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.

Comments

It would be good...

[Port1080]

If the editors didn't strip away the story link from the article when they posted it, yes?

Re:It would be good...

[Peeet]

Thank you for posting that. For those of us too lazy to even click on the link, the reason is "Because it is fun." Good afternoon, good evening and goodnight.

Re:It would be good...

[infonography]

While it was nice to RTFA, which I do actually before posting. (yeah I am a weirdo, people keep telling me)

However, the truth to this story is ---- "But all of that is just marketing BS"

it's a one page, - THIS I BELIEVE page. Other then throw a sudden 30,000 hits on the author's site it will accomplish nothing. it's not anything I can tell a non-linux user that would draw any more of a response then when you tell your dog a joke..

They stripped out the article because its worthless.

Re:It would be good...

[bondsbw]

For those of us too lazy to even click on the link, the reason is "Because it is fun."

It really makes sense. Don't get me wrong, having the freedom to tinker with the kernel is nice. Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. But the majority of users don't actually use Linux (or any computer OS) for those purposes... they aren't a means to an end.

I personally use Linux third to Mac OS X (at home), which is second to Windows (at work). I like understanding the different systems, because that's how I can keep up with the extreme pace of the software development industry. But I almost never use Windows at home, and here's why: competition.

I want Microsoft to feel the pressure of competition. They have been feeling it for the past couple of years. And what do you know, it works! Firefox has caused the IE team to push towards open standards compliance. Love or hate OOXML, it's easier to work with than older formats (due to pressure from OOo and iWork). And there are many reasons to hate Vista, but it is more secure than older versions of Windows, it has much more advanced compositing, and a host of new things that are good for the future, even if they hurt now.

So, I care more about the future of the computing world... the future of my career, a future of openness by major corporations that enables someone little like me to start and run a business. And I'm doing my part to make sure that happens.

Re:It would be good...

[Codifex Maximus]

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!

Re:It would be good...

[erroneus]

I use Linux because I prefer "free" and I trust it.

For the longest time I wouldn't leave Windows because of the Japanese language support. As I was (and always am) learning Japanese, I find it useful to have a good Japanese language user interface. And while there has been Japanese language support under Linux for a while, it didn't really start getting good until maybe 3 or so years ago. It was then that I went ahead to make the switch.

For the most part, using free software, I have little trouble doing the things I want or like to do, and rather like Mac users, if "it" is not available to me, I don't think about "it" too much and it's not much of a problem for me.

And since I actually start computing with TRS-80, Commodore and Apple II, I have never been afraid to learn something new or to even think in a different way. I've used everything from audio tape on up for program and data storage. I've used rare operating systems such as OS-9 along with others such as Orwell (which was a very long time ago and was used with Commodore CBMs) and a huge variety of things. Knowing the generalities of what goes on underneath the GUI gives me a more global understanding and comfort with just about anything. So choosing Linux over other things has more to do with trust than fun or just about anything else.

I don't trust Apple or Microsoft. I just don't. What I trust is software that I can compile myself and read the source code... not that I do -- I don't! I usually just install the binary packages and move on. But the fact is that in most cases I can and I know that others have and do frequently.

I left Microsoft because Linux was short on something I wanted to be able to do because it was important to me. If for some reason Japanese language support were to disappear (obviously hypothetical) I would probably move over to Mac or Microsoft but I wouldn't like it. Basic functionality does come first and foremost, but when I can get those basics covered in all of the choices I have available, then I choose based on other criteria... in this case, trust.

Re:It would be good...

[x_MeRLiN_x]

In a lot of people's experience (including mine), it's reality. Linux does have it's professional uses, but using it as a workstation is not viable for most people. Most people who pass on the opportunity to use Microsoft's software usually have an irrational hate for Microsoft itself and put that above what would be the best tool for the job.

Maybe Microsoft does use stooges to spread their marketing online, but I doubt they'd bother to do it on Slashdot (it's a lost cause), and even if they did, so what? You have no evidence, so stop throwing around accusations because someone has a difference of opinion.

Re:It would be good...

[jellomizer]

powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible
They can use the same thing to talk about windows.

Powerful: How is Linux more powerful then Windows... I have seen benchmarks go both ways for some cases windows kills Linux in performance and other case Linux wins. Most of the GNU Tools for Linux have been ported to run on Windows and there are things that only runs on windows (... A LOT OF THINGS ...) Yea most Linux distributions come with a bunch of software but that is like using a windows PC after downloading CigWin.

Stable: Stability is not much of an issue anymore. When Windows Crashes it is normally when Linux crashes, when there is a hardware failure, or a bad driver. To be honest I have seen Linux Crashed more then I have seen XP or Vista Crash... And I have used XP and Vista more the Linux...

Simple: Linux is not simple it is a complex OS. It is not easy to use. It is not simple. I am not saying XP is simple but at least it has ease of use on its side.

inexpensive: Unless you have a system that is unsupported with Linux so you need to find and buy supported hardware. If you are using it in a corporation the extra time training people to use linux will cost more the getting each one Windows Licenses.

open: I would agree but... Not when you have a problem. Windows users are more open to the fact that it sucks... Linux user on these groups will hide with all the might areas were Linux sucks, It is not a bug because you have this crazy workaround. In terms of getting good help Linux isn't as open as it appears.

accessible: In terms when you need a quick OS to install yes. In terms for disabilities No, or in hardware support windows still wins.

Re:It would be good...

[Murrquan]

Speaking as a relative newb, I found that Linux (Fedora) was a bear to set up, but once I had help to get everything up and running it was really, really simple to maintain. Add/Remove Programs is like magic, and the built-in applications -- while often unpolished -- do what I want them to, with little fuss. If anything, Linux has spoiled me to the point where I don't like XP much anymore.

Linux definitely has its disadvantages, including lack of software and hardware support. But the migration of functionality to the Internet is helping to overcome the first barrier, and pre-installed Linux systems are overcoming the second.

Me? I'm hoping to switch to a Mac. It has been fun playing with Linux, and I'd rather set up a Linux PC for my less-savvy family members than try to help them with Windows. But it doesn't work with all of my hardware, and as long as I'm going to upgrade I might as well buy an awesome, shiny machine, that keeps most of its resale value. The fact that it comes with a stable, well-designed, UNIX-based OS with additional hardware and software support is a plus, and the fact that I can install Linux on a Mac means that I won't be tied into one vendor.

Re:It would be good...

[AGMW]

I am not saying XP is simple but at least it has ease of use on its side.

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you there. I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side, but it is a myth that Windows is somehow inherently easier to use!

Re:It would be good...

[SL Baur]

I too was a Unix user in college and when I got to the real world, I needed to get real world things done so I continued to use it (demanding it at first, because I got hired into a VMS shop, during that time I got a Unix workstation at home which made the situation more comfortable). Later on, when Microsoft Windows started becoming popular and my employers started trying to foist Microsoft Windows on me I was in a quandry. What to do, what to do?

Unfortunately, I have a bad back and I can definitively say that I am most productive at work when I am sitting, reclined with my feet resting on top of a Microsoft Windows box beneath my desk, while typing at a Linux/Unix workstation. Microsoft Windows is too painful and broken to actually use, but it makes a great therapeutic device. I'm in the unfortunate situation now that I got permission at work to install a real O/S on that device (RHEL) and the Sun Workstation I also have makes a most inappropriate footrest. Ah well, it was nice going back to KDE after dealing with the mild unpleasantness of CDE.

Back to the article and interestingly enough, I'm right in the middle of a fascinating shell/command line discussion on the Tokyo Linux Users Group mailing list.

I use Linux because it is the system I've dreamed about having for all my adult life and I enjoy most running software that I've had a hand in developing. MacOS X is passable, but not quite the same thing.

Re:It would be good...

[GospelHead821]

My experience is mostly similar. I've tried various flavours of Ubuntu and they were modestly easy to set up and very easy to maintain. The real rub, for me, was that when something DIDN'T automagically work or when I accidentally broke something, I could kiss that installation goodbye. My best hope was a Google search for the error that I was experiencing and hope that copying the listed instructions verbatim would solve the problem. If it didn't, it usually left the computer in worse shape than when I began. One might argue that I shouldn't be giving my computer instructions that I don't understand, but the alternative is reinstalling anyway. At this point, I've decided to give up on Linux for another couple of years. It's easier this year than when I tried it two years ago, which was easier than the two years before that. I'll put Windows 2000 back on my laptop and give Linux another shot in 2010.

Re:It would be good...

[Almahtar]

I not only have a real job but own a company, and I use Linux on the desktop because it saves me time and money. I don't have to have a seperate protocol for sharing files and remote desktop. I can drag a remote file onto an editor and save from the editor, and it'll save the remote copy. I have N desktops to spread my work over, and I'm a very visual person: I need that space.

My experience with windows is that it constantly needs attention, and I don't want to waste my time on that. The only reason Windows would be lower maintenance is Windows-only 3rd party applications, and for a software firm I don't need those. Any time someone thinks they need .NET work done within two questions I have it boiled down to "someone told me it had to be done in .NET and I believed them."

Re:It would be good...

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

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?

Re:It would be good...

[HockeyPuck]

Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. I don't agree with this. I would bet that very few users go through ANY source code at all. Editing .conf files or running 'make xconfig' not constitute 'going through the source code'. And those that do, probably wouldn't be able to know what's going on.

Let's say you're running a webserver (apache) which connects to a postgre database. Do you check all the code in apache+mods? filesystems? DNS? NIS? FibreChannel drivers?

How is trusting Redhat/Debian/Suse to make sure their distribution is safe any different from trusting AIX or HPUX? I don't want to have to be the one at my company that audit's 1m lines of linux code to 'make sure it's safe' we just trust our distribution.

Re:It would be good...

[Technician]

My favorite is not on the list.

Instead of being loaded with nagware, crippleware, and crapware that needs removed, it comes loaded with fully functional applications. It doesn't require paid upgrades to burn ISO's, use AV, create music CD's, use an office suite, etc.

Re:It would be good...

[Evets]

Powerful - I'm not big on benchmarks in general, but power does not necessarily mean speed. I would consider the fact that I can open up a 4GB text file on Linux with out-of-the-box tools as more powerful - but then again, that only matters to those of us who have the need to open a 4GB text file. I would consider that their is more free (quality) software available for Linux as more powerful, but somebody might point out all the shareware-junk that is out their for windows. Regardless, there are countless things I can do in linux faster than I can do in windows, and their are countless things I can do in Linux that I can't do in windows. Windows does have the edge in some market segments, but those areas are much less important to me for what I do most of the time.

Stable: Are you kidding me? You have to be kidding. Either you really don't know how to work with Linux and you have made some fundamental mistakes that cause crashes frequently (though I can't for the life of me think of any that would be that bad), or you really don't throw much at your windows installations (or maybe you are just plain lucky with your peripheral purchases and the software that you use). BSODs are less frequent than they used to be. They are WAY more frequent in my experience than crashes in any *nix environment.

Simple: Personally, I'd never call any OS simple. Linux is less complex to install than any other OS, but that's about it.

Inexpensive: you don't get less expensive than free. If you consider the total cost of ownership, Linux wins any reasonable analysis. Linux means training. Windows means paying not just for the OS repeatedly and going through forced upgrades with great frequency (upgrades = rollouts = licensing + project planning and execution cost), but also paying for a great many things that are free in a linux environment. When 80% of your end user base uses Word as a typewriter, E-mail, and Calendaring as their only computer tasks, it makes you wonder why you spend upwards of $700 on software alone per end user when you could have it all for free. Besides, show me an environment where end users don't need training on how to use their PC's and I'll show you an environment where end users are not properly trained.

Re:It would be good...

[x_MeRLiN_x]

If you don't hate Microsoft itself, I clearly wasn't referring to you. I've not heard that reason before, so you're definitely not part of the majority I spoke of either.

You also speak of using your OS as a hobby, which again, does not contradict my point about using Linux professionally. I think this article is pretty much spot on and most who are disagree may be in denial. I'm not willing to listen to anyone who says Microsoft's software and actions are judged objectively and by the same standard as their competitors - at least here on Slashdot.

For example, having to edit a handful of documented registry keys to re-enable old file formats in Office 2007 (ignoring the rights and wrongs of disabling them in the first place) is "ludicrous" and "impractical for 99% of the user-base", but much more complex command line actions are routinely required even on Ubuntu. I suggest that those who claim exclusive use of the GUI is sufficient are content with the default software and settings.

Re:It would be good...

[x_MeRLiN_x]

You don't know anything about what I use, you don't know what tasks I was talking about and you neglected to say what it is you do. How do I use Visual Studio on Linux/Mac? How do I use Photoshop on Linux? How do I use AutoCAD on Linux/Mac? These are all leading industry standard software suits (VS arguably less so) that just can't run on Linux without the exact unnecessary tinkering we're talking about.

I didn't wish to be drawn into a discussion about Linux vs. Windows and maybe I was unwise to have ever mentioned it.

Re:It would be good...

[ultranova]

BSODs are less frequent than they used to be. They are WAY more frequent in my experience than crashes in any *nix environment.

Linux kernel is stable. However, from the user's poing of view, X crashing is the same as if the whole machine had gone. It takes all their applications with it because the default is to quit when connection to X is lost, and can happen quite often especially in a heavily stressed machine.

X and the graphical system in general is clearly the weakest point of modern-day Linux. It is an userland program, yet it has the same stability requirement than a kernel, and fails to live up to them. This is on top of various annoyances, like being apparently unable to switch the bit depth of the screen at runtime (affects at least Wine) and having to play around with modelines in config files to set up display modes.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to get fixed, because it only affects the desktop users and not the Important Server Guys.

Re:It would be good...

[tomhudson]

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!".

Re:It would be good...

[gobbo]

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!

Lucky you. I get phone calls late at night from my little brother to get help with troubleshooting ALSA and codecs and obscure SiS driver problems with different linux distros. Cheap brat should just buy a decent used machine for a change instead of dumpster diving for hardware. I sometimes regret turning him on to OSS.

And I still get calls from windows users, because I "know computers."

Re:It would be good...

[erroneus]

Paranoia implies that the reasons for mistrust are without basis. I have basis for mistrust.

They include and exclude usability for the purpose of supporting the business models and interests they want to support, not those of the user or consumer. DRM is not there to serve the interests of the consumer. A wide variety of inclusions and exclusions of technologies are set that way for reasons other than for the use or benefit of the user. Not only do I dislike what they have done, but I distrust their motives. Other industries have done this; some successful, others not. The automotive industry had attempted to lock in maintenance of automobiles by restricting diagnostic codes, for example. This didn't work out so well in court. Big Content has had some failures and successes in influencing various Big Media providers to do their bidding. The creation of DRM was a big win for them where Microsoft and Apple complied. You may recall discussions about the FCC and the "Broadcast Flag." The intent was to prevent the recording of digital broadcasts through required implementation of the protocols surrounding the implementation of the broadcast flag. I forget where the discussion left off or if the issue is currently on hold, forgotten or if it's simply dead. (I doubt it's dead though... I expect it to return just as the end of 2009 approaches.)

All of this stuff is very anti-consumer and I prefer to remain free and unencumbered. I cannot trust Microsoft or Apple with my freedoms. Can you?

This isn't paranoia, or unfounded fear or mistrust. It is very well founded through numerous examples of user and consumer betrayal.

Re:It would be good...

[Kent Recal]

DOS != unix.

You're not re-learning DOS when you switch to linux.
Instead you're learning a true unix shell. Which gives you
access to a large library of insanely powerful, time-tested
commands that can be combined in an uncountable number of ways.

Those not only enable you to solve a large number of problems
(actually whole categories of problems) quicker and more reliable
than any GUI could but they further enable you to automate your
solutions for re-use.

What may seem "inconvenient" at first is your first
glimpse at the power of UNIX.

Don't discard it so quickly because it's only white text on
a black screen and "looks like DOS". It's not DOS.

Re:It would be good...

[erroneus]

You are making a ridiculous assumption here.

The very idea that someone should make money on the mere playback of recorded material is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Should artists be paid for their work? Yes. ONCE. Should artists be paid for performance? Yes. ONCE. Just like you get paid for the work you do. You get paid ONCE. You don't generally get paid for life after showing up for work one day. Yet that's what this business model is all about! These ass-clowns want you to believe that the act of playing back recordings is worthy of payment each and every time that you or anyone else plays it.

Clearly, you believe it. I don't, however.

Payment for the sale of media? Yes. ONCE. Payment for each and every playback? NO.

Re:It would be good...

[JoshJ]

The idea is not that you check every single line of code ran by your company. The idea is that SOMEONE does. There's plenty of people reviewing the Linux kernel. There's plenty of people reviewing X. There's plenty reviewing GNOME (or KDE). There's plenty of people reviewing Apache, Postgres, etc. So you hire someone to write some webapp, that's the only code you *have* to review- because all the other stuff is reviewed by someone. But if it's entirely closed, you would have to trust the company. This is the case with Microsoft. They can do whatever they want because nobody can review it.

Re:It would be good...

[malkavian]

I fear you fail to understand the whole point.
MS have put a whole layer of software that does NOTHING for the user at all. Absolutely nothing.
It is prone to error, and causes more resource usage.
There have been times that my legally bought DVDs have failed to play on my windows box, simply because the DRM in the video driver threw a fit. Had to reinstall windows to make it go away.

Now, I can afford to pay for content, and I do pay for content. Quite a bit of content actually.
But when you get treated like a child, or a potential criminal, and handed something that may cease to work at any point (some of my iTunes tracks have ceased to work over various upgrades) for no other reason than it may save the vendor a little money (though they can't prove it. I CAN prove cost to me, and when you multiply that up, you may find that the consumers are spending millions on corruption on DRM). So, put simply, unless there is no other way to obtain something, I will not accept something DRM encoded. It is the introduction of a fail point for no other reason than an arbitrary decision by vendors.

You know what? For millennia, people have treated each other fairly. There has been a lot of give and take, some 'acceptable losses' for doing business (like the money a company doesn't see when a book is sold on second hand, or loaned to a friend). And sometimes give by the employees, or even customers who help to keep a company afloat through rough times.
Only in the last 10 years or so have these millennia of traditions been thrown completely out the window by companies that want to control every last transaction, with no concept of fair play or spirit of the agreement.
The only thing that is recognised now is money. A number. Nothing else.
So, when the companies set the 'game', they still expect the customer to play by the old rules, where the client can help to prop up an ailing business model. In fact (c.f. RIAA), they believe they can FORCE the customer (or even someone who has nothing to do with their product, apart from the fact they say they do, and serve them with a legal case).
And honestly, they expect people to play fair back?

Now, you get some companies (hello Stardock) who release games with NO DRM. And guess what? They get great sales too.. And as much (or little) piracy as anyone else. They've not been driven out of business by the piracy that games companies keep saying would put them out of business if they didn't have DRM built into the system.
They play fair. And guess what? In the main part, people play fair with them. Those very few that don't are chalked up to "Acceptable loss", and probably wouldn't have bought the game in the first place. Or maybe they're a bunch of low earners who actually pooled cash to buy a game between them.. Technically (and actually) infringement, but it's a sale where otherwise there would have been none. A positive on the financial balance sheet, a minus on the technical legality. Speaking as a businessman (yes, I do run a business), the sane thing to do is watch the balance sheet and turn a blind eye to the 'casual' copy. But come down extremely hard on someone who tries to make a business out of pirating your stuff..

I think one of the things the GP poster was referring to was to let people have the freedom to choose to be honourable. If you don't, what's honour and fairness? By giving the freedom to be honourable, you nurture that.
By denying it the ability to express itself, you force lesser outcomes. What a surprise.

Re:It would be good...

[teh moges]

I tend to find things easier in Linux then in Windows, purely for the reason that you can actually go in and change things around. I have been using Linux solely for about a year and use Windows at work. While I experience more problems at work because I am in a helpdesk role for part of my job, I find when problems can't be solved by either restarting the application or computer, reinstalling the application or increasing permissions to certain files, then the problem often has no easy solution. While the above listed steps will fix 90% of problems, those last 10% are often more difficult to solve then many of my Linux related problems, including those that require command line action.

Realistically, I don't see a difficulty difference between the registry editor and the bash command line. Both require you to have some idea of where things are or what they are called before you can start (try using a command line if you don't know what cat is). Both often require searches before you work out how to do something you need to do, both can leave you confused as to why the key/command exists in the way it does and both often don't have a standard 'form' in placement or use.

I may have been lucky in my switch to Linux. Things worked, or worked well enough that I could always work out or find a way, to solve any problem I've run into so far. However, I will disagree completely with your comment on progress. I recently installed Kubuntu on my desktop computer, while I didn't agree with having to boot to a live environment to install*. It took me far less time to install and less steps overall to get everything working, even if you discount that it comes with Open Office. Kubuntu downloaded by graphics card driver and asked me whether I wanted to use that one or the free one. You don't get that service with Windows. I will point out that I have tried some Linux distros on this computer that just couldn't work out my config correctly (the same Debian installer either worked or had difficulty automatically detecting, depending on whether it was a basic or advanced install). For me, I love messing with my computer to try new things, but for now, I need a computer that just works. I am at uni while working and if my computer goes down, I can fall behind in schedule quite quickly. For that reason, I chose Kubuntu, lost some ability to mess with the computer (I can get that back though when I chose, for now though) and have a computer that hasn't given me a problem I didn't cause myself when I just couldn't help myself messing with things.

* if there is a way to install without booting to the live environment, it didn't jump out at me when I put the CD in.

Re:It would be good...

[ozmanjusri]

The problem with your stance is your emotionally charged world view concerning something that is intrinsically neutral

A service provider who consistently provides poor service, overcharges, commits fraud, and lies about competitors is not intrinsically neutral.

Re:It would be good...

[Mad Merlin]

Windows may not be easy to use, but when you use it, it's only slightly more painful than removing one's own limbs with a rusty spoon... on a good day. Playing a game, for example. Windows, you put disc in, installer runs, you click "next" until your face goes blue, installer tells you that you're missing some other software package that it needs and demands that you install it (of course it can't do this itself) so recursively repeat this process a few times, once you've got everything the installer wants, you click "next" until your face goes blue again, you wait for a really long time while a few files copy, you put the next disc in, you wait for another really long time, you put the next disc in... assuming the installer eventually finishes you now need to check to see if there's any patches for your game (which there probably is) and then find, download, and install those separately, then you need to find the game in the start menu (which for some reason is organized by company name, not by program function), then if you haven't lost interest yet, you play game. Of course, if it's Vista, the game probably won't work anyways. Linux... well, if it's a native game, you install the game with your package manager, then you play it. If you're trying to play a windows game in Wine, you check the AppDB first, and if the rating is good, the experience will probably be better than it would be in Vista.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:It would be good...

[Zadaz]

If it was that fun, wouldn't more people be using it?

Re:It would be good...

[bigstrat2003]

You've never had a game bitch about having to download the latest point-release of DirectX? or the installer requiring some .dll file included in a runtime installer from Microsoft themselves that just-doesn't-work? or being prompted to download some shitty library, only to find out after half an hour in Google that you need to edit some .dll file hidden in an obscure directory with a hex editor instead? 'cause I've had all those happen within the last two weeks, and I'm not even a big gamer. Every game I've installed in recent memory installed the required version of DirectX with itself (after asking). No one should ever have to go out and download DX to run a game, that's just laziness on the part of the game developer, since DirectX is redistributable. I've never had any of the situations you described happen to me, ever.

And let us not speak of the troubles you have to go through just to get the fucking game you just bought from nagging you about needing the CD on the fucking drive everytime you try to play it... something that, if I might add, hasn't happened to me yet on Linux, even when the Windows versions of the games *are* of the nagging type. This has absolutely jack shit to do with the OS, and has everything to do with the game. There are, believe it or not, games on Windows which run without a CD check. Hell, GalCiv 2 doesn't even have a cd key! If the same games didn't do a CD check under Linux, then that's the manufacturer's choice. It's not like Linus threw down a decree which said "thou shalt not use cd checks in this OS, bitches!", while Windows requires cd checks.

Re:It would be good...

[tomhudson]

The problem with your stance is your emotionally charged world view concerning something that is intrinsically neutral; thus you to polarize everything that you reasonably can with a good or evil bias where none is necessary leading to your irrational position as stated above.

Shoddy products, repeated lies and a history of illegal and outright crooked dealings are NOT "intrinsically neutral" in this, or any other parallel universe.

Trying to claim that Microsoft products are "intriniscally neutral" is both disingenuous and, on this site, foolish astroturfing. I made a value comparison based on the metrics that are important to me:

1. Efficacy
2. Cost
3. Freedom
4. Hassles

For all 4 of these metrics, Microsoft products lose. This is not "emotionally charged" - this is hard-nosed numbers. Money in my pocket. Time saved. Freedom. Again, not something that is "intrinisically neutral."

Why shouldn't I despise a company that in the past lied to me, ripped me off, and made me waste more time than I want to think about?

Re:It would be good...

[Anonymous Drunkard]

Our house has been running Ubuntu since Breezy. My children (now aged 9, 12, and 15) found it very easy to adjust to; in fact, my then-13 year old was bragging to her classmates about how Linux rocked. She is a heavy OpenOffice user, being saddled with homework and all, but she also uses it for her music, photos, and other media apps.

My two younger children don't really use word processing yet - they spend their time on various interactive sites (Gaia, Club Penguin), and yet they are fully capable of customizing their environment. My 9 year old worked out how to create gradations and such in his background, and is teaching his older sister.

The kids also appreciate the fact (as do I) that if, for whatever reason, they need to be migrated to a different computer, all we have to do is copy their $HOME directory and recopy it onto their new disk. Presto, all their email, bookmarks, chat logs, documents, and custom settings are instantly there.

My oldest is amused because she can recharge her cell phone (Motorola Razr V3) by plugging into the USB port; likewise, all her friends' digital cameras are instantly found and their photos made available simply by plugging them in, and her MP3 device has similar instant functionality. Her windows friends all have to find (or buy) and install special software just for this.

Our experience, especially with our children, is that Ubuntu is easy for a child of relatively average intelligence to grasp and use. Plus, if they only have user accounts without root privileges, those who are curious (and please show me a child who is NOT curious) can customize their environment to their hearts content without screwing any settings up.

It's been about two years of solid win in this house.

Re:It would be good...

[macslas'hole]

How do I use Visual Studio on Linux/Mac? How do I use Photoshop on Linux? How do I use AutoCAD on Linux/Mac?
Both Parallels and VMware have products that will do this on either platform. I use Visual Studio on my Mac through Parallels daily; works like a champ. As a bonus, it lets me target and test as many configurations of Windows as I would like.

Re:It would be good...

[dave87656]

Most people who pass on the opportunity to use Microsoft's software usually have an irrational hate for Microsoft itself and put that above what would be the best tool for the job.
Funny. I use it, as a workstation, because it's secure, because I don't have to worry about license issues, because of the quality of development software, because it's quick, because installing most hardware is more automatic and because I want choice.

Those who continue to use Microsoft do it because they just don't know what's out there. And, they have to justify somehow the thousands they spent on software that Linux users already have in their distro.

You're free to use MS software but don't jump to irrational conclusions as to why those of us who really know both Linux and Windows continue to use Linux.

Re:It would be good...

[abell]

I get phone calls late at night from my little brother to get help with troubleshooting ALSA [...] I sometimes regret turning him on to OSS.

If you turned him on to OSS, how come he's using Alsa now?

Re:It would be good...

[aurispector]

You just don't get it. I DO NOT WANT TO SCREW AROUND WITH A COMMAND LINE. Of course it's insanely powerful, etc.. I still don't want to use it. I have no need for solving problems, no need to manipulate large bodies of data, no need to automate same. I just want a gui that allows me to easily install the OS and configure the hardware, then do some routine stuff - run office apps, web stuff, etc., nothing exotic. Also please understand that I am not a programming type but I understand the benefits of FOSS.

The continuing problems with wifi and printers perfectly illustrate my point. If your wiwi adapter is unsupported you can try ndiswrapper. With, for instance, ubuntu you also need to go through a fairly complex bit of command line gibberish only to discover that indeed your adapter will not work. The only distro I found that had a gui for this was puppy, but even that had it's difficulties. It does work but it isn't perfect. Of course the root of the wifi and printer problem is lack of vendor support for native linux drivers, but the windows xp hardware driver interface is GOOD. You can view, install, uninstall, update and roll back your drivers as needed ALL WITH A GUI.

Let me put it another way; why would I, an end user, WANT to bother learning the CLI? Ok, I could get some uber user to do the install it but then I'm at the mercy of the uber user if something goes wrong.

Re:It would be good...

[Kent Recal]

Well, I only came in to clear up your misconception about DOS being anything like a unix shell.
Not to draw you over to linux or anything.

The whole hardware-support story is an old hat. It basically boils down to: If you want to use linux
then buy hardware that's supported by linux. Which, for the majority of peripherals, is not hard anymore.
Google for "$name_of_my_gadget linux" in advance and in 90% of cases you'll learn that it runs without
problems.

Furthermore it's also an old hat that the driver-situation in windows is not flawless either.
Yes, you get a pretty GUI, but if the pretty installer fails then you're SOL.
Even if you wanted to tinker - there is no ndiswrapper to try, no kernel options to tweak
and usually no alternative source for drivers either. If your old $whatever is not supported
in vista - tough luck. Not even an uber-user can help you there.

So, finally, to each it's own. You prefer the GUI, so stick with what you like.
But don't label yourself as the prototype of an "end-user". I know quite a few "end-users",
especially of the technically clueless type, who have quite happily switched to linux
recently. If really all you want to do is browse the web and do a bit of office work (without
touching a command line) then an ubuntu box can serve you well and in fact *save* you quite
a bit of trouble with regard to "tweaking the personal firewall", re-installing after trojan infections,
re-installing after a windows update screwed up your drivers or re-installing after your office
began to behave wierd for no obvious reason.

Re:It would be good...

[u38cg]

Try dumping every single photograph you've ever taken in a single directory, then using the timestamp on it to sort it into directorys by session. My girlfriend spent four hours on this using a GUI, and got nowhere. Five minutes of shell script and ten minutes of Python had 6,531 photgraphs sorted in something like one and a half minutes.

You don't *have* to learn a command line if you don't want to: however, sometimes it gets you blowjobs. If that's not a reason, what is?

Re:It would be good...

[Pharmboy]

why would I, an end user, WANT to bother learning the CLI?

1. I have a folder with all types of files in it, say 1000 or so, which is common for me. I only want to move the *.gif and/or *.jpg files to another place. In the CLI, it takes 2 seconds. With a GUI, it is a nightmare.

2. I want to compare two file versions. Diff vs. what?

3. My internet connection appears to not work. I hop in a shell and ping www.yahoo.com. If that doesn't work, I ping a known good IP address. That works? Then DNS is the problem. Now, do that in a GUI.

4. I want to download a file fast to ANOTHER computer (usually to the server so everyone can access it). I find the file in Explorer using the GUI, then I SSH into the server, use WGET to download the file automatically to the right shared place on my Linux server. You can do that with a GUI, but it takes longer.

5. I see a domain name and want to know who owns it. I can either use Explorer, click to a few pages, to find out in 1-2 minutes, or switch to my SSH shell and do a simple "whois somedomain.com" and know in about 3 seconds.

6. Traceroute, dig, nslookup, and even nmap functions are very difficult or too time consuming to do in a GUI when compared to a CLI.

7. I need to take a comma delimited database, change the order of the fields, delete a few fields, and assign a unique ID number to each record. I can't even tell you how to do it in a GUI, but I can write about 20 lines of Perl in two minutes, and convert a 100 mb database over in one more minute.

I could go on an on. Although I use a GUI 80%-90% of my computing time, the other 10%+ in a command line are either impossible to do in a GUI, or insanely time consuming. There really ARE reasons to use a CLI for those of us that do more than run ONE program all day in a GUI. If you spend all day doing a singular task, then maybe no. The rest of us that fill a dozen shoes every day (particularly IT work) find it much, much easier to use the CLI.

It isn't like learning a few easy commands is going to hurt you.

Re:It would be good...

[Kent Recal]

I'm playing a bit at being devil's advocate, but why isn't there another option?

Well, you're painting it very black & white while in reality it is many shades of gray.

Yes, XP drivers are "pretty good" but so are linux drivers these days.
Also you don't need the CLI for everyday tasks in a modern distro anymore.
The GUI frontends are improving and if you're literally spending your time in
firefox, openoffice etc. then there's just no need to drop to CLI - just as there
is no need in XP.

Further, if you really consider tracking down registry entries any better
or easier than working with a CLI then I guess many people would beg to disagree ;-)

Re:It would be good...

[HermMunster]

Linux is a solid competent and in many ways superior Operating System. 99% of what 90% of the people do can easily be handled by Linux and they wouldn't know the difference if they had never seen an OS before. Definitely there are issues with it, but there are issues with all OSes. One has to ask themselves: if my mother or father had never used an OS before and I set up linux for them (to do their mail, chat with friends, browse the web, order products on line, etc.) would they know any different or would they not be able to do these tasks? A rational human being would say that 99% of what they want to do in that respect they can do.

So, why would anyone say that Linux is not able or unstable? It is because they have a beef with it. They don't like having to learn something new. They are set in their way (can't teach old dogs new tricks). They are a zealot for what they are used to (keep in mind I'm not disrespecting zealots--there are those that love a certain kind of car, or a brand of TV, or a favorite dish, etc.) It is those that actively seek to harm the others that make for a bad zealot. No, I'm not talking about those that are zealots that trying to bring an honest choice out and to balance the choices by giving others a choice. I'm talking about the irrational attack on an OS just because it is different.

Linux is ready for the desktop. The Linux market share is much greater than you can imagine. When the world is using 90% Windows and the rest is divided up by the other OSes, even small percentages in growth lead to millions of users. So, I really wish people would stop reacting like Linux has no users. It is estimated that world wide, across all distributions there are approximately 50 million Linux users. This is no small number. So, stop trying to belittle it. There was a time when DOS didn't have 50 million users and there was a time when Windows didn't even come close to the number of users that Linux has.

The answer won't surprise anyone!

[7-Vodka]

Here it is in all it's glory:

Re:The answer won't surprise anyone!

[squarefish]

The REAL reason we use Linux

[thewiz]

Penguins?

Re:The REAL reason we use Linux

[dattaway]

I never needed a reason to use Linux, but its hard to argue with penguins!

Re:The REAL reason we use Linux

[Jesus_666]

It's really easy to argue with penguins, actually. Just take an anti-herring stance.

Re:The REAL reason we use Linux

[Antique Geekmeister]

Walruses. Walruses argue very successfully with penguins.

Low end and obscure hardware

[that this is not und]

We use it because it will run on a fleet of lower end boxes to fool around with networking.

Ten years ago that was why I was running it on a bunch of old 386sx boxes anyway.

Now I run freenixes on hardware so old and obscure that Linux doesn't even run (well) on them.

Why I use Linux

[zakeria]

because it gives me a feeling of belonging, Window's cant belong to me but Linux can! It helps to make you feel somewhat important in some small but significant way. The dreams and possibilities are never far from reality either.

We use it because...

[budword]

We use it because it's ours.

David

Re:We use it because...

[BlackCreek]

We use it because it's ours.

Because it is ours (Free), and also because it is good for all my OS needs which for me means:

1. having bazillion high quality programs available from a single distributor,
2. secure,
3. efficient
4. configurable
5. stable
6. supported by a large friendly community
7. runs on cheap hardware
8. I can install it on a USB stick
9. No MS/Apple telling me what I can or cannot do with MY computer

I actually enjoyed this story why do we use Linux?, (even better without a retarded link to some blog post). I have been using Linux for so long, and I actually enjoyed having to think about the actual reasons I wouldn't leave it.

And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Port1080]

...in many circles, anyway. I have no desire to tinker. I want it to "just work". I tried using Linux multiple times from when I downloaded my first copy of Red Hat in 1999 or so, through some attempts with Mandrake and SuSe. None of them "just worked" - driver support was missing, programs didn't work as expected (or work at all), etc, etc. So I stuck with Windows. Finally, Ubuntu came about and I saw that someone was taking seriously the notion that people wanted things to "just work" (I would say that Red Hat and SuSe didn't take that notion seriously until recently - they were making OS's for business use, after all, so a trained IT tech would be setting things up and maintaining them - they didn't have to "just work" for your average user, because someone else would be taking care of most of the tough stuff). Even so, the early versions of Ubuntu weren't the best (and there are still many problems with wireless support - ndiswrapper is a poor substitute for a native driver, sad to say). The 6.x series was almost there, and finally I feel like the 7.x series is something I can actually use full time (and indeed I am - I built a new system last November and for the first time didn't bother to install Windows on it). I didn't install Ubuntu because it was fun to tinker. I installed it because it was free, easy to use, and not crippled by DRM. That's it, plain and simple.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[armanox]

It's not the distribution's fault that the manufacturer won't make Linux drivers.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[bobstaff]

I'm a long time Linux user mostly Red Hat and SuSE.

What I don't understand is the concept that Ubuntu is a Linux that is supposed to just work and be non- computer geek friendly. On the couple of times I played with it, I found the endless missing packages after install very annoying, on top of that there was no easy way I could find to find out what packages are available. So for example if I want to install subversion what is the actual package name I need to install (svn, subversion, svn-client,etc...), also why is it that there seems to be no option to install packages such as subversion during the initial install.

Then of course there's the whole thing about there being no root user.

I'm sure/I hope if I'm missing something it will be pointed out, but personally I did not find Ubuntu that easy to use.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Gordonjcp]

That's precisely why I use Linux and not Windows. I tried Windows, and it wanted to connect to the Internet to download a driver for my network card. Quite how it proposed to do that wasn't really something I wanted to explore.

All I ever hear from Windows users is how they got a virus and had to reinstall, or how it crashed and they had to reinstall, or how an update broke some critical piece of software and they had to reinstall, or how they got a new bit of hardware and couldn't find drivers that worked. Yeah, sounds like a really productive way to work.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Hatta]

I'm sure/I hope if I'm missing something it will be pointed out, but personally I did not find Ubuntu that easy to use.

Whenever someone invents an idiot-proof system, someone invents a better idiot.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Eivind]

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....

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[wellingj]

In Synaptic Package Manager there is a 'Search' Option.
It doesn't get much easier than that, unless you want the computer to read your mind.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[Timmmm]

Sorry I've got to call bullshit on this one. The truth is it is far too much work to write and maintain a linux driver. Unless you've got huge resources (e.g. nVidia), the only option is to get it into the official kernel tree, which involves making your driver open source which very few companies are willing to do.

Just look at the drivers for UniChrome graphics cards. The installation process requires you to recompile both X and the kernel. I'm sorry but I bet if decent tools were provided for writing linux drivers, and there was some sane way to distribute binary drivers (there really isn't a way at the moment) then I bet more companies would make them.

I know you all want open source drivers, but you can't say to companies "Your only option is to release open source drivers" and then wonder why they don't release decent drivers - closed or open source.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[garett_spencley]

"It's not the distribution's fault that the manufacturer won't make Linux drivers."

No but it is an excuse that gets us nowhere.

Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at...

[inode_buddha]

What he said. The kernel and driver devs don't actually *want* your code, they are going to write their own anyhow. Rather what they *do* want is a full spec to write to. Even if they have to sign an NDA for the spec, as long as the code itself is free, many of them do.

You'd be surprised to know how many of the devs actually work for some very large companies. Just read the source and note the emails to get an idea of who works where. I did.

And I'm in the middle of a recompile right now, just to completely tune my kernel to my box.

I do not know about the rest of you l33t people

[zappepcs]

but I use Linux because I don't want to pay MS for anything. ever. again.

Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.

Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.

Re:I do not know about the rest of you l33t people

[Enleth]

you can download a perfectly well working cracked ISO of Windows as fast as an ISO of your favourite distribution and the fact that these won't ever show you any activation or advantage check bullcrap That's what I hate about people like you. You think you're too good to be bothered by all this "license", "copyright" and "respect for others' work (regardless of its objective quality)" stuff. Because no one cares, right? Wrong. Want to crack your Windows CD, then? Well, hold it in your teeth and bite into it as hard as you can until you hear a loud "CRACK!". Congratulations, it's cracked. Now go away. Shooo.

Re:I do not know about the rest of you l33t people

[zappepcs]

I did not say I want to steal MS stuff, or pay nothing. What I said was I don't want to pay MS prices for DRM and spyware infected software that is no better than freely available software. No, I do not push the limits of what software can do for the most part, so on the edges of functionality of F/OSS software where others find problems, I generally never get there, and almost never see any functionality issues. You should note that the vast majority of MS users never hit the bleeding edge of functionality of those products either. I still see powerpoint files attached to emails that have fewer than 25 words on them. No point in embedding data in the email like MS allows, or linking to the conference data... no, just put it all in a huge-ass ppt file and let everyone open that.. because sure, EVERYONE is using powerpoint, right?

I do not hate MS's guts. I hate their business practices of embrace and extinguish, of lock-in, of forced upgrades, of slack security updates, of ... well, the point is that having to pay for that kind of service just seems FUCKING STUPID. If I have to suffer some problems along the way, I'd rather use some software that is just as good and costs me way less. All the contributions I make are IMO worth what I paid. That is to say that I donate based on the value to me of the product rather than some arbitrary value based on the MS yacht fund requirements. - that might have been harsh, but it's not too far off. No matter how you compare them F/OSS software stacks up nicely against anything else when value/cost is a heavily weighting factor.

It does what it needs to do

[GreatDrok]

I don't know about all this fun stuff. I use Linux because it does the job I need it to. More to the point though, when something goes wrong it is pretty simple to track it down and fix it. Heck, I have repaired systems that have become seriously mangled where with Windows you wouldn't have much choice but to start over.

I switched to Linux from UNIX (Irix at that time) and did so because that is the environment I need for my work. These days I use OS X for much the same reason. Whatever MS does to Windows, it is still a very closed system. If closed floats your boat, fine, but don't try and say that closed gets you a more reliable and cost effective system.

Actually, UNIX is fun I guess ;-)

He's right

[cerberusss]

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 :-)

Because it works!

[spaceyhackerlady]

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

Re:Because it works!

[Jesus_666]

Actually, Linux is also a superior programming environment for languages like C. A friend of mine is pulling his hair out because he's writing an app on Windows and lots of standard functions are implemented differently than everywhere else (eg. errno being replaced by WSAGetLastError) and MinGW apparently suffers from ages-old bugs like vsnprintf returning -1 if the supplied buffer is too small - which was fixed after glibc-2.0.

Under Linux you can be reasonably sure that everything works as intended by the C/C++/POSIX standard. That's a huge asset.

Command line???

[www.sorehands.com]

Most people can't even spell command line. While I was in China, I was fixing a friend's computer and her boyfriend said, "You must be a computer expert, you are using a dos window." He didn't even say DOS in upper case.

You know you are a real programmer when you speak in UPPER CASE. http://www.sorehands.com/humor/real1.htm

In related news

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Girls keep telling Linux users that they (Linux users) are nice, caring and entertaining, but that they (girls) have no free time at the moment. But all of that is just a marketing BS told to Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason for girls using non-Linux users.

Re:In related news

[Ethanol-fueled]

I accepted your challenge and went down the the local Starbuck's twice today: One with my Linux laptop(with a penguin sticker on it), and once with my Mac laptop. When I was there with my Linux laptop, I was hit on by all kinds of women saying, " aww, how cute, it's got a penguin on it. Then I fired up compiz and received plenty of ooohs and ahhhhs from the crowd. I returned a couple hours later with my Mac laptop and I was hit on...by scores of well-dressed, effeminate men. Being a heterosexual male, I promptly sold my Mac laptop and stuck with the angular, responsive laptop with a sense of humor.

In yo face!

'All powerful' root?

[IBBoard]

Ever tried stopping a process in Windows and the OS wouldn't let you?

Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root".

I think a more accurate list (from my view at least) is:

1. Linux gives you complete control
2. Linux is free (as-in-speech)
3. Software install is easy
4. It has less potential problems with web dev for a Linux server
5. No DRM! You own the hardware, you own the software, you own the data.

Oh, and the penguin is more cuddly than some flag or some annoying animated critter ;)

Re:'All powerful' root?

[zig007]

Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root". :
Well, to be THAT powerful you have to use other commands, because it's probably because the process is in an interruptible state, relevant post here:
http://www.wplug.org/pipermail/wplug/2004-June/022380.html

Re:'All powerful' root?

[goodenoughnickname]

>> "Oh, and the penguin is more cuddly than some flag or some annoying animated critter ;)"

Yeah right. I just put my baby in her crib with a big, cuddly paperclip. There's no noise coming out of the baby monitor, so I can only assume she's fast asleep.

Re:'All powerful' root?

[WhiteWolf]

It looks like you're trying to murder your child! Can I help you:

* Make it look like a SIDS incident?

* Spoof a ransom note?

* File for insurance claims?

Damn paper-clip is EVIL, man. PURE FSCKING EVIL!

Re:'All powerful' root?

[CTalkobt]

>> Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root".

The reason is typically because the process is a Zombie process that no longer 'truly' exists. To remove it from the process list you'll need to kill the parent process. (See http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum40/1032.htm last comment for more details on what Zombie / Defunct process's really mean).

With windows it never makes any sense when a process refuses to die - at least with Linux I know there's a reason (and if you understand the details - they make sense).

Software not available elsewhere

[notjim]

I use linux because the software I use: emacs, LaTeX, gcc, is unavailable on Windows, at least without hacking or using some emulator that never quite works right: also, wow, file management is a pain in the arse using a mouse and how do people manage without grep, sed and awk?

Re:Software not available elsewhere

[SpammersAreScum]

Uh, what? My Windows system (it's my company's laptop, OK?) has emacs, and (thanks to cygwin) grep, sed, awk, and shell commands for file management. No hacking or ill-behaved emulator, and no issues.

Re:I know why I use it

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There is a missing link list on Wikipedia, if you are in a dire need of these. But mind you, is is incomplete. For example, there is no mention of Steve Ballmer, which is the missing link between modern human and Homo Executivus Developerensis.

Why I use Linux

[thatskinnyguy]

Because I can't exactly afford the latest and greatest in computer hardware just to run the latest version of Windows. I kinda got tired of looking at XP. It is a good OS and it suited my needs but after 7 years, it was time for an upgrade.Vista was totally out of the question and I have been tooling-around with various distros throughout the years.

I finally settled on Gentoo due to the fact that it can be as bloated or as light-weight as I wanted it to be. Also, I could run as little or as much **bling** as I wanted depending on the load on the CPU and GPU. Linux suits my needs as well as XP did and was quite a learning experience in the total switchover process.

It's the people, stupid.

[rubenerd]

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.

package management

[Deanalator]

Sure, it's fun, got an easy to customize UI, I can do tons of security and network tweaks, and it has a well integrated set of developer tools, but the real reason why I was never able to turn back is the package management. Package management issues were also the core reason I switched from slackware to debian in 2001, debian to gentoo in 2003, and gentoo to ubuntu in 2007.

It is ridiculous to me that even today, tools for Microsoft package management are completely archaic. Microsoft has MSI files, but still the difference in add/remove programs between windows 95 and vista is minimal. Imagine if they allowed users to import catalogues of software, and search for software within the add/remove programs interface (which most distros have been able to do in some sense for 10 years or so). Hell, they could even deal with licence subscriptions right in the interface. It would allow them to better integrate their software with third party vendors, while at the same time making sure effective QA is happening (they could threaten key revocation), and also protecting the users, making sure that all software that gets installed gets downloaded from reliable sources, and does not have the chance to get infected by malicious warez kiddies.

Why I use linux:

[grasshoppa]

I use linux because, in certain instances, it's the right tool for the job. I'm busy. I don't have time to play around tinkering anymore ( and yes, I do have grey hair, thank you very much ). So when I want something that'll "just work", I analyse all the tools at my disposal, and choose one based on merits.

Quite often that's linux. Sometimes that's windows. But regardless of the choice, the end result is hopefully the same: A system that just works without me needing to constantly hold it's hand.

Well there's a reason I can take to my boss

[syousef]

Boss: Why should we switch to Linux?
Me: Because it's fun!
Boss: Thanks for your input. You can go now.
Boss (to the secretary): Please get me HR on the line. I think we're over-paying some staff.

This is possibly the lamest story I've ever seen on slashdot. The article then lists THREE other reasons - plural with an 's' - (not one) why the author uses Linux. By 'we' I think he's referring to himself, his blow up sex doll and his imaginary friends.

Re:Well there's a reason I can take to my boss

[magus_melchior]

Note: The author meant the reason why Linux users use Linux, not reasons why your boss should pay to deploy Linux in your company. If you're looking for the latter, find an IT rag that PHBs would read.

Re:Well there's a reason I can take to my boss

[dbcad7]

The title of the article is "The Real Reason We Use Linux".. not how to sell Linux to your boss and friends.
Actually it is a bit presumptuous to say "We".. but I don't take offense to it.. "Many" would have been better.

There are many reasons to use Linux, and I think the point he was trying to make is that the "fun" aspect is often overlooked.
His opinion is probably more relevant to the home enthusiast, than the corporate IT guy trying to sell his boss..
And BTW you haven't been here very long if you think this is the lamest story ever.

Because it's fun indeed

[websitebroke]

One of my favorite things about Free software in general is that the programmers and the people who write the documentation don't feel like they have to keep this "professional" face on their work.

For example, you'll never find George W. Bush's face for the "unsharp filter" icon (Cinelerra) in a closed source program. That would indicate that the programmers were having fun, and that obviously makes the program of lower quality.

Personally, I think that if the developers are having fun, and are in a positive frame of mind, they'll make better software.

Reason #2

[PPH]

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.

Re:Reason #2

[BitZtream]

Now keep in mind I'm playing devils advocate, and that thier price is ridiculous ... but ...

They were probably including maintanence contracts on hardware and software, multiple support personal, backup systems, space, helpdesk time, and lots of other things you weren't considering.

Is thier price correct? I doubt it. Having done IT in a previous life, part of their job when quoting something like that is to be all inclusive in costs. They may have their own requirements for offsite data and service duplication (which may or may not apply to your setup), security auditing (internal and external threats), regular patching ( and testing which is really the majority of the work in patching) and crap like that.

Did you consider all of those things? Management didn't I'm sure, thats why IT is supposed to do their part.

As I said, at a glance, I can't imagine 50k per host for anything, but if they've got other rules/standards applied to what they do, you'd be suprised at how quick the REAL price of something goes up.

Re:Reason #2

[PPH]

Inevitably, I simplified things a bit. We did locate our servers in IT-managed data centers. Some of that price goes toward that cost. Compare it to the monthly fee for commercial server co-location and take that off their price.

Hardware support was also part of the price. But we were running desktop class hardware, for which pats were cheap. Labor was provided by me, as was off-site backup. The systems were set up to be redundant and divided between different facilities. Not that this did any good. The only facilities-related outage we had was a several day long planned outage at a key data center (an interesting story by itself). The company intranet turned out to have some key functions like DNS that went down and, although our backup site was functioning, the network was, for all practical purposes, dead. Manufacturing went home for a week.

I use Linux because...

[One Childish N00b]

Most of the time, I'm an OS X user. I love my MacBook, but when I use my PC at home, I run Ubuntu, and it's not because it's 'fun' - I use it for work, so it's not 'fun' by any stretch of the imagination - it's because of the same reason I like my Mac - because it just works. The computer came with Vista, and I genuinely tried to like it, and I will admit that, when it works properly, I do like Vista. I don't champion it, I don't think it's anything special, but I've nothing really against it either. It's never kicked in my door and raped my dog like the grudges some /.'ers have against it would suggest, it just doesn't 'just work':

* My Belkin wireless adapters never worked properly with it and required several reinstalls to work as they should.

* The Aero Glass effects make a perfectly servicable computer with 1Gb of RAM and a reasonably fast processor stutter if I dare have more than half a dozen windows open at once (I know it's Aero doing it, because it chugs along just fine if I run the same apps in the same state with the thing turned off).

* Niggly little 'features' like the Windows Sidebar reactivating itself whenever it damn well pleases and the 'You have disabled startup programs, would you like to view them?' (No I fucking wouldn't, that's why I disabled the bloody things!).

On the other hand, Linux (well, Ubuntu - your mileage with different distros may vary), when installed, automatically configured my wireless adapter and all I had to do was put in my network password and I was away. I don't know if it's using ndiswrapper to do that, because I'm not a techy and it never told me, it just worked. I'd assume it isn't seeing as I was never prompted to locate a Windows driver, but I couldn't tell you for sure - all I know is that my wifi works.

I can also have my computer look easily as good as Aero Glass with the automatically-installed-and-configured Desktop Effects and a swift set of clicks around gnome-look.org - the only qualm I have is that the default window decorations take up a few pixels' more room than the 'Windows Classic' ones, but with the resolution I have, that's not really an issue. I also don't get any annoying pop-ups whenever I start my machine asking if I want to start the programs I asked it not to start (I asked you not to for a reason, ffs) or re-activating 'Ubuntu Sidebar' modules.

In short, maybe I'm strange, maybe I'm not the typical Linux user, but I don't use Linux because I love tinkering with the command line - I don't. I use Linux because it's fast, does what I want it to, is shiny without compromising performance and doesn't bug me about things I've no intention of looking at. A couple of years ago when I first checked it out it didn't do that, and kicked up all sorts of hassles about all sorts of hardware issues, etc, but it's really come on since then. I'm not the 'granny wanting to surf the internet for pictures of the grandkids', I'm a twentysomething screenwriter, but I'm not the /. stereotype sysadmin or guru programmer either, and I'd take Linux over Windows all day long.

The answer is simple...

[RichardtheSmith]

Because a lot of people were waiting in the 90's for one of the Unix vendors (mostly Sun but also SGI and SCO) to stop ignoring the home user / hobbyist market, so when the first usable Linux distros started to come out it was like, "Thanks, it's about f*cking time."

Also, the overall "feel" of Linux reflects the fact that there is no vendor telling you what you can or can't do with it. It lets you be in control. There's nothing in the user experience that reflects corporate arrogance. It lets *me* be arrogant. :)

Control

[ackthpt]

Simply put, I can see what is going on on my system.

Windows is a fecking black hole where all manner of shite can happen without me knowing. Until Microsoft gives the average user a complete view and complete control over processes, they're crap.

perverse economics of proprietary apps

[bcrowell]

I use Linux because proprietary apps suck to high heaven, and if you want to run OSS (desktop) apps, Linux is by far the best system.

There's a horribly perverse system of incentives pervading the economics of proprietary apps. A user buying a proprietary GUI app typically has no way of knowing whether it's slow and/or buggy until he's already bought it. Performance is hard to judge until you have it loaded on your own system, and bugginess is hard to judge because the vendor does their best to keep bugs secret, and generally succeeds very well. Because buyers can't make decisions based on performance and quality, they tend to buy based on features. So vendors have a huge economic incentive to bloat their feature list, and push slow, buggy products out the door.

Two experiences that helped to sour me completely on proprietary software:

1. Bought a copy of Mathematica for my Mac back in the 90's. Upgraded to a new version of MacOS. Mathematica stopped working. Called Wolfram. They told me my only option was to buy a new version of Mathematica.
2. Bought Adobe PageMaker 6.5 (?) ca. 1997. Wrote a book in it. Found out it was horribly buggy, and was constantly corrupting files. Adobe's tech support came up with lots of excuses to explain why it wasn't their fault.

I teach physics at a community college. Recently I started working on a project to clean up the horribly messed up software situation in our student computer labs. Perfect example of what a mistake it can be to hitch your wagon to proprietary software. We have all these proprietary Windows apps. Every app has a different licensing scheme, and some of them have no explicitly stated licensing scheme at all (e.g., CD-ROMs that came with textbooks). Nobody can find half the original disks and licenses. Some software was bought to run on DOS or Windows 95, and isn't compatible with Windows XP. Some software is abandonware. In one case, faculty are downloading a particular piece of DOS abandonware/shareware from an untrusted third-party site every time they need to teach a particular activity -- can't ask IT to permanently install it, because the vendor is gone, so random people are just posting the .EXE on their web sites, without so much as a checksum. The whole thing is a nightmare.

Re:perverse economics of proprietary apps

[david_thornley]

There's a horribly perverse system of incentives pervading the economics of proprietary apps. A user buying a proprietary GUI app typically has no way of knowing whether it's slow and/or buggy until he's already bought it. Performance is hard to judge until you have it loaded on your own system, and bugginess is hard to judge because the vendor does their best to keep bugs secret, and generally succeeds very well. Because buyers can't make decisions based on performance and quality, they tend to buy based on features. So vendors have a huge economic incentive to bloat their feature list, and push slow, buggy products out the door.

When I was a kid, dodging the Tyrannosaurs, software was a big deal, and a company was reasonable to spend ten grand or so evaluating each alternative in a possible purchase. That isn't the case any more, and it's real hard to find decent reviews. Some software isn't available for free evaluation, so it's a matter of buy something and hope, or do without. Once somebody's purchased software, cognitive dissonance theory suggests that they will consider it good, recommend it, and avoid information that suggests they goofed.

From the company's point of view, what will sell software is time to market and feature checklists, and they usually don't bother rapid development practices that will reduce bugs (although the best way to reduce debug time is often to put fewer bugs into the code in the first place). This gives little incentive to produce actual quality software. Sell something to enough people and they'll say good things about it, and they'll figure that the problems are either their fault or something that's just natural. Like defragmenting disks. Last time somebody asked why it was necessary I said it was because Microsoft didn't know how to make a real industrial-strength operating system. Not everybody in the room seemed to agree with me.

And, from the proprietary software front, what you want to avoid is something that people are going to experiment with, have fun with, because that raises the support costs. If you can sell shelfware, that's great. Each sale is straight profit, no continuing costs. If you can't, if you can set things up so people learn to do specific things, and don't try to do anything new with it, so they don't call anyway, that's almost as good.

Then, of course, there's the problem of repeat customers. The big problem is that most software is good enough for most purposes, and has been for years. Companies need to come up with ways to make their customers continue to pay, and pay, and pay. Tying the software to a particular computer helps, since the user can't replace the computer and keep the software. And if you annoy customers by screwing up the activation so they have to buy a replacement copy, what's wrong with that? You want to be careful about issuing bug fixes, enough to look good but not enough to keep the current version competitive. When issuing a new version, you want to make it as incompatible as possible with previous versions, so people have to junk perfectly good software because it doesn't talk to the latest stuff.

Since proprietary software makers usually don't release source code, it is impossible to conduct an independent audit, and they can indulge in mindless hacks because nobody can call them out on it. Good-looking code is usually good code, and that incentive does not exist if nobody publishes the source. This also means the customer can't use the code on platforms the vendor decided not to support at the moment. For example, one project I was on recently used Oracle's OCCI (Oracle C++ Call Interface). Slick system, but we were way limited in choice of compilers and libraries because Oracle provided binaries only, and binaries only for a few compilers (such as way outdated versions of gcc). This is also a way to prevent customers from keeping the old software, and making them buy new.

All of these are perfectly logical reactions to the way

Re:Well

[TheRaven64]

More than one person here have shout "IDIOT" to me just because I use Windows I'd be more inclined to believe that they call you an idiot for your appalling grammar and the fact that you call Mac OS X 'MAK OZX' and Linux 'Linuzz.' Probably more of the latter than the former, since it could be assumed that the former comes from not being a native speaker while the inability to spell a word that is written in the title bar of your browser while you type indicates a deliberate misspelling and firmly marks you as an idiot (hint: it's not clever when people say 'M$ Windoze' either).

Oh, the fact that you have somehow completely missed the point of the Four Freedoms of Free Software and keep going on about the financial cost might also mark you as an idiot. The fact that you use Windows is pretty much irrelevant, although you might want to examine the arguments you use to defend your Windows use ('it's a locked platform, but I also paid for my nissan' is not really a coherent argument).

Re:Unwanted Elitism

[colinrichardday]

And what version of Windows includes TeX/LaTeX, gcc (or some similar compiler), Apache (or a similar web server), GNU emacs (or a similar text editor), an ftp server, a telnet/ssh server, python, perl, a database server, and support for multiple desktops?

Yes, I could download these, but why bother?

You agree?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop"

Apparently you don't agree.

Bullshit

[poliopteragriseoapte]

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.

The only thing is...

[einhverfr]

There is more to "it isn't widely used" than is generally pointed out. This isn't just a matter of elitism, but the fact that if you want something to be good at certain things, it will be less good at others. Linux is great for a lot of things because it doesn't fall to the lowest common denominator. If it did, we would need to use a distro that didn't, that was more specialized for what we need it to do.

Imagine Linux with all the tools which say "you should never have to use the command line." Such a distro would be pretty bad for most of us who currently use Linux because a command-line is fundamentally superior to a GUI for a lot of tasks we use it for. I always have at least three terminal windows open in addition to any GUI apps.

Similarly, I find that OS X (which is almost but not entirely unlike BSD) has a number of shortcomigns that make Linux and BSD better choices for me. My sister uses OSX however because it matches what she needs.

Re:The only thing is...

[davolfman]

I'll argue that most of the reason the command line is better though is that there aren't enough competent people developing GUI config tools that actually work.

Re:The only thing is...

[einhverfr]

For some things, that may be true. However, you have a fundamental problem:

GUI's take inputs from point/click interfaces generally. This means a mouse click which carries a lot less information than the number of key presses which can be typed in the same period of time. Hence for your time, when you need to convey complex information *to* the computer, a CLI will always beat a GUI.

Of course for other tasks (where the information passed to the computer is small, but the information delivered by the computer is rich) a GUI is far better.

Re:The only thing is...

[davolfman]

That's assuming some sort of optimum efficiency. Something which in my experience is never achieved by anyone. Short or really ugly pearl script at least.

No, but Linux itself shares a lot of blame

[Sycraft-fu]

You have to accept that for various reasons, a number of companies aren't willing to do OSS and that includes drivers. You also have to accept that Linux is by far the minority OS out there. Well, given that, you need to make it easy for a company to release a driver for Linux, in binary form, that will then continue to work for a long time. The problem is that the ABI isn't stable, it gets changed all the time so people who want to do binary drivers of various types have to change them all the time. The best example is graphics drivers. Every time there's a minor kernel update or a minor X update, that necessitates a new video driver. Fortunately, ATi and nVidia seem to be willing to do that, but you can see how companies might get a little sick of it. A graphics driver released for XP when it first came out still works just fine today, and will still work fine after the upcoming SP3.

So I can see why companies may not be so willing to support Linux. It isn't going to be high priority anyhow since there are simply way less Linux users than Windows users. However if it is going to end up occupying a whole bunch more resources, because you have to release new versions all the time, well then you just say "screw it" and don't have support.

Installation

[sconeu]

Speaking as a relative newb, I found that Linux (Fedora) was a bear to set up,

Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to install XP (or -- gahhh -- Vista) on a bare machine, just to compare it against Fedora?

Re:Installation

[rucs_hack]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to install XP (or -- gahhh -- Vista) on a bare machine, just to compare it against Fedora?

Actually yes.

What did I notice. I had to mess around for ages to get audio and video working properly in fedora. I know that mp3 isn't 'free', but I've got 100Gb of audio that uses it, so guess what, I want it. On windows mp3 works out of the box.

I'm afraid that a smug, 'oh well, we want to keep things pure with fedora, please use ogg', doesn't help if converting to ogg would take several weeks of 24/7 processing to achieve. It ain't gonna happen..

Also, drivers are better for graphics cards in windows. Again fedora falls flat. I don't want my OS to bitch at me if I want to use the proprietary driver. I mean, what the fuck, it's a proprietary bloody card!!!111one.

You wanna impress me? provide a good open source bios for my motherboard bitch...

Fedora is a bad choice for comparison anyway.

Ubuntu fares a little better, but again, no mp3 and no decent graphics unless you enable the proprietary driver/download extra stuff. Then it insists on displaying a graphics driver 'warning' in the taskbar, about something I chose to do, which fyi, hasn't harmed my pc one bit.

Linux has a permanent place in my world as a server and a number cruncher, but those distro guys need to either get of their arses and sort out some decent drivers, or make it easy for those of us who want their stuff to work right away to get just that after install.

Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny.

Re:Installation

[sconeu]

Fair enough. No offense intended. The reason I asked is that many people who complain about installation on Linux haven't tried the XP install.

And, it seems to me, your issues weren't with the install per se, but with codec installation. Agreed, that can be a bitch, depending on your distro, as you found out.

Me, I blame the idiots who patented math and those who allowed them to do so.

Re:Installation

[thegrassyknowl]

Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny.

The fact that you rant on about graphics drivers and MP3 suggests one thing.... Never mind.

All the "major" distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) ship with the X.org drivers for Nvidia and ATI. They are accelerated and work for the majority of users. AFIK both drivers will do dual head and TV out now as well. There's little need for the binary drivers unless you want uber 3D support (and really, at the moment Linux apps don't generally make great use of 3D).

The lack of MP3 is easily fixed in Ubuntu and Fedora. The wiki page for both explains the reasons for not shipping it (so they don't get sued out of existence). They also give the solution (open the GUI tool, add this thing, check that box install mp3 software and binary video drivers if you want them).

It's not a perfect solution, but what do you expect from something you can obtain for free? You're not going to pay the Ubuntu or Fedora projects so why should they pay licensing fees for the few things that you would expect to have in your distro but can't unless someone pays greedy patent holders? They're not stopping you from having them, but they are advising people to consider alternate formats in the interest of sending a message to greedy patent holders.

Windows is certainly far from perfect too. I can't install it on a machine then connect that machine to the Internet to get updates and download the requisite software because within a few minutes the POS operating system has been pwne3d by some worm/botnet/1337 h4x0rz. Oh did I mention that out of the box it's pretty much useless without thousands of dollars of other people's software? IF you are going to use all free software (FF, Thunderbird, OO.o, etc) then why not just use Linux because that's where it's all meant to run anyway.

Re:Installation

[Hatta]

Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny.

That's ridiculous. Sure you might have to spend 15 minutes setting up mp3 support or nvidia drivers the first time you install a system, but once you do it works and it works well. There are many basic desktop features that windows just doesn't support at all. Off the top of my head, virtual desktops, window shading, focus following mouse, keep on top, package management. Shit, you can't even have 2 users logged on at the same time if you're on a domain. These are basic features that I rely on every day that just don't work on windows.

Sure there are kludgy work arounds for windows: MSVDM crashes my software. VirtuaWin is incompatible with X-mouse, X-mouse doesn't work with photoshop. I use windows every day at work, and linux every home, and the linux desktop far outclasses windows in every way that matters. At least linux has an excuse, there are legal issues that prevent implementation of a few features. Windows has no excuse at all.

Re:Installation

[westyvw]

Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny. Exactly opposite my experience, over and over again. Installation? I would take a linux install any day with MOST of the current Distro's. Just this past week I did this for someone else and even the end user was very excited with how easy it was to use. I was on the same machine, set up to dual boot, and the Windows side took A LOT more work. Anyway we have heard all this before. So lets get back to your point, it may ,of course depend on the Desktop environment you use, but I would have to say Windows is so far behind my Desktop Environment it just isnt funny I curse windows any time I have to use it.

Examples?

• I alt-print screen and then paste into a folder. My OS/WM knows its a bitmap
• I create a new OpenOffice document, and when I rename it I dont have to deal with the extension, it doesnt write over that (although for most things I dont need an extension anyways!)
• Files can be moved around and manipulated in dozens of ways and smoothly go from one app to another, or I can pipe with a shell
• Most printers, are set up just by plugging them in (this was a MAJOR hassle on the windows side of the computer I set up)
• Antivirus and Spyware? Whats that?
• I can put a window behind another by mouse clicking on it
• Move to different desktops to accomplish tasks without disrupting my workflow on my main desktop
• Copy and paste without having to right click
• Spell checking is integrated, in my language, and available for all programs to use
• The web browser can access files, web services, applications, and directories
• My file format does not get fragmented (NTFS- Nice Try at a File System)
• Users are easy to back up and migrate to new computers
• Delete files while they are in use, and update (in most cases) without a reboot
• If I choose to use a shell, it has a history and real tab completion and color coding
• When a file with a simular name and type is copied in the directory I get an option to view the metadata, see the picture, or hear the song to make an informed decision about what I should do, and it offers to automatically rename the file
• desktop windows can go to full size, or maximize in a horizontal or vertical plane
• I can leave all my windows open and shut down the computer, and they open back up automatically

Thats off the top of my head. And give me a break about the MP3 thing, windows media player is no saint, it can't play DVD's without a codec either, and it will do the usual windows routine of offering to find a codec that it of course can not. But it will waste your time looking for it. You have to hunt and search for codecs in Windows for lots of different formats. For example I use flac, its included in my distro by default, but windows? Nope.

So lets get serious: Windows, by default, is so far behind linux with a good desktop environment, that its not even in the running.

And for the record, I am not an Ubuntu fan, and don't think it's a good example of a powerful environment, albeit an easy one to use.

Re:Installation

[sydneyfong]

Oh did I mention that out of the box it's pretty much useless without thousands of dollars of other people's software? Exactly. People bitch about Linux "not working out of the box", then say Windows is so much better -- after they patch up their installation (hopefully before it's rooted), find all the drivers, download their cracked versions of photoshop, MS Office, Alcohol 120%, etc.

The only reasonable explanation to this logic is that they already had their conclusion (that Linux is inferior to Windows), and their "reasons" are merely to give an impression that they weren't biased.

Re:Installation

[tech10171968]

Package management (insofar as I understand what the duties of a package manager are) is provided with Add/Remove programs... Wrong. Yes, one can use "Add/Remove" to install/uninstall in Windows; but the difference is that you still have to have the software disk. OTOH, with Synaptic and other package managers, the application you're installing comes from an online repository. Example: Let's say I want to install a certain driver. In Windows I would have to either (a) visit the vendor's website , download the driver, then install it or (b) already have the driver on a CD or thumbdrive; if you don't have the installation program the you can use "Add/Remove" all you want but Windows can't install something that isn't already there. In linux all I have to do is fire up Synaptic, find the driver from the list, and click install. No hunting down manufacturer's websites, no OEM rescue disks - nothing. Just click the box beside whatever you're wanting to install and press "Ok". That's it. "Add/Remove Programs" couldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole, but that may be an unfair assessment; "Add/Remove" and package managers aren't even the same thing.

Re:Installation

[Sproggit]

Fuck focus following the mouse, how about NOT ALLOWING APPS TO STEAL FOCUS!!!
I've started creating docs in Open Office, and saving them in MS Office format, solely due to the fact that in Ubuntu I can tell the OS to NEVER steal focus, no "download completed" dialog boxes cocking up my painful hunt & peck typing style...

Transparent.

[miffo.swe]

I love linux because its so transparent. Im an avid Windows user and work mostly with Windows machines but i cant stop admiring the complete transparacy of Linux. While an error in Windows usually demands a reinstall and the logs tell me absolutely nothing in Linux i can actually find the culprit and mend the error in a very short time.

My favorite explanation ...

[jc42]

Some years ago, in the late 1980s if I remember right, someone explained something to me that I've remembered ever since: Everything on a computer, especially the programming languages, can be best understood as a video game. The way the game works is that when the computer does what you intended, you get a point. When it finds some way to misinterpret your command (or find it impossible for some internal, unexplained reason) and do something other than what you intended, the people who build the software get a point. A good programmer or an experienced user wins if they get more than half the points. When I first stumbled across unix systems, I found that I was winning overwhelmingly within only a few days of first cracking open "The C Programming Language". I'd never had that experience before, and I never have since on any non-unix computer system.

I heard this sometime after I'd been using unix systems for a few years, and it made a lot of sense. I could explain very simply why I preferred unix to all the other computer systems I'd ever used: On a unix systems, I usually won. When I told it to do something, it almost always did what I wanted it to do. Granted, there were occasional problems with running out of resources, and no OS can prevent that. But even then, it happened at a much later stage than on other systems, because unix tools were mostly small and sleek, and didn't hog resources.

Linux is just the current favorite in a long chain of unix-like system that let me win in both the programming and computer-user games.

I've used OSX a bunch, and in fact I'm typing this on a Mac Powerbook. I like to work on different computers occasionally, to keep up to date on what they do well or poorly. But I don't win nearly as often on OSX as I do on linux, for a lot of reasons. It's always doing something bizarre, and when I investigate, I usually find that the bizarreness was intentional in the design. And it's full of little time-wasting gotchas that aren't nearly as common in linux apps.

Of course, as with any system, you do have to learn its basic tools to get anything done. Most of the non-linux users I know use this as their excuse. They "know" Windows or Macs, and they aren't about to learn some other system. So they're stuck forever in a computer game that's designed to lower their score at every opportunity. When I watch over their shoulders, I have to keep my mouth shut about how painful it is to watch them laboriously fighting with their computer to do the simplest tasks. But I generally don't say anything unless they ask, because I don't want to insult them. And telling them how much easier it could be would be an insult, because I'd be telling them how much of their lives they've wasted on zillions of little time-wasting design snafus.

The only reason I'd even bother mentioning it here is to see the reaction of other linux (or solaris or whatever) users. How many of you have heard this video-game model applied to all computer use and programming? Does it really have the explanatory power that it seems to have, or do you really have some other basic motivation to use what you do?

Re:My favorite explanation ...

[jc42]

"Interesting"???? Jeez; whaddaya gotta do to get a "funny" around here?

You don't understand *NIX.

[Gazzonyx]

Ummm, I don't know where to start with this post... I'll just sum it up in a thought; you need to run Slackware once or twice to understand why *nix is *nix. I'm not just saying that because I'm a Slackware fanboy, but rather, because you seem to miss the elegance and simplicity of text files for configs.

There are a million reasons why a single text file in /etc/ that can be edited over SSH, and has a man 5 page, is superior to any other kind of scheme. There are a million reasons why a GUI interface for maintenance is a nightmare (and how would you like to set it up without a command line?) as compared to SSH. If you want to know why I say this, you'll first have to understand why *nix is *nix.

Why was this modded troll?

[StarKruzr]

Parent was obviously an anecdotal discussion of computing environments and what worked for him. It was on-topic, interesting and mildly amusing.

In short, wtf?

For the record, I've also started running Linux as my primary desktop OS. I have a Linux desktop, Linux server, and Mac laptop that also runs Vista. I get all my work done just fine.

Windows Server / Linux

[Fuzzums]

After working with Windows servers and Linux servers, with the same level of experience, personally I find Linux easier to configure, more documentation and easier to make your own hacks to get done what you want.

No crappy applications where you can't find the right button to turn off a frature, but simple text files with settings. Nice. I like it.

AND Linux it's fun to play with :)

Switch to something else?

[kimvette]

If Linux becomes widely used, we'll probably switch to something else. Or at least develop an obscure distro that only we will use. Because, let's face it, we want to feel special.

Bull.

I use Linux because:

• Once you get something working, it just works.
• It won't suddenly decide to de-activate because I upgraded a third-party network or video driver
• It doesn't phone home to the OS/distro provider without my explicit consent
• It can be configured to log everything
• I can tweak it to my heart's content. If I want to run it headless, I can do so.
• The uptime is much higher than Windows -- without redefining "downtime"
  • Almost all maintenance can be done on a live system - none of this "scheduled maintenance" window B.S.
  • Almost all maintenance can be automated. Heck, what can't be automated on Linux?
• I can choose from a variety of desktops and themes - without resorting to hex editing uxtheme.dll or paying Microsoft
• Once hardware is supported by the kernel, X, or cups, etc. (as in a GPL, MIT, or similarly-licensed driver) chances are it will always be supported
• Licensing - if the BSA ever comes by my office, I can tell them to go screw. Likewise, at home I can run servers without paying exorbitant licensing fees, and without pirating software or otherwise violating "license" restrictions
• When DRM is active on Linux, it's true DRM - I am protecting MY privacy, not allowing my Fair Use and First Sale rights to be infringed. I'm keeping bad people out, not being blocked from accessing content I legally purchased or legally ripped or transcoded in accordance with Fair Use and/or the Home Recording Act

Re:No, it's not fun

[Animats]

So basically you want the windows registry for LINUX!?!?

The Windows registry is not a database. It's an unstructured tree. There are no indices, no tables, no record structures, and no locking. You can't look up anything, other than by brute force.

Can you really speak for most people?

[patiodragon]

"Most people who pass on the opportunity to use Microsoft's software usually have an irrational hate for Microsoft itself and put that above what would be the best tool for the job."

People started using MS products when they were not the King of the Hill for the same reason many (don't claim to know about most) people use linux on the desktop: It does everything they need it to do. Why would I pay money for constant upgrades and only get an O/S in the deal? Buy extra software for burning a DVD!? Resizing and cropping photos!? You want some Adware with your free trials? WTF???

Freedom?

[seandiggity]

I really, naively thought the answer would be "freedom". Sorry dude, but some of us do think about the political backdrop of our actions, and I definitely choose free software for the freedom. Free software, in general, is also better and more fun than the proprietary alternatives, but the reason those things are true is intimately linked with the freedom it provides and protects.

I second that

[R_Dorothy]

I work looking after a website running on Linux boxes and running Linux on my desktop makes my life much easier. Not only can I run scripts on my workstation for testing but connectivity via SSH is leagues ahead of using FTP on a Windows box. The real kicker is that the one Windows server I deal with is easier to manage from a Linux box: Remote desktops work just as well, thanks to Samba I can mount drives straight into my file system so I can use tools like awk, grep and tail and deploying cross platform from Linux to Windows is significantly less problematic than versa-vice.

You don't fucking have to use a CLI.

[jotaeleemeese]

My mum is 70 and can use Ubuntu, she would not recognize a CLI if it hit her.

Lo and behold, she can install packages and say yes to the machine when new software needs to be installed.

It revolts me to hear other people whining about the CLI...