Is Linux nearing XP usability?

[j79zlr]

I find it funny that installing apps is a major concern. No matter what distro you use [as far as the mainstream ones are concerned] they all have a package management system. Swaret for slackware, portage for gentoo, apt-get for debain and the newest kid ubuntu, yum, yast, urpmi for RPM based distros, , but they all have very simple and easy to use package management.

I am not here to convince anyone, I use Win2k at work, I am a Mechanical Engineer and spend 90% of my time on AutoCAD, [and 10% of my time telling contractors that it is a 4" gas pipe for a reason]. There really is no competent CAD software for linux, sorry. I use linux 99% of the time outside of work however. I do not hate Windows, I do not have strange love for Linux, I use both. But, to see someone complaining that software installation is more difficult in Linux is a farce. It takes me forever to update my installed software on Windows, namely because I have to update everything other than Windows itself and Office manually. In linux, it is just a couple simple commands and EVERYTHING is updated. Why are people so afraid of the command line, it is definitely one of the main things I miss when booted into Windows, so simple yet powerful.

[BajiRav]

KDE doesn't try to be the same as windows xp, it's the other way around  ;)

With the "Start menu" it's called kicker if you talk about kde is fully customizable diferent colour, transparency hiding etc.. you can do anything to change the kicker.

still the fact remains that it is inspired from start menu and has same functionality.

Linux doesn't need a directx replacement, linux is fast Out of the box, linux also supports 3D sound.

586201995[/snapback]

:blink: did you even try to understand what he was trying to say ? as much as you like Linux, the parent poster was trying to say something entirely different.

[BajiRav]

It takes me forever to update my installed software on Windows, namely because I have to update everything other than Windows itself and Office manually.  In linux, it is just a couple simple commands and EVERYTHING is updated.

586215821[/snapback]

Do you really expect Adobe or Autodesk or any other company will allow Microsoft to update their software ? :wacko: As much as the concept is simple, its not feasible when professional companies are involved.

[ichi]

Do you really expect Adobe or Autodesk or any other company will allow Microsoft to update their software ? :wacko: As much as the concept is simple, its not feasible when professional companies are involved.

586216132[/snapback]

I think it is, actually. I can update propietary stuff through portage: Maya, Doom3, vmware... as long as the company has patches available online it can be done.

[dotRoot]

Install and uninstall like OSX, just drag a icon onto the hdd and the program is automatically installed, drag to the recyc bin and the application is uninstalled.

Well for most Distros it is as simple as one or two commands, with the bonus that you don't have to even look for where to get the app, the package manager even does that for you. And of course there are GUI replacements for almost any of the CLI based package managers. Not to mention they keep every app nice and updated in one shot system wide.

Uninstallation is just as easy.

So installation on Linux isn't like it used to be back when you had to compile everything. I'm not trying to argue your opinion or anything. If you want it drag and drop like that, well that's good, but on Linux I think its just as easy.

Move the GUI KDE/Gnome onto the 3D card, like OSX. I think this is the future of GUI design is pushing the gui onto the 3D card, which should allow for lot's of cool effects/graphical representations, whilst not straining the CPU. I know this is a big option (Apologies if they (KDE / Gnome) are / have already done this)

Yeah, there are lots of cool effects you can do on GDE and KDE. As a matter of fact the transparency effects use even less resources than Win2k and XP.

Stop trying to be the same as Windows XP. It may be the most used OS on the planet, but i have never been a fan of the design since it's release, it looked plain ugly. Being a heavy computer user for a number of years i want my UI with the computer to look professional , not something from toy town.

The start menu was a good idea year ago, but it's design is starting to show it's age, when after installing a number of applications the start menu covers the screen. Yes you can put these into sub folders but it's a lot of messing about.

I can agree with you that I don't think Linux should strive to look like Windows, but I can understand why. The big problem with Linux has always been that it has been scarey to Windows ands Mac users. So if familiarity is reached from a Windows or Mac user than they are going to be a little more comfortable. The startup button is just there for familiarity. You don't have to use it or have it.

But, the most powerful thing about Linux is choice. You can have your desktop enviroment look like anything you want. People that think exactly as you do use different Windows Managers that don't look or care about what MS Windows looks like.

It would be nice for linux to have a killer app / piece of functionaility. With OSX spotlight was a good attension raiser. With longhorn 3D effects of the desktop and new Games layer (directx replacement) also look really interesting.

Ah there are a lot apps out there that are interesting. They just don't have the corporate backing and marketing that Spotlight or Longhorn has.

People in the Linux community have looked forward to things and still do. Look at ReiserFS or SELinux or the other new technologies rising in the nix/BSD open source community. There are tons.

It would be nice to have something to look forward too on the linux platform like the above, which would grab the attenion of people, although don't ask me what the killer app/functionaility could be, as i can't think of anything :(

586201767[/snapback]

Synaptic caused a big fuss. Like the windows community there are a lot of people who focus on different areas that they think are a big deal.

Do you really expect Adobe or Autodesk or any other company will allow Microsoft to update their software ? :wacko: As much as the concept is simple, its not feasible when professional companies are involved.

586216132[/snapback]

I believe its the other way around. Either case, it really doesn't hold water to say that a 'professional' (as if Linux/BSD companies aren't) companies wouldn't allow the OS maker to give the companies the bandwidth and space with a central location for all their update deployments. That would be crazy that most companies wouldn't jump at that chance.

It would save them money across the board. The most being in Support costs, which is why the updates are primarily there in the first place for. Do you really think that there is no such think as a corporation in the Linux community? Do you think that there is no proprietary software in the Linux community? Because if you do not think so, then you would be wrong.

Edited July 17, 2005 by dotRoot

[seeplusplus]

I use both linux and windows both at work and at home. But lets not kid ourselves, most of the world's computer users and even developers have only ever used windows and may have not even heard of linux. Linux is a great community effort but it will not even begin to compete with Microsoft's windows until it gets some commercial support. Almost all apps are free but are not always as good as commercial or even free apps available for windows. The gui in linux has come a long way but it is all immitation. One exucse people have is saying that "windows had too many viruses and is insecure". This maybe true but mainly for the average user who doesnt even know what a firewall is. If you have any basic knowledge of the OS you would understand how to avoid such things that will probably become an issue later for linux when the virus writers become interested in writing viruses and worms for linux. Some may claim that the linux community is "growing fast", it may only appear to be that since most users cant depend on linux solely to get by and they have to dual boot with windows whether for gaming, or using any software that is rarely available on linux (Adobe photoshop and many others) and please dont tell me GIMP is just as good. The linux community is very active on the internet thus giving the illusion of a big size but it is nothing close to the windows community. To prove my point just go out to any street and ask a sizeable sample of people which OS they use and you will find that most people will say "What is Linux?". I like both windows and linux and use both.

[Crimson Behelit]

I use both linux and windows both at work and at home. But lets not kid ourselves, most of the world's computer users and even developers have only ever used windows and may have not even heard of linux. Linux is a great community effort but it will not even begin to compete with Microsoft's windows until it gets some commercial support. Almost all apps are free but are not always as good as commercial or even free apps available for windows. The gui in linux has come a long way but it is all immitation. One exucse people have is saying that "windows had too many viruses and is insecure". This maybe true but mainly for the average user who doesnt even know what a firewall is. If you have any basic knowledge of the OS you would understand how to avoid such things that will probably become an issue later for linux when the virus writers become interested in writing viruses and worms for linux. Some may claim that the linux community is "growing fast", it may only appear to be that since most users cant depend on linux solely to get by and they have to dual boot with windows whether for gaming, or using any software that is rarely available on linux (Adobe photoshop and many others) and please dont tell me GIMP is just as good. The linux community is very active on the internet thus giving the illusion of a big size but it is nothing close to the windows community. To prove my point just go out to any street and ask a sizeable sample of people which OS they use and you will find that most people will say "What is Linux?". I like both windows and linux and use both.

586238726[/snapback]

Check this out, seeplusplus

I agree with you, however ;)

[Barney T. Administrators]

Well, I believe Windows has the basic flaws that make it more of a target for hackers and malware dispensers. Look at all of the patches and security fixes for Windows. I just took a random polling of folks here. No one has posted that they got a virus or spyware on Linux.......

Barney

[semaja2.net]

i would happily use linux as my main desktop if my programs came with me some have linux versions but then theres the big on GAMES no steam games in linux and cod and stuuf like that which i play sometimes and dont want to reboot just to play, also ati if they improved the driver support

[dotRoot]

Linux is a great community effort but it will not even begin to compete with Microsoft's windows until it gets some commercial support.

It already does take a chunk of the market share from windows on the webserver front and a smaller, but still good chunk from 'other' servers. And it does have commercial support. Look at Novell and RedHat. Both are big companies, both support the Linux community.

Almost all apps are free but are not always as good as commercial or even free apps available for windows.

You mean Apache isn't better than IIS? Is that why Apache is used by around 80% of the webservers, even for Windows boxes now, because IIS really is crap. I'm not saying Windows is crap...just IIS.

What about Samba? It does a better job networking in my opinion. Because its faster, doesn't go mad sometimes if the 'Master Browser' on the network suddenly crashes and it'll talk to Apple fine as well.

One exucse people have is saying that "windows had too many viruses and is insecure". This maybe true but mainly for the average user who doesnt even know what a firewall is. If you have any basic knowledge of the OS you would understand how to avoid such things that will probably become an issue later for linux when the virus writers become interested in writing viruses and worms for linux.

So there isn't ONE virus writer in the world wanting to make a virus/worm/trojan to take down or over the majority of webservers out there? They don't do it, because it is almost pointless. The permissions and setups default with most distros just out-right make it not worth writing a virus for. The chances for it to damage anything important in the OS, even documents or database entries is pretty slim. Someone would have to log in as Root. Change permissions for everything to at least 755 on the system and THEN run the virus. As for security in general. Look at qmail. One of the top dogs in Mail Transport Agents. There's been a $5,000 reward for someone to find only ONE exploit in qmail. Just one. Its been going on for a long time and yet nobody has apparently found one.

The market share arguement is bogus, because Linux does indeed have a good market share in good markets.

Some may claim that the linux community is "growing fast", it may only appear to be that since most users cant depend on linux solely to get by and they have to dual boot with windows whether for gaming,

There isn't much arguement there about gaming, although some hardcore gamers still use solely Linux. They'll use TransGaming's application more than likely. I mean it does offer good support of Windows games. It even supported Half-life 2 the first day it came out.

or using any software that is rarely available on linux (Adobe photoshop and many others) and please dont tell me GIMP is just as good.

A misconception against the GIMP and Photoshop. Nobody thinks the GIMP is as good as Photoshop. The GIMP isn't meant to be. Its good for what most people 'average' use Photoshop for on the PC.

And by the way. Crossover Office runs Photoshop fine in Linux.

The linux community is very active on the internet thus giving the illusion of a big size but it is nothing close to the windows community. To prove my point just go out to any street and ask a sizeable sample of people which OS they use and you will find that most people will say "What is Linux?". I like both windows and linux and use both.

586238726[/snapback]

Nobody ever says it is close to the size of the Windows community. I don't know any Linux user that even thinks so. But, just because more people use it doesn't make it better. Also, I'm not saying that Linux is better than Windows. But to Linux users obviously Linux is better. For Windows users that are familiar with Linux, than obviously Windows is better. There are no arguements there. Linux is around for choice, that's it. That's what the GPL and Linux is all about.

Edited July 20, 2005 by dotRoot

[seeplusplus]

Check this out, seeplusplus

I agree with you, however ;)

586238740[/snapback]

:D :D :D Thanks for pointing that out. That made my day...

[seeplusplus]

It already does take a chunk of the market share from windows on the webserver front and a smaller, but still good chunk from 'other' servers. And it does have commercial support. Look at Novell and RedHat. Both are big companies, both support the Linux community.

You mean Apache isn't better than IIS? Is that why Apache is used by around 80% of the webservers, even for Windows boxes now, because IIS really is crap. I'm not saying Windows is crap...just IIS.

What about Samba? It does a better job networking in my opinion. Because its faster, doesn't go mad sometimes if the 'Master Browser' on the network suddenly crashes and it'll talk to Apple fine as well.

So there isn't ONE virus writer in the world wanting to make a virus/worm/trojan to take down or over the majority of webservers out there? They don't do it, because it is almost pointless. The permissions and setups default with most distros just out-right make it not worth writing a virus for. The chances for it to damage anything important in the OS, even documents or database entries is pretty slim. Someone would have to log in as Root. Change permissions for everything to at least 755 on the system and THEN run the virus. As for security in general. Look at qmail. One of the top dogs in Mail Transport Agents. There's been a $5,000 reward for someone to find only ONE exploit in qmail. Just one. Its been going on for a long time and yet nobody has apparently found one.

The market share arguement is bogus, because Linux does indeed have a good market share in good markets.

There isn't much arguement there about gaming, although some hardcore gamers still use solely Linux. They'll use TransGaming's application more than likely. I mean it does offer good support of Windows games. It even supported Half-life 2 the first day it came out.

A misconception against the GIMP and Photoshop. Nobody thinks the GIMP is as good as Photoshop. The GIMP isn't meant to be. Its good for what most people 'average' use Photoshop for on the PC.

And by the way. Crossover Office runs Photoshop fine in Linux.

Nobody ever says it is close to the size of the Windows community. I don't know any Linux user that even thinks so. But, just because more people use it doesn't make it better. Also, I'm not saying that Linux is better than Windows. But to Linux users obviously Linux is better. For Windows users that are familiar with Linux, than obviously Windows is better. There are no arguements there. Linux is around for choice, that's it. That's what the GPL and Linux is all about.

586242547[/snapback]

Thanks for the reply. You make some very good arguments.

Linux is actually taking more off of Sun microsystem's plate in the server market.

Apache is better than IIS, but if you look at some of the large domains that rely on IIS, most of those who have experienced administrators working can run it fine and even better than apache, ex: hotmail.com, bell.ca, microsoft.com...etc. IIS is only bad if the administration team is not experienced.

(Im gonna write less this time... sorry).

I have tried Crossover, how many times does the app crash during one session??

I am totally pro GPL and opensource but this is a capitalist society!!

(Please note the attempt at using paragraphs :p )

[Mike Douglas]

Apache is better than IIS, but if you look at some of the large domains that rely on IIS, most of those who have experienced administrators working can run it fine and even better than apache, ex: hotmail.com, bell.ca, microsoft.com...etc. IIS is only bad if the administration team is not experienced. 

hotmail.com, microsoft.com have a direct interest in the wellfare of IIS so you can hardly use those as an example.

I am totally pro GPL and opensource but this is a capitalist society!!

GPLed software stops the forming of monopolies, its EULAs that are anti-capitalist.

[seeplusplus]

hotmail.com, microsoft.com have a direct interest in the wellfare of IIS so you can hardly use those as an example.

GPLed software stops the forming of monopolies, its EULAs that are anti-capitalist.

586244645[/snapback]

I understand your point but I was trying to show that the domains are very stable and complex even with IIS.

Did you know that it is technically "illegal" for a linux user to play DVDs (I mean someone running linux and probably playing the DVD with mplayer or xine). Thats what I mean by "capitalist" they want you to pay money to use the standards. Redhat and SuSE (now Novell) cutout all the mpeg related libraries so you have to download and install them now seperately. They will not package it.

Anyway Im not an expert so thanks for being patient with me everyone. :)

[markwolfe Veteran]

Did you know that it is technically "illegal" for a linux user to play DVDs (I mean someone running linux and probably playing the DVD with mplayer or xine).

586245350[/snapback]

Not illegal in Norway, for sure. "DVD" Jon Johansen won his first court case, and the second (appeal) one, too. The verdict is no longer appealed, so it is, by court decision, legal to use DeCSS to play DVDs in Norway. (reference)

It has not been tried in any court (to my knowledge) in any other country. So, it seems to have an excellent prospect to fall under "fair use" in other countries. It may be legally gray or unclear, but it is not necessarily correct to say "illegal".

[Mike Douglas]

I understand your point but I was trying to show that the domains are very stable and complex even with IIS.

No one said they couldn't, we said they shouldn't ;)

Did you know that it is technically "illegal" for a linux user to play DVDs (I mean someone running linux and probably playing the DVD with mplayer or xine). Thats what I mean by "capitalist" they want you to pay money to use the standards. Redhat and SuSE (now Novell) cutout all the mpeg related libraries so you have to download and install them now seperately. They will not package it.

586245350[/snapback]

Government-imposed regulation isn't capitalism either. They are, in fact, the exact opposite.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

[Kestrel]

Well, I believe Windows has the basic flaws that make it more of a target for hackers and malware dispensers. Look at all of the patches and security fixes for Windows. I just took a random polling of folks here. No one has posted that they got a virus or spyware on Linux.......

Barney

586241915[/snapback]

What are these 'basic flaws' you're talking about? Specifics, please...

Don't kid yourself - that is the age old "Security through obscurity" argument. The fact is that the ONLY reason you don't have virii on Linux is because, frankly, no one uses it - Virus writers do what they do for one main reason... recognition. Why should they target a minute portion of users when they can target the vast bulk of users and get more bang for their efforts?

Software that does not have a steady stream of patches and bug fixes is NOT secure - in fact, it is likely to be more INSECURE. Consider Firefox... no bug fixes when it was a sideline hack not in general use. When it started being used by the masses the bug reports and fixes for Firefox were 8x what they were for IE over the same time period, often fixing problems that had been reported for IE months earlier.

[thechitowncubs]

What are these 'basic flaws' you're talking about? Specifics, please...

Don't kid yourself - that is the age old "Security through obscurity" argument. The fact is that the ONLY reason you don't have virii on Linux is because, frankly, no one uses it - Virus writers do what they do for one main reason... recognition. Why should they target a minute portion of users when they can target the vast bulk of users and get more bang for their efforts?

Software that does not have a steady stream of patches and bug fixes is NOT secure - in fact, it is likely to be more INSECURE.  Consider Firefox... no bug fixes when it was a sideline hack not in general use. When it started being used by the masses the bug reports and fixes for Firefox were 8x what they were for IE over the same time period, often fixing problems that had been reported for IE months earlier.

586246154[/snapback]

:blink: :sleep: :sleep:

[Mike Douglas]

What are these 'basic flaws' you're talking about? Specifics, please...

Users own binaries.

users are encouraged to run as administrator.

ports are haphazardly left open.

all the code is hidden and not audited by third-parties.

binary-only programs are extremely common so viruses have a lot of places to hide.

these binary programs are usually statically compiled (to avoid dll hell) but if a common library (such as libpng) has a security hole, all the programs have to be updated.

Package management (if you could call it that) in Windows is decenteralized so users must hunt over the internet for programs, this makes phishing extremely easy. You won't find viruses or spyware in a GNU/Linux distribution repositories.

Virus writers do what they do for one main reason... recognition.

The first severe linux virus outbreak sounds like it could make news to me. Guys like dvorak would love it.

Software that does not have a steady stream of patches and bug fixes is NOT secure - in fact, it is likely to be more INSECURE.  Consider Firefox... no bug fixes when it was a sideline hack not in general use.

The masses don't report bugs (just take a look at bugzilla's interface) or 99% of the bug reports would be "Firefox thing crashed, fix it". Firefox had more bug fixes because more third parties were looking over the code and the complexity of Firefox had greatly risen over the same period.

When it started being used by the masses the bug reports and fixes for Firefox were 8x what they were for IE over the same time period

Then by your definition, it should be more secure ;) Considering Firefox has never had a extremely critical security alert, while IE still has 20 out of their 83 security alerts unpatched (not to mention 30% of those 83 security alerts being extremely critical).

often fixing problems that had been reported for IE months earlier.

IE != Firefox. They do not have the same bugs.

[thechitowncubs]

Users own binaries.

users are encouraged to run as administrator.

ports are haphazardly left open.

all the code is hidden and not audited by third-parties.

binary-only programs are extremely common so viruses have a lot of places to hide.

these binary programs are usually statically compiled (to avoid dll hell) but if a common library (such as libpng) has a security hole, all the programs have to be updated.

Package management (if you could call it that) in Windows is decenteralized so users must hunt over the internet for programs, this makes phishing extremely easy. You won't find viruses or spyware in a GNU/Linux distribution repositories.

The first severe linux virus outbreak sounds like it could make news to me. Guys like dvorak would love it.

The masses don't report bugs (just take a look at bugzilla's interface) or 99% of the bug reports would be "Firefox thing crashed, fix it". Firefox had more bug fixes because more third parties were looking over the code and the complexity of Firefox had greatly risen over the same period.

Then by your definition, it should be more secure ;) Considering Firefox has never had a extremely critical security alert, while IE still has 20 out of their 83 security alerts unpatched (not to mention 30% of those 83 security alerts being extremely critical).

IE != Firefox. They do not have the same bugs.

586246223[/snapback]

nice quality post, congratulations (Y)

[Barney T. Administrators]

Indeed. Codemonkey explained it far better than I could! :yes:

Thanks!

Barney

[ichi]

The first severe linux virus outbreak sounds like it could make news to me. Guys like dvorak would love it.

586246223[/snapback]

True. The first moron that releases a linux virus that's able to spread massively will set a milestone no windows' virus coder would be able to achieve.

[dotRoot]

And as I've stated earlier Linux does have a very good chunk in the marketshare of webservers and a not-so-big, but ok share in 'other' servers. There is no way someone can argue its because 'nobody' uses it, when more websites are hosted on Linux boxes. That does not mean there are more linux servers mind you, just more virtually hosted ones.

What about SELinux where there isn't even a concept of a SuperUser/Root and you have to explicitely tell each file what other file they can even access? Is that not more than Windows without any arguement (not as flexible for the average person of course)?

My next question is. Again. Why would not ONE person not have written a virus for any Nix/BSD kernel/OS? Because they'd take down a lot of the internet if it spread. So why not again? How come no Windows users that use the marketshare arguement never reply to this question?

Remember, Windows guys, we aren't here to even argue which is better than what. We don't come to your boards every other week or so and post anything like this. This is a thread about "Is Linux Nearing Windows XP Usability?". In otherwords: Can the average joe use Linux. Not a "mine is better than your's" thread. We have enough of those here already.

[mr_demilord]

And as I've stated earlier Linux does have a very good chunk in the marketshare of webservers and a not-so-big, but ok share in 'other' servers. There is no way someone can argue its because 'nobody' uses it, when more websites are hosted on Linux boxes. That does not mean there are more linux servers mind you, just more virtually hosted ones.

What about SELinux where there isn't even a concept of a SuperUser/Root and you have to explicitely tell each file what other file they can even access? Is that not more than Windows without any arguement (not as flexible for the average person of course)?

My next question is. Again. Why would not ONE person not have written a virus for any Nix/BSD kernel/OS? Because they'd take down a lot of the internet if it spread. So why not again? How come no Windows users that use the marketshare arguement never reply to this question?

Remember, Windows guys, we aren't here to even argue which is better than what. We don't come to your boards every other week or so and post anything like this. This is a thread about "Is Linux Nearing Windows XP Usability?". In otherwords: Can the average joe use Linux. Not a "mine is better than your's" thread. We have enough of those here already.

586247112[/snapback]

I agree, I want to add something to this,

Linux is only the Kernel so we are comparing a Kernel to a complete Operating System so it is comparing apples with oranges.

I can only say is the averenge Joe Doe ready for Linux?

With Linux you'll need to have a pretty good computer knowledge.

But what I think, I think Linux is more then ready.

BTW I talk about the Kernel.

[David Scaife]

I've been stewing over this thread for a while now, and I think I'll reply this time.

Mr_demilord, I think it's been established that, when people refer to "Linux", especially in this thread, they mean the operating system. Yes, if you want to be pedantic, it is the kernel. But let's be realistic here. If you were talking about the kernel, then half of your post is redundant. That said, it does imply that Linux is so customisable that it is quite difficult to compare it to Windows, given that there is no one "standard" Linux system. You can have a basic system set up with no GUI, or with XFree86, or with X.org, and you could run KDE, Gnome, *box, enlightenment, or a number of other window managers/desktop environments. More than one on a system and, indeed, even multiple instances of them at the same time.

So, it all comes down to this: how do you measure usability? Is it merely where buttons and other widgets are located, or how easy it is to read the text in a window? Or is it how easy it is to get the system to perform some complex task? How easy it is to manipulate it?

Linux can be inconsistent at times, but it is usually nothing that ten minutes to half an hour (or a different program) can't teach you. That said, Linux can also be very consistent. It all depends on your choices, and how you want your system to be. In my experience, Windows usually does relatively well in the UI consistency department, but things can be quite cryptic and hard to find (and there are a few common programs that decide to go off on a complete UI tangent).

But for me, the command line is one of my most loved possessions. If I had to use a GUI for everything, how many clicks would it take before I could get a program to list all of the directories in a given directory which comtain over 5 MB, but whose name doesn't have "gcc" in it?

But usability is an extremely subjective thing. For a novice, the usability of a system might be simply being able to launch the web browser before lunch hour's up without worrying about whether clicking the blue thing will delete the harddrive. For someone a little more advanced, it might be all that and being able to find and modify certain settings. For someone like me, it means being able to make my system do what I want, when I want, with as much risk as I am willing to take at any time.

In that respect, Windows, in its current state, will never, ever be as usable to me as Linux is. In Windows, what can I do? I can install programs, I can use said programs, I can change a few settings, and I can reboot the computer. In Linux, I can do anything I want to the system. There is nothing stopping me from experimenting with, and learning about, the computer and what makes it run (and subsequently screwing it up beyond all repair), and that's exactly the way I like it. Windows just isn't at all usable in that kind of way. Every time I boot into Windows and try to get something done, it feels like I'm hiking up a mountain with a ball and chain hooked onto my foot while making friends with a boa constrictor.