Five Reasons Not to Use Linux

UltimaGuy writes "Linux-watch has a humorous article about the top 5 reasons for not using Linux. It does provoke some thought aside from bringing a smile to our lips :)"

Comments

Such a sacarstic moron

[AArnott]

See my formal response to Five reasons to NOT use Linux.

Re:Such a sacarstic moron

[PaxTech]

Your response is just so much nitpicking, half of which is besides the point of the original article.

For example, you say Linux needs patches too, so as far as security goes Linux and Windows are even. Really? How urgent are those patches? If I have a fresh Linux install vs. a fresh Windows install, which do I have more time to patch before it gets owned? Then you go off on a tangent about how Linux makes it difficult to share files with other users on the same box because it lacks ACLs, while completely glossing over the fact that you almost have to constantly run as an Administrator under windows just to allow your apps to work.

You complain that Linux is too complicated, and your example contrasts Apache vs. IIS, while the article is talking about desktop machines..

I could go on, but there's not much point. Anyone trying to claim Windows is as secure as Linux since both require patches is either completely deluded or has an axe to grind.

My no1 hate

[LordSnooty]

Gee, this article didn't even mention it (not that I can get to it, going off the reply on the blog linked below). Man pages. And info, come to that matter. How often does Google become the default man page. I suppose most would brand this a virtue.

Re:Bzzzttt!!!!!

[AvitarX]

Yeah,when you create a new folder and give it a name it suddenly dissapears, that is real easy.

That's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head, but there are dozens oflittle make things easier mechanisms that really make it harder.

Re:The one reason they forgot:

[Kjuib]

what about some of the other games of the year?
Blizzard Games? Half-life(for Counter-Strike only)

I think it is funny when games say PC on them.. meaning they run on the PC... when they mean Windows PC... many dont run on Macs or Linux distros... they could split them a little more.. or have 2.. Console or PC... that would confuse people...

Why aren't more people using Linux?

[Lellor]

That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream. I think that Microsoft's blackmailing of computer vendors has something to do with it, but there's no single factor.

Where I work, for example, we are forced to use XP on the desktop despite the fact that the main tools that most of the core team use are available for Linux (Java, Eclipse). Ok, some of the tools that the core team uses are unavailable on Linux, like Photoshop, Lightwave, 3DStudio Max, etc. But a lot of people could be switched over tomorrow. Why, then, are the free *nixes relegated to the server-side? There are also issues with lockout on the server side, though, with some properietry packages such as our VPN software only running on Windows, yet Linux has still managed to gain a significant portion of the server market despite these factors. So why not the desktop?

I think a lot of it has to do with the mindset of the managers at companies - for the most part they are not willing to give new technologies the go-ahead, even if it makes sense financially. The only way to solve this is to either get more technically competent management into companies (yeah, right), or to find a way to break Microsoft's strangehold of OEM and desktop markets.

OS X is a terrible interface in my experience

[gosand]

Actually, I find OS X the most difficult to use at times probably because it's the most "different" for me.

I have never been a Mac person. I just don't get it. Then OS X came out, and all I heard was how awesome it was. More unixy? Sounds good. I went into an Apple store in a mall where they had all the cool, shiny goodness. I played with it for a while. Hated it. Frustrating. It didn't make any sense to me. A couple of years later, and I acquired a Mac at work as a test machine. My machine was down for a day for some new hardware, so I used the Mac. Horrible, unproductive day. To me, that intuitive interface is like trying to pound nails with a carrot. A bright, shiny, pretty carrot, but just a carrot.

I am not bashing it, I am just saying it isn't for me. And I hope that I am not the only one out there.

Re:OS X is a terrible interface in my experience

[Liam Slider]

I can agree with this. OSX lacks a number of interface features that, quite frankly, I consider essential. And what it has as something comparable, is often poorly implimented. Take multiple virtual desktops for example, to me, these are simply a feature of a modern GUI. Neither Windows nor OSX comes with it by default, and their add-on (in Mac's case third-party I believe) implimentations are rather....poorly designed. Macs do have this eye-candyish animated thing which is supposed to help organise applications...but it's really nowhere near as good.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the Mac. Mac people have their own complaints, some valid, some not, about Linux DEs. Differences are to be expected after all. But I just don't see the Mac as better implimented, or preferable to use.

Re:Reason: Choice.

[El Royo]

Actually, this is one of the problems I have. I want to install Linux once and not have to fret over 'Did I choose a distro I'm going to regret?' Will I choose one with KDE and then decide I really wanted Gnome? Will my distro have an easy to use patch/download system that will update frequently enough that I can get the things I want when I want them? I haven't found good answers to these questions.

I realize that I can overcome all these problems by downloading tarballs and building things myself. But the fact of the matter is I don't want to do that much tinkering.

My reason to use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I am a fan of Linux for a very simple reason. That is the ease with which errors are detected and their reasons shown.

In the 7 or 8 seperate systems I have owned in the last 5 years, every one of them has at some point run Windows. Most have run Linux. Inevitably they all have random crashes or errors.

However, in Windows I'm stuck asking "What the hell happened?" and rebooting. Usually the error is completely random and even if I check the logs and search for a fix online, I come up empty-handed.

In Linux I always find an answer to my error. It can range from "bad hardware" to "buggy program" to "you just suck at configuring", but I do not get any unexplained errors.

Still though, I do make sacrifices for Linux. It is harder to use in many ways. There is certainly a learning curve. It is an O/S for the power user, not the common user...yet.

An Interesting response.

[WindBourne]

I teach a class at work (Data Structures and Algorthyms or how to code). The other day, I put one of my students on my Linux box. He put in a USB drive and then spent 2 minutes getting upset. The drive was on the desktop marked in clear letters "SanDisk USB Drive" with only 4 icons on the entire desktop. Yet, it never dawned on him to click on it.

It amazed me that some things are very difficult for people due to it being ingrained.

My first distro

[g0bshiTe]

Was SuSe, I had only been using Windows for less than a year and had "heard of this linux alternative", I wanted to see what the hubbub was about. Coming from stricktly Windows, when I installed Linux I was surprised at how much easier it was to get on there than a normal 98SE install. Mine did most things for me, from configuring the drive to formatting and partitioning without having to guess. My first few 98Se installs were nightmares. Still give me cold sweats to this day.

I decided to go with KDE, though I had no idea what it was other than "some gui". Had I known then what I know now KDE would have gotten das boot. What a resource whore.

Well sometime passed and I have reinstalled the distro on the machine once since the initial install. And that was from user error. I had purchased a new larger harddrive and was very inexperienced and couldn't figure out how to install a new piece of hardware without a total reinstall. Sure taught me to RTFM. So for me, gaming aside, Windows 98SE installs in the early days --- 3 per month, my first linux distro installs to this day --- 2.

My personal experience with both os's and derivatives leave me with one conclusion, both OS's have their uses, Windows mainly for those who would rather be controlled by their computer, and those who would rather control their computer.

I still use Windows for stuff, gaming, video editing, audio mixing, but for tough stuff, security, networking I use linux.

Thank you to anyone who reads this that has worked on any OSS project, and especially the Kernel itself. It's nice to have more than 2 OS choices.

Re:Bzzzttt!!!!!

[morgan_greywolf]

Never mind that easy to use GUI design is eschewed by Linux writers who seem to be inherently unable to grasp that what is easy for a techie geek is NOT the thing that the common end-users need or want.

So what, exactly, is "easy to use" about Windows or other Microsoft products? Before you answer that question, tell me how many "n00b users" you know that use features in Microsoft products like mail filters in Outlook or change tracking in Word or can install programs in Windows by themselves.

Many can't. Maybe even most.

The perception that Windows is easy is ludicrious. I have no idea where it comes from -- anyone else know?

Re:When was the last time you edited a .conf?

[smallpaul]

Not that it really matters for making the point, but modern Windows navigation conventions really date back to Windows 95. Windows 95 and Gnome have more in common than Windows 95 and Windows 3.1 did. Do you remember the "program manager" and the "file manager"?

Users Have an Interest in Popularizing Linux

[srobert]

Linux users have a vested interest, I think, in popularizing the use of linux on desktops. Obtaining greater compatibility with the rest of the world would be reason enough for that. We wouldn't want those occasional web pages that only work in MSIE to become the rule of the net rather than the exception. I have some questions that, I hope, would prompt thinking users to help popularize Linux.
  Average Joe Computeruser walks into a store and sees a desktop system with XP for $X and a hardware identical machine next to it, running Linux, for $(X-L). What value of L would induce him to purchase that one instead of the XP machine? How would the choice of user interface affect the value of L? How does the value of X affect the value of L? Who would provide the user support?
Is there a way the Linux community could persuade the vendor or OEM to market the machines this way?
  I'm not providing many answers but I hope the questions prompt some thought.

Re:When was the last time you edited a .conf?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree that until ease of use comes in via standardization and a unified file packaging happens; most people I know won't use Linux.

Here is the problem. Say I play Everquest and so I decide to cheat and run the program ShowEQ. So I get me extra computer and install Linux. I then try to install ShowEQ and it says I am missing this library or that that version of whatever software is wrong. This would be enough to get most power gamers who would sit for 14 hours a day trying to figure out a thing in the game to give up on setting up ShowEQ and therefore give up on Linux.

Next take a machine running Red Hat 9, and wanting to update the version of mozilla on the machine but something is missing. So you try to use the Up2Date tool to try to update but find it is no longer working correctly for the files you need. You try to install rpm's to update but they keep saying that the file is already installed. So here you have a computer with your files on it but you can not find an obvious path to update things leaving the only obvious path as trying to install a new copy of Linux but that may not work correctly. So as a novice, would you try again or would you switch back to Windows?

You have to remember that the one thing Microsoft does that Linux as a whole does not is offer a standard which is at a low enough level that the average person can do it.

Nice straw man, but wasn't funny.

[Spy der Mann]

I've edited the registry, and haven't found it too hard. The controls are somewhat friendly, i can navigate in it and find out what's there.

On the contrary, if I *HAVE* to edit a conf file in Linux, it's mostly because i'm stuck in the commandline. So, what do I use to edit? emacs? vi? nano?

All these 3 programs have one thing in common: They're NOT windows-users friendly! In windows using the "primitive" notepad, All I have to do is press shift and move the cursor around. I go to the menu, Edit... cut (or just press ctrl-x), and then I paste (ctrl-v) around the area i want to edit.

In Linux, I have to RELEARN all the shortcuts to edit a text file.

Second: Linux *IS* a pain to set up.

The article says:
"After all, with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account."

Yes, but I didn't have those two distros, I used Ubuntu and had a lot of problems trying to set up the PPPoE protocol so I could simply *update* my software (and don't even get me into CoLinux, I still haven't been able to use the Gnome desktop wth it. There are so many settings I have to meddle with, and I have to edit the conf files using this "nano" program.

Alright, let's forget about coLinux for a while. The freaking GRUB didn't tell me how to specify that I wanted to boot Windows by default, not Linux. There isn't a button that says "boot this by default from now on". No, I have to boot into Linux, edit a conf file, no wait, it's not even a .conf. It's menu.lst or something. Easy to set up? Gimme a break.

Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications

I've TRIED to set up XMMS. It always crashes. Now how the heck am I gonna play my MP3's? The default player app (NOT xmms) doesn't even handle mp3's! I not only want enough applications, I could do with ONE applications that WORKS.

Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure

I'd remove that from the list, but I'd apprecieate it if you guys told me how to configure a firewall in Linux. Yes, I'm a n00b. As the grand majority of mere mortals are. Oh,yeah. "RTFM" is taboo, and I'm sick tired of having to scroll thru pages of pages of manpages.

Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive

Who cares? With reasons 1-3 I've tried to avoid Linux, I want things that "just work". Give me a distro that emulates the windows control panel, notepad and has a decent media player app that doesn't crash or hang when I try to play an mp3.

And to the detriment of Linux zealots, the "easy to install" distros are the works of people who DID admit Linux is hard to install. It's the zealots or RTFM uber-geek sysadmins who just tried to ignore the problem. They didn't move A FINGER to try to solve the problem. After all, what problem?

Well, after years of saying the Gimp was NOT user friendly, FINALLY we get a usability group working on it.

Until linux fans start admitting that Linux isn't perfect, or not as user-friendly as it SHOULD be, we will HAVE to be stuck with Windows.

The author of the article seemed to think that all the people who don't want to use (or don't still feel comfortable using) Linux, are Microsoft-fooled sheeps. Well I'm not. I _DO_ want Linux, after all I have tried to install various distros on my machine, just to find them too hard to stay - this is why I keep coming back to windows.

For starters, why isn't there a shell that emulates the windows CMD? As useful greps / finds / pipe chains are, they can't match the simplicity of a DIR /S. I've been using MS-DOS for more than 15 years, moving to Linux is restarting everything from scratch. Is that really NECESSARY?

Unix Tarzans may be accustomed to swinging in command line ropes and fighting against .conf beasts in the wild, but we're Windows people, we need a little help in here, and I don't just mean a nifty graphical interface.

Re:Bzzzttt!!!!!

[Rei]

Familiarity is by far the largest factor in ease of use

Thankfully, WMs like KDE are softening the blow for windows users. I just set up a long-time windows using grandmother with a dual boot XP/Fedora box. She seems to find KDE just as easy to use as XP (and thinks that it's prettier, especially the screensavers that come with it)y . She's never going to reconfigure anything in *either* operating system. However, if she wants new software in Linux, all she has to do is open up the nice synaptic icon on her desktop (which I've labelled "Add/Remove Programs") and click on what she wants. I doubt she could manage a new installation of most products in Windows, and she'd probably have to pay for them to boot.

I still need to get her off AOL, though, before she can take advantage of that. Penggy doesn't work for any of her local access numbers :P

In Windows, she has almost nothing, because she doesn't have the money to pay for it and because of the time it would take to download and install everything (I took the time to install Mozilla, OpenOffice, Grisoft antivirus, AOL, and Gimp, as well as to set her up an email account on my mail server accessed through outlook). In Linux, she has tons of things. As an example, she has about thirty to fourty games of the types that she likes, because all it took for me to install them for her was searching for "games" in synaptic and clicking to add that many times.

I had more trouble with the Linux setup than the Windows setup, but that's because I gave Linux the scraps (much smaller root partition) and had to make it work with Windows (Windows is ignorant of Linux's existence). Thus, my time was spent on things like NTFS configuration (it took captive NTFS), grub configuration, et al, plus my successful but long configuration of intel winmodem drivers and failed attempt at AOL connectivity)

Re:Windows Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when X crashes, it tells you that it crashed and instead of stagnating and just sitting there line explorer.exe does, it tells you what happened without giving you useless memory addresses and it then fixes the problem and immediately restarts X as it was before it crashed.

Because Linux is based on the solid, modular and multiuser-multitasking UNIX with the Open Source/Free Software aspect allowing you to view, edit, add, delete, or redistribute source code, something that is strictly forbidden with the Windows OS.

Because Linux is free as in freedom and free as in cost meaning that you as the user, not corporate suits, have all of the rights, nor do you (usually) have to pay money to get the Linux OS, and if you do it is significantly cheaper and a much more reliable than it's Winblows counterpart.

Because Linux is based on UNIX and therefore is secure. UNIX actually manages resources, something that windows pretends to do. How many times have you had a virus in Windows whose process "could not be terminated"? Linux allows you to kill anything that needs to be killed, because it's modular. It doesn't have the dependancy issues that Windows has.

Because Linux modularity doesn't depend on DLLs. NO DLL HELL!!!

Because backward-compatibility is all but guarenteed. Try comparing that with Winblows. The next API is completely new, so don't count on any apps you currently use working with Vista.

Because Tux is so much more lovable than some stupid curvy window pane. And because Linux is such a better name than "XP" or "Vista" (Microshaft loves the curvy windows logo and fag names like "Vista". Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!).

Because Linux Torvalds knows what the fuck a computer should do and how to make that work, whereas Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer know about how to make a monopoly with crappy software so that the user is forced to upgrade every two years...wait, vista is coming out FOUR FUCKING YEARS after XP, at the earliest!!!

Resist the dark path. It is much sexier to be a 'root' than a 'computer administrator'. (To the macheads out there, you are roots as well; OS X is based on UNIX. :-D)

Because Windows is inherently weak. Don't buy the bullshit that Microshaft puts out about "it's only weak because so many people use it." Though that can account for some of the viruses, the real reason that Windows is so vulnerable is that it is vulnerable. There are two variables: strength and ubiquity. Windows has low strength and high ubiquity. Those combine to form a bad operating system that is inherently subject to viruses, etc.

Because no one should rope you into using their browser integrated with OS.

Harder to Use == Better?

[fossa]

It's hard to explain why the "new way" is harder to use but still better because it is harder to use and that makes is worse. If you tell me the new way is better for obscure technical reasons, but by the way, you have to do backflips or it won't work, then the new way can go fuck itself.

Is it so hard to have both a cached disk and one you can eject whenever you want? The computer could maybe let you know when you pulled the plug that not everything had finished and could finish if you plug it back in for a sec right now, or maybe you'd just prefer to wait for some other time to plug it back in. Isn't this what journaled fs's are for? Atomic transactions? It's certainly within the realm of possibility, and you should wish it existed for your GF's sake and for all other people who don't have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! ... er, I mean, have neither the time nor the inclination to babysit the computer.

If you really need a disk that cannot be ejected until the computer is ready, then design one that way. Mounted cdroms don't eject when you press the button (they should unmount themeselves and eject, but that's beside the point); they only eject when the computer releases them.

Another example: Is it so hard to have a computer that doesn't require a "shut down"? Put a battery in there if you need a little time for housekeeping before the power gets cut.

If you ever have to say "it's better, but oh it's worse, but it's really still better", then you're doing something wrong. It really is worse.

Now, sure, there are times you can't have your cake and eat it too. But the examples above are not such times. Also, the road to perfection may be long and arduous, but one shouldn't accept defeat, and one certainly must not turn a blind eye to imperfections merely because it's the "new way".

Reason #6: Driver Support

[Anonymous Slacker]

I have neither the time nor the extreme technical knowledge of the details involved with writing drivers for all the hardware I buy for my computers.
I want something that works the way it says it will on the box, not something that I have to scour the web for in vain hopes someone else already wrote the drivers for it, or dig into the details trying to piecemeal my own together to get it to do what it says on the box.
Simply checking HP's website for my all-in-one wireless networked printer/scanner/copy/fax yields Windows and Mac drivers. None for Linux.
Granted, most of the functionality (copy/scan/fax) can be done with the built-in web interface for my printer, but I like to actually print from the computer once in a while, and that requires drivers on my computers.
Not to mention fully manufacturer-supported drivers for video cards, TV-tuners, etc. (yes, I know there's some things in Linux that will do this, but it's not as easy as in Windows -- plug in the hardware, start windows, when it finds the hardware, put the CD in and hit 'install')

Which brings me to another point. I love the flexibility that Linux and such allow, but sometimes I want to listen to a music CD (not mp3, not ogg). In Windows, I can put the disc in the drive, and it brings up Windows Media Player and starts playing. Done. Half the time I've installed Linux, I don't even have sound. The rest of the time, I keep forgetting how to mount/unmout CD's so I can get to the content on them. Let alone figure out which one of the pre-installed media players actually works.

Yes, I am a nerd, but I am one who is very distracted by real life as well. I don't always have time to rebuild drivers and kernels and reconfigure everything every time I buy a new piece of hardware to plug into my computers. I like things that work they way they say they will on the box the first time I try.

my 5 reasons not to use linux.

[hangingonwords]

Hope the slashdot community can handle MY opinion.

1. Configuration - it's a hassle and requires too much effort. i'm not lazy, i just don't care.

2. Support - doesn't support as much software as windows and what it does have is usually just a stripped down copy. most important to me, games... I like to play a lot more then quake and tux racer.

3. GUI - granted, many steps have been taken to improve most distributions of linux's GUI but in my opinion it is still far superior to windows. linux is still largely command prompt based and requires too much to learn for simple actions.

4. 2nd rate OS - i don't want a product that comes in second. i buy and support quality and in my opinion quality might only be just that, an opinion. but windows is number one despite what linux users want to believe. i'm not saying windows doesn't have problems but it's perfect for what i want to do and with the number of people using windows being what it is, apparently the majority of society feels the same way. i'm not looking to run an efficient virus free server that's hack proof. i own a few home computers and windows is the best candidate for the job. period.

5. Hordes of pro-linux zealots - turned off by the majority of linux users being narrow minded, one sided nerds, I don't want to be categorized as one or be seen consorting with one.

Watch my karma drop at record speed.

Im not gonna buy it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is everyone here so hellbent on selling their OS of choice to everyone else? Why do fanboys of 'blank' OS (or OS 'blank') feel the need to impose it onto everyone they see? I like Cherry Coke and Milkyway Midnights. But i see no point in proclaiming the goodness, or arguing with somone over it. I'm not trying to start a flame war, i have just always been curious about this.

Re:Apache

[mikehoskins]

To the last poster: `apachectl graceful` is correct.

It waits until all child processes are done, kills each one, then reloads and restarts Apache. The users shouldn't even know you're down.

What's funny is that IIS is really doing the same thing behind-the-scenes, without your knowledge.

At least with Apache, you can control *when* it restarts. IIS only needs a whiff of a web.config change and it does it.

(For example, on IIS this could be a bad thing, if you are in the middle of copying a ton of files and your customers see the site mangled. This is possible to have happen in Apache, as well, but you have more control).

Both servers occasionally have configuration changes or other problems that require a full stop/start. However, with Apache, it's far less frequent, unless someone breaks it.

Apache is also *so* much more powerful because it's *so* configurable. As someone who admins both for my job, I can attest that there's no contest.

IMHO, IIS feels like a cheap plastic toy. Apache, on the other hand, is almost overkill, but good overkill, nonetheless. Apache truly feels enterprise-class, unlike IIS, which feels more like an point-and-click application. (I think this is akin to comparing Oracle to Access).

Features-wise, there is no comparison. For example, look up all the "mod_xxxxx" modules for Apache, some time. Not impressed? Well, just try mod_rewrite on for size, or mod_proxy, or mod_auth, or mod_perl's extensions to Apache.

(Now compare that to IIS. Insert stunned silence and the chirping of crickets)....

Again, IMHO, you cannot compare the IIS to Apache for power, flexibility, control, etc. IIS is easier to use -- initially -- until you want to think-outside-the-box, that is!

Apache's portability, stability, performance under load, features, and popularity are renowned, for good reasons....

If you want more of an apples-to-apples comparison, find a GUI tool for Apache that behaves somewhat like IIS, if one exists. (Of course, you'd have to get one that limits features to make it more apples-to-apples)....

Re:Anecdote time

[Kosmatos]

My top 5 reasons for using Windows on my Intel PCs:

1) Generally more software and games I like run on it.

2) More devices I'm interested in come with drivers and support for it.

3) Viruses and worms don't affect me, I have a firewall, and I don't click on phishing email links, I don't visit questionable web sites. So it is as secure as I need it to be.

4) My Windows XP is generally stable and free from crashes. I do use my computers a lot, and appreciate this. Its not perfect, though, but still, I have had bad experiences on other OSes such as OS X.

5) ...well, ok, that's it.

Re:When was the last time you edited a .conf?

[BlueLightning]

You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever.

That's fortunate for you, but let me tell you as a Windows server sysadmin I have had to edit the registry on quite a number of occasions to fix it, and many of those times it was under the direction of a Microsoft knowledge base article. Many of those times I *felt* that it should not have been necessary, but it was still necessary nonetheless.

Once you dig into the registry you can see it is as arcane, messy and complicated as any configuration file you might find on a Linux system (with the possible exception of the sendmail configuration file, which is truly in a class of its own).

Re:Anecdote time

[dbIII]

In the Linux vs MS argument

If you know more about the MS software and have to learn how to use the linux software on the job it is likely that you will have more trouble with the latter.

With the previous poster the objective was to get bugzilla going, not to learn how to set up an unfamiliar linux system - so installing it on the OS he knows backwards does look like the best choice, paticularly with the "try it and see if it works" approach described above.

Despite the efforts of gnome to make things look like MS Windows (even down to a registry clone and a single user, non-network aware approach that we see with gconf!) it is different and there is a learning curve. There is no "C:" drive and those that think the command line is a disadvantage have missed the entire point of *nix systems - even Apple haven't succeeding in making a GUI method of just finding files and text as effective as a few characters on a command line.

Re:The one reason they forgot:

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the comment about games, and had to agree. But apparently I read it the opposite way as you did.

The only reason for running a game on Windows is that it's absolutely impossible to run it on anything else. So far, the only game I have that fits that is Microsoft Train Simulator. I was playing just a couple of days ago, and after spending about an hour getting almost to the interesting point... CRASH.

That's why I prefer to play games on other systems. Linux, Playstation, doesn't matter. I have other games that were written for Windows, but they run better under Wine than they do under Windows. Even though Wine is still alpha, I don't have to worry nearly as much about crashes as under Windows.

I don't understand how hardcore gamers can put up with playing under Windows. I'm not hardcore, I only play for fun, but still, when I get a crash just before completing a level I spend the last hour on, I get frustrated. Now, you'll probably say that my PC is hosed. Well, I've been to LAN parties with all the local hardcore gamers. I play under Linux, they play under Windows. Guess what, they're the ones with problems running the games. One has graphics probles, making every black pixel in the game white. Another gets several BSODs. One game crashes for everyone (ok, I didn't try that one at all, not my style, and too big a download, put the point still stands: How can they put up with playing in an environment like that?)