Would you ever go back?

[YBG]

Er, I pretty much already went back to Windows. I just don't have the time to deal with Linux. I went to Linux only for like two weeks, but I just can't live without Windows.

[ichi]

For instance,you want to play video's, well just install Mplayer! Right! This may work on 2% of the formats out there. For instance it will not play avi's, wmv's, divx's, xvid's without going through 4 days of searhing user groups to see what codec is causing the problem  and try and correct.

How about just browsing the mplayer's web page? Almost every codec you'll ever need can be downloaded there.

I mean, did Linux ever bring out the PDA, Tablet PC, or a Compact Edition that can be installed on devices?

Yes, yes and... wtf is a compact edition?

There're several embedded distros, and you can make a custom distro in order to use it in any weird custom device, if needed.

[SunnyB]

Linux is good; Linux is great. BSD is wonderful.

But at the end of the day, when all the Linux fanboys

go to bed and dream of being the next Linus Torvalds

the world continues to run on Windows.

Don't give me any of that sh1t that Linux runs the

most secure servers or "....Linux is gaining on Windows..."

or "...so many big corporations and municipalities are

going over to Linux...". All exaggerated success stories

to make yourself feel better about a bad choice and/or the

fact that you can't, or won't, spend the money for a real

desktop operating system.

Go back to Windows? You're damn right. When play time

is over and you must go back to work, Windows is the OS

of choice.

Linux can't cut it in a production environment.

[j79zlr]

Right, it is much more productive to spend thousands of hours removing virus and spyware laden desktops................

[SunnyB]

Right, it is much more productive to spend thousands of hours removing virus and spyware laden desktops................

585795000[/snapback]

More exaggerated, Linux feel good, propaganda. Windows needs a

competent virus/trojan scanner. True. Linux needs none. Also true.

After this fact, once the system is secure, the production work is done

on a Windows based machine. Any other than that is a lie by those

that have the most to gain. Linux aficionados.

My only Linux machine that doesn't give me any trouble is the Debian

box that isn't connected to the internet. Strictly bookkeeping. That's

about the extent of it's usefullness. And the newest, the FreeBSD box,

a total waste of space. An electroninc boat anchor. A secure boat anchor

but still as wet. Next year will see the replacement of these three turds.

No one wants to work on them. The fact is, they can't. Nothing of value

can be accomplished on a linux box and if it doesn't make money, it's gone.

[David Scaife]

Linux is good; Linux is great. BSD is wonderful.

But at the end of the day, when all the Linux fanboys

go to bed and dream of being the next Linus Torvalds

the world continues to run on Windows.

[blah blah blah]

Go back to Windows?  You're damn right.  When play time

is over and you must go back to work, Windows is the OS

of choice. 

Linux can't cut it in a production environment.

585794926[/snapback]

You're posting your opinion as fact and anti-linux propaganda. Not a smart thing to do, especially in a Linux forum. Respect the choices that others make. You may think Linux is the wrong choice; but you are not entitled to speak for everyone. To be hosest, switching to Linux was the best thing I ever did for my education.

P.S. Isn't it ironic that you said "When play time is over and you must go back to work, Windows is the OS of choice."... and yet a lot of people here use Linux for work, and Windows for games... funny, that :b

P.P.S. I think we'd all appreciate it if there were no more provocative posts in this thread.

[Edit] Now you went and did it again! Please stop, and start posting intelligent discussion-oriented responses, before someone starts fighting fire with fire :no:

[Mike Douglas]

More exaggerated, Linux feel good, propaganda. Windows needs a

competent virus/trojan scanner. True.  Linux needs none. Also true.

After this fact, once the system is secure, the production work is done

on a Windows based machine.  Any other than that is a lie by those

that have the most to gain.  Linux aficionados.

My only Linux machine that doesn't give me any trouble is the Debian

box that isn't connected to the internet. Strictly bookkeeping.  That's

about the extent of it's usefullness. And the newest, the FreeBSD box,

a total waste of space. An electroninc boat anchor.  A secure boat anchor

but still as wet. Next year will see the replacement of these three turds.

No one wants to work on them. The fact is, they can't.  Nothing of value

can be accomplished on a linux box and if it doesn't make money, it's gone.

585795139[/snapback]

I planned a rebuttal to this post, but as I re-read it, there doesn't seem to be

anything here. I mean, wow, paragraph upon paragraph of pure crap. I sit

here shocked about the lack of evidence (hell, lack of anything) in your last

two posts. Please return with something concrete :)

PS. I did however find the smaller rows much easier to read and I'll probably

adopt that style. If only you could pose an arguement as well as you typeset.

[farmeunit]

I disagree with everything you post.? For the new user it might be hard to install software, if you don't read your distro's FAQ, but once you understand the package management system, it is usually much easier to install software than in windows.?

585794492[/snapback]

How do you get easier than double-click on file, and then hit next? Also there are different package management systems, and deciding which distro to use. I have had little experience with Linux myself, but will soon after I get my other computer back. I just don't see how it's easier. I will find out I guess:rofl:l:

[LaNcom]

farmeunit,

it's easier because: all software is installed and _completely_ uninstalled from one single place. On Windows, there are 37 different setup routines (Wise, InstallShield, InstallAnywhere, MSI, Nullsoft...), some applications use no installer at all, some add an uninstall icon to their menu entry, some are only available through "add/ remove software", some applications have no uninstaller at all, or they simply install everything as common files (that usually don't get uninstalled if you remove the application).

SunnyB,

sorry mate, you know nothing. Please, if you only intent to troll, go elsewhere.

BrentNewbury,

as already pointed out, Linux is available (and common) for PDA's, Tablet PC's, cellphones... It made your life even easier than you'd ever think Windows did, 'cause I'm quite sure you've dealt more than once with a Linux box without even noticing it (just about any Linksys/ Broadcom/ ASUS/ Buffalo router/ AP/ gateway runs on Linux, as well as several DVB receivers, stand-alone DVD recorders and a whole lot of other stuff).

Another thing is, if you're new to anything, you'll run into problems. That's the Nvidia drivers thing. Once you get used to the way stuff works on Linux, you'll have no problem. Most of the support request on this forum come from Linux noobs that just switched from Windows, so they are used to the MS way to handle stuff - and no, Linux is not a cheap Windows clone, it's a completely different OS, and it has completely different concepts. Having used Windows for a long while before switching to Linux only makes things harder. OTOH, with Linux, a lot of hardware works out of the box that, on Windows, will require you to hunt down drivers on the net, just to learn that the vendor is now defunct and there are no drivers for XP (I have some perfectly fine hardware with no 2k/ XP drivers - am I supposed to buy new stuff just because MS changed the driver API?), or that there are no drivers for Windows XP x64, or Windows on Alpha, or Windows IA64?!? All my hardware works perfectly on 64bit Linux, but half the equipment has no Windows x64 drivers available (not to mention IA64).

And believe it or not, there were quite a few people out there (myself included) that used computers at a time before Microsoft had any influence. And computers were quite usable back then...

[ichi]

Linux can't cut it in a production environment.

585794926[/snapback]

So you're an expert in production eviroments :laugh:

Go ask Pixar to ditch Linux and use your "real OS" :rofl:

[SunnyB]

I planned a rebuttal to this post, but as I re-read it, there doesn't seem to be

anything here. I mean, wow, paragraph upon paragraph of pure crap. I sit

here shocked about the lack of evidence (hell, lack of anything) in your last

two posts. Please return with something concrete :)

PS. I did however find the smaller rows much easier to read and I'll probably

adopt that style. If only you could pose an arguement as well as you typeset.

585796104[/snapback]

Autocad by Autodesk.

Current or near current version please.

Any distro. Nothing in an emulator.

Show me just one.

SunnyB,

sorry mate, you know nothing. Please, if you only intent to troll, go elsewhere.

Troll? Read the name of the forum, << insult removed >>. N E O W I N

Get it? "Neo W I N" "W I N dows" "W I N ner"

Maybe you're more comfortable with this? "L I nux as in "L I ar"

Now you can go elsewhere.

Edited April 19, 2005 by markjensen

[dmkov.ru]

i use XP and SuSE

Because they all get the job done in different aspects of computing.

[LaNcom]

SunnyB,

this might be Neowin, but this is the Linux forum...

And guess what, it's Autodesks fault that there's no Linux version of Autocad. OTOH, there are quite a few commercial high-end CAD systems available for Linux, so I don't really miss Autocad...

[Miuku.]

Troll?  Read the name of the forum

585796589[/snapback]

Yes, indeed perhaps you should:

Neowin.net > *nix Customization & Support > Linux/BSD/Unix Client

Comprendez? :)

[markwolfe Veteran]

Calm down people. I hate having to edit out personal insults out of posts. :crazy:

Currently, those who require a specific app that is only on one platform may be best suited to use that platform (at least during periods when that app is needed). There are some apps (I made a thread about AutoCAD just a few days ago, actually) that are needed by some people. At where work, we used to use something called RobCAD that was available for unix only. Obviously, for that case, Windows was not the proper OS.

So now let's get past focusing on the specific apps for specialized work, and let this thread resume its original intent of asking Linux users if they would ever switch back to a 100% Windows setup. If you want to discuss specific apps, or whose responsibility it is to port to a specific platform, please start your own thread.

And, on top of it all, stop resorting to petty generalizations or personal attacks.

[Boogiman]

Never.  Windows is hard, linux is easy(er) (and no, I'm not crazy).

585776663[/snapback]

What is so hard?

(windows user here)

[David Scaife]

What is so hard?

(windows user here)

585796860[/snapback]

I don't think he meant Windows is harder per se, but rather it is less powerful, less customisable, and/or less flexible in comparison to Linux.

[markwolfe Veteran]

What is so hard?

(windows user here)

585796860[/snapback]

I'm not sure what exactly MrA was referring to, but one thing is that once you acclimate to the 'different' way of package management (vs. Windows' various "installers"), keeping a Linux system up-to-date and current is effortless. Managing the various apps and keeping them current is a pain in Windows.

I find that the initial setup of a Linux system is usually quite a bit more work (most of it "learning", so once you are familiar it is quicker). The rewards come from using a properly set-up pc.

[Diffused Mind]

Managing the various apps and keeping them current is a pain in Windows.

585796948[/snapback]

Erm, what version of Windows do you use?

[David Scaife]

Erm, what version of Windows do you use?

585796957[/snapback]

It's a pain compared to Linux because of the inconsitency. Not all programs actually bother to put entries in Add/Remove Programs... actually, I swear I read a post on this topic elsewhere in this thread.

Edit:

Ah yes, here it is:

It's easier because: all software is installed and _completely_ uninstalled from one single place. On Windows, there are 37 different setup routines (Wise, InstallShield, InstallAnywhere, MSI, Nullsoft...), some applications use no installer at all, some add an uninstall icon to their menu entry, some are only available through "add/ remove software", some applications have no uninstaller at all, or they simply install everything as common files (that usually don't get uninstalled if you remove the application).

585796248[/snapback]

And I might just add in that there's no registry fluff in Linux. That thing can get really bogged down in entries that old programs have just left there. In constrast, a program's per-user settings are stored in files under users' home directories; easy to delete if a program is removed, or a user wants to reset all the settings or decides not to use said program any more.

Edited April 19, 2005 by scaife

[markwolfe Veteran]

Erm, what version of Windows do you use?

585796957[/snapback]

I don't use Windows any more. My wife does, however.

What I am referring to is that in Windows, each app is responsible for their own install/uninstall. There are a variety of methods for each vendor to choose from. It is very decentralized.

In Linux, using a package manager (such as apt-get, or the synaptic front-end to apt-get), you have a central place to update the OS, the underlying Linux kernel, plus all of your apps (firefox, konqueror, evolution, pine, celestia, OO.o, gimp, etc.). One click can make your entire PC current.

To do the same in Windows, you can do WU, but that is extremely limited in that it only does the core OS (for the most part). Updating every single one of your other apps is nearly impossible (and certainly impractical).

EDIT: n/m... scaife posted a nearly identical explanation..:whistle:e:

[crimson]

Ill continue to use windows as my main computer. For my day to day computing needs windows covers more than I need. Linux/BSD can do it all, but why would I switch? I cant play all the mainstream games in linux, and i am an avid gamer. Dual booting is pointless in my opinion. Linux/BSD is known for its stability, if i have to reboot every day cause i want to play a game for an hour, I see no point. I have 11 FreeBSD servers, i just SSH in for my access. I love BSD to death, I couldnt see myself working without it, but when it comes to pleasure ill choose windows.

When linux gets better gaming support its going to get a fatter kernel and this in my opinion is not where it should be going. *nix for servers, windows for desktops. Ive run slackware, fedora core 2, freebsd all as my main pc, but i just cant stand to have to switch back and fourth. Ill stick with windows and just SSH into my servers and get what i need done. Its truly the best of both worlds.

[MrA]

I don't think he meant Windows is harder per se, but rather it is less powerful, less customisable, and/or less flexible in comparison to Linux.

585796936[/snapback]

Thats partially what I meant. Customizing windows is painful. The command line in windows is extremely weak.

What markjensen said (about installing programs) is sorta right but mostly doesn't apply to me (I don't use a package manager). When I install a program, I put all the files into one directory heirarchy (depending on the program). When I wish to remove the program, it's as simple as removing the directory. Every file is gone. If I use windows on the other hand, files are often left behind and registry keys don't get deleted. Windows programs also like to scatter files around. Some in program files, others in the windows directory, and maybe other files in random places. Not good. In linux (or any other unix(-like) system), there's a very specific order to things. Program binaries in bin, system binaries in sbin, configuration files in etc, data in shared, changing data in var, libraries in lib and include files in include.

Another thing about linux is that every program on the system is available from the command line. That takes me two (very close) click to get to and then I can do just about anything.

In the end, I guess it boils down to the fact that I'm used linux. Linux makes sense to me, windows doesn't.

EDIT: To the guys that say that linux isn't/shouldn't be used in an mission-critical application, I agree. But then again, windows also isn't used. That area is and will continue to be dominated by AIX and Solaris. Both OS'es combined with their respecive architectures (POWER and SPARC) are mature and very reliable.

Edited April 19, 2005 by MrA

[Miuku.]

That area is and will continue to be dominated by AIX and Solaris.? Both OS'es combined with their respecive architectures (POWER and SPARC) are mature and very reliable.

585799393[/snapback]

Having used and administered Solaris (SunOS back then really) for a good 15 odd years, I have to say..

I'd rather use Linux (and mostly do) on most of my servers nowadays than I would use Solaris. The.. stability of SunOS is a concept I wouldn't want to discuss in any greater lengths, nor the quality of some of the software I have to deal with on a daily basis. :angry::

[darkz]

I'm on windows rite now. That's because I need a bunch of windows apps for my work. The only thing I really miss from GNU/Linux is a good, powerful terminal. I really like the skining apps on windows etc, but I think that I will just buy a MAC :ninja: