10 reasons to choose Linux

[eilegz]

its free, its secure, a suppose to be all experience out of box

[MadDoggyca]

Installing Software has to be the most hoibble thing in the Link World next to have more then 1 Package manager.

Windows

Directory

X:\X folder\Xfolder (and soo on) your able to choses your installation location on any HDD thast mounted in windows.

LInux

hmm ya about that

Scatter Install In

/root/user/home/bin

/bin

/ect

/and soo on you can;t even tell it to install on another /mount/ect/ drive,

so if your main HDD drive isn;t big enough expect to run out of space quick trying to install stuff..

And sure you can mount any HDD in linux to any folder

IE sata01 Mount "/home/user/wolf

but thats just stupid and a wast of hardware

the real probleam with linux are the following

A) too many different Packermagers, .RPM,Deb, and many others. Untill linux Comuntily Decided to go 1 Package manger and 1 only it will never take off.

d) too many useless Distors. Once again this has to do with a) as well do we really need 50x .deb or 50x. RPM style Linux? (OSX has it right. 1 Unix version and thats it) <linux is based off of Unix so the commands are almost the same>

c)Lack of Controle over the OS. People say windows is far less giving then linux.. Hmmm linux you can;t even pick a installation Destination. Talk about lack of contral.

d) too many x11 (xstart) Front end Desktop Mangers. Dose one really need Grome,xfce,ice,KDE and many more.. Pick one stop all develment on others. to Improve the best one out of the bunch

f) way too many diffrent filesystem. Ext2/3 Raser FS and soo on. One again read d) for same there here.

And then you have the horrible Wine, Grub Manger, Lack of Driver Support, lack of Multi Video cards working as one (Xfire/SLI) Multi monitor support, AND the BIGEST STICK IN THE PILE LACK OF "APPS" and no Gimp dose not even come close to PhotoShop. (some have manger to get some of the above working but in the General Population this isn't soo)

The Fact that Linux is Open Sorues is the bigest down fall of linux gett anywere. A Crap load of people that can not agree on standers, Will release there own idea how a Linux OS should be. Leave every one else with a crap load Spin off and Distos. Well no real work gets done.

One only has to go to Distrowatch to see all the Garbage people have released (my fav, section is the Discontuned List.. Its getting bigger, Puts a smile on my face ever time)

Open Soures DOSE NOTE WORK!!!!!

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

Linux would benefit if apps behaved like OS X ones. Just have an Applications folder, and just a simple packaged app file instead of a directory structure like Windows. Drag and drop, that's cool. Not open terminal and mess about. Not cool. :p

[speedstr3789]

here is what I wrote on this paritcular topic on this thread:

Gripes about Linux

"Just tried puppy linux and ubuntu.

Wanted to run wireless. Puppy had my wireless adapter listed and the drivers were loaded but it never worked. (usb wireless). Ubuntu couldn't even see the wireless adapter.

Screwed around with that for longer than I wanted and never did get it figured out. I even have the wireless file on a cd but had no idea how to install them.

Whatever. Fine, I'll hook it up with the ethernet cable.

Everything is good to go.

Go to Hulu to watch some videos.

oops, needs flash player. No problem I think. Download 3 different flash player plugins for firefox. No idea how to install them. Except good news that the deb(?) package actually installed but it still said the plug in wasn't installed. WTF?

Now, here is what I had to do with windows doing the same thing (XP)

Plop the wireless usb adapter cd into the drive, setup starts automatically. a minute later the drivers are installed. Plug in my wireless adapter and windows recognizes it and sets it up. Surfing the web in under 2 minutes.

Go to Hulu to watch my favorite videos. Oops, needs flash player. Download the flash player plugin for firefox, it installs and I'm watching my videos within minutes.

THAT'S the difference between the two.

Now, I'm sure that there is a slight learning curve and I understand I do not understand the Linux way of things but I'm past the point in my life where I want to learn how to do all this crap just to get something to work. I want to plop in my cd and have it do what it needs to do by itself. I want to download a plugin and have it install and work. Linux doesn't do that. Or at least it isn't obvious how it's done.

Bleh. Every couple of months I tinker a little with Linux and I never seem to enjoy the experience. "

[Ruciz]

I donno, Both have their strongsuits.

I prefer linux as its free, and is snappier than windows for mediocre tasks. However, I can't do **** with bluray in linux yet. Which is a huge downfall.

Find it funny as my WDTV and Traxdata devices run a modified unix and play bluray ISO files no problem (abet no menus).. but I can't get a full distro to handle anything.

Installing programs is easy. its not as easy as MacOS but its getting very close. Installing distros is super simple now. hell you put the DVD in the drive, you end up with a working distro with Install Me on the desktop

[MadDoggyca]

other big Diffrence

http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=All&notbasedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Discontinued

295 Versions of linux Discontinued and Failed (theses distros coudl in thory still be upgrade to latest kernel if the user knows how to command line it)

Windows

2 Windows Version Failed. <Me/Vista>

Apple

1 OS Fail (OS Classic) <dos with dosshell 5.0 was more appeling then OS Classic in the very early days)

[sask]

I've given linux a shot in the past. Not for me. Windows 7 is easy. I've come to realize, there is nothing wrong with easy. It's nice when things just work. Believe me, it's not that I don't know or can't learn how to use linux, windows is just easier. I'm a fairly tech savvy engineer but I have better things to do with my time than try and learn a new OS. Sure it may have some advantages to windows, but the cost-benefit of my time just isn't there.

[LiquidSolstice]

other big Diffrence

http://distrowatch.c...us=Discontinued

295 Versions of linux Discontinued and Failed (theses distros coudl in thory still be upgrade to latest kernel if the user knows how to command line it)

Windows

2 Windows Version Failed. <Me/Vista>

Apple

1 OS Fail (OS Classic) <dos with dosshell 5.0 was more appeling then OS Classic in the very early days)

Vista was not a failure, you blind sheep.

[Quillz]

It appears that all of the articles are from 2007, But reason would suggest that its only improved over the last few years.

Just like Windows has improved in the decade since Windows XP, too.

[pers3us]

other big Diffrence

http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=All&notbasedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Discontinued

295 Versions of linux Discontinued and Failed (theses distros coudl in thory still be upgrade to latest kernel if the user knows how to command line it)

Windows

2 Windows Version Failed. <Me/Vista>

Apple

1 OS Fail (OS Classic) <dos with dosshell 5.0 was more appeling then OS Classic in the very early days)

Whats exactly the point with this argument?

[LiquidSolstice]

Whats exactly the point with this argument?

There is no point. He enjoys posting like an angsty 15 year-old with very Windows-centric comments and almost cuts and pastes his opinions from the first site he sees in Google.

[Silverskull]

Linux would benefit if apps behaved like OS X ones. Just have an Applications folder, and just a simple packaged app file instead of a directory structure like Windows. Drag and drop, that's cool. Not open terminal and mess about. Not cool. :p

You may want to keep an eye on this one.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/07/portable-linux-apps-run-your-favourite.html

:p

[SkyBon]

As for me Arch Linux works great. It is completely customizable as it is _you_ who have to choose apps for yourself. Complete self-care service.

In contrast, when I tried to install Windows 7 on my laptop for gaming my wireless refused to work. The only reason I have W7 on my desktop is for games. I listen to music, watch my films and work on Arch Linux in KDE desktop environment.

[Prince Charming]

Vista was not a failure, you blind sheep.

Arguably neither was ME. It wasn't hugely reliable, but truth be told in actual use it wasn't that awful either. It's been remembered in a bad light, but ME introduce a hell of a lot of stuff that's commonplace today (out of the box USB mass storage support, UPnP networking, WIA (exists as WIC today), System Restore, Automatic updates). I wouldn't brand it as a failure at all.

[speedstr3789]

As for me Arch Linux works great. It is completely customizable as it is _you_ who have to choose apps for yourself. Complete self-care service.

In contrast, when I tried to install Windows 7 on my laptop for gaming my wireless refused to work. The only reason I have W7 on my desktop is for games. I listen to music, watch my films and work on Arch Linux in KDE desktop environment.

I don't understand this "complete control" or "completely customizable" argument Linux users have. I can pretty much customize Windows and way I want. Another thing I find funny everytime I hear it is how great Linux is "but" I keep Windows around for gaming etc...". That just kills me.

[Pulgafree]

I didn't bother to read anything of that, since it doesn't include one main topic: DirectX

OpenGL or not, Windows is what it is because of DirectX and Hardware Support (Even with bad drivers since imcompatibility on new OS like Vista or 7)

[vajenc]

I don't understand this "complete control" or "completely customizable" argument Linux users have. I can pretty much customize Windows and way I want. Another thing I find funny everytime I hear it is how great Linux is "but" I keep Windows around for gaming etc...". That just kills me.

I do agree with you about gnu/ linux not really being a gaming platform. It's not impossible, but there are quite a few obstacles in path of gnu/ linux becomming a "true" gaming platform.

For me "complete control" and "completely customizable" argument as you call it, are the deal breakers why I use gnu/ linux. Being modular by design is a big advantage over windows os and that is also a reason why today it's possible to find gnu/ linux on variety of hardware. Modularity in gnu/ linux is much like playing with legos, you can basicaly let your imagination run wild. It's up to you to choose which part you want to put next to previous. Why should I have the wireless, ir, bluethooth, cam, printers support/ apps built in and installed by default, if I'm not going to need it? Sure similar effect can be achieved with nlite/ vlite by trimming the official iso (not sure if it is even legal, but it definitely is possible) of windows but the difference is hidden in the process. While with gnu/ linux I build from the ground up, with windows I am taking appart the whole system and while doing it, I'm risking breaking my system. I would really like for microsoft to refresh the installation procedure or make an option with alternate installer, where user can choose which drivers/ apps he wants to install by default. In the end you end up with a system that is built by you, it reflects your whishes, your vision and normally takes quite few extra mb of space less when installed. Just for clarification my system takes only 2 gb (root partition) of space, with all the software I use on daily basis (I know hdds are cheap, but it's still nice to see your system being light).

Also during the process of putting your system together you become avare of how things work (ins and outs of the system dynamics) which can help with trubleshooting and make you comfortable using command line interface (cli). Gnu/ linux is transparent by default, in case something goes wrong you can fix it, the code is there and you can be a lot more self reliant than on closed source os.

As far as "completely customizable" goes (I believe we are talking about modifying the looks of the system, and not the trimming the installer iso; discussed above) gnu/ linux is offering quite more options than windows os (not just wallpapers, themes, icons and docks). Gnu/ linux offers at least 4 desktop enviroments (de) and a bunch of window managers (floating and tiling). It's up to the user to choose what fits him most. System administrator may choose awesome or dwm wm (tiling) which helps him to be more productive, casual user may prefer kde or gnome, while someone with old hardware finds its happines with openbox, pekwm (the reasons may differ). Same as WMs/ DEs goes with icecream flavours, some like chocolate some strawberry some blueberry, choose what suits you best. Especially when talking about tiling on windows there is a lot of room for improvement. There is also bblean for windows but that is putting another layer on the default de of windows and is in collision with "being in control" principle. Some might say that all this writting about different DEs and WMs is plain nonesense because they all look butt ugly, where does it say we all care about transparency and other bells (estetics/ beauty is subjective) that are presented in windows 7 or OS X ui (and can also be achieved with KDE 4), in the end we have the luxury of choosing (funcionality over looks if you like:D).

The third reason why I prefer gnu/ linux over windows is the CLI. There is so much more cli applications running on gnu/ linux than on windows. I read/ send mail with alpine, listen to music with mocp, watching movies with mplayer, being on irc using weechat, for im I am using bitlbee, rtorrent covers my torrenting needs and all those apps are running in a screen session. I do however browse the web with jumanji or uzbl gui browser.

If X Server crashes (no more clicking gui) on me during update, I can still use all of those apps and read xorg man pages, edit xorg.conf, surf the web in cli, basically I have a fully functional system at my fingertips.

In case you are lending a helping hand to someone having a truble, it is easier to use cli commands, because cli is DE/ WM independent. No metter what the other person is using those commands should work. Cli is one of the rare heritage items of unix OSes, so instead all the hatred aimed towards cli usage, rather embrace its power and helpfullness.

At the end of the day use what suits you best, what you feel most comfortable/ productive with. OS is just a tool to get the job done.

[hodden]

Linux is producing best computer products in the world they well know about the customer demands.

[chrismgtis]

Few points I need to make.

1. Almost all of the reasons that Linux users claim that Linux is 'better', in fact do not make it it better, because they are not considering the fact that the average user doesn't understand as they do. Computers are a entirely different world for them. It's like trying to learn Japanese when you only speak English. Regardless of how 'easy' you think it is to install applications now, it actually is NOT for them for many obvious reasons. Watch the average user browse the list of Linux applications that they can install. It's a bunch of Greek. Seeing "Microsoft Office" in a list compared to "OOo_3.2.1_Linux_x86_install-rpm-wJRE_bn.tar.gz". Do you really think that makes it easy for them?

2. Security benefits - alright, well, what good is increased security in an OS that doesn't convince me to change over? Security alone is not enough reason. Besides, regardless of what Linux users will have you believe, it IS a FACT that if the majority adopted Linux as their OS of choice, it would become a target and would suffer just as harshly. Do you honestly think that just because someone switches to Linux their going to suddenly start deciding to update the OS regularly, update AV software so it's not useless, install security updates, etc? They sure as hell are not.

3. Wine is not easy to use. Accept it. Also, no one, including me wants to have to install Wine just to use the applications that they prefer. For the average user, unless you make it as easy as <insert disc>, click install or <insert disc> and find "setup.exe", they aren't going to prefer your method. Stop expecting the average user to become a guru and think like you.

I could go on and on.

[HawkMan]

As far as "completely customizable" goes (I believe we are talking about modifying the looks of the system, and not the trimming the installer iso; discussed above) gnu/ linux is offering quite more options than windows os (not just wallpapers, themes, icons and docks). Gnu/ linux offers at least 4 desktop enviroments (de) and a bunch of window managers (floating and tiling).

FYI, windows is also modular, users are just not generally allowed to mess with that, since they're not supposed to. an OS is supposed to just work without you needing to replace and do stuff with all the different backend modules. but windows has been fully modular since NT.

As for DE's and WM's yeah you can replace them on windows as well, as a reuglar user. there's a ton of shells for windows, some even the same as the linux ones, like blackBox for windows and such. I used to use them, untill I grew up and realized that, none of those Shells/WM's are very good for productivity or usability. even the linux ones, yeah sure you can make some of them look cool, or Awesome with fancy stuff everywhere. but in the end. the most productive shell I've used, is plain old windows.

I guess that's what billions in usability testing does for you. that free stuff just cant compete with. a programmers wet dream interface, is rarely a very usable interface for anyone else than him.

[Teebor]

I like threads like this, my personal experience with Linux so far has been :-

Crashed it within 5 minutes of having it running

Awkward to install apps, and too limiting to use the application downloader thingy (can't remember the name now if it has one)

And one version I tried took 30 minutes to connect to a WPA secured wireless network :( (I think that was Ubuntu) in comparison XP took about 30 seconds, and Windows 7 was instant, with Vista being slower at over a minute sometimes. These tests were done by having no configured wireless and then adding the connection for my wireless setup and waiting for it to connect and be useable.

However it was VERY fast in comparison to Windows XP on the same hardware, although boot times seemed longer.

I've tried, Knoppix, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Puppy, Puppeee (currently using still on my eee), DSL, and another I can't recall at the moment

Maybe not the best ones to try but thats been my opinion of it so far.

Oh and they were installed in different machines, I've used a normal PC, and Asus EEE and virtual machines at different stages of playing with Linux

[chrismgtis]

a programmers wet dream interface, is rarely a very usable interface for anyone else than him.

Exactly. I've tried plenty of them over the years and I always go back to Windows default shell.

[Southern Patriot]

Besides, regardless of what Linux users will have you believe, it IS a FACT that if the majority adopted Linux as their OS of choice, it would become a target and would suffer just as harshly.

No, it's not a fact, it is a hypothesis that Windows users love throwing around when talking about OS X and Linux (which have virtually nonexistant amounts of malware when compared to Windows). Proof of the fallacy of that idea is the FACT that Mac OS 9 and earlier, as well as the Amiga OS, neither of which ever had anywhere near the market share that OS X or Linux currently have, had huge numbers of viruses and other malware in the wild. That is something that the "marketshare=malware" people choose to ignore.

[chrismgtis]

No, it's not a fact, it is a hypothesis that Windows users love throwing around when talking about OS X and Linux (which have virtually nonexistant amounts of malware when compared to Windows). Proof of the fallacy of that idea is the FACT that Mac OS 9 and earlier, as well as the Amiga OS, neither of which ever had anywhere near the market share that OS X or Linux currently have, had huge numbers of viruses and other malware in the wild. That is something that the "marketshare=malware" people choose to ignore.

I don't play that "ride the band wagon" nonsense. I say it how it is.

I would say, you'll see. But Linux will never be at the forefront. Unless they really step it up and they have a LONG way to go before that's even remotely possible.

FYI. This is not 1999. It's 2010. MASSIVE difference when you're talking about viruses. Your argument against mine is invalid because you're talking about an entirely different era. The rules have changed immensely.

Even 2005 could have been defined as an incredibly different era vs. 1999. Things changed that quickly.

[Subject Delta]

These points, although the articles are outdated and mention WIndows XP, are all still valid when comparing Linux to current releases of Windows. Windows hasn't changed much when it comes to key features.

Security in Windows has improved ever since, but the same problems affect the Windows platform. It's a platform for the masses, no matter what measures are taken to make it more secure, it will always be less secure than other less mainstream OS's.

So I guess I imagined the part where they added DEP, Patchguard, ASLR, and file system protection to system files to prevent them being altered by malware then?

The vast majority of Windows infections are caused by viruses and drive by malware, and those attack the weakest link, the user. Very few Windows computers these days get taken down by OS exploits. If a user OKs an install, all bets are lost because once you allow access to something it could do damage. Most of the malware written for Windows could actually work every bit as easily on Linux and OSX if it where ported and a user where tricked into executing it and giving it admin privileges, so to make the assertation that there is something in Windows that makes it inherently more unsafe than any other OS is fallacious