Windows Tech Writer Looks at Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Three days ago I accepted Linux into my life and while I'm not yet a convert, the experience has shaken my faith in Windows. It's hard to reconcile because for nearly 20 years I've mostly stayed on the one true Windows path."

Comments

Re:20 years of windows

[Chyeburashka]

From the article:

I was a disciple from the beginning when it was called Dos, and kept the faith through the buggy, painful years of Windows 1.0 to 3.11.

Windows 1.0 was released around November 1985, so nearly 20 years is not an exaggeration, especially since he is counting the DOS days too.

Re:Not Worth Our Time

[TummyX]

I especially the last line.

I think I'm becoming a believer.

I've heard that so many times from so many people, but it always goes away after the "oooo new" factor wears off. They say it to sound "hip" and tech savvy.

How long do you think it'll be before he deletes the partition and returns to windows full time?

Did anyone notice?

[Pettifogger]

Did anyone out there notice that a Linux Installfest is mentioned? The link to it is right here:

http://installfest.linux.net.nz/

As you can tell, it's only going on in New Zealand. Good for the Kiwis, but is there anything of the sort being done in the United States? I think we need Installfests here, too.

As for the article, I think everyone should quit carping. This is good press for Linux. I had the same experience in March when I made the "switch" on my main PC. Only difference is that my machine does not dual boot, and I'd had Aurora Linux on a Sparc since December '02. At any rate, though, the message needs to get out that Linux *IS* a genuine alternative, and this article does just that.

Whats wrong with the article folks?

[WegianWarrior]

Having RTFA and most of the comments, I'm a bit baffeled by the slasdot community today. Even I see this not as a article in how to use Linux or anything, but more as the sort of commentary that you can read on page three of most computermagazines these days. Saying things like "we knew that" and "is this news" actually misses the point, as he isn't speaking to those who already uses Linux but rather to those who still sees Windows as the only operating system out there. He isn't preaching to the choir my friends, he is preaching to the heatens, like myself.

The article / editorial / comment is more of a key than a crowbar... it may wet peoples appetite for the 'free*' OS they can get from their nerdy friends - even if the setup can be more of a hazzle than Windows is (well, than Windows can be; I used several hours patching up my spare PC yesterday after upgrading to XP). As such, I would say this is a good little article. He mentiones several of the pros of Linux, a few of the drawbacks, points out that it isn't a scary thing to try and that it is realivelty easy to do. He even adds a numer of links to distros, info on opensourse and the Linux Newbie Administration Guide... The only thing he don't add is the URL to knoppix so people could try Linux without having to change anything on their 'puter.

*) However you want to define 'free' as far as Linux go...

I want to believe.

[Glonoinha]

Ok, I want to believe. I honestly do.

I loaded RedHat around version 5.1 or 5.2 long, long ago - dedicated a machine to it, got it working, don't remember any of the particulars such as which shell I was using, hell it was 5 years ago (plus or minus.)

I got it running one afternoon, configured the modem (external modems by Hayes / USR - accept no substitutes) and got it talking to my ISP, used some version of Netscape that easily adequate for surfing at the time, I totally dug the 8-way virtual display under the GUI, I almost understood where everything on my drive was and why, had fun with the screen backgrounds (XEarth, etc..) and then ... what?

What did I do next? Not much else to do. None of my apps (read : games) were available at the time for Linux. I was unable to find replacements for any of my tools (read : an XTree clone such as ZTree, Office, Visual Studio, Drive Image, etc.) - I know now that there is a viable replacement for Office, but my professional experience doing development is on the MS platform. I have an entire support system for coming up with software on the MS platforms that I just haven't found (either where to find, or even that they exist) for Linux.

And of course there is the real reason we own home computers (and yes, I already mentioned it) : games. Flight simulators. Everquest (et.al MMORPGs) MechWarrior 2/3/4. Battles of Destiny. Yes, I know that Q3 is available on Linux, as is Unreal (well I believe it is) and the UT series. Anything else?

And as for cost ... people please. XP you have to pay for. Win9x, WinME, Windows 2000 are pretty much available for the asking on a trial basis. Assuming people are actually purchasing their applications the OS is a tiny fraction of the overall cost when you include their 3D modelling package, Photoshop, Games (Q3A for Linux wasn't free last time I checked, nor any of the Unreal series.)

I would love to run a Linux box at home if for no other reason than the cool 8-way virtual desktop in the GUI ... but I don't think I could find 8 apps to run, one for each virtual desktop.

Linux is good enough. Quit making it better and spend some time coming up with apps - now THAT will get people to convert.

Linux is a victim of it's own success

[Da VinMan]

What the hell does defragging have to do with anything?

Maybe nothing. Maybe his buddies didn't know what they were doing. He is just the messenger here, so don't shoot. That said, it used to be that you needed a defrag to be able to do a OS multi-boot on the same physical drive. Isn't that still the case?

Now for the meat...
No, not all distributions are free. Some companies may choose not to GPL their proprietary bells-and-whistles, such as installers and configuration utilities. I also dislike this article's erroneous insinuation that all Linux software is free.

You're absolutely correct. And it doesn't really matter one bit that you are correct. You see, the average person is quite content to use Windows until something better comes along. By something better, I mean it had better be (a) significantly faster/stable and/or (b) significantly cheaper and/or (c) significantly more feature rich (and easy to use) and/or (d) significantly more entertaining. Linux may or may not be faster/stable (it's debatable these days), it is more feature rich (but it's not easier to use), and it definitely is not more entertaining to the average person. So what does that leave? Cheaper. And how does every rabid Linux advocate start Linux evangelism? "Hey it's free! Here, take one."

The fact is that Joe Blow will choose Linux over Windows when doing so allows him to dodge the extra $200+ of cost of Windows + Office on a new computer. Joe had also better not care that most of the new games out there won't be usable under Linux. THEN he will choose Linux.

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux on the desktop. But please be realistic about why most people will choose it.