Why Do People Switch To Linux?

tadelste writes "During the last month, Lxer.com conducted a survey of readers who use Linux. They asked readers why they switched to Linux and received a plethora of answers. Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine. Linux stands on its own merits. Anti-Microsoft sentiment comes from Microsoft's paranoia, which results in quotes like the one that had Bill Gates saying he'd put Linux in the Computer museum like he has other competitors." A respondent quote from the article: "It took me about a year to switch from W2K to Linux. The timing in the development of all of the Desktop elements has obviously been critical. If I'd tried any sooner, the whole thing would never have come together. Improved hardware support and equivalent apps have been a big part of the successful transition, and, I owe thanks to many in the Linux community for making that happen at an astounding rate and giving me my functional Desktop OS." Why do you think folks switch?

Comments

LaTeX

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

The ability to typeset sublime mathematics and papers based not on WYSIWYG, but form and content; both of which may be possible under MiKTeX, but it seemed most natural to migrate, if not to whose nativity, then to the least hostile environment for work.

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

This is an excelent reason to move over, I find latex support in windows to be abismal, and only slightly better in OS X. But most of the people I know have moved to Linux becuase it's easier (for us). It's easier to install applications, easier to keep them update, and easier to make changes than in Windows. I also got fed up with breaking things in windows and having no way to figure out what had happened or how to fix it. I've found that everytime I break something in linux I can head to my favorite IRC channel, or Forum and have a clear answer in a couple hours if not minutes.

Clearly this isn't the case for everyone, but Linux/Unix just clicked with me, all the way to make config changes the applications and the underlying architecture. And this is not to expound upon the fun I have tinkering which just isn't available in the windows platform.

~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[graemecoates]

Not sure how this was modded offtopic... LaTeX is far, far easier to use in linux than Windows - which is a valid reason to switch, which is entirely related to the topic of the post...

Re:LaTeX

[inverselimit]

Definitely. LaTeX, the Emacs to edit it, and every other app useful for a mathematician with computational tendencies (singular, macaulay, etc) is native to linux/unix. Plus my enlightened department (which includes the author of xdvi) doesn't touch windows.

Re:LaTeX

[scovetta]

I, for one, (do not welcome our new LaTeX overlords)-- rather, I use MiKTeX and TexnicCenter to do LaTeX in Windows. Output to PS, PDF, or DVI (any probably others). Never had a problem with it at all.

Maybe Linux has some nice tex2dvi and dvi2pdf commands, but that's hardly a selling point to me.

Re:LaTeX

[Frequency Domain]

Okay, LaTeX accounts for maybe ten of us.

Let's get real here. As much as I love TeX/LaTeX, it's not widely used. When I was proceedings editor for a big technical conference (2000+ page proceedings, all papers of a computing/scientific/mathematical nature), LaTeX comprised about 15% of the submissions. If that's the level of adoption in the technical/mathematical community where LaTeX is clearly superior to Word, I doubt that LaTeX represents more than a fraction of a percent of the wider word processing market. As a reason for switching, it probably ranks below toe fungus.

Re:LaTeX

[poszi]

That's so true. I switched completely from Windows in 1998 when I realized after a few months of using dual boot configuration that thanks to LaTeX I don't need Windows for anything anymore. MikTex was not that bad but teTeX was better.

Re:LaTeX

[drauh]

latex support is "only slightly better in OS X"?

it's at least as good as support in linux, since you can compile (or use fink) teTeX and LyX.

but, it's better on OS X, i find, because i can use BibDesk.

Re:LaTeX

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more to it than that.

a) TeTeX is the best TeX distribution out there

b) emacs + auctex + reftex a more productive environment than MikTeX or TeXshop (OS X) or what have you.

I suppose you can set up emacs and the packages on windows, but it is a bit of a pain and doesn't fit well with the rest of the environment, like it does (mostly) on unix. For some (myself included) windows has no benefits and several drawbacks.

Re:LaTeX

[jshaped]

The parent has got to modded offtopic... LaTeX is not limited to Linux.
LaTeX is NOT a reason to switch.
I've been using LaTeX on Windows for years, and I love it.
The TeXLive system works great on Windows, I have all the tools I need - windvi, pdflatex, ghostscript, bibtex, etc.

Re:LaTeX

[turbidostato]

"Let's get real here. As much as I love TeX/LaTeX, it's not widely used."

OK, let's get real then. *He* was talking about why *he* choiced Linux. You, on the other hand, are just talking about your opinions regarding how *others* will go.

"As a reason for switching, it [LaTeX integration] probably ranks below toe fungus"

I bet it ranks a bit higher for those (like the parent poster) that *do* use LaTeX.

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

(warning: I only used OS X for about two weeks before I blew out my laptops hard drive, during that time I found it to be a very enjoyable experience but had some troubles setting up an effective LaTeX environment. I am _Clearly_ an OS X newbie.)

My beef was mostly just getting the packages installed and working properly. Fink didn't seem to have any of the LaTeX packages (only TeX) and I ended up using something a friend recommended called i-installer. At this point LaTeX did work, but it certaintly wasn't easy or intuitive to get to that point. The very fact that I had to try multiple package management tools (As opposed to one built into the system as I hope OS X eventualy includes) made setting up a LaTeX environment much more difficult than on most modern linux distributions.

Anyways I would be happy to hear about how you got a fully working LaTeX environment with plugins effectively installed. Without the rigamarole of battling with package managers that don't seem to cover a full breadth of packages.

Since Fink doesn't include the LaTeX packages, what package manager did you use to get LaTeX? Did you compile from source on your own? What are peoples recommendations?

Thanks!
~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

The Question is not whether or not it works, we all know the programs like winedt and MikTex exist. It's a question of the full breadth of support, the ease of use/installation, and the availability of the tools that is being called into question. At least with winedt there are crippling issues with it's shareware implimentation. And while you indeed may love working with LaTeX on windows there are some serious qualms I have with the integration of all the tools in an effective manner. Poor CLI tools support is just the least of these problems.

~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[Kadin2048]

Inasmuch as I haven't really used LaTeX under Linux yet, I do agree that the support seems quite good under OS X. I used TeTeX to write papers all the time and thought it was great, especially since by default it sets itself up to produce PDF files, which IMO are far more useful than DVIs.

In TeX Shop (the editor I use), You type your code in one window (with automatic colorizing / code formatting), hit a button, and look at the results in the PDF window. If you like what you see, you hit Print. I can't imagine LaTeX being any easier than that.

There is even a very slick program called i-Installer which handles the installation of all the LaTeX and TeTeX components and packages, so it's nearly impossible to break during install. (It also does ConTeXt and MusixTeX.) No screwing around with compilers, makefiles, or fink necessary. It will do updates after the install, too, or if you want to add additional options that you didn't initially select -- basically it's a package manager but just for a specific subset of packages.

BibDesk is a great program also. I used it as a sort of 'poor man's End Note' but in some ways I think it is probably superior because it's so infinitely configurable and customizable. I never had a problem formatting my bibliographies into some obscure publication requirement, and the config files were plain text and easy to dig into and tweak to my liking.

Anyway, I wouldn't short LaTeX's support on Mac OS X. It's definitely very solid; why it doesn't get used more in the sciences is beyond me, I think it has to do with the lingering anti-Mac bias in general, but it provides a much more positive experience for the beginning LaTeX user than some of the Windows installs I've seen.

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

I mention this in a comment above, but I think my issue comes entirely from the cludgyness of tracking down an effective package manager to get the LaTeX distribution, then on top of that vaguely unintuitive ways/methods of installation.

The fact that OS X doesn't have the native built in tools to retrive said packages makes it quite a bit more difficult to install than in most modern linux distributions.

I know that in my personal experience I tried Fink, realized it didn't have LaTeX. Gave up. Found I-installer from a friend, Found that some of the packages I wanted were kept under odd names. Was slightly confused why I would have to hunt around on the internet for a tool to get a common package instead of having a built in tool.

I'm not saying that these things don't work once installed. They work great even. But the lack of an effective installation medium built into the OS does make getting said packages much more difficult.

perhaps I've just been spoiled.

~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[SolusSD]

Yes! Latex!! I use it all the time in linux for my discrete mathematics course. I've found myself using it for everyday papers too now. Love it.

I use linux on both my home computer and work computer, as well as my notebook.

Re:LaTeX

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed absolutely. LaTeX is not the least bit platform dependent. This and that editor may be on linux or windows, but LaTeX source files are plain text with a limited subset of characters. TeX compilers are available for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

Re:LaTeX

[drauh]

I use the "unstable" fink tree. It has tetex-3.0 as of today. It works just fine: I wrote my dissertation with it with no troubles. See here: http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/tetex That link also shows that tetex-3.0 is available on the stable tree. Just do "fink install tetex" (or maybe "fink install bundle-tetex".

teTeX is a complete bundled LaTeX installation: http://www.tug.org/teTeX/

There are GUI TeX environments for OS X, but I never bothered to learn them (like iTeXMac or something). See this: http://ii2.sourceforge.net/tex-index.html

Re:LaTeX

[drauh]

What version of Fink are you using that it doesn't have LaTeX? I've been using LaTeX by way of Fink since I got my Powerbook more than 3 years ago.

Re:LaTeX

[drauh]

Like I said, Fink *does* have LaTeX, and has had it for more than 3 years.

Re:LaTeX

[Ithika]

"it probably ranks below toe fungus."

That's because toe fungus is really rank?

Re:LaTeX

[vonFinkelstien]

Fink has LaTeX. "fink install tetex" (or something like that) should work. However, I found i-Installer's installation better than Fink's. I haven't used FInk's tetex for sometime now.

Re:LaTeX

[fymidos]

Fink can be configured to download source and compile packages. In that case you can have pretty much anything you want, in my case kile ;)

(No, i don't actually use mac osx, i just support it)

Re:LaTeX

[c_woolley]

I'm just surprised to hear about people using OS X! :) Forget about the people talking about switching from MS to Linux...OS X defenders simply cannot be found ANYWHERE else and this appears to be ther rare opportunity I could not see anywhere else!

Re:LaTeX

[budgenator]

I've had problems getting MiKTeX to recognise new packages, and using LaTeX is windows is weird feeling, kinky but unpleasent.

Re:LaTeX

[kosmosik]

You can do LaTeX in WYSIWYM way (M stands for Mean in acronym). Check out LyX:

http://www.lyx.org/

"LyX is what?!

LyX is an advanced open source document processor that encourages an approach to writing based on the structure of your documents, not their appearance. LyX lets you concentrate on writing, leaving details of visual layout to the software.

LyX was originally a Unix application, but now runs natively on Windows and Mac OS X as well, thanks largely to the cross-platform Qt toolkit.

LyX produces high quality, professional output -- using LaTeX, an industrial strength typesetting engine, in the background; LyX is far more than a front-end to LaTeX, however. No knowledge of LaTeX is necessary to use LyX, although it will give a user more power."

Re:LaTeX

[colinrichardday]

Oh yeah! I switched over to Linux after I noticed that Red Hat 5.0 included TeX/LaTeX (and emacs and gcc). This was in 1998, one week after I bought my first PC.

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

does TeTeX include a full LaTeX installation? Or is it more like TeX? Are the two systems completely compatible at the macro level? ~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

is LaTeX actualy bundled in? or is it more of a TeX distribution. I see that it's based around the Web2c which is a TeX distribution not a LaTeX distribution.

I'm not sure I've ever fully understood teTeX's place in all this. Does it render LaTeX or TeX? The two are not entirely mutualy compatible and such hazyness makes me doubly wary.

~Anders

Re:LaTeX

[urbanRealist]

The chances of finding a solution to a problem depend a lot on the category of the problem. Generally, Windows users can expect much better hardware support than Linux users. On the software side, I've spent hours googling a problem (with file permissions, for example) on Windows. The information to solve a similar problem with Linux didn't even require googling, just reading the chown and chmod man pages. For Windows, I needed subinacl, which isn't even installed along with the OS.

On the flip side, I've been using Linux for years but finally switched to Windows for home use this year because I couldn't get my usb wireless adapter to work with Linux.

Re:LaTeX

[drauh]

my mistake, i meant "teTeX is a complete TeX bundle, including LaTeX".

so, LaTeX is really a bunch of TeX macros. anyway, teTeX includes both TeX and LaTeX since TeX is a prerequisite for LaTeX. it also includes all the utilities you expect: dvitops, dvitopdf, etc etc. it really is a complete TeX bundle.

if you use the commandline, i recommend the fink installation since i use it and it works well. if you want a GUI TeX editor, the other packages mentioned by others in this thread would probably work better.

Re:LaTeX

[aconbere]

:) I'm used to using LaTeX from the command line. That suites me just fine.

Re:LaTeX

[NutscrapeSucks]

Me Too. I was just trying to solve a Windows ACL conundrum, and it seemed like 90% of google's results were related to Samba, not Windows.

OTOH, Linux does have 10000 forums and maillists on the net where people post problems. Given enough googling, you almost always can find someone with the exact same issue as you and someone else with an answer.

The problem is the answer is usually something along the lines of "Just add BLAH to the BLAHBLAHBLAH file!", and then you need to spend another half-hour figuring out what your distro renamed the BLAHBLAHBLAH file to, and what the syntax of the file is so that you can add BLAH into it properly.

Re:LaTeX

[micheas]

It took me about two weeks worth of searching to find out why my CD burner wasn't working (problem with the old 2.6.8 kernel). Whereas if I ever have a problem with my windows box, I can google an answer in under 2 minutes.

I would attribute that more to your knowledge of windows help vs. your knowledge of linux help.

One of the reasons why I am productive on FreeBSD is because I know pretty close to where to go for help.

The quality of FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows help has nothing to do with it. There are millions of users of Linux, Windows and Mac OS/X, And all of them have more support than you will probably ever need. There is the off shoots of the Windows knowledge base, the FreeBSD Handbook, and Linux Gazette can solve any common problem quickly. If you have something that is really obscure, your knowledge of the os you are using is going to be the biggest factor in getting the problem fixed. To the *n*x family of os' credit, I have a vi book from the early 80's and it is still usable to someone just learning *n*x, unlike a pc book from that era. So veteran *n*x users tend to be more knowledgeable just because they haven't had their world yanked out from under them. But really, Linux and Windows are well supported, and widely used widely enough that you can find unique examples of what ever you want to prove. I just don't see $999.00 for an os on a $1200 dollar computer, when I can get a functionally equivalent os for free. Windows must have some advantages, but the only thing I remember about going to windows in the first place was "Solaris is how much more?!!"

Re:LaTeX

[jrockway]

Uh, apt-get install tetex installs LaTeX just fine. My only beef is that my emacs macros try to execute xdvi to view the dvi file... and X isn't running (I use a native port of emacs). Is there a "carbon dvi" or something that lets me view DVIs on the mac?

(For a while I used PDFLaTeX and viewed everything in Preview.app. But that ate up memory because Preview was doing something weird like not closing the files or something. I forget, but it was bad and I only did it for a day or so.)

Re:LaTeX

[jrockway]

> Let's get real here. As much as I love TeX/LaTeX, it's not widely used. When I was proceedings editor for a big technical conference

What conference? "Using Word to produce shitty documents 2005"?

Where I work -- the University of Chicago's Physical Sciences Division -- I've never seen ANYONE use Word. I don't even think most people have it installed. The professors there do all their typesetting / document production in TeX and LaTeX.

So maybe for some useless industry conference they use Word, but at top research universities, they use LaTeX. Even if your 15% is accurate, I'll bet those 15% are the papers that actually get accepted. (Not to mention that TeX provably produces better output than Word possibly could. Compare professionally typeset documents and TeX -- they share common features like ligatures, intelligent kerning, proper hyphenation, good spacing, etc, etc. Word does none of this, and CAN'T do most of that. Read Knuth's TeXbook for the details on what TeX does right.)

Re:LaTeX

[Frequency Domain]

So maybe for some useless industry conference they use Word, but at top research universities, they use LaTeX. Even if your 15% is accurate, I'll bet those 15% are the papers that actually get accepted.

You'd be wrong. That was the percentage of the accepted papers. And no, it's not "some useless industry conference". It was the Winter Simulation Conference, the main annual conference for the field of discrete event simulation.

(Not to mention that TeX provably produces better output than Word possibly could. Compare professionally typeset documents and TeX -- they share common features like ligatures, intelligent kerning, proper hyphenation, good spacing, etc, etc. Word does none of this, and CAN'T do most of that. Read Knuth's TeXbook for the details on what TeX does right.)

I don't need convincing about the technical merits of TeX, as I said in my original post I'm a TeX user myself. My latest paper was just accepted (two weeks ago) in ACM TOMACS and was done with LaTeX. When confronted with a Word document I have to work hard to suppress the gag reflex. My editorial work has only strengthened my antipathy towards Word and personal preference for TeX. None of which keeps me from seeing the reality that TeX is very much a niche tool in word processing. Granted, it's just my personal conjecture, but if you cross the small proportion of people who use TeX in the first place by the small proportion who are going to choose Linux based on word processing I predict the result is negligible.

Perhaps the Slashdot editors will create a poll for the reasons why people switch to Linux, and TeX will come out as the most popular reason. My own guess is it would come out behind the "Cowboy Neal" option.

Re:LaTeX

[WillAdams]

(LaTeX runs native in Windows and Mac OS X)

This depends on your value / definition of ``native''.

While I'll grant it's just about indistinguishable from a native app in Windows, in Mac OS X, while it's very nice and quite ``aquafied'', unfortunately there's a lot which isn't supported --- Services come to mind. I really wish someone would do a Cocoa front-end for LyX in Mac OS X.

William
(who uses LyX in Windows 2000 'cause it supports his handwriting recognition program on his pen slate ;)

Simple answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not smart enough to download a copy of XP from Usenet.

I kid, I kid!

Re:Simple answer...

[stupidfoo]

XP is good software... for me to poop on!

Re:Simple answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha Ha, but you're pretty close to the point here. Way fewer people would use Windows if they actually _had_ to pay for the software they were using. Then the cost factor would outweigh the usability factor pretty quick. But people steal software like crazy, especially Windows software. Gates tolerates (actually, likes) this because it gets the Windows hooks into people, and he can make up the losses with corporate sales from companies terrified of the BSA.

As a matter of fact, I'm someone Bill Gates should love; I don't steal his software (I happen to use FreeBSD). Instead he views me with contempt and derision. Says one thing and does another. What a loser.

Re:Simple answer...

[Thud457]

Reaon #5,327 : Microsoft Threatens To Withdraw Windows in S.Korea

Re:Simple answer...

[SoCalChris]

Was this the page you were looking for?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/xp

Re:Simple answer...

[CDPatten]

that is so stupid. If MS liked the stealing they wouldn't require activation and be such hard asses about it. Ever try to activate a copy more then once. Good luck, you call them and they will give you the hardest friggen time. They also wouldn't go after people legally that steal the software, but they have.

And please don't use corporate serials as your case. Corporate serials have to be there or a business would never by windows.

All that said, Vista uses a different license model and elminates the corporate serials for the premium version. Premium is the version most people would want (all the media toys for example are with the premium). The new corporate version is not one the average person would want, but one that only corporation would really be interestd in. What that does is it elminates a huge chunk of the stealing. They wouldn't be taking such drastic measures if they liked people stealing.

Stop making up stuff. And if bill gates views you with contempt (i doubt he does since I'm guessing he doesn't know you), its probably because you make up stupid stories about him.

Re:Simple answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, finally a version without all that media stuff which I never use anyway. Using free playback tools and free DirectShow filters still would work, but without the need of all those MS "toys" in the system. How do we home-users get a corp. Vista license? And does "toys" also mean we will get rid of WMP, I sure hope so? That would be a great version of Windows.

Re:Simple answer...

[CDPatten]

well it doesn't get rid of media player. It gets rid of things like media center. And some of the new tools being put into windows. But rest assured the core MS media software will be bundled with every version.

I'm surprised

[$mooth]

I'm surprised they say that hating Windows isn't the #1 reason people switch. If I ask anyone I know why they switched to Linux, it's always "Because Windows sucks. I hate Windows. Bill Gates sucks". It certainly gets old.

Re:I'm surprised

[MightyMartian]

My first Linux install in, oh about 1993, was largely because I was running a BBS and 486SX-25 with a whopping 8mb of RAM and 200mb of hard drive space was being rendered useless under Windows 3.1 when somebody dialed in to my WaffleBBS background DOS session. In return I got full blown UUCP, sendmail and a whopping load of great stuff. Of course, it only furthered my sad, pathetic addiction to the command line, so that even in Windows, I still go to cmd.exe or install bash.

Re:I'm surprised

[indifferent children]

If I ask anyone I know why they switched to Linux, it's always "Because Windows sucks. I hate Windows. Bill Gates sucks". It certainly gets old.

I've heard this kind of thing before: "If Linux is so great, why don't you praise it instead of bashing Windows and Microsoft." Well see, the thing is, Linux has warts. It can be slow and frustrating. The learning curve is not free. Linux can be a pain sometimes. But compared to Windows (and only compared to an OS that sucks), Linux is a little corner of Nirvana tucked inside Heaven.

Re:I'm surprised

[temojen]

In 1992 I was running a BBS on an XT with a 32MB HDD. It was hilarious. I had about 40 users who connected EVERY day, so it was busy almost 24/7.

When new user could sneak in, they'd look around and see 2 games (TW 2002, BRE), local messages only, and 2 grafitti walls (one regular, the other poetry only). So of course they'd "yell for sysop" to ask where the porn was. They didn't seem to believe me when I told them there was none. Why would the line be busy ALL the time if there was no porn and only 2 games? Well, everyone who played played all their turns every day.

Of course it helped that I was the only games BBS in town that would let people connect at less that 2400bps. As far as I was concerned, everyone got 40 minutes, no matter how much data they could slurp down in that time.

Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

THEY DON'T!!!!!!

Re:Simple answer

[igny]

THEY DON'T!!!!!!

That would be a very boring, though expected answer to "Why did penguins cross the road?"

Re:Simple answer

[smooth wombat]

"Why did penguins cross the road?"

Because they were designed to do so.

I always wondered

[cjkinniburgh]

How many people switched because they were told it was simply 'cool' or '1337' or that it would help them 'h4x05 their friendz b0x', and then moved on from that but sticked with Linux.

Re:I always wondered

[Stevyn]

I switched because I was bored with Windows. I like trying new distros for fun. I enjoy learning something new because I feel it adds to some imaginary tool box of "things I can do and might need someday." I didn't do it to be cool because just about everyone I know has no clue what Linux is other than that it looks different than Windows. I've been using it exclusively for well over a year now. I keep a dual boot in case I ever need to do something in Windows, which is a rarity these days. I've gotten used to it and Windows seems foreign at this point so there's no "comfort" reason to switch back as there was when I started using it in the first place.

Re:I always wondered

[networkBoy]

I moved over in about 96, found it rather obtuse, and have since waffled back and forth several times. I'd say I'm mid-migration now, with linux as a dual boot option on most of my machines.
BTW, anyone have a good recovery utility for a fubar'd EXT3 drive?
-nB

Re:I always wondered

[fireman sam]

I was a 96 convert as well. My reason was my first C++ assignment worked in Microsoft Workbench, but it took me a week to get it working on the university solaris system. A friend lent me a very tattered CD of Slackware 3.2. I dual booted for about 2 years, but slowly my linux partition grew and my windows partition shrank.

BTW, I have found that most "1337 h4X0r t001z" are written for Windows systems for use by the script kiddies.

Re:I always wondered

[trineox]

I feel the same way when it comes to Linux. Its something new, and I love to learn. Im always seeking more knowledge especially in technology. I am also bored with windows, and the more I use linux the more windows just seems abit bland. I have maintained a dual boot system because of some online games mostly, everything else is linux. Windows is just one gui, but linux is several different "flavors" of gui, all of which can be customized to your own likeing. Linux desktops are intense versus windows desktop graphics. I have only been using linux for a few months and I love it! I have tried serveral distros, but the one i have really stuck with was Xandros open source, and then I went on to Xandros Deluxe (not much difference so save your money vs the open source distro, just a few xtras)

Re:I always wondered

[pointbeing]

I have two XP boxen and one FC4 mail/web/irc server at home.

Although Linux has come a heck of a long way since I first installed a Yggdrasil distribution more than a few years ago, I don't think most computer users *want* to get that deep into the internals of their hardware, filesystem or applications. Ease of use is light-years better than it was five years ago but still isn't where it needs to be.

I'm not a big fan of Gnome or KDE either, finding as much or more bloat there as I do in Windows these days - but keep them both installed so I can run applications from either under xfce4 - now *there's* a window manager ;-)

For me, consistency between applications keeps me using Windows as a desktop environment and the configurability (is that even a word?) of Linux makes it perfect for a home or departmental server.

I'm happy dabbling in both worlds, actually ;-)

Re:I always wondered

[commodoresloat]

I like trying new distros for fun.

You need to get out more.

Re:I always wondered

[fimbulvetr]

What's fubar'd? The journal? Inodes? Is the drive bad?

Re:I always wondered

[networkBoy]

All of a sudden it shows up as not formatted. Was connected to a linksys slug.
-nB

Re:I always wondered

[opposume]

I agree. I've found that most apps are point and click "tools" that any 4 year old with thumbs can use. It takes someone with actual desire to use some real tools which take a greater understanding of protocols, and the greater inner workings of a computer. Which you DEFFINATELY can't get in Windows because it's all obfuscated.

Re:I always wondered

[Anonymous Coward]

out of all the postings this one is closest to my reasons. Using windows got boring. It was also a pain find free software. after looking through 15 different video converters(as an example) and all of them either filling your machine with spyware, doing 10 seconds of conversion then stopping until you coughed up the cash, or following the link for free software to the credit card page it just wasn't fun anymore.

Linux was new and cool and new. I could try out different looks and feels. I'm sorry windows "themes" are lame. having a blue tile bar and a new background does not a theme make. That's just a blue title bar and new background. Goin from KDE to enlightenment now that's a switch.

I won't lie, I liked the price. Not having to buy the OS, the Office software, the compiler, the DB Software, and the DB management tools was very appealing. If I wanted to spend $20000+ I'd buy a car not software.

xppro 299
office 400
sql server enterprise 19,128 http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
toad 495
visual studio 350

Re:I always wondered

[fimbulvetr]

Like you haven't heard this a thousand times before - do you have backups:)?
Assuming it's a corrupt parition table:
If you've got a mirror, you would be able to dd out the (known location of the) partion table on mirrored disk 1, and dd it back to the failed drive.

If none of those work/are not applicable, follow this:

http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/partition/partit ion-6.html

If that fails/isn't applicable, try using gpart, included in the coroners toolkit:

http://www.porcupine.org/forensics/tct.html

p.s. When you're mounting it, you're doing "mount -t ext2 /dev/hdaX /mnt/foo", right? Make sure you have the "X" (1,2,3, etc) variable in there. Sometimes even I forget to add the 1,2,3 and spend a few minutes thinking my data is lost!

p.p.s I used your Xbox howtos back in the day and appreciated them!

Re:I always wondered

[linuxpyro]

I started by putting RedHat on an old HP Vectra I had laying around while I was in middle school. I really didn't know much about it, I just wanted to try something new. I couldn't even get X to work at first, so I just played with the command shell.

First I got Apache working, and hosted some pictures for friends off of my cable modem. Then I played with some FTP servers, got Samba going, and finally X. I loved it, and decided I wanted to switch eventually, though I still had to use Windows a lot of the time for school and such. I bought another old box and left a server running, though, and ran my Website that way. I kept trying to learn what I could about it, and eventually built a dual AMD MP 2800 box, on which I ran various version of RedHate and SuSE, but which now runs Gentoo.

I can do everything I need to on Linux, now. I've discovered through experience that OpenOffice is compatible enough, and I'm learning LaTeX too. I can do audio recording in it with Ardour and Jack, as well as Graphics in the Gimp. Not the greatest apps, but I'm happy with them considering they work pretty well and are free. I can also run Maya pretty nicely.

I will confess, I do have VMware installed, and have a Windows VM that I use once in a while. But it's mostly just to play with; most of the time I can do without it. In Gentoo specifically, I love Portage.

By now I consider myself a power user. I don't like working with Windows, though I still use it at school and when working with the rest of my family and their boxes. I want to have some familiarity with both, but I much prefer Linux.

Re:I always wondered

[networkBoy]

No backups, as it was a media drive and I can always re-rip my collection if need be, but hopefully a recovery will be faster.
Thanks for the suggestions I'll check them out, and thanks for the feedback on the howtos :-)
-nB

Re:I always wondered

[pjbgravely]

BTW, anyone have a good recovery utility for a fubar'd EXT3 drive?

Have you tried Knoppix? It seems to be able handle problem drives better than most OS's.
Last resort, get the Ultimate boot CD full version and run the program Recovery is possible.

Re:I always wondered

[ozmanjusri]

anyone have a good recovery utility for a fubar'd EXT3 drive?

Try FIRE. It's a purpose built forensics live cd, but very handy for recovering data as well. http://fire.dmzs.com/

Re:I always wondered

[jrockway]

> BTW, anyone have a good recovery utility for a fubar'd EXT3 drive?

Yes, fsck. It's never failed me.

Bloat

[skynetos]

Ion3, Mutt, Pork.

Try doing that in windows.

Re:Bloat

[alexhs]

What about evilwm or 9wm as a window manager ?

And why do you need a bloated X server at all if you only need mutt and pork ? ;)

Re:Bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

SMOOOKEEEEEEEEEEEE

Re:Bloat

[skynetos]

I switched BECAUSE of bloat.. I like the non-bloat of Ion, Pork, Mutt.

For freedom

[statusbar]

for the freedom to modify and fix problems instead of being at the whim of any other vendor.

Jeff

Re:For freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason i can't see this being a reason most people would switch over unless of course your implying only programmers use linux...

Re:For freedom

[bburton]

You like to modify your problems? I usually leave that up to the vendors. :-)

Re:For freedom

[IAmTheDave]

for the freedom to modify and fix problems instead of being at the whim of any other vendor.

<a**hole> Right, then you're just at the whim of bulletin boards, lack of documentation, lack of drivers, lack of vendor support... </a**hole>

I don't mean to sound like an ass, but freedom I think is probaby the least of it. At this point, servers are moved to Linux for the software offerings and stability. Desktop users switch for curiosity and the freedom to dabble. I think that "freedom to modify and fix problems" is more related to those of us who actually understand to a certain degree the underpinnings of an OS and are able to get into the guts of the Linux OS. As for the actual "fixing" - that's limited to an even smaller group of coders.

At this point, Linux is for the computer-compitent-curious, and that's all, I think. (Please pardon my inability to spell.)

Disclaimer: I run Linux and OSX.

Re:For freedom

[biendamon]

As for the actual "fixing" - that's limited to an even smaller group of coders.

I'm not a developer, but I've used Linux exclusively for a few years now. About a year and a half ago I got a multimedia keyboard and wanted to make the keys do different things depending on which application was open. At the time, khotkeys and lineak weren't very good at that, so I wrote a script that did the job for me. I didn't have to be a guru or get deeply involved in code-hacking to fix a perceived weakness in the OS.

That, I believe, is the main strength of Linux. You don't actually have to be a developer to make the OS do what you want it to do.

Re:For freedom

[DShard]

Of course that is why _he_ switched. Your reasons may differ but I think that ability to alter code is much more important then stability, or else I would stop using gnome.

Re:For freedom

[tzanger]

<a**hole> Right, then you're just at the whim of bulletin boards, lack of documentation, lack of drivers, lack of vendor support... </a**hole>

Oh I dunno, I far prefer that to "Nah, we're simply not going to solve that problem." At least I can do something about my own ignorance if the problem is big enough, and failing that I can pay someone to fix it for me. You simply can't do that (or at least the bar is significantly higher) with proprietary software.

One thing that drives me absolutely bat-shit crazy is having a problem and not being able to fix it. With Windows it's something you run against all the time. With Linux you still run against these things but there is simply such a vast variety of resources to draw on that the chances of hitting something that can't be solved is very small compared to with Windows. Yes, there's misinformation (honest and intentional) to wade through but at least you have the option to do so. That is worth a lot to me, and it's one of my biggest reasons for using Linux and OSS software in general.

Re:For freedom

[Lorkki]

Right, then you're just at the whim of bulletin boards, lack of documentation, lack of drivers, lack of vendor support...

Sounds exactly like my experience with Windows XP x64 edition. Contrary to that, everything worked in Linux precisely because driver support isn't at the whim of greedy vendors, who'd rather have you buy new devices by the dozen than spend any workforce in writing/compiling new drivers.

Re:For freedom

[fade-in]

...from the registry. I liked the old days when it was a matter of hacking the [application].ini file if something went wrong with some program. (I even remember getting on my friend's computers, and editing the control.ini file for them. I'd make their marquee screensaver say something like "p0wn3d 8y f4d3-1n", and changing the password on them. Heh heh)

Then at about Win98, it seemed like if I tweaked an application too far and broke it to the point that I couldn't launch it again, I'd basically have to re-install it to fix it. There was no way to change a program's settings without running the program itself. I'd lose any other changes I made. The whole process was ridiculous.

Also, what do they thing they are doing with those ROT13 encoded values in the windows registry?

Re:For freedom

[joeljkp]

Same here. I like the integrated development tools that let me explore the code of various apps and poke around. I like that most of the programs out there are free and are community-developed. I like that I can dive right into the heart of the system if I want to. I like that I can watch it gradually move from rough around the edges to completely kick-ass.

I don't like that I'm only one of a handful I know using it. I don't like that it sucks for laptop wireless.

So I dual-boot, and hope that one day Linux and the rest of the world will meet in the middle.

Re:For freedom

[arminw]

......for the freedom to modify and fix problems......

That is true for geeks who KNOW how to fix problems. Ordinary non-geek users get an obtuse error message and don't have any central place to turn for help. Until ALL, not just some or many, Linux programs can be installed with a single drag or click of the mouse, it will be a very powerful, but for geek only OS. Until a user can buy as piece of hardware and get proper software to run it without first having to do an exaustive Google search for one that will work with Linux, ordinary users will stick with Windows or Macs. For those systems Uncle Joe can go to Circuit City or similar outlet and get ANY camera, printer, scanner or what have you, look at the box and if the word Windows or Mac is on there somewhere, take it home and get it working. Until all versions Linux become binary compatible and those boxes include the name Linux along with the names Windows and Mac, Linux will NEVER, EVER become mainstream for plain ordinary users. It will remain for the type of users that are part of the /. community only.

Re:For freedom

[arminw]

....so I wrote a script that did the job for me....

Would your mother or uncle have been able to write *any* kind of script to get their computer to do something that was not already programmed into it? On a Mac or Windows they could buy a program to do the job and not have to learn a scripting language, write a script and debug and test it. Linux is an ideal OS for the /. crowd, but not for mom and pop users.

Re:For freedom

[Artifakt]

Getting back to individual configuration files sure motivated me. I found I was running dozens of different programs regularly, some of which used .ini type mechanisms, some of which used the registry. The more different things you do with a Windows system, the more you will run across programs that modify the registry in ideosyncratic, often flawed, and often hard to fix ways. Microsoft has let many companies have the Microsoft Windows compatable stickers on the box while not holding them to its own supposed standards, particularly with the registry. The GNU/Linux way (in as much as it is a 'way') lets me get back all the drive space much more easily when I uninstall a program, it keeps entry bloat from slowing the whole system down, and it makes most programs more customizable, more easily, to my intentions.
      This may not be all that significant to a person who spends all their time in office, but it starts mattering more and more if you play a variety of multimedia files and have to seek out codecs to handle the occasional odd type, or you are into tracing your geneology and have to run both your preferred program and a couple of others to handle or convert data your correspondants send you, or, as in my case, you have several astronomy or graphics programs and frequently want/need to switch which ones you are working with.
          I don't want to claim it's anything like an invariable rule, but my impression is, the larger the number of applications you use, the more likely you are to have problems that originate in the fundamental design philosophy of the registry. It's not a case of how well or poorly Microsoft re-implemented the old 'putting all your eggs in one basket' trick, it's just that, as Rocket J Squirrel put it "That trick never works!".

Re:For freedom

[Ithika]

Is it intentional that your sig implies slashdot is modded by grammar nazis? :)

Re:For freedom

[c64k]

And this matters why? The topic is 'why did you switch' not 'why isn't linux ready for joe public.'

I could give a flying fuck about linux being for everyone or replacing microsoft. I use it for the freedom it gives me to fix my own problems, to tinker with that which mainstream oses hide from me, and to live true to my beliefs.

I'm not trying to convince everyone to use it, but you seem desperate to convince *someone* that because it's not good for mom and pop, it's not good for anyone.

Re:For freedom

[biendamon]

Actually, on Linux my mother or uncle wouldn't have needed to write the script, because for almost anything you could possibly want Linux to do, someone has already done it (I guess I'm an example of that "someone" now). Besides, what I wanted to do was fairly esoteric, and it's doubtful anyone but a geek like me would want to do it.

What do mother and uncle want to do with their computers? They want to surf the web, read their email, and write stuff. Maybe play a game of solitaire and listen to some music. That's about it. And for those uses, Linux is very ready. It's ready enough that my wife uses it, my mother uses it, and I install it regularly for friends and family. And you know what? They love it.

Re:For freedom

[c64k]

so?

Re:For freedom

[MrResistor]

At this point, servers are moved to Linux for the software offerings and stability.

Actually, I'm strictly a desktop user, and that's why I switched. All the apps my wife and I used on Windows have been available on Linux for at least 3-4 years now, so I guess I could more accurately say that software offerings were a non-issue. Stability was an issue, though. I found that I was spending roughly a week out of every year reinstalling Windows, and that's not including all the regular maintenance stuff.

While Windows may have a better chance of "just working" from the get-go, once you get Linux working, it "just keeps working." That little extra investment in the beginning has saved me a lot of time in the long run.

Right, then you're just at the whim of bulletin boards, lack of documentation, lack of drivers, lack of vendor support...

An old and VERY tired argument, which, according to my experience, was busted years ago.

I had this side project at a past employer, where I built a fileserver, based on Suse7.3, and upgraded all the desktops from Win98 to 2k. The Suse install went without a hitch; despite that everything but the hard drives was existing hardware, not hand picked for compatability; and took about 45 minutes of my time, including the time it took me to hand pick the packages I wanted and setup samba ("my time" meaning time I actually had to be there, swapping CDs, clicking "Next", etc)(samba was setup following a howto I found at tldp, as I was a complete n00b at the time).

The Win2k upgrade took about 2 hours of my time per machine, mostly shuffling CDs to reinstall apps and drivers, and I ran into several problems with unsupported hardware. Most aggravating was our plotter, though I did eventually find a "solution", which required that I replace the win2k parallel port driver with the one from NT4, which is a protected system file, and so can only be replaced with the use of kernel debugger, running on a seperate machine hooked up to the machine you're modifying via a serial cable. Yeah, that was gonna happen! This was to be able to print to it over the network, BTW.

Yeah, I know it's just an anecdote, but there's always somebody digging up some anecdote about how Windows works perfectly and Linux requires impossible effort and deep knowledge to get working. Well, there's my counterexample. Argument invalidated.

I think that "freedom to modify and fix problems" is more related to those of us who actually understand to a certain degree the underpinnings of an OS and are able to get into the guts of the Linux OS. As for the actual "fixing" - that's limited to an even smaller group of coders.

You start with a good point, but extrapolate it beyond it's bounds, completely forgetting why software Freedom is important. I do not have the expertise to modify the underpinnings of Linux, but there is nothing stopping me from obtaining that expertise, either by learning it myself, or hiring someone else who has it. If I have a problem with the kernel, I can get it fixed. I don't have to submit a bug report or feature request and hope the kernel devs think it's interesting enough for them to spend some time on it, I can take action to get it fixed. Once that's done, it's almost irrelevant whether the kernel devs want to accept my patch or not. If they do, great, but if not, well, the number of non-vanilla kernels out there suggests it's not that big a deal to maintain your own fork. Not only is my problem solved, but I have the power to ensure it stays solved.

At this point, Linux is for the computer-compitent-curious, and that's all, I think.

I think you're stuck in 1998, or maybe you're a Gentoo user. Anyway, I can say for certain that you aren't a Suse user. There are distros out there, such as Suse, that kick MS's ass all the way around the block when it comes to ease of install and maintainance, and at least break even for ease of everyday use.

I c

Re:For freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true for geeks who KNOW how to fix problems.

It's also true for anyone who wants to choose who they hire to take care of their problems. When you use proprietary software (Windows being the most common example, I guess) there's only one vendor to turn to, assuming they'll take your call at all. And they can charge you anything they want to; there's no free market to keep 'em honest.

Freedom isn't just for computer nerds. It's for anyone who hates getting assraped.

Re:For freedom

[NanoGator]

Uh huh. Gee. I wonder if I was modded down for being blatantly wrong or for hitting a little too close to home.

Re:For freedom

[dbIII]

I think that "freedom to modify and fix problems" is more related to those of us who actually understand to a certain degree the underpinnings of an OS and are able to get into the guts of the Linux OS

In some cases the freedom to fix problems is as simple as using applications which offer options instead of limit options - we've all been pissed off by greyed out menu options which should have been available but are not due to a bug or design flaw. Most *nix applications have file formats such that more than one application is capable of working on it. Shifting to a different mail application in everything but MS Windows is a trivial affair.

Re:For freedom

[Coniptor]

I'm going to have to say that your the asshole despite making a some what similar post my self a couple days ago (But from a different perspective in another context.)

He is not at the whim of bulletin boards etc.....
Bulletin boards are supposed to be there for discussion and getting help. Of course you also have to put up with assholes such as your self as you do on any board. Been that way since bbs days as far as I know and likely going back to news groups to some extent. Just because you don't find the answer your looking for on the web or in a bulletin board doesn't mean your at their whim. Your under your own whim where you have the ability to do something about it and trapped otherwise but only due to ignorance not due to some monolithic greedy empire building piece-o-shit corp indifferent to your woes. Projects in linux are very well documented for the most part and where the author isn't interested in documenting or doesn't have time many people put together small faqs and howtos that you can find with google for the majority of projects out there. Lack of drivers does suck but it is not the communities fault that some hardware vendors by choice or coersion won't write there own or release specs. I think you know damn good and well who is responsible for that and if you don't own up to it your either self delusional as a ass licking shill of that corp. Now for morons such as your self who don't value freedom you may be right (again for you freedom de-valuing morons.) Where servers are concerned in an organization/corp where the best tool for the job dictates what is used your right in some cases but there are those who run for those reasons AND the FREEDOM. Now I've been a desktop user of Linux Since midlife of kernel 2.0 because I wanted to learn a unix like os and hated the windows interface at that time and by the time it was polished enough to be acceptable I had gnome, kde, and enlightenment to play with as well as afterstep, blackbox, fvwm, fvwm2, mwm if I wanted a more stable invironment. Not to mention xfce which although I haven't run it recently is pretty nice and stable as well.

What I want to know is why **MORONS** such as your self HATE FREEDOM *SO* much.
If you've become accustomed to bending over and are now just angry that others don't follow suite and give up their freedom of choice as you did then I'd have to say you have no one but your self to blame for being a corporate whore.

Tired of pirating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really WANTS to pirate software? I know that the more properly licensed software I use, the better I feel.

Right?

Re:Tired of pirating?

[conteXXt]

I am with you here.

Unfortunately we may be in the minority though....

Re:Tired of pirating?

[stuuf]

This was one of the big reasons I switched. For any of the various tasks I wanted to do with my computer, there were usually two major options: an expensive Windows app or an open source app that worked almost or as well. Not having any money, I could either pirate the windows program, usually involving slow p2p networks or sketchy keygen websites, and I don't like violating copyright any more than I have to, or install an open source program for free. After using gimp and emacs under windows for a while I finally installed gentoo and found all kinds of other cool programs that were easy to install and interacted with each other much better than anything on windows.

My story.

[XorNand]

I'm a long time IT guy. When I first played with Linux a decade or so ago, I couldn't get my Matrox video card to work with X Windows using a Slackware distro. So, I gave it up. Some time later, I gave Red Hat a shot. It installed this time, but then I just sat there and twidled my thumbs. Now what? I couldn't find anything practical to do with it. Windows did everything I needed it to. Years later I tried again, this time with Gentoo. I could get things to compile, so I gave up again.

This week I just installed Open SuSe 10.0. Why again? Because I really wanted to run Asterisk. I'm a total Linux moron, but it only took me a day or so to install the OS and compile and configured Asterisk. A few hours later, I had a full featured PBX system working and soon to be rolled into production for my small business, for free.

I was amazed at how easy both the OS and Asterisk were to install and configure. I really think that the usability of modern distros has improved dramatically. That isn't really what's keeping adoption down. In my case, and I suspect many others, it was internia. I didn't really want to use Linux until I found something it did that Windows didn't do, Asterisk.

I think it's time that many OSS developers stop trying to play catchup with MS; you're already there. If you don't set the bar any higher than trying to reinvent the functionality already present in Windows, the masses will never take notice. There seems to be this idea that people hate MS and/or Windows and are looking for any excuse to move to OSS (Lindows is a perfect example of this mentality). I don't think this is the case. I'm not looking for a reason to abandon Windows, I need a reason to move to Linux. And the best way to get my interest is offering me things that Windows can't.

Re:My story.

[Trolling4Columbine]

Now if only something as trivial as a USB sound card could be installed and operational in under 7 hours.

Re:My story.

[Otter]

There seems to be this idea that people hate MS and/or Windows and are looking for any excuse to move to OSS (Lindows is a perfect example of this mentality). I don't think this is the case. I'm not looking for a reason to abandon Windows, I need a reason to move to Linux.

Exactly. The only line of Linux advocacy that's less convincing than "It's not worse than Windows any more!" is "You have the source code so you can fix things yourself!" Sane computer users choose the software they want, not the software they don't hate.

Re:My story.

[wheany]

True, I still haven't switched, nor do I intend to, but I made myself a Mythtv box out of an old computer. I still use Windows on my main computer, but my media box runs Linux.

Re:My story.

[Homology]

I'm a long time IT guy. When I first played with Linux a decade or so ago, I couldn't get my Matrox video card to work with X Windows using a Slackware distro. So, I gave it up. Some time later, I gave Red Hat a shot. It installed this time, but then I just sat there and twidled my thumbs. Now what? I couldn't find anything practical to do with it. Windows did everything I needed it to. Years later I tried again, this time with Gentoo. I could get things to compile, so I gave up again.

I stopped using Linux a few years ago after using SuSE for a couple of years. SuSE is nice as a Linux distro go, and I actually bought several SuSE releases. However, there where always some issues with it like YAST (the config tool) messing stuff up, or kernel source rpms that does not compile and different from the binary kernel rpm.

After attempting to put SuSE on an older machine to use as a home firewall, I gave up (SuSE insisted to install X libs in the "minimal" install) and tried OpenBSD instead. Besides, iptables syntax truly sucks big time.

OpenBSD is easier to administrate than SuSE, and very well documented with documentation that is uptodate and relevant. No more hunting for some outfodate howto that is not even correct. I ended up using OpenBSD on the desktop as well, and have never looked back.

So, I'm one of those that moved from Microsoft Windows to Linux and ended up with *BSD.

Re:My story.

[swillden]

You have the source code so you can fix things yourself!

It may not be a great way to advocate Linux, but I'd say that statement sums up my primary reason for liking it. I think many programmers find it a very convincing argument, particularly after they've gotten used to working in an environment where they have control over and visibility into every aspect of their computing environment. For me, going back to Windows, or even OS X, feels like slipping into a straightjacket.

Re:My story.

[prefect42]

Fedora: Plug in soundcard. Run system-config-soundcard. Job done. The nice thing with USB soundcards is that they all use the same usb-audio.ko module.

Re:My story.

[slavemowgli]

I think it's time that many OSS developers stop trying to play catchup with MS; you're already there.

Ah, but nobody actually *is* trying to play catch-up with MS - at least not as far as most of the high-profile projects I've looked into (such as the Linux kernel itself, KDE, Mozilla etc.) are concerned. I don't think I've ever seen anyone saying "Windows does this and that, we have to, too" on lkml, for example, with the possible exception of noobs who just got Linux yesterday and subscribed to the list today, and even those are few and far between. Generally, the focus is not on being better than anything else; the focus is just on being *good*. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why Linux is actually successful, but MS still doesn't understand it.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it! I've heard that line one too many times, and I think it's high time someone say stfu.

Learning is a benefit, and must be weight against your costs justly.

Otherwise, I could just say "Well I _could_ go to college, but if I worked 40 hours shifts at BurgerCrap at $7/hour for 4 years, I would make $14,560 a year, or $58,240. Since going to class is likely to _cost_ me $10,000 a year at the local university, I'm coming out ahead $98,240!"

Bullshit!

The grand parent probably either A) owns his own company or B) is an IT guy at someone else's company. By spending a day setting up a free asterisk server, his business is getting benefit

so:
benefit: $8,000 cost of a cheap PBX + knowledge to do it again in the future ($8000 * # of times he implements it again) + whatever it's saving him on phone calls if he's using VOIP + improving the productivity of CSRs or whatever + getting browning points with his boss / looking cool in front of his techs
cost: 1 days work. (at $50/hr thats $400)

Re:My story.

[prefect42]

I agree with your point, but at the same time it can be hard to fully cost something like that. You do actually learn something by setting things up (which has value) so it's not necessarily as bad as saying 2 days pay == cost of PBX. Also you could find it is somewhat enjoyable. If it's your own business, and you get a kick out of setting up something for free that you otherwise would have had to pay for, feel free.

Re:My story.

[amliebsch]

A few hours later, I had a full featured PBX system working and soon to be rolled into production for my small business, for free.

Somewhat offtopic: if this is true, I'd love to know how you did it without buying any FXO/FXS hardware. Also, what did you use for phones? Did you buy SIPphones or use standard phones with no features?

Re:My story.

[Spacejock]

A couple of years ago I was all fired up about converting my computer-owning relatives to Linux. (None of them are interested in gaming, other than solitaire-type time wasters.) Over time I've moved on from the cold-turkey method to the boiled frogs plan. One by one I switched them to Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice.org a single app at a time. A couple more years and all their vital data will be in nice portable files, and when their Windows partition requires yet another fresh install I'll be able to pop a linux DVD in instead.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Anon... you go to college not because of "the learning" experience; you go for the benefit it brings after.

Going to college makes sense because the net present value of your future earnings for 20 years or so after college is higher than the net present value of your future earnings without going to college.

This is easier to calculate in post-graduate education, where you usually have a clearer idea of what you would make after getting, say, a master's degree. If the "learning" experience was so valuable, we would really study more.

So by all means, if all you want to do is work at "Burgercrap" , then do not go to college please; because you will be "losing" 98k.

Your benefit equation misses out support and maintenance costs of his solution; and the probability of things going wrong is high.

So, no, it was NOT free. There is a cost.

Re:My story.

[Ernesto Alvarez]

After attempting to put SuSE on an older machine to use as a home firewall, I gave up (SuSE insisted to install X libs in the "minimal" install) and tried OpenBSD instead. Besides, iptables syntax truly sucks big time.

Wrong tool for the job, I'd say.
SuSE is an excelent distro for workstations, but it sucks as a firewall (and is not so good as a server). You did well to switch to OpenBSD. I would have tried debian first, though.

My recipe is:

SuSE for workstations.
Debian for servers.
Debian or a custom made linux for firewalls.

Remember kids, the right tool for the right job.

Re:My story.

[spongejim]

Years later I tried again, this time with Gentoo. I could get things to compile, so I gave up again. Ah yes, a common problem with long-time Windows users. I know it's tough to figure, but getting things to compile/work properly is a *good* thing. :P This grammar troll brought to you by the good folks at Gentoo.

Re:My story.

[pimpsoftcom]

Your welcome for asterisk. I can't take all the credit of course but if your running it on sun ultrasparc hardware, Drop me a line as I did the work to port it.

Re:My story.

[digidave]

"The only line of Linux advocacy that's less convincing than "It's not worse than Windows any more!" is "You have the source code so you can fix things yourself!" Sane computer users choose the software they want, not the software they don't hate."

This is a marketing problem, not a Linux problem. Linux itself does many things Windows cannot do such as vastly superior scripting (great for sysadmins) and much better support for working with remote servers (from ssh and sftp built into default file managers to X forwarding). The whole GUI can be customized to no end, so a user can set it up specifically for their own needs. For sysadmins concerned about security Linux offers advanced features such as selinux and chroot that have no Windows equivalents. It also offers admins a better way to prevent users from damaging their PC because user-admin separation is excellent, where users aren't ever locked out of doing what they need to do if they're not power users.

Re:My story.

[sedrik]

Open Office is one of the big offenders of the "Microsoft does this and looks like that, we must follow suit" mentality. Except even though the interface looks indentical, and 90% of the features function the same way, there's a few things that don't work as expected and lead to an incredibly amount of frustration. And what's worse is there's really no features that I'm going to use that aren't already existant in MS Office, and have been for some time.

Re:My story.

[Trolling4Columbine]

How about on a laptop, on which for some reason my BIOS won't let me disable the on-board sound, and I'm trying to set the USB as the default? Running Ubuntu (Hoary) and have had no success getting the USB to work.

Re:My story.

[Otter]

This is a marketing problem, not a Linux problem.

Absolutely. A large part of the problem, I think, is that the noisiest and most prominent Linux "marketing" is zealots who have based their self-image on their choice of software. They represent it poorly because the benefit they get from Linux is not a benefit any, well, healthy person would recognize.

Re:My story.

[wrecked]

When I first played with Linux a decade or so ago, I couldn't get my Matrox video card to work with X Windows using a Slackware distro. So, I gave it up.

Ironically, it was my Matrox G450 card that caused me to switch completely to Linux from Windows. One day, in July 2002, after humming along for 3 years, my computer refused to boot into Windows; it would just get to a black screen with a cryptic message about "registry error... reboot". It safe-booted, but would crash every time I changed the video resolution higher than 640x480. After a weekend of reinstalling Windows and various drivers, pulling out PCI cards and putting them back in, I isolated the problem to the video card.

The strange thing was, the Matrox G450 worked flawlessly from a Knoppix LiveCD, so I knew it wasn't a hardware problem. My wife, exasperated with the time I was spending on this problem, told me that if the video card works with Knoppix, then just install Knoppix on the computer. Yes, my wife wanted to switch 100% to Linux!

So that's what we did. My wife adjusted with little re-training (mainly on the concept of the /home directory). She doesn't know how to administer or troubleshoot Linux, but she doesn't know how to do these things with Windows, either. She found no discernible difference between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice / Gnumeric, except that OpenOffice recovered her Word97 document from work when it became inexplicably corrupted. And she's become quite addicted to Frozen Bubble.

I eventually discovered that the original problem with the Matrox G450 card was with the VIA chipset my motherboard uses, and probably some combination of Windows drivers; this is regardless of whether I tried Windows 98 or Windows 2000. Since Kanotix (which is on that computer now) and the open source Matrox drivers have no problems with it, I have not felt the need to dick around with Windows anymore.

In fact, up until last year, we were all Linux on my home network, but recently our employers have given us company laptops with WindowsXP on them, so we're not 100% Microsoft-free anymore. However, I partitioned my laptop hard-drive and installed Ubuntu on it to dual-boot (my employer has a pretty liberal IT policy).

Re:My story.

[Otter]

I certainly appreciate the flexibility, but even for programmers, how much of that comes from having source code and how much just from having a modular UI and a general culture of throwing in configurable options? I've added a command-line option every now and then but how much difference does it really make?

Anyway, whatever the value for programmers, it's counterproductive to tell ordinary desktop users that that's one of the most important benefits for them.

Re:My story.

[IANAAC]

Sane computer users choose the software they want, not the software they don't hate.

Actually, he mentioned something that everyone else seems to be glossing over. He said "for free". Top that with something that you can't find on Windows (although you can find what he was looking for on Windows, just not cheaply), and that's also a pretty compelling reason.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they like Solitaire, why not introduce them to PySol? :)

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much does a commercial PBX cost? Is that a one time, or continued?
I'm guessing it's likely a bit more then say $400 (8 hours @ $50/hour).

And a commercial solution probably would have still cost him 8+ hours between installing, the aquisition process, etc.

Re:My story.

[cubex]

My story is similar. I used to program on SCO Unix System V (and before than on Xenix). Later on I drifted out of the Unix world and was selling doing consulting and selling computers. When Windows 95 came out I hated it but everyone seemed to want Win95 on their computers. At approximately the same time I tried Slackware but couldn't get the cdrom to work. I also ordered Minix from Prentice Hall but the disks were unreadable. I even ran Beos for a while and it looked very interesting. In the late 80's I was using AmigaDOS for personal use. Anyways fast forward to 2003 and I tried Redhat 8. Had to mess around to get my Video Card to get it to work. I was impressed enough with Redhat 8 to stick with it and I don't use Windows for personal use. I have sold a few Linux boxes as home computers. Now I run my own web/mail server and I love it. Even play some games RT2, Heretic 2, Rocksndiamonds, etc. I agree KDE is bloated but it does the job. All my hardware works, HP Scanjet 5200C, Kodak digital camera, Raven printer, APC Ups etc. Last but not least it's fun to program again, like it was in the c64 and Amiga days. Windows programming was a royal pain and I never liked it. Linux does what I need, end of story.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Fedora's sound card configuration is excellent:

Sound card detected: Sound Blaster EMU10K1.
Play test sound? [Yes]
<no sound>
Did you hear the sound? [No]
There was a problem. Sound will not be available on this system.

Well, thanks a lot, piece of shit! Also, yum sucks goat nuts.

Re:My story.

[viksit]

I had similar troubles on the Cyrix card (MediaGX on board) If I remember correctly. But the reason I wanted to get it work under linux was because I saw it as a challenge - something on which windows would work (but only barely - this machine had 64 MB of RAM and shared VRAM) - could be replaced by a number of easy to use (and cool looking) window managers - IceWM and Fluxbox/Blackbox were lighter, and could run the same app types with lesser memory usage. How did i resolve it? I went through the hardware specs of the card and motherboard, posted on to the XFree86 experts mailiing lists, got on to my local LUG lists, IRC channels and what not. Eventually, with the help of some people from all over the world (which was cool, considering I was in grade 8 or 9 at the time - 1997-98) I got a driver, and methods of how to change it to make X work. After a month of effort, which taught me much more about computer systems than any particular class or course can, I got framebuffer X working on it. And usage apart, I now had bragging rights as to be one of the few people then who got it running. I put up a how to on my site, and hopefully helped a lot of others use it - I was answering emails over the next few months, till support was finally built into the new kernel. Considering the the fact that I 'wasted' a month getting something to run, but doing it myself - thats what the basic reason is for people to switch over. As for LaTeX above : I pre installed everything *Tex* in FC3, and apt-get installed Kile. Hey presto. My total learning curve time for my first paper to come out, was less than 10 hours. On windows, certain classmates had to install a dozen utilities, before being able to isolate the right one. Need I see more?!

Re:My story.

[baadger]

"an environment where they have control over and visibility into every aspect of their computing environment." ...and yet I can't find a window manager, desktop manager, generally a gui system that I really like that will run well (atleast quite as well as MS Explorer, which still seems more responsive) on old hardware. I appreciate..no..i really like the philosophy behind, and the diversity of, the unix-like environment, but until such a beast exists I will not be joining the unix fanclub.

p.s. Currently dual booting Win2k with FreeBSD 5.4 + XFCE + fluxbox combi (and not particularly loving it)

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, then after you switch them over to Linux and they ask you why they can no longer run Quicken or whatever app they use which didn't have a Linux equivalent you can give them a dumb look. Oh, yeah and don't forget to tell them not to shop for new software at Wal-Mart since none of the titles on the shelf there will run on their wonderful new Operating System.

Re:My story.

[Blakey Rat]

Bullshit. Linux users/developers are absolutely 100% OBSESSED with Windows.

Everytime somebody points out a shortcoming of Linux (applications are hard to install), the instant knee-jerk reply is, "well they're hard to install in Windows too!" As if that mattered at all!

Look, if there's something wrong with Linux, fix it. It doesn't matter whether other operating systems do it right or wrong. But the current Linux mindset is such that Linux can never exceed Windows in quality, because things that Windows *and* Linux both do poorly never get fixed in Linux.

Re:My story.

[gujo-odori]

I agree with you about the "playing catch-up with MS" thing, except on one point: in many areas, we are way ahead of Windows already. It's just a matter of educating people of that truth. Case in point: the desktop. I use KDE, but this applies equally well to GNOME: on those occassions when I am forced to use a Windows machine (remote connection to my corporate network, for example. It requires a smartcard and PIN and connects to a Windows VPN; that's unsupported in Linux AFAIK), the primitiveness of the UI makes me feel like I'm living in caveman days. No native virtual desktops, and every add-on virtual desktop solution that I've tried is a horrible kludge, with not a fraction of the functionality available in KDE/GNOME/.

Then there's Windows Update. Red Hat's update, Ximian's Red Carpet, Mandrake's urpmi, and any Debian-based system, have been technologically ahead of that for *years*. And, you NEVER have to reboot after an update, unless you installed a new kernel and want to use it, and even that can be done any time, at your convenience.

And of course, the huge superiority of any *nix shell over the Windows command line.

The only major browser that doesn't yet have tabbed browsing (except in the IE 7 betas) is an MS product.

And on and on and on.

That doesn't mean Windows doesn't do anything well (it does) and it doesn't mean that Windows doesn't do some things better than Linux and other Free OSes and Free software do them (it does), but the balance is clearly in favor of Linux, et al, in most areas.

I started to dabble in Linux in the late 1990s because some people whose ability I tremendously respected used it and FreeBSD. It was hard to get started back in those days, not like now. In spite of that, two years after I started dabbling, I was an exclusive Linux user and wound up working as a sysadmin. It was a very thorough conversion.

What Linux really did for me, and this is what really hooked me into it, is that it put the fun back in computing. It was like back in the DOS days, experimenting with the load order for drivers in extended memory, only even more fun than that. As I learned more, I discovered that it was not only more fun, but more functional, and I completely switched off of Windows.

In those days, I had no anti-MS sentiment. Indeed, I generally held Microsoft and its products in fairly high regard. Windows 95 was a huge leap forward over 3.x, no mistake about it. Winword was a great word processor. Etc.
The anti-MS sentiment came later, and was a result of MS actions in the marketplace and a whole slew of products which I could now see in a whole new light. In many areas, Microsoft is its own worst enemy, and its policies and actions have done nearly as much to fuel the Linux movement as Linux evangelists have. Back in the nineties, people in the Linux community used to joke about "World Domination Now," except they werent' really joking. Now we (by which I mean the broader OSS community, not just Linux) are there in many areas and getting there in others. If the playing field was really level (that is, not going against a huge installed base covering 90% of the world's PCs), we would own the playing field by now. Give it five years and we probably will anyway. That may sound optimistic, but look back five years and you'll see that most of the optimistic projections were right.

Re:My story.

[Ithika]

People shop for software? With money? How odd.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

the question in the article lets me think, where from i really switched. i loved my atari and used it until common document compatibility forced me to do anything on the x86. (i had 80c86 because my father thought it's the most creative "gaming platform" for the kids - it's limited enough that they would have to program their own simple games.... i still want a c64 btw.... or may i have an amiga? one day i'll own one and my girl will hate me for putting "the computer junk" in her sight...)
i did not like ms-dos, but i used it. when it got translated to my mother language and noone had a version i thought to fit a computer, i left it behind. a useless thought that one could really use and utilize a computer system the way i'd like in another language than english.

i tried pc-dos and geoworks, but it was limited again, windows NT 3.51 was ok - but it made me homesick, so i stepped back to an atari emulator - this time including GEM... so i got used to a gui.
besides, i tried every os i could obtain. then i found suse 3. it was ugly, but similar to the great machines my father used to program - and the best of it: it was availeble in english.

in the beginning, i hated linux, but it was not that hard.
when i got bored again, the software was very simple sometimes, i tried windows NT 4 and had fun searching for holes (like the screensaver thing - helped me a lot at school).
after too much crashes (hell, i missed the bombs), i switched the last time to unix-like operating systems. at first back to linux (debian, suse already germanized too much), then to freebsd (after apt, ports were too nasty in maintenance), then to solaris x86. i liked it, it was easy and i learned to love automounters,...

and then, i wanted to use it on my laptop too... ok - let's use linux on both.

so, i have not really switched from windows, i never really switched to windows.

i can't believe that there are that much "switchers from windows" - did anyone really feel "at home at the os that fits my needs and does not force me to fit its needs everywhere"?
i didn't - nor my girlfriend (she just uses some applications that run on mac, windows, linux or bsd, she does not care about the os at all and can't switch - because there is no difference. now she uses linux)

Re:My story.

[XorNand]

I'm using a pure VoIP and subscribing to Voicepulse's Connect service to handle the PSTN interface. I'm also just using the Xten Lite softphones right now while I'm configuring everything. Before I go live I plan to pickup some Cisco VoIP phones off of Ebay.

Re:My story.

[agraupe]

I don't think this is an applicable anecdote. I don't think that linux developers are obsessed with "being Windows", but the truth is that users (the ones who say "it's hard to install") usually are comparing Linux/OO/etc. with their windows equivalent.

Re:My story.

[Blakey Rat]

Try it on a, say, MacOS X board. If you say, "well, OS X Finder crashes more than it should" you won't see a whole bunch of replies that say, "well, Windows Explorer crashes, too!" That only happens with Linux users.

Now there are *some* Linux users who don't think of everything in terms of comparisons with Windows, but they seem to be very few and far-between.

Re:My story.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously aren't a software developer.
At least not one that tries to make a living off of it.

Re:My story.

[Phred T. Magnificent]

Substitute Red Hat and Fedora for Suse, and FreeBSD for OpenBSD, and you've got my story, too. OpenBSD is also nice, and for a dedicated forewall it's probably what I'd use, but at the time that I switched I was looking for a single system that would work on both my server and my laptop, and FreeBSD fit that requirement better.

Re:My story.

[buck_wild]

Perhaps offtopic, as I don't have experience with the business end of it, but I've had no problems using Vonage. In addition to their home service (which I subscribe to) they have business services as well.

Re:My story.

[dbIII]

I didn't really want to use Linux until I found something it did that Windows didn't do

I think that's why linux wasn't of use to you in years gone past - expecting it to be a better MS Windows than MS Windows is a bit much to ask. If you were looking for a breed of *nix to run on a PC a decade ago or a machine to use as a web browser a decade ago then it would be a completely different story and you may have continued to use it.

The above anecdote sums up one thing people often forget - you use the computer to run applications, so that it what is important. Asterisk did it for him - grep was enough for me.

Re:My story.

[amliebsch]

Yeah, but unless you want more than six or so lines, you can't just get SIP service from Vonage, you have to use their crappy adapter to convert digital-->analog, then if you're using Asterisk, an expensive card to convert analog-->digital again. Blah.

Re:My story.

[amliebsch]

That's cool, thanks. I've been looking for a decent SIP provider for the same reason - this service looks pretty nice. Only thing I can't figure out from their website is what happens when you use up your 500 SIP minutes...

Re:My story.

[swillden]

I certainly appreciate the flexibility, but even for programmers, how much of that comes from having source code and how much just from having a modular UI and a general culture of throwing in configurable options?

For me, at least, most of it comes from having source code. Even if I don't modify it, I frequently look to see how things work.

Anyway, whatever the value for programmers, it's counterproductive to tell ordinary desktop users that that's one of the most important benefits for them.

Obviously.

Re:My story.

[ookaze]

I think it's time that many OSS developers stop trying to play catchup with MS

But they don't. That's your perception, that's not theirs (there are exception of course). The only people I see with these perceptions are people that DON'T know or use Linux.

you're already there

They know that.

If you don't set the bar any higher than trying to reinvent the functionality already present in Windows

But they do already. Again, that's your perception. That's why Windows actually implements functionalities present in Linux (since WinXP at least). But you would have to use Linux since a long time to understand this.

the masses will never take notice

The masses didn't take notice before, and developers have raised the bar since a long time. The bar has been raised since 1998, some of these bars have even been in the news, but people keep on ignoring it. So the problem is not in the effort the community is doing, it's in the people (inertia or whatever).

There seems to be this idea that people hate MS and/or Windows and are looking for any excuse to move to OSS

Nonsense. If sth does not work, you try sth else : if it is better, you keep it, you don't go for the lamer and more expensive solution, that would be beyonf all stupidity. That's how I moved entirely to Linux. I gradually switched, moving one functionality on Linux each time it failed badly on Windows. And I had lots of inertia, for example, I lost months of mails 2 times before I moved to Linux. I kept on with video not working randomly for months (making me loose hours and hours to fix) before going to geexbox. ALl this because constantly, people were telling me how great Windows was, how you could do this and that. Some people telling me that their Windows don't crash for days, that they never put an antivirus and were never infected. And when I investigate, I realise these people take most of their time tweaking everything for Windows to work right, the same things over and over, reinstall everything every 6 months with a ghost, and all that only to play games (so they don't have real data to save) ...
I decided to switch when I tried an experiment for a week : how much troubles I had with Windows, and then with Linux. I started 4 days of Windows, and stopped there, when I realised I was constantly cursing and getting angry on Windows, every single day, nothing ever worked right, I was not productive at all, fearing every move ! I switched to Linux right away, thinking that at least, if it was the same in Linux, it was prettier. Well, I switched entirely in january 2001 and never looked back. Actually I did when people told me how WinXP was so wonderful. But at the time, I had no more time to play with OS (I still don't), so if it does not work within a reasonable time, it's out. Windows was out when I installed it fresh, put it to do some work like in Linux (working 24/24 7/7), and realise that it became unusable and locked every time after 1 week of this regime. Worse, it could not do what I could with Linux (like 3 simultaneous desktops or use all of my hardware).
I could say that in a sense, I hate Windows for all the time I lost with this OS. Fortunately, now I'm free of all these hassles. I even got myself rid of all the people calling for support for their oh-so-easy-Windows (that I was maintaining). trangely enough, without me supporting them, they all switched to Linux (where I support them) or abandoned computing altogether.

Re:My story.

[YrWrstNtmr]

People shop for software? With money? How odd.

People earn a living writing and selling software? What a weird concept!

Re:My story.

[buck_wild]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the feedback.

Why switch?

[siebzehn_msc]

I switched from Windows to Red Hat out of curiosity and because I was tired of BSODs. It's one of the best decisions I have ever made. The next "switches" have been between linux distros, until I found the one I love.

Re:Why switch?

[conteXXt]

Isn't Gentoo great ?

(I am just kidding, No distro wars please.)

Re:Why switch?

[siebzehn_msc]

That's why I didn't say the distro was Debian, I didn't want to start a troll... oops...

To be expected

[brokenarmsgordon]

When people get something that *just works*, all their trials, tribulations, and political affiliations melt away.

Switch to Linux?

[vought]

I'd rather fight than switch!

Re:Switch to Linux?

[JamieKitson]

No, it's not worth the bother of going to the url, down a level, finding the pic and then viewing it. I can't get those 33 seconds back you know!

Aesthetic preferences

[pen]

Some people hate the color blue.

Re:Aesthetic preferences

[superpulpsicle]

Well I don't mind the blue screens of death, just the blue in the logo.

Why use Linux?

[Shads]

Because it works flawlessly once installed.

We do alot of heavy duty database servers and the windows servers have a tendancy to start locking up anytime you patch something to close a security hole. The linux servers have no daemons running except for the database and ssh, there are times we go 6-12 months without needing a hotfix or patch. Even when they need patched it doesnt require a reboot, it doesn't take the machine down, and it doesn't change the day to day operation of the machine with new errors and new crashes. We use linux because it works.

End of story (I'm sure BSD would work as well, but our familiarity with a company is much stronger on the linux side of things.)

Re:Why use Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experiance neither operating system (Linux or Windows) is really much more reliable than the other, they're just reliable in completely different ways; Windows breaks constantly but when it breaks it usually only takes a restart to fix whatever happened, and if you're reasonably careful about virus' and adware you can go a long time without rebuilding a windows system; Linux, on the other hand, rarely brakes but when it does it breaks badly (time for a rebuild). Personally I find that bootable linux and a usb key for data is a good all around solution, when it matures more I may give up windows completely.

Here malware writer just try to damage my OS, it's on a non-writable CD!

Re:Why use Linux?

[e.loser]

Because it works flawlessly once installed.

A week ago I installed Mandrake 10.1 on my box. It went all right, for the first twenty minutes of so, except the install froze on me. After I re-attempted the install, everything went all right. Booted in, accessed /dev/ thinking I could get to my FAT32 partition that I store all my data on, except it wasn't there. I could see it in console, just couldn't access it. Now, I'm a complete Linux noob, but I had "ideas", or so I thought. After I sat there just staring at the screen, I decided to get the drivers for my Video/Sound/Et cetera, and modem (56k, behind the times). Downloaded the .tar for the Lucent WinModem, put on flash drive, walked over to my computer, and put it in the USB port. Now, on Windows, normally it works when you stick a USB drive in a port, Linux... apparently not. /dev/sda was recognized, but not accessible.

I installed Windows the next day.

In conclusion, Linux may be better, and it may work better, more secure and everything, once installed, but I can't really find any purposes that I can do better on Linux than on Windows, and it's sad to say, I prefer that I don't have to configure everything in Windows. Maybe if I grew up on Linux instead of being used to the way Windows operates, I'd be more open.

Re:Why use Linux?

[Homology]

The linux servers have no daemons running except for the database and ssh, there are times we go 6-12 months without needing a hotfix or patch. Even when they need patched it doesnt require a reboot, it doesn't take the machine down, and it doesn't change the day to day operation of the machine with new errors and new crashes.

The Linux kernel has had tens of local root kernel exploits the last year or so, so you don't patch the kernel? Or you are using an older kernel?

Re:Why use Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

A week ago I installed Mandrake 10.1 on my box.

You do know that there are two newer releases of Mandriva, don't you? 2005 (10.2) and 2006 (10.3) are out. Why not install a current version, one that you can get updates for?

Anyway, I use Mandriva heavily (currently 2005/10.2) and never have problems with it recognizing USB devices. If I plug in my camera it shows up in /mnt as does my USB hard drive, and recorder. It sometimes takes up to 30 seconds to show up, but it never fails.

I installed Windows the next day.

Did you install a current Windows like XP or did you go with an older like 98? Just wondering since you tried to install an old version of Linux..

I prefer that I don't have to configure everything in Windows

Hmm. I currently maintain over 200 Mandriva 2005 machines, all of which I've barely had to configure anything. In fact, I have to do more configuration for my Windows machines.

Re:Why use Linux?

[hackstraw]

Because it works flawlessly once installed.

Yes it does. I've been using Linux for 11 years, personally and professionally. I've used it on at least 4 types of processors (alpha, ia32, ia64, and broadcom). Aside from running beta kernels, it has been very robust. To put it into perspective, its more robust than hardware and power. And yes, I've even used beta kernels in production when necessary without incident (2.1.125 or 2.1.115 if I remember correctly).

However, IMHO, someone switching to Linux for general personal computing either really knows what they are doing or they really don't. I know thats not a popular opinion here. But I believe that the Linux GUI has gotten much worse when KDE and Gnome became the two dominant "Desktop environment"s. I really liked AfterStep and WindowMaker. In fact, Malda's info on Afterstep is what brought me to slashdot when it was still chips and dips. FVWM was also pretty cool too. But all of those environments, like Windows seem so dated now. Kinda like butterfly collars, wide lapels, and ties. There is nothing wrong with them, and they were very fashionable at a time, but now they just look funny.

Re:Why use Linux?

[somersault]

you have to mount your windows partitions. It's stupid to expect to switch over to a different OS and immediately know how to do everything. I've never tried using a flash drive in linux but I expect you'd have to mount it there also (they maybe even auto-mount, I think CDs do that in linux). Obviously you're going to stick with what you know unless you have good reason to switch. For most people Windows does what they want, and they dont know what they're missing. I'm even becoming more comfortable with Windows as the years go on.. I didnt start using PCs till 7 years ago I think, before that I was all Macs and Amigas, and I found the Windows interface nasty compared to MacOS. I'm used to it now, and even used to different versions of Windows (didnt even buy XP for myself till this summer, I'd been using 98 for the last few years, but since it's mostly XP/2000 at work I thought I may as well get XP for home). I spent a summer here at work configuring apache and PHP on our webserver, recompiling the Kernel to try to build a bridging firewall etc. Linux to me does have a 'coolness' factor, some people may look down on me for thinking that, by what I've read here, but I do much prefer the linux shell to the windows one. The whole Tab auto-complete thing saves a lot of hassle typing out awkward filenames exactly, etc, and after a few weeks you get used to where all the system files are and how to configure your system. Man I can really talk a lot of crap when I get going. For the second time today, I'll stop rambling..

Re:Why use Linux?

[idlake]

In many environments, it's not necessary to patch the kernel when there are local vulnerabilities.

Re:Why use Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: man mount

Re:Why use Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is completely unnecessary on Windows or Mac. Why would anyone even IMAGINE that they have to had mount a flash drive, or a floppy or a CDROM?

I know Linux has auto-mount now, and it almost works, but it still has problems. I mean WTF. If auto mounting a USB device is beyond Linux's capabilities right out of the box then it doesn't DESERVE any desktop share.

Once Linux developers realize these very simple points, then the users will come. Till then, realize that Linux practically drives users away with this kind of crap.

Re:Why use Linux?

[JesseMcDonald]

The reason for explicit mounting and unmounting of things like USB memory sticks, CD-ROMs, and other removable media is threefold: (1) You can remove the media at any time. (2) Programs expect the files that they are working on to remain available. (3) The operating system cannot always detect the filesystem automatically. Because of (1), the operating system cannot assume that the device will be available in the future. As a result, it can either force writes to occur synchronously, which kills performance with large removable devices, or require confirmation from the user that the device will remain available, which is what mounting the device accomplishes. If the device is auto-mounted, then the operating system is making the assumption that the user will not remove the device without allowing the OS to finish recording the changes that were made or verifying that no programs are currently using the device. This is why Windows XP requires the user to "eject" the USB device before physically removing it, which is similar to unmounting the device under UNIX. Due to (3), which is a result of the filesystem structure and not the quality of the operating system, the system cannot automatically mount a device (removable or otherwise) without making assumptions about the type of filesystem it contains. Windows makes the assumption that the device contains a FAT32 or NTFS filesystem, because it lacks support for any other forms. Linux supports a much wider range of filesystems, and cannot make such assumptions. Automounting systems typically try each of the available filesystems in turn, settling on the one that accepts the data on the device, but this process may not choose correctly for all devices. The penalties for choosing incorrectly are severe: choosing an incorrect filesystem driver may result in data corruption.

Re:Why use Linux?

[TrancePhreak]

Windows 2000/XP have a tab autocomplete for the commandline too. Sometimes it's not on by default, but there's a registry key to turn it on. It's not as complete as the *nix one, but it's still great for filenames.

Here's a link.

Re:Why use Linux?

[happyemoticon]

Because it works flawlessly once installed.

That's not quite right, unless by 'flawlessly' you mean 'without breaking for no apparent reason,' rather than 'without flaw, perfectly', and by 'once installed' you mean 'once a highly motivated nerd tweaks with it for a few days'.

I've got Gentoo and Windows dual booting on my home computer, which currently you might say is more my girlfriend's than mine, since I have a new anodized aluminum laptop whose brand I'm SURE nobody wants me to mention. Before that, I ran Slackware. Here are my thoughts. Bear in mind they're only the negative ones. There are many things I love about Linux, like Xine and Fluxbox. However, I have more than my share of criticisms:

• Configuring the kernel is a bitch. I'm pretty good at it now, but this is a task I was completely unprepared for when I first started using windows. Fortunately, now I'm using GRUB instead of LILO. There's just something unsavory about writing to the MBR every time I need to fix a driver.
• ATI's drivers are a pain the ass to work with.
• Gentoo is a little too cutting-edge for me. Shit breaks all the time. For like a month Firefox had the oddest bug which would cause any download activity to lock the entire interface. It's annoying as all hell, because the tabbed browsing as why I use Firefox in the first place. At my boss's suggestion, I think I'm going to try Debian.
• USB mass storage devices, scanners, and printers are all just godforsaken hard to set up. I've never gotten the hang of how to set up a USB mass storage device, and I've never gotten a scanner to work well.
• Blackdown Java? Give me a break. For that matter, I'd like a simple way to tell my package management system 'No thank you, I am not a GPL fanatic. I like my Windows fonts, my WMP and Real codecs so I can play everything but everything on Xine, as well as my Sun Java JDK and closed-source framebuffer drivers. Thank you.'
• Default permissions settings often (in my experience, I know more about unix now than when I first set up Linux) make files which really should be group-writable, like /dev/dsp, 644 by default. It seems trivial now, but it was really confusing when I first installed Slackware and I could play music as root but not as my normal user.
• I'd like a way to print in reverse order on Cups without resorting to lprng. Haven't found one yet, sorry.

I really think that learning how to use Linux transformed the way I think about computers and rekindled my nerdliness, but it simply doesn't work out of the box for anything except server applications.

Re:Why use Linux?

[Fallingcow]

Mandrake is the least-stable distro I've ever used, and has the most-fragile package management system, even more fragile than the other major RPM distros (Suse, Redhat).

It was great in its 7.x and 8.x days, but when it hit 9.x it inexplicably got horribly buggy.

Like the posters above said, get the latest Ubuntu. I'd tried their last release, and it was better than average, but not good enough to get me away from Gentoo's excellent package management. Last week, I installed their newest release, and it is *THE BEST OS* that I have ever used. Period.

Install it, download and run "Easy Ubuntu", which adds a ton of extra package repositories and lets you install most common plugins for Firefox (flash and the like) and some proprietary video/audio codecs that can't be shipped with vanilla Ubuntu due to licencing. Oh, and it installs the official Nvidia or ATI drivers for most modern video cards, if you need those. And it's a graphical program, so no worries on having to screw around in the command line.

After doing that, you will have the best desktop OS in the world.

Granted, it still suffers from all of Linux's normal limitations (the big ones being that gaming is iffy and a bit of a hassle, and wireless support is weak), but it leverages all of Linux's advantages far better than any other distro I've seen.

Use it.

No configuring stuff, even hibernate/suspend work out-of-the-box, everything (even USB flash drives!) automounts, all common stuff is automatically installed (assuming you don't hit "advanced" in the intallation process), using Easy Ubuntu to install proper proprietary video drivers and codecs is easier than doing the same on Windows, and you've got a handy button in your menu that you can click to bring up a graphical application installer that's super-friendly and has had some of the "fat" trimmed so you don't see "lib-blah blah blah", just the top few hundred programs that you're likely to want to install. Want more programs? Hit the "advanced" button, and you'll go to plain ol' Synaptic, still graphical but it shows all possible packages.

Im probably going to switch because

[technoextreme]

it's just there. I just want to try something different. My view on life is to try and learn about everything I can. It's odd though. My university has Mac's, Windows, and Unix computers but as far as I know no Linux computers.

Re:Im probably going to switch because

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

If your University had graduate students, it most likely has Linux computers. ;)

Re:Im probably going to switch because

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, we HAD both grad students and linux computers. Trust me. 90% of the grads there were either Asian or Indian. And consequently, 90% of the classroom air was body odor too. Hmm, Windows has 90% desktop market share too. See the trend? Here's the equation I submitted for my MSCS thesis:

Windows desktop market share is inversely proportionate (1:1) to eyebrow melting rancid linux users. I graduated Summa Cum Laude for my thesis, btw...

Curiosity

[Anonymous Coward]

For the free C compiler.

Linux isn't ready for the desktop though so I switched back.

Why I switched..

[Ride Jib]

I switched because of morals. I felt guilty stealing software that people were trying to sell. I can't afford much of the software I used in Windows, and I felt better about myself using free software in Linux. That and, well, the stability, customization, etc that comes with the territory.

Re:Why I switched..

[Bastian]

Hear hear. I started using Linux back in high school because it was "cool," but I moved to Linux being my primary desktop OS in college when I decided to be a software pirate.

Wintel is not a hospitable place for people who are neither rich nor unethical.

Re:Why I switched..

[Anonymous Coward]

amen to that
i work in a university where an audit of the software on my machine would have landed me in serious trouble
now i use all open source software and do my (pathetically small) bit by submitting detailled bug reports

Re:Why I switched..

[just_another_sean]

That's what made me switch at home finally. I love Linux. I've used since I first started looking for cheap/free C programming tools back in 93/94. I would go searching for things like "free c compiler" or "free programming tools" and I kept getting hits for gcc and Linux. So I bit. I downloaded slackware and just started playing with it. I loved it then and still do. But I kept Windows too. Same as most I guess, I wanted to play games, had jobs creating crappy little office automation tools in Access and Visual Basic, have a family that I thought wouldn't adopt Linux well. After XP came out and validation became a necessity I started feeling worse and worse about running MSDN copies of Windows from work. Feelings about MS aside I don't like the idea of taking something for free if the developers of it doesn't want me to do that. I'm not much into the games anymore but my family still needs an easy to use OS so I took the plunge and put Ubuntu on my wife's PC and on the family PC. Looking back I probably could have done it even sooner but by now, with the sharp, user friendly interfaces people have built around X my family has no problem at all adapting to Linux. The best example is my daughter; she uses Word XP at school and AbiWord at home. She has never complained to me that something didn't format correctly when switching from program to program. Of course she's not embedding complex objects into her documents or making extensive use of tables. I know these things do cause issues for people but for the day to day user who is just typing a paper for school Linux does just fine and better in some cases. And last but not least my monthly sessions of removing all the crap of the family windows PC are just distant memories. :)

Re:Why I switched..

[Perl-Pusher]

Wow! An honest person! :)

Seriously that is the reason I continue to use linux. I can do alot for free and not feel guilty! I do submit bug reports, and try as much as I can to give back to the community. I did some work on gtkmm and have created several themes for KDE, GNOME and Gkrellm. Mostly older stuff back in about 2001. The community spirit was alot higher back in 96, but linux has become more mainstream now. I was even hired because of my Linux experience. There is no going back to windows, though I do flirt with OS X. I now feel uncomfortable with windows.

Re:Why I switched..

[MarkCollette]

Pfff. I, on the other hand, have no morals, and so have pirated my copy of Debian GNU/Linux, just to stick it to the man!

(Maybe there should be an option to mod a post: -1 Retarded Joke)

Re:Why I switched..

[Anonymous Coward]

now i use all open source software and do my (pathetically small) bit by submitting detailled bug reports

No! It's you are playing an importand role! It's not small at all. Seriously, just think that in software development business there's a lot of people being paid to do just that.

Even if you just email the author saying that his software is useful to you, it's already a valueable contribution.

Re:Why I switched..

[mindaktiviti]

Haha, your retarded joke made me laugh though.

+1 Funny to that.

Re:Why I switched..

[Buck2]

Wow! An honest person! :)

I can't formulate a proper response right now, but it runs along the lines of:

I used to use a lot of cracked software because it was the only way to submit documents in the proper format. There was no way I could afford the software to do it, but it was completely necessary. It made me sick. How could I, a student, be expected to buy these $300 programs to generate a single document for a particular school's requirements? ASCII was never good enough. Even a written (typed with a typewriter) document was not good enough for schools that were using Adobe's latest software. They expected that you had Acrobat to fill in the forms. (this was 1997 or so).

It's the penguin

[neologee]

Linux is better because it is what you make it.

this is easy

[BushCheney08]

I switched for the games. I can play tetravex for hours (and I do).

Re:this is easy

[smindinvern]

I switched for the games. I can play tetravex for hours (and I do).

wow, that's a new one, most people use _windows_ for the games
though, then again, I love tetravex too...

Re:this is easy

[foonf]

I switched for the games. I can play tetravex for hours (and I do).

This is kind of amusing, since Tetravex was actually developed by Microsoft originally.

Re:this is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.t45ol.com/play_us/918/tetravex.html

Re:this is easy

[colinrichardday]

Why do I suspect that Microsoft Windows does not include xbill?

Re:this is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget supertux! That and tux racing.

I don't think I'd call that a survey...

[jejones]

They posted the question in a forum and gathered the responses. So...you're talking self-selected responses, which pretty well guarantees a non-representative sample, even if the responses are interesting. I wish they'd done a real live survey.

Re:I don't think I'd call that a survey...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. This is not a survey. It is an opinion poll.

Re:I don't think I'd call that a survey...

[NanoGator]

"...which pretty well guarantees a non-representative sample, even if the responses are interesting. I wish they'd done a real live survey."

Not that a real live survey would be all that useful anyway. At best it'd give us an idea of just how loud mouthed the fanatics are. I just love the idea that all I have to do is say I'm American, and it'll be assumed that I'm fanatically christian, overweight, driving an SUV, talking on my cell phone, extremely lazy even though I'm a workaholic that never takes vacations, over medicated, under educated, over paid, militaristically agressive, and out of touch with nature.

My reason

[eebra82]

I've not switched and I see no reason to why I should. I use Windows mostly for Photoshop and browsing the internet. I do have Gentoo on the computer next to me, serving as a PHP/MySQL workstation.

I like what I've got there but as for anything beyond server usage, I don't want anything but Windows.

I could switch to Apple, of course, but then there's a zillion games I'd miss out on.

Re:My reason

[Stupendoussteve]

I'm in the same boat. I like Linux, but I don't like it on the desktop. I use it for like a day on the desktop and I'm unsatisfied. I love it on servers though, and I like the terminal. Anything I really need the unix terminal for I can usually do through cygwin just fine.

Reasons...

[bypedd]

I think a question like this will generate wildly different answers based on the people asked, but that those answers are unique to the group asked. As a programmer, Linux and Unix are Godsends because of the ease of editing, compiling, running and debugging with just a single terminal open. And for a group like slash dot, I wouldn't be surprised if things like the control over your own OS, and the bleeding edge appeal made it into the top answers.

But really, the question of why an average computer user would switch to Linux is less obvious. Applications being available that rival Windows is a big reason. What else are the reasons people switch?

Where do I start

[Concern]

At the time I switched, the Win2k VM was driving me insane, making me wait for swap for minutes at a time with a gig of RAM and ~500MB resident. The explorer was just nuts. Delete a start menu entry and wait 5 minutes? And then there was the peerless combination of your POP mail client and norton antivirus, which at the time had a small fit and opened a window for each message it processed, as well as popping a dialog you had to click through every time it found a virus (so, about 100 times a day).

There were things like ogle, that let you skip to the DVD menu without waiting 5 minutes for the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and 8 other movies to have their say first. And things like mplayer, which at that point was already better than WMP/Quicktime/Whatever-Else, especially as a browser plugin (hello... "save file as!").

But of course the thing that really sealed the deal was switching into 2.6 just as the new VM stuff was coming online, and seeing how incredibly responsive a computer can be under load...

Re:Where do I start

[afd8856]

This are about the same reason I've switched almost completely a month ago. Windows was starting to really piss me off. Memory management was bad. I'm working with Poseidon, and it's a memory hog. Windows deals with it really bad, and, in general, it deals with long running processes really bad. It tends to swap everything, just to have more "physical memory available". I don't want that available, I want it used, that's why I bought 1gb of RAM.

Now I've switched to ubuntu hoary and then breezy. I can't believe how good it is. Poseidon wakes up in a second when I return in the morning, it has more eye candy than windows (put a nice blue gradient in the background, gartoon icons stretched on the desktop, xcompmgr for shadows, etc), it has more features (virtual desktops, configurable shortcut keys, network integration - not as good as KDE's, but it works), and, in general, a really nice and tight desktop. I've been a KDE fan, but I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a gnome full time user right now. I use jEdit and Quanta for programming, Firefox for browsing and web development, I got IExplore installed using some script from the web, so now I can test in IE, so I'm a happy boy.

Only reason that right now I'm in windows is that Photoshop CS2 doesn't work well under wine (some window management issues). So, applications matter, but for my job, programming and some web development (except graphics), Ubuntu beats windows hands down.

Switcharoonie!

[commops7]

I switched to RH, SUSE and SlackWare (back in the day) - then switched back ... Grrrrrrr.

What a stupid survey.

[Shivetya]

Sheesh, asking geeks who are already on a linux oriented site why they switched and trying to overlay their reasons on the general public?

Non-random surveys are just junk.

A better use of their readers and our time would be to ask why they didn't look at other alternatives to Linux, like Apple or even better, why they chose one paticular flavor of linux over another.

Re:What a stupid survey.

[antifoidulus]

Shhh...the little groupthinking parrots are trying to mimick eachother, you'll disrupt the groupthink with your "logic"
Please, someone think of the groupthink!

simple reasons...

[i7dude]

money...
curiosity...
previous experience with *nix...
the ability to tinker "under the hood" ...

for me its all 4..

dude.

Re:simple reasons...

[vieux schnock]

Ditto that. Plain and simple.

Re:simple reasons...

[sedyn]

I picked it for the same reason I chose to study computer science: money, women, power.

But then again, I've never been good at making decisions.

Re:simple reasons...

[cerberusss]

I don't know about power, but with a good specialization in Linux, good money is to be earned. And that's how I met my wife.

kde

[ToddFFW]

I agree with an earlier poster. I switched because Linux did something Windows couldn't. Kontact is the best thing since sliced bread in my opinion. It does what Exchange does much better, without all of the bloat of Outlook and co$t.

The answer is so simple!

[dillpick6]

No matter what people tell you, they all do it for the same reason...

Chicks totally dig linux. We all did it for the babes!

How about a double switch?

[RoadWarriorX]

I had to convince my wife to switch to a Mac so she would not throw her PC out of the second floor window. Her computer just would not stop blue-screening. She was actually going to do it, too. After rescuing the PC from the clutches of a sure death. I put switch out the OS for Linux. Now, it's living a long second life as a web server. She's happy with her Mac, and I am happy that I don't have to clean up silicon off of my driveway.

Why do my customers switch?

[Colin Smith]

Power is the biggest factor it seems. No, not speed. Power over the system, flexibility. For all that Windows is easy, it comes at the price of limiting your freedom to mess around with stuff.
When asked can I do blah with Linux, the answer's pretty much yes out of the box. With Windows the answer's yes if you buy X, Y and Z.

Re:Why do my customers switch?

[krewemaynard]

With Windows the answer's yes if you buy X, Y and Z.

this is a huge thing for me. you need all kinds of extra software just to keep windows running properly--virus scanners, spyware scanners, firewall. plus, the default applications are crapola, so there's another couple of hundred dollars. most distros include most if not all of the software you need, and the rest is usually a free install away. i can deal with the learning curve, especially when i look at the sticker price on comparable commercial programs.

Re:Why do my customers switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

While that may be true for your home PC, I would NEVER try that on a corporate network. Just because YOU know better than to open emails and attachments from people you don't know and YOU know better than to click on every pop-up that appears on your screen. I can Guarentee all the other people in the work place don't and without all that extra software running on the PC's (slowing them down) the network would come to a screeching halt when someone clicks that attachment in the e-mail entitled "I love you"

Yes no AV no anti-spyware etc.. is all well and good on your closed off home network where you don't have to worry about the human factor in other users.. FUD indeed...

RE: Why Do people Switch ...

[__aajwxe560]

"Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine."
Why is this surprising? You figure out exactly what you want to do, and you find the best tool towards accomplishing that goal. I am the head sysadmin for a legal consulting firm, and whenever I need a new server, I first lay out a clear list of what needs to be done, and then weigh that against the software available. Then, we factor in what makes the most sense against the budget. Increasingly, as Linux matures and both more software and drivers become available, I am finding less reason NOT to use it when going down the comparison list. If I were to try and ram it through specifically because of my own personal views of Microsoft, I would be doing my employer a great disservice and probably be considered bad at my job. For example, my employer still loves Microsoft SQL, it meets there needs quite well, so that comparison is easy, and Windows wins on that comparison. However, as the open source SQL flavors continue to mature on Linux, I (as well as our developers) will find less reason not to consider their usage in business critical applications.

Surprized

[monklegacy]

No one said "Why not?"

I like Pain

[8400_RPM]

I've been using linux for a few years on my home laptop just to stay ahead of the curve. I'm a windows Sys Admin, and I want to be ready.

I'm not a huge fan though. I cant play half the videos I download, wireless in suse sucks. Fedora stoped loading KDE completely one day for no apparent reason.

IMO, linux is still 10 years behind microsoft.

Re:I like Pain

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because wireless rocked in Wnidows ten years ago....

Re:I like Pain

[smindinvern]

dude... get mplayer

Re:I like Pain

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're just 10 years behind Linux, but that's Ok, we all start out the same way (naked, wrinkled and screaming). Put Linux on a spare box and learn your way around the OS there, less pressure to make things work perfectly makes for a more pleasurable experience and a steeper learning curve (which is, contrary to popular usage, a really good thing).

Re:I like Pain

[8400_RPM]

I use mplayer. It still doesnt play wmv all the time, and several other formats.

Re:I like Pain

[SCHecklerX]

Try this (even includes the CSS stuff, and has worked flawlessly for me on several Mandrake systems):

xine rpms from cvs

Many Small Pieces Loosely Joined

[Orasis]

Thats basically it for me.

My story...

[Mad Merlin]

At the time, I was still running 98SE. I had a rar'ed up DVD image that I wanted to play with, but it was just slightly over 4G, and thus, couldn't be uncompressed in 98, it would die at 99%. I knew that Linux could handle larger files, so I installed that. I was extremely impressed, and immediately got to playing with everything in sight, and never looked back. That was about 3 years ago now and I have absolutely zero interest in Windows.

Mac OS X is the place to switch to

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why somebody would switch to Linux with Mac OS X being so beautiful and having BSD underneat the hood.

Re:Mac OS X is the place to switch to

[Anonymous Coward]

I did try to switch to Linux a few times (and with different distros, too). But it's not worth it. Sure, it's cool, free and all, but it's not good enough.

Apple introduced the Mac mini, and that was it.

I've been running OS X since march and I couldn't be happier (OS X ain't perfect but it's still the best out there).

Re:Mac OS X is the place to switch to

[toddestan]

I don't know why somebody would switch to Linux with Mac OS X being so beautiful and having BSD underneat the hood.

Maybe because they don't want to be stuck with a propriety operating system running on expensive, proprietary hardware which is all controlled by one company?

That, and if you have already have a computer (PC or Mac), trying out Linux is basically free - its just a matter of downloading and installing it. Trying out OSX 10.4 is a bit more costly for most people.

A good question...

[pigiron]

since there is a better alternative: BSD.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do you need linux to read a comic book about a little French guy who likes to beat up Romans?

That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

my girlfriend and her daughter

[maryjanecapri]

are both going to switch over. not because i've provoked them but because they are so tired of the windows problems they've been having (malware, spyware, viruses, slowdowns due to malware and antivirus programs). my girlfriend is also happy that her kids won't be able to just randomly install various things on her computer. THAT is really the main reason she's excited about it. well that and being able to use quality software without having to dump a large amount of fundage into it.

two important respects

[styxlord]

Though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and secondly it has a huge friendly penguin as its mascot.

Re:two important respects

[IckySplat]

two important respects (Score:5, Funny)

This should be Inshightfull not funny! :)

Get the facts

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /default.mspx

The big flash animation led to my change

Real reason I (partially) switched

[earthforce_1]

I really hate having to type a 24 digit product key number every time I install something.

Seriously, I still need XP for games and contract development work, although my back-end is entirely Linux based.

Re:Real reason I (partially) switched

[Cili]

I for one, hate to have to search warez sites for cracks, serials, etc. everytime I install stuff.

Seriously, having stuff like dd, sed, tar, vi for the command-line or kwrite, OpenOffice, gimp out of the box is a great plus.

Re:Real reason I (partially) switched

[Cili]

I really hate having to search warez sites for cracks, serials, etc every time I install something.

Seriously, what got me hooked was having a lot of useful stuff installed from head-start. dd, vi, sed, grep, sort, tar, bzip, unzip for command-line; kwrite, OpenOffice, Gimp, Gaim in kde... Not to mention the superior scripting capabilities, easily accessible /dev/random (I'm too lazy to flip a coin sometimes, so I do dd if=/dev/random bs=2 count=1 | hexdump and see if the last cypher on the first row is > 7.

I'm still amazed I don't have a syntax-highlighting text editor in Windows on default install...

Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Ucklak]

• My Access Database and forced upgrades
• Hated having to reinstall every 8 months for performance related issues when defragging and general cleanup didn't help
• Hated the reinstalling process where upgrades take the better half of a day (I've just cleaned up some 2002 OEM machines that we have upgraded from and are selling to the public. The upgrade process DOES take a better half of a day)
• Really liked learning another OS that didn't have 'hidden' features - (You have to buy a book on how to hack the registry and even books on the market aren't complete)
• Uptime
• Stability
• Linux has the latest and greatest and experiemental stuff whereas Windows is at least 5 years behind (Windows still requires defragging of the hard drive, Mac and Linux don't)

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[zerocool^]

1.a.) Why are you using access for a database for anything but the simplest information?
1.b.) No one is holding a gun to your head and making you buy a new copy of office. You like what you've got? Keep using it.

2.) Get windows XP SP2, and stop downloading spyware. Plus, it's only the power users that notice it. Most of my clients when I was consulting had their origional install of windows XP and it was running slightly slower than it used to, but they didn't really care. Also: try using linux as a desktop for 2 years and see if it doesn't start slowing down when you install a new program once every week or two, new hardware every 6 months, and new graphics drivers and security patches once a month. Most people that use linux on the desktop are careful about how they treat it, but on the windows side, most of us punish our OS. In the past week, I've installed DivX 6, Tivo Desktop, Quake 4, video lan client, and WinDVD. Do this enough and it bogs down.

3.) What? What takes half a day on windows that doesn't take half a day in Linux? The things that take a long time in windows (copying files to the hard drive for install) must be done in linux, too. Installing Linux (especially things like ubuntu and Fedora) have gotten easier, by a good bit, but it's still not as easy as windows.

4.) Hidden features? Dude, Windows Registry == Linux /etc. Config files have to go somewhere. Yes, you can get to them easier in linux, and yes I prefer it that way, but if programs are coded properly, there shouldn't be a need to go poking around in the windows registry, ever. Everything should be adjustable from inside the program, or shouldn't need user adjusting. The only thing you can say here is Linux lets you try and clean up bad programs' config files easier than windows, but I mean... that's hardly something Microsoft can be blamed for.

5.) Get Windows XP SP2, or Windows server 2003.

6.) Get Windows XP SP2, or Windows server 2003.

7.) Yeah, Windows is 5 years behind. Except... gaming. Oh, and desktop usability (For the LOVE OF GOD, can someone create a universal clipboard for ANY linux windowing system? ALL I EVER WANTED was to cut and paste between apps). And hardware support. Also: Linux and Mac both defrag in the background, as does Windows XP and Server2003.

God. I use linux, and I use windows, and there are things that both are suited for. Linux = any internet service. Windows = user and computer management, gaming. Do whatever suits you; use whatever you're comfortable with, but let's not make shit up.

~Will

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, Linux doesn't require defragging because the Linux solution to the problem is to ignore it.

Admittedly most common Linux FS's are a million times better than FAT in that regard though.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Ucklak]

1. I used it for my simplest personal information. Built it on Access 97, had to upgrade it for 2000 because of issues with Outlook 2000 and Access97. More upgrade issues with 2002 but I foresaw that and had migrated to MySQL beforehand. The issues with 2002 was the impetus to force me to drop Office altogether.
Windows 98 doesn't have vendor support anymore so in fact, there is a virtual gun to my head.

2. Spyware has absolutely nothing to do with WIndows bogginess. It's the filesystem and registry. Anyone who has run IIS 4 on a million+ visitor day knows that you have to manually clean the registry nightly for performance issues. Anybody who is a power user with Windows knows that a reinstall takes less time than tracking down the issue and spending time to clean it. That is why I switched. I got so damn tired of dealing with the bugginess of the OS and not enough time being productive.

3. It's half a day for Windows. It's 30 minutes for Linux. The upgrades for Linux are passive and don't require a reboot. I just did this for 5 servers (Installed Linux)and 10 desktops (OEM reinstall of XP 2002 SP1). At least OEM reinstall didn't require activation but it did require:

SP2 update, reboot,
Windows update, reboot,
Windoes update again, validate this time, update, reboot,
Update for the last time
And those god damn popups make me want bitch slap the damn box.

4. You are given the full configuration and details of any ETC file in a MAN file or part of the documenataion project. There isn't a help file included with the OS for the registry nor is it available on the Manufacturer's website.

5 and 6. I'll agree that Windows 2003 is stable but XP SP2 is far from a reliable machine on middle class hardware specs.

7. I'll give you that. Mac defrags as part of the Filesystem reads and writes. Linux defrags are kept to a minimum due to the swap being on a seperate partition. Why the hell can't MS do the same?

And for the record, I run every other RH release starting from 6. I ran 8, upgraded to FC2 and have no slowness at all. My XP install isn't used as much and it's shows it's age at 6 weeks.

Environment for XP is:
1.8 Ghz 1Gig Ram
Virus Scaning
Eclipse
Office2003
Mozilla Suite
Firefox
Opera
IE
Thunderbird
MySQLcc
my PHP parsing is run off a local server connected to a directory as a share

Linux is:
1.4 Mhz 500Mb Ram
Apache in background
Eclipse
Thunderbird
Evolution
Mozilla Suite
Firefox
OPera
Konquerer
MySQLcc
Open Office (Writer and Calc)
and xMMS

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[unapersson]

"2) ... Also: try using linux as a desktop for 2 years and see if it doesn't start slowing down when you install a new program once every week or two, new hardware every 6 months, and new graphics drivers and security patches once a month."

I've done that and it doesn't. Why on earth would it get slower? In fact in my experience it tends to get quicker and more optimised over time. Which is what you'd expect. I'm running a new install now because I updated my machine, before that I'd been running Linux on a 500/800Mhz machine from Mandrake 7.2 to 10.1 just doing the standard updates. No clean installs after the initial one.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[metamatic]

Yup, spot on.

I got sick of the weekly process of: shut down all applications, log out, log in as administrator, run Windows update, download updates, run installers, click through dialogs, wait, reboot, wait, log in as administrator, wait, log out, log in as user, start up applications and continue what I was actually doing.

I got sick of Windows running out of some internal resource and needing to be rebooted, usually evidenced by redraw glitches or the clipboard suddenly not working.

I got fed up with having to reboot because an application crashed.

I got fed up with the system occasionally randomly rebooting on its own.

And most of all, I got sick of having to wipe the hard drive and install everything again from scratch at least once a year, when the glitches became too frequent.

I never thought the OS battle would come down to Unix vs Windows, but now that it has, it has been pretty easy to pick a side.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Wonko]

Also: try using linux as a desktop for 2 years and see if it doesn't start slowing down when you install a new program once every week or two, new hardware every 6 months, and new graphics drivers and security patches once a month.

I installed a copy of Debian on my old desktop machine sometime before Woody went stable. I am not sure exactly how long ago that was, I will just say it was more than 2 years ago. Since then I have upgraded every piece of hardware in the case (it is still a fairly nice case). I have been tracking unstable for a very long time now (which, of course, has caused a few minor irritations).

When I got my current laptop almost 2 years ago, I copied the current installation on to it, and tweaked some configuration. It has been running just fine ever since.

What sort of problem am I supposed to be noticing, exactly?

Dude, Windows Registry == Linux /etc. Config files have to go somewhere. Yes, you can get to them easier in linux, and yes I prefer it that way, but if programs are coded properly, there shouldn't be a need to go poking around in the windows registry, ever. Everything should be adjustable from inside the program, or shouldn't need user adjusting.

Having your configuration in text files has quite a few advantages over the windows registry. It is easier to back up, and much easier to restore an individual programs configuration. It is also much easier to copy configuration from one machine to another.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Homology]

3. It's half a day for Windows. It's 30 minutes for Linux. The upgrades for Linux are passive and don't require a reboot. I just did this for 5 servers (Installed Linux)and 10 desktops (OEM reinstall of XP 2002 SP1). At least OEM reinstall didn't require activation but it did require:

Not rebooting after an upgrade is usually a very bad idea. If the kernel is updated, then you MUST reboot. Deamons needs at least to be restarted. Since an upgrade is quite invasive, it's better to reboot just to make sure that your system will at least boot properly after a power outage.

In many cases it's a good idea schedule a reboot (at a convenient time) after you've made configuration changes. There are quite a few systems that won't boot/work properly due to unforseen power outage and many, many config changes.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[theJML]

7.) Yeah, Windows is 5 years behind. Except... gaming. Oh, and desktop usability (For the LOVE OF GOD, can someone create a universal clipboard for ANY linux windowing system? ALL I EVER WANTED was to cut and paste between apps). And hardware support. Also: Linux and Mac both defrag in the background, as does Windows XP and Server2003.

Um, I run XFCE4 & Enlightenment & KDE, and copy/paste between apps all the time. I have never noticed any issues on any of them... am I missing something?

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[Anonymous Coward]

4. You are given the full configuration and details of any ETC file in a MAN file or part of the documenataion project. There isn't a help file included with the OS for the registry nor is it available on the Manufacturer's website.

Registry Reference

For non-microsoft software you would obviously have to rely on information from the source of the software.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[zerocool^]

It's my constant bitch about linux windowing systems. Obviously, there are several systems that have been coded to work with cut and paste, but the problem comes in when you install a program which hasn't correctly implemented the API, or on a system where the API is a moving target. The most common offenders in my personal experience are Mozilla and Gaim. Trying to highlight and copy text from a gaim conversation into, say, a terminal window usually ends in frustration, and sometimes i think mozilla has a mind and clipboard of its own that don't play nice with anyone.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[sharkey]

Also: Linux and Mac both defrag in the background, as does Windows XP and Server2003.

How do I set up XP and 2003 to do this? My installs of these do not do it out-of-the box, nor do I know how to configure it apparently.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[JaumPaw]

"2.) Get windows XP SP2, and stop downloading spyware. ... Also: try using linux as a desktop for 2 years and see if it doesn't start slowing down when you install a new program once every week or two, new hardware every 6 months, and new graphics drivers and security patches once a month. Most people that use linux on the desktop are careful about how they treat it, but on the windows side, most of us punish our OS. In the past week, I've installed DivX 6, Tivo Desktop, Quake 4, video lan client, and WinDVD. Do this enough and it bogs down."

Interesting. I install/remove alot of software. Never had it impact the speed of my desktop linux.
While startup time gets longer on windows as you install alot of stuff, it stays the same on linux - unless you want daemons startup at boottime (which generally, you don't - desktop apps doesn't require it).
Yes, it may cause apps to startup quicker, but I prefer waiting an extra second and save myself from the drag-to-a-halt syndrom.

Oh, and BTW, I never had to reinstall my linux since I bought the hardware it is install on.

Re:Didn't want to be tied down to...

[zerocool^]

XP does it out of the box, and has since the first release (I think it has since codename whistler). If you leave an XP box sitting for a while, you may hear the harddrive chugging away in the background. It's not deep defraging, not like a manual one, but it's like vaccuuming vs. rug doctor - keeping things neat.

They largely don't.

[wangotango]

Most users don't switch to Linux. Most users have never heard of Linux, and don't really care to have anyone tell them about it either.

Re:They largely don't.

[Shakes268]

You're so right. Most don't care, don't know nor do they want to know. When Linux can be the right choice for those people, it will be as bloated as any Microsoft software on the market with just as many problems.

Re:They largely don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... and don't really care to have anyone tell them about it either."

Netcraft says? Or is this another Microsoft-funded BITMA study?

Re:They largely don't.

[dbIII]

Most users have never heard of Linux, and don't really care to have anyone tell them about it either.

Most users are looking for a glass typewriter and a web browser, which can be done by any desktop computer OS. I've switched a few people to linux by making their system dual boot and showing them the different way to do things in linux. Some spend a few hours a month in Win2k (mostly using MS Excel), the rest haven't moved back at all.

Re:They largely don't.

[akpoff]

When Linux can be the right choice for those people, it will be as bloated as any Microsoft software on the market with just as many problems.

You gotta have a goal. ;-)

My Reason For TRYING Linux

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

I'm with the people in the article... I didn't try Linux because I hate Billy or his Microsoft company. I switched because I got pretty good at Windows and wanted to see what else was out there. I wanted to see what all the talk was about for Linux. Back when I first tried it, Linux was a challenge just to install.

I didn't have enough time to really get into it and didn't make the complete switch, but I will probably give it a shot later on.

Cost and more

[I_am_Rambi]

As a college student, funds are tight. Migrating to Linux I found a plethra of free software that was very useable and worked well. I also found Linux to be easily used on old hardware, which I have alot of. That, and the lack of viruses, and spyware helped in the migration. I don't have to worry about keeping virus definitions upto date, nor spyware definition. I don't even have to worry about a registry! All the tools that I need are available for Linux, and very customizable. Linux supports everything that I need and more. And then customizing the kernel, and compile flags. Linux is the way I want, not the way someone else wants.

Re:Cost and more

[Gonzoman]

I switched in 1996 and never looked back. I'm currently running Ubuntu and really like it.

My reasons for switching were economic. My hardware was old and slow and I couldn't afford thousands of dollars for the applications I wanted to run. I found I liked the stability and freedom. Upgrades are a snap and I have all the tools I need. I find that the open source apps do what I want them to.

Microsoft is largely irrelevent to me (other than as comic relief).

Why?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Why do people switch to Linux?

1. Chronic Nerdyness.
2. Windows BSODS.
3. They think that just because something is free it also costs nothing, or next to nothing, to operate it.
4. They are developing an embedded system and want complete freedom to recode the OS.
5. They have sat down, done the math and found out it makes sound business sense to do so.
... the list goes on ...
N. Masochism?

a quote from Intel

[igny]

from Microsoft's paranoia, which results in quotes like the one that had Bill Gates saying he'd put Linux in the Computer museum like he has other competitors

"In the world without walls noone needs Windows or Gates."

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[raju]

No one switches for just the operating system. It is the applications that run atop it that make the difference. In your case it was Asterisk. Glad to hear that you have crossed the bridge.

Because they cant afford Mac OS X!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they cant afford Mac OS X!

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched because I didn't like having pirated software on my machine. But my distro sucked (hardware problems) and I didn't have time to switch to other distros, so I switched back to Windows :(

Overheard at lxer.com HQ...

[chiller2]

Jefe> We have had many answers for the switch to Linux!
El Guapo> How many answers?
Jefe> Many answers, many!
El Guapo> Jefe, would you say we have a plethora of answers?
Jefe> Yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo> Jefe, what is a plethora?

Re:Overheard at lxer.com HQ...

[maotx]

Lucky Day> I suppose you could say that everyone has an El Guapo. For some, shyness may be an El Guapo. For others, lack of education may be an El Guapo. But for us, El Guapo is a large ugly man who wants to kill Microsoft!

Re:Overheard at lxer.com HQ...

[bmalia]

That movie is more than famous.. its infamous!

So they say

[njfuzzy]

This is a pretty naive conclusion. The reason a person will say they did something for, when asked, may be different from what really caused them to do it. Of course someone who believes in the Linux cause will say that they came over on the merits of the operating system. The real causes may have been much more political or emotional. Asking someone why they did something can only tell you what they want you (and maybe themself) to think.

Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually an insightful response. Linux's total real end-user marketshare has not increased since ~1998. The number of people using Linux to browse the internet seems to have actually declined since Windows XP came out. The truth is that no more than 1% of home users use Linux on the desktop, and only a tiny minority don't dual-boot with Windows.

The few people who do 'convert' to Linux, imho, often do so because they want to run Unixy applications, not because they prefer it as a desktop environment. Infact, I'd venture so far to as that many who use it either grudgingly tolerate or even hate its inadequacies, but still use it as a tool to access the apps they want like they do with Windows XP.

Re:Mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Linux in 1994 because of the limitations of the file system at the time. The 8.3 name format was too annoying to even conceive of why they would ever implement such a system. Also because windows crashed on me several times a day and I had to reinstall it completely every few months to fix problems. I had only tried windows for about a year, moving from a C128 box that I was running GEOS on, and even that ancient environment was superior to windows.

I saw a bunch of people huddled around a monitor trying to get X-11 running on a .99 version of Linux. I got interested and found out about Linux. I downloaded it from MIT to over 50 floppy disks and got it installed on my 386 box at home. Very nice, and instantly superior to Windows in speed, performance, features that I needed and reliablity. One of the cool things I did back then was to hook up a terminal to use to program in, next to the computer and it's monitor. On the rare occasion when X locked up, many times I was able to restart just X from the terminal.

Of course, Linux does have a few warts, but so does any OS, you learn what they are and learn to work around them. Linux has far fewer Warts than any new version of Windows OS. The gradual, slow, methodical adding of new features while retaining old features in Linux and open source software tends to not create the steep learning curve of Windows with their new rewrites and new UI's every few years. One would have to be into pain to be an early adopter of any Windows offerings, running any Windows version before service pack 2 or 3 is a lesson on what "Beta" and "We rewrote all the code" really means.

Re:Mod up

[turbidostato]

"The truth is that no more than 1% of home users use Linux on the desktop, and only a tiny minority don't dual-boot with Windows.

The few people who do 'convert' to Linux, imho, often do so because they want to run Unixy applications, not because they prefer it as a desktop environment"

Well, if there is so few peple that use Linux exclusively, then even my single opinion must be a signficant share of the total so, for the record:

* I use Linux on my desktop.
* I don't dual-boot to Windows
* I don't use Linux because I want to run "linuxy applications"
* I do prefer KDE on Linux as my desktop environment of choice
* I am quite glad with my choice and I don't know about what inadequacies that I should grudgingly tolerate or even hate are you talking about
* Obviously you are absolutly and utterly wrong.

Re:Mod up

[justsomebody]

and only a tiny minority don't dual-boot with Windows.

Yeah, I admit it is (or it was) true. But as soon as person buys PS2 or other game console, the only reason for windows to exist on desktop dissapears. 99% of dual booting is just to play games.

I really don't see the use for personal desktop in Windows. What can it do? (and no, viruses I don't need. If I get virus better that I got it by sex, while spyware position is already taken by my annoying neighboors. All other jobs are much better performed with linux)

p.s. What would be Unixy app? Some Gay-MS-Word spellchecker result?

Re:Mod up

[Vireth]

The number of people using Linux to browse the internet seems to have actually declined since Windows XP came out

I would guess a large number of those Linux-using internet browsing persons are masking their browser IDs so pages will think they're using IE. For me, my bank won't even attempt to load some pages of its site unless I use IE, so I tell Konqueror to announce itself as IE 6 on WinXP. There's tons of sites out there that do the same.

And where exactly are you getting your figures from about "Linux's total real end-user marketshare"?

Re:Mod up

[renoX]

> Yeah, I admit it is (or it was) true. But as soon as person buys PS2 or other game console, the only reason for windows to exist on desktop dissapears. 99% of dual booting is just to play games.

Even if it was true, a console is not a replacement of a PC: try using a console for playing a flight sim for example.

it's not windows they hate

[smindinvern]

I switched to linux about 4 years ago. At the time, I was one of those l337 h4x0rZ all into windoze kind of people, I really didn't have any reason to switch to linux except that a friend recommended it to me. I don't think that the majority of people switch because they hate windows, or even the cost of it. I think it's a whole lot more common that someone hear about it, or something that it can do, or something that it supports, and their curious and try it out. Just my opinion, but that's the way it was for me, and most people who tell me about their 'conversion'.

Why would I want to switch to Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I started using 4.3BSD on a VAX. I did not have a desktop, I had a vt100 terminal. I used vi and ditroff with an HP LaserJet. I switched to SunOS 4.x on a Sun 3/60. I used vi/emacs/sc/xdvi/ghostscript and troff/LaTeX with an Apple LaserWriter (PostScript). I switched to BSDi on a Pentium 90. I used vi/emacs/LyX/Gnumeric/ghostview and LaTeX/HTML with an HP LJIIISi. I switched to RedHat Linux on a PIII. I switched to Debian Linux on a P4. I use Abiword and Kword and LyX and Gnumeric and Calc and OOo and Scribus and Inkscape and .... Why would I need to switch to Microsoft products?

Well, there's Linux, then there's Knoppix.

[ahfoo]

The question is a bit too broad. Linux can mean a hell of a lot of things.
        Personally, I've helped many people kick Windows for Knoppix because once you walk them past the perceived limitations of a read-only OS, they get to a point and a light goes off and they're like --bling! Oh yeah, why do I want my personal files mixed in with all that OS crap anyway? It's not like you can't save files. You just don't have to worry about someone else's files screwing with your system. It's like condom for the Internet data orgy. Once your OS is read-only it's like yeah, bring it on. I'll click that pop-up. What-me-worry?
        A read-only OS is the ultimate answer for security and system maintenance. For most people those issues are what makes computing a drag. For most people coming from Windows, just having a working browser and a set of basic productivity tools that simply don't break is more than enough to convince them.

I Switched and Switched Back

[Dink Paisy]

I switched to Linux in 1998, and used it almost exclusively until 2002. Then I switched back to Windows.

I used Linux because it was more convenient. I was writing a lot of code that had to run on UNIX systems, and it was nice to be able to write and compile it on my home computer. I also had better connectivity; the Windows terminal programs I had at the time were quite lacking. I did use Windows for a while in the summer of 2000, when I had a job writing code for Windows and Macintosh.

Qualifying the reason I switched back is harder. I had an interview with Microsoft in 2001, and although I didn't accept their offer, I was quite impressed by the people I met while interviewing. So after I got frustrated with the distribution I had been trying in 2002, I decided to give Windows a try again. Windows certainly isn't perfect, but overall it has been a much less frustrating experience than Linux was. A big part of that is Cygwin, which has helped smooth out a lot of the rough edges that Windows has. My regular environment now includes the Windows port of Vim, Cygwin/X, and VNC, but I still find that Windows is more convenient than Linux is.

I no longer have Linux installed on either of my home computers, but I still use Linux almost every day at school. The biggest reason is that rebooting annoys me, so since I completed the switch back to Windows, I've rarely used Linux at home. I miss it at times, not so much since the connectivity of Windows to Linux is good, but there are still a few things I can do better with Linux. For example, gcc on Linux is more compatible with gcc on Linux than gcc on Cygwin. I'd really like a low cost virtualization option so that I could run Linux without rebooting.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[Anonymous Coward]

You might already be running this, but microsoft (i think they've discontinued it) has a product called "Services for Unix". Its a cd (I found in the licensing pack of my employer) that installs all kinds of great unix tools, like top, vi, cat, ls (including ls -l).

When I am forced to use a windows computer, its nice to have SFU on it: then (most) of my unix commands work there.

Disclaimer: I'm a linux user ... used it once in 1996 and got hacked...back to windows until 2002 when I made the full switch.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[RandomCoil]

Is "free" a sufficiently low cost for virtualization? I very quickly installed Ubuntu using the instructions below on a Win2k and XP machine. The article links to a more complex instruction set on hackaday.com. The comments in that article include information about generating new file systems from scratch using qemu.

http://valentinlaube.blogspot.com/2005/10/vmware-p layer-hacked.html

Good luck!

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[MyHair]

I'd really like a low cost virtualization option so that I could run Linux without rebooting.

VMWare has a free beta "player" now, and you should be able to download various VM images here and there...they offer a "browser appliance" VM from their site, and I was able to boot it to a KNOPPIX CD instead and reformat the virtual partition. I was trying to install Win2k3 but failed, but I don't expect there would've been a problem running debootstrap or another Linux installer using that VM with the free player.

I just recently got Xen set up on a second computer, so this free player is a tad late for me to want to use it much for linux.

Xen should be an interesting free VM machine with the next generation of virtualizing CPUs, and I heard they had it running windows in alpha on current processors. But the VMWare beta player is free (as in beer) right now and works right now.

CoLinux is worth checking into, but it says it's not stable so I haven't put it on any halfway important PCs. I did see it--or at least the CoLinux TAP-TUN network adapter--last week in an embedded WinXP tablet for a specific industrial function, but I didn't get to play with the device long enough to see if it was actually running Linux under CoLinux in production.

Before hitting submit I checked to see if I'm cross-posting...yep. They mention QEMU and MS Unix services; I haven't tried QEMU and only toyed with Unix services. Guess I should throw in mention of Cygwin (very handy...love sshd on Windows) and bochs, but bochs is slow and Cygwin has limits depending on what you want from Linux. (Cygwin is an awesome toolset to add to Windows, though.)

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[slackmaster2000]

"I used Linux because it was more convenient. I was writing a lot of code that had to run on UNIX systems, and it was nice to be able to write and compile it on my home computer. I also had better connectivity; the Windows terminal programs I had at the time were quite lacking. I did use Windows for a while in the summer of 2000, when I had a job writing code for Windows and Macintosh."

When I was in college my geek buddy and I had slackware running on one of our machines and we used it for a lot of projects...much easier to work at home than to try and get on an x terminal at school. Anyhow, for the most part it worked out cool. But then during a big opengl project in '95 or '96, we were pushing it to the last minute and had to run to campus to demonstrate our project to the professor. It was that day that I realized that OSF on Alpha was going to be just a wee bit different than Linux on x86. Hehe :) Damn thing wouldn't compile but luckily we did get a few extra hours after explaining the situation.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[Pentavirate]

Try the vmplayer from vmware.com. Their browser application virtual machine is a full blown ubuntu install.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[pherthyl]

May I ask which part of Windows was more convenient? I'm not criticizing, but it is good to hear specific criticism so they may be fixed.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[metamatic]

FYI, Linux has improved an amazing amount in the last 3 years. I'd strongly recommend giving MEPIS a try. (It's Debian with better hardware detection and a better installer, on a bootable CD.)

Also, unless you're running Linux for the games, I'd suggest you consider running Windows in a VM inside Linux, rather than the other way around.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[jrock-jr]

Windows certainly isn't perfect, but overall it has been a much less frustrating experience than Linux was.

I would agree....to some extent. For the desktop, yes, Windows is much less of a hassle when you want things to work out of the box and get going on whatever you need to do. Sure, with windows you need to install a b'jillion patches after install, but when was the last time it took you under 15 mins to get your decent sound card to work under linux?
As for a server though, I wouldnt trade a linux server for windows. Linux handles the details of operation very well, but windows just works. At the end of the day, I rather keep my hands off the keyboard and click my way around the OS, which is a lot easier on windows.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[wrecked]

I'd really like a low cost virtualization option so that I could run Linux without rebooting.

You should try Cooperative Linux. From their website, they describe it as:

"Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally, Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows 2000/XP, without using a commercial PC virtualization software such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any general purpose PC virtualization software."

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[skiman1979]

I'd really like a low cost virtualization option so that I could run Linux without rebooting.

I've actually been using VMware for that. I realize VMware workstation isn't free, but VMware just recently released VMware Player for free. I have a dual-boot XP/Gentoo system at home. I created a virtual machine under VMware workstation 5 that I use to access my Gentoo system under VMware, even though Gentoo itself is installed _outside_ VMware. So I can either boot into XP, boot into Gentoo, or boot into XP and run the same Gentoo install under VMware. Since VMware player is free, if you can get a virtual machine created, you should be able to use it under the Player to access your Linux system without rebooting. It works great for me, but that's under VMware Workstation, not the player.

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[cyberthanasis12]

Well, my SuSE 9.3 Linux recognised my sound card (integrated in the motherboard) perfectly and automatically.
WINXP didn't. I had to search for the drivers and it took me about 1 hour.
Actually, Linux installation lasted half an hour, with all drivers and tons of apps and no reboots. On the other hand WINXP installation lasted for the better part of a day. I include the time for the installation of FOSS apps (openoffice, gimp, python, gcc, firefox etc.)

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[dcapel]

A free version of VMware perhaps?

vmplayer.com

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[antikristian]

Qualifying the reason I switched back is harder. I had an interview with Microsoft in 2001

MSguy:We just have one final question; Have you ever tried Linux?
Dink:Yes, in fact I use it allmost exclusively!
MSguy2: *caugh*loser*caugh*
MSguy: Sorry, we can not employ people who are potentially violating SCO IP
Dink:Oh my, I had no idea, I'll change!! Can I not just quit using linux?
MSguy2:Yeah, like we have a six month quarrantine or something
Dink:I'll download a Windows copy today, I swear!!!

Re:I Switched and Switched Back

[dbIII]

I'd really like a low cost virtualization option so that I could run Linux without rebooting.

Qemu - Metropipe linux has a small linux distro that runs under it so you can run linux as an application on a MS windows system from a USB stick.

Applications

[QuaintRealist]

I agree - this describes why many people (myself included) switch. To paraphrase James Carville, "it's the applications, stupid". After years of using OS/2 and Windows 9x, I watched my brother-in-law scroll through a list of free debian apps until he found what he needed to solve an engineering problem.

Wow!

So I set up debian on an old box, and proceeded to duplicate all of features I used in our medical practice. I was sold, and although I use Slackware now, could never go back to "I need $functionality, so I'll need to go spend more money to get it".

If I use software at work, I support the people who wrote it, too. Applications sell the OS, which has worked in Microsoft's favor for years. Increasingly, this is working for Linux

Re:Applications

[DRobson]

Similar for me. Just switched over a few days ago as I was sick of spending hours recompiling libraries, dependencies and other assorted programming bits after the inevitable rot of the operating system. Now I just click on a library I want, wait 10 minutes and away I go. No fuss.

Re:Applications

[Anonymous Coward]

This a really good point since, what's the point of a good OS when there's no apps to complement it? The thing is, i'm sick and tired of Windows, i've tried several distro's lately (well, mainly ubuntu/kubuntu and open suse 10), and while suse really seems very polished (it's still on my dual-boot, *for now*) the apps keep me away. I work mainly in web enviroments but multimedia is also a big deal for me (i don't watch/don't care about TV), and while loading up a .avi is kinda easy after installing the relevant decoders, something as simple as loading *subtitles* is way too overlooked: kaffeine only loads them if their filename is the same as the .avi (duh), inside the app no simple menu option to load subtitles (?); mplayer has that option, but loadind the subtitle just stops playing the .avi (?); xine also has that option but loading the subtitle just leaves me the file-dialog open and keeps playing the movie (with no subtitles..).

  So i'll just keep using Windows until all you uber-geeks decide upon making linux more user-friendly, and i just don't mean a "pretty desktop and menu", i mean apps that are conceived with functionality in mind!

Best of both worlds

[soikoban]

Why switch? I use both, XP for gaming and Linux for all the other things at home. At work, we use XP on the desktop (reason being office, obviously) and Linux on some of our servers.

Because it's hard, because it's for devs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm finishing my Soft. Ing. degree.
For 5 years I've been a technician and purely operated in the Windows world. I've pretty much done all there is to do in this domain, I need a new field of expertise.

Now, I think that Unix skills are a must and do the necessary to learn them. For everything 'server', it can't be beat. Moreover, I'm a developper, so having the code handy is always a big plus.
Now, if I, as a user, make the switch, it doesnt mean much. What means much is when a professionnal entity makes the switch, because those needs professionnal support and that's where you can live off Open source software as a dev.

My clients switch because I recommend it.

[mw13068]

Usually it goes something like this:

1. Frustrated client calls me for the third time this year complaining of virus/spyware outbreak on their Windows computer.
2. I calmly suggest that I can solve the problem for good, and all the software I would use will cost them nothing. I also provide a reduced hourly rate for the first few hours after doing the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux.
3. While I'm installing the GNU/Linux system, I tell them about Free Software, and let them know how the new system is different from Windows.

Out of the dozen or so clients (mostly home users) that I've switched, only one of them has gone back to Windows. And that person still calls me to come fix spyware problems...

I occasionally get questions from the others about how to actually *use* their computer to do useful work, rather than how to *fix* their computer.

It's very refreshing for them and me.

Cash.

[isbhod]

Plain and simple; cold hard cash. I ain't gots it, and i needs it to use MS products (well at least i'm suposed too, but shhhhh), I don't needs it to use Linux. Therefore Linux wins.

Solid Servers

[johnjaydk]

I do telecom for a living and simply won't accept anything that's not solid. 24/7/365.25 is not just a requirement in telecom. It's standard business practice. We measure anual downtime in minutes. I can get that with Linux and solid hardware. End of Story.

Built in packaging

[DesiVideoGamer]

I use Ubuntu. If I want to install a new package, all I have to do is type in the name of the package in to Synaptic and it takes care of the rest. Having the ability to browse though all available software is huge plus. It is also really nice to have all the updates to my software in just one place. That is the kind usability I found to be lacking in Windows so I switched.

I switched from Win2K to Fedora Core 4 x86_64

[Anonymous Coward]

I choose Linux because:
- Tired of this Windows upgrade cycle (my big HDs >137GB needed WinXP with SP). Vista looming out there.
- SSH remotely into my box. Can't run a remote GUI over dialup like remote desktop in windows
- Apache / PHP / MySQL for my web pages (plus I could modify write on the same system that is the server)
- Lots of choices, not just 1 (Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu or Mandrake or ect vs WinXP)
- Wanted to really use my 64-bit CPU

Things I realized I really like that I didn't know about before the switch
- MPlayer (and mencoder) IS AWESOME. MPlayer > WMP
- MPlayer plugin for Firefox lets me save embedded streaming videos
- Don't need to reboot the machine. STABLE AS A ROCK.
- Great hardware auto-detection (the only driver I've installed was the NVidia one, otherwise it has supported my mobo, printer, etc with no additional drivers needed)
- Games for Linux are just as easy to install and play (like Quake, Doom, etc)
- Desktop background slideshow (kinda silly, but I like it, and I don't have it in Windows)
- KDevelop for hacking code
- Comes with most software I had to install (and reboot with) in Windows (CD Burner prog, Firefox, Open Office, IDE, IM client, Media Players, Gimp, etc)
- Never have to worry about the registry, disk defragging, system bogging down, etc
- The whole nerd satisfaction of using Linux over Windows
- Command line is awesome with history, autocomplete, grep, locate, etc
- Man pages (it comes with the documentation that you need)
- Wine for those apps I miss from Windows

I could go on and on. But the bing thing is that as I've grown into Linux, I find more and more things that it does that are superior to Windows, and Linux features that I miss in Windows (I still have to use Windows at work)

Gnome is why I switched.

[AntEater]

After using OS X extensively, I found myself constantly lost in the dizzying array of options. That's why I switched to a Linux distribution running Gnome. The elegant simplicity and elimination of all those confusing options.

girls

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Linux so I could get all the girls! girls dig linux geeks, right! right? oh someone please tell me I'm right about that....

I'm a long term Linux user...

[gowen]

... and here's an odd story. My fiancee uses Windows XP, and I try and keep it up to date with the latest updates. One update (Outlook spam filter, and an Office patch IIRC) failed to work. That wasn't a surprise, sometimes this happens on many OS's. What was weird was that the error message was in two parts:

i) The error message said : "Install Failed due to Error Code 0x5F"
ii) When I looked up on KB what this meant it said: Unknown error. Try searching on the internet for help.

This amused me intensely. When I started with Linux 10 years ago, one of the jokes was that when programs failed, all you got was a cryptic message and an imprecation to ask on Usenet. Now, it seems, Microsoft have gone the same route for tech support.

(Found the solution: I had to install some Dev Kit and use it to deactivate error reporting. Took a fair while though -- God damn community supported OS's like Windows XP will never be reliable :) )

Still on windows

[Brad_sk]

I am using Windows mainly because its available everywhere (school, work...). I would love to try Linux but I am little scared from the endless installation process involved (especially 'X' system). Also, I should say that I am bit disappointed after using Mozilla thunderbird. Hope other open source products keep up to their hype.

Quotes from the Article less than "Insightful"

[decipher_saint]

Ok, so why people switch according to the quotes from the Article:

I just wanted to try something different

Ok, curiousity, check

because my best friend was a Gentoo-fan, he set up Gentoo for me

Ok, crammed down throat, check

I changed to Linux because of the Fiddle factor

Ok, nerd factor (this would be my factor too mostly I guess), check

It took me about a year to switch from W2K to Linux

Ok, this is a how not a why.

I first tried Linux out of curiousity mainly

Curiosity, check-check

windows 3.1 on 286 what a nightmare... Saw QNX and wanted it for years ...Windows 95 (was) ok but lacked the ability I had on the VIC 20

Anti-Microsoft, check

Running a Windows enterprise was like working in the emergency room

Anti-Microsoft, check

Curiosity is a big factor, the tinkerability appeals to some, word of mouth (or in the quoted case force of hand) and of course "Microsoft is teh suck".

NOW, I've been reading /. since 1998 (and, yes, I am a Windork mostly because of work but also because of games) but even lowly I could have given you this list without even blinking.

The one post I'd like to see would be "I had to switch to Linux at work and turned out I love it and installed it at home".

Re:Quotes from the Article less than "Insightful"

[kryten_nl]

The one post I'd like to see would be "I had to switch to Linux at work and turned out I love it and installed it at home"

Your wish is my command...(internship counts too, doesn't it?)

Re:Quotes from the Article less than "Insightful"

[farquharsoncraig]

The first time I heard the apparition "Linux" was way back in 1996 and all it amounted to was a tantalizing buzzword. "Linux? Must be like UNIX, so probably is really expensive and doesn't run on a PC." In late 2002 I began working at a university doing undergraduate research in particle physics. My first day there the project's head engineer sat me down in front of a black box terminal having a capacious 8 MB of local memory still sporting the surplus sale price tag ($8.00) and monstrosity of a CRT monitor that should have had its life ended 10 years ago. The terminal was running an ancient CTWM off from a RH-6.2 server. He sat me down in front of the terminal and showed me some of the basic commands of the shell, how to open netscape and emacs. Emacs kept coming up with an intriguing message about some Gnu's Manifesto which I eventually read and my mind was opened. Free Software is like scientific collaboration. "Why doesn't everyone see this? Why don't they see that it is absurd to sell something that of itself has no unique value?" In a scientific context the issue of the free sharing of knowledge is a matter of course.

I went from a mildly agnostic MS fanboy to a die hard GNU philosopher. 5 months later my first computer was running RedHat 8.0. In fact wanting to have my own Linux system was the reason I got a computer. Linux sells hardware, at least in my case. (-: Although I did manage to obtain a cracked version of XP and set it up to dual boot with RedHat after a few days I realized how hypocritical I was. As a result I destroyed every CD I owned of non-Free software (not that many, though, mainly cheap stuff that came "free" with textbooks).

"I had to switch to Linux at work and turned out I love it and installed it at home," check.

Anger Management

[gnuLNX]

I switched as a means of managing my anger. I was literally punching the front of my new Compaq computer in. I had windows 98 (first edition) and it literally locked up every night. I could not write a paper for school on it with out having to save the document every couple of minutes. It took my quite a while to qet linux up and working with X. I had an onboard video card at the time that was not supported at all. The entire installation was done from floppy disks which I spent most of the night downloading.

Linux has truely grown into a great desktop OS from it's humble begginings. I do realize that most of the Windows stability issues have been fixed. Howeer I have no reason to switch back. Linux does everything I want it to.

Why Do People Switch To Linux?

[caudron]

For the chicks.

I switched because of all the 'tang I knew I'd score being a Linux stud. Is there another reason?

Re:Why Do People Switch To Linux?

[Rob_Ogilvie]

Is that why the girls started falling all over themselves to get a piece of me? It was like that Axe Body Spray commercial there for a while!

Never cared for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked for an alternative to Windows when Win95 came out. I looked into IBM's OS/2. But found it just couldn't serve my purposes. Then in 1999 I upgraded my motherboard to one with a via chipset, which didn't like Win95 much. And at the time I wasn't up to getting Win98. SO I tinkered with linux. I started with Debian on Floppies. I stumbled in the dark with command line for a month learning the new file system and permissions. Then Corel Linux got me started in the GUI. And Finally Mandrake 7.0 got me to convert. I've jumed back to Debian for a while but came back to Mandrake in 10.0. I still keep a Win98 partition for my old programs and games I still use. But my work and new stuff is all in Mandrake. It is also a matter of keeping an older box working without bogging it down with a bloated OS. I haven't bought a new Windows version yet.

I didn't switch ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed linux, 'cause ever since i used
computers, there was always this ominous
*nix thing everybody was talkin about.
really l33t was only if you knew *nix :P
linux is *nix and so it is available for free
and you can install it on any x86 computer.
so something like 20 years after birth
of *nix i can play around with it too.
i mean *nix and internet are "synonymous".
the web might be abit ms, but the internet
overall is *nix. and without linux prolly
there would still not be a gui in the *nix
world...
anyway, i have enslaved my win boxes behind
a neat-o linux server. bind, apache, squid,
dhcp, samba etc. is all on the server, e.g.
linux. i never use the linux box. it just sits
there and does all the "heavy lifting" :)))
thank you very much anyway!
p.s. why is the transfer rate of my
"sony" dvd-recorder something like 120 kb/sec?
yesterday it would have taken like 7 hours
for the transfer of a 700 mp4 movie from
dvd to samba (serving a open wireless network,
*wink*wink*) ...

Re:I didn't switch ...

[Stupendoussteve]

X was around before linux, check wikipedia man. 1984. MIT. Before X was W, and there was a GUI before that too.

I don't want to count how many types you put "*nix" in there. It's ok to say Unix, or POSIX compliant, or learn to write english without referring to the subject every two words.

Local computer shop

[tootired]

A local shop here in Baton Rouge, Louisiana sells $99.00 Pentium III systems (Computer, Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse) with linux (Ubuntu) on them for first time buyers looking to get broadband. They also recommend them as a second computer alternative for people's kids.

I think if more shops started doing this, people wouldn't be as afraid of linux and would embrace the elegance of such a solution.

Why I switched again

[twocoasttb]

I switched to linux a few years ago but switched again (to a Mac and OS X) about a year later. The amount of time I spent making things work was frustrating and irritating. Sure, it felt better than being beholden to Microsoft and the challenge was fun for a while, but in the long run I decided that my productivity was more important than wondering why my kernel doesn't support 'X' or why I can't get that piece of hardware to work. I continue to run Linux on our servers (for database and email) and boy-oh-boy is that ever better than dealing with the Windows platform. I can, for the most part, just leave that stuff alone and it works and works well. But for day-to-day desktop work, I'd be pretty reluctant to go back, even if I do have to give Steve Jobs $180 dollars every year or so to stay current.

Trollish Quote

[ryanvm]

This is such a troll, but it's still a funny and apropos quote:

Linux is for people who hate Microsoft... BSD is for people who love Unix.

Re:Trollish Quote

[maxwell demon]

I guess people who both hate Microsoft and love Unix need dual-boot?

What I would find more interesting...

[buddyglass]

...is a series of interviews with users who switched to Linux then subsequently switched back to either Windows or OSX. Or, alternately, users acquainted with Linux from a development or support perspective but who refuse to migrate. I probably fall into the second category, though I've been contemplating giving SuSE 10 a whirl.

Why switch?

[caffeinatedOnline]

Being a self confessed computer geek, from coding 10 Goto ... when I was 5 on a Commodore Vic 20 to now making a nice living coding C#, I really have always wondered why people have such a hard time with Windows? Never have looked at Linux (heck, I mispronounce it half the time... is it lin-ux or lie-nux?! j/k), what doesn't work right the first time with windows, what crashes all the time, what can you not do that you want to do? Thinking about it, yes, I will admit that I am a fan-boi of Windows. Flame me if you wish, (and I am sure that I am about to get scorched) but if I ever run across something that I want to do in Windows and unable to, I'll just sit down and write an app that will let me. Sure, I have to pay for software and the OS. But it's because of the software and the OS that I am able to support my family and my lifestyle. I guess I just don't understand what the draw of Linux is...

It's more interesting looking BACK at Windows

[syntap]

I've made the switch, but just the other day had a friend complain because he changed out his blown MB on his XP box and was having problems with the XP license validation "feature" that checks for hardware changes. It all seemed so foreign... I said "you've gotta be shitting me... you paid for it and STILL can't run it?"

Re:It's more interesting looking BACK at Windows

[tootired]

I cannot tell you how many times I've had to deal with this for friends, family, acquaintances, etc.

I've probably spent 30 hours on the phone with that automated b#&ch repeating the cd key.

All in all, I only use an windows machine to get my shows off tivo. I use OSX for design work and all my servers are liunx.

Re:It's more interesting looking BACK at Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I have never heard about anyone having a problem like this.
I don't know about you but don't you think this would be a lot more common?

I am not saying you are lying, but...

Re:It's more interesting looking BACK at Windows

[Stupendoussteve]

You sir, are an idiot. Two things:

1. If you change the Mobo, ram, hard drive, or any other big hardware, Windows wants you to reactivate. If you do it over three times, Windows makes you call microsoft

2. Automated lady really is a pain. She never finds the CD key like she promises she'll try to, then when you talk to a real person they only want the first five digits, instead of the whole freaking thing

The only reason it wouldn't be widespread is if you always use the same hardware every time you install. If you just reinstall on your Dell, then it won't happen. But if you've actually changed things, or got a new system without an OS, you will have the problems mentioned above.

Why I switched or why the company I work is?

[msimm]

I did it because I felt like Windows was artificially limited in its flexability (which it is, for reason I appreaciate and understand better now). The business I work for is switching because Linux servers are A) better supported, both through companies and the community B) cost. Of course we switched from Solaris which has...erm, dropped in price. But I still prefer trouble shooting a semi-obscure Linux problem then just about any Solaris problems I've seen.

User friendly

[aurb]

I switched to linux because windows wasn't user friendly enough...

Battle for the Soul of Software

[kremehild]

One of the more sublime and grand battles going on right now is for the heart and soul of software. This battle I speak of has to do with the future vision of computing, and is, of course, the battle between closed and open source software. This is, in my opinion, a serious matter, the result of which will determine the course of events for centuries to come. Simply put, I am a hard-line open source supporter, and will endeavor to do all within my limited means to help them win this war. This includes using Linux.

Linux and open source epitomy of free market

[Safe Sex Goddess]

I believe that in a truly free market everything, except labor, would reach a point where it has no cost. And that's why I have Linux installed on my PC at home and have tried to learn a little bit about it. To show my support for free markets.

Obviously, software is one of the easiest markets for this to happen in because the resources needed to produce software are very cheap.

Probably the most important first step in reducing the cost of material things to $0 is free energy. That's where we should concentrate.

Burnout

[sladey_slater]

I switched because I work on MS servers, MS desktops, and a network powered by MS. When I come home, I want something that's not going to 'hurt my eyes,' that 'just works,' and that doesn't require all the overhead required to pamper a windows box.

Why I haven't switched to Linux

[galaxyboy]

I would generally be happy to deal with a few quirks in Open Source software on Linux in exchange for the many benefits that the community provides. The major reason I haven't switched is because of the lack (that I know of) of budgeting and tax software for Linux. I love Quickens ability to download my transactions from my financial institutions automatically and I love doing my taxes electronically. Are there Open Source equivalents to these products?

I think this brings up a general problem in that Windows is generally supported first by software and a lot of hardware where Linux is either an afterthought or it is supported soley by the community and therefore there is a lag time for getting the functionality I want.

Maybe it has been a while since I used Linux for "consumer" activities. Maybe it has improved enough to use. The fact is that most customers don't want to write device drivers or software for the problem that isn't yet solved.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Janax]

Try gnucash or kmymoney2. Both have OFX support and provide things like dual-entry accounting, account management, etc.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Jonny_eh]

If it's merely a Windows app keeping you from switching, it may be worthwhile to buy the $40 crossover office, I believe it supports Quicken.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[CrazedWalrus]

GNU Cash is a very capable account-management package. It's the only one I know of, but I like it a lot. I can download Quicken files from my bank and load them directly into GNUCash.

As for tax returns, I just use H&R Block online, which works just ducky with Firefox (at least it did last year). That said, if you're using locally-installed software like TurboTax, try it under WINE. There's a good chance it'll work just fine. Anyone ever tried this?

I use Linux exclusively, and find that very few things don't work these days.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[robw810]

Check out MoneyDance - I've used it for over two years now, and it's great...

It's not free, but all software doesn't have to be free...

RW

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[galaxyboy]

Thanks for the information. Maybe I will venture again into the world of consumer Linux....just to try the various money apps that people have suggested. I have tried Wine in the past without much luck but perhaps that has improved somewhat in the last 4 years too.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[njcajun]

I found MoneyDance too, and like it a lot. If you've used quicken or MS Money before, it's going to be about 50 times more intuitive to use MoneyDance rather than GNUCash. The logic and model that gnucash uses to manage accounts makes my brain hurt.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[tomkins]

I was in the same boat until I realized that I never actually used the information that I put in quicken. So why bother? If you must, use MoneyDance and do your taxes online at http://www.turbotax.com/.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[optimus2861]

I love Quickens ability to download my transactions from my financial institutions automatically

I did too -- until Intuit disabled my version's online features to force an upgrade.

That was the day I moved to Gnucash and never looked back. I may not have my online features, but I'll be damned if I'll let some app vendor remotely shut off some functionality on me again for no good reason (and before anyone pipes in that Intuit may have had security reasons -- no, they didn't. I packet-traced what was going on at the time when I was figuring it out. Even when I downloaded my transactions from my bank's website directly and tried to import it to Quicken after disconnecting from my bank, Quicken would "phone home" to Intuit before processing it.)

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

WoW runs horribly in both Cedega and Wine, as does Ventrilo. Some of us don't have the option to use Teamspeak because everyone else uses Ventrilo. As to the WoW issues, I was able to get the bugs worked-around or fixed (couldn't click on NPCs or objects, ground circles didn't appear, couldn't change video settings in -opengl mode without crashing the client, etc). It was just laggier, plain and simple. glgears was giving me geat results, network connection seemed perfectly fine, but something about the game was just... Off. I've got scheduled MC & BWL raids to do, I can't take a couple of weeks to tweak this stuff out (and that's making the presumption that I could at all).

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these apps import a Quicken file that has been used for years? I'd like to keep my financial history.

Two things keep me on Winbloze:
-Quicken
-Games

As I grow older, games becomes less important. But quicken becomes more important...

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[oliverthered]

You do know that MS Money 2004 is rated gold in the Wine app db.

There are also lots of other financial software packages listed with varying states of functionality, if the software you want to use isn't fully supported and you've got a little bit of spaire time you can become an advocate for that application and help get it working by filing bug reports and regression testing.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[kill-469]

http://www.gnucash.org/

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Fallingcow]

If you want to be totally sure that it'll work, you can.. *ahem* "borrow" a copy of Crossover Office from many (not so) reputable bittorrent sites.

That way you won't be out $40 if it totally refuses to work or if the process of making it work is too complicated for you, and you can always buy the real deal if it turns out to be fine.

Or do they offer a trial version? I doubt it, but if they do, then that's an option.

Please do pay for it if it works. Really.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason #2 why I will always use the FOSS alternative. I can use a text pager to check that sort of thing ;).

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[galaxyboy]

if the software you want to use isn't fully supported and you've got a little bit of spaire time you can become an advocate for that application and help get it working by filing bug reports and regression testing.

Therein lies the problem. Most consumers are not interested in being beta testers. I will have to give Linux another try though. It sounds like it may have evolved a lot since I last tried it at home.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[Horatio_Hellpop]

What version of Quicken are you using?

In Quicken 2001, I use this process:

1. Open Quicken 2001
2. Open my browser go to www.mybank.com
3. Select my account, select 'download transactions into Quicken'
4. Browser starts the download, Quicken 2001 pops up, asking me to "connect to Quicken for registration." I let it try, then cancel the process.
5. I get a "an error has occured" message. I ignore it, click "cancel"
6. My transactions are then automatically (for reasons yet unclear, but unquestioned by me) loaded into Quicken 2001.

Don't know if this will work for you, but I haven't upgraded in ... well, four years.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[optimus2861]

It was Quicken 2000, and I didn't see any point to trying to work around it. Intuit clearly didn't want me using that version of Quicken any more, so I obliged them. I even went a step further and deduced they didn't want me as a customer any more. So far I've been faithful to their wishes in that regard.

Re:Why I haven't switched to Linux

[oliverthered]

Most customers are not interested in being beta testers.

And they install windows? On a more serious note, people should be encourage to join in with the OSS development process because:
1. It helps the development cycle.
2. It makes the customer think that the product is partly theirs.
3. And most importantly, people who file bugs or request features and see those features implemented will have a product that closer fits their needs.

All things that OSS has over most propitiatory software.

Why I switched

[frank378]

I switched in 1995 to Slackware Linux because:

I wanted to "learn UNIX" to beef up my resume but wasn't sure how to go about it

Windows had a very constraining feel to it. I felt like I'd learned all I could about it and was bored

Linux was free and I could not keep up with the Windows price tag

I came across the Volkerding Slackware book at a local bookshop and started from there

I tried RedHat in 2000-ish for about 6 months but was frustrated by RPM and a few other minor reasons. I enjoyed OpenBSD for a couple years too. I was more of a Linux zealot than I'd like to admit for a while. Now I just want to "get stuff done". Windows is great if I want to play games (it's good to have a pal at MS to avoid high prices!). Pretty much everything else I do now at home/work/school on a Sun workstation with all the open source goodies. I still run my services like mail, web, etc. on Slackware. Once in a while I use a Mac just because I think they are slick.

:)

laziness -- why else would you do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to a mostly-Linux environment for personal use in about '95 to'96; prior to that I did my real work in commercial unix environs. There was never any "cool" or "l33t" factor to it. It was purely sloth -- making linux work for my needs was much easier and less daunting than trying to guess what would need to be done under what was then either Windows 3 or 95. I had done some support of DOS and Windows in the small business market but that only fueled my desire for simple text files configurations on top of engines that either just worked or were amenable to repair. DOS wasn't intrinsically bad, just a little to raw for my tastes since I wasn't turned on by figuring out where to stuff TSR's to keep them from walking on each other. Windows was always an "I wonder why that happened" experience. Linux was pretty spartan at that time but it worked without too many mysteries.

Linux failure

[I_am_Rambi]

I've had Linux a few times fail on me. The only time it has failed though is when there is a hardware problem. Mostly hard drives going bad, causing the kernel to panic. Or even memory going bad causing the same thing. I have had Linux work perfectly on a machine were Windows had issues with the hardware (Windows gave signs that hardware was going bad)

Re:Linux failure

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mostly hard drives..."

Are these like partly soft drives?

Re:Linux failure

[linuxpyro]

I know what you mean. My Gentoo workstation used to crash a lot, mainly due to heat and bad RAM. Now it's pretty stable. I have a Gentoo Server back home that I used for OpenVPN, and managed to freeze that by using the ifconfig parameter in the OpenVPN config file (turned out I didn't need it, but it did seem strange). Other than that, though, Linux has been very stable for me.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[Trigun]

I switched just for the operating system. I was tire of not knowing what was going on with my windows box. Things would be running in the background that I had no idea what they were, and it takes a bunch of third party tools to figure it out. There was no easy way to tell exactly what was going on with my system. I would see a lot of rundll's a lot of svchosts, and various other processes that are part of the operating system, but aren't invoked by the operating system itself.
Windows has a way of hiding what is going on inside. I didn't like that. I didn't want to have to buy a bunch of tools to tear down my computer just to see what was happening. I also didn't like the registry. Some things are fairly easy to distinguish what they are, but other things are just plain cryptic. And if you decide to remove the wrong thing, you might as well just re-install.
So I did switch because of the core os. The applications that run on Linux are a bonus.

A few reasons I've noticed

[slackmaster2000]

1) It's fun. Pure and simple, it's just neat. It's a bit of a challenge (well it used to be) to get a system up and running with some cool desktop environment with all the bells and whistles. Or it's a challenge to get a minimal install running on some seriously old machine to use as a proxy server or something silly you thought up. I can't tell you how many machines that I've installed Linux on just for the hell of it.

2) It's free. While it may be born from a community of swell "information should be free" types, the simple fact that it costs *no money* is a major selling point (pun intended!).

3) Perceived security. Linux can be much more secure that Windows, and by default it often is. Of course I fell asleep behind the wheel of a Redhat machine once and got rooted, but I learned my lesson and I'm still convinced that it's a much more secure OS.

4) Perceived stability. This is one I don't go for, at least on the desktop. Maybe back in the Win9x days, yeah, but not anymore. I've had my share of kernel panics and we've all experienced irritating desktop bugs. On a server I do believe that Linux is more stable...if anything, it's *extremely* rare for a program to hose the machine and require a reboot, which does happen on Windows servers (well, a service might not hose the OS, but it might hose itself in such a way that it can't be restarted without a reboot).

5) Status. Coolness. Anti-corporate fantasies. People who wouldn't give a dollar to the red cross can still feel like they're doing something good by sticking it to the man. And since Windows is on 90% of the PCs out there, you get to feel like everybody else is a mindless sheep and you know something they don't. There's a lot of truth to all of this, but in most cases come on, we're just a bunch of guys playing on computers.

6) Configurability. Choice of desktop environments, widgets, etc. While Windows doesn't give you nearly the same options, most of the popular desktop environments for Linux don't give you a ton of options either unless you really want to work for em (see #1).

Personally I don't think that any Linux distro is user-friendly enough to replace Windows at this time FOR AVERAGE JOE BLOW USERS. It's sooooo close, but not there. Ubuntu is a serious step in the right direction. Everything that should be easy has got to be easy, and this isn't the case yet.

For domain servers in a windows workstation environment, I'd still choose a windows server because the management options are enormously beneficial. Everything has become very automated, giving me more time to post on slashdot :)

For web servers, special purpose servers, gateway machines, generic file servers, etc, I choose Linux. Security, stability, free. I also like not having to use a shell, and just whack at text files the old fashioned way. It can be very efficient.

Spell checking

[QuietLagoon]

From TFA: Is it logical that you'll win someone over by thretening them?

Is it logical to expect a writer to know how to spell or, at a minimum, know how to use a spell checker?

Don't assume people started with Windows. Or a GUI

[evilandi]

For people of my generation, brought up with the 8-bit computers of the 70's and 80's, it isn't so much a question of why we switched from Windows, but why we picked Linux as our PC platform.

Myself, I never saw a GUI as something useful beyond desktop work. For remote servers I find Windows cumbersome, bandwidth-hogging and prone to popping up some mandatory modal pop-up upon reboot before my remote control software kicks in- leaving me 5000 miles away with no access.

Servers, IMHO, don't need a GUI.

For my desktop, sure, I use Windows, because that's what my company supplied by default and that's what my games run on at home. But my desktop doesn't matter - it isn't where the real work is done.

I "switched" to Linux - for the stuff that mattered - because it was the most comfortable, familiar server OS that fitted with my commandline heritage and ran on hardware I could afford. I could have quite easily been a *BSD chap too.

Mostly when I am working

[MarkWatson]

I use Ubuntu Linux, Windows XP and OS X - but for different things. I like OS X for video editing, Garage Band, and sometimes RoR development. I use Windows XP for watching DVD movies, enjoying OMN.net, and when I have to use a customer's VPN. I use Linux for Java development with IntelliJ and RoR development using Eclipse+RDT+RadRails. Now, I can do Java and RoR development on any platform, but Linux seems like a more professional working environment to me because it does not have all the not-needed crap that gets installed with Windows and all the fun and distracting stuff in OS X.

The real trick is keeping all code, build files, design artifacts, etc. under source code control - then using any OS platform is easy - just do a quick cvs update, and working on any OS is easy. It helps that using any build files, IntelliJ, and Eclipse is all portable across operating systems.

Anyway, I look at Windows XP and OS X as enhancements to having Linux - best tool for the job. If I *had* to just use one OS it would probably be OS X (and give up any work that required a Windows-only VPN), but given that I have all three platforms available, I boot Linux about 70% of the time.

Anti-Microsoft? Not a reason

[jaymzter]

Switching to a GNU/Linux distribution because you're anti-Microsoft is not a long-term reason to switch. I switched because GNU/Linux was the only stable OS I could run. I got sick of Win95 crashing, Win98 crashing, and WinNT crashing, and being a new computer user, figured *something* better had to be out there. I heard about RedHat, tried it, and never looked back. Because it was *stable* (or more so, relatively speaking). I started using computers in 1997 and was on GNU/Linux by 1997.
It's the apps and the freedom, that's why people switch.

Re:Anti-Microsoft? Not a reason

[killjoe]

"Switching to a GNU/Linux distribution because you're anti-Microsoft is not a long-term reason to switch."

I disagree completely. It's a moral choice, much like buying dolphin safe tuna, organic fruits, or fair trade coffee or refusing to shop at walmart. Most people do not make moral choices when buying stuff but a significant minority does.

MS is an unethical company who abuses the marketplace and even their employees (as the temp fiasco shows). I don't shop at walmart, I don't buy MS products for the exact same reason. They are both sleazy unethical companies that don't deserve my money and ruin the community around them.

Re:Anti-Microsoft? Not a reason

[Weirdofreak]

Anti-MS sentiment was the reason -I- switched. That and all the cool kids were doing it.

I stayed because I realised what I'd been missing: good documentation.

Re:Anti-Microsoft? Not a reason

[crimson30]

I switched because GNU/Linux was the only stable OS I could run. I got sick of Win95 crashing, Win98 crashing, and WinNT crashing, and being a new computer user, figured *something* better had to be out there.

Well. Just so you know: Windows doesn't crash as much as it used to. I'm running Windows 2000 and my last reinstall having been over 6 months ago, it's only crashed like, 5 times this week. And unlike Win 95, a clean install lasts for well over a year... almost a year and a half under daily rigorous use.

Re:Anti-Microsoft? Not a reason

[MichaelSmith]

It's the apps and the freedom, that's why people switch.

My sister lives in a share house with a rotating population of housemates. She had this win98 system on a DSL line. Due to various virus infestations and attempted fixes by partially skilled people it was a totally rooted computer at the end of two years.

I installed Ubuntu for her and I have only heard good things from her about it ever since. As far as I can tell she only runs firefox. It sits quietly in the living room, takes care of itself, and doesn't give any trouble.

Reasons for my switch

[Flounder]

I was a Mac user for a long time, only switching to Windows for financial reasons (cheaper to build a cheap PC than buy a cheap Mac).
I tried Linux off and on the past few years, finally moving to Linux full-time a year ago. First with Mandrake 10.1, now with SUSE 9.3 (probably upgrade to OpenSUSE 10 in the near future).
I switched for three reasons. First and foremost, I got tired of spending more time dealing with spyware and viruses than actually working. Second, I'm developing a Java3d-based web game, and wanted to ensure cross-platform compatability. And, third, the free-as-in-beer software eliminates the guilt due to pirated software (Office and Photoshop are frigging expensive).
About the only thing I miss is game compatability. If a native Linux client ever comes out for Civ3, Civ4, BF2 or GTA:SA, I'm screwed productivity-wise.

Re:Reasons for my switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

Where do i download freee OpenSuse 10 64-bit version? I have already checked on novell site. They all are eval verions unless you pay.

Thanks.

sithu
sithumail@gmail.com

Re:Reasons for my switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Google for "FreeCiv".

Why I switched ...

[richg74]

I've been using Linux for ~95% of my business, and exclusively for my personal work, for about 2.5 years now. Although I don't have a very high opinion of Microsoft's business practices, that had little to do with making the switch.

I'm part of a small IT consulting firm that works primarily with folks in "quantitative" areas: engineering and some parts of finance. We had done some development for Windows (mainly NT and 2000), but were getting more and more frustrated with the constraints of that environment. Since we all had experience using various flavours of Unix, Linux seemed an obvious choice.

My/our main reasons for switching were:

• Much better system reliability and stability
• Better software development environment and tools, especially for "middleware" components
• Easier integration of components from different sources
• Availability of the source -- because it is the best documentation

That it's free (as in beer) is just a nice added extra.

The apps

[Immercenary_2000]

I switched out of curiosity but I stayed because of the apps. Most distros have so much stuff out of the box that you either have to pay for or is shareware in the windows world. Take CD burining for example. Yes i know i could use the built in features of windows xp but I really don't like it. Nero is pretty good but you have to buy it. K3b on the other hand does everything I need, is free, and never pesters me to register or any other such nonsense. Another big thing is apt-get which is lightyears ahead of installing software in windows.

It was political

[Anonymous Coward]

There were stories that Windows would report back to Microsoft about everything you had on your computer. I had a problem with that, the cops can't search my computer without a warrant and I'm not about to let anyone else invade my privacy like that. Then they brought out the first versions of XP. You couldn't even change a memory stick without phoning for a new activation number. That was it. I installed Mandrake on my desktop. That was easy and worked flawlessly. At that point, I was willing to install it on my laptop. That was a bit of an ordeal. Then I installed it at work. I have been told that later versions of XP weren't as anal about letting you change things on your computer but it was too late. I see no good reason to switch back.

Actually, now if I sit in front of a Windows box, I feel helpless. I can do way more things in Linux than I ever did in dos/windows.

I switched becuase

[dbgeek]

I have been dual booting for a long time. But switched completely becuase Windows 64 Bit Evaluation version Sucks on my new AMD 64 bit SLI system. Half the compnents didn't detect or no drivers available. I am happy with SUSE 9.3 x64 Also I switched becuase I could! Also I swiched becuase verizon gave me only 300 minutes for 29.99:)

Open Office & after

[ir0b0t]

I'm a non-coder professional who recently moved my office desktop to linux from Windows XP. (i.e. I don't know much about much when it comes to the mysterious boxes my office needs to do its thing.) I was able to madk the change by installing Open Office on Windows and practicing with it.

After I was comfortable with it and had moved over all of my many, many forms and other documents needed to run my office, I moved the rest of the way to linux. I chose Mandriva with a Gnome desktop. Though I have not found an open source counterpart for every proprietary application I used before, with Open Office I could make it work.

Why move to a linux desktop? Lots of reasons, but, at the top, I guess it felt to me that every time I turned around, another sales rep was billing me for another upgrade or another license.

If it wasn't that type of bill, it was a bill from technical support to fix a problem that did not exist before I made some vendor-mandated change to my office system. My old documents don't open any more. The formatted is messed up. That feature I need so much has been moved. Etc.

I'm embarrassed by how much money I spent for a technical support providers that ended up talking on the phone with the technical support provider of another vendor. To my mind, that's a ridiculous situation that is largely remedied by the open source approach.

It has been a long, steep hill to be sure. I am never going to look back though.

There is a lot more to say on this subject, but these reasons are at the top of my list.

Re:Open Office & after

[Anonymous Coward]

I think learning how to fix problems in Windows without paying for tech support is much easier than moving to a whole new system and abandoning tech support immediately.

Re:Open Office & after

[Yes BlueBerries]

With the GUI modes in Linux the interface can be very graphical and not that hard for someone to learn. An older friend of mine who doesn't own a PC used some PC with older Windows software and had an easier time learning Solaris to do a new job and like several other people were she works the switch to Windows made several tasks harder to do. During the newer training to Windows she had several questions of "with UNIX we can do ... to fix a customers problem how do we do it with Windows" and the trainer gave it can't be done or I don't know quite a few times. A few years later when they had a strike I asked her if the managers had to try and use Windows to complete the tasks and she said was suprized I remembered what she said earlier and said "No, they pulled out some UNIX boxes and they used them".

Note every major OS upgrade requires learning new skills, and with Windows Office software compatiblity to older versions stops after a few upgrade versions. He stated that he needed support that would work with older features, OpenOffice.org has people who continually work on improving some of the backward compatiable conversion. I have found OpenOffice to work good when I owned Office97 and went to a school that used Office2000 and possibly some newer versions in some labs I used, it had some quirks in the earlier versions but now does an excellent job compared to MS Office between different versions 97 and 2000 on different OS's Windows 98, and newer versions like NT, 2000,.... When my motherboard had a proprietary part die and I found out the OEM copy of Windows 98 would no longer install since I upgraded my hard drive and gave the old one away, I had to switch to my Linux box and StarOffice /OpenOffice (buying it StarOffice was cheaper than new OS/motherboard). I played with StarOffice when it was a free Beta and wish they would bring back the calendaring software, but with Evolution on Linux it doesn't matter. Not everyone gets a raise every year and for further training sometimes you don't make as much as before. Also note he was getting tired of the upgrades that sometimes gave him less of the features he had before or broke other things.

Note support for most operating systems can to done by Googling for the right solution. I like Clusty http://clusty.com/ because the subgroup the general terms into smaller groups automatically and yes they have a toolbar for your browser. Learning is good and the backup of files is a good practice everyone should be doing (should be done for every major software upgrade). Note like my switch from Windows 3.1 to 95 being able to switch back because things don't work is a good thing just in case. Windows/hard drive didn't like switching between OS's a dozen times and Linux found my Dell monitor better than Windows 95. I had to disable the monitor and on the second try windows finally worked, tech support didn't give any help. Use Clusty to find the answers and pick the cluster on the left to narrow selection to the right answer.

Re:Open Office & after

[ir0b0t]

You're assuming that knowing a particular version of Windows is enough to keep an office with a unique cluster of proprietary applications running. That's an expensively flawed assumption.

The problem I encountered was in the interaction --- or lack thereof rather --- between the different generations of Microsoft products and other proprietary vendors.

Every has professional has a cluster of software applications needed to do work. Lawyers use software for case management, bookkeeping, document generation, invoicing, timekeeping and calendaring to name a few. One can't be an expert in just one, and people tend not to be an expert in all of them. What you do manage to learn has an artificial shelf-life.

All of that software comes from vendors hellbent on keeping trade secrets. Tracking down bugs is a lot harder without shared knowledge or source code. I'm told by coders, that's the reality.

Open Office and linux promise a stop to the extra costs. I will not be buying a copy of Vista --- except maybe the gaming edition.

we're supposed to switch?

[dlt074]

i didn't get the memo.

Or

[Zebra_X]

Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine. Linux stands on its own merits.

Or the other possibility is that people (non-techies) don't care what their OS is as long as it is useable. It needs to "just work".

Stumbled across it and liked it

[Mayhem178]

I've been using Windows since my folks dumped our Tandy 1000 in the trash. As the years rolled on I found myself interested being a part of the software creation process rather than just being a user. Once I got to college, I decided to set up a server or two and ran a Jedi Outcast game server; but the extra hardware I had lying around to piece together a server just wasn't up to Windows standards, and my poor game server just couldn't convince Windows to let it have some precious memory and CPU time, so I snagged Mandrake. Ever since I've found little quirks about Linux (I use Fedora now) that just appeal to me over Windows, especially in a development environment. Of course, the fact that it's free helps.

My name is Mayhem, and I'm a software engineer.

Think free. linux.org

Re: Why Do people Switch ...

[LordSnooty]

Gee, I was about to post pretty much the same thing. I'm not as much of a zealot to reject a solution, even if it's the better one, just because of some other things the vendor might have done. Linux works, that's the number one point that this article should be highlighting. Sometimes the anti-MS rhetoric defies sense.

Pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Linux partition that I use for storing and viewing my porn collection. That way there's almost no way the GF will run across it during the majority of the time the computer is running Windows.

... lets have beans for ever meal!

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

It's the Utility Stupid!

[rocker_wannabe]

I first discovered Linux when I purchased the Slackware (SLS) 0.99 version of the distribution. It made DOS look sickly by comparison with it's well-developed APIs for just about everything including serial devices, windowing system, and file system. There was so much power and utility in a UNIX-like operating system that it seemed like a developer's best choice. Maybe Windows has grown up enough since then to be comparable to UNIX but I wouldn't know since I don't use it.

I DO despise Bill Gates but only because his marketing juggernaut has convinced managers to use Microsoft products based on hype rather than technical appeal. This forced me to use their pathetic operating system when I knew there were better options. If I had never programmed on a UNIX system I probably would have had a happier career.

Economists where put on the planet to make Meteorologists look good. - from a "West Wing" episode

Unix-like

[Alioth]

For me it was because I wanted a Unix-like OS on my PC. Why not *BSD then? Well, in January 1992, *BSD wasn't available at any price a teenager could afford.

But Linux was, however barebones it was. Unlike DOS, there was no 640K limit on the early release 80386 machine with 2.5MB of RAM I bought cheap from a mail order house selling surplus computers (this was the early 80386, complete with bugs). Instead of all the nastiness of DOS/Windows 3.0, it was a nice, smooth flat memory model. With a proper VMM. Demand page loading. Etc. In January 1992, you had a boot floppy and a root floppy. To install this "distro", after making your hard drive partition, you just did a cp -a from the root floppy to the root of the hard drive. Then you used a hex editor to modify a couple of bytes on the boot floppy to tell it the root device was the hard disk. There was no LILO - it couldn't actually completely boot strap from a hard disk, you still needed to put the kernel on a floppy!

But it was a real *nix like system on my PC with many of the limitations of DOS gone. Very quickly it gained LILO, a proper init/getty/login and a TCP/IP stack (before Microsoft even had heard of the Internet). The NET1 TCP/IP stack was *extremely* basic - it could only work on a /24 subnet, but it worked. Since then, Linux has gone from strength to strength.

I learned C on that machine. In 1993, when I upgraded to a '486 with a whopping 80MB drive, I could install X as well - and learned all about Xlib. I wrote a media player on that 486 for playing Amiga MODs (basically a pure Xlib based playlist editor, complete with a VU meter for visualisation!) Wish I still had the source. In 1993, a 486 with 16MB of RAM could compile the kernel _under X_ without touching swap. I used that machine to learn about sockets, C++, NFS and all sorts of things that would have cost me thousands I didn't have in the proprietary world. My humble 486 was better than the Solbourne S4000 (Sun compatible) workstations at university that cost an order of magnitude more money!

I have had Linux on my PCs ever since because I like it. I've usually also had a Windows partition too, but a couple of years ago, I realised that I was only booting Windows once every three months and decided to blow it away when I got the then new Fedora Core 2.

Currently, my home is home to three architectures and three operating systems. I have a 333MHz UltraSPARC system running OpenBSD, a PowerBook running OS X and an Intel PC running Fedora Core. Linux still gives me the freedom to tinker - that's why I like it.

Re:Unix-like

[tbuskey]

I'm pretty similar. I used DOS on an 8088 Z100 then later a 80286 Z248. I was using LaTeX, DOS .bat files, C, emacs, vi, awk, make.

When I got to use a unix box (with Usenix) in '87 I knew I wanted real Unix. I got Minix. *sigh* Too many limits.

I was doing work with Excel, LaTeX on MacOS 7 and Windows 3.0 around now. Some awk, Turbo C and gnuplot on DOS too.

I got a 486 with OS/2. Lots of ported GNU tools w/o the limits of DOS. *sigh*

Downloaded 386BSD 0.1 and it wouldn't boot (30-50 360k floppies!). *sigh*

Downloaded SLS with Linux kernel 0.92pl5. Hey! This Works! LaTeX. Better scripting. X11, games. Internet.

Around this point ('92) I got a job as a Unix Sysadmin. Linux looked enough like my SunOS 4.1.3 sparc 1 that I could do shell scripting, etc. I could even run olvwm so the desktop looked similar. The only thing really lacking compared to the Sun (for a home user) was an internet connection so I could use this new Mozilla thing.

Sure, MacOS 7 and Windows 3.1 were out but they were not as good for my use as Unix.

Why/How I switched

[nicholaides]

I had tried Linux about 8 months ago, but I ran into tons of problems. Trying to install Linux would usually restart/shutoff my computer. Also, getting the packages I needed and installing stuff was very difficult for me, as I wasn't using a very popular distro, and I was unfamiliar with everything.

About a month ago, by motherboard crapped out on me. I got a new one, installed Fedora Core out of curiosity, and never went back.

Also, it helps that I'm a CS student, and we do everything in Linux.

I couldn't imagine going back to windows, and I couldn't be happier.

Simple Answer;

[MaXiMiUS]

Anything you couldn't do without from Windows can be brought over with WINE. Can Windows do the opposite of that? Nope.

Several Reasons to switch

[A-Trav]

I personally switched for several reasons: 1) Linux is cheaper 2) It gives the user more power 3) Apache's easy to set up and run 4) Easy to log onto the machine from everywhere else

because Solaris wasn't free or very compatible

[tuffy]

at least not at the time. I hear OpenSolaris is getting better, but I've never taken the time to look at it and I'm not sure I'd want to switch back at this point. I've tried Windows every now and then, but I quickly miss the environment and tools I'm familiar with so I've never stuck with it for long. Cygwin is a poor substitute and even Mac OS X is too alien for me to be comfortable with (though I enjoy getting my relatives to use it).

So I stick with Linux - because that's where I get my work done.

My reasons

[jav1231]

I switched to Linux initially because I was interested in it. It really wasn't a switch at first. I had been working on SCO systems (the good SCO) and really liked the power of UNIX. I started playing with Linux around RH5.2. As time went on I gathered up every distro that interested me. I'm currently on a Mac most of the time. The primary reason for that being that KDE and Gnome just hadn't gotten polished enough. Now I'm about to test Ubuntu. The LiveCD is very sweet and a version runs fine on my Mac. I still run Linux on my server simply because it works very well and is solid. From a server standpoint, the only reason to run Windows is for a specific app. The idea that you convert your whole infrastructure to it is just crazy. I think it was in vogue back when people were abandoning Netware. Now the cost is just to prohibitive. We're seeing apps now available on Sun and Red Hat the cost benefits are in the tens of thousands of dollars over Sun. Both Sun and Microsoft are living in an age of margins that are fat and old. This is making Linux a must have, IMO. If I were to start a company today selling widgets, I'd run a Linux infrastructure. There is just no reason not to.

Re:My reasons

[bdcrazy]

Right click and drag in windows explorer (at least winxp, i believe it works in the others as well) and you get a choice what to do with it also.

Amiga

[slashflood]

I was an Amiga user for years, then I installed muFS and the whole set of GNU software. All the commercial C compilers were way to expensive for me, so I choosed gcc. As soon as there was the 68000 port available, I switched over to Linux. I've never had a Windows installation in the last 14 years.

My reasons

[It doesn't come easy]

I can't speak for other folks, but here are my reasons:

1) I'm tired of marketing companies that think they can do anything they want on my computer without my permission.
2) I have a rule of thumb that I live by in everything I do: I never reward arrogance.
3) I'm a contrarian by nature (I always root for the little guy).
4) I'm a control freak (I want to understand how my computer works AND I want to be able to change it if I so desire).
5) I'm cheap.
6) I expect the things that I buy to work forever with zero problems (except for the problems I create myself, which I consider "learning opportunities").

y? lol

[therealjlowery]

bcuz dey fele lyk it biches!

http://slashdot.org/~jlowery is an imposter person lol!

From a newbie...

[walders]

It wasn't love at first sight, I have to say, but a realisation of advantages one-by-one. My reasons are 9-fold. Been trying to think of a 10th, but to no avail. 1. Stability. I got sick of Windows requiring a reinstall (plus reinstalling all the 3rd party software from various CDs & downloads) 2. Convenience. I've settled on Ubuntu because of this one...repositories/software installation. Brilliant. 3. Security & cpu. It works faster - perhaps because I don't require Norton + Spysweeper running. 4. Maintenance. Uninstall, reinstall. Repartition; etc. 5. Support. WOW! Any problem, and someone on a forum will help (and, if you're reading - thanks guys!!). If I need to use command line, it's easy, coz someone tells me what to copy & paste in! 6. Ease. Everything works (I don't do gaming). If a distro didn't work for me then I just tried another one. Fun doing that, too. When it doesn't work, see reason 5! 7. Choice. Gnome/KDE; Firefox/Konquerer; etc. etc. And all do what I want them to do. 8. Fun! I can play with it and know that I'm not likely to break it beyond repair. 9. Cost. Last on the list, but a massive advantage. FOSS on Windows is getting very good, too, but Linux is unbeatable on that front. On the other hand, I can't scrap Windows completely just yet - but I won't be buying Vista. The problems include hardware & software...My printer (Canon pixma iP4000) isn't supported on Linux; I'll get round to a forum - hopefully someone will help. Also, some software I have can't be run on Linux and has no complete replacements yet (e.g. online Bible).

For Many Many reasons:

[BennyB2k4]

I am currently in the process of migrating from windows XP Pro to Fedora Core 4 on my laptop. Even if I give up later on, I have learned some what I actually use my laptop for. I went through and kept track of what I was doing for a few days. Turns out that everything I normally do can easily be done in Linux:
-sync palm
-copy music to SD card-
-read email
-check calendar
-surf web
-instant message
-wireless connectivity
-3d games
-read pdfs
-read and edit excel/doc files
-listen to music
-watch the occasional video.

After some setup and tweaking-- I can do all of the above in a much more friendly UI.

The biggest help in the transition is that I can dual-boot and also that I can read from the NTFS partition in the process (for documents, music, videos, and pictures) using linux-ntfs.

Why I might switch

[RyoShin]

The reason I stay with Windows now is because I don't have many problems with it. I'm a smart user, so I patch regularly, turn off useless security holes in IE (in fact, I use FireFox predominantly), and know not to open attachments that I'm not expecting (though there was that one time...)

So I rarely get bugs or BSODs or anything else; when I do, it annoys me for the 5 or so minutes it takes to see if I can break out of it and then restart; maybe another 10 if I lost a lot of work.

Plus, all the tools I want are on Windows; a lot of them are getting equivalents on Linux, but thre's still the whole gaming thing. I'm not a big PC gamer now (low spec system,) but when I upgrade I plan to do more gaming; I know that Linux has its own games, but no where near the wealth of games that Windows does.

Despite all of this, though, I can easily see myself switching in the future. Why? One word: Vista.

I haven't been following the progression of Windows Vista closely, but what I've seen so far does not interest me in the least. Some extra features, some prettier graphics (with the option overly-large clock), and not much else. By the time it's released, XP will be pretty well patched, and continue serving me fine. Plus, as it has been with 98/2K/XP, most software and games will be cross-programmed for 2K/XP/Vista, so I can continue using XP without worry for quite some time. I certainly have no plans to upgrade to Vista.

Should it ever come to a time where XP no longer meets my needs or stops working for whatever reason, it will be then that I switch completely to Linux. I refuse to pay an outrageous price for something I deem worthless. I would much rather pay nothing and get the distro of my choice; if certain programs and/or games that I enjoy aren't useable on it, so be it. I'm sure I will cope.

However, that is the one reason you won't see most normal Windows users switching: they can't cope.

Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

For me and my family, it was a question of ethics.

It simply wasn't morally right to intentionally violate what I "agreed to" (read: EULA's). Whether I like it or not, when I click on "I agree" to install software, I am giving my word to abide by the terms of the contract.

I started reading the EULA's one day, and realized that I had been breaking my word. Combine that with the previous poster's comments about not paying for commercial software, and I found that I just needed to switch to look myself in the mirror in the morning.

It was only AFTER the switch that I realized the other benefits of Linux (the stability, lack of virus software, no spyware, configurability, etc.).

PastorEd B.
Lewis County Linux User's Group

One word: amaroK

[octane097]

My first nix box was a FreeBSD server for my web server. I wasn't going to run IIS. Then I built a MythTV Box, so that had to be Linux. Finally, my own personal desktop went Linux when I found out about amaroK and its power. I wasn't happy with Winamp's ability to manage my music and iTunes was too bulky.

I call BS

[jdgreen7]

Saying anything works "flawlessly" once installed in absolute BS. I've had plenty of "flaws" on my "Linux" sytems. I've had kernels crap out while compiling a module, daemons mysteriously shut off without leaving a log trail, one of my monitors in a dual monitor (Xinerama) setup come up with goofy vertical lines after a reboot which worked "flawlessly" before I shut down the system and with no xorg.conf changes whatsoever, only to reappear perfectly fine after another reboot... The list goes on.

There will ALWAYS be flaws in a complex system. It's just part of the game. However, the goal is to minimize the downtime due to those flaws. Windows "flaws" tend to be easy to fix because so many people use Windows and you can do a quick search to find 8 million other people who've had the same problem. Linux has a lot of that, too, but you have to know where to go to get the right answers sometimes. What makes Linux nice is that it comes free with a plethora of debugging aids and the source code as well.

I'm tired of seeing the "Linux works flawlessly" argument. NONE of the major OS's run without a problem. OpenBSD has only had 1 remote vulnerability, but then again, it comes out of the box with basically NO services running. The more services you introduce into the system, the more flaws you expose.

Re:I call BS

[digidave]

When people say Linux works flawlessly, they mean that their current implementation works flawlessly. The more stuff you add the more bugs will be introduced, so a desktop with many apps is not likely to work perfect.

However, a bare bones install without X and just a couple of well-tested apps running such as a database server and sshd will probably run perfectly.

Re:I call BS

[anicca]

How about a frequency analysis on those problems? XP 10 trillion, Linux, a few million. Using Kubuntu on one of my machines, I have the occasional problem with runaway processes (particularly Kaffiene - exits poorly and hogs 100% CPU until I manually kill the process) but with XP I am always fixing this or that, wondering if the next update will toast my box, whether clicking on the wrong hyperlink will cause me hours of work. I won't say linux runs flawlessly but it does run a lot better. Better architecture, more modular. Oh and those runaway processes do not bring down the whole OS and force a reboot.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fight, and under those very limited circumstances so does Windows and OSX.

But that is NOT the limited use that most people put their OS too.

Linux sems to be especially vulnerable to breaking when updating components or installing new software. Any Linux install over 12 months old will have serious problems when trying to update or install a huge number of current packages.

I find that Linux is actually the least stable OS I have ever used over the long run of normal operation. OSX and Windows since Win2k are MUCH less prone to breaking by just installing a new piece of software or updating system components.

In the end I have had to "re-install" linux systems far more often that windows in order to keep them stable when new software and/or patches are required. "re-install" in this case meaning that the latest yearly update needs to be installed in place of the 12+ month old one in order to get everything to work right again.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

> When people say Linux works flawlessly, they mean that their current implementation works flawlessly.

I was thinking the same thing too the other day as my hotplug init stalled and puked. A sinister voice popped into my head, "Finish him!", so I ripped out the PCI firewire card, rebooted, and no problems. "Flawless victory!"

...moral of that story? Sometimes you gotta stick your hand inside the guts and remove the fat before you can call it your bitch.

Re:I call BS

[digidave]

"Linux sems to be especially vulnerable to breaking when updating components or installing new software. Any Linux install over 12 months old will have serious problems when trying to update or install a huge number of current packages."

This is only true on poorly tested distributions and/or distros with poor package management. Fedora will definitely break, but Red Hat ES will be fine because it's tested so well.

Debian Stable and Ubuntu will also be fine because the package manager is so good.

One of the major problems with having so many Linux distributions is that poor distros can give Linux a bad name. An expert may be able to keep Fedora running well, but somebody who just wants to click a few buttons to upgrade their system is going to have trouble.

Re:I call BS

[hackstraw]

I've had kernels crap out while compiling a module, daemons mysteriously shut off without leaving a log trail, one of my monitors in a dual monitor (Xinerama) setup come up with goofy vertical lines after a reboot which worked "flawlessly" before I shut down the system and with no xorg.conf changes whatsoever, only to reappear perfectly fine after another reboot... The list goes on.

I have never experienced or heard of these kinds of problems.

Do you still use that computer? Or have you run other OSes on it? Because this sounds like a hardware problem, especially your video problem. Aside from upgrading the kernel and having processes stuck in a "Disk wait state", I've never known a reboot to change or fix anything in Linux. Its simply not the cureall like for Windows.

Re:I call BS

[Eskarel]

True linux has problems, particularly if you're using dodgy drivers and the like(before my wireless nic card drivers went open source my system used to crash all the time), and if you use bleeding edge software you can usually also fix it. I'd also like to say that as someone who supports windows professionally that searching for solutions to problems isn't actually all that easy. I've seen all sorts of things which are almost impossible to google simply because they are impossible to describe. An app fails to start in linux I look at the terminal see what error it spat out and look it up, sometimes there's nothing but if there's something it's usually helpful. Try googling "my pc is slow" and see how much longer your sanity lasts.

Re:I call BS

[ookaze]

Saying anything works "flawlessly" once installed in absolute BS

It's not. But I understand why you can't believe it. People would not believe me either when I told them what I could do with Linux. That's a Windows mindset for sure.

I've had kernels crap out while compiling a module, daemons mysteriously shut off without leaving a log trail, one of my monitors in a dual monitor (Xinerama) setup come up with goofy vertical lines

Your first problem only happened to me when I was having hardware problems (bad memory) a long time ago, and the second looks like a hardware problem too.

Windows "flaws" tend to be easy to fix because so many people use Windows

On the other hand, this is BS. My SCSI problem was not easy to fix, I had a very hard time finding a solution for my problem (WinXP BSOD at boot time even in safe mode). Finally I found the solution on MS page thanks to Google on the Linux dual-boot patition (it involved installing with the dos command line and a special driver disk btw, cool ... NOT).
You meant "so many people struggle with Windows", I can agree with that, that's consistant with what I see every time. In Linux it is very different : people search for a solution, not for a workaround. A workaround in Linux is always considered a failure. In Linux, people fix things, make bugreports. Look at all the bugzillas and forum there are, all of them to fix problems. There are forums for Windows, even more, full of people with problems, but solutions are rare, workarounds abound. And often, when there is a solution, it's so tedious I'm amazed the guy put up with it every time.

Linux has a lot of that, too, but you have to know where to go to get the right answers sometimes

Which means your distro provider or forums, and it works without problem.

I'm tired of seeing the "Linux works flawlessly" argument

I don't think you are. I think you are 'pissed', which is not the same.
That's a behaviour I experience every time with Windows shills, because they have so many hassles to keep with their Windows running, seeing sth having fun with computing is beyond them.
Every time I work with Windows at work, you can bet there are problems every week. And they always blame the user when sth does not work (except when it's them, then they blame someone else).

Re:I call BS

[jdgreen7]

First, how could the monitor issue be a "hardware problem", when it works "flawlessly" in Windows? I can duplicate the problem over and over. I've tried the Ubuntu forums to no avail. My problem is that I have both an nVidia on-board video port and an ATI Radeon 7000 PCI card. Apparently with Ubuntu, you can't apt-get install both the nVidia and ATI binary drivers. They are mutually exclusive. Try googling for that problem, and see if you maintain your sanity.

However, Windows XP has yet to complain about this configuration. If I were buying everything over again, I wouldn't have mixed chipsets, but I didn't know that it would be a problem until after I'd already purchased everything and decided to toss on another Linux installation. I REALLY want to use Linux as my primary desktop OS, but every time I try to make the switch for good, some little issue comes up that prevents it from happening. I do use FC3 as a web/email/dns server, and it rarely has problems. So, for server-side things, I strongly encourage Linux adoption (but stay away from bleeding edge stuff).

However, on the desktop front, there are just some issues that still create a high barrier to entry. Most standard configurations are supported out of the box, but once you start tinkering to get x or y component installed, expect the occassional problem.

I'm not saying that Linux exclusively has these issues. I'm just saying that for desktop purposes, I've had more issues with Linux recently than I'm willing to deal with. I know how to deal with them in Windows when they pop up, but the frequency for me has been lower than with Linux. About every 6 months, I give it another shot. There always seems to be *something* that prevents a full overthrow of MS for me.

Switch/Learn For Business

[remitaylor]

I've tried lots of distros over the years, but the only ones that have stuck have been the occasional Red Hat / Fedora installation on my dual-booting lappy or Gentoo on my Xbox (cause it's actually an easy install - http://gentoox.shallax.com/).

Now, I try to dip into linux every once in awhile because I have to for business. If we switch our servers (eg., Exchange --> linux-based mail server) over to linux, then I need to be able to administrate the linux boxes and be comfortable in a linux environment.

I have to say, though ... most of what draws me to linux is curiosity and the cost benefits. Some people may think Windows is evil or some such, but atleast the average user can [in Windows]:
> download an app.
> double-click the exe/msi.
> "I Agree"
> "Next" ...
> "Finish"
And you're done with shortcuts added and all.

Meanwhile, I spent all of my lunch breaks this week trying to get my Atheros wireless card working with WPA-PSK (forget about WPA2!) under Red Hat. The average user (or even the average IT user) isn't going to switch over to linux until you can double click to install something. Why should something that takes less than a minute under Windows take so long in linux? Sure, you can edit the source, but in the business world, time=$, and sysadmins don't have the time to go digging thru C code to figure out why "make" isn't working.

Anyhow, as a developer, I'll switch when Mono is more stable and it becomes easier to write linux desktop applications in C#.

Because Tux and Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make me type in a stupid key to run software that I bought. They don't require a phone call after swapping out a motherboard on my PC. Tux gives me the freedom to use my computer as I see fit, It's my PC.

Personal Computer != Microsoft Computer.

Alternately, why do people switch *from* Linux?

[xwizbt]

The tinker factor, mentioned in one of the switchers' comments, is exactly the reason why I gave Linux a go and quickly gave up. What's more, I've recently managed to convert my partner to Macintosh from Linux. What impressed him? Exactly the same thing - days trying to get Bluetooth to do something vaguely useful.

Maybe it's more of an indication of our ineptness when it comes to all things Unixy, but then again we're more computer literate than the majority of folks. Granny just isn't in a position to switch to Linux, whereas she has a fighting chance with MacOS or even Windows.

because

[psbrogna]

Religous & cost issues aside, I switched because I kept having problems with MSW2K & MSO2K updates not being regression tested adequately. Specifics? Ntbackup & ODBC were prime candidates for problems.

Speaking of BSD...

[Spy der Mann]

how are the installation routines compared to Linux? User-friendliness? Hardware support?

Also, basically what's the difference (infrastructure) between Linux and BSD? I'm a *nix noob, so I'd appreciate it if some of the 1337 3xp3r75 here told me. Thx.

Re:Speaking of BSD...

[an_unknown_soldier]

would someone care to tell me what the fuck "1337 3xp3r75" means?

Re:Speaking of BSD...

[VJ42]

I'm guessing "elite experts".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

Re:Speaking of BSD...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's leet speak. You know, what some people use some 10 years after it's no longer cool to do so. I would imagine this guy typed that post wearing his blue leisure suit and sideburns...

Re:Speaking of BSD...

[shobadobs]

No problem. It means

One thousand three hundred thirty-seven times three times Windows XP times three times the radius times seventy-five.

(First non-prime factorization post! How do you multiply 5.1.2600 by something anyway?)

A year?

[JPriest]

If it took 1 guy a _year_ to switch to Linux is the money saved by not paying for Windows really worth it?

Linux push from server to desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason to switch from Windows to Linux is when Linux will do something Windows won't. Up until now, that has mostly been server-related things. Linux plugs in and connects to other services very nicely. Web serving, database serving, PBX, Jabber server, etc. Even when Window can do it (like web serving), Linux does it more naturally and cheaper. Linux fits into the Unix-spawned world of the internet better.

So that is why Linux has been mostly a geek thing. Only geeks admin server-type stuff.

Once people have got a taste of it on their servers, and jump into the world and culture of OSS, they are more willing (sometimes eager) to bring that world to their desktop.

But the Linux desktop does not enjoy the same motivations to switch as the Linux server. There isn't much right now that the Linux desktop can do that Windows can't. Windows tends to do desktop things more naturally in a Windows-spawened world. Linux does server things more naturally in a Unix-spawned world. Windows keeps trying to push into the server world, and Linux is trying a little to push into the desktop world.

There are more desktop users that want to take their familiar environment onto their department server than their are server admins who want to take their familiar environement onto their desktops. But if Linux can continue to win the hearts and minds of people on department servers, that balance may tip.

So in a strange way, one of the best things Linux can do to succeed on the desktop is to be stunningly easy and powerful for SOHO/departmental servers. The kind that are admin'd by non-geeks.

Malware

[seanellis]

Like most other people, I finally found a problem where Linux was the solution.

I finally got fed up with the cleanup, despite having antivirus, malware scanning, etc.

Windows XP can get destroyed too easily

[BrentRJones]

I'm having to re-install Windows XP for the third time in 2 months. Wirus, trojan or hardware, I don't know what hit me despite my firewall, anti-virus, anti-spam, and anti-spyware. This is getting real old, real fast.

I know my way around PCs, boot-strapping my self from DOS 1.1 to Win XP Pro. I don't hate Windows, but dealing with instability, constant attacks and the length of time to re-install has me ticked off.

I know only a little Linux, but dual boot, here I come.

riffed in 89 from datageneral

[Anonymous Coward]

I was part of a downsize at Data-General in 1989. After a ten years of not touching a computer, I began a job which required me to use one. As a school librarian I was introduced to Apples. And I was so 'backward' I didn't know what a mouse was. Someone at work heard about my background in computers and turned me onto Redhat 7.0. Linux was more familiar to me, as I had experience with DG-UX. That said, I now use Linux exclusively, except at work. I'm a school librarian and the concepts of hiding common knowledge and inequity of access have me promoting Linux over proprietary software. I distribute Ubuntu disks from my library and classroom to students and faculty who seam to have aptitude or interest.

suggestion to you:

[hummassa]

download Ubunto breezy (the live-cd version) and try it out.
if everything works, download the install version. you'll like it. unless, of course you are allergic to the colour brown.

Re:suggestion to you:

[GT_Onizuka]

I don't know. I've been using Linux for awhile (3 years now) and I gave Ubuntu to a friend. He had some questions, and I was fooling around with it. Does it go against convention often (like the whole no su, sudo for everything)? If it does that unneccesarily, it seems like it's just going to make the person not understand Linux, but understand Ubuntu.

I know there are differences between distros, but that seemed a little drastic to me, and I was afraid more simple conventions like that would be changed for seemingly no reason. Personally, I'd rather initially have a hard time, but in the end, be able to operate, for the most part, a *nix box without too much trouble.

Re:suggestion to you:

[dmuth]

> Does it go against convention often (like the whole no su, sudo for everything)?

If not being able to su to root is a big problem, here's how to fix it:

sudo bash
passwd -u root
passwd root
(enter your new root password)

That's all there is to it. However, Ubuntu has su disabled because running as root for an extended period of time is usually considered unsafe. sudo forces you to only one command at a time as root, which is safer.

Incidentally,t hat's one of the things I like about Linux and the reason I switched to it: you can configure the system in all sorts of unique ways to suit your tastes.

Re:suggestion to you:

[whereiswaldo]

I was all set to download Ubuntu but when I read that it only provided Gnome with the live CD, that turned me off. I've never liked Gnome. I'll stick with FreeBSD for now, even though I much prefer what I would call GNU/Linux command-line usability.

XP SP2

[JShadow21]

I installed service pack 2 through automatic updates, rebooted... BSOD. Couldn't seem to fix it without a wipe so I switched to Fedora. I'm currently using Ubuntu and have no desire to switch back to Windows.

Boat missed by limiting to "switchers"

[klausboop]

What about the folks that have both? It would be interesting to ask why people USE Linux rather than only ask why they SWITCHED to Linux and/or OSS Operating Systems.

I came to Linux/Open Source because I had a specific need: I wanted to cheaply build a box to store and stream my music collection, both in-house and remotely. The "cheap" requirement was most easily met by not buying new hardware or software. After trying a variety of solutions I arrived at FreeBSD and SlimServer, which meant that I didn't have to purchase an OS or new and/or fast hardware to run it on. But I haven't "switched" at all. I still do most of my day-to-day computing on Windows XP.

Re:Boat missed by limiting to "switchers"

[Sir_Eptishous]

Great comment.

I too run both and see the usefulness of both, at work and home. My home network server is FC3, but most of my desktops are XP.

As the Devils Advocate I would like to point out to the converted, (myself included) that there is still quite a few pieces of software that are a complete pain in the ass to get to run on Linux. Sure, basic apps, openoffice, browsing, listening to music, etc, they all work fine and run right out of the install. But as soon as you get into more interesting software, especially security software such as Acid, Snort, etc, things get a lot more interesting and much more tweaking and hair pulling is required.

low cost virtualization option

[lurch_ss]

Take a look at qemu. Can't get much lower cost than free.

Take it from Jermey Piven

[Sweep The Leg]

Windows wasn't getting 'em laid, so it's worth a shot.

My first Linux switch.

[neomunk]

I've been an off and on (currently on, but not exclusivley) Linux user for just over a decade now. It all started in 1994 whilst attending Monroe High School (Michigan). *crazy flashback graphics* There I was, in my second year of Computer Science class, and let me tell you boys and girls, this was no typing/spreadsheet class. First year we learned digital logic, digital electronics to go along with it (wiring logic gates together for fun and profit) and some assembly. This guy taught us REALLY how computers work, more precisely, how they thought. That class changed my life. Anyways, in second year we spent time on the Cromix (if you know this you are a true computer nerd (12 levels greater than a common geek)) system, banging out code mostly, and designing the 6502 based system we had to schematic and build. Man I loved that class. Anyways, there I am, playing around on the Cromix System with my buddies, when one of my friends comes in and tells me about this free operating system, based on unix(like Cromix!), called linux, or gnu, or slackware, or something like that and he shows up with a couple pounds of floppies. I take these home, and revel in the awesome power of a true multitasking OS at home. My life would not be the same without linux. Honestly. My linux experience allowed me to do such things as 'borrow' internet service from my local MichNet library system, and then later from the local ISP that arrived. Since I met my wife on the internet, while switching between virtual terminals of multiple telnet-bbs sessions, my kids owe thier life to linux. I've gone back and forth over the years (in my young days I couldn't resist using beta-Microsoft OSs, what can I say, I'm a masochist) but have usually had at least SOME old POS system with linux on it somewhere just in case I needed a real computer to figure something out for me, or to crunch some numbers sanely. Thank you for having this stroll down memory lane with me. I know it wasn't all techno-informational but hey, it was a pleasant group of memories, AND topic relevant.

Can't stand the bureaucracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Linux for a lot of reasons, most of which I'm sure will be mentioned elsewhere. One reason that doesn't get a lot of press, but means a lot to me, is that I really can't stand all the bureaucracy associated with licensed software. Even for a single desktop, keeping track of all the licensing provisions the way you're really supposed to is a major pain. Should you upgrade, buy a perpetual licence, buy a brand new license less frequently? Who knows.

Now consider what it's like for a large organization (which is what I have to deal with). Licensed software attracts bureaucrats and committee aficionados like a petri dish. You need to buy licensed tracking software just to keep track of the licenses. Any new project involves a purchase, therefore the purchasing department, budget managers, and purchase order approvals. It's almost impossible to do your job as a sysadmin, because every move you make involves soliciting the opinions of half a dozen technologically illiterate managers, who are all too eager to show off their mad managerial skills by thumping their chests and burying you in red tape.

The alternative? Use free software. Free as in liberty. Free as in cut out all the pin-striped bureaucrats, and do your job.

Unless you eschew responsibility and accountability of course. Then by all means, invite the bureaucratic hordes to a committee meeting, and pretend that if you buy licensed software, everything will just work, and if it doesn't, then it's someone else's fault. Nevermind that when it breaks, no one will really care who's fault it is; they will just want it fixed. Buy your self some peace of mind, and hide behind mother's apron: middle management. Pretend to yourself that you can hold Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, or whoever accountable for whatever proprietary solution they sell you *cough*.

Get stuff done, or be a coward.

For the..

[GameSlave]

...tty(s) and beer.

My Apple IIe wasn't cutting it

[Maller]

Being a poor high school DIYer, building my own computer was the only way I could upgrade to "modern" hardware from my then-ancient Apple IIe. I sure as heck couldn't afford Windows 3.1 nor did I have any experience with it. These Linux floppies were supposed to be a lot like SunOS which I had used on my high school's only non-Mac computer.

So sometime in the '93-94 schoolyear, I switched from apple basic to linux for the hardware support.

because we're all sick of fascist dogma?

[torpor]

.. and thats no flame, nor troll. you don't have to look far to find fascist, dictator-like, dogma-driven personalities, especially in the corporate world. it embues the psych of the body politic. humans instinctively resist this, and it is when the desire to avoid such scenarios has its bit flipped, that a person 'switches'. whatever flips it, it flips; you become a welcome participant in -a society of doing things openly- with linux, rather than 'one of masses serving the hidden master that cannot be known'.

this flip turns a computer use scenario into productive use no matter which stick you shake, and your mindset rapidly becomes 'knowing as much as i can and need to know to get my system doing its thing'. this can go deep, or it can (thanks to the work of bridgers and gluers in the distribution world) be a very shallow experience, the huge choice is yours and depends strictly on what you specifically care to know, or find out, about how your software works. the more people do this, the better the software gets 'on a mass scale', because its only being done by people who can do it because they care to know, and for whom ignore stuff i don't know isn't really as fun as it sounds.

if you are sensitive to those things, and you 'give it a go' just to see where so many of us have gotten under our own efforts it doesn't take long before you realize that your bit is flipped. you don't over-fascinate, you just learn by doing, both activities which improve themselves when actively paired with each other.

and in linux, and within other open, free, software development efforts, we get a chance to prove, in the face of the worlds apparent toil, that humans can actually get along, do something big together, and make things work out. its a very human thing, to run someone elses code, build upon it, and do cool things because of it. its what the world needs more of right now, this peaceful working together, stripped of its hunger and greed, instead promoting more noble ideals of cooperation and improvement over toil..

Re:because we're all sick of fascist dogma?

[Anonymous Coward]

...ok, settle down, Beavis. And put down that crack pipe.

Customization and Upgrade-ation...

[web_boyo_in_sac]

ok, so upgrade-ation isn't a word, but damnit if something breaks in Windows I have to wait, sometimes years, before it gets "fixed" usually causing more issues (XP sp2 anyone), or if there is something I don't like about Windows I'm stuck with with whatever I don't like until the next version, where it "might" get fixed.

But with Linux (and BSD to an extent), I can FIX the damned thing, being a software engineer helps yeah, but if I find a problem, I can fix it, or pay someone to fix it, for as long as I use it, can't say that about Windows, I know people who are still using NT4 simply because some application that was made for it that they based their entire company around, ONLY runs on NT4 (no philosophical debates, it ONLY runs on NT4, compatability mode in 2k and XP doesn't cut it) and you can't even PAY Microsoft to support NT4 anymore.

But Linux, just about every app comes with the source code (and I'm not talking free, most of the commercial apps I use on Linux come with source), so if something breaks I can fix it, if the company who wrote the app goes out of business I can STILL fix it.

Beyond that, I love being able to customize the what, how, where, when and why of my personal system.
don't like the filesystem, yup, I can change that, don't like my filemanager, yup I can change that, don't like my X server, admittedly small list to choose from but yup I can change that, don't like my desktop server, yup I can change that, don't like the layout of my desktop and want dockable locations and customized GUI widgets without having to fight about which application is meant to run as the Gui Shell, yup I can change that, don't like the way my word processing program displays my toolbar, yup I can change that.

Does it take time and energy? sure, but I like to compare the whole Windows vs Linux debate to Cars, some people but what's on the dealer's floor, drive it until it breaks, and take it back to the dealer for repairs, and when the dealer says they no longer support that car, they simply buy the new one on the floor and repeat. But some people, myself included, like to buy an old shell, put in the parts that I so lovingly pick out and fine tune, bolt, wire, rivet and screw them all together, put on a custom paintjob and continue to update, upgrade, repair and maintain it until some unforseable event happens that forces me to start over again.

I trust the code

[Chulo]

I appreciate *nix because it's built from the bottom up with science in mind. M$ builds their windows from the top down with business in mind. Also, I like the Open Source Ideology in terms of Philosophy, it's comparable to organizing everything into a standard and putting the methods used straight into a science book for all to see. It encourages collaboration and standards. I doubt M$ could ever open up enough of their code (without being embarrassed) to actually get some real programmers excited about contributing their time towards some sort of betterment for them.

Why I switched

[ajs318]

I read Stallman's essays when I was younger {he's written a few more since then} and thought This is great, but it doesn't go far enough. We need to take by force what is rightfully ours. So I went about my way, exercising Freedoms 0 and 2 with or without anybody's -- but, it has to be said, towards the end, mostly Microsoft's -- sayso.

However, as I grew up I also realised the importance of Freedoms 1 and 3. In the 8-bit days I had dabbled with BASIC and machine code. The 16-bit years seemed somehow as though something was missing. I had this wonderful spanky new machine and yet I couldn't make it do exactly what I wanted it to do! I was all ready to pull out my old BBC model B from the loft, when it hit me. I wasn't hurting the software industry one iota by illegally copying their products -- I was just as dependent upon them as any paying customer. I needed Freedoms 1 and 3, and that meant I needed the source code. In the Beeb days, it was enough to disassemble a machine code game to make silly changes, like changing the keys or adding extra lives or disabling collision detection {with 32K of ram, and a framebuffer eating 20K of that and the OS eating another K or so for itself, the game was very hackable}. Or, of course, there would be listings printed in magazines, to be typed in over the course of several days; and these often could be improved upon. I realised I was missing Freedom 1 in a big way.

I had used VAX/VMS and UNIX at university, some years before. Though I actually preferred the former, because it used words instead of symbols, the latter was the direction in which all things were going {and VMS even had a "unix emulator" -- append /CLI=SHELL to your username when logging in}. I had even tried Linux -- with plenty of help from someone else. It must have been about 1992 or 1993. He booted a floppy in a PC in a lab, and it came up with a Unix login prompt. You could telnet to it {it was safe to send a plaintext password in those days} from anywhere in the world. And run vi on it. Vi was not as nice to use as EVE -- but you could run vi with just about any terminal that supported even rudimentary cursor positioning.

When a friend of mine gave Linux a serious try, I decided that it must be worth a go. In the end I set up an old machine running Linux -- Debian slink; or it might have been potato, I think -- as a "modem sharer" so that my Windows 95 box and any machine I borrowed could both use my single, 56K dial-up line. When my ISP of the day introduced individual cgi-bin directories, I set up apache and perl on my "modem sharer" so it could be used as a testing environment for my scripts.

And when I bought an Athlon XP 2000+, I knew I had to make a serious decision. Would I dual-boot Linux and Windows, or single-boot Linux? The Windows 98 SE installer disc answered that for me. It didn't believe there was such a thing as a whole gigabyte of memory on one motherboard, and barfed. I ended up installing Mandrake 8.2, got for me by a broadband-enabled "warez n pr0n d00d".

And I never looked back. One day I picked up my e-mail using kMail. There was a message from my erstwhile ISP asking if I knew anybody who wanted a job doing a bit of programming and system maintenance. I said "yes, me!", and got the job.

*Nix is restful

[hey!]

There's an attitude in commercial software development that mucking with the attention of the user is OK. Hey look at me!

I have no problem with Google, I think it's a good service. They're very cirumspect, and sometimes I feel guilty about how easily I screen out the advertisement and click through to throw them a bone. But when I open my media player I don't want to go right to advertising for your music store, thank you. And I know very well that I'm writing a letter thank you; if I need help I'll consult your documentation.

Of course spyware and adware only make this situation worse. But nothing says pollution of information space like a program that jumps up and grabs my goddam key clicks because it has something to say.

Office work

[BrookHarty]

I dual boot at work, since I'm mostly using SSH and X, linux is an easy switch. The biggest problem is Remedy client, Access DB, Excel Reports and IE Only sites. I can use the web or imap for exchange.

What I'm currious, is how come Firefox with M$ or clone fonts, still dont look like the same as in windows. Exact same settings, and it looks different, even different sizes.

I like linux, but you have to put up with some annoying things. Sometimes I find it easier to just stick with Windows and use cygwin for using gnu tools.

Gentoo

[hsoft]

Gentoo is the only reason that makes me stick to Linux. I've been giving Linux a try sporadically since RH 6, and always been discouraged by 2 things: the RPM hell and the feeling that I couldn't, as a newbie, really control the behavior of the gazillion programs running in the background. You know, that overwhelming feeling "Whoa... there are SOOO many configuration files I have to play with on this system. arg."

With Gentoo, I start with a super-minimal system, and gradually add new package, as I feel confident about my ability to control package that are already installed.

But not for desktop. I don't like linux on a desktop. I use OSX.

Hardware support.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know it sounds odd, but when I bought this PC I spent 3 hours downloading windows drivers for the sound card and video card over 56k before I could get more than safe mode functionality from it. I installed slackware 9 on a separate partition and it just worked. Apart from the winmodem, which I got rid of soon after.

"Exclusively"?

[sczimme]

I've been using it exclusively for well over a year now. I keep a dual boot in case I ever need to do something in Windows, which is a rarity these days.

So which is it: do you use Linux exclusively or do you use Windows rarely? One or the other, please.

"Exclusively" != "generally" or "usually". Exclusively means "to the exclusion of all others", among other definitions.

Not flaming - just pointing out a common linguistic issue. People tend to show up on /. and proclaim "I use Linux exclusively!" and then add parenthetically "(except when I need Windows)".

Re:"Exclusively"?

[bobdinkel]

I've been using it exclusively for well over a year now. I keep a dual boot in case I ever need to do something in Windows, which is a rarity these days.

So which is it: do you use Linux exclusively or do you use Windows rarely? One or the other, please.

"Exclusively" != "generally" or "usually". Exclusively means "to the exclusion of all others", among other definitions.

Not flaming - just pointing out a common linguistic issue. People tend to show up on /. and proclaim "I use Linux exclusively!" and then add parenthetically "(except when I need Windows)".

Uh, if you limit responses to those that use Linux and only Linux to the exclusion of all others, you will get very few responses, indeed. Most computing environments aren't homogonous ( I know, I know, except for your home LAN).

Looking at the title of the post I would think the question being asked is "Why do people switch to Linux?" I don't think that a person's response is invalid if they occassionally boot into Windows.

No, you weren't flaming. You were just being a pedantic ass.

Re:"Exclusively"?

[ifwm]

You should have posted a link to pedantry, so people would know what to call you.

Re:"Exclusively"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does sex with children have to do with the discussion?

Re:"Exclusively"?

[Nutria]

You should have posted a link to pedantry

            What does sex with children have to do with the discussion?

Pederasty != Pedantry.

Re:"Exclusively"?

[Bloater]

> People tend to show up on /. and proclaim "I use Linux exclusively!" and then add parenthetically "(except when I need Windows)".

This is normal for a human, I bet you think in exactly the same way. It is possible, in the mind of a human, for the sum of the probabilities of the possible ways an event could happen to add up to much more than one.

For example "I am pink". This is a statement as absolute as "I use Linux exclusively", yet I can follow up with "I am also kind of tallow with blue veins and red blotches". When I look closely, nearly *none* of my skin is pink yet I can say I am pink with certainty - and in the minds of normal humans be absolutely, 100% correct while also being, in those same minds, absolutely, 100% wrong.

This is why it is difficult to make a computer respond similarly to a human given the same stimuli - the logic is remarkably confusing and virtually impossible to describe.

Switch? I dual boot

[bzipitidoo]

I'd love to dump Windows altogether, but there are still too many things I need Windows for. Why I still use Windows sometimes:

1. Games
2. Tax Software
3. To accomodate Windows zealots:
   1. Use VS to make Windows executables from code I developed under Linux. (Maybe GCC can cross compile to Windows platforms? I don't know.)
   2. Testbed for whatever needs doing to their machines.
   3. Read their Word documents that are too screwy for Open Office to read well.
4. So I can use hardware. More than once I've spent hours trying to access some hardware in Linux, reading howto's, Googleing error messages, to at last discover the trouble is a bug in the version of the kernel I have. One such kernel bug made ripping audio CDs under 2.6.7 with -dev:ATAPI fail.
   1. DVD burning with DVD Shrink.
   2. Swap DVDs and CDs without all this mount/umount fuss. Submount helps but still isn't quite as good.
   3. USB memory sticks. And USB printing still bites under Linux.

Freedom

[Gnuosphere]

I switched because the Linux kernel is released under the GPL which respects my freedom. It can be combined with other free programs to make a complete operating system respecting my freedom. There are other reasons why I switched but they are all trivial compared to having freedom.

no restrictions

[free space]

there are many, many reason for me to switch:

• I can install it on multiple PCs for the cost of one CD set...imagine that!
• One time I found a bug in the fedora installer. I checked the python scripts,fixed the bug, restarted the installer and it worked And I didn't even know python then!(seriously)
• no DRM, no trusted computing, no crap.
• it comes with built in programming languages! like my childhood MSX computer, I can program it right after turning it on.

All these points can be summarized in one sentence: While other vendors put restrictions on what you can do with your computer, Linux not only allows you, but encourages you to do more with it.

I'd Rather Fight Than Switch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tux rules.

The answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people switch to Linux? Easy answer: they are nerds.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[somersault]

But if you're not running any applications then what's the point of having the OS.. "look at me, I'm monitoring my computer while it's idling!" ? The reason I havent switched to Linux permanently is because I like my games.. though since finishing uni over summer, and starting to work now, I havent taken much time to play games.. about the only thing I do on my home computer (well, and my work computer, hehe) is browse the net and use MSN Messenger.. it's not possible to switch to Linux at work unless I rewrite the Timesheets system to work with OpenOffice instead of Office (which I may do yet). One of the engineers here also likes Linux, and if we wouldnt have to retrain everyone to use a different (and likely less developed/featured) CAD program in Linux instead of Windows, we'd actually swap over in a heartbeat. I do think of Linux as being 'cool', it has always interested me (I grew up with Macs and Amigas, and have never really had any love for Windows) as something to actually make x86 systems worthwhile, but have had to use windows simply because that is what everyone else uses, and if you want to work in IT then you have to be able to cater to your client's needs. Anyway I'll stop rambling, but obviously if the applications to do what you want (or more importantly, need) to do aren't available on Linux, then there is no reason to switch over. Writing your own apps is going to be out of the question, unless you can code them quickly.. otherwise you end up spending lots of money paying for coding time, with no end result other than your system looking different (I know it will be running better in the background.. but if you're only editing word documents and already have Windows/Word, then it would be pointless to change until it comes to the time when you would normally upgrade word, then decide that you'll move to Linux/OpenOffice, etc. I said I'd better stop rambling didn't I. I will.

seriously?

[minus_273]

is anyone taking this article serious? ' Anti-Microsoft sentiment comes from Microsoft's paranoia," huh? you haven't been on Slashdot have you?

TCPA/Palladium

[Jesus_666]

I started the transition to Linux after I first heard about what Microsoft hat planned for Longhorn. I was concerned about my privacy when XP wanted to phone home, but when I read about what the TCPA (yes, that was before they renamed themselves) had planned I decided that I'd rather stop being a casual gamer than sick with Windows.

The funny thing is that just now a community I'm in is discussing this very thing - and after the other users heard that even the monitors and speakers are supposed to have encryption most decided that they'd use Linux or OS X rather than Vista as their main OS. The only ones who are sticking with windows are doing so because they use software that's Win-only. It's weird; most users are really surprised by the TCG's plans and the community's Linux geeks are all saying: "That's not news, we knew about this for years."

The Great Common Ground

[SangoDaze]

I do research at a university and we are constantly buying new systems. We are choosing Linux more and more because it simply runs all of the software that we need it to run. We have a lot of code that was originally written on big Solaris machines and the great majority of it needs very little tweaking to run perfectly under Linux. On the flip side, a lot of vendors that sold desktop apps for Windows or Mac now have excellent Linux version as well. Linux bridges the gaps and provides an environment that people can use on their desktops and on big servers running the software that they need for their work.

Twenty years ago I went to look for a computer to bring to college and started looking at everything from Commodores to KayPros. My father said, "Find the software you want to run, then pick the hardware that runs it." That advice still seems good today and it is why I have a Linux box running right next to the Apple //e that I took to school.

Not a big component but still a vocal one

[NekoXP]

.. I think you would be pretty f**king shitty as an IT admin if you moved to Linux because you simply had anti-Microsoft SENTIMENTS or liebral (sic) pseudo-political
moralistic motives.

Saying "anti-Microsoft sentiment is paranoia" is total bull. Like Kurt Cobain said, just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you. There is plenty of anti-Microsoft sentiment to go around, but you can't put "because Gates sucks and Micro$haft are evil" on a proposal for funding to move from Windows Datacenter to a Linux cluster.

However moving to Linux on it's merits, and having a sly little grin on your face for being able to finally ditch the bloated OS you hate (for a bloated distro that you hate slightly less), is probably very very high in comparison to the people who moved across purely as a technical endeavour. There are plenty of valid cases to make for moving for that proposal, report etc.

Got Linux?

[benjamin_pont]

I use Linux and F/OSS (on Windoze) primarily to support a philosophy of choice, freedom, and open standards, not that it's always as slick or feature-rich (bloated) than a commercial alternative. It's nice to finally have a viable alternative to the Microsoft/Apple duopoly on the desktop.

Best Dev Environment 4_ASCII_PRON

[gov_coder]

Seriously. How else could you make something like this?

In my case, though, I switched because eclipse/java runs great on linux and my only special PC needs are PVR type stuff. XAWTV, TV TIME, and lately mencoder and PCHDTV's apps.

You can do PVR stuff on windows - but not with the kind of control I've got. No, I do not use mythTv.

My reasons...

[3vi1]

I upgraded the motherboard in my WinXP machine and was greeted with a blue-screen at reboot. I had Knoppix, so I used it to access Microsoft's knowledgebase while troubleshooting the issue (it worked flawlessly with the new hardware). Microsoft's definitive answer for my particular problem was "Re-install the OS".

XP came with my original system, but I couldn't use the re-image CDs to recover it. And, I didn't want to put a pirated version on for fear that later on it might lock me out of the security updates that are oh-so-important when running Windows. In the meantime, I starting realizing... nearly everything I use my machine for could be done with Knoppix... and I could probably do even more with another Linux distro.

Soon I noticed that the quality and quanity of free software on Linux is much higher than that on Windows. It's something I never noticed until I took the plunge.

So, I ended up installing Mandrake (now Mandriva) Linux. I also installed my old Win98 CD in a dual boot configuration. 98 was a safety buffer for gaming - for those instances when I couldn't get games to work via Cedega or WINE.

Eventually, I removed the 98 partition. Games are still a weak-point in Linux, but WINE improves every day. There are also some very good native Linux games.

I've tried other distros, but I liked Mandriva so much that I'm a paying club membership now. They treat customers right. Microsoft's activation process, and their agreement with OEM's to only provide re-image CDs is a practice that puts their convenience and profit above the users' basic needs.

Why I switched

[nuggz]

I had an old computer and dosshell task switching didn't really multitask.

With linux I could easily multitask with VC's and still get excellent speed.
I wasn't limited to playing terminate or editing text files while downloading off a BBS, I could really multitask.
I invested the time and learned the system and found it quite usable for my needs. Since then the system grew an I just never felt dissatisfied enough to leave.

For Great Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Transcript of how we made the switch to Linux:

Narrator: In A.D. 2005, switch was beginning.
User: What happen?
Help Desk: Somebody set up us the death screen blue.
Admin: We get phone call.
User: What !
Admin: Conference call turn on.
User: It's you!!
Bill Gates: How are you gentlemen!!
Bill Gates: All your base are belong to us.
Bill Gates: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say!!
Bill Gates: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Bill Gates: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Admin: User!!
User: Take off every 'XP'!!
User: You know what you doing.
User: Install 'Linux'.
User: For great justice.

it was a toy for me...

[Thatto]

My father is a programmer. One of those whitebeards that learned programming using stacks of punchcards. There was always technology at home, usually in pieces, laying about to be studied and tinkered with. His company (a telecom) used unix quite extensively. CLI was the way to get anything done. When he heard about Linux, he brought it home and tried it out. I think it was kernel .99. If you wanted a driver you had to write it. There wasnt much it could do out-of-the-box. Hell, there wasn't even a box! But that was the greatness of it. You had to get under the hood. You had to understand the mechanisms behind the curtain. My father taught me his craft. It was a bonding activity. Some people build canoes in the garage. We built a server.

I was hooked...then I discovered girls. I took a break for a while.
When I came back to linux, I was in college. My roomate and I needed to share a dial-up connection. Being poor, we cobbled a underpowered machine from the scraps at school. Red-Hat 5 was new, and some disks were laying around the lab so we used it. I finally made the switch in 1998. Not because I hate windows, but because I love linux. I take pride in the fact that the community built it. We supported ourselves, and fashioned an OS that has the largest software company in the world threatened.

The absolute best part about linux is the code distilling process. It is Darwinism for computers. Rather than a company developing to meet a business plan/schedule, you have a community tweaking and patching and improving the code everyday. cood code gets passed to the next version, the badly structured sloppiness gets dumped.... most of the time :-) /RANT

joke

[smallguy78]

This title sounds like the start of a joke

Gamer

[Anonymous Coward]

Switching? I'm a gamer and I'm not switching.
And yes, I know this is the wrong place to proclaim this... flame me.

My reasons no longer apply, but

[pthisis]

I switched in 1994, so my original reasons no longer apply:

1. I couldn't type my name in Microsoft Word. Every time I wrote "Sumner", it changed it to "Summer".
2. All the Windows network stacks crashed hard if I opened more than one connection at a time.

Supervillans!

[markw365]

We were negotiating with the Pentagon; We had a blue screen of death, when you're holding the moon for ransom, you value stability in an application.

We can all be supervillians like Steve.

Applications, Continual Upgrades, Freedom, Power..

[fiveRocketCars]

I haven't fully migrated off of Windows yet, but more and more of my day to computer time is spent on Linux.

For me, it is the applications and the general look and feel upgrades that continually get better and surprise me. I'm currently using Suse 9.3, and have experimented with Ubuntu 5.10 which was a very pleasent surprise.

Main experiences that are moving me to Linux:
1.) I know that about every six months i'll see a new Suse, Ubuntu and OpenBSD distribution,
and I know that there will never be a financial cost to upgrading (unless of course, i choose to donate to companies supporting open source software, by purchasing their retail products.)
2.) Firefox. -- It has a very comfortable feel similar to the same version under Windows.
3.) OpenOffice. -- I've recently used the spread sheet and drawing program as at the moment, i didn't have access to MS Office or Viso, and I was like "hey, this is slick. and it just works!" I was also very easily able to export my document to PDF so that i could email it to somebody in a format that I knew they could view easily.
4.) K3B. CD/DVD burning is just easy, powerful, and included in the distributions.
5.) USB support. I recently attended a class using a Linux laptop where the instructor passed around a USB mini storage drive as a way to hand out materials, i was nervous that I may not be able to use it, but again i was pleasently surprise that "it just worked". I popped in the USB device and a window appeared showing the contents of the drive.
6.) Misc applications. Almost anything day to day task that i would do on a computer (even if i personally haven't done it yet.....I could probably find an application for it in my full Suse distribution. There is just an enormous amount of applications available for the platform that are "good enough" for most things that a person wants/needs to do.
7.) Suse Installation -- Just easy. Nice graphics
8.) New Ubuntu experience. Nothing I can put my finger on, but it just like a well laid out product that is awesome to have for free. I was a bit confused at the no root password thing at first, but now quite like keeping it password free and using sudo.
9.) Network configuration has always been a breeze for me on Linux (with exception for wireless).
10.) Backups. It is fairly easy to do automated but simple tar/ssh based backups across multiple machines where i can set it up, and basically never touch it again. (and there are plenty of documented backup solutions available on the internet as well). Windows solutions don't seem as easy or automated. Even if i have to just push a button, i'll forget at some point, and that'll be the day the harddrive fails and i'll lose some important data.
11.) Remote access. Doesn't matter where i am, i can usually find a computer somewhere to download putty, and log into my machines.
12.) Server capabilities. I run a family website, web based mail server (Qmail/Horde), FTP server on my servers, and will be installing mythtv shortly. Its just cool that the mail server that my family uses is better than the yahoo/gmail/hotmail service that is available, because of all the addon packages that are available.
13.) Development environment. I'm a software developer, and it is cool, that I can setup my computer at home to have a near identical development and deployment environment to the one we use at my place of employment. So much of my education at home is relevant to my work, and so much of my on the job training is relevant to my personal hobbies at home. I can replicate an as reliable/robust family website as my companies web site is, using the same development tools and server software that we use at work. That is just cool that an individual has the capability/capacity to do things like that.
14.) VNC. The new VNC client/server software packages allow me to full-screen my Linux desktop on my Windows OS (or vice-versa), and allow me to have access to my linux boxes, like my monitor was attached to the box. This allows for a s

Why I switched and then switched again...

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Linux because I wanted more control of my system. I wanted to be able to do what I wanted. I enjoyed messing around with the computer to get ti to run just the way I want and then stay that way.

Then I got a job, grew up and now I want a computer that I can work on - not a computer that is work to use. So, now I'm a Mac user and I don't think I'll ever go back. I still have that Unix layer that allows me to venture into that realm every so often but I really like the idea that my computer works. One day both myself (Mac OS X) and my roommate (win2k) had to rebuild our laptops (had to do mine due to messing around in the system). I copied all my applications to the server - one folder for each application/game. I backed up my home folder to the server (single file due to filevault). I then reinstalled and then copied the data back. Total time for me was 2 hours. It took my roomate 2 days to reinstall and re-configure everything properly.

i dont switch, i flip flop...

[steak]

it might make me a bad loonix fan boy, but i dont use linux on my main computer exclusively. i flip flop; i'll go about six months to a year with linux on my main computer and then some game will come out that will make me reinstall windows to play it. i know all about cedega and have used it to play older games, which it works great for, but it just doesn't cut the mustard for newer games.

if only blizzard would have finished the linux client for WoW, i would have been free of windows forever. the main stumbling block for me is that i haven't found an mmorpg that i like and that also has a linux client. almost every fps it seems has a linux client, so im good there. now that my WoW obsession is over i'll probaly go back to linux for a while.

I switched to Windows because...

[eoin1]

I switched to Windows because I was tired of vendor lock-in. Only being able to get my kernels from kernel.org really sucks!! With Windows, I have a variety of choices: Bittorrent, Gnutella, Freenet, etc.

Re:I switched to Windows because...

[eoin1]

But seriously, I like Linux because it has given me access to learning opportunities that are not available in the Windows world. To be able to set up a powerful web server, database, email server, etc, etc for free is something that just wouldn't happen in the proprietary world of Windows. I guess I am talking about FOSS in general, not just GNU/Linux.

Can't Afford a Mac

[jpsowin]

Duh, it's because they can't afford a Mac.

Re:Can't Afford a Mac

[jc87]

And even if i can afford one , who says that i want Mac? Gnu/Linux is just the OS for me

if it's games you want....

[commodoresloat]

You should get a Mac! They brought back that great puzzle game that made people flock to OS 7-9 back in the day.

Breaking the cycle of expensive mediocrity

[JoeCommodore]

At work my FoxBase +/Mc apps have been serving us well but since Microsoft dropped support for FoxProMac and the Windows version was not up to my liking I started to look for something different. My choice came from these observations:

a) I could go the mac route with new expensive DB apps (and OSs, and hardware, and Servers), and cross my fingers those DB companies will still be alive in the next few years and that they would be sufficiently cross-platform.

b) Go the windows route and suffer the slings of the cracker community and the arrows of MS's' licensing and upgrade options.

c) Develop on OS tools that are on par with what MS has but more flexible and acesssible, enjoy a community of people also just trying to get things done, work with one of the more popular emerging technologies - web based applications - which also will make overall management much more easier.

So in short I saw more solutions and opportunities with Linux down the road than the other routes which seemd like thay would just eventually be a repeat of where was then.

Surprising?

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine. Linux stands on its own merits. Anti-Microsoft sentiment comes from Microsoft's paranoia, which results in quotes like the one that had Bill Gates saying he'd put Linux in the Computer museum like he has other competitors.

I don't find this surprising at all. You don't run a business on emotion -- you run it on what works. Linux works. And well. And I can do things with it I can't do with MS.

Linux proponents do themselves a huge disservice by posting "M$ sux" posts everywhere. The whole '[they] doth protest too much' thing comes to mind.

I choose Linux for Linux, not as a slap in the face to Mr. Gates.

for fun initially

[at_slashdot]

I tried to to have fun but than I started to like the stability, predictability, the fact that's highly configurable and secure -- and most important freedom...

When I have to use Windows I curse my luck and I feel like I'm in my underwere anytime I'm connected to the net.

Not scientific

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA: "We conducted the survey on-line informally, so people could freely express themselves."

This means that it was not a random sample; it is culled from people who read that particular web site and who volunteeered to be surveyed.

That doesn't make it or the answers uninteresting though, just invalid.

Personally, I had a lot of reasons for moving to Linux including curiosity, but mostly because I was tired of being shaken down by thugs.

I mean, I have a 1988 model car which serves me perfectly well. It needs routine maintenence and often repairs, but I can get the servicing and repairs. The gasoline, coolant, brake fluid, oil, etc it uses havn't changed. Should a defect become apparant (not likely after 20 years) the manufacturer will recall it and fix it.

Windows 98 is becomming more and more useless as time goes by, with fewer and fewer new programs that will work on it. I can't maintain it, as I don't have the source code. I can't get security updates for it, even when the updates are necessary as a result of bad workmanship.

Why is my 20 year old car perfectly useable and servicable while my 7 year old OS is not?

I hate Microsoft because I use their products. If I'd been a Mac user all these years it wouldn't matter to me.

I bought DOS 3.3, then 6, then Win 95 and then win 98 and I'm tired of the "upgrade treadmill." It's a fucking farce, a scam, little different from a Mafia protection racket.

I believe Microsoft software is buggy and insecure ON PURPOSE.

Alas, when my 400Mz CPU died I built a new computer w/ a vid card I could plug into my 42 inch TV set. And ATi hates Linux.

I miss Mandrake.

Cron and pipes!

[raddan]

Why? Easy! I can schedule stuff in cron, and I can string things together using pipes. There's little you can't do with the built-in tools in Linux and these two features.

I remember the day that I realized I could use my computer to record my weekly radio show, encode it, and move the whole thing to my iPod before I came home-- automatically! I was just totally floored. Now I'm building a system to monitor the temperature of my homebrew in my fermenters.

Sure, Windows has pipes. But most programs can't take input on stdin and require user interaction. Useless to me!

(And for clarification... I don't actually use Linux... I use BSD. But for most uses, they are essentially the same.)

Re:Cron and pipes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cron, pipes and PureData.
A visual programming environment by Miller Puckette that started as a sound tool and now
includes animation and 3D modelling tools. You can build audio streaming servers or anything you like
by defining arbitary deep abstractions, with the serial and parallel modules it becomes
a dream for robotics and automation, fine for growers and brewers:)

I switched because of the noise

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

I switched to Linux becauz a Trane was too noisy.

I found that ironic

[Main Gauche]

I use LaTeX for just about everything. The main thing that prevents me from moving to Linux is that I'd miss my favorite programmable editor (WinEdt). (Yes, I already voted for a Linux port as "most needed new feature" over at Winedt.org.)

Meanwhile, I have had precisely zero problems running MikTeX on Windows. MikTeX can be configured to automatically fetch updated or missing packages. But with a full install, you rarely need that feature anyway. Occasionally, I tell the Wizard to update everything, and it works. Exactly what problems could the above people be having? I'm not trolling here, I really don't get it. I've lost count of the number of reasons I don't like Windows, but what's wrong with LaTeX & Friends on Windows?

Boredom

[InsurgentGeek]

The primary driver for me was boredom. I don't just like to use computers to get things done - I like to play with them, understand how they work and generally tweak and fidget. So, I got off windows and onto a series of Linux distros until I found one that was the right balance betwwen usability and tweakability.

I'd like to know how many people have been caught by what happened next. I've got servers, desktops and laptops. I got sick of the noise and clutter. Apple announces the Mac Mini and I've always loved Apple's displays. Why don't I just buy a mini and "X" into my other machines. I'll put them in another room. Hmmm, this is very cool. Silent, full access to my machines. OK, I'm bored. let's play with the Mac a little. Wow, this all works pretty nicely. Wow, this is all Unix under the covers. Cool, I can install just about whatever new software I want. Sure does work well with my camera, iPod and flash drive. Maybe I'll just swich over my mail to the Mac - seems easier. I just need to write a one page document - maybe I'll just do it here. Jump on the web? Why open X - I'lll just do it here.

Two months later the Mini has been retired to the TV room, I am the proud owner of a shiny new maxed out Powerbook with an attached 20" display and, for the most part, my Linux systems are sitting in the backroom being file and Popfile servers. I was captured by the Mac interface, lack of hassle and integration between components.

Any other switch (then switch) types out there?

Common thread

[LaughingCoder]

No big surprise, but virtually everybody who has commented in this forum, and in the "survey" has something in common - they are tinkerers who like to play with computers and/or write code. I am not terribly surprised by the lack of expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments. First of all, that group is smart enough to couch their reason in a positive way (Linux is great!) since they know how the former would be perceived. Second, I really believe that for tinkerers Linux is a strong alternative to Windows. Stuff is free, the hardware is cheap (thank you Microsoft) and there are plenty of tools and lots of "help" in the form of sample code, open source, etc. However, that population only covers about 0.5% of the overall computer-using population. The big question is, how many of the remaining 99.5% are using Linux, and if so, why did they switch.

Re:Common thread

[freeweed]

the hardware is cheap (thank you Microsoft)

I really didn't understand this comment.

Re:Common thread

[Wonko]

The big question is, how many of the remaining 99.5% are using Linux, and if so, why did they switch.

My parents computers and my girlfriend's father's computer are running Debian or Ubuntu. When I originally set up my parents computers I installed Windows 2000 on them. This was about 4 years ago. Since I was 1500 miles away, I thought it would be more useful to have a system that other people nearby could easily support. Boy, was that a mistake.

They mostly surf the web and take pictures. I have has much fewer calls from them with problems since I switched them, and they are happier with the machines now. I have no idea what percentage of your 99.5% people like my parents fall into, though. I do assume it is a fairly large number of people. :)

Re:Common thread

[LaughingCoder]

Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1869093 ,00.asp for an explanation.

Re:Common thread

[freeweed]

You do realize that commoditized, cheap computer hardware owes itself to the fact that the original IBM PC BIOS was cloned, and Compaq et al were the ones who brought on today's market, right?

Microsoft hitched a ride.

Re:Common thread

[LaughingCoder]

MS did not hitch a ride, they drove the bus. Until MS came along the pattern was for hardware vendors to also sell you an OS. Everything was closed. Even Apple (a darling of this forum) was closed (and still is). It's "us or the highway" was what all the hardware vendors declared. As it turns out, though, IBM screwed up by outsourcing their OS and not demanding an exclusive (I'm sure they would do it differently if they could have a "do-over"). Gates was no dummy. He developed versions of MSDOS independent of IBM, which ran on IBM machines. And yes, MS got a bit lucky when clones emerged, though frankly if he hadn't have secured rights to sell MSDOS to these clone manufacturers then it would have been much more difficult for them to achieve compatibility. They would have had to "clean room develop" an OS, which is significantly more difficult than clean-rooming a BIOS (which was hard in itself). [note: why is that? it's because a BIOS is a middle layer which is pinned from both ends, an OS is only pinned from the bottom unless you can get your hands on every application ever written to test compatibility at the top] So basically it was MS that broke the hardware vendor's lock on operating systems. This led to competition in the hardware world, which led to cheap hardware.

One more note, by insisting on binary compatibility, MS has fostered this cheap hardware revolution all the way to today. Intel/AMD were forced to keep binary compatibility, which again led to much competition in the processor world, which led to amazing performance at ever cheaper prices. Counter-examples: Sun SPARC, Intel Itanium, IBM PowerPCs (used by Apple). None of these processors had binary compatibity with another vendor's parts and, surprise of surprises, they are all fading away.

You can say all you want about MS business practices, and the security and stability problems with their software, but you cannot deny their significant role in laying the foundations for cheap, compatible hardware which enabled things like FOSS and Linux to emerge.

Re:Common thread

[freeweed]

Pretty interesting way of looking at history. You seem to forget that computer hardware used to sell for only a few hundred dollars, long before Microsoft had any significant presence in the OS industry. IBM managed to raise these prices substantially only because their main competitors were complete idiots: Commodore and Atari with their poor marketing, and Apple for remaining far too expensive. If either had tried to seriously compete with IBM, the PC clone industry might never have happened, and Microsoft would be merely a footnote from the early days of computing.

Alternatively, if IBM had retained full control over the OS used on PCs, Linux would just have happened years earlier. Linux itself is proof that a competing, binary-compatible OS is not only possible, but inevitable. The fact that the BIOS was reverse engineered, and susequently cloned, is WHY Microsoft was able to make an OS that ran on everything. No BIOS, no clones, no MSDOS. Apple clones briefly existed, and failed for this very reason.

Microsoft didn't make an OS which caused cheap, ubiquitous hardware, it's exactly the other way around.

One of your quotes really stuck with me:

by insisting on binary compatibility, MS has fostered this cheap hardware revolution all the way to today. Intel/AMD were forced to keep binary compatibility, which again led to much competition in the processor world, which led to amazing performance at ever cheaper prices.

See, um, Microsoft survived on the coattails of PC-compatibles for YEARS before ANYONE competed with Intel. AMD hardly existed as a market force before the 386. AMD was forced to be binary compatible with Intel BECAUSE IT HAD TO RUN THE SAME SOFTWARE AS AN INTEL MACHINE. The software could have been anything. In fact, it often was (you do realize there were many companies selling DOS competitors, right?).

You really have a skewed way of looking at things. Believe me, for those of us around at the time, no one was sitting around thinking "thank god for Microsoft helping keep these hardware prices down!". Because they weren't.

Re:Common thread

[LaughingCoder]

AMD was forced to be binary compatible with Intel BECAUSE IT HAD TO RUN THE SAME SOFTWARE AS AN INTEL MACHINE. The software could have been anything.

It just so happens that the software IT HAD TO RUN was DOS/Windows. Pure luck in your version of history. It's the result of hard work and vision in my view.

This conversation reminds me of a discussion I had with a regulatory person at my company. They wanted to know which PC our new medical software would run on. I told them that we ran on Windows NT 4.0. They said, "no, which box?" I carefully explained that we write our applications to an OS platform. We rely on Microsoft and the hardware vendors to verify that Windows runs correctly on their hardware, whatever it may be. It was our job to make sure our application ran on Windows. Hardware didn't matter. It took some convincing, but finally they *got it*. Do you?

Re:Common thread

[westlake]

You seem to forget that computer hardware used to sell for only a few hundred dollars, long before Microsoft had any significant presence in the OS industry

These aren't the prices I see in back issues of "Creative Computing." Unless you consider a Sinclair, Vic-20 or an Atari 800 an office machine.

Re:Common thread

[freeweed]

It just so happens that the software IT HAD TO RUN was DOS/Windows. Pure luck in your version of history. It's the result of hard work and vision in my view.

Not at all. I didn't say, or at least mean to imply, that it was pure luck. Microsoft fought hard and long to ensure they were the only game in town. I won't dispute that, and in fact I have a lot of respect for them making it to the top of an otherwise fragmented market.

However, the fact remains: they did not produce today's market of commodity computer equipment. It would have existed regardless of their presence. Having a clear market leader helped in the enforcement of standardization, sure. Otherwise we might have ended up with a far more fragmented market. But the cheap PC market was inevitable once Compaq came into town.

Your original point that I disagreed with was that we have Microsoft to thank for cheap consumer-level hardware. That happened independently of their existence. The fact that they exerted (and continue to exert) such domniance in their part of this market is due to hard work, perseverence, and yes, a small bit of luck (most people would call this good timing). But they in no way created the market.

By the time NT 4.0 was out, hardware vendor was an irrelevant question. Because Microsoft was leading the way. Novell was moving towards a footnote by this point because they just didn't see this.

Re:Common thread

[LaughingCoder]

So it seems we still disagree about Microsoft's role in the emergence of cheap hardware. You say it *would* have happened without them. In my view, a common software platform that insulated 3rd party applications from the hardware was a necessary ingredient. Microsoft provided that ingredient. OK, it *could* have been somebody else, and maybe it *would* have been somebody else had Microsoft not been there, but that doesn't change the fact that it *was* Microsoft that filled that void.

As Patrick Moynihan once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

I switched to Linux because...

[Tracy Reed]

...it gets chicks!

Six months, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was able to install Linux right away (Mandrake was actually an easier install than Windows), so the SOFTWARE wasn't the issue.

My problem was that I still used my computer with ingrained habits from Microsoft since Windows 2.0. Linux just "felt wrong" for about 6 months, and I fought it all the time.

Then, about six months into my Linux usage, there was a day where everything just "clicked". I had MENTALLY made the switch from thinking in "Microsoft-ese" to thinking in "Linux".

Haven't looked back since... in fact, one of my proudest moments was when my wife suggested to my 10 year old that she should "upgrade" her computer to Linux! (I installed Linux on my daughter's machine the next day.)

G.B.Y.L.B.T.,
PastorEd
Lewis County Linux User's Group

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[Trigun]

The point that I was making, was that there wasn't a make or break software package that made me choose linux over windows. Everything that I would use on wondows, I have a comparable item on linux. The difference is that Microsoft's operating system makes it much easier to hide exactly what is going on. I have very little control over what is going on with the system. There really isn't a way for me to just sit down without any third party tools and tell you exactly what is going on. Linux' coreutils package gives me that. I trust my linux box. I don't trust my MS box.

Re:Switch? I dual boot

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I havent switched is because i play CD games on my windows, if I could play them on linux, I would have switched already.

Actions speak louder than words

[marcus]

I *run* Linux because I want to run Linux.
I *use* Linux because I want to use Linux.
I don't advocate Linux unless someone asks me.
I don't bash WinXX unless someone asks me.

I *bash* WinXX because people are always calling me asking: "Can you fix this?" "I've got a problem with my computer..." "My PC crashed..." "I opened this email and now my PC is so slow..." "My Internet is..." "I can't ..."

So, while fixing, or more frequently of late telling them to get someone else to fix it, I bash. If they ask for advice, then I advocate.

So far, I have seen two 100% converts thanks to live/demo CDs and application maturity. Both are happy and don't *ever* call to tell me their PCs are broken anymore.

'Nuff said, just do it!

Re:Actions speak louder than words

[indifferent children]

I don't advocate Linux unless someone asks me.

I advocate Linux because if Linux is more popular, not only will *everyone* benefit from reduced malware and vendor lock-in, but I will benefit from having my platform supported by hardware and software manufacturers. I don't bash WinXX unless someone asks me.

If I see someone drowning, I try to help whether they are shouting for help or not. A few of them are amazing swimmers who want to spend several minutes floating face-down, but most of them could use the help. If you are the kind of visionary who could see (say in 1880), the automobile rising to dominance, then it would be a kindness to tell your friends at the buggywhip factory that it might be time for some cross-training.

Re:Actions speak louder than words

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I "fix" windows boxes now by giving out a live knoppix CD or DVD. Screw giving MS free support anymore, if they want me to support my friends and families boxes they can pay me $200,000 a year.

Re:Actions speak louder than words

[joeljkp]

Pushing Linux to someone it's not right for, or who's not ready for it, is a good way to turn them off of it for a lot longer than they would be if you hadn't said anything at all. Tact and timing plays an important part in advocacy.

Clean Conscience, All The Toys I Want For Free

[LazloToth]

I can slap Linux and open source applications on as many workstations, appliances, and servers as I like, and I don't have to keep records about what I've installed versus what I've paid for. Anyone who has been through a software audit at work knows what I mean. I like that so much of the software is simple and stable. Even my Windows-oriented colleagues have become believers having seen the reliability of our LAMP servers. Computing without fear of viruses is a plus. And I've become so partial to Firefox on KDE in the last couple of years that I can hardly stand using anything else.

Why I switched back to MS after switching to Linux

[jkind]

- Apache was just as easy to use in MS (although much less documented support)
- It just has a nicer, cohesive, look and feel
- I just can't fall in love with GIMP, not matter how much I try
- Burning cd's is much too difficult to get working
- Plug and play support
- Font support
but hey I intend to give Linux another try in a few months when I have some time..

The reasons are many...

[mtdnelson]

1. I can't afford to pay for Windows & all of the third party software which I would like. If I bought proprietary equivalents of all the software that I use frequently, the bill would definitely run into thousands of pounds (sterling), maybe tens of thousands. I used to use some pirated software, but it makes me feel bad - especially as I now work for a software developer!

2. I like the dynamic feeling that I get running Linux. Sure, bugs turn up - but then, they are often fixed quite quickly, and I do use some pretty bleeding-edge software.

3. I use Linux and various open source utilities at work. On a fair few occasions, I have had reason to post to a newsgroup or email a list with a problem. Almost every time, I have had a relevant/helpful reply within hours - often from the main developer of the program. It always makes me feel good.

4. I spend a fair bit of time learning new things - either for fun or from necessity. I don't mind this at all, as I don't feel that the time is wasted - the goalposts won't change every time that someone decides to upgrade software.

5. As a kind of combination of the earlier reasons... Linux gives me proper soundcard drivers (ALSA drivers for an RME Hammerfall), an incredibly flexible audio routing program (JACK), and a professional recording program (Ardour). As if this weren't enough, I get the opportunity to exchange emails with the developers of these programs - and get a fast helpful reply if my question merited it!

6. Some other reasons which I don't have the energy to go into. It's the end of the week, I'm tired, and I have a cold...

Linuxologists

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems these days that attacking Windows and supporting Linux make you look cool (even if all you know about linux is ooh ooh gah gah). So, accordingly, I installed linux-this and linux-that and I go around preaching about linuxologism (e.g. gah gah ooh ooh). Damn, I am soooo cool.

OT: Need similar help

[databyss]

I'm running Fedora Core 4 and I have a similar problem.

I run an Audigy 2 sound card and it doesn't work.

I found a thing somewhere in the gnome menu's for it and I turned on some digital something or other checkbox and it kinda worked. But I had to reformat and reinstall the day after I installed the first time and now I can't get my sound card to work again.

I've checked out a few forums, but no luck. Google brings me to some sort of new driver site... but that's very confusing.

Could you help? I'm dying to stay with Linux, but no sound = no good... especially for audio editing.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Re:OT: Need similar help

[LDoggg_]

I had a similar problem with fedora 3. Turned out that there was a volume bar on the gnome sound thing turned low by default.
Wish I could tell you more details, but I can't remember what that app name was... It had a whole bunch of volume adjustments on it.

Re:OT: Need similar help

[tjwhaynes]

Try running alsamixergui and see if that comes up. If it does, make sure that at least the Master and PCM volume is non-zero (I normally have them set at about 75% or so). Quit it and you should be done.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Take the red pill

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Linux open's itself up to let you go inside as deep as you want to go.

It makes you more of what you already are.

Before Linux, I felt like Mario Andretti driving around in a Ford Minivan.
Can you imagine my wonder and excitement when Linus rolled up his garage door, showed us his Ferrari of an OS and said, "hop in, its free".

Re:Take the red pill

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before Linux, I felt like Mario Andretti driving around in a Ford Minivan.
Can you imagine my wonder and excitement when Linus rolled up his garage door, showed us his Ferrari of an OS and said, "hop in, its free"."

OMG that is so gay. No wonder you guys can't get dates. It's only an OS guys!!!!!

MOM

Re:Take the red pill

[Anonymous Coward]

(2 million years bc)
creator of wheel: "look how beautiful this round rock is!"
dumb caveman: "OMG yer so gay. you never get date if rock has no edge"

(1899)
Orville Wright: "Look how those birds fly, amazing!"
Dumb jock: "OMG you are such a dandy boy. You will never get dates by looking at birds"

(1899)
Einstein: "Look at the beautiful stars. I wonder how far the light goes?"
Dumb jock: "OMG you are such a dandy boy. You will never get dates by looking at stars"

(1945)
Neil Armstrong: "Look at the beautiful moon. I wonder if it has air on it?"
Dumb Jock: "OMG you are so gay. You will never get dates by staring at the moon".

(1989)
Linus: "I wonder if I could make Unix work on PC's"
Dumb Jock: "OMG yer so gay, you will never get dates by playing with a computer".

Re:Take the red pill

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, all accurate and true. Famous, yes, but all either dateless or married to the first woman that'd give it up.

So your point is...?

Re:Take the red pill

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that in my opinion Linux allowed me to pursue in greater depths how an OS works and it was more elegant, and that is what caused me to switch.

The pursuit of knowledge and appreciation of beauty and elegance is not "gay", be it of nature, science, a car, a woman or an OS. And I cant really argue the question of how many dates the people you speak of cant get because I dont know all of them or the details of their love lives.

Because Debian stands for a better world

[FishandChips]

I was drawn to Linux by the charter for a universal operating system, freely available to anyone who wants it without fear or favour all over the world. In an age of sometimes rotten materialism, this stands out as something worth aspiring to. Like any ideal, we'll never get there but the goal is in the journey. Debian has come to be the best expression of that for me, but there are plenty of alternatives to choose from.

I still use Windows and it has many fine qualities. But increasingly I dislike it's one-size-fits-all approach and its reduction of all human experience to just one crass American vision: pay up pay up, consume consume, more more. Most of all I dislike its dishonesty - wherever you are in Windowsland, the helpful guides who take you by the elbow and recommend the sights to see are all taking a cut from Big Bill and so are paid to steer you in one direction only. It's not for me.

My Reason -- SLEEP

[jcwynholds]

Really, I sleep better at night now. Not having to worry about script kiddies, viruses, or hotfixes mucking stuff up.

When we were running our NT domain, things were constantly at the brink of total meltdown. I didn't sleep well at all.

I still get the occasional twinge (paranoia does that to you), but uptime of 400+ days (with patches, too!) really helps my 40 winks.

The ideological stuff is fine and good, but at the end of the day, I just want to go to sleep knowing that when I return the next day, things will be pretty much as I left them.

*BSD and commercial Unix would do this, but when I deploy Linux, I don't have to ask my boss for $$$, or feel like I'm ripping off someone. They all have their respective strenghts and weaknesses, but after a few years, linux is very comfortable for me.

Free is nice, sleep is priceless.

Switched when I graduated University

[Gherikill]

I tired using linux during my days at Uni taking engineering, but I always ended up switching back to windows. The main reason for this was sharing files with peers, print on campus and not wasting time trying to learn opensource programs that try and mimic production stuff. Now that I have graduated I switched over to SuSe full time, since all I have to do is surf the web and download torrents with a little bit of tinkering here and there - plus I have time to waste trying to get things to work. Basic web surfing and email are pretty much the only things desktop inux can do reliably at this point.

where it's not better, it's enough

[amuseron]

Better: Cheaper, cooler, robuster, securer, privater. Enough: Easy, capable.

wtf?! That has to be the lamest question ever.

[BLQWME]

Why don't you ask why people switch from Vaseline to KY Jelly. 'Cuz they wanted to... I'll switch when more apps (read games) are developed for LINUX and when I can get a driver for new hardware easily. And don't give me the emulation crap or driver support has greatly improved crap either. Yeah... this is flame bait!!!

Friends don't let friends put Oracle on Windows

[Hoi Polloi]

Every time I find out that the server running Oracle is Windows instead or a "nix" box I have to stifle my groan. It is just far easier to admin Oracle on a nix box and a hell of a lot more stable.

I switched because of my divorce :)

[Procyon101]

I was paying a gob when I got seperated in spousal support and left with only the clothes on my back. Being a developer I needed a computer quickly and cheaply. I slapped one together for $20 and wasn't about to spend 5x's the price of the system on an OS... so I installed linux. It just worked. Being a developer, I needed 10's of Thousands of dollars worth of windows dev tools on the machine, my Linux box came with all of their equivelents installed by default.

As I started my home business, I needed to set up a home network. Not knowing what I needed or how to install and run it, I decided to "try out" all the services in linux to see how they fit together... I wasn't about to spend money on software I didn't know I needed. Now I have 20 or so Linux boxes all doing their job in my network and running flawlessly.

I still have 1 windows machine around which I use to test my software on before I ship it, because most likely my customers are running windows... but other than testing it's retired. I have a very nice corporate network with LDAP, Source control, bug tracking, dev workstations, automatic updates, firewalls, databases, web servers, etc... all put together on ancient machines that probably can't even install a modern supported windows OS. I have learned to build and maintain a network and development environment with almost no cash outlay. I can run an entire company on a bunch of sub 1Ghz machines that I got for free or nearly so. If I had to stick with Windows, I simply wouldn't have been able to afford the capital outlay to go into business for myself.

why i switched

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to linux, because somebody on /. told me to!

Why I haven't switched

[kahrytan]

The biggest reason is because of the games I have. Many of them are not compatible on Linux. Wine cant help me with them. And it takes months for the community to find a solution for new ones to be compatible.

The second reason is I just don't have money for 40gb hard drive to install Linux on.

Third reason is because of no good graphics program. GIMP just doesn't cut it.

All in all, I haven't switched because I can't dual boot it without partitioning windows drive. Then I would just switch to windows when I need it.

because it is the geeky thing to do..

[B5_geek]

Most of us are old-farts when it comes to computing, so I won't bore you with a "I remember when..."

Alas I can't really tell the story without saying it.

Back in the dos days, it actually meant something when you told a person the you were 'into computers'.

Peers were few and far between, but we were the cornerstone of BBS networks, and damn were we ever geeky. (From hacking io.sys & msdos.sys, to building your own Lego-World to play RPGs in to scale.)

It was a special time. Nowadays everybody is 'into-computers' because they can send an email or click a mouse.

I first heard about Linux several years ago and always wanted to give it a try just because it sounded 'geeky-enough' and well different. I finally got my chance to give 'er a go with RedHat v5.2! it was up, down working and crashing but atleast I was able to run it. The complete lack of games (I was much more a gamer then) quickly let Linux lose its appeal.

Back to Windows I crawled. Thanks to the internet I have since tried MANY different distros, and I am 100% MS-free for the last 2 years. I do miss the games, but I try to occupy myself with building something new.

Ubuntu has kept me sane, the current games are very nice with even more on the way.

Now, if anybody asks I tell them that I am 'into Linux' and I get that strange wierdo look that I remember from school.

Why There's a Linux Box in the Corner.

[nikkiana]

No one's really asked my fiance or I why one of our computers is a Linux box. The decision to stick a toe into the ocean of Linux came for several reasons... At the time it was originally decided that this computer needed to run Linux, my fiance had a roommate who wouldn't buy his own computer, liked to download mp3s illegally, and in the process would bring home all sorts of nasty computer viruses. Fed up with having a mostly dysfunctional computer due to his roommate, my fiance decided to abandon Windows for Linux... Deciding what distro to use was difficult at first... Despite all the information out there, deciding what flavor of Linux to use was impossible, we tried several before one stuck... The first that we tried was Ubuntu/Kubuntu because we were told by many people that it was easy to use... Indeed it was, except for the fact that we found it to be horribly rigid and weren't able to do things we wanted to do with it, and documentation was less that stellar... and the network card in the computer kicked the bucket shortly after we installed it... This may be purely conicidental, but we took it as a bad omen. Windows was then reinstalled for a few months, and then there was an article on Slashdot about the Enlightenment desktop (to which we said "Ooooh. Shiny." to the screenshots) and it was from Enlightenment that we discovered Vector Linux. Vector Linux made a short appearance on the desktop, just long enough for my honey to decide that if he were to stick with Vector Linux, he wanted to order the deluxe version that's not available for download on their website... Not liking to mail checks, and the fact that their paypal ordering didn't work was giving me errors at the time caused him to change his mind and try something else. Then he decided he wanted Gentoo. I don't know exactly why or how he came to the conclusion that Gentoo would be the perfect distro for him... but it was decided. Now, Gentoo is not the easiest distro to install, and especially not for a Linux n00b, and there was a failed attempt at it... However, there was a fellow that my fiance had gone to college with that we knew used Gentoo... After a scan of the phone book, we called him and he came to my fiance's rescue and we bought him beer and he's become my fiance's linux tutor. We switched (at least on one computer) because Linux is something that's valuable to know how to deal with, because we don't have much money to sink into Windows and Windows based products, just because we can. In some ways, Linux is far more advanced than Windows, in other ways, it lags quite a bit behind... My main critcisms of Linux are where UI is concerned... I've yet to find a distro that has the right balance of hand holding for the user... It seems like there are two extremes, you have distros that babysit the user and don't let them do anything and distros that push you off the cliff into the unknown... Neither have made me feel terribly positive about my Linux experience. I think Linux has a lot of promise, which is why I support the efforts of the Linux community as a whole.

Switching to Linux ...

[kabz]

I first installed Ygdrassil/Walnut Creek branded version of Slackware 1.0 in about 1994 or 95 I think. It worked pretty good, and it was my way of hanging onto the UNIX knowledge I'd learned at University on SunOS. (This was before the Solaris name started being used)

I kept that for a while, ran Windows Me for a *long* time, then ran Red Hat 6.0 for a while, then switched to Gentoo.

My home Linux machines that run MythTV both still run Gentoo, but my laptops run Windows XP (Dell Precision M60 my work laptop), and my personal laptop is a PowerBook G4 12" that runs Mac OSX.

I may look at switching a machine to Gnome, from KDE, just to get all the SVG coolness, but as a daily machine, I do love Mac OSX.

When You're Holding The Moon For Ransom...

[Phil-14]

I'm suprised noone's made this statement yet...

"We were negotiating with the Pentagon, we got a blue screen of death, it was the last straw..."

"When you're holding the Moon for ransom you tend to value stability in an applications platform."

Re:When You're Holding The Moon For Ransom...

[Stupendoussteve]

It totally changed my love life... I'm Steve, and I'm a supervillian.

My reason

[shinygerbil]

I think my main reason for switching was probably something along the lines of "Ooo, shiny".

I downloaded the Ubuntu LiveCD at work on a whim, just because someone mentioned it, and when I installed it I was pleasantly surprised to see a lovely (if rather brown) desktop. So I kept it. (And changed the colour to a kind of light blue/grey combination.)

Plus, Darwinia works under Linux, but not Windows. Windows calmly informed me that my graphics card didn't support pixel shaders, but Ubuntu just went ahead and enabled them anyway. (I turned them off pretty quick, they slow things down too much, but it's nice to know they're there.)

Chicks Dig It ...

[b3x]

Is there a better reason to use linux?

Video of what our kids say after 3 years of Linux.

[pnelson]

Our high school switched to Linux 3 years ago. We're using K12LTSP for 110 desktops throughout our school. I asked students who had been using Linux for the last three years what they thought about it. Here's a video of what they said. Just click on the "What the kids say..." link.

Motto of K12LTSP: It works. It's free. Duh... Guess which part is hard to explain. ;-)

Easy enough reason as to why to switch to Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows. Hmm... can anyone say "Spyware magnet"?

Because of the 60's

[ricoder]

It's much cooler to think of yourself a non-conformist fighting THE MAN!

WAIT! DON'T HIT THAT MOD BUTTON YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are pleanty of valid reasons to give linux a good ole' army try, but many of the script-kiddies living out on the interweb have either made the switch, or SAY they have made the switch because M$ is F'ING EV1L.

I think the Linux community likes the bad-boy 1337 HaX0r image it has...it brings in new converts. Kinda like advertising cigarettes to children, ya know, bring in the next generation and get 'em hooked while they are young.

Yeah...ok...I'll prolly get muy bad karma for this, but the underlying rationale, I think, stands up as a reason for the switch.

I haven't switched

[pr0nbot]

I haven't switched fully because my PC is loud when on, and SUSE Linux won't suspend properly.

Seriously.

I have yet to be convinced that desktop linux isn't fundamentally lacking in such areas of day to day usability.

Installation was horrible (multi-day) also because of the customary hardware issues (specifically, USB audio issues, wifi drivers, both of which still only work intermittently and seemingly at random).

Once installed, my top two complaints are

1. There are far too many utilities installed. I want the best one of each. Yes, it may be that everyone's definition of best is different, but I don't see Apple developing 10 versions of iTunes. There must be one that is good enough for most people.

2. It's nigh impossible to find where in the menu system to configure the thing you're trying to configure. (Again hampered by the fact that there seem to be 10 subtly different utilities that might do what you want.)

I may try another distro, but essentially this is my usual experience of trying to move to desktop Linux, so I only try once a year or so.

I'm sure it'll get there eventually though, probably when the distros shake out and we're left with the ones with focus.

NICELY DONE, SIR!

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly can't believe you weren't modded down into oblivion and bitchslapped by everybody for using the word "stealing". Bravo, sir. I salute you.

Re:NICELY DONE, SIR!

[Wonko]

I honestly can't believe you weren't modded down into oblivion and bitchslapped by everybody for using the word "stealing". Bravo, sir. I salute you.

It is OK to refer to copyright infringement as stealing as long as you are not accusing someone else. If you are accusing someone else it is quite rude to exaggerate their crime. Since he is speaking negatively about himself it is perfectly alright to claim that the crime worse than it is.

Re:NICELY DONE, SIR!

[Anonymous Coward]

...and who exactly are YOU?! The moral crime police? If it's a spade, call it a spade. Take your PC politeness and bury it in the sand with your head. Do the crime, do the time...

Re:NICELY DONE, SIR!

[dangerz]

If it's a spade, call it a spade.

And if it's copyright infringement, call it copyright infringement.

Re:NICELY DONE, SIR!

[Noah Adler]

And if it's copyright infringement, call it copyright infringement.

Quite right, and this applies just as well to grandparent and great-grandparent as it does to parent.

The same way I've seen everybody switch

[Xofer D]

I installed it to see what it was like, dual-boot with windows. Then, as usual, windows broke. It was simply easier to keep running Linux than reinstall windows, so I did. Seriously, there's no point in running windows except for gaming and Outlook these days. And friends don't let friends run Outlook.

Just Because

[jc87]

-I was tired of anti-virus , anti-spyware , etc.... -I was tired of having to wait an eternity for security patches , and new features -I like the idea of free software as in freedom of speech -I wanted someting new -I love the package manager (being capable of installing someting just doing apt-get install XXX ROCKS) -I like having actual control my computer -I love being able to costumize my OS without having to install a bunch of crap -I love to choose what i consider best for me , instead of someone doing it for me (Ubuntu , Mandriva , Suse , slackware , gentoo , etc ... almost 500 diferrent options). -I hate defrag -I like being able to use a decent console Besides , if i was forced to listen that horrible music once again i would start a killing rampage .

Because they have to!

[sootman]

After all, as we all know, 2005 is the year of Linux on the desktop!

I never switched to Linux, simple used it.

[bubulubugoth]

I didnt know I was using Linux. A friend of mine, setup a Linux box for me to setup a Mud. I didnt know C either, just a little of programmig. I was a seasoned coder for Casio advanced calculators.

I needed to do something about a malloc redefined, and something about crypt. I didnt understand, so, bliss the ignorance, comented the code and everything worked. I started coding at LPC for my mud version... and I wasnt aware that I was running Linux Slackware 1.0...

Later, when I needed to do mainanence routing for a rapidly user/coding grown game, I needed to learn bash... move file, approve accounts, that sort of thing...

LATER, when I was asked for my college, to REMOVE my game, which was having like 1/2 of my generation loosing class, thats when I learned what was under the hood of my mud...

Becose I needed to install it. Another machine was assigned to me, a PowerPc PowerStak II from motorola. Ever heard about it? Me neither, there was only 2 links about it on the internet... and redhat had a port. Tried to install a "new" distro, into a strage machine, and I hated redhat.

I wanted my Slackware!, so a user, admin of the network of another state college, offered me an IP, for my game... and learned to install Linux... Thas was about 1.5 years of using it...

Later, I needed to finish my studies, plugged off the mud, and with the experience, I started giving support for local ISP with apache, ipchains, and other stuff, and then... I took a market choise.

Windows was full of people giving support, developing. I was of the few, knowing, and using linux... And I have clients paying for my knowldege, and there was no competition...

So, I belive, I never "switchet", just evolved with Linux....

My Story

[kwalker]

I switched because I was used to DOS and I was taking to UNIX like an otter in a river. I wasn't happy with Win95's problems and when I found out I could get Linux for a reasonable price, including an introduction book.

Now I stay with Linux because of the power I have over the system. It does my bidding, not Microsoft's, Apple's, Sun's, or anyone else. I can find out every process that is running on my system nearly instantly, and I can kill almost any errant program (The only exception is if it hangs while waiting on the kernel which is hung waiting on a device driver). It hasn't crashed since April, and that was my bad. I can do everything I do with a computer (browse; e-mail; IM; rip, stream, and listen to music; watch, transcode, and master video; edit images; wordprocess; work on spreadsheets; balance my accounts; and sync data between devices. And let's not forget that I can program in practically any language used by more than 50 people.

The only thing still lacking is a large selection of video games (The kind I like anyway), but I'm so busy with other projects that I haven't even had time to re-install Windows 2000 (WinXP has never touched my hardware) on my games partition since I upgraded the guts of my workstation back in June.

why?

[null-sRc]

Reasons to use windows:

-fun

custom emoticons in msn.. those are hilarious
gaming gaming gaming gaming

-defacto

everyone uses it, so it feeds on itself... if you want a job usually it involves windows in some way...

Reasons to use linux:

-ethics

no more stealing, plus contribution to software used by third world countries.
also, the software on linux itself tends to be more ethical... no ads, no pop-ups, no secret data collection, etc.

open-source adds TRUST!

-fun

lots of weird things to explore and play around with

-power over the system

no more, closed bugs that MS has decided not to fix
want to build your own packets? go for it!
found a bug critical to your business operation? fix it! boom done.

with power comes stability and flexibility.

-price
free! w00t

I'm starting to lose my reasons for using windows at all--other than to get money for some contracts that have had windows mandated... and of course... games!

Linux works Windows didnt

[pbibb1657]

I record live music (Jam bands ie WSP, The Dead, moe) and I bought a Sony PCG-K13 laptop to use for this purpose,while recording and transfering dat tapes using Windows XP Home edition, Cool Edit 2000 would lock up for no real reason that I could find and it was just a pain in the ass in general I had a gig of ram and freshly defraged hd lots of hd space but it would still lock up at the worst of times I dont think I made 10 full recordings out of 50 tries. Well one day at work the hard drive quit I got a message that the Operating system was being recogized or some thing similar to that , to make a long story short I didnt get very far with Sony support and I didnt save any codes or numbers under the windows deal so I didnt get very far with MS, a guy at work always talked about how happy he was with linux (he runs gentoo) and that a hd wouldnt cost very much and Mandrake was free. So I replaced the hd and downloaded mandrake 10.0 official . In less than 1 hour I had my laptop connected to the internet and in less that a week I had this laptop doing all the other chores I do with music (ie converting shn and flac to wav and editing,recording) It has done this flawlessly since the beginning. One day I thought how nice my laptop worked with linux and what do I even need windows for anymore so I installed linux on the desk top . Im not a computer genius by any stretch of the imaginiation but I was able to find real solutions to all of my problems fairly fast,and I was never able to do that with windows

Configurability

[jonadab]

It's about customizeability. I know, most people don't care; they just leave all the settings they way they come from the factory, never change so much as the wallpaper, much less any actual functionality. Hey, if that makes you happy, whatever floats your boat. Me, I prefer to have the system set up to behave the way I want it to behave, manages windows the way I want them managed, and so on. When I try to use somebody else's system, that isn't set up my way, it's a real pain, because nothing works the way *I* want it to work, and the default behaviors are highly suboptimal for the way I work.

For me, it's all about that, about the ability to teach the computer to work with me, rather than the other way around. After all, who owns whom? The computer belongs to *me*, it should work *my* way; why should I train myself to do things its way? If you were an employer, would you train yourself to do things your employees' way?

Morals are the Only Long Term Reason.

[twitter]

Switching to a GNU/Linux distribution because you're anti-Microsoft is not a long-term reason to switch.

That depends on why you are anti-Microsoft, but morals are a much longer term answer than others.

Morality is a solid reason to avoid Microsoft and Linux is the moral opposite, and that's a good reason to switch. There are many people that would rather not give their money to a company that sues public school systems and supports an anti-social software development model. Those kinds of people will never go back because they see suing public school systems as a logical extension of the closed source way.

Performance issues, also a direct consequence of those flawed morals, are a more practical but short term reason. If you hate Microsoft because their software is crap an costs you lots of time, you can go back if they ever get their act together. You might even pick up a Mac. That would also make you a contributor to the BSA as well as put you under Apple's DRM thumb. Comfort is not the best reason to use free software though ultimately freedom maximizes your comfort and currently the Linux desktop is better than any other.

morals plus

[Major Tom]

My original switch, in 1999, was motivated by fairly standard Stallman-esque moral oposition to proprietary software.

About that time, I was starting to write more serious code, and quickly discovered that hacking on GNU/Linux is a lot more fun than hacking on Windows. So that made it easier to stick with GNU/Linux during some of the frustrations. (And there were plenty.)

Since about 2002, Linux frustration is a rare, rare thing. Debian (and now Ubuntu) just make sense. Software installation (and updating) is a breeze, system configuration too. Programs usually work like you'd expect them to work, and most of the time, if they don't you can change them easily. I've never lost data in an application crash, and I've never even experienced a system crash.

These days, it drives me up the wall when I have to use Windows in the computer lab on campus. Just last week, I lost two hours' work in Word because Internet Explorer crashed. I have absolutely no desire to swtich back.

I suppose the upshot is: I really do believe that GNU/Linux (and especially Debian) is manifestly superior to Windows. But switching still is (and might always be) enough of a challenge that some motive other than a desire for the best OS must be present to get you through the transition.

Duality

[Chayak]

Well first off I use linux because I dislike some of Micro$oft$ practices. The windows registry is awful and the system gets bogged down over time requiring a reinstall to get your performance back. While stability has improved a lot in XP I hate the activation requirement. I hate having to explain that I did a hardware upgrade on my system to some microsoft goon who asks me over and over if I'm installing on another computer. I have a legit license I shouldn't have to deal with that bullshit. I still have my gaming rig that runs XP but that's all it's for, games. I discovered linux when I was in my junior year of highshool in 1996. I was a student network assisant and the IT guy there was trying linux on some of the servers he had (we all know school IT budgets are usually quite low) I started playing around with it and was amazed at how quick it was compaired to the NT system that was installed before. I asked where he got it and he told me he downloaded it and gave me the site. I installed it on my old desktop and I've been using it ever since. The only thing that keeps me from switching over totally is games. I use a painfully slow win2k system at work though I'd install linux on my system if I could get away with it.

Apache was my killer-application

[dzafez]

I had been writing a lot of HTML-sites in ed (not the unix-ed, but a patched down turbo-pascal-editor) in DOS back in 1998. I had to go to my dad's WindowsComputer to view the page. I did that with a floppy disk, since our Novell-LAN (yes at home, 4 boys) had been removed 1995 it think. But the internet was interesting and I also wanted to try some server site scripting. Since I have been Offline, I couldn't just go and find too many alternatives. I thought about getting some kind of IIS "free" copy. Then I saw a magazine and it had a set of two CD's in it. I was curious, what this Linux thing would be like. I bought the Mag and installed it. It fuked my Harddrive badly and I lost all my data. Well, except for those I did save on my 5.25" Disks before. I remembered, there were different flavours of Linux and so I went to a iCafe to look them up. I had no Idea where to find it. On my way I stopped at the shop to get some pepsi, but instead I bought a different Mag and ran back home to install it. I did it worked and had a free webserver on it. Lot's of nice and funny editors, that could even highlight my code. I went on doing a lot of PHP later and finally found my way to C (I dropped Pascal 1994).

Remembering all this, I could not work on Windows anymore, it lacks of everything. It wasn't until 2000 I found out there was a MS windows version of Apache ... I don't really care anymore :-)

beg to differ

[matthew5]

I use Linux because: -I prefer it as a desktop environment -I can spend more of my time being productive rather than eradicating spyware and defragging my hard drive -The tools and apps available are at least as good as those for Windows with very few exceptions, all of which fall outside of the scope of my needs -The stability is amazing Note: I hadn't run a "unixy" app in over 15 years prior to my complete switch and I had used MS products since MS-DOS 3.0 all the way to WinXP. I don't hate Windows, Bill Gates or anyone/thing associated with them. I just wanted to offer a counter to the parent's last paragraph

NOT the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it certainly isn't because of the uber friendly and helpful current users. Knoppix 3.7 spoke for itself on my specialized machine. If I didn't know as much about computers as I did, the terrible attitude of Linux's current users would have kept me away.

Let me count the ways:

[Hosiah]

(1) Security. About the millionth time my wife watched me stay up all night scraping viruses, malware, crap and crud out of Windows because it ground to a halt every time we tried to use the internet, and seeing me screaming in frustration and bashing the desk and miss a whole night's sleep, SHE prodded me a little closer to switching.

(2) Work. Linux lets me be as smart as I always was; Windows forces me to be slow and stupid. Linux comes out of the box with more tools (tools, I say. Not frou-frou doodads and games!) than you could buy for Windows if you had Bill Gates' bank account. Yes, I tried MS-Visual-Basic and Visual-C++. Say what you will. Say you love it. That's your opinion. My opinion is, they're retarded. My apologies to any retarded people offended by this.

(3) Innovation. Let me second the idea put forth by several others in this thread: the stupidest thing you can do with Linux is follow in Window's footsteps in the interest of getting more people to switch from Windows. Forget trying to make "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Windows(TM)". Continue to blaze Linux's own trail as it has always been, and let everybody else catch up if they can.
So: innovation: Live CDs. Linux that can run from floppies, USBs, old computers, everywhere. A true multi-tasking system (new to me, anyway) able to compile in one desktop, render 3D images in a second, download in a third, and let me play a game in the fourth without a bit of lag - it's like being four people on four computers! The variety of having my choice of 1000 different distros, so I can have it my way, and choice of different desktops (Fluxbox is my favorite, and I had a chance to shop around for a while to get there).

(4) Free! Free forever! Hundreds and hundreds of distros to download free! All the software for it free! Read the source code for free! Roll your own for free! Release your own for free! Even the games are starting to improve - every time I find a Supertux, an ArmegaTron, a Tower Toppler, or a Metal Blob Solid, I'm doubly happy with it because I didn't have to pay $10-70 dollars for it.

PS Save the standard, flaming, aggravated responses this time, willyah? If you can't tolerate reading other people's opinions, you're at the wrong website. If you love Windows and hate Linux, good for you! But we're asking me.

Simple-r answer...

[soloport]

Why do you think folks switch?

My reason? Well, because I want to put Microsoft in the Computer museum like their other competitors.

Re:Simple-r answer...

[WeeLad]

Cuz I'm steve and I'm a super-villain
http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54

freedom

[latroM]

Freedom. And it is GNU/Linux.

Why do people sell their SUV's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people switch to Windows? Or sell their SUV? Or change their calling plan?

This is a pretty silly article. People switch to Linux because it fits their need better. What's the point of this discussion?

20 Years as a Computer Techy

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 20 years using computers has led me to expect certain things of not only the operating system but the industrial nature of those that are behind every aspect of it.

I used linux on and off on several occasions many years ago, throughout the years, and have used Linux for going on 3 years straight. I recently switched back to Windows from Linux because Windows offered what was necessary and had the people had the industry to provide me what I needed with the quality I expected.

During my 3 years of linux I was very impressed with everything that was available, but I was unimpressed with the attitude of what I call the zealots (those types that insist that if you won't compile your program you are a moron). You know the mentality. It is one of those things that I feel is killing linux. The Linux community should rid themselves of those souls permanently and without appeal.

Those three years brought me alot of learning and some of it was extremely fun. Linux brought back the feeling of the days of when software first started to gain prominence. It also, unfortunately, had the same feel as those early days of software on the PC.

Software under Linux was widely available in virtually every category, and then some, but generally it was horribly supported (mostly unsupported), the developers wanted us to be their beta testers (which consumed my time and hence my money as time is money), and they never really compensated me becuase alot of the software I worked through in the end had tremendous short commmings or was not even in the state of useability.

There is alot of software that is good software in the Linux community if you have the time and knowledge to keep at it to make it work for your distro, for your kernel, for your window manager, etc. If you can deal with the incompatability from release to release, if you can deal with compiling and all the dependencies involved, if you can deal with it every day (and at times all day) then Linux is OK.

When I first started those three years of linux I had the time to spend and so I learned alot. Today I don't and the time I was still spending even after 3 years of linux and over 20 in the industry I didn't feel linux was any where near complete.

Actual answers may have helped in this regard and a good consistent installer that would install on any distro and any release of that distro would have (and still could) change the world, but the linux zealots will have nothing of it. They brutally attack anyone suggesting such a thing.

Luckily one org has started producing something called "autopackager". This may solve the installation issue. That leaves the tremendous effort to sort through all the junk software that's out there. It is no less daunting a task than sifting through the massive pile of junk found in the early days of Windows.

What many have stated here is that they switched due to crashes of win95, 98, and NT, etc. Those are old operating systems. Those issues are virtually non-existent in Windows XP as long as you have solid hardware. Solid hardware is cheaply purchased these days. It is the desire to maintain your old hardware that kills your positive experience that would result in solid desktop use from cheap modern hardware.

Linux has about 10 years to go before the average Joe will consider it outright. That'll make linux over 20 years old. Right now Linux offers a marginal experience for the average Joe even after 10 years.

I eagerly await the next 10.

Re:20 Years as a Computer Techy

[Hosiah]

I was unimpressed with the attitude of what I call the zealots (those types that insist that if you won't compile your program you are a moron). You know the mentality. It is one of those things that I feel is killing linux. The Linux community should rid themselves of those souls permanently and without appeal.

Congratulations! Your wish came true! These days, every Linux system I can find (except for a dwindling few: Slackware, Debian, Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, and Rock) removes everything having to do with programming it can get away with, throws out every brain in sight, and makes Linux into a perfect I-can't-believe-it's-not-Windows(TM) clone. Continuing this trend, Linux will follow Windows down the shithole, since it's only another five years before it goes closed source (what the hell good is source code that your system can't fscking COMPILE???), since all the people like you do is bitch about it when you accidentally stumble upon source code in your system. Meanwhile, I'll be forced to go to BSD in another five-ten years when the stench of the corpse that was Linux gets too overpowering, and about five years after that when you've broken Linux's very last bone and it's not even fit to run your favorite malware application anymore, you'll barge into the middle of BSD demanding that somebody show you how to use portage, and we'll go all the way back around again.

Isn't this fun? See you next time!

F/OSS Finance Applications

[Noksagt]

I maintain a FAQ on F/OSS finance applications over on FatWallet.

You can run most popular windows apps under Wine, but I'd suggest using the fine native or online software.

I love GnuCash--especially for stock management (you can make a cron script to download quotes as periodically as you want to track, which Quicken & MS Money both lack). It takes some work to do auto-downloads of US financial institutions, but it is possible. I'd actually advise against it--if you record transactions as you make them (you can do this when watching TV), you can spot bank errors or improper charges easily & then reconcile when you reconcile with your monthly statement. Both MS Money and Quicken encourage this too, but few people take advantage of it.

Taxes are trickier. There is F/OSS tax software, but it just makes the process of manually doing your taxes a little easier. I'd suggest cruising over to IRS's taxfreedom site--there are scores of online tax preparation utilities which have interfaces similar to TurboTax. The IRS can direct most people to one that won't cost them anything. E-filing is fast, easy & gets your refund quicker. You can actually track your accounts online with an aggregator such as yodlee, but I find Gnucash or others to be so handy when making customized reports.

yet another switching from windows reason

[greylouser]

I've been playing around with linux mostly as a hobby for the last 4 or 5 years. When I set up my last computer, I made sure to include two hard drives, one for linux and one for windows. I mostly used the windows side of things (yes, mostly for the games), but one day it started hiccuping at boot. Eventually, I couldn't even get a dos prompt anymore. I'm sure I could've fixed it, but since I had basically everything I needed on the linux side - office applications, ftp, palm software, OCTAVE (I used to use MATLAB, but for the most part OCTAVE is just as good for everything I've tried so far) - I just migrated over there.

I've been using only linux at home for about 6 months now. It's actually been pretty helpful not having the games, because I get a little more work done, and get to spend more time with my family. (Although I have been spending a disturbing amount of time lately with gnugo.)

LaTeX on win32

[Noksagt]

While I run Linux on all of my machines, I must maintain win32 machines at work. You can use teTeX and LyX both natively and under cygwin. You can use JabRef on any platform.

OpenSuse 10.0 64

[Anomalyst]

They say eval, but only because it doesn't include some of the proprietary stuff on the disk. No big deal, just download what you need from the YOU (Yast Online Update). I have installed using the "SUSE-10.0-EvalDVD-x86_64-GM.iso" image on my dual opteron in multiple partitions with a multiboot to XP and XP64, and Suse 9.3 as a fallback in case VMware Linux chokes in the 10. Install MS to the 1st partition(s) of the 1st disk, then install Suse, it will recognize the windows bootable partitions and include them in the GRUB boot menu. Dirt Simple. I did have some issues with installing 9.3 to a disk other than the 1st. Rather than argue I put a new IDE 300GB drive in and install to there. I think you would be OK as long as the MBR and one Linux boot partition are on the 1st drive. I do have another v10 drive on a SATA drive (windows needs drivers install Suse just works) and can boot to it from the GRUB on the 1st drive. Two other hints: run "checkcfg -add smartd" to install the monitor for drive health and use "Kcontrol" to turn off the cursor animation, you cant do it from the desktop properties,the help does not index cursor properties.

For the man who has everything

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Because I don't think the richest man on earth really needs a single penny of my hard-earned income.

SunOS didn't run on x86

[Markus Registrada]

I put up Slackware (maybe '93?) because SunOS and A/UX didn't run on x86. But I'm not sure I understand the question... I ran gcc, bash, vi and X on SunOS and A/UX, and I ran them on Linux after, so I'm not sure how much "switching" was involved. Maybe the question is really about switching from MacOS to A/UX in '86? Before that I had to log in to my shell account (BSD on a Vax) at orstcs.edu to do real things.

When you buy a new video card does anybody ask when or why you switched drivers?

vi

[frankmu]

i think vi help me make that decision. much better thank edlin.

Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source....Duh!

It makes me ...

[rtssmkn]

more intelligent, more responsible, more free in my decision, more of everything...

An Usb-Hub

[Kong the Medium]

2 years ago,

I bought an Usb-Hub, connected it to my W2k-machine, installed the driver, pressed the Restart-Button and ...

BSOD

I graped the c't-CD from last Saturady, installed knoppix -> debian sid -> kubuntu. Since then my home machin runs Linux instead of Windows. At work I'm in transition to Linux at the Workplace.

Sex appeal

[errordactyl]

Everyone's like
Moral
Financial
Opensourceical
Freedom/powerical
But for me it was definitely sex appeal

No, sometimes the OS itself makes a difference.

[Richard Steiner]

For example, I switched from Windows 3.1 to OS/2 2.0 back in 1992 because of the fact that it provided a better multitasking environment than DOS+Windows did -- but I used the same exact set of DOS and Windows programs on the OS/2 system that I used under Windows 3.1.

In that instance, the applications were a nonissue since I could use the same programs (and often even the same *installation* of those programs) in each environment -- I simply wanted a better platform on which to run them, and in that case the OS made a huge difference.

I also tend to use Linux rather than Windows on my fileservers at home. Why? Because I find that Linux is more flexible in terms of the options it presents for filesharing (NFS + CIFS instead of just CIFS), which makes it more compatible with the other boxes on the LAN, and I love working with things like Webmin on headless boxes.

Again, the OS is making the difference, not the applications.

You might be right for the general case these days, but that doesn't justify making such a sweeping generalization (IMO)...

Linux is for me, but not for everyone I guess

[bhalo05]

Here are my reasons for using Linux.

- Given patience and time, _I_ can do all I did in Windows, and using only free software.
- Portage is very convenient, and has all the software I need.
- KDE as a desktop beats Windows hands down. Without KDE, I wouldn't use Linux, it's as simple as that. Thank you, KDE hackers!
- Command line goodies. Yes, cygwin can be used on windows but...

Having said that, I must say I understand why so few people use Linux. After all these years, Linux-land hardware support is no match for what Windows offers, Windows is way faster for desktop tasks, in Linux you _can't_ do everything you can do in Windows, and most people - sadly, I would say - don't care for free software at all.

I would like to see better competition and I'm glad Linux is here and it's so useful to me, but for the majority of users, Windows is still the best choice, even with its great share of problems.

Windows XP activation did it for me

[freeweed]

I'd toyed with Linux many times, and dealt with the usual gripes: missing h/w support, disto overload, lack of app replacements, etc. I had no great love of Windows, but it worked for me. Linux was a lot of fun to play with, but there was no real outstanding feature to drag me over, once Win2000 was stable enough to run for weeks at a time.

I'll freely admit, I pirated as much software as anyone (and I've never met any long-term computer user who hasn't), but it started to bug me after a while. First, on a practical level, trying to find a crack/serial for the latest version of something was a pain. But mostly, I just started to realize this is NOT something that I wanted to do. Especially as I was moving more and more towards an IT-heavy career. I went on a personal crusade, only to use free software if at all possible, and buy what I needed otherwise. School gave me the free student copies of Windows/Office, and the free software movement was rapidly filling in the holes. I could set up many machines entirely guilt-free, and importantly, HASSLE free. Eventually, I assumed that OEM copies of Windows and/or more income would provide the replacements for free Windows CDs.

Then, Product Activation happened. It initially annoyed the hell out of me on principle, but I did it. After all, it's just an extra step in an install. Then I started reading the horror stories. Calls to Microsoft when you've changed more than 2 pieces of hardware. Begging to be "allowed" to re-install your OS. Booting up a second computer built from spare parts and not being allowed to put an OS on it. Granted, in 2001 you wouldn't exactly use a 5 year old PC to run XP, but the writing was on the wall. I looked to the future and realized I most definitely did NOT want to be trapped this way. So early in 2003, I switched.

What was funny was, most of my complaints/issues with Linux had gone away by about RH8. Installs were a breeze, apps aplenty, it seemed like Linux had matured enough for me. So I spent the next 2 years always trying the latest and greatest, and every time it's been amazing what "just works".

Meanwhile, every few months I get asked to work on someone's Windows box. And every time it just feels older and older. XP has had no significant updates in 4 years now, that I'd notice when actually using it. Half the hardware you have to download drivers for. It can take hours to patch, reboot, patch again (because the first patch had to be installed separately), reboot, etc, etc, etc just to get a working system. Yes, you can spend the time building your own slipstreamed discs - or you can just download the latest Linux distro, all up to date. And updates happen ALL AT ONCE. For all software.

The last straw was the other day. For fun, I tried to get 2000 back on a spare box. Fully legal disc.

Windows Update wouldn't work unless I installed their "genuine Windows advantage" software. Sure, I can manually download dozens of patches and apply them manually. Or, I can take the chance that Microsoft might think I'm a criminal, and then have to beg my way to forgiveness.

Screw it. Linux is far easier to use for me. That's why I switched, and stay switched.

i-Installer is the way to go

[Kadin2048]

Ugh, no. No wonder you're pulling your hair out. You don't want to use fink and you really don't want to compile it yourself, unless you have a serious streak of masochism. (In which case drive on, by all means.)

What you want is i-Installer, sometimes referred to as II2 (i-Installer 2). It's a very nice GUI package manager but with a more limited scope than Fink. It's designed so that anyone could use it to distribute software, but the only thing I've ever actually seen it used for is TeX.

You download II2 and read its (fairly simple) instructions here:
http://ii2.sourceforge.net/

Personally I recommend following this procedure:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~koch/texshop/installing.ht ml

Basically once you get it running and point it to which mirror you'd like to use, you get a list of possible packages to install, choose them, and sit back while it does its thing. (Hope you're on a fast connection.)

I've used it for probably half a dozen OS X TeX installs now, and it's always done a great job. The only thing I'd suggest on top of that is TeX Shop, which is a GUI editor and frontend -- although there's no reason why you can't use Emacs and the commandline if you wanted to. I like TeX Shop because it produces PDFs by default and also integrates well with BibDesk, another GUI program for managing bibliographies.

Re:i-Installer is the way to go

[aconbere]

yeah,

I ended up at I-installer which was a bunch better than Fink but still pretty weird. And I'll deffinantly try TeXshop when the new drive comes in. I think my base arguement just comes back to OS X not having something like I-installer or Fink installed by default and the difficulties of tracking down such a system. For someone with no prior knowledge of what is available in terms of pacakge managers there is a distinct possibilty that he may never come across tools like I-installer and thus never be able to install LaTeX. Thus... my claim the support is not as good on OS X for LaTeX.

Thanks!
~Anders

How about...

[TheAwfulTruth]

If you really want some real, usable, user feedback. Instead of asking a question designed to pat ourselves on the back, try asking the opposite question.

"Why do people not switch to Linux?"

We might not like the answers and we may not be able to puff up with pride, but it will make Linux better and it will make Linux advocacy better informed in the long run.

We all need to take a humility pill, be honest and act professional. There is far too little of that here and in Linux Advocacy at large when Microsoft or Windows is mentioned. There is a tremendous about of humility when plain old Linux vs Linux discussions take place. Extend that to Windows Vs Linux and we'll all be a lot better off.

Listen to the complaints and resist the urge to say "Read the man page.", "You're stupid" and "Fix it yourself?" Those are utterly useless and self destructive answers. Listen with an "Open" mind. Why does someone need to look at a man page to mount a FAT USB drive? (Just an example, I know it can be done automatically in newer distros) If they do, then there is something wrong with the software. Just because a 5 year Linux veterin knows how and never even thinks about it doesn't mean that 99.9% of Linux potential users will know how or should even have to!

Native environments

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux plugs into a network environment very nicely. It is aware of the network around it and can interact with it very naturally.

Windows plugs into a desktop environment very nicely. It is aware of the devices (printers, scanners, cameras) around it and can interact with them very naturally.

Sitting on the fence between Windows and Linux?

[Hosiah]

Just wanted to remind people: Dual-boot! Run both Windows and Linux on the same machine! I did this and it helped tremendously - everybody in the family could slowly adapt one application at a time, at their own speed.

The easiest possible way is to simply plug a second hard-drive into your computer's IDE cable (5 Gigs will be plenty. Pick one up at your local used-computer-parts bin. Bet for five buck's more they'll slap it in for you). Then do *nothing* to Windows, don't even tell it anything's changed. Next, get the CD install disks and only have them install to the second hard drive. When the boot options setup comes up, ignore Lilo and Grub - pick a floppy boot.

I advocate this as the simplest, cheapest, foolproof way to get Windows and Linux to co-operate on the same machine. (Of course, you can partition one hard drive and fool with Lilo configs if you feel you're 31337 enough!) You now have your regular Windows like you always had. Stick in the boot floppy and tell Windows to reboot: *poof* it's Linux. Pull out the floppy and reboot again - back to normal Windows. This has an advantage over running a live CD (also a good way to try Linux out!) in that you can change and customize it. Some live CDs allow a hard drive install, as well.

Quiet Pangs of Guilt

[jdmce2002]

I must admit that after installing my Shrike RH9 isos I felt like I ought to be paying somebody for the privilege. As a home user, I use the system to host a slash-site. As much as I love Linux, I wouldn't touch it otherwise in the home 'cuz' after three years I haven't yet figured out how to get the printer working which is attached to a wireless server. So much as I regret it, I keep handing cash over to Mr. Gates.

Talk about FUD

[davegust]

you need all kinds of extra software just to keep windows running properly--virus scanners, spyware scanners, firewall.

Talk about FUD. All you need are Automatic Updates (notification only) and MBSA to help you located potential weak spots (passwords, unnecessary open ports, etc). Oh, and some common sense when it comes to running attachments. I've run my Win2000 box on static IPs for 5 years with neither firewall nor real-time anti-virus for 5 years, and have never been compromised - attacked yes, but not compromised.

When you see compromised systems, usually it can be tracked down to weak passwords, missing patches, or email delivered payloads that were unwittingly executed.

Re:Talk about FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

and MBSA to help you located potential weak spots

Why would I want to buy an OS with weak spots?

Re:Talk about FUD

[Nazadus]

Are you telling me Linux never fixes possible kernel exploits? Even less than OpenBSD?
You have a false sense of security -- which is far worse than the alternative.

LTSP and rebooting to Windows

[CustomDesigned]

My family has a Linux server, and 4 LTSP terminals (actually, one LCD is dead at the moment - backlight dead - any suggestions on repair?). The LTSP terminals are discarded Windows 98 computers. I left Windows on them (cleaned out viruses and upgraded drivers, etc), and the LTSP terminals can reboot to Windows to play Windows games or run Windows Tax software (TaxAct by 2nd story software). Although I got a copy of Quicken 2003, it has become such bloatware, and they took out all the features I liked from the basic version (you have to buy the Deluxe version now). So I switched to gnucash. The last good version of Quicken was Quicken 4 for Windows 3.1. Besides, I only have to reboot a workstation once a year to run the tax software. Rebooting every week to run accounting was a pain (booting LTSP is fast, but booting Win98 is slow).

The Linux server also servers as a firewall and webproxy for the terminals when booted in Windows. Only explicitly listed sites are allowed by the web proxy (like the tax software site). This prevents kids from downloading crap for Windows. Some school projects require them to complete assignments online - with ActiveX laden Windows only web sites. Makes me mad, but they can reboot the LTSP terminal and do it.

The Linux server provides a Samba filesystem for workstations when booted into Windows. I save my tax files on there so that they get backed up by the server. (Has a tape drive.)

The server, a Dell 500SC, cost me $600 including the tape drive. The LTSP workstations were free (plus labor to clean up virus/laden Windows - the only reason they were discarded). I had to pay for monitors. Very economical solution.

The kids have grown up with access to both Window 98 and Linux (Rh9, Gnome desktop, heaviliy updated). Generally, they regard Linux as cool, Windows as klunky. The only complaint about Linux is websites with Windows only media or plugins. And they understand why that is the websites fault. The most really really stupid thing some websites do is have MP3 media (which Linux plays fine), but then use some stupid executable launcher called HURL.EXE so that you can't just click on the link in Linux. That HURL.EXE is such a tempting target if you want your virus distributed quickly...

Re:LTSP and rebooting to Windows

[galaxyboy]

You bring up interesting points that I didn't think about in my original post. My daughter likes to play the Dora, Blues Clues, etc games on Nickjr.com. Do these all work under Linux? I guess I will have to try a dual boot again for a while to see if there are any major problems.

Re:LTSP and rebooting to Windows

[CustomDesigned]

The main point, which I guess I didn't make clear, was that the server never needs to be rebooted. Only the LTSP workstations are rebooted.

Re:LTSP and rebooting to Windows

[ouzel]

Yes, most work fine for me on Linux (using Firefox on FC4). Install the Flash plugin for Firefox and you'll be able to play most of the games. Some might require a different plugin, but most are Flash.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[chanda3199]

You're spot on with the application idea with me. I would love to switch to Linux at home. The problem is, I'm a gamer. If consoles would let me use keyboard and mouse, it might be a different story. But for now, the old keyboard, mouse, and Windows is a necessary evil.

I know there are ways to play games on Linux, but for now, I figure it easier to clean spyware(etc) from my Windows machine and be able to play games reliably rather than not have many problems with the OS but not be able to play reliably.

The day I wake up and don't need Windows to play current, bleeding edge games is the day I move my OS to Linux.

Double standards?

[MarkByers]

LaTeX is not limited to Linux. LaTeX is NOT a reason to switch.

So... wanting to use Latex is not a good reason to switch to Linux because similar applications are available for Windows...

...but wanting to use Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer is a good reason to stick with Windows even though similar applications exist for Linux?

Double-standards anyone?

Re:Double standards?

[aclarke]

It's not a double standard because in the "switch to linux to us LaTeX" scenario, someone is ostensibly switching FROM Windows TO Linux because they want a specific feature that they feel is missing from Windows. If this feature is in fact available in Windows, then they have lost their reason to switch.

In your scenario, a user is sticking with what they ALREADY have because they have the tools they need. What incentive do they have to switch to Linux in this scenario? None. They're already happy with what they have and have no reason to switch.

The point is that if people are happy where they are (either through ignorance or actual contentment) then they need a reason to SWITCH, not a reason to stay where they are.

Re:Double standards?

[zootm]

LaTeX is available for Windows. That's what MikTeX is, if I remember correctly. It works 100% fine. It's not a convincing reason to switch because exactly the same software is available for Windows, not a similar package.

Re:Double standards?

[c_woolley]

I could not agree more. Thank you for staying on topic. If Windows can do the job, people will stick with it due to the ease of use. I use Windows professionally and personally and am quite happy with it, because it meets all of my needs and my company's needs readably. I have used Linux and do find it to contain more freedom than Windows and there is a lot more to offer (with a lot more work to do it, though). I think Linux is a good OS, but Windows supplies me with what I need.

Re:Double standards?

[isorox]

Internet Explorer is a good reason to stick with Windows even though similar applications exist for Linux?

There's nothing anywhere near the standard of IE for Linux. Thankfully.

Re:Double standards?

[MHobbit]

Only a double standard for those who give that as an excuse for not switching. Believe it or not, it's not like everybody should switch... people should stick with whichever platform offers them what they need. There are other reasons for not switching as well... such as games, programs already owned and its respective data, and compatibility with other computers in the home. Lots of people don't have the time, knowledge, and/or energy to switch. If you want people to switch to Linux, you'd need to tell them why Linux is all it's hyped up to be by the pro-Linux Slashdot community here, how it's better for them than whatever OS they're using, and make the switch easy and painless for them. You'd also need to give them the assurance they won't lose any data and that they'd have their programs (good luck on finding good clones of some programs, like TurboTax) and the data associated up and running.

Re:Double standards?

[MarkByers]

they need a reason to SWITCH, not a reason to stay where they are.

And the reason to switch, if I remember the original poster correctly, was that in his opinion, LaTeX is better than anything available in Windows. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, and possibly even a matter of opinion rather than fact.

Even so, he *has* the right to switch! No-one should say to him he is stupid to use Linux because the software available in Windows is *nearly* as good. Why shouldn't he be allowed to use the best software, instead of something that just comes close?

Whether *you* think it is just as good is not going to change his mind.

Re:Double standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, your ignorance of IE alternatives shows the extent that you can contribute to a thread about an alternative OS.

Mine

[t_allardyce]

I want to switch to Linux (on the desktop) because of the feeling of running a cleaner, better engineered system and one where the power to do almost anything is at your finger-tips. I like the idea of it being pretty solid and that there are so many useful tools to play with its like being given a massive lab. Of course it being free, open and having lots of distros to try is also good.

The reason why I don't use it is the total insanity of getting any normal 'desktop' work done. In fact i have yet to even write a document or browse the net for more than 10 minutes without loosing it because X Windows et'all is so fucking painfully slow compared to Windows 2000 on the same machine. I hate the way all the window managers actually require 'learning' - i can barely put a short-cut on to a start menu without having to try and figure it out. What also pisses me off is the speed of software installation, if its going to take me more than 3 minutes and more thought than clicking 'yes' or 'no' then im not going to bother. If i have to manually figure out dependencies then no thanks. If I want to run the latest version of something because it has a feature i need right now, but doing this will mess up my package manager then im going to opt for the windows port. I know that the unix file system is well laid out technically and that library reuse is a good thing, but i don't want to have to ever see this unless i wan't to. If i install a program, i am used to being able to un-install it again easily, very easily. Then theres drivers, this isnt the fault of the OSS community but seriously, drivers are an issue, I want all my devices to run, I don't want them to hang the system randomly and I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes installing them. I have no device issues under Win2k, everything I have on there installs in minutes and works flawlessly, under every Linux distro I have ever tried, ever (around 20, including major version updates) there have been big hardware issues, from modems not working to graphics cards hanging, i've tried hard to fix them with mixed results. The last but biggest reason I don't use Linux is that some important programs just arent their and their equivalents just arent equivalent. Photoshop - GIMP has no adjustment layers, effects stacks or proper CMYK support, its just not usable in the modern industry and thats a fact. I use Windows because even though its a mess, buggy, insecure and owned by Microsoft, it has none of the above problems and once you apply a few patches and set up a fire wall its fine. I know if I want Linux to be ready I have to chip in and help, but those are my personal reasons for the moment.

I came for the stability...

[Anonymous Coward]

And stayed because I found that I just like working on a Unix OS better. The here are other perks of course, and the stability advantage has been largely closed - at least relative to 1998 when I made the switch.

Why was it a PLETHORA!!!!

[pkesel]

plethora Audio pronunciation of "plethora" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plthr-)
n.

      1. A superabundance; an excess.

Just because there is a large number or an outstanding variety doesn't mean there is a PLETHORA! And just because you've seen a word used (likely incorrectly) in a PLETHORA of other weakly written articles doesn't mean it's the word to use.

When you have an excess, some of the sample is less significant than others. Some was required to satisfy a need. Some beyond that measure were less significant. I can't imagine that being what you intended to say by using the word plethora. Now I don't know what you intended to say, leaving me to question if you are qualified to be making any statement at all.

What you found was likely a VARIETY of reasons that have failed to indicate a trend. If that's the case, why didn't you say so?

Backward slash

[hmzppz]

It was getting on my nerves!

Was your problem the distribution and not the OS?

[Dammital]

"So after I got frustrated with the distribution I had been trying in 2002, I decided to give Windows a try again. Windows certainly isn't perfect, but overall it has been a much less frustrating experience than Linux was."

Without trying to sell you on the features of my distribution, did you try others? There are big differences among the distros, and I'd hate for you to blame "Linux" when the real culprit was the distribution you were using.

While I hate the one-line summaries that are ascribed to various distributions ("for newbies" ... "for ricers" ... "for desktops" ... "for servers") there is a germ of truth to them. If it was hard to upgrade your Linux box, then pick a distribution with a decent package manager. If you didn't like your KDE-centric OS, then pick one that integrates GNOME. If the installation process turned you off, pick one with a GUI installer.

Really, the distribution makes or breaks the product.

Why they can't switch yet.

[Sir_Cockalot]

I've tried various version of Linux over the years and ended up really liking Ubuntu. I think Red Hat and Susse are great as well, but other distro's seem to drag you through quite a big before you can really use them like a GUI desktop. Just for the sake of learning, I built a Debian release from scratch. That was fun, but I had to start over several times after I had screwed up the install of some drivers etc. I grew a little and killed a lot of time in the process. I think many of the people that use computers today think they are savvy, but couldn't hold a flame to the real technical people. It's a great divide. There are those who want control of everything (savvy linux users) and there's those who want to work and not know how it works (secretary, marketing, sales), but just that it works. People that I support think they're computer savvy. They know very little and are only comfortable in the environments they are familiar. Try switching their browser or mail applications and you run into the headache of the century. You have to force them to switch and then you have to show them how to use it, like teach a child. They cannot figure it out on their own. They want to go back to what they know. Time will change all of this. These people will fade out and a younger truly savvy crowd will take their place and have no problem switch between various operating systems. The younger generation will push MS to the side and go for Linux or something better. After all, it's the cool thing to do and they wont have the same learning curve as their mother and father. They'll be able to figure it out on their own and wont complain about it in the process. If you really want people to switch you have to make it ready to use, remarkably intuitive and a damn good reason to do it. Linux is getting there, but it's not there yet.

Development in Windows hurts

[tagattack]

I switched because of my interest as a developer. Even in the MSDOS world most of the code I played with in my early days was in the public domain. When a found a plethora of powerful development tools and a free way to follow the unix way of things, the choice was obvious.

The reason I never switched back is more important, I think. I've found windows interface to be cumbersome, and I find features common to X11 desktop environments to be things I can't live with out...Features, such as multiple work spaces, window shadowing, window grouping, and auto-configuration (pekwm !) and placement of windows I struggle with not having access to in Windows. As well as that fancy global copy on select clipboard.

In addition to my actual use of the environment itself, which is almost emulatable in windows these days (but not really to my satisfaction) I have found programming in windows (as well as more often than not just with priorietary software that never gets good code review) to be increadibly painful. The API's are nonsensical, cumbersome, and downright ugly even for the most basic of operations. The .CreateTextFile method still haunts me to this day.

These are just the surface reasons, for a developer such as myself, to not only make the switch but buy in whole heartedly. I'm not even going to get into the fact that when they made me start running Windows 2003 Server on my dev workstation at work I started spending a lot of time dealing with issues such as my desktop crashing, my second display failing to function at random, and so outlook siezing up at random.

Why the switch to linux?

[sloanster]

Why did I switch?

In 1993 I started work at the University of California, and was intrigued by the power of unix, having learned that the internet was built on that venerable OS, which had been a multi-user, network OS since the 70s. I started playing and learning with SunOS, and looked for some form of unix that would run on hardware I could afford...

I tried out a dual boot setup with linux and windows in June 1993, and after a few months I wiped windows completely from my main workstation. The lack of crashes, all the power and sophistication of the unix system and network environment, and the fact that there was a fascinating new world to learn about for free, as long as I put in the effort, all led me to make the switch.

I also found that after doing unix/linux for 3 years, I was able to switch to a new job that basically doubled my salary. BTW, I still get see expee and w2k at work on a daily basis, and I can honestly say I haven't missed microsoft at all.

For School, later, for other things...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1992, I installed it (0.97b release) and could write code for my opsys course. So could my roommate (from downstairs via serial cable). So could my other roommate - and, we could do so on the same 486 running as a server. It was cool.

I went back to Windows for games, and a few utilities that I wanted to write. That was when things got stupid with coding in Windows, GPF errors, poor documentation, undocumented APIs, etc...

In 1994 I got introduced to Tcl/TK, interop with X from work, and Linux went on - never went back. GUI development in 1994 with TK was trivial. I do use other open source OSs such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD where things are warranted, but the only windows process that I need at home is to run the VPN (doesn't work under Wine) to connect to work. Otherwise, I can watch TV, code, surf, chat, write, play games, and really enjoy the machine.

It's all good...

My story.

[OhHellWithIt]

1. I can't afford to buy a new computer everytime a new version of the operating system comes out.
2. Windows scripting languages *suck*. (I don't usually use that word, but this is one of those times there is nothing else appropriate.)
3. Neat tools I keep finding to do things like create PDF from images/text, or nmap.
4. Viruses don't target Linux as much, so I don't have to worry about updating McNorton.
5. Better control over my networking.
6. Better documentation, believe it or not.
7. I keep finding restrictions on how I can use the software (whether or not it came from Microsoft) in the licensing agreements, like the "no benchmarking .NET" in something I installed for my wife recently.
8. Commercial software vendors think it's okay to stick ads or nosey bundled software in their products.

There may be more. The short answer is that I'd be an idiot not to switch.

Screensaver? :)

[X.25]

"Particle Fountain" from KDE, if I remember the name right.

Guy who was watching me install CentOS 4.1 on one desktop machine is exposed to Linux all the time (but via SSH). This was first time for him to see KDE running on Linux, and when he saw this particular screensaver - he immediately took the DVD and brought it back home to install it.

Althought he watched me use Linux on my laptop for ages (but I either used WindowMaker or, lately, XFCE, with very simple and fast theme - does the job for me :), he didn't see the full potential of KDE or Gnome.

Once people are exposed to such things, they tend to want to experiment asap.

Definition of LaTeX (for those as clueless as I)

[hustlebird]

From LaTex-project.org:
LaTeX is a document preparation system for high-quality typesetting. It is most often used for medium-to-large technical or scientific documents, but it can be used for almost any form of publishing.

I was clueless... I had to look it up, for more info check out there intro page:
http://www.latex-project.org/intro.html

Being a Ricer

[phobos13013]

I heard gentoo was the way to go. I revved it up in 04 (after many uninspiring stints with Mandrake, Red Hat, and SuSE, i even cheated on my wonderful gentoo for Lindows and whatever its called now, Ubuntu, and Debian, yet i still run to Gentoo) and i have been burning the rice at both ends since. I wouldnt call myself Anti-Microsoft, merely frustrated with all its downfalls. I am actually EXCITED everytime i make headway on a Gentoo box. I learn so much more about computing (not being an IT person, its merely for the interest, like a hobby) which makes me a stronger computer-user in general. I like things that are a challenge because they are interesting (like linux), not because they are frustrating (like Win).

Real switch reasons

[rcbarnes]

I switched, not because I had any idea how incredible using a well-designed, mature (excepting some areas of drivers), and customizable Operating Environment (to give credit to the authors of GNU tools and all the other software that makes my system worth using) because I, like most people, was content with 'good enough,' and not willing to put the time in to switch the underlying method of doing every single task I perform on my computer. I certainly appreciate the strengths of Linux now, and can't imagine living without them, but I didn't choose for that reason.

I switched for the same reason a lot of people switch: One single issue with Windows (or MacOS) was so completly crippling to my experience, I was willing to put up with any other flaws to resolve. For me, it was a crippling terror of trusted computing (obligatory wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing) invading my work, which, as a CS major, will exist primarily on computers. My dad is chomping at the bit to get Linux on his work machine for much the same reason.

easier

[hummassa]

$ sudo su -
#

Hidden Survey Answers

[TheZorch]

One reply said the survey was conducted in a message board and wasn't really a vote/survey or sorts. I know a lot of people who use or have used Linux and I can tell you that Anti-Microsoft sentiment is very very high. I think they deliberate hid all of the anti-Microsoft comments in that so-called survey. It the opinions and input they got for it came from an online forum I can tell you right now that a large number of users had a lot of negative things so say about MS.

I get the feeling this'll get modded to oblivion..

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one main reason why I *don't* switch to linux: the best software for windows works only on windows, the best software for linux works on everything, including windows. I'd have a very tough decision to make if I had to ditch photoshop, visual studio, kontakt, etc. for firefox, open office, and the rest. But on windows I get the best of both worlds. All the worthwhile OSS projects that I need (apache, gcc/mingw or cygwin, postgresql, open office, firefox/thunderbird, lyx/miktex, etc.) all work great on windows. I wouldn't mind a decent command line, but it's not worth it for me to give up fundamental applications (the price of each easily outweighing the cost of windows itself) for little conveniences.

(This all only applies on the desktop of course, and I agree I'm in a pretty unique boat with respect to app usage.)

I know what a computer can do

[bohemianflux]

Linux is the shortest distance between a CPU(s) and the programmer. I program mostly in java and I can switch VMs by merely changing PATH and soft links or kill misbehaving tomcat. Cron jobs for ant scripts is no brainer. Publishing java docs from ant builds with apache is no brainer either. I am in and out with no frills - leaves me space to create frills. AND with every kernel release since 2.2 my P3 laptop gets faster.

Meanwhile on Windows, I hit save and it takes forever because the realtime filesystem protection kicks in. It is said that the out of the top ten apps for Windows, five undo the damage of the other five.

Pre-emptively pre-emptive

[Jekler]

"Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine. Linux stands on its own merits. Anti-Microsoft sentiment comes from Microsoft's paranoia, which results in quotes like the one that had Bill Gates saying he'd put Linux in the Computer museum like he has other competitors." That's a barrel full of chuckles. Every single time there's any poll, study, or report about Linux, there's always an obligation to clarify "these results weren't skewed by anti-Microsoft sentiment". Unfortunately the person clarifying always goes off on an anti-Microsoft tangent.

I switched because...

[Edd!3]

I switched because Windows was unbearably hard to use despite all the bullshit everyone says. Here's what I mean, I can't delete folders because some "other program is using this file" even running in safe mode, what the fuck is using it? Also Windows crashes too much on me. Windows is made for idiots at the expence of people who know how to use a computer properly. This of course is besides the obvious benefits on the Open Source community.

UBUNTU

[Ticklemonster]

I have been wanting to go to linux for years because when a new version of Windows comes out, you will have to spend money to upgrade from an OS that will no longer be supported. This planned obsolescense is typically "my counrtian", and I resent it and all it stands for. But I've tried different version of Linux several times, and until Ubuntu came out, I was never confident that it was worth the trouble. If I mess up in Ubuntu, I can have it reinstalled and running in no time, with no bother. The Synaptic Package manager makes upgrades and intallations of key elements a snap. Would that Google would throw their weight into supporting Ubuntu, and help to make a powerful and easy to use OS available free to anyone who wants it. Of course Google hasn't, and you know what? Ubuntu already IS a powerful and easy to use OS that is available to anyone who wants to use it. Granted, if you want to do some things, you will need to learn more than just clicking away while you munch on a donut, but it's worth it because YOU ARE IN CONTROL OF YOUR MACHINE.

And did I mention it's free?

Interesting

[sheepdog43]

I would love to see one with reasons people tried linux and went back to Microsoft.

More particularly, the reason for trying Linux (were they trying to switch or just experiment), and the reason(s) they went back.

I would think something like this would be quite beneficial to the Linux community to pinpoint problem areas.

I like variety

[petantik f00l]

I switched, dual booting xp, because i like tinkering with things i.e. breaking them and rebuilding them with stuff left over. i got bored with windows and i'd heard of unix and was geting back into coding and so installing mandrake 8.2. This was my first real experience of unix type environment, although i had in my younger days used an amstrad computer and an amiga commodore. Basically, I want to try different things and i felt that linux was fairly cutting edge and had lots of free compilers and a helpful community.

No built-in obsolescence

[br00tus]

Windows wants you to switch from 3.11 to 95 to 98 to ME to XP. Since 3.11 was still out in 1994, and XP came out in 2001, that would be 4 switches in 7 years.

Last year, my desktop was not an XP, which seems to be what Microsoft expects it to be nowadays, it was a Windows 98 bought in late 1999 - months before the stock market crash. If I had as much money flying around now as I did then I'd probably have bought a new computer, but I didn't, and I hadn't had a problem with it.

Then I get a Linksys wireless USB ethernet adapter. When I try to install it on Windows 98 (which it says it does), it not only doesn't work, it kills all of my networking, irreparably. So much for Windows always having good 3rd party drivers.

So I decide to reinstall my system with the crappy OEM reinstall Windows implemented with Windows 98. I take all of the important stuff off the C drive and move it elsewhere. Then I do the OEM reinstall. Well, not only does it erase C: (which I expected), it erases all of D: just to write one 1k file.

At this point I'm tired of my stupid Windows box. I burn a Debian CD on my roommate's computer and install a light Debian on drive C of the wrecked computer. I use it to recover the essential stuff on drive D: (a phonebook etc.) Then I also pull stuff I want off my other drives, which is easier as Windows hasn't mangled them thankfully. Then I do a complete reinstall and put Debian Linux as my desktop.

I thought I would miss Windows a lot more. I haven't at all. I should admit I do some Debian cheating - I have a good Java on my system, but now I'm more aware of what's free and what isn't anyhow. The one thing I thought I'd need was Microsoft Word to send documents, but I havn't needed to do that since I installed 10 months ago. Plus there are programs that can do that, plus my roommate has Windows if I really need to use it. I just imported an Excel file into Gnumeric this week with no problem. Abiword has been a decent Word replacement.

I have been much happier with Debian than Windows. The main thing is I can use my new ethernet adapter. But I just like the multiple windows, easy access to MySQL, PERL, Apache, sed, awk, sort and whatnot. I suppose I can implement all of that on Windows, but it's easier and integrated here. The only drawback is I had is accelerated graphics - I spent a day trying to get Tux, which is first-person perspective, running at a decent speed but failed - and first person shooters worked much faster on Windows. Perhaps if I spent more than a day on it I could have been successful, but I am not going to spend more than a day trying to get Tux to be faster. Anyhow, other than accelerated graphics, I've been happy with everything else.

Alternate hardware.

[saintlupus]

Because Mac OS 9 sucks, and OS X runs like ass on a six year old Powerbook, or my equally ancient G3/400 B&W.

I don't like Tru64 or WinNT 4.0 on my Alpha.

Windows is a poor fit for my Athlon-based PVR box.

But Debian kicks ass on all three. And gives me that same environment no matter what hardware is sitting underneath.

--saint

Mahjongg

[tjw]

I did find one free (gratis) Mahjongg game for win32 once, but all the menu's are in German.

I never switched.

[hkb]

I went from the various early computing OSes to AmigaOS to Minix on the Amiga to Soft Landing Linux on the PC, to Solaris/* Linux/*BSD and Mac OS X.

At some point later, I started using DOS and Windows 3.1, but still feel the most at home on UNIX (despite all my sticking up for Microsoft here).

I needed to upgrade 2000 servers so I switched

[SlashingComments]

We had 2000-2500 servers running an old OS and has to be converted to something which is remotely managable (we had a global deployment). We ran only a single application written in-house. The reason it worked and worked well (still today) becuase.

1. Programmers were agnostic - they can write code on anything

2. System Admins were non-religious about OS

3. Management could multiply 2000 with 0

4. I put my ass on the line for this

Oh! BTW all these were done back in 1995. We just did not tell anyone since we felt that it was a strategic advantage over our competition--have them use MSFT!

Both times because of

[IrquiM]

hardware problems, either hardware itself or driverproblems.

First time back in 98 because my processor was buggy in Windows - Only booted the OS every second or third time, and it costed too much for a poor student to replace. -> Slackware 3.something i think

Switched back for 2-3 years,after getting a laptop, for 2-3 years because of OS dependent software used in school. (MS Software)

Lately because somehow my hardware-drivers killed my partition tables. Happend 8 times during one week. After that I gave up, and now my computer hasn't rebooted since i recompiled the the kernel after installing slack 10.2.

Don't know why this always happens to me, but somehow, linux is always working better with my faulty hardware. Prolly just me that do not understand how windows is working :)

Why I switched

[rastin]

I started as a Microsoft centric developer and IT engineer in 92. Got my MCSD in 95 and was pretty happy living in that world. Frequent reboots didn't bother me that much and I usually had to reinstall Windows every year or so in order to get that new box performance back. Didn't really bother me, I had nothing else to compare the experience to. In 2001 I started a small business partnership with 3 other people. My job was to manage all things technical, with a paltry budget. We started with Win2K, SQL Server, Visual Studio and IIS. But I didn't have the cash to spring for Exchange. We started looking at free/low cost email solutions, they all suck for Windows. Then I started looking at Sendmail, bought the bat book and a Red Hat 7.2 book that came with 7.2 on a CD. We installed it on a Pentium Pro box, the only spare that was available. It took a while to configure but I found a script from some guy in Ireland that asked the simple questions and generated a config file. Then our Active Directory DNS went down, so I added BIND to the Pentium Pro. Then FTP on IIS went down, enter ftpd. After a while it seemed that half of our business was running on this one Pentium Pro box while the other 5 Windows servers were pretty much idle most of the time. That was when I decided to reclaim most of them and just like that we were a mostly Linux shop.

The hardest part of learning Linux for me was that a problem usually only required fixing it once. In Windows problems tend to be easy to fix, but they require constant care. Which made it easier to remember how to fix something in Windows because I had to do it everyday on several boxes. In Linux it was "I fixed that once but I forgot what I did."

because Jobs is almost as bad as gates

[kill-469]

I switched to mac os when 3.1 came out, for ease of use and because the software on macs was always technically superior, where it seemed always that Gates/msnot will give you the least possible amount of existing technology for the highest price,and where Jobs always seemed to give the most technically advanced software that your money can buy. More bang for your buck, I thought it was an obvious choice. Then I switched to nextstep because It was technically, and to this day there are things there that remain unchallenged. I then switched to linux because even NeXTStep had the problem of disappearing software, ie you get used to some program, learn every hotkey, and in a year or two it goes on the scrap heap and is unsupported, usually for marketing reasons. Emacs on Debian will always be there, and I am now permanently FREE of Marketing scams. In GNU Software(despite redhat, boycott redhat, windows, mac. Vive le GNU!) the software is changed for technically valid reasons which almost always yield on the whole better software, not because it makes (some greedy chump) more money in a less usable configuration. People who use windows are still technically limited by the same things that limited programs written 20 years or more ago, because that makes bill gates more money than giving you the best solution to the problem. In linux I will always be free to pick the best solution without regard to marketing of any type, or write one without having to start from absolute scratch.

Linux is intruiging

[dresgarcia]

Linux intrigued me for many different reasons, I had played with it and was very interested by it. Linux can do a lot of things natively that windows can't do, or things for which you have to download third party software on windows. For someone who is very interested in the inner workings of a computer linux adds tons to the experience, it often times can force you to think harder. The fact that I got involved back before the big "Linux Desktop" push meant I was forced to use the command line very often, this was wonderful for someone like me who used to play with the dos prompt just for fun. I thrive in linux, I have been known to hole myself up infront a linux PC for weeks configuring freevo, or customizing enlightenment. Linux lends its sellf well to people who like to tinker, Linux does what it does well, and it does many things.

tastes great

[Anonymous Coward]

or is it less filling?

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[Taladar]

If you do lots of other things when you are not gaming using Linux for those can be interesting for you. Then Windows is only for Games which means you can re-install more or less at will and only have to setup drivers and the 2-3 games you play currently, not all the other stuff you need in addition to that when your Windows breaks (and in my experience gaming is a good way of making Windows break).

A few less common ones

[loose_cannon_gamer]

I've read the top moderated 100 posts so far, and several things haven't been mentioned enough, so I'll mention 'em, since they're my reasons and all.

1. Free-ness. Free as in beer, free as in food, free as in do-whatever-the-heck you want with it free.

2. Package management. I prefer gentoo for this, and there is something poignantly beautiful to me about the concept of 'emerge sync' & 'emerge world'. Windows update somehow makes me want to grab a weapon and get medieval (though to be fair, so does/did the red hat update network, but see the next reason).

3. Choice. If there's some software application I need, it probably can be found on sourceforge or via my package manager of choice. The biggest difficulty is choosing which of the many alternatives to use.

4. Community. I read slashdot mostly because I find opinions of people like me whose opinions don't match mine. Nerdly as it may sound, I use Linux because Linux 'gets' me, it works for me in most of the ways that Windows drives me insane. Linux users by choice form a club, and I find that generally, the people in that club are the kind of people I like to hang with, or at least can hold a coherent conversation with. Amusingly, this doesn't hold for me and the Mac, but that's a post for another day.

Re:A few less common ones

[cb8100]

I was getting ready to post a reply with most of the same reasons as the parent post. Luckily I kept reading a bit ;)

Free wasn't a completely deciding factor for me, but it is a nice reason to switch. I've never actually purchased a version of Windows (I've only purchased one computer with Windows pre-loaded, so I suppose that may count), but -- without getting preachy -- pirating Windows always felt wrong. With Linux -- since I don't use on of the "Enterprise" distros -- I don't have the feeling of guilt, fear, uncertainty, whatever about running my OS.

I run various Slack 10.x distros on various PCs and *rarely* use any of its few package management tools. Not having software "managed" for me was another big reason for making the switch from Windows. By actually going out and getting the tarball I want, I only install what I want and what I need. Nothing is obscured by the "security update" or "hotfix" heading. I know exactly what I'm getting, and I like that.

Free applications are even better than the free OS. Sourceforge and Freshmeat are *much* better choices for finding applications than download.com; a vast majority of Windows applications are not free and are poorly written. It can be argued that a vast majority of Linux applications are free and poorly written but with most of the Linux applications, you have the source. Even if you don't know how to fix it yourself, chances are that you know or can find someone who can.

The community of Linux users can be just as harsh as any other group of people. There are assholes everywhere. There are also helpful people everywhere. Just gotta watch what you say, how you say it, and to whom you say it.

Oh, and to the person(s) that mentioned it was easier to find support for Windows related problems than Linux related problems: Learn how to Google. In nearly two years I've not encountered a single problem with Linux that I haven't found an answer to in a few hours. I've had several Windows problems over the past 10 years where the only solution I could find on the Net was "reformat."

Microsoft!

[Blackbird_Highway]

Actually, my switch was largely driven by Microsoft. Not because I have some sort of loathing of them, (as many on /. apparently do), but because as a customer, I didn't feel I was being treated well.

I was sick of using dialup, and was looking for a faster connection to the interweb. My phone company, Verizon, was constantly bombarding me with offers for DSL, but everytime I called them up, "It's not available in your area" was their response. Next month, they send another flier, "Get $400 off if you signup for DSL now"! "Sorry, it's not available in your area"

So then I tried my cable company, Adelphia, and got pretty much the same story. So, I went to Direcway. They said I needed Windows 98SE. Fine, I said, I have Windows 98. I even went to the Micrsoft site and performed every update, which took about 9 reboots. I also performed updates to all drivers, and the BIOS.

So Direcway installs their stuff, and it doesn't work. "You have Windows 98, but you need Windows 98SE" they say. So I go to Best Buy and get an upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE and install that. Direcway still doesn't work. The upgrade to Windows 98SE is not the same as Windows 98SE they say. How can that be? If it's an upgrade to Windows 98SE, then when you install it you should have Windows 98SE! After some research, I find that many other people have found that the upgrade is indeed not the same thing.

So now, afer I've spent $80 on the 98SE upgrade, I go out and buy Windows 2000 (another $200), and install that. Finally Direcway works. But now, Windows 2000 is unstable. Every few weeks, it refuses to boot up, and complains that system files have been corrupted. Sometimes it can be repaired, sometimes I have to restall the whole freaking operating system again.

After about 6 months of this crap, I decide to buy a new computer, and I'm pretty set on NOT buying more Windows. MACs look really great, but I'm a cheapskate and they seem way too expensive. Then I find a place (alphapcstore.com) that will sell me a PC with Linux pre-installed, (for $30), just like getting a Dell with the Windows pre-installed. So I give it a try, figuring that if I don't like Linux, at least I can still install my Windows 2000 on it.

I've been using the Linux box for a couple of years now and like it a lot. I had some experience using UNIX machines at work, so the learing curve wasn't too steep for me. My only complaint is that most often, when I install some new SW for Linux, the directions are wrong. They tell you to run the script as root when you need to be user, or vice-versa, or they tell you to put the tarball in the same directory where you want the SW installed, and then the setup script complains that you need to move it. The isntructions for the Real Player were so vague as to be useless, and when I found some instructions on some website somewhere, they were wrong because they were for a previous version of the Real Player.

None of this is the operating systems fault, of course, and it has worked well, much better than any version of Windows I've tried. It's just that people who create apps don't seem to be able to supply proper directions for how to install them. Maybe it's because their are some many different distributions. Most of the install directions that look like a lot of work went into them are directed at Redhat systems only. Any other distros you have to figure it out for yourself. A lot of times the apps seem to have links to the wrong directories. It seems that every distro has some different variation of usr/bin, usr/local/bin, usr/lib/bin, usr/local/lib/bin, usr/bin/app/bin/local/bin, etc.

Still, I haven't had Linux refuse to boot up, and I haven't once had to fix or re-install the operating system, so I'm way happy. If the app install thing can be improved, then I think Linux would be a good choice for lots of home users. The way it is now, most home users would just be completely baffled when an app install goes badly.

Advocacy etc.

[SandiConoverJones]

It didn't take much to make me switch from MS to Linux.

In college I used Unix, DOS, and Mac. (I was ok with using DOS when it came packaged with GW basic to do your repetitive tasks in a quick and dirty way. When they removed that, it was a rip-off.) I have never had any partiality toward any MS product, but damn many experiences pushing me away from them. I college I studied C in a Unix environment. It worked. That's a good thing to my mind. When I went on to take a second semester of C, the school had switched to MS Quick C. I had used Boorland's Turbo C, and it was fine. I had used the C compiler with the Unix install that we had. Then I had the most bug ridden piece of crap that I had ever seen land in my lap. The examples in the Official MS manual would not compile! I had never before seen such a dreadful piece of software in my life. That soured me against MS, the company a bit.

In that same era, if I wanted a word processor, I headed to the Mac labs, not the MS based labs. If I needed to program a robot, and directly control I/O, I was in the MS realm, because control of RS232 was well documented, and part of my curriculum.

Fast forward many years. My husband and I were buying computers. (Plural, as we don't play well with others...) He got a 60 MHz Intel box, I got a 60 MHz Mac. (Yes, I know, ancient history here, but we are leading somewhere here, I promise!) We had our machines set up. My Mac just worked. I used it. I worked, I played, and it simply worked. My husband is far more geeky that I could ever be, but he could never get his MS box to do quite what he wanted it to do. He extolled the virtues of his more documented software and hardware, but still his machine had failure after failure. It lead to my anti-Windows saying, "It's Sunday, time to reload Windows!"

My husband kept incrementally upgrading hardware on his Intel box, not a luxury that I had on my Mac. I held on to that 60 MHz machine until it was way out of date. I started using some of his discarded hardware for some kids software. Eventually my old Mac was put out to pasture, and I was migrated to faster hardware, and buggier software. But, as I couldn't afford the Apple upgrade path, I considered myself lucky for having been able to use a stable OS in my own home for as long as I could. (In all of the time that I used my Mac, I never caught anything. There may be Mac viruses, but they weren't prevalent on the BBS's and later the Internet. I have no first hand experience with them.) Once I was using MS for daily use, I cursed the BSOD multiple times per day. I dreaded the bloody thing. When I was offered a FREE version of *nix, I thought I had died and gone to heaven! I was rid of the MS nonsense.

Fast forward a few more years. I was editing a print media newsletter for a 300+ family home schooling group. (As this is a group with many educators, there was a disproportionately high percentage of Mac users. Our group was roughly split 50/50) Despite the submission guidelines that always specified plain text email, people routinely submitted from whatever they had, be it from MS Word for Win, MS Word for Mac, or any other word processor that they had lying about. The previous editors all warned me of this. I was using Star Office. It was great for importing from other formats. Though in theory Word for Win was supposed to open in Word for Mac, and the reverse, in that era, it did not in fact work. Whereas, here I sat with Sun's Star Office, and I could read both. That really made for a positive experience with the Linux world for me. It didn't matter what the data was, or where it came from, I could read it.

Fast forward a few more years. The kids needed Windows software for some educational software. (They had to log in to the system with IE running under Windows.) Take into account that they had a machine far newer and faster than mine. I am not a computer user, I am a computer abuser. Normally on my Linux box, desktop #

Re:Advocacy etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite long but an interesting insight.

Great post.

I don't switch...

[fitten]

I just add to my collection of tools. I have several boxes and run more than one OS on them. I use the tool that fits the job rather than waste my time trying to make the tool fit the job or making the job fit the tool. I have no OS religion and all OSs are lacking in some area or another.

Why I switched

[Chiisu]

1. Regular releases
2. Updated hardware support and drivers (mobo devices, booting from my nice 10K SATA drive)
3. No activation bullshit. If I want to upgrade components, swap things araound, or make a clean install I don't have to worry about being harrassed.
4. Freedom of choice: using Synaptic, I choose which apps I want to use and have installed.
5. It's free

Re:Don't assume people started with Windows. Or a

[TeknoHog]

I so agree! But let me begin with this coincidence of an email I got from an old friend today:

Windows XP Service Pack 2 pushed me irretrievably over the edge. I am running Ubuntu and Debian on my own PCs now.

In a way I did switch from Windows, that is, 3.1. I went to university in 1998 and got my 486/8MB wonder online. While I could do fun things with this machine even in Win3.1, for example running my own web server, I started to read about Linux a lot. I decided my next machine would run Linux as it seemed this one wasn't sufficient for any decent distro. Moreover, I wondered what was so great about Windows 9x that had been around for a couple of years. People were hyping all over it, but all I could see was a Fisher-Price interface and it seemed somehow inherently dumb and evil ;)

In 1999 I got a new laptop, installed RH 6, and after a week I had compiled the kernel for the first time. I felt like I'd learned more about computers than I'd ever done in about 10 years with DOS machines. These days I spend more time actually using the computer than learning about internals, but I continue to appreciate the wonderfulness of open source unix and I could never go back to something dumb and limited like Windows.

For example, I use Linux for music production, and one day I was reading about the development of samplers. The article said that in early days you had to spend the price of a house to buy a sampler, but nowadays you can buy software to do much more, for just a few hundred euros. I couldn't help smiling as I thought, geez, you don't buy software, you emerge it :D

Linux is "Cooler"

[MrSoundAndVision]

That's why I switched. It looks much cooler than Windows. And then of course after I had used Linux for a few months I realized that it's a very powerful operating system as well. And that no one should have to pay to, say, burn a CD. Or pay to, say, store things on a hard disk that I already own.

I still have not totally switched

[CharlieG]

I've been a computer programmer for a LONG time - by 1984 I was making at least part of my living programming. Ive seen stuff come, and stuff go

What usually makes people adopt an OS (I'm NOT talking me in particular)
1)The Killer Application - an application that runs on YOUR OS that runs NOWHERE else. Honestly, for at least 2-3 of the transitions I've seen, it was (at least partly) the "Next great spreadsheet" - Apple II - VisiCalc - IBM PC - Lotus 123 - Windows - Excel/Wingz/Word for Windows

2)The OS does something itself that the competition does NOT - In the case of Linux, It's generally things like firewalls/stability etc - THIS "something" generally has to be a bigger "something" than #1 - or it leads to slow adoption

3)Cost - and I'm NOT talking $$$ or even TCO as measured in studies, although they are certainly PART of the "Cost" I'm talking about, and in fact, in a corp environment, TCO aproximates the "Cost" I'm talking about. In my case, talking about individuals, it's more $$ and effort combined. For a person just starting in computers, there is little "cost" in moving to Linux - but to the person who has spent a lot of years learning to use Windows and it's applications, there is a "Mental" cost of re-learning how to do things. For us geeks, this is fun, and the cost can be negative (hey, we LIKE playing with new stuff), but to most people, any skill set change is real, and a bother. Why do you thing the average PC doesn't get patched/have it's anti virus updated - too much bother. They run the PC until it breaks, and then get someone to "fix it" - and in fact, often the "fix" is to buy another computer!! I've seen perfectly good PCs thrown out, because the owner doesn't want to bother - they spend the $500 or $1000 on a new PC, move their data, and get a new toy, and have fixed their problem. Doesn't seem to make much sense, until you figure that for a LOT of people, if you figure in their time as money, it's actually cheaper to do this - let's face it - if you earn even $10/hr, if you save 50 hours over the life of the PC by NOT updating, etc, you have paid for a new PC!! (which has all the NEW toys...)

It comes down to - we are not normal users (thank goodness)

Re:I still have not totally switched

[Dan_Bercell]

Point 3 is a big reason. Ive had to move businesses from WordPerfect to Office.. that alone slowed people down for months, not to mention having to transfer all the documents...WordPerfect->Word wasnt too bad, but the spreedsheets...Lets not go there. I dont even want to imaging what it will be like in 5-10 years when we have to move businesses from Windows to a Linux desktop (which would include Office->OpenOffice.. or some other Office suite)

peer pressure

[Eil]

Why do you think folks switch?

To look cool on Slashdot.

iTunes

[Tyklfe]

The only reason I haven't switched to Linux is because I love iTunes and my iPod and the ease of using the two of them together on my WinXP machine. If anyone could show me how I could easily use iTunes on my Linux box, and make it EVERY BIT AS EASY to use as my WinXP instalation I would finally switch for good. Please don't tell me to buy a Mac either.

Re:iTunes

[hmzppz]

You need MacOSX, which is *BSD at heart.

Re:iTunes

[Tyklfe]

Ha, that's funny, see, cause I said I didn't want anyone to recommend a Mac to me, so instead you recommended the Mac OS... heh, that's funny. Good one.

Re:iTunes

[bach37]

Gtkpod now works and lets you sync your evolution, or kontact calendar (and contacts) to your ipod. As well as put on/remove and manage mp3s. Mandriva 2006: ipod works automatically when plugged in as a storage drive, as well as gtkpod. Gtkpod seems to give a lot more freedom than itunes with your ipod. Check it out!

Upgraded

[bluGill]

I upgraded my computer over time, and one day I noticed that I was only lacking a case to have two computers. Since I only had one license to OS/2, and I needed ip masquerading anyway, I download slackware 3.0 (and then upgraded to the latest 1.3.x kernel), and linux was ready to go on a 386.

A few years latter I finally admitted that IBM was going to kill OS/2, so my failing 486 (motherboard problems) was replaced by the most powerful machine mere mortals could buy at the time (I was now out of college and had real money but no bills) - a dual Ppro-200. I installed FreeBSD on that, and it is still running to this day, though I mostly use more powerful machines now.

I formally retired that old 386 just over a year ago. Over time everything was moved away from it. It ended up running 2.0.29+patches, and often spent hours on end with a load of over 8. booting and swapping to the original 80Mb harddrive. (though user data was on a 1.6Gig drive)

Good memories.

Why I switched

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 3.1 need I say more?

My reasons

[SCHecklerX]

Flexibility, Simplicity, Power.

Think windows is the greatest UI experience in the world? Well, here is just one of many reasons I use linux...I won't get into the lower level scripting and customizing that is simple on linux, but would require quite a bit of study and compiling of C code in windows:

Simple task: Copy a file using a GUI (for example, if you have a file you'd like to use as a template in the same directory):

Windows:

1. right click file, and select "Copy"
2. right click in a window, and select "Paste"
3. right click on the file, and select "Rename" (you didn't really want to name this new file "Copy of $foo.ext", I'm sure.
4. either retype the whole file name (the whole thing is selected), or re-select and then type

Rox Filer:

1. right click file, cursor will be in a sensible place to change the name for the new file (ie, right before the .ext)
2. type the name, hit <Enter>. Or optionally drag the icon to any other directory.

Luckily some projects, like Rox, ARE innovating with UI rather than mimicking the horror that is windows. Not perfect, but happily getting better as time goes by.

While I'm at it. Simple task, copy/move a file with a GUI:

Windows:

• you need to select with a different keyboard/mouse-button combination depending on source and destination and what you want to do with the file

ROX:

• always the same action. Rox will ask you what you intend with a reasonable default selected at the end of the drag op.

While I'm going on with my man-crush on Rox, I'd like to add that even though I didn't contribute any code to the project, MANY of my suggestions as a USER did make it in (I'm even given props in the docs. Neat :). Try that with Microsoft's products.

And as mentioned before, this is just one small example of how one of many choosable UI's in linux is better than the windows UI. There are many other GUI examples, and of course the stuff within the system itself (defaultgw=`/sbin/route -n | grep ^0.0.0.0 | awk '{print $2}'` is a simple example). I can do pretty much anything I want with a linux box to turn it into whatever appliance I want (jukebox, firewall, file server, web server, media center, whatever). You can do that with windows, but it's certainly not easy, and it is very apparent that you have no real control of making things act the way you'd like when you try.

Why I switched

[dacarr]

I switched from OS/2 to Linux because I don't care for Windows, and needed something that would work to network my home (two boxes) through a dialup. OS/2, while there were utilities that either worked through heavy wizardry or required money, didn't have the functionality out of the box. Besides, OS/2 is now hitting end of life, so it's just as well.

Why I use FreeBSD

[Arandir]

I don't use Linux, but FreeBSD instead. There are several reasons for this, but mainly it's the nostalgia factor. I started out using BSD UNIX twenty years ago. A secondary reason is that it's reasonably free from the socio-political coloration that Linux has. I'm using an OS to do stuff, not to change the world or fight injustice or make people like me. Most people in the Linux community are NOT this way, but enough are that it's a steady low level irritant.

Every time I hear the phrase "Linux needs to do [whatever] in order to beat Microsoft", I'm glad I'm using an OS that doesn't have a monopolistic "world domination" as its goal.

Re:Why I use FreeBSD

[jnbek]

I agree with you fully, I've been into computers since the early 80's with a TRS80-CoCo2 64K computer, I then went to a 286 Clone with DOS-3.3 which i stayed with until I couldn't take all the buzz about the internet and bought a 550 Pentium 3 running windows 98,i quickly learned to hate windows 98, and began playing with Linux with RedHat7. RPM hell took it's toll but I knew alot of people who used Linux, so I persisted. I met someone running FreeBSD and my life changed forever. Ports rocked, the install was easy and hardware worked the first time. the kernel was easy to play with.... I could type all night, but now I'm both 100% Linux free and Windows free. I find BSD users to be alot friendlier, not just yelling RTFM all the time, and all the politics involved with Linux and SCO is also a major turn off. Linux users like to harbor the MS injected press against them, as almost a crusade to continue using it, and to push the idea of Linux onto people who may never have a need for it. I use FreeBSD, because it's Free, easy and just works, but has enough geek to it to keep me interested. Linux just has too many distro's and software that works for one may or may not work on another, without modification. I've heard that RPM-hell is non-existant now, but I'm happy with FreeBSD and will stay there. I also am glad to know I'm using an OS that doesn't have a monopolistic "world domination" as its goal too, just one that works, and one that Microsoft has been known to use itself, when their own software was inadequate :D

Cygwin - Best of Both Worlds

[bugmonkey]

Whenever I use LaTeX in windows I just use cygwin to run it. Easy, I can edit the files using any text editer I like (usually crimson) and then run the commands in cygwin, that way I can also easily use divps and ps2pdf.

I guess it's kind of cheating but it really is the best of both worlds. :)

Don't get me wrong I also run linux, mainly for development and as a server, but for day to day stuff and games I stick with windows.

How it works

[massysett]

Switching to Linux has been a slow process for me. Originally I never had much interest in Linux because I had always heard that the hardware support was horrible. I also heard "Unix" and thought of a black, DOS Prompt-like screen.

Then somewhere or another (probably through the KNOPPIX Hacks book) I heard of KNOPPIX. I didn't know live distros existed. So I gave it a shot. I was surprised at how well it detected my hardware--even my TV tuner card worked. Lots of good software was included. I noted that some software that costs a fortune for Windows (e.g. disk partitioners and imagers) are free with Linux.

Wow, I said--if Linux is this good running off a CD, it must be even better if you install it to your hard drive. So I tried that too. My first distro was Mandriva. I also tried Debian and Ubuntu. However, this was several months ago and in all these distros, KDE had a bug in the tag library that kept me from playing any of the MP3s I had ripped in Windows. That was a pretty big flaw. I also could not get my Canon inkjet printer to work; I had found some Canon binary drivers but I couldn't get them to work. I had also tried Ubuntu, but I just wasn't a GNOME fan. So I stuck with Windows for the most part.

Even so I kept Linux around. It was better for playing DVDs than the awful Windows software I had, and I could skip past the FBI warning. Linux also came with all the tools I needed to manage my website (e.g. ssh, sftp) where I had a hodgepodge of half-decent utilities to do the same in Windows.

Only recently did I start primarily using Linux. SUSE 10.0 came out, and I loved it. It offered the ease-of-use that Ubuntu proponents say they have (my Ubuntu experiences haven't been quite so good; the last Ubuntu had jerky DVD playback.) I had tried SUSE 9.3 earlier, but the installer kept freezing on me (I might have had a bad DVD.) SUSE 10.0 even works very well on my laptop, even with the wireless--and I had always heard that Linux on laptops is hell. SUSE 10.0 on my Dell Latitude D410 is nearly flawless--just a few suspend bugs. (Mandriva 2006 was a huge disappointment on my laptop, especially considering Mandriva's brag that they're the only certified Centrino distro.)

Not only did I switch because of SUSE 10.0, but I also switched because some things had changed for me since I had first tried Linux. The KDE taglib bug that locked me out of my MP3s had been fixed. (I had reported it, too!--but KDE's Scott Wheeler said it had been fixed before I reported it.) I got tired of pumping expensive ink into the Canon, so I bought a laser--and made sure it was Postscript, just in case I wanted to switch to Linux. I also stopped using the Yahoo Music rental service (which only works with WMP) because the DRM annoyed me too much.

I like Linux because so many great programs are free. Some of my Windows software for watching DVDs and watching TV are awful; the Linux programs for this are better--and free. K3B is much better than the Roxio and Sonic programs that came with my Dell. I am also starting to learn some programming; Linux comes with programming tools that would cost a fortune in Windows. I also love Linux because I can learn about how it works. The way Windows works, as well as its surrounding culture, does not encourage experimentation and learning the way Linux does.

I have always had Linux and free software to thank for my websites--I have a hobby website that gets hosted for $11.95 a month, and it has a features/price mixture that would be impossible with Windows hosting. Now I can thank Linux for teaching me more about how computers work.

The only thing I still need Windows for is MS Money--so far I haven't been happy with GnuCash or KMyMoney, and I can't get Money to work in Wine (yes, I know that it's rated gold in the Wine app DB, but I still can't get it to work.) It seems to me GnuCash is dying, but I might give it another look, and it does seeem that KMyMoney is coming along quickly.

Re:How it works

[megabyte405]

If you just need simple budgeting functions (for now at least), give Divifund a try - www.divifund.com . It's easy to use and pretty simple, but is still under development. If you find any bugs or have any feature requests, please let us know through the bugzilla link. (Disclaimer - I'm the Ryan in the copyright on the bottom of those pages)

Technical Superiority

[32771]

I suppose I switched because I was fed up with inferior technology. When I finally got a decent machine (133MHz Pentium) in '95, I was able to actually use Linux. It started out with support for preemptive Multitasking and a linear memory model. DOS+Win3.11 was a hopeless kludge compared to that. In addition to that I wanted to learn some C which I had started with in '94, since PASCAL wouldn't cut it anymore, and Linux made that switch really simple. I always thought that you shouldn't get a segmented memory model into the way of your assembly programming either, which was a side issue but added to the bad image. When Windows95 came out, it was too late I was hooked to Linux. Windows95 was still a kludge but on the way to improvement.

So just in case some think that people have switched in the past only because of anti microsoft activism, that is wrong, Linux always had something to offer, it just depended on your preferences.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[SCHecklerX]

True mostly, but what if you want a good firewall? That was my first reason to use linux. And iptables is part of the OS, isn't it?

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[Eil]

No one switches for just the operating system.

Er, I did.

I switched to Linux back in my teenage years because I had done just about every geeky thing that I could think of in Windows 95. When I heard about Linux being a Unix-like OS that can run on practically any old x86, I jumped. It wasn't about hating Microsoft (though I certainly did not favor them), it wasn't even that much about open source or free software, the switch to Linux for me was about trying to find something new and interesting to do with my computer. I didn't even realize until after I had installed Slackware 3.3 that I could endlessly tinker with and recompile the whole OS from source code if I wanted to.

I haven't been bored since.

The capable VIC-20

[operagost]

One of the converts says Windows 95 was okay, but not as capable as his VIC-20.

Now THAT is sad.

Why 'switch' at all ?

[smoker2]

I don't see why this is being treated as some big political item. It's quite simple really, choose the best tool for the job in hand.

I started with my fathers nascom homebuild machine back in the 80s, before advancing to 8086 and then 286/win 3.1 - 386/win3.1 - Pentium 1 75 mhz /win 95 - cyrix 300/win98 and se - AMD 1.4/win98se - etc etc.
I'm currently running win 98 se on a amd xp2200 with my tv card and divx encoders which is on a LAN with a sempron 2500 which runs the FC3 desktop and apache 2 server.
Any internet work gets done on the FC3 box via a kvm switch, while I can watch tv from the win98se box via the projector and 84" inch screen. I also have a Sony Vaio laptop (1ghz / win xp sp2) which serves as email backup, and video capture device (I like to use the sony dvgate software with my sony dv cam).
The FC3 box hosts my divx collection (and related mysql dbase) which can then be accessed by the LAN via an RSS feed generated from the db, and from the win98se box is effected by vlc being default player for the playlists in that rss feed.
So I can open firefox in windows, open the live bookmark for my divx list, choose, click, then watch my choice full screen (84").

All sounds like I'm wanking off over the AV side of it but it's the combination of the tools used that makes it fun. I'm a hacker ...
I also have a test box running MCE 2005 with dvb tuner but dual booting with whatever linux distro I can get to play nicely with the card :/
Thats what will cause me to leave windows behind, full support for my add on hardware. My systems are completely recognised otherwise, by FC3 anyway. It's just the damn peripherals.

Oh, I also run a few web servers with RHEL somewhere in the hurricane zone.

I guess all I'm saying is, you don't have to make a one or the other choice, be daring use both !

Re:Why 'switch' at all ?

[smoker2]

I forgot to say, I still have all the hardware I have ever used (at home), from Nascom onwards - sad huh ?

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anti-Microsoft sentiment comes from Microsoft's paranoia.."

It's not paranoia if it's true!

Trust is my motivation

[erroneus]

I know just about as much about what goes on inside Linux (and all the environment stuff) as I do Windows. I know enough to be dangerous or even useful at times, but I know I don't know everything. (And I'm admitting it on a public forum too!) So from a standpoint of "I know what's going on in there" we're on pretty equal footing. So why would I trust one more than the other?

Openness and accessibility. Under Linux, I never expect to have anything "hidden" or obscured from me. Sometimes I have to 'learn' something that thousands of other people already know, such as where a particular cache directory might be or which config file means what, but otherwise it's all out there and available. With Windows and the proprietary software out there, it's all very secret in some way or another. If it's just closed source, or some ridiculous copy protection, undocumented system calls or even a bug being silently exploited to make something special happen... it's a wild and unpredictable environment where fewer people play by the rules. This is not something that can be trusted.

Another thing is the stability. I hate shutting down. I love uptime and more importantly, I like to check my email by walking over to the computer and looking, not waiting for things to boot or reboot all of the time. I get a lot less of that with Linux... less, not none. Let's be honest here -- I play with various software and one time I was playing some galaga-like program and it was running full screen... when the program ended, I couldn't get my X display back... rebooted from a text screen. Stuff like that just happens... just less often.

Furthermore, Microsoft is involved in some scary initiatives. My rights don't need to be managed. I don't need my software spying on me. I don't need to ask permission from anyone or anything to run my OS or any software. And where trusted computing is concerned, I think my opinions above spells it out already -- I have trusted computing already! It's Linux and OSS.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

why I will migrate to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I do freelance development/AS work and made the decision to do a slow migration to Linux and open source. As a longtime power user of various windows versions and apps I don't make this move lightly because it is a huge investment in my time to migrate. (I've already fiddled with some OSS apps but a newb to Linux)

So why now?

Putting aside my personal feelings on the complex politics for a moment, in my particular case this switch is being driven by a practical need.

Security.

I don't mean just the current crop of casino and wallpaper programs that install themselves (and generate me business although it's much like the broken window parable). I'm talking about the wholesale spying that first tier companies, the government, etc... are engaged in. There are just too many back doors and unintended features in windows that compromises my data. And despite all the security talk by Microsoft, they cannot fix the problems without a major overhaul of attitude towards software. It's not all their fault though. Architecture is also to blame. Even if they really wanted to-- the hardware does not allow OS and APPS to be separated enough (ala MVS) and this mingling leads to tampering.

However this is made far worse by many closed source software company attitudes that it's OK to stick in back doors and listeners that launch my firewall in an attempt to have a secret chitchat with their servers.

And it's getting worse.

The overwhelming number of viruses are targeted for Windows and will be for the foreseeable future. There is a coming plague of rootkits and soap technology that has the ability to shred my multiple hardware and software firewalls. Seeing as Vista does nothing to correct this-- I decided moving to Linux will ultimately help me over the long term. I believe there is a huge untapped market of small companies (that I cater to) that are tired of dealing with the above types of security issues over and over again. The sooner I learn--the sooner I can begin to offer them viable alternatives.

Although I'm posting this AC, Slashdot has been my peripheral vision into open source for a few years now. I don't buy into all the propaganda of open source superiority-- there are pros and cons just like everything in life--but I do latch on to one important issue... full disclosure.

Although even in Linux the architecture can be exploited by black hats, sneaky drivers, embedded hardware back doors-- it's much harder to take advantage of. Open source basically forces legit companies to lay their cards on the table since the code is there for everyone to see. No secret watermarking. No temptation to send data back to some server. No NSA back doors (other than the exploits that they figure out on their own ).

As far as I can tell-- that is what security is all about. I'm not sure when the government and several corporations unilaterally decided that my personal data is up to their discretion to manage-- and their personal data is "intellectual property"-- but in a world where information is power if seems stupid to hand them the keys to mine and expect them not to take advantage of it. If I don't move myself off their current line of products-- then I am basically putting a vote in favor of that world

I've read various online reviews but any one have suggestions for appropriate distros for me? Here are my priorities in order.(This will run on my test network, no faceplate, beater, dual Pentium (500MHz) Dell Precision Workstation)

1. Learn first - easy install, well documented, easy updates, nice UI, good driver support. If you can sugggest some trouble free low end video and network cards that are proven to work well with distro that would be great too.

2 Intermediate- perhaps another distro with the maximun number of compatible tools and apps to play with.

3. Security. Timely and easy patching. (Before anyone

Re:why I will migrate to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Libranet www.librsnet.com
Light Debian based distro and easy to use.

Re:why I will migrate to Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link although i think you meant "www.libranet.com". (Google alternate word helped fix me up)

I'm clicking on their install guide for 2.8.1 free version (in FF) and the link doesn't work. Not a promising sign for something user friendly. Not saying your wrong here though--just hoping you could provide me with more info on this particular distro. From what I just read on their website it's a small company that recently restructured. Had a decent review at distrowatch though.

What I was hoping for here (maybe I'm expecting too much) is a distro that I can download as an iso, burn on a CD, plop in a dead machine, and install hassle free. A GUI is a must to make finding things easier for now and ability to keep it patched easily.

I'm leaning towards Ubuntu based on my limited reading to date. I downloaded it but didn't realize my version was a "live CD" (worked great though). At distro watch there were so many to choose between I really got discouraged (as it makes for an incredible amount of reading for a newb-- just to pick a distro :( Not to mention I'm not clear as to how this effects compatibility with other open source apps I want to run. (Apache, mysql, php, gimp, FF, 7-zip, gaim) Btw- what compiler should I use if I want to compile my own code?

  Also. I did some unix way back in school but I'm really rusty by now. You have any sites you'd recommend to visit to brush up? (I'm dumb and get bored easy if doesn't have pretty pictures)

    I know I'm asking a great deal here (RTFM :) Any bones you can throw me to speed this process up are appreciated though.

Off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the problems that windows can and does cause, but copying data to another drive in a computer does not equal a backup. Raid 1 is also not a backup, if a file gets deleted it is gone from both drives.

Re:Off Topic

[br00tus]

As I said in what I wrote, the reason for doing this is all my Windows networking was fried, so a network backup was impossible. I could have backed up my data via the floopy drive, but it would have taken a while to get the 2 gigs of data onto all of those 3.5" 1.44MB disks. And none of this wouldn't have been a problem if Windows hadn't switched its easy Windows 95 install CDs with the crappy OEM recovers in Windows 98. In the end, I got the data I had backed up on a second drive, but it was despite Windows, not because of it.

A software developer's wet dream

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is pretty obvious, but for us geeky coders Linux is like a little dream come true. The OS comes preinstalled with just about every compiler and library I could ever want and there's tons and tons and TONS of code to look at and tinker through. Need a function? Find a similar tool and steal some code (giving credit where it's due of course :-). And OH my god, the support! Ask a smart question and you'll get about 15 smart answers. For software development, Linux rocks.

About Gran

[ratboy666]

My wife's parents wanted a computer. A few years ago I supplied one. It was a Pentium 200/MMX, 64MB, and a smallish (sub-10GB) disk.

I installed Mandrake and OpenOffice, because I didn't want to spend money on a Windows and Office license of this POS computer.

The in-laws used the machine for years -- until the hardware gave out (replaced mouse once, then the power supply gave out).

Happy enough, it worked -- EXCEPT that a neighbour who was "tech literate" and helps out his peer group didn't under this "Linux" thing and was unable to "do stuff" to the computer. Gran asked "why not Windows? so-and-so knows how to help us, it would be SO much better!".

I put Windows 98SE on the replacement (PII 350, 128MB). Difficult to get a license for it... but eventually I got one. Put on Open Office because I wasn't about to hunt down and buy an old MS Office. Windows costs as much as the hardware. (Please, no flames as to how I should have installed Windows XP -- the price would be $140 or more, and this *IS* a $50 computer).

So what happens? Worms, trojans, and crashes. My in-laws have actually requested that I put that "Linux" thing back. Maybe for Christmas...

Is Linux superior? Is Windows? I honestly don't know. They are certainly different. Windows 98SE "fit and finish" is better than Linux (Mandrake 7). On the other hand, Mandrake 7 is free (as in beer). The Linux desktop can be locked down, which is an advantage when the target user won't EVER be installing software, or "playing" with the computer. On the other hand, Windows is familiar and visiting relatives and friends can easily use the device.

Still, Gran wants her Linux back... her perception is that the "old" software was more reliable and secure.

Ratboy.

Re:About Gran

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cause "Gran" isn't tech savy enough to know what anti-spyware is or understand the concept of virus pattern updates. "I can clean a toilet, but I can't clean a hard drive".
Sorry, there's enough stupid people using Windows out there, we don't need another. Put her back on Linux and lock her down so she can't do herself any more harm.
It's a good thing for "Gran" that Windows is so popular; keeps those bad people writing viruses for it instead of her beloved Linux. What ever will she do when nobody is using Windows anymore and then all of a sudden the "bad" people only have *nix Operating Systems to write trojans, viruses, and worms for.
Good luck Gran......

Re:About Gran

[Alex Belits]

That's cause "Gran" isn't tech savy enough to know what anti-spyware is or understand the concept of virus pattern updates. "I can clean a toilet, but I can't clean a hard drive".

You mean, "Get pwn3d, and pray that the damage is reversible"?

MOD PARENT UP

[majest!k]

My thoughts exactly.

AmigaOS wasn't being maintained

[Sloppy]

I switched because AmigaOS wasn't getting enough maintenance and some aspects of it were getting kinda old (especially the hardware it ran on).

The only viable choices were Linux and the BSDs, because I'll be damned if I'll ever depend on proprietary software and let myself become orphaned again. Fool me once, shame on you...

Re:AmigaOS wasn't being maintained

[waferhead]

Similar issue for me.

I dual booted AmigaOS and Linux (or NetBSD) on my A3000 from ~1994-1997...
I was looking at upgrading to a 68060 or even PPC accellerator board...
and realized that I could build a PC for FAR less that would be many times faster,
and just run Linux on it.

I started with RH5.0...(shudders) but it got better, quickly, as Linux related things do.

I STILL miss some features from the Ami, (datatypes, drag and drop into requesters, not sure if that was std tho)

I run Linux because I LIKE the UI (KDE), it allows me to generally do whatever I need to do, when I want to do it,

Linux requires absolutely NO real effort to "keep it alive" as any Win install does.
(I hate fixing Windows boxes. I HATE doing clean installs... MDK takes ~30 min total, incl updates.)

I have (mostly) used Mandrake since ~v7.1, and have installed (but not switched to) 2006.0.
(spare partition/dual boot with 2005LE, testing Mythtv etc before switching)

I recently tried SUSE10.0, slug slow for some reason I could never quite determine. Very Slick otherwise.

/home/scott/pr0n

[Scott Swezey]

No one else around here uses or understands linux at all, plus the permissions are a lot better/easier than windows. With linux, I just know that /home/scott/pr0n is safe...

(It was also tronic that this comes up today... I spent all day yesterday installing and trying FC4, SUSE10, and Ubuntu... Ubuntu wins)

My reasons and results

[travail_jgd]

I switched to Linux because my Windows 98 SE was unstable. I knew a fair bit of what I was doing, was careful, but the system was just "delicate". Worse, every time IE crashed the operating system would become unstable. After having to reboot 2-3 times a night (with the obligatory checkdisk), I switched to RedHat 7.2.

Mozilla, OpenOffice and KDE lacked the features and polish they currently possess, but it was a major improvement. Mozilla crashed (only occasionally), but the system remained stable. KDE might lock, but Ctrl-Alt-Backspace usually fixed that.

What else I've gotten out of my switch:

• Stability. I have the occasional lockups, but nothing compared to 98 or 2000.
  
• Security. I don't have to worry as much about my PC getting pwned
  
• Cost. My current distro (Gentoo) is "free as in beer". The software I use is almost exclusively Free as well (Crossover Office being the exception). Not having to deal with Windows beg-ware or cripple-ware is a nice change.
  
• Ease of upgrades. I started with Gentoo 1.1 several years ago. Barring one exception (and that was my own fault -- deleting the toolchain is bad, m'kay) I've been able to keep my OS current without having to reformat and reinstall.
  That's the equivalent of starting with Windows 2000 and eventually moving to Vista Beta, without having to reinstall the whole system. Not only that, but the "cutting edge" packages are usually very stable.
  
• Control. I know enough to dig down into the nitty gritty of init files, runlevels, etc to know exactly what my PC is loading. With Windows, I'd have to traverse the Registry; is there anyone who fully understands that?
  

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No one said this topic here was scientific survey. The people here either came here to talk with other Linux enthusiasts about something they find interesting, or to troll in favor of Windows. This is basically a social topic, and you know it.

We know that we're not going to learn anything that will improve linux by participating in this topic. We're here to have fun!

No one is expecting the results of this to be published in a reputable journal or taken seriously. You should try getting over yourself, and go do something you enjoy.

My switch to Linux explained - tales from an idiot

[ZeppelinChild]

I doubt anyone will read this, I'm never modded up..but anyway.. I'm not a coder, programmer, or anything special. Sometime in 2001, I was running Win98 with a new cd burner. I forget what program I was using, some burning crap that came with the burner, and while burning a CD Windows froze, the red light went completely off. When I turned the computer off and back on, it wouldn't boot - there was a bizarre message, something about C:\ being corrupted. When I couldn't even restore it with the restore disc...I was incensed! I also couldn't afford to just go buy a copy of Windows at the time. I had heard about Linux and went to the library and took out an old "Learn SuSE in 24 hours book" - it was a really old distro of SuSE - I remember my mouse didn't work on it, X was a mess and I was pretty much text only. But I did get connected to the internet, and (very slowly, I was still 256K then) downloaded what a friend of mine suggested, Mandrake 8.1. Well, that did it. I could play mp3s, I was in love with (still am) gcdmaster for burning/editing CDs, thought the Gimp was awesome. I haven't looked back, though I did do a little distro-hopping before settling on SuSE for the last 2 years. I'm really addicted to the apps even more since then - all my audio editing and recording software primarily. I found that while Windows programs were always easy to install but then over time things got really screwed up, with Linux some things are indeed still a bitch to get going properly - but once you get something working, it always works. Every time my mom calls me over to fix her Windows XP from spyware that freezes it up all the time, or viruses, all my little Linux problems seem very small in comparison. I've heard Windows advocates frequently dismiss Linux because of some of the time required to get things working (editing conf files, whatever) but that seems a small price to pay for a nice clean system that always works and never has to be rebooted. Not saying Linux is the end-all and be-all - my wife really wants to get a Mac for our next computer, and I just might give in because I should be able to run most of my favourite programs on OSX - but it's worked fine for me.

MOD PARENT UP!

[alan.briolat]

I found the information on the linked FAQ very useful, just downloaded Grisbi, and now I can finally say I have an easy-to-use replacement for MS Money (not saying MS Money was easy to use, but it was usable). It was to the point where I couldn't be bothered to boot into Windows just for accounting, and emulation didn't really cut it, so i wasn't bothering to keep track of my accounts at all!

Thanks 'Noksagt'!

bash, virtual desktops,latex,emacs,...

[qcomp]

I got hooked by the Linux (SuSE 3.0) resp. Unix computers we had at university. What I liked best were the shell, the virtual desktops, the great LaTeX environment, and Emacs. For a while I tried to make do with EmTeX and MicroEMACS on my DOS 5.0 PC at home, but with Suse 5.1 I made the switch there, too and have never looked back.
So it was the great software (and the able admin of seastar@mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de ;-) which made me switch - but meanwhile I have also learned to appreciate the philosophy/moral of GNU/Linux. I continue to be awed and amazed by the great community. Many thanks to all the developer, testers, writers who intentionally or not promote Freedom!

Windows ME died and Linux just kept working

[Rick17JJ]

I first tried Linux 5 years ago because I was bored with Windows but, what is more interesting is why it is my main operating system now. My computer back then did not meet the minimum hardware requirements for upgrading to Windows 2000 so I had to continue using Windows Millenium which was famous for crashing, memory leaks and general unreliability. I had used Windows 95 and 98 before that which was almost as bad. I was dual-booting between Windows ME and Red Hat 7.2 when Windows ME started getting less and less reliable. As a result, I found myself booting up into Linux more often and less willing to bother watching Windows lock-up and then having to watch it scan the hard disk for errors for 5 or 10 minutes while rebooting. When I would try to turn the computer off and it would usually not shut-down unless I turned the power off. When rebooting Windows, would then scold me for not having sut it down properly and slowly scan the hard disk for errors. At one point the computer started dial-ing up to the Internet on its own which made me qestion its security. I always downloaded the latest virus signatures, scanned for virues and used a firewall but had problems anyway.

Linux distros such as Ubuntu and SuSE have improved for desktop use greatly since then so I feel no desire to consider moving back.

About every 6 months I would reinstall Windows and it would work well for a few months. During this same time Red Hat Linux continued to run flawlessly with rock solid stability. Finally, Windows ME died and a waited nearly a year before bothering to reinstall it. I just booted up into Linux instead. People like to remind me that with Windows 2000 and XP Microsoft has finally built something that is stable. Well that is nice, but I had spent 5 years waiting for a stable product and by then had already given up on them and moved on to Linux. Why should I bother moving back now? Well I did eventually try some version of Windows again and and soon started having problems with Adware.

I had reinstalled Windows about every 6 months for several years even though it was no longer my main operating system and had also reinstalled Office 2000 every time. With Office 2000 or newer product activation within 30 days is required. I had reinstalled Office 2000 so many times that it would not allow me to do it over the Internet and a message said that I would need to call Microsoft to have it activated. When I called Microsoft, I was sternly told that I had reinstalled Office too many times and he angrily interrogated me about why I had to install it yet again. Microsoft makes an unreliable product that in some cases needs to be reinstalled every 6-months so why whould he even need to ask such a stupid question. I also truthfully explained that I had also had two hard drive failures and a worm during that time period. He questined me about how many computers I had and unfairly accused me of trying to install office on more than one computer. He finally gave me the key but sternly warned me not to write it down to to repeat it out loud to anyone else in the room.

I have always strongly opposed software piracy and have always paid for all software that I had used including the many Microsoft products I had purchased and reqistered since 1989. I have always refused to give friends copies of my registered software or accept the software they were offering me. I strongly resented being falsely accused that way and became even more anti-Microsoft ever since then.

Ubuntu Linux is such a great desktop that I feel no desire to consider moving back to Windows.

Oops, sorry about the cut and pasting error

[Rick17JJ]

Sorry about having the same paragraph twice in my post. I missed that while proof reading what I was about to post.

I switched for...

[entrigant]

Pan, Konqueror, JuK, Kmail, K3B, tinyfugue, Gaim, Kaffeine, KOffice, Konversation, KDevelop, jack, Kate, kpdf, ethereal, nmap, akregator, tvtime, cron, cups, samba, gkrellm, gimp, and several other apps that are either only run or only run decently on linux, not to mention all the functionality available to me that I do not have in windows.

I switched because I love openness. I don't just love being ABLE to dip into the source of any app I use to learn or change what it does, I love doing exactly that on a day to day basis. I love being able to easily know exactly what my system is doing at any time.

I love using my computer thanks to Linux.

Why my family switched

[Quenyar]

We have kids. Those kids are not very careful of each other's things. Having a real mutli-user operating system meant that nobody clobbered anybody else's stuff. Nobody ate anybody else's homework (or could be blamed for same).

We started out in Caldera 1.1 and kept that until it got hacked about six years later (I wasn't very interested in doing patches). We then went to RedHat, which had another 5 year run til it was hacked. Then we tried SuSE for a while, but although I liked a lot of things about it, I hated some others more, so I ended up back in Fedora.

I like little things, like being my own mailserver, so I can create a mail alias that sends mail both to my wife and me from a single email address.

We use ubuntu also, but not for our main server.

If I set up a Linux workstation, I know I can come back in 2 weeks or 6 months and it will work the same. Windows is so changeable - not in any major way (anymore) but quirky litle weirdnesses that make me feel like it's somehow shiftless and untrustworthy. Just today Word wouldn't make PDFs from the icon on the menu bar but made them happily if I pritned the doc to the Adobe PDF "printer" - go figure. Tuesday it will make PDFs from the menubar icon again.

Our kids have games machines - they're windows. Endlessly being reinstalled and reconfigured. They're toys. You play with toys. They know more about breaking and fixing windows that I ever will. This is not a bad thing.

imagine...

[alizard]

a stable, reliable, secure Windows 98SE that takes full advantage of expanded memory (found this out when I bumped this box from 352 to 768M)... and chews through things like PaintShopPro image filtering on 1350x2700 images like a chainsaw on steroids. And permits actually using other applications at the same time when the thing is processing a huge image file.

That's W98SE+Win4lin 9.x running over Fedora Core 2. (you can probably get the same results with VMware)

No, fixing Windoze problems isn't why I switched to Linux, that's simply a fortuitous side effect. I did this mainly because I was sick of dealing with MS malware crap and wanted a future operating system, not something belonging to a crumbling empire that saw its best days several years ago and is kept alive on life support.

Currently switching at work

[dcam]

At work (small company) I develop asp.net/SQL Server websites. I am currently switching all our non desktop and testing servers to linux. Why? My reasons are 75% cost and 25% stability.

To pick the most recent example.
I've just put in a mail server, moving from pop boxes managed externally (which we set up because it was easy), to a postfix/courier solution. As it is a small office, the machine doesn't need to be that beefy. So I have been able to run with a second hand dell desktop. I've also got an identical machine and a mirrored HD as a redundant machine in case this one burns to the ground. Anyway, the cost of this setup to the company has been about $350AUD.

To do the same in windows, I would need a beefier box and a license of 2003 + Exchange, SBS probably being the best option. A license of SBS costs a $1000AUD not including the extra CALs needed.

What is more, configuring this box was quite straightforward. I've installed an Exchange server once before and that was rather complex. Probably not quite as complex as this setup, but it comes close.

Freedom from secretly connecting to microsoft.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired of your OS or components 'phoning home' to microsoft.com?

Use a separate hardware firewall and find out how often connections are made to microsoft.com and ask yourself what information is being transmitted without your explicite knowledge.

If I'm developing a new product with a meaningful name, will microsoft find out about it if the product name is stored in the registry area where all applications are listed? Wouldn't this give them an unfair advantage whether it comes to trademarking new product names or discovering what new products are on the horizon?

Seriously, do you know what info and when Windows transmits to microsoft.com?

Ignorance.

[supabeast!]

Most people I know who are still doing the Linux thing either think that this is 2001 and Linux is still cool, or they simply haven't seen OS X in action yet.

QIF Import

[Noksagt]

Both do a better job at QIF import than MS Money. See my FAQ (linked elsewhere in this thread) for which F/OSS apps have QIF import.

My experience

[KayosIII]

My first contact with Linux was in 1997. I was learning Java at University at the time and really wanted to test my java on another platform... I had also heard about the gimp and wanted to try another graphics program. I ran Linux as a secondary operating system for a few years...

So why did Linux become my primary operating system. It was the day I discovered a version of Linux that supported my scanner. Unlike anything I had used under Windows the scanner drivers did not lock up my graphics program while it was scanning. Which means I could start work touching up one image while the next one was being scanned - instead of sitting there twiddling my thumbs. Pure Genious

These Days I use a KDE Desktop its the little things I enjoy - the ability to stick windows so that they stay above others - is absolutely essential to my workflow. I love K3B, Amarok, Digikam. To have Software that could do what the opensource software can do would literally cost me thousands and while I am happy to spend money on my primary tools - I am not so happy forking out big bucks for an application I might only use once a month. Piracy is not an option for me, I have an alternative - theres no way I can justify it to myself (well after I have learn't the software anyways).

Me too!

[ruel24]

I find Linux to suit me for the very same reason. I'm not 100% converted, yet, but I just find Linux easier to install, upgrade, repair, and figure out than Windows. When all hell breaks loose due to a bad install in Windows, I'm absolutely lost, despite using the environment for a long, long time. I've been using Linux for a few years now, and I can actually fix lots of stuff when it goes wrong (but not always). When I can't, I can usually find help from somewhere, whether in a forum, newsgroup, or IRC chatroom and get it fixed and without all the snobbery I get from Windows "experts". Many Linux gurus are actually interested in helping your figure it out without demeaning you in the process, though there are a few jerks out there in the Linux newsgroups.

Also, I hate to sound cheap, but I can download a good quality free Linux distro like OpenSuse, Mandriva, Fedora, or for more experienced users, Mepis, Debian, Ubuntu/Kubuntu or whatever and have just about any application I'll ever need. I do, however, believe in supporting my distro and OSS in general, and tend to buy my distros. But even then, you can get Suse Linux for about $60 US and have just about everything you want. You'll spend more than that for Windows, and you don't even have a single application to work with. When I built my last Windows machine with a fresh, legal copy of XP Professional and got updated versions of all my favorite applications, and even new ones that I wanted, as well as armed it with utilities like Norton's Internet Security, I'd spent nearly a grand on software alone. Now, to top that off, all that software has EULA's. The only EULA I got with my Linux installation is to agree to the GPL.

Another thing I like about Linux is the excitement in the platform. Linux is constantly under a state of improvement. So many hands are involved that the backbone of Linux, as well as all the shiny bling-bling you see on the desktop are under constant development and improving all the time. Windows XP came out in something like 2001, and looks and feels about as tired and old-hat as the Chevy Cavalier did when they (finally!) put it to rest.

Spyware and Viruses ??

[Macka]

I'm quite amazed that the ever invasive presence of Spyware and Viruses on Windows hasn't factored into your decision. Don't you get fed up of having to deal with that shit?

Re:Spyware and Viruses ??

[aCapitalist]

I've been programming on Linux professionaly since '97, and I basically just use windows as a desktop at home, occassionaly dual-booting into some distro or another when I fancy, or running colinux, but if you use Firefox, already have a router, and a firewall then you're not getting viruses, trojans, spyware - at least I don't.

Now my mom's computer is another story. I almost threw kanotix on there because hers was so infested.

Obvious answer:

[Castar]

They don't?

I switched to linux for better drivers

[dbIII]

Some time back I bought a shiny new 14400kbps external modem at a much higher cost than a 9600kbps modem. Windows 3.11 was limited in software to a speed of 9600kbps - so I switched to linux.

I used Win95 a bit later on, but it never shutdown, only crashed when asked to do so. It turned out to be a buggy sound card driver and when windows tried to shutdown it played a sound in a different mode to sounds produced by other programs which crashed the machine every time.

I moved to win2k later on - which left me with a SCSI card that had no drivers available for that operating system at all. Meanwhile some stuff compiled on that 1995 version of Slackware linux are still running on a much updated system without having to recompile.

'cause Linux runs better on old hardware?

[Atholas of GOH]

For me the choice is simple: I have a couple of old boxes at home that runs oh-so-slow on Windows, and (surprise surprise) Linux is the only way to go to get a up-to-date OS running my boxes. Get X running, throw in fluxbox (or any other lightweight WM) and you get a pretty functional system. I expect more people, at least the slighly technically inclined ones, will adopt Linux at a greater rate once Vista is released.

Isn't it clear?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't try a Mac first.

Because

[Anonymous Coward]

it's much more comforting knowing its security record when a family member decides to open that "really cool picture"...

I mean, really, who WOULDN'T open "THISISAVIRUS.JPG.VBS.EXE"?

For development

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched for many reasons, but one of the prominent ones is that Linux (or rather, Unix) is very developer-friendly. Compilers, scripting languages, autoconf/automake/make are all ubiquitous. It's very obvious that Unix was made for developers, whereas windows is made for people who "aren't computer people", what with all the pointy-clicky. Screw MS Visual Studio.

For getting rid of BSODs, fs lock-in

[usv]

The main initial reason for my switch was my win 2k throwing a BSOD whenever I put the Sneakers DVD into the DVD drive :) I didn't want to pay for XP and check, whether that would have worked. (And yes, I tried every possibly way to fix this; reainstalled windows completely, installed necessary patches and drive firmware, with no success.) So I made a dual-boot machine by installing SuSE Linux. After a short while I realized that keeping a 40 gig vfat partition for sharing data between the OS'es was something I didn't like. I wanted an interoperable, journaling rw filesystem, but couldn't achieve it. So I said "Fuck this" and little by little transferred all the data to Linux side. It was hard in the beginning (had to switch Ati graphics card to nVidia) but eventually everything worked out ok.

Actually

[rodoke3]

that's how I switched to Openoffice.org (only MS Office CD I had was returned to me scratched to hell/lacked the p2p sk!11z to find another). Coincidentally, that's also why I don't lend CDs anymore.

Interesting coincidence...

[elmindreda]

I just wrote down my justification an hour ago.

Not quite flawlessly... But conversion x4 anyways

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux ain't running flawlessly for me, but it's much better than windows.

I've still got tons of issues with my Debian install on a Fried Electronics box (cheapie); soundcard issues, backup cron script killing X, and a crashing firefox (about once every 5-10 saves), which are annoying, but I've not had the spare time to try finding the info to attempt fixing it. I need to get onto a LUG-list and start poking around, but I haven't had time...

I have however swapped over at least 4 windows users to Debian (plus handed out numerous install and live CDs). Simply because of the fucked-up-ness of Windows. They all had Windows boxes, which inevitably started seriously fucking up. One was a HD issue; we bought them a new HD, and found they didn't have any install disks. Pay $100 for Windows which they already own, or find someone to lend them disks, or I could put Debian on their computer. Guess what? They just switched. Ditto for serious bluescreening, and no ability to do anything with the safe-mode; boom new user (who also is having some problems, but less-so than with windows). Another one said they were tired of dealing with windows randomly burping on them. Conversion... score! Networking issues for another one.

And this is without joining a LUG, or even knowing much about Linux (ex-Mac guy here, I made the switch because my old OS8 box died, I dislike OS9-X - and I've been using unix for years (but don't particularly like it on my desktop)).

Microsoft needs to get their head out of their ass if they want to keep their customers. At the rate this is going, I'm going to convert any friend who sticks around for longer than 5 years. I'm not going to break the law to put M$ products on their broken machines when they have no way to reinstall, and I tell them so. I've got something else to offer them. And I will do so, because people need working computers.

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

A No Brainer...

[joshjoneswas]

The blonde in the cubicle next to mine has a knoppix CD. She thinks I'm cool now and even said 3 words to me last month :D

one word

[sl4shd0rk]

choice

My .02

[spx]

I have from shear boredem, played around with alot of linux. Slack, Mandrake, Gentoo....for stupid reasons I guess I have avoided some (Redhat, BSD), but Im sure in the future I will give them all a shot. I went thru windows and became tired of the updates, and the hassle that comes with it. For most of it, I used windows b/c it (most of the time) would get the job done that I needed, if I email correspond with someone regarding a work project or when I used to find missing people (the software did not allow for non-windows os). More than likely in the next few months I will be fixing my nix box now (vid card died) and begin to actually learn something worthwhile. My fiance is a IT Director, and even if its just around the house or for a home base business in the future I might want to try my hands at networking and more.

No more free M$ support

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely my friend, precisely.

I don't do windows, unless I get paid. If you're my friend, I'm going to help you out by putting you in a better position to help yourself. And make you legal to boot.

-- Ender, Duke_of_URL

Why people don't switch is the question

[brrgo]

I've been using and programming PC since before Microsoft even existed.
When microsoft came on to the seen they had a big advantage - developer support! CPM at the time was the dominated OS but each manufacturer had taken the OS and recomplied it to run on there hardware. This made for small differences from machine to machine some very minor some, some not so minor.

Microsoft defined a standard when they sold IBM, and IBM mis-stepped by not protected the archtecture. Then sold it to hardware manufactures that made there hardware compatible with DOS (and the critical BIOS functions).

But more to the point, now you had just ONE place to go to development support and they had and have good support, such as documentation and development tools for everybody from hobbist to professionals.

Linux will never have a significant market because it's too fragmented, each distro has there own quirks. Too bad.

I'm getting back into Linux because the new .NET is just a scam on the developer community to raise $$$ because they are stuck with legacy compatiblity and can't really take big steps to make something new.

But am dispointed with this fact that there isn't a definitive answer for problems nor a definitive interface (KDE/Gnome) because everyone thinks they have a 'better way' to do something which is great, but results in the fore mentioned problem. At least that's my FEELING, as a newbie.

Ok, that's my two cents. (this is my 'virgin' comment)

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[MrResistor]

IIRC, Pro-Engineer runs on Linux, and of course there's BRL-CAD (though honestly I haven't managed to figure out how to actually use it yet). Not sure about the current state of AutoCAD, but they did have a Unix version back in the day.

As for games, I hear from people all the time that they have games running better and faster under Cedega than on Windows, though I suspect those people are probably using a stripped down Gentoo, or I guess maybe just a custom stripped down runlevel.

Anyway, just food for thought.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[MrResistor]

Cedega (Transgaming) has support for a lot of the big titles before they're actually released, and I hear on an often enough basis from people who claim better performance with Linux/Cedega than under Windows. Most likely they're using a stripped-down Gentoo, and/or a custom stripped-down runlevel.

I have no basis for comparison, as I'm pure Linux at this point. No complaints on the gaming front since I git Cedega, but then I'm not the dedicated gamer I once was.

False-negative WGA is one reason to switch

[larry_larry]

It seems MS is in the practise of guilty until proven innocent by their bug-ridden WGA process. My dell OEM windows install fails their WGA process and their support isn't any help, they want me to back everything up and re-install from the CD, which is packed away in storage somewhere. "The current install on your computer as identified correctly by WGA does not match your Windows license. Your current installation of Windows is not legitimate. You will not be able to validate until you perform the repair installation." With milestones and deadlines and such who has time for this... It took me over 4 hours to secure XP and the last thing I want to do is have to mess with this. I run a couple Linux boxes with and keep XP on my laptop... If I could replace Visio, Word and camera SW I would be 100% Linux. Dia and OpenOffice aren't quite good enough yet, but are getting closer all the time :)

Re:False-negative WGA is one reason to switch

[megabyte405]

Well, AbiWord is a great replacement for Word for a lot of people (disclaimer: I'm the Windows packager), and most of the time, just plugging in the camera (and possibly hitting the sync button if you have a Kodak Easyshare or similar) will bring up an Import Pictures dialog (at least in Ubuntu - your mileage in other distros may vary). You can then browse and manage the pictures with F-Spot or Gthumb. Sorry, I don't know of a better replacement for Visio, but there is a chance that Inkscape may be able to do some of what you want.

small biz software developer story

[SailFly]

I tried slack in 1995 and was amazed at having a full *nix system on my old pc. I was writing apps for telecom billing systems on Solaris at the time, and my pc gave me a great platform to build and test my code at home. I was able to retain rights to some of the modules partly due to the clean seperation with development efforts and my office vs. the customer site.

In 1997 I switched to RedHat, mostly because of it's growing popularity and my interest in being able to offer Red Hat Linux services to my customers. I was able to build a datamart for the airline industry using RH/Mandrake on my laptop while camping with my father in Colorado over four weeks. Fish and hike by day, code by night. After the trip I was able to port my code and compile on the large sun box (E10000) at the customer site. It worked great, largely due to my platform available on my laptop.

Now I use Gentoo and support multiple customer sites which also use Linux for web and file servers (Either Gentoo or RH Enterprise).

The only reason I keep Windows is for customer support (outsourced I.T. support and windows development) and Quick Books for accounting.

I consider myself a geek at heart, and love the spiritual notion of we get what we give, which is why I like to contibute time and energy to local noobs in my area. However my customers think of their computers like a telephone, they just want it to work: reliably, fast and cheap. And I'm able to give them just that with Linux. They still run XP desktops, but that's slowly changing too.

Yeah, that's a good reason...

[Tidal Flame]

"Surprisingly, anti-Microsoft sentiment had less to do with the choice than one might imagine."

Who honestly thinks that "anti-Microsoft sentiment" is going to motivate people to switch to Linux? Linux has more to offer than the fact that it's not Windows (and not Mac), and that shouldn't be a key point in why people switch. Assuming otherwise is frankly a mockery of all the work that's been put into Linux. ...Although "it's good because it's not MS" certainly does seem to be the attitude of some zealots.

Linux for the Masses

[Technopundit]

Being something of a nerd, but nowhere the COMPLETE nerd others may be, having no interest in programming, I have found Linux to be an interesting toy. Eventually, Linux broke and took out my entire dual-boot hard drive. I reinstalled everything. Now, I'd only install it on a separate drive. Never could get my wi-fi card installed (I know - don't use one). The average user cannot reprogram his computer to fix some programmer's omissions, doesn't want to -- or need to. That's what Windows is for.

Re:Linux for the Masses

[megabyte405]

It sounds like you tried Linux a while ago... I had similar difficult experiences. Now, I've found that the rate of improvement of things users see and work with has increased to the point that it's more than an acceptable replacement - it's better. Give Ubuntu a try, or maybe Mandriva (it's supposed to be more simple, too, I just use Ubuntu) - you can do basically everything you want without touching a command line, and for things that you need a command line for, there's lots and lots of community support and howto's

It's good for your health

[Anonymous Coward]

so that our 30 mile barefeet journeys don't end up with a roomful of Redmond BrainRotOS Starter Editions.

Why should Linux users have "switched"?

[rorthron]

I never switched from any MS OS to Linux. In February 1993 I replaced my Atari ST with my first "IBM compatible" computer and have been running Linux ever since.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[somersault]

Well I'll pass that onto the engineer, but I doubt it would be comparable to Inventor.. :/

The real question

[Bonobo_Unknown]

The real question is how can we get people directly over to freebsd instead? ;)

Without reboot

[g0bshiTe]

SuSe 8.0 Pro on 350 megahert AMD K6-2 (yeah it's old school) 512 megs ram, uptime 12:51am up 279 days, load average: 0.51, 0.12, 0.03

I think that says alot.

why ppl switch to linux

[Anonymous Coward]

....cause thier friends keep calling them wusses if they don't!

College Student

[maino82]

I haven't completely made the switch to Linux yet, but right now I'd say I'm running windows about 60% of the time, using cygwin within windows about 10% of the time, and running Debian 30% of the time. The main thing that appeals to me as a poor college student is the fact that you can get an amazing OS with programs to do just about anything you could ever want for free! Before I found Linux I found myself using pirated copies of photoshop, microsoft office, and even OSs like Win2K, but with Linux I get the OS, the gimp, and openoffice/staroffice for nothing, plus the ability to script and code to my hearts content when I find that other programs can't quite meet my needs. Once I do finally make a full time switch over to Linux I may keep a windows box around just to fiddle with, but since Debian has been able to do everything I could ever want I'm sure I won't need to have windows around for much more than a curiosity.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[MrResistor]

I haven't used either myself, so this is all second-hand. But, isn't Inventor just a 3d package dumped on top of AutoCAD? If he's doing 3d work, Pro-E should be at least comparable, and I suspect it would be a great improvement. Pro-E is the premere 3d CAD package out there, and it's priced accordingly, so it might be eliminated from your list just for that.

If he sticks with AutoCAD because he's old-school, then BRL-CAD is probably worth looking at. It was developed by the Army's Balistic Research Labratory, and was recently open-sourced. It has a lot of features, but, as I've mentioned, an arcane interface.

Personal bias here, but I came to the conclusion years ago that the reason AutoCAD was the standard was because if you could figure it out, you'd have no problem with one of the many CAD packages that are actually usable. ;-)

What? Switch TO linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

That kind of means that you have to switch from something. Let's see.. Dos and OS/2 was dying, that's why I "switched".

Linux is open

[Psyrg]

I don't mean this as in the free as in beer or free as in speech aspect, I refer to Linux's compiler toolset. It is as if Linux wants to be worked on, all the stuff you need is there.

With development environments like Eclipse I have found Linux the first place I have wanted to sit down and code in since I started back in the eight bit days. Even better is that these tools come for other operating systems now, and as such I have little trouble building my projects for those supported operating systems.

I would like to lend my heart felt thanks and gratitude to all those people who have made Linux and BSD what they have become today.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[somersault]

Inventor is hardly 'old school', I'm not an engineer but I ran through a few of the tutorials and it's pretty impressive. Cost isnt a problem in general, though since we have something that works well, then it would be pointless to spend thousands on a different tool just to change OS (we'd then also have to change the other engineer's systems, including one in Texas who would likely need support just to help him use linux, and that'd be some pretty expensive phonecalls and use of my time - we're located in Scotland)

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[MrResistor]

All I know of Inventor comes from a friend, who used it and a couple other packages in an engineering sales position. He didn't have a very high opinion of it, though their IT guy was apparantly completely worthless, so I suppose it could have been no fault of Inventor's that they had so many problems with it.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[somersault]

hehe ;) yeah it works fine for us, even with one guy in Texas accessing the same assemblies and drawings over VPN, and another regularly working from Inverness, no problems really, apart from version 10 was apparently half the speed of version 9 on the employee's machines. I wish they'd tested it first, since you cant migrate models to previous versions. Stupid.

Re:It's the applications that make the difference

[Alex Belits]

I use VariCAD (proprietary, license costs $500) for 3D work and QCad (GPD'ed) for 2D.

powerful command line

[theonetruekeebler]

Back in the day, I used DOS at work. Sure, the machine had Windows on it, which I would switch into for Freecell or Minesweeper, but task switching in Windows 3.1 was largely hysterical and the apps I needed had no non-sucky Windows equivalent (the exception being GroupWise, which was way ahead of its time). My editor would let me "shell" to the compiler, so I had pretty much everything I needed.

Then at work I installed a shell called NDOS and was blown away at how much more powerful my computer became. I had macros. I had control structures. I had aliases. I had a usable batch language and could automate the build process to an amazing degree---going from a 30-minute interactive process to a 10-minute job started with a single command.

Most of my wasted time was dealing with unprotected memory and 64K segments. Ever since the 80386 I had been hearing about the Holy Grail of computing---a flat memory model. Never mind it was ubiquitous outside the DOS world---for those in Microsoft's thrall it was a myth. So I bought myself a big fat 420MB hard drive (probably $500 at the time) and went to some guy's house to buy a 4-cd Linux collection from him. He sold me his battered copy of UNIX in a Nutshell---my first O'Reilly book. I installed Slackware and a 1.0.8 kernel and tinkered and tinkered and tinkered. Eventually I had my "main" Pentium/166 running Windows, my 486/66 Linux workstation and a Pentium/150 Linux server, all wired together with thinnet. The server was headless and had a VT220 serial terminal on the back. I was blown away by what I could do from the Bash prompt. When my office trained me up on Oracle and bought a $30,000 Sun Ultra for it, I was the only guy in the office who knew Unix, so

So what keeps me in Windows? Honestly? Porn. That's pretty much it. .ASF, .WMV, .AVI are very Windows-centric, so my Unix machine is a Samba server (file and print shares) and the Windows machine is the client. And as long as I have a Windows machine running I may as well run Thunderbird on it, and Firefox, and Office. My GPS software only runs under Windows, so even without the porn I'd need Windows some of the time. Porn or otherwise, for "real" work I usually have two or more PuTTY windows open to the Unix box, each with six or seven screen sessions---I still need a command prompt to manage my collection. If I have a large set of files on my Windows box, I usually move them to Unix, use the tools there to organize them, then move them back. That's generally easier than trying to accomplish anything with Windows and its crippled shell.

Progressive disclosure (Re:My story.)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Programmers [want] control over and visibility into every aspect of their computing environment... For me, going back to Windows, or even OS X, feels like slipping into a [straitjacket]."

Well, here's the problem. The Mac's philosophy towards configurability, and in fact the entire Apple experience, is intuitive for a certain kind of person. Artists, fashion mavens, leftists, and other creative personalities can sit down with a system offering a range of configuration options--everything from System Preferences, to XML property lists, to flat text files like crontab--and comprehend its sensitive, tasteful aesthetic. It's a rare instinct, this appreciation for beauty and truth; accountants and other such pencil-pushers haven't a prayer.

In summary, unattractive squares should stick to Linux and Windows. Progressive disclosure is for different thinkers.

* * * gallery updated 5 Nov. 2005 * * *