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.
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.
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 openoffice.org. But the latest openoffice.org 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.
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.
Try installing an instant messenger on Windows. By the time you've found aol.com, 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.
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.
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.
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
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 ;)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
@jon 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.
@justin 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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
@dan "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
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 ...
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
@roberto:
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.
@ian:
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.
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.
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.
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???
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).
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....
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 software...free. 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
* 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.
Upgradeability
* 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.
Security
* 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.
Customization
* 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.
Miscellaneous
* 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.
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)
111 comments:
yeha true.. very true.. Linux is better.. after a few years.. it will doninate!
What's Linux?
hahha shit... you penguin lovers have been saying that for years. never gonna happen.
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!!!
@roberto:
So which distro are you using that doesn't have an installer?
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.
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)
roberto-
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 openoffice.org. But the latest openoffice.org 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.
@jon
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.
Try installing an instant messenger on Windows. By the time you've found aol.com, 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 ;)
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.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A POINT, USE A PROPER WINDOWS CD. We'd all use linux if it ran programs.
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.
Vista Premium + Office + AV software = $500+
Ubunta + Open Office = 0$
Manufacturers who have no linux drivers don't deserve any custom.
"We'd all use linux if it ran programs."
Yeah! To hell with linux and it's "applications" and "executables," we want programs dammit!
@Kavey
Yeah, it's called Citrix. Been around for along time.
@Adam
Can't even get Ubuntu to boot on my laptop.
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.
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.
@Kavey
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.
When's the last time you had to open a command prompt in Windows to install software?
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.
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 :/
ahhhh another Linux/Windows/Mac war, cant we all just get along??
Yeah, I love linux, it allows me to play all my games...er wait....nevermind.
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.
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...
Linux is great, if you don't need any multimedia entertainment out of your system.
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 :/
precisely.
@Davin
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?
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.
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.
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.
very nice reason to love linux. If not the *ONLY* one...
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.
@crud
"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.
@jon
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.
@justin
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.
@Ian
Amen, and amen.
@Everybody
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.
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!"
hey, as soon as linux works as well as windows I'm in.
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.
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.
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.
@dan
"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
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 ...
@jon:
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
@roberto:
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.
@ian:
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,
Andy
@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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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???
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).
@ 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 foo.bar, I just add Tom, Dick and Harry to group baz and chgrp baz foo.bar
If I want groups baz and bing to own foo.bar I add baz and bing to group qux and chown qux foo.bar
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....
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 software...free. 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.
I'm dual booting to get off of my windows addiction. Vista is a serial rapist.
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...
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!"
@globalchanges
What the hell are you talking about? Linux is all over the place on servers.
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.
@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.
Linux is just too much work for your average user. People want things that just work... Not that Linux doesn't have its place.
Haha, nice!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
@ 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.
I LOVE linux
And If you have an extra money use Microsoft products
Price
* 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.
Upgradeability
* 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.
Security
* 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.
Customization
* 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.
Miscellaneous
* 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.
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)