Slashdot Mirror
The REAL Reason We Use Linux
Vlad Dolezal writes "We tell people we use Linux because it's secure. Or because it's free, because it's customizable, because it has excellent community support... But all of that is just marketing BS. We tell that to non-Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason." The answer to his question probably won't surprise you.
If the editors didn't strip away the story link from the article when they posted it, yes?
Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
Here it is in all it's glory:
Liberty.
Penguins?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
We use it because it's ours.
David
...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.
Check out Treesandthings.com for offbeat news
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
- 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 already8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
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
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
Fight Spammers!
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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
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.
The game.
Granted I'm a FreeBSD guy [insert comment about why BSD is dying here] but I think the arguments are basically the same as for Linux. I agree with most of TFA, but I enjoy using FreeBSD and other Free software for another important reason: the people.
Despite the fact commercial products can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, their technical support services nearly always suck: they're slow, obscure, vague, answered by people who don't know what they're talking about or are reading off a sheet of paper that assumes everyone they reply to is an idiot, or at the very worst you don't get an answer at all. Just speaking from my own experience.
Now granted there are plenty of jackarses on forums for Free software and the like, but on the whole I can post a question and generally get a useful response and in a fraction of the time. Plus if it's for a particular piece of ported software, generally I can either contact the port maintainer or the creator of the software directly and get helpful answers. I've NEVER got that from commercial software vendors. That's what makes the difference.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
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.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
I can relate to this. Linux not being widely used.
Some years ago, I was in engineering and involved in 'fixing' a system built by our IT department. They had sunk about $300 million into a system that was just barely functional. We (engineering and manufacturing) were supposed to supply them with appropriate requirements so IT could start over (yet again) building another piece of crap.
We convinced our management that we should hammer out requirements by building a functioning prototype. As our IT department maintained a stranglehold over all things Windows, we chose to build on Linux and a few surplus Sun desktops with Perl, Apache and a few COTS packages. Keeping the IT dept. and Windows out of the picture allowed us to get a working demo of the shop floor interface up and running within a few weeks and half a dozen people completed the 'prototype' in about 6 months.
When our system was up and running, it actually outperformed the one running on the Windows backend. When management saw it, they just gave the order to pull the plug on the legacy Windows system and place ours into production.
Part of my job after the project completion (about 10% of my time) was to administrate 6 hosts that made up the new system. When our IT department made a pitch to management to take over administration, they quoted an recurring maintenance cost for their proposal of $50,000 per host per month. Management fell off their chairs laughing and I suggested that they pay me 6 * $50,000 per month.
Have gnu, will travel.
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:
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.
Find free books.
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.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
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?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
/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.
There are a million reasons why a single text file in
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
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.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
I drink to make other people interesting!
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Don't quote me on this.
This space for rent!