I bought a new computer recently and was using vista for a while, before I got around to installing linux.

Every time I use windows and then come back to linux, I'm amazed at how much easier it is to get things done under linux. i can configure and tailor every aspect of my user experience. i can automate tasks easily. all the software i could possibly want is just a few mouse clicks away, and none of it is spyware, adware, virus ridden etc.

i had to download over a dozen programs to create a useful environment under windows, and it was all so time consuming and bothersome, with multiple windows to click through. the handful i had to download for ubuntu were done easily, and all at one time. plus, i was 100% confident that none of the programs had any malicious component to them.

all this, and my system seems to run three times faster with ubuntu than vista. i even turned off that bothersome virus protection, and most of the start up programs/services for windows for an afternoon, and ubuntu is still very fast compared to an unprotected vista machine.

i'm not really an ubuntu fanboy, specifically - its just that i wasn't sure if i would have driver issues and wanted to use the distro with the widest user base (in case i needed help).

turns out there have been no driver issues at all - even with a touch screen.

I've used them all unix linux redhat,...

and everyone has preferences

IM riding_dubz and im a PC

Unfortunately Linux is a great OS for those who want to learn more about Linux. It's not for the mainstream right now or for the foreseeable future. You can go through a lot of trouble sometimes just to set up simple things or get programs running correctly.

Oddly enough, windows is far, far worse when it comes to going through a lot of trouble setting up simple things and getting programs to run correctly.

Linux is not without its own annoyances, though, and one can spend a LOOOONG time cruising the discussion boards (about the only place to find support) to fix some problems. I finally had to abandon my 8 year old installation of a Red Hat distribution that ran under the old ver 2.4 kernel when too many websites broke the old Mozilla browser.

Too, most of the software one is going to use under Linux installs along with the distribution, so there's less to install and get working.

On the other hand, some of the software that you do get with Linux is worth about what you pay for it.

I hope Linux never does go mainstream. That kind of exposure would make it more of a target, and with the source code being no secret, opens it up to being hacked and configured for evil much easier.

-Kerry O.

Aries and Kerry,

I careless made a very serious error in my first post - talking about "Linux" as if it were an operating system. This may seem to bee needlessly pedantic, but: given the huge diversity of linux based distros - as well as the linux-based OSes that are very unlike the family of mainstream distros, the distinction is important. For example, Android is every bit as much a Linux OS as Red Hat is, despite the huge differences in these OSes.

People often talk up how secure "Linux" is, but this varies greatly with the distro. People often trash how user friendly "Linux" is, and this also varies greatly with the distro. In the OP I brag about how fast and efficient my 'Linux' OS is, and while I don't think there is a single Linux-based OS in existence which is as slow as Vista or Win 7, there is still a great deal of variation in efficiency amongst the many Linux-based OSes.



It seems to me that this kind of problem is worse under windows and macOS. Eight years without an OS or browser upgrade is impressive.



Of course we're talking about the more mainstream Linux-based OS distros, and...

I would agree that there is a serious problem with using the package manager as a software catalog - browsing it to see what one's options are. There are mountains of complete crap that is listed along with excellent software - and no immediately basis for determining the quality of the software. There have been web based solutions to this problem - Lindows once had a great site where packages were reviewed and rated by users. Klik gives you info on package popularity, and I've heard chatter of apt-url being used to create distro agnostic online catalogs that address this need (but haven't looked into it).

Aside from the annoyance of having so much crap show up in my package manager, I don't see the fact that crappy software exists as any kind of problem. There is far far more crap on windows and even on the iphone - but no sane person would consider the mere existence of this software as intrinsic problem with the platform - the real question is whether and how people can find the quality software they are looking for.

Here's an online software catalog for ubuntu. Doesn't have all the features I'd like, but if one is going to browse for software it beats using the package manager:

http://www.getdeb.net/updates/Ubuntu/10.04/?category=Internet&page=2

Something to keep in mind, also;
The software available in most (all?) popular distros doesn't just 'show-up' in the repositories. There is a certain amount of testing to be approved for inclusion.
But, with that, there is good and bad software to be had. It's a good thing it's so easy to get your money back for it.

Glad you're having fun, massagetrade!

It is until you consider that all during this time I HAD to run at least one Windows machine to run such things as AutoCAD and PCB routing software. Without them, I wouldn't have been working and would not have found free software coming to my rescue.

As in any technical discipline, it's all about choosing the best tool for the job. And sometimes, that tool is NOT Linux. And when you're really, really busy, you don't have time to fix tools that lack the elegance or utility you can't do without-- you just pick up the ones that do.

It's not a reflection on the tools-- perfection is the enemy of good enough.

I'm just sayin'...


-Kerry O.

This may vary with distro, but in debian it seems that the approval is almost entirely focused on stability and security....not usability, usefulness, effectiveness....




If I needed to use CAD, i would use windows.



"Just saying" indeed. I agree, have always agreed, and this fact is unrelated to my tremendous love for being able to completely configure, streamline, optimize, and automate my environment/tools.


----

Back to making generalized statements about 'linux' - many of the easiest OSes in existence are linux OSes. The easiest 'desktop' OS i've ever used was the one preinstalled on the very first netbook to be sold - the Asus EEE.

Ebuntu 9.10 :D

Myself, I commit the unspeakable evil of having Fedora Core and Windows on the same hard drive. :)

In re. easy installation, though, I have to point out the if you're using an LCD monitor like most people do, you may be greeted with a very frustrating "No support for this video mode" message bouncing around on your LCD when installing some distros.

And you want to talk slow? Try benchmarking the early Open Office suites against MS Office of equal vintages. Or run Adobe Reader 7 for Linux against an equivalent version on XP.

It's these little 'Not Ready for Prime Time' deals that keep Linux out of the mainstream. That, and the unavailability of some software on the platform. Or of drivers that exercise all the features of some hardware.

Let's face it-- if Linux had the be-all, end-all goodness sometimes attributed to it, just the fact that it's free would make it the most-installed operating system in the world.


-Kerry O.

Really you just have to know what you are doing. If you don't know, its a good experience to contemplate with, but its not made to be simple as click click, I acn run any program. You can't be puter illiterate

I don't know how hard it is to install vista nor 7, but in the years before this: windows was more difficult to install than most of the main linux distributions - as measured in mouse clicks and time spent in front of the screen answering questions.

This has never been a 'problem' for windows users in general, since windows comes preinstalled on most machines, and many users will upgrade their OS by simply buying a new computer. I've personally spoken to dozens of people who didn't even realize they could upgrade their OS without buying a new computer.




Odd how I've installed on a fair number of linux boxes (using, ubuntu, pclinuxos, knoppix, and kanotix) over the years - almost exclusively to machines with LCD screens - and have only ever seen this message (in a non-self-correcting circumstance) once about ten years ago. I think the os was debian.

What distro were you using?



Early open office had severe flaws, including this. I used abiword and gnumeric when vi wasn't enough. The fact that you think this is worthy of attention suggests to me you are either in a venting mood - of distant past frustrations - or looking to really reach for an 'argument' agaisnt linux based OSes.

Do you really think that the existence of bloated and kludgy software that runs on an OS is a flaw in the OS?

I think the existence of powerful and efficient software is a plus for an OS....the crappy software can be ignored.




I'm sure you are too smart to actually believe these complaints of yours have more significance to market share than both installed based inertia and the power of MS/Apple marketing.



You were talking about 'mainstream', right? I don't buy this in the least. You are correct about CAD, but your average linux distro has all the software needed by mainstream users. The better distros make that software pleasantly integrated, recognizable, accessible. Other distros use annoying cryptic names which makes it difficult for newbies to find the tools they need. This is not a flaw in the linux kernel, but a flaw in the specific distro that are so arranged.




...it would cure cancer, make you dinner and wash the dishes, end world hunger, do your taxes for you, change your oil, establish peace in the middle east...

Does the hyperbole of linux fanboys annoy you?

Let's cut to the quick-- what percentage of mainstream desktop machines run a Linux distro. I'm sure you can find that online somewhere, especially if you read Slashdot regularly.

Why does Dell charge more for a PC loaded with Ubuntu? Could it be because they know from experience that it takes a LOT more work on their part and they have to recoup the money for support issues?

I use Linux every day. In my professional life, I use everything from NT4 up through Windows 7 Pro on computers that monitor operations on a million dollars worth of major iron in a pc board fabrication operation. If I went to the owners and said "You know, we should switch to Linux because a bunch of people who live in their parents' basements say it's cool and MUCH better than Microsoft", I'd get laffed off the planet. I still remember the disaster we had when we 'upgraded' to OS-X on the data terminals on the floor. There are people who needed to use the system that STILL have to have crib notes listing everything they have to click on to get what they need from the system. Who would pay for the training to get them up to speed on a Linux distribution?

And as far as the LCD video issue, it was with Fedora Core 4 on CDs and a DVD that came with the "Red Hat Fedora and Enterprise Linux 4 Bible" by Christopher Negus, published by Wiley & Sons in 2005. The display on which the problem was noted was an Acer AL1716, of which Circuit City sold boatloads. Negus' book had scant little to say about the problem and I eventually just hooked a CRT monitor to it so I could get an X-terminal config window because I didn't have even an hour to spend researching it further. Anyone caring to check this out can duplicate this problem readily, so don't tell me it doesn't happen.

You want to believe and you don't want to hear about the problems because it weakens your case, so you just lob left-handed abuse at those who have the gall to rain on your parade. How useful is that? And do you understand that that attitude is turning people off from trying Linux more so than the problems? It's a great disservice to people to lure them with promises of easy use and when they have problems say "I didn't have this problem and Linux is great."


-Kerry O.

I really like Linux..but my problem is, I have to keep booting into vista in order to synchronize my Blackberry and updates and all sorts of stuff.

Same with my printer. IT just won't work under Linux at all, tried all kinds of drivers and searched the community for answers..so my main gripe about Linux is still lack of 3rd party support.

After more than a decade of using Linux (and occasionally some other *xes), wanting “the world” to share the fun in doing so, and often getting caught in religion wars, something pretty obvious dawned on me:

it's not a war, you don't have to pick a side.

Sure, each major platform has pros and cons, but given enough cash you can use them all for the best they can do. *Not* given enough cash, on the other hand, automatically solves the problem of ruling out one or maybe two of them. That leaves you with Linux and the BSDs, which are *excellent* operating systems for the price you pay for them, useful for lots of things, and even better than the pricey operating systems at some things (clearly, not all).

Freedom of choice is a good thing, why limit oneself to just one point of view?

(Of course I think Microsoft broadly sucks, but that's just my opinion and I'm fine with those who think otherwise as long as they don't try to impose their choices to me - trying to convince me that Linux is not great can get very frustrating, very quickly.)

Its been years since I visited slashdot for the sake of visiting slashdot. I do, on rare occasion, follow links to the site from google news or some other news aggregate site.

I took it as an assumed fact for this conversation that the installed base for desktop linux distros was low.



Could be, could be. Could also be that training new staff presents unique costs unrelated to the instrinsic difficulty of supporting the platform, or that the cost per unit is very different when the total number of units is high versus very low. Facts would be nice here; I certainly don't know the real answer.



I see this comment as further evidence that you are having your own conversation here. Maybe I should step out, and you can quote linux zealots here and argue against them.

Maybe my great love for speed/efficiency, complete configurability and safety from viruses/malware, has aroused your understandable frustrations with others who have vaguely similar enthusiasms?



Another excellent point that you've made in this thread.



Thank you! Thats what I wanted to know.



Um...where did that come from? Did you think that my statements about not experiencing any similar problem in the last decade was meant to imply that such problems simply don't occur?





Which case? The case that linux based distros are - generally - far more configurable than windows? That a larger set of useful software is usually pre-installed and pre-configured - without the commercial spam trialware? That package management (while no substitute for a quality software catalog) makes it extremely easy for me to install all the programs that I want, from a trusted source, all at one time? That, generally, ubuntu runs faster than vista?

Even while you make it explicit that you use both platforms, and you wisely assert that one should use the best tool for the job - you still, oddly, seem to want to treat this conversation as if it were a religious war.

Nothing that you've said 'weakens' my case - but I'm sure it weakens the case that you think I'm presenting.





I'm saddened that you see things this way. Maybe I owe you an apology. Will you direct my attention to the left handed abuse that I've lobbed?



Another excellent point that you've made - and its related to a error I've already acknowledged. Saying "linux is easy" or "linux is hard" is simply nonsense. Some linux distros are a pain in the ***. I've never installed slackware, but I've heard stories.

Ubuntu 10.4 is quite easy to use, and I highly recommend it. The linux distro on the EEE is the single easiest desktop OS I've ever encountered, but is not widely available in a pre-installed form. It would be sad if someone read my words and thought "Oh, gee, I want to go use the easiest desktop OS - I'll try 'linux'." Thats not how it works.

My story is that Slackware was my first distro, back in 1998. It wasn't hard at all to use but the lack of a proper package manager forced me to compile all the software that wasn't included on the original CD, and while it wasn't hard, it sure was time consuming. But I learnt a lot, then I switched to Debian which I found much harder to understand, but after the added complexity began to make sense, I never used another distro... until Ubuntu - which is as powerful as Debian, but can keep the complexity hidden if you want it to.

Just like OSX by the way.

I'll grant you that animated emoticons can be easily misunderstood.

When you said:



I completely agree with (what I perceive to be) your implication; I would take it even farther than what you said, as I found your words understated. I find some the pro-linux hyperbole (not my own! haha ) to be simply ridiculous, bizarre, and stupid.

I hope you weren't offended that I had a laugh at the expense of some completely irrational linux zealots.



My second use of emoticons was in response to the following statement, which I believe is coming from way out in left field.



I honestly find this suggestion absurd; if I had known that you had an objection to emoticons, I would not have used them. I'll try to remember that in the future. Are you offended by me using the word "absurd" ?

I don't deny that actual problems exist, I even implied in the OP that I expect there to be problems with the touchscreen drivers. I believe you think I am making a case which I'm not making.


I was expecting you might point out some serious insensitivity on my part....I hope I'm not being closed minded, but I'm still not seeing it.