What's so great about Linux?

This isn't a trap. I've never used it but people who like it seem very devoted. I'm just curious what all the love is about.

I use Windows, so maybe you can tell me what the difference are?

and supported by a large development community.

Which crashed, a ~lot~ !. They tried linux and drum roll... it didn't crash! Plus it was free, as are most apps.

Open source and supported by a large developer base doesn't mean shit to a given end-user, in fact you can tell it's open-sourced because it just has an unpolished look to it. See OSX for what a complete development group including interface experts can do.

Personally I think XP Pro is the shizzy.

Assuming a user in the linux community cares, bug fixes for Linux come quickly.

With Windows or Mac, you have to wait for MS or Apple to sit down and fix the problem they created. Dunno about Apple, but MS ignores a lot of problems.

I also don't like OS X's interface. It's something a 6 year old might enjoy, but I think it's pretentious and tacky. It's too polished. XP's interface is just a memory hog and only 4 year olds would like it. It was probably created by a 4 year old.

KDE has a nice mix of polish and cutsiness. And its ability to be skinned without wasting resources is nice too, it's integral. XP's interface was just a slop-job coverjob and at times it shows!

A new computer user, if they encounter a bug, do they know how to report it? Unlikely.

If they get a patch, will they be able to install it? Equally unlikely.

I suppose they could rewrite the code themselves and recompile the kernel, uber-unlikely.

So the open-source aspect is pointless for "most" computer users, who want to "surf the web" and "read their email". They are better off letting M$ update their stuff with patches. Much less headache than command line patching.

(The other day I spent a solid hour teaching a user about how to copy files within a GUI, we didn't even get to just moving them, if she encountered a bug within linux, she would be just as screwed if she encountered it in Windows.)

They hate OS upgrades every 18 months that won't run their apps and are forced to buy new apps. These OS upgrades are designed to make money and so have a lot of bugs. Most people I know won't purchase a new OS unless the .1 release has been issued. Or the first (of many) service pakcs has been released.

Microsoft is a ruthless competitor and for some reason this puts off people who might want to try their hand at competing. Which explains the love Linux users have for it. Many of them are software developers who are actively involved in keeping it afloat.

With changing technology this can be a daunting task. Microsoft simplifies many things, usually not very well.

* Open-source. This means others can look at and modify/improve upon the source code. This can lead to improvements from one person that another couldn't think of. This also means that you're not enslaved to the corporate manufacturer of the closed-source program to wait for a fix, assuming they bother to fix it. Microsoft is notorious for forgetting about worthwhile repairs and improvements and instead are throwing in lots of new features, 90% of which you'll never ever use. That is beyond stupid and irresponsible.

* Speedy - apps and games run muck more quickly under Linux than Windows. QUake 3 and Unreal Tournament can be played in Linux at the highest of resolution settings using yesterday's technology while it runs MUCH slower on the same exact hardware. With today's hardware, Linux literally travels at warp speed!

* No registry. The registry in Windows is a large configuration file containing EVERYTHING. One little corruption and it's time to reinstall. Registry cleaning products can only go so far. And it is impossible to compress the registry once lines are removed from it. Again, it's more sheer sloppiness on Microsoft's part. If people knew how sloppy Microsoft was, I doubt they'd still be in business. Yes, they are that pathetic.

* Reliable file systems. ReiserFS is a more stable file system than NTFS. NTFS was promised to be robust and reliable and fragment-proof. On the contrary, it fragments FREQUENTLY and I've lost many a file because it is NOT robust. I always shut down properly, even after a program crashes. I still end up with chkdsk running and data getting "fixed" (which ruins it) or simply wiped.

* Secure. Unlike Windows' security, it's much harder for a standard Linux user to go around changing settings and deleting files that they're not allowed permission to have. Operating system files are kept seperate and are appropriately handled in Linux. It's just another messy shambles in Windows.

* Microsoft also supports TCPA. They use the guise of fighting piracy to support TCPA (trusted computing) but if you read more into this (www.thermodynamic-online.com/me/optionalpolitics.html) you'll see it's out to dominate and restrict freedoms, especially to potential whistle-blowers. TCPA is for businesses to trust each other. Individuals and moral citizens be damned.

Windows is sloppy hapzahardly written crap, pure and simple.

Linux exists, runs on existing hardware, is free for the adventurous or costs a very small amount of money for those who don't want to download everything off the net. I'd rather pay to get the distribution disc myself. SuSE contains the most bang for the proverbial buck and gets the highest ratings in UK and European articles.

..but I do professional audio and there's not a decent app yet... Plus, I can't even explain windows to dumb end-users. Even with spiffy visual interfaces like KDE, Joe Sixpack ain't gonna get it. gimme XP every time.

is to make them think they're seeing the whole linux interface (i.e., X) but only later introduce them to the command prompt. It's also a good idea to carry around a portable linux distro like Knoppix for emergencies or to go linux-convert-fishing.

In fact, just today my windows/system32/config/system file became corrupt, and because knoppix runs right off the CD, I don't have to destroy my hdd by repartitioning to see if I can find the answer.

Linux is cool. :)

Because Joe Sixpack doesn't get it doesn't make it "bad"!

I do!

I've got 3 machines myself:

1 for video capturing.

1 really fast one for video and audio processing.

1 for Linux, which is as fast as the a/v processing one but I don't have the ideal a/v processing apps yet. I would like because Linux is so much faster...

I also use vmware running a WinXP session, though I could have used Win2k to save on resources. :eyes: Runs remarkably slick on my box. Not the fastest at times, but it works and I can multitask better too.

switched to Linux a long time ago if they ONLY had a user friendly install system. Linux is (or...at least when I looked it carefully) very unfriendy in the installation process. Things may have changed since then, but I don't know.

...managers, but you still *usually* need to know something about your hardware, such as how to partition disks. Taking power *away* from users-- hiding the details-- just isn't consistent with the linux philosophy. That's why there will always be a market for Windows-- and a price to pay for using it.

It's still good to know some hardware basics, but SuSE is so intelligent that first-time installs are a breeze and (assuming the hardware is compatible), it takes LESS time to set up new h/w in Linux than it does in Windows XP.

Besides, I believe that a computer user should know how to use a computer. After all, you have to know the principle of a stove in order to use it. Of course, with a stove it's comparatively simple: "It gets hot, don't touch it with your hand" sums it up.

Personally, if I can know how a PC works, then anyone can.

Linux is better suited to industrial-strength computing, but it's got a steeper learning curve to match.

Linux is free or very low cost and cuts your ties to Microsoft. If you need to run servers, develop software, or use Unix-based programs, it's a good choice. If you want to do some web surfing or word processing, the payoff is not that great.

For everyday tasks I prefer OSX. Nice user interface and all the power of Unix underneath.

Linux suits me just fine for word processing and especially surfing. IE cracks even with 10 windows open. I can keep 20 (or more) open in Linux and not ever have a problem. Tell me again how the payoff isn't that great. :eyes: And with Windows emulation, I can do everything else if I need to. But generally I don't need it.

Indeed, with Linux I've got an Amiga emulator running right now, CD player running, 14 browser windows open, openoffice word processor and all of it is running in 1600x1200x24-bit color resolution and it runs slicker than snot on a doorknob in August. I'm sure a Mac would be just as stable, but I've done it all for $700. I don't think the low-end Apple could keep up, especially with the Amiga emulation.

Also, $1000 for a Mac would be comparable to a $300 PC.

My $700 PC has hardware that embarrassingly outpaces a $2000 Mac G4. (especially the video aspect; the Radeon 9000 that the higher end Macs use is blissfully outdated...)

Apple's got to lower prices before anybody takes it seriously enough to migrate to en masse. Or make a G5 well-equipped but without the insane price tag attached to it, which I guarantee will not happen. For everyday tasks, Macs are not worth the money.

And is it Unix underneath OS X or Linux? :evilgrin:

...computer user it probably doesn't matter much, as long as they've migrated off the Win98 variants, which crashed almost hourly if you did anything more complicated than just moving the mouse around on the desktop (ok, that's a wee exaggeration, but not much). And even for many "power users" WinXP has come close enough to catching up with linux's stability to be quite usable. Still, from a toolset perspective, Windows is like one of those neat little folding multi-tools, while linux gives you access to the whole machine shop.

I began "serious" computing, i.e. software development and scientific computing, back in the MSDOS and Win 3.x days, and System V UNIX running on Sun workstations was the best solution for serious desktop computing. I got used to the power and versatility of *nix systems when intel platforms were simply not viable alternatives and have never been able to think of Windows as anything but a toy OS since. The point is that in my case, I was very predisposed to switch to linux on intel architecture once it became reasonably mature. It still pisses me off that whenever I buy a new computer, I almost always have to buy a Microsoft license along with it, for an OS that I promply toss into the bit bin.

Much of the *nix power and versatility is now available on Win boxes, either by paying for proprietary software (expensive!), running the Cygwin or similar ports of OSF/linux tools in an emulated environment, or increasingly, by using ports of open ource software that run natively under Windows, i.e. TeX, Perl, and much of the Open Software Foundation's base toolset. But why use *nix tools to improve the functionality of Windows instead of just using them natively under linux? Even if there is a particular non-portable app that you need Windows for, it's easy to set up a dual boot machine, although when I do this I find myself RARELY using the Windows disk or partitions, which I ultimately come to regard as wasted storage. And the critical app gap is becoming VERY narrow, even if you're committed to Windows productivity tools and games.

There are still occasional hardware issues, especially with regard to dial-up modems, since virtually every PC sold with Windows includes a cheap Win-modem instead of a full hardware modem. The newest PC hardware still often comes with only Win drivers, and it can take a while for someone in the open source community to develop linux equivalents, especially if they have to reverse engineer them because of exclusivity agreements between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft.

Nonetheless, I'll stick with linux because it is a SUPERB development platform, it's rock solid stable, I'm just as comfortable with command line shells as with GUI's (and often prefer them, and most linux apps give you the choice), and I've way too often found Windows too confining when I want to do something but don't have an app to accomplish what a simple shell script will often do on a linux machine. Most of the tools I use daily were originally developed under *nix, and simply work better there. And of course, OS and most app upgrades are free, usually add SIGNIFICANT functionality, and are under constant development by a huge community of software developers and users.

And that's about it.

Oh, if you're puting a computer in every room of the house and a server in the garage, it's the best thing since oral sex for networking all of them together.

Otherwise, you get to pop a woody over how "That evil MickeySoft ain't gettin' none of MY money!"

I was gonna change over toit, even went as far as to buy a "distribution" of Red Hat and a "Dummies" book on the subject, and I stuck with Win2K.