get one of the Windows emulators running on my Linux machine.

bmvbab said...

Its pretty easy to get VMware or VirtualBox working on Linux and you could be logged into both nix and doze that the same time ;)
Pros:VMware-every time there is a major kernel change, you have to wait for a patch
VirtualBox-bridge is not out of the box, you need to do that manually.

Other than that they are both fast enough.

rockingrob said...

i have had people call me for years about problems with their computers. id have just as many people call me whether they used linux or windows.but odds are i wouldn't have to talk them through the same errors a month later on linux.
spyware/adware anti virus is the main problems with windows. bloated programs, that hog up all your resources and slow down or stall your windows machines.
Yes, linux "may" take a little more time or effort to make it "perfect" but once you do. it stays perfect.
the only pop up i get is a small one. and when you click on it... it updates all the software on your system at one time. not just "bug fixes/security updates" that windows does. but automatically updates any applications that the authors have made.

Scott said...

99.999998% of average users just need web and email. Linux is more than ready for most average PC users. Enjoy the web without spyware and viruses.

Brian said...

People seem to overlook the main underlying problems with each operating system.

Personally, I prefer Windows. I can get it to run everything I need it to run, and they run well. I'm not saying that I've never encountered problems before, but comparatively speaking, Windows was a walk in the park to make everything run.

Linux is great for people who like to get down an manipulate the individual bit streams in the processor. You can change whatever you want to do whatever you want. But that is the problem for most people. Users are expected to know how to do that. They need to know how to control the operating system to make some things work. Granted that your normal user doesn't need that much functionality. Simple office programs and and internet program will suffice. But the second that they try to expand beyond they they can easily ge into trouble.

The main problem that I see with Linux is that there are FAR to many distro's. People complain about Vista Home, business, and Ultimate. But there are literally thousands of different spin-offs of some of the main stream distributions. The reason I see this as a problem is because most software that is written FOR Linux will not work on most of the distributions. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule this is the case. That being said, 75% of the time you'll be able to find the software that you want for your distro, but if you look at programs for windows almost ANYTHING that was created for Windows will run on XP, including programs that were created for all the different versions of Windows predating it.

The reason why 7 out of 10 "normal users" will use Windows is because it is easiest to use (Mac-heads may complain here, but right now I'm talking about Win vs. Lin - OSX is a different story entirely), it is supported by 98% of all software and hardware companies, and it is the most readily available.

People who cry about everything costing money for Windows and everything being expensive are $@$^.... *EDIT*, not the brightest, in my book... And I believe this is for two main reasons:

1) You can can a FREE Windows program for almost any application, the downside is the functionality may not be on par with that of it's monetarily encouraged friend. People complain about Microsoft Office being so much money (at which they are correct), but then talk as if OpenOffice is a Linux exclusive, when I've used it on Windows for a long time now...

2) If all software was free, open source and all that jazz the world would be a better place, right? Not quite... What fuels the development of newer software, faster software, and more functional software? Is it the crowds of people waiting for a new release? Is it the thrill people get from users telling them they want their work, but they don't want to pay them for it? No, the need to compete for the software market and for the users is the main drive for new software... That's right, people wanting money makes things happen.

If all the software in the world some someone's pet project, and they had to work a real job full time, how advanced would things be? Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people willing and able who would create these programs (and some who have), but the advancements of computer software sciences are fueled by people wanting to make money.

It is my belief that if the heads of each Linux distribution could charge money for their OS's (and still be able to attract users) most of them would. Why? Because who doesn't like making some money?

Now this is not to say that Linux has not done its fair bit for the advancement of computer science. Many universities and companies use Linux to create new technologies and software, but in the end of the day these people are paid to do this work.

The truth of the matter is that Windows is just plain better supported. Why is that? Well, because everyone (relative) has Windows. It would be stupid for a hardware company to not support Windows. It is a waste of most companies' time to create drivers and such for Linux. So that forces the Linux users to create their own. I'm not saying this is the worst thing in the world, but it does seem like kind of a pain to me.

But, one must remember, all these Linux gurus are the same people who still "assemble" their programs. Personally I prefer I nice c/c++, heck, even Perl. It's just easier and the performance differences are negligible.

The one thing I don't get is why people think that customizing their OS is such a great thing. I have never witnessed a Linux box able to out-perform a Windows box in system-intensive operations and programs. My daily computing frequently involves long hours of working in 3D (be it CAD or 3D animating), and I would kill myself if I had to do all of that work in Linux. I've sued some 3D programs for Linux, they used the same graphic drivers as Windows, even the same API, but the Windows performance is significantly superior. Personally, why would I want to screw around with the inner working of an operating system that would take me months to fully understand, when I can use an operating system that was designed and created by a professional? And don't you dare pull out the free card, time is money, people; all too common a phrase, but that doesn't make it any less true...

Don't get me wrong, I have a couple systems at home that run SLAX (these laptops don't have HDD's), and I appreciate the live boot OS. But for my everyday computing needs, Windows all the way...

Now that I've spent a good amount of time ranting about this, I feel a bit better. Even though 72% of you is adamantly disagree. Even if I'm 100% correct, this is a holy-war of sorts, the facts don't matter, it's all an "I'm right and you're wrong!" debate... And that goes for every side...

padraig said...

A few people have brought up ATI. While some of the other comment are here or there, this one deserves particular attention.

The ATI chipset and its supporting software are NOT controlled entirely by ATI. They have outsourced some critical portions of their development and do not control the intellectual property rights for all of the software that drives their hardware.

That is why not all ATI functionality is available to non-Windows users... because those IP holders won't release ports of their codebase.

Buy an nVidia card.

Matthew said...

@ brian

You're right, a lot of people do seem to overlook the underlying problems with each operating systems.

I, however, prefer linux. I can get it to run everything I really need it to run, and I've never really had anything related to the os (I currently have Ubuntu running on a 500 Mhz PIII on 384MB of RAM. It runs a lot faster than one would expect). But it's a walk in the park to get everything I've ever needed to run.

Linux is great for lots of people. It can be great for the power user, it can be great for kids, it can be great for people who can't afford to get the more expensive machines that can actually run vista. It may not be for everyone, but it can be for a lot of people.

And you are right that there are a lot of Linux distrobutions. But that is very much a strength. Choice is one of the great things about linux. You can change it, customize it, or choose to keep it as it is. And a lot of those different distros are made for different purposes. Some are taylored for bussiness, or being servers, or for home use, or for live cds. You can find a tool that will do what you need it to. As for programs not working on all the distros, it can be taken as a negative. But that's why there is the repository. The stuff in the repository is going to run on your computer. Some stuff may not work well due to hardware issues ( Frets on Fire lags like crazy on a 500 Mhz processor with a bad graphics card), but it's made to work with the operating system.

And you're right that most stuff written for windows, regardless of which version, may still work. However, it's because Windows comes in versions, and are not actually a differnt Kernel. It's the same OS, with better improvements. Just like a application written to work on Fedora 5 should still work on Fedora 8. Fedora and Ubuntu are different Operating systems. It's like trying to get Mac applications to work on Xp. It's just the way things are.

And the real reason Linux doesn't have a better market share isn't use-ability. It's a lack of name recognition. There aren't advertisements for Linux, no commercials or pages in magazines.

You're right that there are also free applications for windows, and many of them actually work very well (I prefer Open Office to Office 2007), but again, there is a lack of name recognition.

As for the motivation for keeping free software faster and better is the fact that the people who write it are the ones that use it too. It's also a matter of pride. You should want your code to be the best it can. And nobody is asking for all software to be free. I don't think I've ever heard that. Which brings me to my next point. There are some linux distributions that charge people money to do them.

As for people holding real jobs and writing on the side, there are people who write for many software companies who code open source on the side. A lot of the code is written by pro or semi-pro coders. There is a difference with OSS and FOSS. Limewire charges people for pro editions, and it's based on open source software.

You're right, Windows is plain better supported by hardware manufacturers. But Linux is far better at supporting hardware. Vista wouldn't even come close to running on my desktop with the 500 Mhz processor. But Ubuntu does it just fine. Ubuntu will work with a lot of different varieties of hardware. Not always bleeding edge technology, but it'll give that old klunky machine a new life.

And I don't know of a large proportion of the linux community that still assembles their programs. There may be a few out there, but it's not an overwhelming amount. C/C++, python, to name a few, are all supported by linux. All the stuff to program comes with the OS even. In windows, I have to get my own IDE to code. I don't mind, but it's just saying that coding on linux isn't discouraged, but rather encouraged.

As for running system intensive things, using the same drivers and API means you're probably using wine or an emulator. wine, while not an emulator, isn't perfect, and has bugs that may cause system performance loss. An emulator, due to it's nature of running an operating system inside an operating system, is obviously going to cut down on system performance. Try comparing two programs running natively on their respective platforms. I might suggest UT2004 or Quake III.

So, really, you're right. This is a holy war of sorts. But facts do matter. I'm just trying to make sure that we try and use the facts to come to a good conclusion. I think this conclusion is that every OS has it's uses, and people should have the freedom to use whatever OS they want. If you really like linux, use it. If you like OSX, and can afford it (or have the skills to hack it), knock yourself out. If windows is really your favourite, have at it. But I'm just saying that there is a valid option out there that people should know about. And that includes knowing about all the facts.

Faris Madi said...

I LOVE linux

And If you have an extra money use Microsoft products

Harish said...


* Many vendor's distributions of Linux are free for download as are many programs which run on Linux. If a vendor's distribution is not free, it is often very reasonably priced.
* If you are unable to download distributions/programs, because of slow internet access or other reasons, there are often places where the media can be bought for a nominal fee.
* Most software is distributed under the GNU Public License or a similar license; licenses that allow anyone to modify the internal code of the software to fit their individual needs or to provide improvements.


* The core of the Linux operating system is free and is updated constantly with new features and support for new hardware.
* Many of Linux's large quantity of programs are "open source," allowing the holder of the software to improve the software in whatever way they want as long as credit is given.
* Some distributions (Debian, SuSE) allow for updates to be done online and are free. Other distributions (Red Hat) allow for free online updates for a first computer but charge for any others past that.
* Older "slow" machines can be turned into useful workstations or for other tasks.


* Well-done administration of a computer with Linux allows for a very secure multi-user workstation.
* Viruses are less of a threat now. The system setup of a Linux system does not allow a virus to act as it does on a Windows machine, and the fact that almost no viruses have been written for Linux allows for a very secure feeling.


* Thousands of applications, applets, software, etc. to customize the look, feel and overall performance of your workstation.
* A wealth of people that have tastes similar to yours that have made themes or written programs that accentuate your personal tastes.


* Support for the Linux operation system can come from both the group that releases the distribution or else from the thousands of Linux users all over the world that are willing to help others with problems.
* Retail versions of Linux have helpful documentation (in the form of manuals) that is not included with the downloadable version.

Skin.Bintin said...

Repositories do not nessicarily make installing anything easier. Atleast with windows, you find a program that sounds good, you download the installer, then double click. This is why I'm preparing to take Ubuntu off my laptop and put XP back on (may dual boot though) as I can't wrap my head around all the hoop jumping. Plus, on the occassions I've tried to get help from other users, the answers are usually cocky and hard to follow. I'm new to linux, but trying to learn it all after using windows since 3.11 it's just too much of a learning curve. I'll keep playing with it, but I really don't see it replacing windows as my main OS (desktop runs vista ultimate, laptop currently runs Ubuntu)

rockingrob said...

As to jumping thru hoops to get things installed. if you go to
you can find all the help you need.
or install ubuntu. their forums are very supportive and friendly. actually google will send you to the right page in the ubuntu forums. then if you need to run terminal. just copy the code and paste into the terminal.
just dont copy the quotes "blah blah blah" part
just the blah blah blah.

Anonymous said...

@cameron: Odd, I found Ubuntu forums to be better than commercial support I've received elsewhere at times.

The find part is certainly easier when using repositories IMO as it is hard to make something easier to use than the "Add/Remove" feature found in distributions like Ubuntu. When available, a ".deb" performs very similar to Windows assuming you are using a Debian based distribution (e.g. Ubuntu).

Unless you want the "bleeding edge" version or beta of a program, compiling from source usually isn't needed (and even when it is, there are often scripts that do all the work for you even if the installation time takes a bit longer).

Unknown said...

lets see if u invest billions of dollars and get a spend billions of dollars and have a reliable support would you like to give it out for free? How bout millions of geeks make a software that only they know how to use, users either look at stupid forums for answers or actually BUY support like ubuntu does and hand it out to me latter sucks cuz 1. I am not cheap 2. I am a geek but I know how a BUSINESS works 3. I love linux but if it was so great would have killed windows in homes and offices

Raghu Nayak said...

off-topic: It looks like you are not following Flickr community guidelines while posting the image.

mpancha said...

Nice picture, Ubuntu does have a nice license.

I'm still far from using Linux only, although every 6 months I try for a month, and give up based on unusability.

It has gotten easier, but is far from usable as an only system for the majority of users. Central repositories are nice, now hand that over to my parents, and I end up being the one having to install things.

At this point, I only keep Linux installed in VM for testing purposes. Beyond that, its useless to me.

The one thing I will say for linux, is its effort at open sourcing are pushing the giants (Microsoft and Apple) to offer better options. Without Linux, they wouldn't have done so.

Other than that, Linux is and will be mainly for the techies. Sadly, I rarely hear from people who are non-techs praising Linux and its ease of use. *Note, I said rarely, for a community who has to RTFM, its rare that reading of information actually happens in discussions.

Matthew said...


The reason that linux hasn't overtaken windows, or that it hasn't even got more of a market share, isn't because it isn't good. It's because, unlike Mac and Windows, it doesn't have as much name recognition. This is because Linux, unlike windows and macs, doesn't have scads of money to spend on marketing.

Also, a lot of people tried Linux years ago, when things weren't nearly at the way things were today. Some people tried one distro, and have therefore decided that all distros of linux suck. It's kind of like using Windows 98, and then saying all versions a Windows sucks. You have to try the newest stuff. And even at that, it's about using a good distro. Using the newest version of DSL and saying all linux distros suck, because it doesn't look pretty and doesn't have some features. It's because it's a live disc OS. It's made to be small. Try a version of Ubuntu, see how that works for you. Or possibly Linux Mint.

Even if you don't like it now, just keep an eye on it. The great thing about linux is that things are getting better all the time.

Anonymous said...

@Rahul: Though it may not have overtaken computers in homes and offices, it certainly has by FAR over taken Windows and Mac OS in usage among super computers (where both of those do terrible). If it is second to Windows in the server market share (the only "reliable" statistic I could find was provided by Microsoft so I don't know how reliable/biased it is), then I doubt it is losing by much in the server market share among servers that actually matter.

tycho said...

Windows guys;
So instead of knowing what you are doing, you want to follow the trend of letting stupid people do everything instead of actually learning anything. I'll wait until you are in the hospital getting radiotherapy from a win mobile system and then see what you think about that crap. Or having air traffic done by Windows; oh wait... And don't say it has nothing to do with the desktop; it does; the fact that you are using that garbage is making people stupid (becuase 'even your dog can do it') and because of that all folk are demanding it everywhere. Making the world unsafe and very very stupid. We are very well underway getting there and every computer user not really getting their computer and OS are contributing.
Most old people that cannot learn that stuff anymore are (like most people these days) disabled and they should use Windows as it is great for the disabled; the rest of ya'll; counter brainrot, learn stuff for a change and you'll be happier for it.

oh and about multimedia; mplayer is only the best player in the world; plays everything, converts anything to anything.

acpmasquerade said...


saloma said...

Selfish Window, but why almost all are using nothing but Windows

Lawk Salih said...

Ubuntu here and I'm happy with it.

Anonymous said...

haha im for both really, windows for games, linux for everything else :P

i find it funny how the comments get longer and LONGER and LONGER as they go :D

talk about taking it seriously XD

still. awesome guys :D

Tony Ronaldo said...

The problem is not that Linux doesn't support the hardware... in fact, Linux supports *ALL* hardware that _has existed_ and those that _will exist_!!

The problem is that manufacturers do not wish to release drivers for Linux. It's very simple. They'd rather work on a -CLOSED-SOURCE-windows-platform- than an open-source free network. They don't see any profit in Linux because they do not yet recognize it's ability to attract numerous people.

Something will hit them soon (like an epiphany) and soon enough most hardware vendors will supply drivers in both open and closed source. Plus.. windows gives vendors it's own SDK for integrating new hardware easily... (and an implicit profit since most users are windows users)


It's not the O/S's fault, but rather, the vendors who refuse to recognize it!

Wonderings caught on a keyboard said...

@ Philip,
Right on!

Tretle said...

you can install apps from a cd/usb stick etc without needing a net connection. Its called a .deb file. Just as easy as an .exe file to use.
Ubuntu has a far superior install method than windows. All applications ae also kept updated through the repos and apt so you don't have multiple applications all trying to connect to different servers in there own way hogging up resources.
Hardware support is also far superior. The only criteria of hardware support not up to scratch is Wireless drivers. This is probably due to the abundance of no name brand hardware manufacturers in this space who did not have enough money in the first place to get developers to create drivers for multiple platforms. They probably haven't released one sense because they are most likely going to liquidate soon and thats probably why you picked up the card/dongle dirt cheap.
Companies like ATI have already released the source to their graphics drivers and even if they dont work very well now that is probably because the quality of ati's work on drivers in general( for windows too) is sub par to Nvidia's.
As for welcome screens and popups, what would you consider as spam?
I definitely don't want a paper clip dancing around my college work.

jeffp1 said...

Linux is great, up and running in 10 minutes with all codecs, and all the apps I need for free,if i need more it's only a few key strokes away to automatically install (apt-get) You don't have to go hunting down drivers, everything just WORKS. Also it's free and runs very fast on my $300 Athlon 3000+
and the compiz stuff (I'm not into too eye candy) but ... it really is impressive for people into shinny animated bouncy icons (like on mac)
Mac is somewhat (6%) popular is the U.S, not at all in Asia and the rest of the world. People tend to be smarter in other places, they can learn how to use a powerful, free OS. Also Mac is ripped off open source BSD UNIX, with a pretty little UI. That's why it's stable BECAUSE of the open source UNIX it runs on. If your not so much into computers why spend (waste) all the extra money a Mac costs? For simple web browsing, email etc Linux on sub $200 PC is very sufficient. Now, If you work as in a Professional graphics/multimedia company .. yes the mac is nice .. :) they all have there uses, Windows = General Purpose OS runs all the software 99% of people need, Linux too even Windows programs (Office , Dream weaver run perfectly under wine)
and no i don't waste time making sure everything is grammatically correct, so grammar Nazi's .. have fun .....

jeffp1 said...

Linux has WAY more programs available for free, very easy to install, type:
apt-get istall exampleprogram

not too hard???

and you have your program working

Or drive to local computer store and spend 50-500$ for something that probably has a great (many times better) alternative FREE on Linux.
...and if you need windows prgrams type:

apt-get install wine

then run them with wine, (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Office, all work great in wine) it is really EASIER once you get used to it , people are just so used to windows, it is worth trying it, you may never look back again.. try it before you just make sh1t up ..

enkido said...

jajaja is a good reason

sreejith said...

Linux is running blood of people who has true love for innovation..

i am dreaming of a world , a fully linux dominated world.

Tony Ronaldo said...

For all of you who want a Linux installer like a Windows application installer, try Wubi:

The Author said...

Coming from a dual-boot situation, I've learned a lot. One: Linux is truly the superior operating system in terms of usability, ease of installation and everyday use, and stability. Windows is ONLY better at running games specifically made for it. Actually, no. Considering the fact that WINE a lot of games rather well, and I've just gotten into the whole "virtualization" thing, Linux is rapidly bridging the gap.

Unknown said...

Linux is for people that can actually use computers. Learn to use a computer then linux is easy. The only reason the command line is used a lot is because it is powerful. The same things can be done using GUI programs if need be.
My ATI card works fine, only took 2 min to install the drivers. Guess what i played Counter strike source about 5 min ago on ubuntu. It takes so much less time to install programs because i only have to click a few times and then it is done.
Then if i want to change something about the program i don't like, i grab the source code edit it and compile my own version. Windows vista sucks for compatibilty, you can't even have 4Gb of RAM while you install it, you have to take it out, install the OS, update the system loads and then add it back in. Well that was after 2 hours of trying to figure out what was wrong with it.

Alec said...

Linux is an OS, like Windows XP, for example. It was originally built for people who were knowledgeable of computing in general. Nowadays, however, it's being designed for anyone to use. Also, there's a LOT of software available for this OS that does anything and everything you could want out of an Operating System.

I recently picked up Ubuntu and read a book on the basics. I loved it so much, I created a second partition on my home computer and use Linux 95% of the time. I absolutely love it. Even my wife, who isn't much of a technically-enabled person can use it.

Fork said...

...for some reason ubuntu is changing his license, from 8.04 on it's not longer legal to make spinoffs, for some reason....
they now have creative commons license on their artwork, not just the logo's but the menus and everything.. so it's no longer legal to modify and then redistribute... in 2 years they are probably gonna ask money....

still... linux still rules and i'll never use microsoft again ;)

Ghost|BTFH said...

Try this:

Take a freshly built system, laptop or desktop...

Install Vista on it.

Now, don't go to any website, don't slap in a driver CD...

What works?

What doesn't?

How many really nice programs do you have to work on?

Now do the same with Ubuntu.

Now, STFU about Windows being superior in ANY way shape or form.

mohan said...

hi people,

i am using ubuntu for the past two years iam not techie and in my home also ,i think u people are lazy to find the easy option in linux to install drivers,iam using linux no problem for me and free of cost

Manoj KS said...

Well, I'm new to Ubuntu and I'm just loving it!

Erdal YILMAZ said...

how on earth an OS made for profit can be better than an OS made by its own user?

when was the last time you windows lovers checked the RAM and CPU usage when system was idle? what is using more than 30pct of my ram when i'm not working on ANYTHING! and this is the case after i removed most of the unwanted/not used programs from startup via a 3rd party software (guess what, windows "msconfig >> startup" wont show all the software running at startup)!

as a computer engineer i use windows just because i need to cooperate with my colleagues.

as i tried to say before while windows uses your own machine for its own purposes linux is nothing but an OS just to do a what WE users want. no more no less...

Mario said...

after using Windows for over a decade, i agree with you. Linux is awesome!

Ye Olde Dood said...

I don't use Ubuntu, I use PCLinuxOS. This must not apply to me. Seems that everyone is saying "Linux" but they are showing and discussing 'Ubuntu". Just trying to say that Ubuntu is a part of Linux, not the other way 'round.

Mark O'Neill said...

I generally don't dignify these arguments with a response, but I would just like to add that it's important for both sides to realise that Linux has led to huge improvements in the software industry, and that Linux probably wouldn't be the great OS that it is without influence of Windows.
I don't know if it will ever make it to 5% of the market, but I do believe that people overstate their own need for Windows.
Remember, all of you who use marketshare as a benchmark of quality, that advertising is a powerful tool; how many Linux ads have you seen on billboards, on TV, in magazines or newspapers? For me it's a solid 0. There are many valid arguments on both sides here, but Linux is the winner for now, in my opinion, in terms of quality.

Matthew Newberry said...

I've been a network administrator for over 10 years now and was a windows user many years before that (used to use Wordstar on DOS). This is my professional and personal opinion. Windows is the platform that most programmers write for because it is a larger market equally the most possible revenue for their product. It is not better, many of it's flaws are inherited by it desire to be "user friendly" it is riddled with wholes and my major headache with control spyware and virus infections. Mac (which I have a MacBook Pro) is finally turning around and becoming a viable platform for many users, due largely because of OSX (*NIX based, keep that in mind) however, until the price point comes down more Mac will doom itself to second place. Linux (I am currently using Ubuntu 8.04 and enjoy it very much) is growing in maturity faster than I could imaging, and as the market wakes up to how many people are starting to adopt it more hardware support will come. The market just need to figure out their business model to stay profitable MS has kind of locked them into a mindset that you can only make money on closed source, which is not true. If you want productivity I can say that since I started using Linux it has been much easier to do my job. My Mac is my mobile machine but since I started using Linux I don't use it much anymore. I can edit my photos in Linux with Picasa. My only personal windows machine is at home and is used mainly by my kids to play games, But if you want to play games get a console. Vista "sucks" plain and simple it is bloated, slow and buggy and has inherited all the flaws of it's predecessor. If you need it install it as a VM on you Linux box. I've said goodbye to Widows as my primary OS and have never been happier.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


chiron613 said...

I keep seeing arguments that "Linux is better" or "Windows is better". They have different strengths and weaknesses, different features. Which is "better" depends on what you need. There is no universal, objective criterion to say which is "better".

Acrimonious comments insulting users of either OS are childish and meaningless. They say far more about their authors than they do about the operating systems or users.a

Unknown said...

Linux has its advantages, but it is just to hard for the general public.

If there were a distribution that included drivers and simple interface (and where raid is easy) linux could break trough.

Forgive engrish

Nick said...

What? Another Operating System war? Who the hell cares what operating system someone else uses! Both Windows and Linux have their advantages.

(Linux + Windows user)

Unknown said...

Karaoke player Karaoke player
Chinese karaoke songs Chinese karaoke songs
cantonese karaoke songs cantonese karaoke songs
English karaoke songs English karaoke songs
Karaoke microphone Karaoke microphone
Korean Karaoke songs Korean Karaoke songs
Touch screen monitor Touch screen monitor
Karaoke Jukebox Karaoke Jukebox
karaoke songs karaoke songs
Karaoke songs collection Karaoke songs collection Filipino Karaoke songs Filipino Karaoke songs japanese karaoke songs japanese karaoke songs hokkien karaoke songs hokkien karaoke songs
Thai Karaoke songs Thai Karaoke songs
Vietnamese karaoke songs Vietnamese karaoke songs
Spanish karaoke songs Spanish karaoke songs
Karaoke Mixer Karaoke Mixer
Karaoke amplifier Karaoke amplifier

Unknown said...

well, i don´t run linux cause i can´t play games on it.

JesusM. said...

But can it run Crysis?

Unknown said...

Linux? I tried to love it, but I couldn't find any distro, windowmanager or theme that doesn't hurt my eyes. And I think it will never be OK if Linux keeps lacking proper type support. Font rendering just looks weird on any linux I tried. And it's not just a matter of having the right font-sets. No matter what font you try it never looks as readable as it will do on Mac OS or Windows. What's up with that?

Harold Fowler said...

Linux rocks doesnt it!

Unknown said...


People have been saying that Linux will dominate in a few years,....YEARS AGO.

The reason why Linux can be distributed freely is because it's not commercially owned by anyone, whereas Windows/Mac is. The poster of this blog should know this. Heck, a 5 year old knows this.

Unknown said...

Haha.. you all get your panties in a twist over an Operating System! xD

I use Arch Linux, Gentoo, and OS X.. and quite frankly I don't give a crap if you dislike any one of them.

Anonymous said...

I'm using Fedora 10, it's great!!!!

Greetings from Mexico City

Unknown said...

To the people who say Linux does not support enough hardware by default : I've tried 3 different Linux LiveCD's (Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE) on my old computer, which has a wireless USB Microsoft Keyboard AND Mouse, these were supported fully out of the box. To get these to work on a fully updated Windows XP SP£3install required installing drivers and configuration software, pwned.

Unknown said...

I've installed Ubuntu 8.04 on my home computer for my parents (who are both technologically inept) and they have had no problems using it. In fact, my mom now prefers Linux to Windows, based on the fact that it is more reliable and runs faster on the system than Windows XP did. You may have your opinions, but I believe that Ubuntu is an incredibly easy operating system for anyone to use and/or install.

MGG said...

I don't want Linux to take over the desktop market. I would like to see its popularity increase a bit for better drivers, but I have Ubuntu 8.10 running on my Thinkpad and loving every minute of it. If Linux keeps striving to meet the average users needs I fear it will lead to the Linux OS being dumbed down for the masses. I like opening the terminal to get something done. I love the ability to make the OS my own. I think having multiple distros is great and if you don't like what one is doing, you can try another. I consider myself a noob and despite what people say the Linux community can be helpful. I would like to see Linux at a 20% market share. This is possible now due to netbooks and Google's Android.

Unknown said...

Well here's my two cents, my wife is absolutely a non techie as she can get. I installed OpenSuse on here laptop a year and a half ago, I also dual booted it with XP, after 6 months she had forgotten she could log to Xp at all, I forated and upgraded her OPenSuse then and she hasn't looked back. I showed her how to locate and install software through YAST, took maybe 20 minutes to teach her and a year later she has no issues, she still isn't techie and still as clueless as can be about how the system works, all she knows is that it works, yeah there's hic-ups, but there always are (she had issues in Xp thats why Linux came about for her) But when I heard her tell her mom a few moths ago that she should ditch her windows system for Linux I was proud. So Linux isn't ready for everyone, but it is ready.

BIG-BERTA said...

no no no ... This is why i love Microsoft and serious stuff that companies give responsibility for them and not some brainwashed shit like this.
People are just getting funny with these things and some times a pain in the ass.
These 2 things should not be compared because they come from different worlds.
Only amateurs make these mistakes not professionals.

Cheff said...

After reading most of the comments and seeing a lot of people go "Well, I've used Linux for X years and this and that is actually really easy!" is exactly the kind of mindset that does not help getting things to the general public.

As an interface designer I know a great deal about usability and HCI and I can tell you that people with a lot of experience in a specific piece of software are just about the last group of people you will want to look at if they're not (a majority of) the group of people you are trying to reach/gain support from. Why? Simple. For the most part, these people have "forgotten" what it was like to be a "newbie" and (usually due to subconscious reasons) speak from a frame of reference that includes their experience and expertise with the software which very much skews the idea of what's easy and what isn't(Hell, before today I didn't even know you could copy/paste a list of commands into the terminal, learn something new every day!). You'd be amazed at the amount of relatively simple things that are found confusing during usability testing. This is why selecting your testers carefully is oh so very important. :p

Which leads me to Google(Don't ask me how, it's just more cents I need to get rid of :p). There's a difference between "using Google" and "using Google well". For example, what keywords do you need to use to find what you're looking for? With error messages it's easy, but when an OS starts to behave in an unexpected manner, one will need to be able to describe what happens. This, ofcourse, will happen in varying levels of detail. What if the root of the problem isn't the most obvious with specific behaviour? How would you go about finding a solution to such a problem?

A problem I came across, for example, while trying to get my wireless to work with Ubuntu eee on my eeePC: It wouldn't connect to my wireless network. This can have so many reasons it's simply not funny. After some fiddling with the wireless settings on my router I figured out it could connect with WEP enabled, but not with WPA/WPA2. Strange, I thought, but it did narrow things down. It's also a step a more average user, but equally new to Linux, would probably not even consider, because of fear or because it's simply too difficult, or because it would require a whole different line of research altogether(ie. figuring out how to work the router's configuration, which can be a chore and a half. I'm looking at you Verizon :P). And with that I'm assuming they somehow found out that it could be that to begin with. In the end, I had to install a different network manager(Wicd Manager) altogether to get it to connect to my WPA2 encrypted network.

Comments I tend to come across with people asking me for help with their computer: "It doesn't work." and sometimes "It doesn't work and says something about not being able to connect or something". Imagine these people looking for a solution on Google. :P

I also found that solutions to problems, too, are written in varying amounts of clarity, probably because they assume specific levels of expertise from the reader. I've seen very detailed explanations of getting things to work, and they're great. I've also come across solutions that are more like "Do this and that and it should work" where I'm asking "But what the hell is this, or that, anyway?" just about every step of the way and need to resort to researching even more to figure out what I'm really supposed to be doing. They're generally helpful, but require more work and create a bit of a barrier. People are more likely to either give up, or look elsewhere.

The point of what I've written so far(for those that haven't bothered to read it all): Don't overestimate your (potential) user. You're basically trying to create something the idiot that unknowingly managed to create a breeding ground of spyware with his Windows computer is able to use comfortably.

One final note about the gazillion of distro's out there: Choice and variation is great, but confusing for new users and make people feel lost really quickly. And yes, I know about the variety of distro choosers, but just because they're there doesn't mean people know about them/people will look for them.

And that's my jar of cents right there. Almost a year after this blog item was posted. Go me!

Envaderx said...

PLEASE DON'T GET ME WRONG. I'm a huge supporter of the open source movement. What it comes down to is the software manufactures that make software that people want to be compatible. I've set up my parents with pclinux os because it was easier for them, but when it comes to gaming which has come a long long way not all software manufactures are capable of coding for linux natively. Examples xfire, steam, and client versions of venrilo.

Jairtzinio said...

Y'all say that linux supports everything but i know better then that... It's B.S.!

Until linux can have better support for nvidia based graphics cards i will never use it!

Nvidia is not willing to give out source codes for linux therfore not all linux distro's can support most cards...

Unknown said...

It is not the lack of driver support, it is lack of program support in Linux.

If I cant use AutoCad, Lightroom, Photoshop on an OS, that OS is useless to me...

Anonymous said...

You are all missing the point. What makes GNU/Linux great is that is is free software. Free as in freedom. What this means to the computer user is that you can make it do anything you want, without restriction. If you want to know how something works the documentation and the code is there for your perusal, unlike proprietary/closed os's.

Whether Linux's desktop market share grows or not is irrelevant. What matters is that it is free, and available to those of us that choose to free ourselves from the shackles of proprietary tools. And if you don't think proprietary operating systems impose shackles on their users; next time a EULA pops up when you install something, actually take the time to read it. You'll see just how restrictive most of them are.

Anonymous said...

Yea yea, Linux is free, but time isn't. My mom can go buy an iMac, and make movies and photos on the first day, how long would it take her to figure out what hardware to buy, what distro to install, which apps will work, which ones are even worth a crap because a lot of the "free" software is junk. Then to top things off, is her camera going to work? is she going to have to recompile something to get support? I can go on craigslist and get a couch for free too, but that doesn't mean I want it in my house.

Anonymous said...


You say "I can go on craigslist and get a couch for free too, but that doesn't mean I want it in my house."

You're still missing the point. I'm talking about free as in freedom, not free as in free lunch.

To use your analogy: Would you buy a couch that required you to sign a contract saying your friends and family could not sit on it, or take a nap on it? That's essentially what you are doing when you choose to accept the terms of a EULA, and used closed/proprietary software.

Anonymous said...

@ Kevin: You may feel free because you can do whatever you want to it, but many people feel trapped by it because they aren't knowledgable to make it do anything.

Anonymous said...


The learning curve with many linux distro's is steeper than Mac OSX. Ubuntu, Mandriva, and the like are quickly closing the gap, however.

I just want people to understand that there is a tangible loss of personal freedom when they choose proprietary tools and formats. I find that most people do not even think about this. They buy a computer, accept the EULA without even reading it, and are then legally bound to terms they didn't even read.

This is true of "Cloud" computing services like Gmail, and flickr as well. Read the EULA's. At the very least you'll know the freedoms you are sacrificing in the name of convenience.

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: This is going to be long, and I don't mean any disrespect, but lets break this down. It really IS about money and not freedom for a LOT of people. First, a little background on me, I work for Microsoft (gasp, I know) but my last job I was a development manager for a Linux/Java (Redhat/BEA) shop. In my personal time I split between two Vista PCs, three Macs and two Linux machines if you count a VM on one of the Macs. I would consider myself quite well versed in Linux although I prefer Fedora to Ubuntu personally. I have compiled kernels and drivers, I have tweaked together video card drivers, edited xorg files manually, went through the HELL of getting the Beryl betas up and running, I am not ignorant to Linux.

In the last year I have purchased Vista, Leopard, Final Cut Express, Logic Studio, Photoshop CS4, Adobe Lightroom 2, Aperture, Office 2007, a variety of other audio software and plugins...I admit I got the MS software pretty cheap at the company store, but I would say I have spent at least $2k in software. My point is that I have the knowledge to use open source stuff, but it's simply not as good. I have the money to use the software I want to use so I do.

Honestly, if price were no object, would you use Gimp instead of Photoshop? Would you use Open Office instead of Office 2007/8? Better yet, if you could get all the software I mentioned above, would you still go through all of the hassle to cobble a way to run it on Linux? When I sit down at my Mac Pro and fire up Logic Studio it screams, it's stable, it just works (sorry to use marketing slogans :) ) when I want to put together a spreadsheet, I WANT to use Excel. What about 3D Studio, Autocad, Premiere, Final Cut, Mathmatica, Dreamweaver, Flash, ProTools, and don't even start the conversation about games....

The point is computers are about software, the OS is a platform. I want it to stay the hell out of my way and let me get my work done. I am sure the argument can be made, any argument can, but really, open source applications are NOT better than any of the applications I listed. If you really need them, rely on them and use them completely, they just do not compare.

So yea, I don't feel trapped by my EULAs, I do however feel trapped by my software choices when I am using Linux.

kvaju said...

Love the picture, love linux, it is true, Linux is the future,no mater what they say.

Linux Mint 6.0 user :)

Scumola said...

Linux officially supports more hardware than any other operating system. This has been independently verified by somebody from Microsoft. See here:

The reason Roberto's wireless card doesn't work is probably because he bought the cheapest card that he could find and the manufacturer has closed hardware specs for the chipset, so linux can't support it. It's not Roberto's fault, it's not linux's fault, it's the fault of the hardware vendor.

Re: Installer, all major distros (and most minor distros) have had a graphical installer since at least 2000. In fact, I beg to argue that the linux installer is faster, more complete, faster, detects more hardware out of the box and more intuitive than the Win XP or Vista installer. After installing a linux machine out of the box, the machine is much more usable than XP of Vista out of the box.

Anonymous said...

@Scumola: That's probably totally true, but I don't care if it supports 214 printers that were manufactured in 1986, I want it to support the video card that just came out yesterday. :)

JesusM. said...

@Scumola:So how come the photo editor doesn't recognize a 2 year old Kodak Z650

Anonymous said...


I understand where you are coming from. But to answer your question. Yes I do choose free software even when proprietary solutions are available.

I have access to MS office, but I choose to use Abiword, and Gnumeric instead. I have enough disposable income to purchase a mac with logic, but I choose to use Zenwalk Linux and Ardour instead.

Not saying that you don't, but I really value personal freedom and this value is high on the priority list when I make choices. Just for the record, I'm an IT engineer and use Zenwalk Linux at work on my Laptop, and Zenwalk at home on my desktop. At work I can administer all my internal systems using zenwalk. And at home using Zenwalk, I can multitrack music (ardour), watch DVD's (mplayer), listen to my FLAC music library(banshee), edit photos(gimp), and edit video(kino). My computing bases are covered. All using free (as in liberty) software.

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: Yea, I get you, but you sacrifice quality to do so, you may not admit it, but none of the applications you listed are anywhere near as functional as their proprietary counterparts, not to mention I have unlimited access to high quality educational materials, a huge library of plugins and support for those plugins. Can you really say with a straight face that Gimp is as powerful as Photoshop CS4 Extended?

Unknown said...

I love how so many people say things like, "Linux isn't ready for people to use. I had a problem with X, that I solved by doing Y."

So... you had a problem, and fixed it, but somehow you are SO much smarter, that nobody else can handle it?

Guess what, those same people that can't fix their problems in linux, can't fix problems in windows either. But people of average intelligence know how to use google, and can figure out how to make it work right.

Troubleshooting problems in linux is no harder than troubleshooting windows problems. Personally, I have a much harder time fixing the problems I run into with windows. And I always have a much harder time finding windows drivers. I never have any problems finding linux drivers, because I don't even have to hunt them down. Everything just works by default.

Anonymous said...

@Matt: If you are having problems finding drivers for Windows here are a few suggestions:

a) www.[manufacturer name here].com and go to the support tab.

b) stop buying $4 network adapters that were made in Taiwan out of bamboo sticks and recycled Coke cans.

Unknown said...

"Can you really say with a straight face that Gimp is as powerful as Photoshop CS4 Extended?"

No... It is certainly not. But thats why Photoshop costs $800 and Gimp is free. Who would pay $800 for software unless they use it an awful lot? Here is where you get to the dirty little secret of Windows. Almost everyone is a pirate at some point. I would say something like 99% of photoshop installations are illegal. And I would bet you learned to love photoshop and know that you wanted to spend money on it by using a less-than-legitimate copy at first.

This is actually the reason I first switched to linux. Because I was tired of not being able to afford to run programs legally. Thats the freedom I wanted, to be able to use my computer without being a criminal.

Expensive proprietary windows software is, in general, better than foss linux software, which is by far better than freeware windows software.

Anonymous said...


I don't sacrifice quality. I do however sacrifice features in some cases. For example Ardour is less feature rich than Logic, but is does mutitrack record and mix high quality audio tracks, which is all I need it to do.

Linux does everything I need it to do. And does it well. And if I have a problem a solution is usually just a Google search away.

Unknown said...


The driver problem I ran into last...
Formatted a dell laptop, installed windows. Couldn't find the Dell cd, but had the windows serial code still pasted on the laptop, and had a second legit copy of windows. Installed windows, but it didn't want to accept the serial key from the laptop. Had to call their phone support to get around the problem, despite having 2 legit copies.

Finally installed, and the laptop comes up at 640x480. Takes a bit of poking around dell's site on another computer to find the wireless drivers, then another while to setup that, another hour of downloading and installing the other 10 drivers. And now I _still_ have wierd glitches when I use the media keys.

Contrast that with Ubuntu, which I installed on an identical 2nd laptop. Installed it. Ran perfect. All devices work. Wireless worked automatically. Media keys work perfect. It took literally one tenth of the time, purely based on driver differences.

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: If you are happy with your tools, that's awesome. I hope you get everything you want accomplished with them.

I just prefer to be able to collaborate with people on common platforms, use the latest and greatest software and hardware and not have put in effort to keep the whole thing running.

I doubt you are going to be able to Send your Ardour mixes to a friend to have mixed down or mastered in a real studio. They are all on ProTools, Logic or Sonar.

Anonymous said...

@Matt: Oh come on now, tell the truth, you didn't LOSE your CD, you erased the restore partition, Dell hasn't shipped OS CDs in years.

Unknown said...

Beats me. I just assumed there was a cd. There wasn't a restore partition, and it wasn't my laptop.

Either way the fact remains that on the most popular computer brand in America, drivers in Ubuntu worked flawlessly by default, and a standard install of windows took hours to configure before it would work.

Unknown said...

i was born and raised on windows, with a little bit of unix in the early days, just adopted linux about 5 years ago, and wow the things you can do to an old hunker junker machine with the right software, windows is too bloated and heavy, linux is too confusing alot of times, but ill take either of the two over mac, apple is for yuppies end of story

Unknown said...

The evolution of the software has come a long way, but not the arguments of the windows/linux camps. I think that often, both sides arguments are true and that is what should be looked upon. So take the ball, not the man.

Anonymous said...

@Johnny: Wow, don't stereotype anyone there. I am hardly a yuppy, I am a geek who likes to write music and prefer the Logic Studio software, don't think that makes me a Yuppy. Besides, I have two Windows PCs, 3 Macs and 1 machine with Linux on it. Does that mean I am 1/2 Yuppy, 1/3 Tyrant and 1/6 nerd trendy?

Servnhim said...

I love these conversations....both sides of the fence with big ole egos to boast.

Windows, OS X and Linux have their places.

Let me stir the hornets nest here some.

Windows and OS X works. Windows does not suck because they have the drivers for pretty much all hardware that I have ever purchased. OS just awesome. works and does what I need. Also, both of these systems support the software that I use and am willing to pay for...why because Photoshop and Office, just to name a few are written for Windows and OS X and not linux.

OpenOffice and Gimp cannot even touch the commercial products.

I love Linux and opensource because of the choice and I love to experiment, as well as it helps me as a systems is part of my job.

Linux has a major problem...and that is too many choices. Where one works with certain pieces of hardware, it fails to find others. Then you go and get another distro that does the opposite.

How about let's all fess up and pitch in and overcome these hurdles and I will tell you...Linux will be one awesome system.

Right now, I spend more time with Linux config issues because it does not work with Smart Technologies, as well as many other hardware items in the classroom.

I am complaining about Linux, but I am in fighting to get it where it needs to be.

As for Windows is not as bad as people make it.

Unknown said...

Most Windows users are afraid to switch to Linux because they aren't willing to learn about something new and awesome.

JesusM. said...


"Most Windows users are afraid to switch to Linux because they aren't willing to learn about something new and awesome."

Why would they need to? As the old saying goes,If it ain't broke don't fix it.

If windows does what the user wants and has spent the time trying to figure out how to make it do things the user wants why switch?

Anonymous said...

@Zeus: Amen...

Anonymous said...

For those of you who are really interested in the "shackles" that Kevin talks about, I have written a blog post that summarizes and explains the limitations in Microsoft Vista's license agreement. It's a good read if you want to see how little it really restricts USE of the operating system.

Anonymous said...

I also invite users to check out Philoking's blog detailing Windows Vista's EULA. Then compare that to the GPL which is the license that GNU/linux uses:

To summarize the GPL(from the quick guide to the GPL):

"Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have:

1.) the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
2.) the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
3.) the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
4.) the freedom to share the changes you make."

You all can make up your own minds. Obviously Philoking and myself differ greatly on the meaning of the term "restrictive."

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: What does the GPL License have to do with Windows? The reality of the GPL software is "I am putting this out there, hope it works, do whatever you want with it, good luck."

Let's apply the GPL to other forms of licenses of property, say a house rental. Feel free to use my house as a drug den or to illegally breed poisonous snakes. If you don't like that wall, tear it down. Let whoever you want live there. I don't mind if you take the fridge out and give it to someone else.

Windows is Microsoft's house. Just like a home rental, movie rental, Uhaul truck, whatever you want to call it, Windows is property, they license it's use and it runs the entire industry. Honestly, if it wasn't for Windows you probably wouldn't have had access to download your first copy of Linux.

I don't think I will ever understand why some people think that nobody has the right to create something that runs on a computer and then sell or license it to other people. Everything should be free, let's all go smoke a doobie in our VW van and sing Beetles songs while we fight the man. lol.

Anonymous said...

You're absolutely right when you say "Windows is Microsoft's house." Which is to say when you are using Windows, your computer is Microsoft's computer(in a sense, I'm stretching a bit here).

With GNU/Linux the operating system is MY house, and my computer is MY computer. I can do whatever I want with it. I can share it with friends and family. In a nutshell, I have more personal freedom as a result of my choice to use GNU/Linux.

I'm not saying everything should be free. I'm just saying that using GNU/Linux gives me and any other user more personal freedom. And when it comes to computing technology; where private and public information is stored, transferred, and manipulated, this is a win for everyone.

.:fortmunir:. said...

Yupz, that's why I Love Linux too
Keep on going with the spirit of open source

Uncle B said...

Please donate your older box to less fortunate Americans in these hard times. To keep it legal, and to oblige Microsoft's user agreement, please load Ubuntu, the free and legal OS onto your old box before donating it! This is a win/win - You are off the "Hook" with Microsoft, and all the necessary Ubuntu operating manuals are available for free on the net - a win for cash strapped families! Donate some time getting a network of Ubuntu users started if you want to feel good! Teach some OpenOffice to kids who have written homework assignments and ambitions! Build a new friendly America!

Unknown said...

I do believe that the linux highway hasn't been paved all the way up to the point where anybody can use it. I have used linux for almost 4 years and i love it. But listen to this: I just had a friend of mine buy herself a new laptop, came with Vista. She has used XP for several years now and she can't do anything, and i mean nothing on Vista without somebody walking her through the freaking next->next->next whatevers. Do you 'end users', be that Windows, Mac, Linux, whatever, really think that this tech handycap is due to the OS of your choice or just a simple narrow-minded mentality?

gnumber9 said...

what's windows?

Anonymous said...

@Gnumber9: According to OS MarketShare it's Linux's Daddy. Maybe there is something to this "I don't use it because it doesn't run any of the software I WANT to run thing. :)

88.68% use Windows, 9.63% use Mac and Linux doesn't even register 1%, it's .85%, maybe you guys need some Trendy Linux vs. Mac vs. PC commercials.

I wanna be clear, I like Linux. I just disagree with the GPL and GNU Philosophies entirely because they basically say that as a developer I don't have any rights to anything I create. I also don't have any interest in being the person that every "normal" computer users goes to because they can't figure out how install software or none of the software they want to use works. The HARSH reality is the person that just went to Best Buy and paid $250 for that iPod WANTS to use iTunes, they aren't using it because they have to. Sure some do, but that 88% marketshare comes from delivering on customer needs through focus testing, market research and usability testing. Richard Stallman would rather you sit there and believe that people are using Windows against their will, they are upset that they can't see the source code and they feel like their rights have been violated because they had to pay for it. It's telling that the company that tries to cater to the "Market" has 88% market share, the one that tells people what the "Market" is and needs has less than 10%, and the people that want you to not say market because it philosophically opposes the concept doesn't even register a percent. hmmm

Anonymous said...

One last note, I think you guys need a new spokesperson and marketing strategy for GNU comes off like Jehova's Witnesses. It's abrasive, it's over the top and it's very preachy, that = counterproductive.

Unknown said...

True, perhaps users should be left alone to decide what they want to use. Doesn't matter what's good for some and bad for others.

Anonymous said...

@Esteban: I know right? I would be totally pissed if I had to use the quality of software that is available free and couldn't use stuff like Logic and Photoshop. That's the trick, if you don't want to pay for it, don't use it. If you want to, do. Society is not being "damaged" because some people can afford to buy software. I don't feel damaged because I can't afford a Ferrari.

Philip said...

"linux has so much potential. but you guys have to stop arguing and think about whats being said. what if we are right? we are the general populace you need so badly."

Who said Linux needs you???

As for the installer comments...
Linux will install programs just like Windows. The only thing you have to know is what the base of your particular Linux OS is. Ubuntu for example is Debian based so it uses .deb files the same way Winduhs uses .exe files. You download the .deb, click on it, and OMG! it installed correctly.

My Kubuntu 8.10 recognizes everything I have ever plugged into it with no problem and configured it.

I still use Winduhs on a daily basis at work, but I am much happier when I get home to use my Kubuntu box. Hell, I just got a laptop with Vista installed and the first thing I did was change as much as possible to make it act more like my Linux systems.

So, in closing... you don't like Linux, fine... keeping forking out the money for M$ and Wacintosh. No skin off mine or any other Linux users back. BUT, at the same time... don't make comments about things you do not wish to take the time to understand.

Unknown said...


Come on man! You act like you don't understand GNU at all. GNU is simply an organization that promotes a community based software development philosophy. They don't have any say in what you do with your code as a developer. You can choose to develop free code or not.

There will always be proprietary software companies, but thanks to GNU there is an alternative. Users can now choose a high quality free operating system, and I think this is a win for everybody, including you.

As a developer, if you find this threatening... fine, just come out and say it. But you shouldn't feel threatened, these days a talented developed can support his/her family developing free software or proprietary software.

Shane kerns said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@Kevin: No, I am not talking about that philosophy, but the rhetoric that since I don't develop GPL licensed software I am "less than ethical"

JesusM. said...


You may want to check to see if your spell check is working on Kubuntu box. This whole Leet speak that people use shows the maturity level that people want to be talked too. I would sink that low but I don't really want to wear a bib to catch the drool.

If you've read some Philoking's other post you would see that he has nothing against Linux. Linux does not do "everything" people want to do and that includes the average joe that is not a geek and wants to do something as simple as plugging a camera which some distros may or may not do correctly.

Anonymous said...

I take offense to this philosophy:

It basically says that all software should be free and that companies that charge for it are harming society (direct quote) by obstructing free use of software causing damaging social cohesion.

Really? Windows has caused harm to society? I think that comparing paid licensed software to civil and human rights and implying that it is hurtful to the peace and public health is ridiculous. The propaganda on the GNU website says and I quote "However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do."

Really? It's all ridiculous. Stallman says three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:

* Fewer people use the program. (Yet MS Windows has 88% market share)
* None of the users can adapt or fix the program. (Users need adaptive interfaces, USERS don't code, the source code is absolutely worthless to an end user)
* Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it. (Are you saying that you need to look at the exact source code to understand the concepts and ideas? Did you have to look at my test paper to learn math too?)

My point is, come with a legitimate argument that doesn't make it look like you just want something for nothing and get Linux to the point where people want to use it. People are getting a chance to use Linux, Ubuntu returns are four times higher than Windows on netbooks. It's time to look at your software and realize that it may very well be the quality and compatibility of it that's causing those returns, and not blame it on Windows, Mac OS X or Spiderman.

Unknown said...

I think that the question that OSS developers and enthusiasts should be asking themselves is why they claim their software is so much better than the rest, yet, nobody seems to notice or care.

I do use linux because i chose to and because i think it works better for me. How come others don't think the same way?

Could it be that Windows is simply imposed to everyone? Or linux is not having the correct marketing strategy?

Find the root cause, fix it, and then perhaps linux will have a shot out there, with the 88% that seem to think so differently than us linux users.

Anonymous said...

@Esteban: Make that 97%, 9% of them are on Mac.

Unknown said...


Keep in mind that when Stallman created GNU there was not a widely available alternative to proprietary systems. Thanks to his work there now is a choice.

He has brought much good to the entire world because of this unyielding and strong philosophy you don't agree with.

I think developing and using free software is a more ethical choice than developing and using proprietary software. Just as purchasing Certified Fair-Trade products with open back-stories is a more ethical choice than purchasing products that do not share their back-stories.

I think the important point here is that with free software there is less of a chance of the user and community being exploited, for monetary gain or otherwise. We may have to agree to disagree on this, as this might be a fundamental difference in our personal philosophies.

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: Yea, I think I do. Basically you are saying that if I come up with a neat idea, create it, market it, it's un-ethical for me claim ownership, sell it and protect it.

I didn't work so hard to get to where I am to give up on the business of software and start flipping burgers at burger king. :)

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: One last comment, for real world users, Linux is still not a viable alternative to Windows, for many Mac OS isn't either.

People want the coolest latest stuff and it's not always about the hardware. When you buy a new digital camera you want to be able to install Photoshop Elements that came with it, an audio interface usually comes with Ableton Live or Cubase, webcams usually side with Yahoo or MSN Messengers, people want iPhones which means iTunes, people LIKE being able to download things like Windows Photo Gallery or Flickr Uploadr.

I could go on forever, but the point is when people pay hard earned money for a cool gadget or something, they don't want to go searching online and looking at two dozen options of usually inferior products that require an extra hassle to use them anyway. It's just not logical.

I always read these articles that seem to take the stand that "if people would just give Linux a try they would see how good it is and ditch windows immediately." But that's so far from the truth, one it honestly isn't as good to the average user, they don't trust it, it's too complicated (in their opinion which is what really matters, ask MS and Vista, I think everyone has agreed that Vista SP1 is super stable and has fantastic driver support but reputations are a bitch and Linux has one)

There are dozens of reasons why Linux is not growing. Based on 2007 Linux was below one percent, 2008 is over and it's still less than 1%, how much is one percent? Current numbers place the computer population @ about 1 Billion, with only 5% of those being in the US. So with a billion PCs around that means Linux has less than 10,000,000 in use. If we were generous and said you went from .65 to .85% (which I would attribute pretty much completely to Netbooks if that's a realistic number) That would mean you grew from 6,500,000 to 8,500,000 (Ars estimates 14,000,000 Netbooks were sold in 2008, so the entire 2,000,000 growth was Netbooks, that's only 14% of that market) at that rate Linux will catch up with Apple in 45 years, and Windows will get blown by about 2449, that's right 440 years from now.

It takes people to have a movement and you just don't have the numbers, I would suggest investigating why Linux netbooks are being returned 4 to 1 over Windows Netbooks as a starting place to see why people aren't picking it up, there is obviously something they aren't liking.

उन्मुक्त said...

I work on Linux and blog in Hindi about open source - Great picture.

Please remove the word verification. It not only troubles people of my age but often discourages people to comment.

JesusM. said...


It's there to reduce or discourage spam bots..their is a little handicap icon on the side that can help you input if you find it difficult to read.

rich3800 said...

Less management complexity under Linux. To manage Windows licenses, another application has to be installed to keep track of them. I like to keep my life simple. No worries.

Kevin (aka Padma) said...

I wasn't going to say anything, but PhiloKing just irked me too much.

I keep seeing this "Linux has less than 1% marketshare" bandied about. When you consider that Linux is usually given away and not sold, what could "marketshare" possibly have to do with anything? For an example, I have 3 computers in my home that count as Windows marketshare. Yet,I deleted Windows, and run Linux on them. From my experience and observation, I think Linux has at least as much usage as Apple/Mac.

As for your comment that you should be allowed to charge money for software you developed, I agree completely. Even RMS agrees! And you should be allowed to license it as you see fit. I have been a software developer for over 25 years, and I make very good money. But what I make money on is what I write for in-house applications. Anything I write outside my job gets a FOSS license. Don't try to tell me that all programmers will starve if Linux takes over the desktop. Nearly all software development is done for internal company use. Only a small percentage of software is actually for "public consumption".

Oh, and that "4 to 1 Linux vs. Win Netbook returns" bit is bunk, and you know it. It was one company, that put a very poorly-integrated version of Linux on their netbooks - it didn't even work properly with much of the hardware - and then they reported that their shoddily built product was being returned. It wasn't Linux' fault, it was the manufacturer's.

Anonymous said...

dude...really? You think there are as many active Linux Desktop users as Apple Mac users? Really? I bought a netbook at BestBuy (XP ironically, MSI Wind) and I was told the same thing, that most of the linux ones sold get returned when people realize they can't use their software on them.

Anonymous said...

It's about usage, not sales dude:


Anonymous said...

Just a little real world usage results, here are the visits to my own personal blog from Google Analytics sorted by Operating System.


Anonymous said...

The market share argument always cracks me up. The essence of this argument is that since most computers used to browse the web run windows, then windows must be the superior operating system. That's just hilarious.

Windows has the most "market share" because of only two reasons... convenience and familiarity. People use it because it is pre-installed on the pc's they buy, and it was on the pc they used in school, etc. Another example is McDonald's... people eat at McDonald's because it's on every corner and they ate there when they were kids. It's familiar and safe(or at least that's their perception.)

Anonymous said...

so let me get this straight, you are saying that website usage statistics do not paint an accurate picture of what operating systems are being used? Are you saying there are millions of dudes hanging out linux computers NOT using the web?

Anonymous said...

@Kevin: Wait, I get it, Linux is SO good, that people don't need to browse websites, that's why it shows up so little on usage statistics. This argument is not about which operating system is superior technically, it's about who uses it. The reality is that Mac OS is probably better than both Windows AND Linux, but it suffers (to a much lesser extent) the same problem linux has, it's just not compatible with the software that's out there. I know you can download TONS of cool apps on the web, but real users browse apps @ Best Buy and buy software because there is a perception that free software is junk. Until Linux figures out a way to be really compatible with Windows software and can install the top software from sites like and work, it's not going anywhere.

Anonymous said...


No not at all. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that higher "market share" does not equate to a better or even good operating system or product. The argument that because a lot of people use it, it must be the best is a poor argument.

Windows XP has the greatest market share because of convenience, not because it is better.

Anonymous said...

"real users?" Pretty big stereotype there. Most of the "real users" I know look for apps on the web. Of course, on most distro's, linux users don't even need to bother with that 1990's style software distribution systems. Just one command on most linux systems, sudo apt-get install firefox, or netpkg firefox. And BAM! The software is ready to use. No going to Bust Buy, or Google. ;-)

Anonymous said...

I think we have established that about 1% of people actually get their software that way. lol.

Real Users: Non development types who use a computer productivity purposes. These users don't develop or compile.

Maybe we are getting to a root cause of Linux problems, most Linux users don't recognize that they are a minority of computer users. Perhaps if you had a little R&D money you could get some users in and see how the REST of the world (not me included, I am a techie too) actually use computers. When you see a user search the screen for a button in a usability study for 10 minutes behind a plate of glass, pounding your fists on the table screaming IT'S RIGHT THERE! while you thank God for sound proof realize that you can't ask someone to install applications from the command line, recompile stuff, and go looking on the web at archaic sudo commands to fix stuff. I think the nail JUST hit the head.

Anonymous said...

...but I digress. Linux use will continue to grow. Microsoft will continue to see free software as a threat, despite it's tiny "market share." Stallman will continue to promote the advantages of free software.... and Philoking will continue to taunt linux users with market share statistics... as the world turns. :-)

Unknown said...

Philoking: "Until Linux finds a wat to be really compatible with Windows...."

OMG. I'm pretty sure you meant until software vendors and hd manufactures start creating apps and hardware compatible with Linux. I guess that's one of the reasons to. Almost every company creates their apps to be installed and run on a windows box, that's one of the reasons Linux is not making it on the desktop market.

Anonymous said...

@Esteban: That thinking is the problem. Software companies and hardware vendors aren't going to chase a market that small. Linux OS has to figure out some way to move. Waiting on Adobe to release Photoshop for Linux might take awhile.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»