Slashdot Mirror


The REAL Reason We Use Linux

Vlad Dolezal writes "We tell people we use Linux because it's secure. Or because it's free, because it's customizable, because it has excellent community support... But all of that is just marketing BS. We tell that to non-Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason." The answer to his question probably won't surprise you.

9 of 682 comments (clear)

  1. He's right by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Interesting
    FTFA:

    It's fun to use the command line.
    He's totally right on this, in my opinion. I get a real kick out of using my shell (bash). I've got a bunch of options in my .bashrc that make it much easier to use for me:
    • Automatic logout when left alone for more than x minutes
    • Colored prompt, allowing me to spot the output between previous and next command fast
    • Aliases like 'printcode' that calls a2ps with all the right options
    • Fancy PROMPT_COMMAND variable that sets the xterm title just right
    • Limiting the history
    • Ignoring things like 'ls -l' in the history
    • Expanding the tab-completion possibilities
    And lots of more options, the list gets too long already :-)
    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  2. Because it works! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find Linux to be a congenial programming environment, where I can noodle together scripts and programs to get things done. It provides lots of sharp tools that make things easy.

    It doesn't get in the way like certain other OSs I could mention. It doesn't squander system resources on non-essentials (ditto), and I can tune it to allocate resources where they are needed. Oh, and did I mention? It just plain works!

    ...laura

  3. It's the people, stupid. by rubenerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Granted I'm a FreeBSD guy [insert comment about why BSD is dying here] but I think the arguments are basically the same as for Linux. I agree with most of TFA, but I enjoy using FreeBSD and other Free software for another important reason: the people.

    Despite the fact commercial products can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, their technical support services nearly always suck: they're slow, obscure, vague, answered by people who don't know what they're talking about or are reading off a sheet of paper that assumes everyone they reply to is an idiot, or at the very worst you don't get an answer at all. Just speaking from my own experience.

    Now granted there are plenty of jackarses on forums for Free software and the like, but on the whole I can post a question and generally get a useful response and in a fraction of the time. Plus if it's for a particular piece of ported software, generally I can either contact the port maintainer or the creator of the software directly and get helpful answers. I've NEVER got that from commercial software vendors. That's what makes the difference.

    --
    Cheers, ~ Ruben
  4. Reason #2 by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can relate to this. Linux not being widely used.

    Some years ago, I was in engineering and involved in 'fixing' a system built by our IT department. They had sunk about $300 million into a system that was just barely functional. We (engineering and manufacturing) were supposed to supply them with appropriate requirements so IT could start over (yet again) building another piece of crap.

    We convinced our management that we should hammer out requirements by building a functioning prototype. As our IT department maintained a stranglehold over all things Windows, we chose to build on Linux and a few surplus Sun desktops with Perl, Apache and a few COTS packages. Keeping the IT dept. and Windows out of the picture allowed us to get a working demo of the shop floor interface up and running within a few weeks and half a dozen people completed the 'prototype' in about 6 months.

    When our system was up and running, it actually outperformed the one running on the Windows backend. When management saw it, they just gave the order to pull the plug on the legacy Windows system and place ours into production.

    Part of my job after the project completion (about 10% of my time) was to administrate 6 hosts that made up the new system. When our IT department made a pitch to management to take over administration, they quoted an recurring maintenance cost for their proposal of $50,000 per host per month. Management fell off their chairs laughing and I suggested that they pay me 6 * $50,000 per month.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Re:It would be good... by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree.

    I use Linux because:
    It's powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible... in short, everything that Windows is not.

    The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop and I run some windows only games at home.

    Down with proprietary lock-in mechanisms!

    --
    Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  6. Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... by Eivind · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Me too, at work anyway.

    Which is why it irks me to no end, when I log in as administrator on a Windows-box and tell it to please terminate a given process, and it does not. Not until you've told it to do that three times and waited for minutes anyway.

    Or I tell it to delete a file, and it tells me I "can't" do that, because the file is "open". I don't want to fiddle with that shit. I know what I'm doing, I want the OS to get out of my way and just bloody do what I tell it to do. Which Windows won't.

    And yes, I am -fully- aware of the WHY. The underlying reason is a weakness in the "file" metaphor used on Windows, but that's not much of an excuse. (on unix a "file" is a chunk of bytes with zero-or-more names. On Windows a "file" is a chunk of bytes with -precisely- ONE name) (okay, that ignores character and block-devices and fifos, but don't be nitpicky here...)

    I want to be able to install a update, yet NOT reboot anytime during the next 4 hours. Yes, I'm fully aware that program FOO may then fail to work properly until I finally do reboot, I STILL don't want to reboot now. And I'd much prefer if the OS could refrain from nagging every 15 minutes about that....

  7. Bullshit by poliopteragriseoapte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I call bullshit. That may be the reason he, and many slashdotters, use linux, but I don't think it is universal at all.

    For instance, the main reason why I and many of my friends, relatives, etc, all use linux, is that it is plain simpler to install than Windows. Sure, Windows comes with many (most) PCs, so that's great. Once the HDs bit the dust, or Windows slows down to a crawl, or the PC is infected with viruses, or [insert any reason] and you need to rebuild a PC, it is infinitely faster and less painful to install Ubuntu than Windows -- especially now that only Vista is mostly available, and many peripherals don't work with it.

    Windows used to have the advantage, but no more. I installed Ubuntu for relatives, friends, including people whose knowledge of CS is zero and they hate the command line. It is plain simpler. Takes about 20 minutes, then all just works -- printers, internet, openoffice, firefox -- most people's needs, if you take out gamers and the like (and they are a small percentage of real users) are pretty basic, really.

    It is actually amazing how much the balance between Linux and Windows changed in the last couple of years -- in part thanks to Ubuntu, and in part thanks to Vista.

  8. Re:It would be good... by Ibn+al-Hazardous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Irrational? Hardly!

    The fact that I use Linux more or less exclusively makes people a lot less likely to ask for support on MS/MacOS related problems. Maybe that makes me asocial, but so what? Before I gave up on MS, my time did not belong to me, whereas now it does. If the phone calls in the middle of the night, it won't be one of my brothers having trouble installing a new sound card anymore. It'll be something that does actually matter in the middle of the night!

    So I use other software that does the stuff I need, and my OS is also my hobby, and I'm not in the unpaid computer support business anymore - what's irrational about that?

    --
    Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.
  9. Re:It would be good... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hate Microsoft. I openly admit it. I have earned the right to hate them, having put up with their crap products, misleading advertising, outright lies, etc. In other words, I'm a formerMS-DOS and Win3x / Win9x user.

    I use only linux and bsd professionally, 5 days aw week. Nothing from Microsoft. At home, its the same story.

    My sister has an iMac. After a decade of futzing around with Microsoft's failures, she hates Microsoft as well.

    As to why I use linux, it's not "because it's fun":

    1. I have work to do, and I can do it faster, and more dependably, under linux than under Windows;
    2. It's cheaper, both in initial price, hardware requirements, and ongoing costs, than Windows;
    3. I don't like vendor lock-in;
    4. I value my sanity more than any "need" to add to Bill Gate's wallet;

    Since switching, I've saved tens of thousands of dollars on software, I also don't have to be as aggressive in updating hardware, for additional savings.

    So yes, I hate Microsoft, and I despise Windows, and my use of linux has nothing to do with any "fun" factor. Continuing to use Windows just doesn't make sense, and the only thing keeping many users on it is inertia. Force them to switch to something else, show them the pretty icons, and they get used to it in a day. Then it grows on them. Sort of like dual monitors - so many people resist the idea, but force it on them, then try to take the second screen back a week later ... they'll do an Achmed the Dead Terrorist on you - "Silence - I KILL YOU!".