digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

13 reasons why Linux should be on your desktop

desktoplinux.com — A technology marketing consultant, who last month published an essay titled "13 Reasons why Linux won't make it to a desktop near you," discovers why desktop Linux has thrived despite what he terms its "troubled childhood."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • schestowitz, on 10/17/2007, -23/+13So..... why doesn't Kim use Linux. Talk the talk, then walk the walk. Maybe he didn't try for long enough. He has extensive background in Windows and change requires time to pass.
    • ptFoe, on 10/19/2007, -12/+14surprised you didn't turn this to a boycott Linux thread.
    • Giga, on 10/18/2007, -7/+10In my opinion, there is only one reason why someone should install Linux on their desktop:
      1) Because they choose to.
      Linux is supposed to be "free as in speech", not forced down your throat. "You must install Linux" doesn't sound like free choice to me.
      • RoboDonut, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6Tell me where it says "You must install Linux"
        "Should" means that you can CHOOSE not to click the link if you are not interested in Linux.

        Microsoft is better at forcing their stuff on people than some people on the interenet.
    • DangerStepp, on 10/21/2007, -7/+4Hehe. That old dude's name is Kim.
    • kingkilr, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Number 1 reason? sudo apt-get update; sudo apt-get upgrade
  • puppy16, on 10/19/2007, -9/+30Who says I don't use Linux? Did you read the article? I've had SimplyMepis on my laptop for several months, have dragged all my files across from the Windows partition, I'm learning to use OpenOffice and Scribus ... what else do I need to do to walk the walk?
    Kim
    • Giga, on 10/19/2007, -15/+313 reasons why Linux should be on your DESKTOP. Sorry, laptops need not apply :)
      • srg13, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3Clearly people have trouble detecting sarcasm through written communication...
        • schestowitz, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1I got the wrong impression from his previous (very good) articles and thought that he gave up on Linux quite early. I'd say it takes years to get cozy with all the Linux applications and forget the Windows ones. I was there before... several years ago (about 5).

          My apologies, Kim.
    • dcherryholmes, on 10/17/2007, -0/+14I'm not really addressing the "walk the walk" comment, but since you are posting here, I just wanted to say thanks for the nice article. It's very easy for some of my friends to dismiss descriptions of positive linux experiences as coming from "zealots", so when a known Windows guy gives a review like this, I think it counts a little more.

      My only criticism of your article: you talked a lot about installing linux. You might have mentioned that Dell is selling linux pre-loaded (not worldwide... yet), and Lenovo and several other companies are going to do the same very soon. Installation is a big barrier, so that might be valuable knowledge for some.
      • wattersm, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4That requires buying a new computer, it's a lot cheaper (free) to just download an iso and burn it.
        • dcherryholmes, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Well sure. I've never paid for a box with linux pre-installed. But for a certain class of person it's key.
  • chazuk, on 10/31/2007, -67/+1571. Cost - I've already paid for Windws. What do i save now? It's like buying a car and getting the bus.
    2. Resources - I've already built myself a nice spec pc.
    3. Performance - Runs fine to me.
    4. No bloatware - I'm not stupid to install that "free" app and infest my pc with spyware. Firefox helps in this respect too.
    5. Security - Comon sense + AV helps keep my pc clean. I don't really want to open XXXSCREENSAVER.scr.exe do i?
    6. Dual Booting - Why do i want to dual boot? My Windows install does the same as a linux distro, plus all my games work. Why waste the hard drive space?
    7. Installation - Installing an OS is a pleasure now eh? No thanks.
    8. Reinstalling the OS - So i have to run windows update eh? Is that really such a pain?
    9. Keeping track of software - I manage to install all my apps. Typing in the odd cd key isn't too hard now is it?
    10.Updating software - Firefox updates itself, Office 2003 updates itself (With MS Update), Photoshop updates itself.... What is wrong with that?
    11. More security - I don't get this one. What does "Hard manual labour" mean? Insatall OS, Install AV make sure router firewall is on and don't b a fool with emaill attachments or warez.
    12. No need to defrag disks - Yes, somethign that i run whilst I'm in bed is such a drain... The HDD's keep me awake....
    13. A wealth of built-in utilities - Now here's a thought. If Microsoft decided to include a ***** of applications that could compete with the other progrmas out there would they get away with it? ***** no. Look at the trouble MS got in with including Media Player and IE with the OS. There's be antitrust calims and software companies would be sueing MS left right and centre.....
    Why did I reply with this? Because I'm constantly being told how good linux is and the time i've played with it has been fine, but why should I change somthing that works for me? Would Linux let me use my XBOX360 as a media center extender? Would it allow me to paly all the games I've paid for on my pc? What about all the software I've already bought?
    • freexe, on 10/21/2007, -5/+50It's not the OS for everyone, but I find I'm increasing installing on family computers as it's far easy for them to use (read: not break) and it's free.
      • merwin, on 10/21/2007, -18/+7unless they get the urge to play around with the terminal and break something beyond repair. Granted, they could do this with windows as well, but linux is just as easy to break as windows.
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/19/2007, -3/+11How is the general user going to break anything without obtaining "root"?

          Everyone except three people I have shown Linux to have adopted it at least partially. Those others are the typical windows user like the parent(no offense), which comes down to - "It works for me" mainly because he uses common sense - however, how many of the typical windows users follow this? How many times have you repeatedly(after explaining all about how virus', worms, malware, etc infects computers) had to remove the same things from the same computer because the users simply refuse to understand common sense. ..

          The average user will not change, because to them, all is fine and if their machine is a zombie - as long as they don't have to change their behaviour, they care not. Which is fine IMO, but when kids refuse to stop running with scissors, the least we could do is give them children scissors so they don't hurt themselves(and everyone else connected to the net) too badly...

      • RoboDonut, on 10/21/2007, -10/+281. That equates to "I use Windows because Dell tells me to"
        2. I absolutely hate this argument. Everyone always brings it up. "I have a nice PC, why should I worry about resource usage?" Because you spent good money on that nice PC, and you want to get every last bit of performance out of the hardware. You wouldn't buy a fancy car, then fill it with concrete so that it drives slower, would you?
        3. Use Linux with Fluxbox and some lightweight apps for about a week. When you switch back to Windows, you'll be surprised at how much less responsive it is.
        4. You've never had a driver come with useless configuration utilities and ***** to fill up your quick launch bar?
        5. Security is more of an issue for servers, but Windows is still really bad. Common sense doesn't protect you from everything. Windows does a lot without your knowledge.
        6. I agree, dual booting is stupid. Linux only on my desktop. I have all the powerful CLI utilities, all the usual media players, web browsers, IM clients, and games (yes, games) all arranged logically instead of that "***** GOES WHEREVER WE PUT IT. IT COULD BE IN THE PROGRAM'S FOLDER, IT COULD BE IN YOUR DOCUMENTS FOLDER, OR MAYBE EVEN THE REGISTRY! DYNAMIC LINK LIBRARIES GO EVERYWHERE TOO, A COPY OF THE SAME LIBRARY FOR EVERY PROGRAM! GOOD LUCK UPDATING THEM ALL IF AN EXPLOIT IS EVER FOUND" system that Windows uses.
        8. Four hours and six reboots might not sound like a lot for a single system, but when you're managing more than one, it's a complete pain in the ass.
        9. I don't think you've ever used Linux...
        10. It's not centralized. It's a ***** mess with every program using their own system. 75% of Windows apps don't even have an update utility.
        11. With those steps you still wouldn't be secure...
        12. This whole time you've been saying "how much harder is it to do X?" If you add up all these little things, you'll see that Windows is considerably harder to maintain. Defragging a filesystem might not sound like much to you, a Window user who only has to maintain one computer at a time, but it's blasphemy to those old Unix guys who have maintained many systems at a time.
        13. "Would Linux let me use my XBOX360 as a media center extender?" No, but it'll allow you to use it as a MythTV frontend, which is pretty much the same thing, but a whole lot better. "Would it allow me to paly all the games I've paid for on my pc?" Yes. I play Half life 2, Half Life 2: Episode 1, Half Life 2: Episode 2, Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Garry's Mod, Team Fortress, Portal, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind/Tribunal/Bloodmoon, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (with HDR lighting, parallax mapping, etc.) and Call of Duty in Wine, and I play Unreal Tournament 2003/2004, Quake 4, Darwinia, Defcon, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and (eventually) Unreal Tournament III natively in Linux. That's only the games I play, though. There's many more.

        Your entire post sounds like the ***** rantings of some kid who's never used Linux in his life.
        • slothlovechunk, on 10/19/2007, -10/+10My god you're useless.

          Your entire post sounds like the rantings of some linux fanboy who can't fathom someone finding windows XP not only useful, but more useful than linux. I've used linux at work for years. The GUI is slower than XP, the applications are not nearly as good, and it crashes more.

          I am all about using linux for things that you don't want a GUI for, but more people develop for Windows, and this usually means that a better app is available for Windows. Also, if the distro I install isn't faster than XP out of the box, I'm not going to spend hours or days reconfiguring things so that it is faster.
          • andycr512, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5"The GUI is slower than XP,"

            Maybe I believe you, though I certainly haven't experienced that - but it also does a ton more than XP. A more apt comparison would be Vista.

            "the applications are not nearly as good,"

            That is a matter of opinion.

            "and it crashes more."

            I call bull. Tip: Don't run betas. If you weren't running betas, well... I've -never-, in 4 years of using Linux, had it crash so badly I had to reboot. I had the graphics driver crash and not come back up -once-, causing me to restart, but I was pulling software right out of SVN so I got what was coming to me.
        • aaronm67, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7...if you build a nice spec PC, there's no reason not to use it. Fluxbox is a minimal window manager designed for low end PCs, there isn't really any reason to run it if you can run a full featured window manager.

          Also, Linux is no better about application installing (though it's getting better). Instead of "*****, where did that install to?" it's "*****, did it install to /opt or /etc? Were those config files in ~/. or the install directory?"

          And...Linux has updates too, and you will have to restart for some of them.

          And...it's easy to configure Windows to run maintenance automatically, just as easy as it is to configure automatic Linux maintenance.

          And, finally...XBox 360 vs MythTV isn't a comparison. Most people buy an XBox 360 for the console games, and the extra features (like being able to watch files from your computer shares) are really nice.

          You need to wake up. Linux isn't right for everyone, Windows isn't right for everyone. Some people have absolutely no reason to switch.
          • sacherjj, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3>> Also, Linux is no better about application installing (though it's getting better). Instead of "*****, where did that install to?" it's "*****, did it install to /opt or /etc? Were those config files in ~/. or the install directory?"

            What? I just select a repository install and let her rip. I don't give a crap where they go, because the only thing I need to worry about is config in /etc. When I want to remove it, I just uninstall. You can rarely do an complete uninstall in Windows, unless you want to pick through the registry.
          • RoboDonut, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Did I say it was right for everyone?
            I didn't.

            I don't like forcing Linux on Windows users or Windows on Linux users.
            What I can't stand is when uninformed people bash an OS they don't know ***** about.
          • aaronm67, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1it wouldn't let me reply to you guys separately, so I'll do it together.

            @sacherji
            Even if you use a repository, it's pretty likely that uninstalling a program is going to leave you with a bunch of useless library files. Also, it can be pretty tough to find where programs install their config files, because they are definitely not always in /etc.

            @Robodonut

            You're bashing an OS you know ***** about with weak arguments. Whats the difference?

          • andycr512, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1"And...Linux has updates too, and you will have to restart for some of them."

            No, only for kernel updates, which are few and far between.
        • RoboDonut, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3"The GUI is slower than XP"
          Which one?
    • Phocion55, on 10/21/2007, -13/+18Nice. I actually dugg you up....this is a well thought out comment with some content. Some points I don't necessarily agree on but whatever.

      It's nice to see something other than the third grade level "OMGLOL no gamez in Linux so Linux juts sux lol" comments that plague these types of threads.
    • kevyn, on 10/17/2007, -10/+11I agree - If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
      • immrlizard, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I think that the point that many have missed is that the current version of windows will expire. The new versions take much more memory and do not deliver any better or more secure of a product. This is where the option for using a version of Linux comes in. As they have already mentioned, it may not be good for everyone, but it is more then a suitable replacement for most people. I personally have switched over a dozen people over to it and all but one are still using it without any problems. They are what I consider typical computer users. None of the are "gamers" so they don't even know a difference except they are using programs that have different names then they are used to using. All of them are 50+ years or older and not what I would consider exceptionally geeky. I don't buy the whole "it is too hard to learn argument" I got a couple of calls or e-mails for the first week or two and now it is like they have been using it all along. Those were mostly because they didn't remember what program to use for mail and that type of thing. Microsoft has put out some decent products in its time, but vista is not one of them. For those not willing to buy another crappy piece of software that was only put out there to make more money for the microsoft folks there is an easy and free alternative. If they try it and don't like it they can then go out and buy a new machine and take the plunge into the world of vista.
        • sacherjj, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3That was my whole reason to try Linux waters again. What I found out is that I just don't miss Windows. In fact, now many things in Windows annoy me. But, each to their own.
    • bowens44, on 10/21/2007, -17/+31No one is suggesting that you should change if you're happy with what you have. Why do Windows users always get so defensive when anyone points out that there are alternatives?
      • NeonGod, on 10/18/2007, -4/+17Read the headline again.
      • RyanWilliams, on 10/18/2007, -8/+10Because of weekly articles on Digg trying to convince us to use Linux, invariably echoing the same things time and time again, perhaps? It also gets very tiring seeing comments such as "Windows. ;)" from Linux aficionados when you're seeking help with a Windows issue, which may be just play but really does grate after, say, a DECADE.
        • benitojuarez, on 10/18/2007, -5/+2weekly? try hourly.
        • RoboDonut, on 10/18/2007, -7/+4Good.
          We get the same ***** from Windows users.
          • consonance, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Really? I don't ever recall this story: "13 reasons why Windows should be on your desktop" or a Windows equivalent. Of course I've seen lots of stories advocating Linux and OSX, but the Vista stories have been few and far between.
      • lsweet, on 10/18/2007, -10/+5Probably isn't because windows users are getting defensive, but probably because every ten minutes there is another post about switching to an alternate operating system.

        Linux is great fun, I enjoy using it for my day to day activities. But seriously -- does every single linux article/blog in the internerd really need to be linked?
        • chrismgtis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1And you get dugg down by the Linux zealot hoarde.
      • chrismgtis, on 10/17/2007, -14/+61. We are tired of hearing about how this alternative operating system is "all the rage" and you need to SWITCH NOW.
        2. We are tired of hearing about all the "benefits" of switching to this OS, when the fact is, only idiots screw up what they already have, because it works fine otherwise. In which case, they are probably going to screw up anything else they have too.
        3. We want to actually use the software we already have and love, instead of retarded alternatives that don't do much, such as Gimp.
        4. Linux users are stuck up little children. Their opinion is the only correct opinion (in their mind).
        5. We're tired of reading about all these advantages of alternative operating systems which in reality, Windows already does in the hands of anyone that knows how to use the power button. Or problems that Windows has, only in the hands of a user with an IQ less than 50.
        • duhblah, on 10/17/2007, -3/+9So steer clear of the Linux/Unix section.
          • benitojuarez, on 10/17/2007, -10/+1its pretty hard to do when every other article on the front page is ZOMGORJD UBUNTU HERD BETA 1 SCREENSHOTS. UBUNTU HERD RC1 SCREENSHOTS. DITCH WINDOWS FOR LINUX IN 10 EASY STEPS. etc etc etc
          • duhblah, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I think I know what you mean, but I don't think this article has enough ZOMG UBUNTU to really qualify.
        • geoken, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6Lets see, we have a rational argument, honestly discussing the benefits then we have some guy who can't come up with anything better than "If you use Linux you're dumb". Hmmm, I wonder who the stuck up, close minded child is?
      • nixr, on 10/17/2007, -7/+4The primary reason Windows users get defensive is because Linux zealots are on the offensive. Read the headline for a prime example. Most topics posted about Linux imply that if you're not unhappy with Windows, you should be and they fail to acknowledge that most people are just fine with Windows and feel no need to change. Why would anyone care so much about what another person uses for an OS? You're starting to sound like Jehova's Witnesses and quite frankly it's more than a little off-putting. I don't mind informative articles but stop trying to convince everyone that they are using the wrong OS. And stop trying to validate your choice by forcing it upon others. This criticism, mind you, is coming from an avid Linux user. Because I know that matters to you.
        • kindwarrior, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5You know, oddly enough, my reason for looking at the comments at all was my intent to write a post about how I do not believe any flavor of Linux is ready to be called an end user OS; I've had my experience recommending Ubuntu to friends so that they can use GIMP and Open Office etc. instead of spending money on Photoshop and Office; Unless they are computer weenies this has proven to be a mistake. I hold out hope for Linux; I personally would love to have an Open Source platform and I do believe Ubuntu is getting better but there are more rough edges in the strictly open source Linux world than the community likes to acknowledge and the Linux communities blindness to it's deficiencies has proven again and again to be it's Achilles' heal.

          I use the Mac OS, primarily and by preference (I am much more productive at creating content on the Mac than on any other platform; It is much easier to build stable well polished apps on the Mac than on Windows or Linux -- of course, I assume Apps have user interfaces); I spend way more time than I would like in Windows; I don't spend as much time as I'd like in Linux but that's because I'm not particularly productive in either environment (BTW about 80% of my consulting is for Windows installed base clients so do not think this is a familiarity issue). I'm significantly less productive on Linux than on Windows but I like Linux and I like being able to geek around and, although I haven't really done so yet, the potential contribute to the environment.

          And, while I have had Ubuntu zealots rant about Ubuntu being just as good as the Mac OS (and sorry, it's not), I've never gotten defensive about it (in fact, in a way I think it's cool that there's another platform out there to get excited about). It seems it is always the Windows community that is whining about other operating systems, and flaming and attacking every hint that there may be other (better?) choices out there. I honestly (and I mean honestly; this will be insulting but it is an honest impression not meant to be an attack) have come to believe that on some level the Windows users (who complain about other OS posts, flame etc) realize that they lack courage and have made a deep moral compromise in their OS choice and are lashing out at those who remind them of their weakness.
        • slothlovechunk, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Are you ***** kidding me? Now we have a mac fanboy.

          A deep moral compromise? This is an operating system here, we're not deciding on capital punishment.

          I might use a mac if they didn't have their heads up their asses and they weren't so ***** controlling, because they have a good OS, but you can't buy it unless you buy their cheesy hardware and commit yourself to a life of buying more of it.

          I would use linux, but the apps and GUI are just not as good as Windows.

          I use Windows because the software can be had for relatively cheap if you know the right place to look, and it is the best stuff out there. It's just the easiest solution. Forgive me for not wanting to waste time and money on other alternatives and someone make a more 'moral' choice. wtf?
          • theaceoffire, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3I have tried both Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org.
            I prefer OpenOffice.
            I think Linux programs do a fine job myself.
      • geoken, on 10/19/2007, -1/+10I read the headline, it says nothing about switching. It's simply an article saying which answers the question 'why should I use Linux". The article is obviously written for the person who's in the position of choosing an OS for their next system. If that wasn't the case then the price arguments would have been omitted.
      • duhblah, on 10/19/2007, -5/+4Why push Linux? It's no different to listening to Microsofts 'get the facts' campaign, watching SCO sue IBM because they thought they owned Linux or having to buy a pc that already has a microsoft os installed when you don't want it. There is a war going on, and linux only stands a chance if people who seem to do Microsofts work for them (the ones that think that this is OK, the ones that don't understanding that even if they like their choice - it could and should be better, the ones who are devoted to Microsoft for no tangible reason) can be convinced to give Linux a try once in a while. Some people will read the article and think "Maybe I'll give it a try". The rest will just whine that everybody doesn't love microsoft as much as they do. Keep out of the Linux/Unix articles and stop whining.
    • benitojuarez, on 10/19/2007, -10/+4schestowitz's head is going to explode when he sees your comment.
    • bbear, on 10/19/2007, -13/+6Also Vista automatically defrags hard drives.
      • Dylan47, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12linux doesn't defrag at all, it doesn't need it, it stores data on the HDD in order to begin with.
      • smunsch, on 10/19/2007, -2/+7So can XP and previous versions, with some scheduling. But vista's defragger is horridly slow (contig takes less than half the time to do twice the space) and our energy bill is already high enough without me leaving computers on overnight
    • Altotus, on 10/17/2007, -2/+9Good point. For some people, Windows is good enough. XP is a very good OS, particularly for games (mostly by virtue of so many games written for it, not for any technical reason) and some Microsoft apps (ironically, some MS apps perform better on non-MS operating systems). Linux mostly appeals to the novice and the power user, not the in-between "Windows is good enough" crowd.
      Most non-profits and schools that use Linux generally cite legal reasons (simpler licenses, no issues with license accounting or transfer, no compliance auditing, no mandatory submission to BSA audits, etc.), customizability, and maintenance reasons (much cheaper and easier to centrally maintain). Most businesses either rely on it for server applications (better security and performance, more server apps, easier to customize and maintain), higher performance clusters, or for technical workstations (higher performance, more applications, better supports homogeneous environments).
      Linux seems to appeal to the power user, the novice user, and the institutional user. However, for the experienced user of Windows, it's probably not worth looking into unless you're looking for a job that might involve working with Linux in a corporate/instituional capacity or might get involved in international business (where Linux has become the lingua franca of computing infrastructure).
      • smunsch, on 10/18/2007, -4/+0So if you want games, dual-boot. Or get Cedega. Yes, if you want to get halo working in linux, it will take some finagling. But it is worth it to at least own the OS that runs on your computer. Because if something breaks, you can always write your own driver that works around the broken part.
        • Armitage2k, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5Wait, so now I have to write drivers for something that just works in Windows? Another benefit to Linux I guess... I get to learn to be a driver programmer!!
    • Schpariel, on 10/19/2007, -21/+551) No, you just paid for a specific version of Windows, you still have to pay for the next upgrade
      2) Your nice spec PC will be reduced to a low-spec PC in the next few years, and I doubt you'll be able to run the next Windows version because of the increasing resource demands
      3) See #2
      4) Yes, but you still have to worry about it, because Windows is insecure by design, and what about about modularity and customization?, can you change the GUI in Windows?, can you replace the kernel?
      5) Linux doesn't need any kind of AV, but you can use AppArmor for increased security if you're paranoid
      6) Vista need 20 GB of hard drive space, Linux can fit on 2 - 7 GBs (and even less than 64 MB), depending on distro, also you can easily install linux without a CD or a seperate partition: http://wubi-installer.org/
      7) Installing Linux is still faster, I would have a working machine before you start hunting for drivers
      8) Windows update can only install security patches and service packs, but can you upgrade to the next major release or have a rolling release system? no.
      9) I don't have to keep track of my software, I can update all my installed software and even core components of the OS with a few clicks, thanks to package management, and you don't need any software key with free software
      10) Can you update the NT kernel? can you update the shell? can you auto-update any other piece of software you have. This is impossible to do without centralized package management
      11) See #5
      12) On Linux I can choose my own filesystem, I'm not limited to the slow NTFS, we have Ext3, Ext4, ReiserFS and my others. All of them have good error correction and don't fragment
      13) Linux is modular, so you don't have anything built-in really, everything can be replaced, removed, installed or updated. You can't replace IE with Firefox on Windows, or remove Windows Media player

      Why did I reply with this? Because I'm constantly being told how Windows is good enough and the time i've played with it has been fine, but I'm tired of upgrading my specs for each major version and paying lots of money for upgrades & software to get a working productive environment, I realized that you can get the same (or better) on Linux for free.
      • over90000, on 10/19/2007, -20/+8I stopped reading when you said Vista needs 20GB of hard drive space.
        • Schpariel, on 10/19/2007, -5/+12It actually does, how about reading the system requirements for Microsoft's site?: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ...

          > 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
          • Tippis, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3...most of which you get back when the install is done.
          • Hacktivist, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4How about actually installing it and seeing it for yourself? I have Vista installed on a 9.76 GB partition with 1.46 GB free space. (And that includes half a dozen apps that don't give me the option to change the install path.)
        • netdroid9, on 10/18/2007, -5/+3Microsoft always overshoots itself with it's system requirements. I ran XP on a 233mhz PII processor with 256mb of RAM for years, with only the theming engine disabled. I can tell you now, Windows Vista doesn't need 20gb of HD space to function. However, I would say that you'd need at least 15gb of space to be able to use it for anything other than Solitaire and Word, if only because stuff takes up so much space these days.
      • willemmulder, on 10/18/2007, -4/+9totally true. Dugg up.
      • netdroid9, on 10/19/2007, -12/+21) You do have to pay to upgrade, there's no point in denying that.
        2) That happens to all computers, it's called 'releasing new hardware that deprecates the old hardware'.
        3) Your computer doesn't slow down over time just because it's using Windows.
        4) Not if you keep it patched and up to date. Which you do with Linux too, and any other operating system, for the very same reasons.;
        5) Linux doesn't need anti-virus because there aren't enough viri to justify it, if someone makes a virus it can just get patched in the kernel or wherever the exploit was located. This is okay for when there aren't a lot of viri around targeting your platform, but when there are hundreds of thousands of them being produced all the time, you're going to need specialized protection. Simple.
        6) No, it doesn't. 7 gigs, at the absolute max, just like Linux.
        7) Windows installs drivers automatically, the only time you really need to hunt for drivers is when you want to unlock device-specific features. Linux is the same, most distros come with pre-stocked OSS drivers, but you need the manufacturer's binaries to get the most out of your hardware.
        8) No, you can't, because Microsoft don't give away Windows for free. They could if they wanted to, but they don't because they want to make money.
        9) Yeah, presuming said software is in your repositories. Microsoft doesn't include package management software (although they do index commonly used applications for certain filetypes, try opening a PDF file without Adobe Reader and let Windows check online), probably because it'd be considered stiffling third party software and they'd get hit with an anti-trust lawsuit.
        10) ...Yes, actually. It's called Windows Update. As for third party programs, see #9.
        11) See #5
        12) You aren't limited to NTFS on Windows, either. You can use FAT32, and with a bit of hacking you can probably use any other filesystem with Windows-compatable drivers avaliable
        13) Firstly, you can remove Windows Media Player, it's an optional component (I think, I'm almost 100% certain you can remove it through nLite if you can't do it in the normal system installation procedure). Secondly, IE is just a wrapper for MSHTML (a system library), and besides which some 3rd party applications stupidly depend on it to function. Removing it would be like removing CMD.
        • Schpariel, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3
          2) Linux is scalable, and there are tons of Lightweight distros that can even run smoothly on a 133 MHz PC
          3) It doesn't but every new version of Windows demands better hardware, while not neccecarily offering better features (2000->XP, XP->Vista)
          4) Linux is designed for the ground-up to be a secure system, and any flaws are fixed and patched a lot faster than Windows (patch Tuesday)
          5) See #4, if you run a malicious program by accident, the worst case is that your home directory would be infected, also because linux runs on a plethora of architectures (PPC, i386, etc.) it's extemely hard to write a virus that works on all Linux machines
          6) http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ... - and Linux fits in much less space than 7 Gigs, depending on distro and installed components
          7) Proprietary drivers can easily be installed on desktop distros like Ubuntu using the restricted-manager GUI which notifies the user of the situation a gives him the option of installing it, everything after that is completely automated
          9) Paid software is not needed (in most cases) under linux, but proprietary software and components are included in the non-free repository (on Debian) and multiverse/restricted on Ubuntu
          10) You can only apply patches and fixes to the NT kernel and core components, can you update NT5.1 in XP to NT5.2 ?, no
          11) See #5
          12) FAT32 is ages old and even worse than NTFS, and you can only mount ext2 partitions on Windows if you use beta-quality 3rd party software
          13) Unlike Windows, Linux is 100% modular, everything is a compenent, and everything can be removed or replaced.
          • aaronm67, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Every OS is going to require a better system as time goes on. If systems are getting more powerful, there is no reason not to take advantage.

            Yes, there are some lightweight distros...but you wont get the feel of a "modern" operating system with them, typically. If you want to run the Compiz/KDE4/etc, you will need a modern operating system. Also, same with space requirements. Sure, PuppyLinux doesn't use much space, but it also misses out on a lot of features. A standard FC7 install pushes 6gb.
        • sacherjj, on 10/19/2007, -2/+4"2) That happens to all computers, it's called 'releasing new hardware that deprecates the old hardware'."

          Actually, old hardware still works how it was intended. Microsoft has a history of deprecating hardware (which in itself isn't a problem) for no new functionality (which is the problem.)

          "3) Your computer doesn't slow down over time just because it's using Windows."

          Soory, but this is wrong. If you have ever installed programs and uninstalled programs over a year or two of using Windows, IT DOES SLOW DOWN. Because Windows stores program information in 20 different locations and it all doesn't get cleaned when a program is uninstalled. The registry was the stupidest move made by Microsoft. In Linux, I have home directories on a separate partition as the OS. If I decide to try a different distribution, all my config and data for Apps is still there. No registry patching, etc. If I delete a program, I use the package system and either tell it to remove prefs or just delete the .named folder and it is GONE. If you have not has a Windows system slow down, you are not a real power user of the system. I'm now on a system that I can be a power user without slowdown.

          "4) Not if you keep it patched and up to date. Which you do with Linux too, and any other operating system, for the very same reasons.;"

          Because there are never zero day exploits that are live before patching is available.

          "5) Linux doesn't need anti-virus because there aren't enough viri to justify it, if someone makes a virus it can just get patched in the kernel or wherever the exploit was located. This is okay for when there aren't a lot of viri around targeting your platform, but when there are hundreds of thousands of them being produced all the time, you're going to need specialized protection. Simple."

          Linux doesn't need Anti-virus because the system security is designed in a way that the only damage that can be done to the system is the users files. No access is granted to a virus to anything else. This is also why people don't bother to write viruses for Linux. The big payoff isn't really possible.

          "7) Windows installs drivers automatically, the only time you really need to hunt for drivers is when you want to unlock device-specific features. Linux is the same, most distros come with pre-stocked OSS drivers, but you need the manufacturer's binaries to get the most out of your hardware."

          It seems like this is the case, but I've spent at least twice the time trying to find drivers just to get hardware working in Windows than Linux. However, I call this about even because of the rare hardware that I didn't research before purchasing that won't be supported at all in Linux.

          "9) Yeah, presuming said software is in your repositories. Microsoft doesn't include package management software (although they do index commonly used applications for certain filetypes, try opening a PDF file without Adobe Reader and let Windows check online), probably because it'd be considered stiffling third party software and they'd get hit with an anti-trust lawsuit.
          10) ...Yes, actually. It's called Windows Update. As for third party programs, see #9."

          You explain why it isn't done on Windows, but this is still inferior to Linux's (specifically Debian's) package management.

          "12) You aren't limited to NTFS on Windows, either. You can use FAT32, and with a bit of hacking you can probably use any other filesystem with Windows-compatable drivers avaliable"

          NTFS is the only FS even close to being worth anything. I can read/write to NTFS from Linux. Wouldn't it be cool if I could easily/cheaply read/write to EXT3 from Windows? But it would require a "bit of hacking". I thought hacking was only required for Linux?

          "13) Firstly, you can remove Windows Media Player, it's an optional component (I think, I'm almost 100% certain you can remove it through nLite if you can't do it in the normal system installation procedure). Secondly, IE is just a wrapper for MSHTML (a system library), and besides which some 3rd party applications stupidly depend on it to function. Removing it would be like removing CMD."

          So I have to "hack" the system to remove Media Player. Sounds like something that if required in Linux would be serious ammunition as for why Windows is better.
          • Tippis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1"Linux doesn't need Anti-virus because the system security is designed in a way that the only damage that can be done to the system is the users files. No access is granted to a virus to anything else. This is also why people don't bother to write viruses for Linux. The big payoff isn't really possible."
            Uh, yes it is. It just takes a whole lot more work to elevate the privileges. People have been doing this on Unix-workalikes for the last 30 years, and Linux is no different.
      • dev3, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2Who the hell is digging you down?
      • STKD, on 10/17/2007, -5/+91) No, you just paid for a specific version of Windows, you still have to pay for the next upgrade

        You assume he paid... Fine. If someone has Vista installed now, they can always keep it. If not see you in 5-10 years. Not that much of a hassle.

        2) Your nice spec PC will be reduced to a low-spec PC in the next few years, and I doubt you'll be able to run the next Windows version because of the increasing resource demands

        Your nice spec Linux box has the same problem. You think Linux in 5-10 years won't need more resources? Ah of course, you can keep it. Just like Windows. The reason we have increasing demands is also that we have these things called "games". They're optional, as is upgrading to play them. Many of us choose to stay up to date with them, many don't.
        3) See #2

        See response to #3.
        4) Yes, but you still have to worry about it, because Windows is insecure by design, and what about about modularity and customization?, can you change the GUI in Windows?, can you replace the kernel?

        Can you change the GUI? Well, yes you can. Vista, Server 2003 (and 2008) and XP are all extremely tweakable. The difference is that unlike Linux, it at least HAS a consistent GUI in the first place. If you really want to go crazy, throw Stardock or something similar on there.
        Why would I want to replace the kernel? We have drivers for new and old hardware and our kernel works just fine and shiny.
        5) Linux doesn't need any kind of AV, but you can use AppArmor for increased security if you're paranoid

        I haven't run AV software on my Server 2K3 or XP machines for oh, three or four years now. Hardware firewall, software firewall plus the always beneficial fact that I am not a moron. Viruses do not just appear without something stupid being done first, and complacency of having an OS you think won't be targeted won't help you either. Still if it makes people like you feel better to think there's some kind of epidemic...
        6) Vista need 20 GB of hard drive space, Linux can fit on 2 - 7 GBs (and even less than 64 MB), depending on distro, also you can easily install linux without a CD or a seperate partition: http://wubi-installer.org/

        Last try, I fit Vista into about 3-4. vLite does the trick. 2K8 Server takes up even less. Even Ultimate "only" requires 10-12. If you want to argue distro size, I have a custom 2K3 from a while back that's a 70mb iso and fits in 1-200mb HDD space. Or I could make a personalised livecd as I use on my laptop. I also remember hearing the problems reported last time there was a digg thread about wubi.
        7) Installing Linux is still faster, I would have a working machine before you start hunting for drivers

        Distro dependant, just like any OS install. Besides, us Windows users tend to rarely have to reinstall. Last I tried Vista it took barely 20 minutes. Then there's the fact our OS isn't revised every few months. :P
        8) Windows update can only install security patches and service packs, but can you upgrade to the next major release or have a rolling release system? no.

        Haven't tried myself but fairly certain Vista can upgrade exactly like that with a new key iirc. Bang goes that argument.
        9) I don't have to keep track of my software, I can update all my installed software and even core components of the OS with a few clicks, thanks to package management, and you don't need any software key with free software

        Yay. You can use the equivalent of Windows Update then. Well done. Extra software? Still have to install it just the same. If serials are such a problem to reuse once or twice every few years, you have far bigger issues. Still, Linux, reinstalling every few months. Now that would be a pain...
        10) Can you update the NT kernel? can you update the shell? can you auto-update any other piece of software you have. This is impossible to do without centralized package management

        No. Not that any of us has any need to anyway. I think I already covered this above. Oh... protip? You'll find just about every app these days will have an auto update system. This isn't something new.
        11) See #5

        See response to #5. What did you run out of arguments?
        12) On Linux I can choose my own filesystem, I'm not limited to the slow NTFS, we have Ext3, Ext4, ReiserFS and my others. All of them have good error correction and don't fragment

        Don't even get me started on that filesystem nightmare. Come back when you guys have consistency nailed. Incidentally if it's so much faster, why does OpenOffice still take *FAR* longer to open on a Linux install on the same hardware?
        13) Linux is modular, so you don't have anything built-in really, everything can be replaced, removed, installed or updated. You can't replace IE with Firefox on Windows, or remove Windows Media player

        Completely and utterly wrong. Check out vLite, or any decent tweak app, or XP "N" or.... I could go on. I will promise you a customised XP/Vista/Server is far, far easier to create with those than a custom Linux distro. Less chance of breaking it too.
        • Schpariel, on 10/17/2007, -1/+31) Eventually, that version will reach it's end of life cycle and you won't get any security patches, making your system totall vulnerable
          2) Linux is scalable, there are distros than can even run a 133 MHz machine (DeLi being an example), and you will still get all the important security patches and updates.
          3) See #2
          4) I'm talking about the whole desktop environment, not just the skin, in Linux there is KDE, Gnome and E17, Xfce if you need something lightweight, and stardock cost money, whereas Linux has a completely free alternative
          5) Writing viruses for Linux is hard : the worst case is that your home directory would be infected, also because linux runs on a plethora of architectures (PPC, i386, etc.) it's extemely hard to write a virus that works on all Linux machines
          6) DSL (Damn Small Linux) fits in 50 MB. And is a completely function Debian system
          8) You can do minor updates, but you can't do a release upgrade (XP->Vista), and you can't update any core components either (NT5.1->NT5.2)
          9) Windows update doesn't update or manager 3rd party software, and you almost never have to reinstall if you don't fool around, you can keep Debian stable updated with the latest security patches for years.
          10) Still, having a centralized app management system helps a lot (especially if you have lots of apps)
          12) It takes long to load because you have JAVA enabled - this is not an I/O problem, turn off java and do ( http://www.zolved.com/synapse/view_content/28209/H ... ) ... and it'll fly, also people need different filesystem for different workloads
          13) Yes, but you still can't change the desktop environment nor replace the kernel, In Linux, I can easily build my system from a barebones distro like Arch, and it doesn't break at all.
      • chazuk, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2***** me Schpariel, lovely reply.
        I do understand the advantages of open source software. Firefox and Filezilla are 2 OSS apps i use on my PC.
        What does amaze me about the serial number issue is that i type in my serial for whatever app, click next a few times (agreeing to some horrid EULA's, I know) and my app is instaled. I don't have to type a load of text into a terminal to get something to work or to install drivers which i'd find alot more annoying than typing one serial.

        Anyway +1 to yourself for adding to a debate without resorting to "Windoze suxxorz" type replies that the internet is riddled with. (This also applies to the OSX Suxxorz, Linux suxxorz and Workbench suxxorz crowd)
        • qwuinc, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Mhm. On Debian, for most applications, you actually need to write just one command (or click with your favorite package manager). No EULAs. No serials. Only very few applications ask questions when being installed, and those are mostly server software.

          I do agree that you may need to use terminal depending on what you are doing, but everything casual the package managers take care of things. I don't really understand why people are scared of the terminal, though. After all, copy-pasting few commands from a howto is often much easier than doing the same thing with a GUI (there's the old joke about some hardware shipping with advice sheet on how to get it to work on linux/windows, where the linux part was a few lines and windows howto several pages with screenshots).
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 10/18/2007, -14/+22Sorry for assisting the devil’s advocate here, but here are 13 reasons Linux is *not* on my end-user desktop and won’t be anytime soon:
      No QuickTime, no iTunes (yeah, blame Steve, I know).
      No Dreamweaver.
      No TextPad.
      No (current version of) FrameMaker or "Help and Manual" (Technical documentation authoring).
      No FileMaker.
      No Cubase (Professional Sequencer).
      No Total Commander.
      No Trados (Translation Suite).
      No AutoHotkey (user-friendly macro recorder).
      No Picasa, no Paintshop.
      No Premiere (Elements) or other slick video editing apps.
      No Outlook (and syncing tools for Nokia mobile phones).
      No Half-Life 2.
      (Yes, I own all these apps/tools and use them on a daily basis.)
      And *no*, I can’t work with half-baked collections of tools that may have *this* or *that* subset of the features I need - and/or require me to learn bizarre GUIs. (I am not saying that all Linux apps are like that, but whenever I poked around bootable distros, this was the impression I got from anything beyond OpenOffice.)
      And I find it tiring that platform advocates keep ignoring the fact that users do not work (at least not much) on operating system level. We don’t give a sh*t about the OS as long as it is fairly stable.
      We work with apps. See above.
      • willemmulder, on 10/21/2007, -3/+24"No TextPad", come oooon.
        There's a GUI for everything, Picasa just works, Quicktime movies work, for the others, there are replacements.
        Have you tried Linux lately?
      • Schpariel, on 10/18/2007, -2/+11
        Quicktime works with some work http://www.wine-doors.org/screens/ss-operaqt.png , iTunes is almost there ( http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=1347 )
        Dreamweaver has good alternatives like Nvu and Quanta, and it still works on Linux to an extent ( http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=v ...
        Textpad has good alternatives and also works with WINE ( http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iAppId=85 )
        Konqueror and Krusader are much, much better than total commander and TC works on WINE if you're too attached to it.
        There is no need for AutoHotKey, as everything can be automated using shell scripts.
        Picasa has a native Linux port: http://picasa.google.com/linux/
        GIMP(shop) can be alternative to Paintshop, depending on your needs
        Half-life 2 almost runs on WINE as well http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=v ...

        Most of the stuff you listed either:
        1) Works with WINE
        2) Has a good alternative
        3) Is not needed under Linux (autohotkey)

        So, even if you are attached to these specific apps, and won't accept alternatives, Linux still has a good chance of becoming your desktop because of native ports (hopefully) & WINE. I won't be suprised if all of that works after 1-2 years.
        • netdroid9, on 10/17/2007, -5/+1WINE's good, but in my experience it was a bit complex to set up. I own a copy of Office 2003 Pro ($25 second hand, wouldn't have paid retail (or even academic) price if my life depended on it), and WINE just didn't want to work with it. CrossOver Office ran it like a breeze though. Maybe if more distros came with it preconfigured it'd be easier to use.
        • Schpariel, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2@netdroid: For things like that there's wine-doors: http://www.wine-doors.org/wordpress/ - they made good progress with Office 2003 and it'll probably work in the next release
        • saturn5, on 10/18/2007, -3/+6Most people are "attached to these specific apps" and others because they are far superior to the Linux alternatives. GIMP is not a replacement for Photoshop, Nvu is not a replacement for Dreamweaver, and so on. That's like saying a bicycle is a replacement for my car. And most people are not going to spend hours screwing around with WINE trying to get their Windows apps to work on Linux. It's just not worth switching to Linux. Which is why it still only has 1 or 2% desktop market share, despite being completely free.
        • Doriath, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"Picasa has a native Linux port"
          No, it doesn't. Google distributes the Windows version with WINE as a "Linux Compatible" version.
          • aaronm67, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1...what's wrong with that?

            Google released a version of WINE designed to work flawlessly with Picasa, so the only disadvantage is a small performance hit.
      • daftman, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5What kind of idiot list Textpad as a prime reason to stay on Mac?
        There's ***** 10 billions text editors in Linux that would beat the ***** out of Textpad.
        Picasa works on Linux and so does Half-life.
        Evolution sync with Nokia phones.
        Dude it seems that you are attached to the actual software title itself instead of the tools to perform your job. You might as well say NO MacOS in Linux.
      • wattersm, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1All of the stuff you listed has alternatives that are just as good, or better. If you really want to run windows apps there's no reason you can't set up vmware or xen and run a virtual machine, you could also just rdesktop to your windows machine when you really need it.

        If you're happy with Windows fine, don't switch. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
      • connieLingus, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2uhh...I was sorta cheering you on until this...

        No Dreamweaver.

        Dreamweaver should be immediately deleted from anyones computer.
    • polyGone, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Competition helps produce better quality products. If people don’t support any other operating system, then the two main OS’s have a lock down on the market. Supporting an OS OS (is that right?) will show them that we want choices. It also shows software companies that that it would be worth it to port their products to *nix. I find that the core operating systems are far superior to their proprietary counterparts, but the software available, while plentiful, isn’t up to par. I don’t mind paying for something, as long as it does what I want it to do. For instance, I use 3DS Max for modeling and Maya for particle systems. I paid for both, but use one on Linux and one on Windows. If Autodesk didn’t port, I would have little to no reason to be in Linux….other than web browsing…..

      I guess I am just rambling here, but the point is thus: If we support Linux, it betters our chances of getting software companies to write for it. Personally, the only thing I need is CS3. If Adobe would port, I’d giggle myself silly…..

      So, do it for me. Yep, that's it..............................................Use it for me.
    • felyduw, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Regarding your answer to #13:
      MS got in trouble because either application was tightly integrated and non-linear to uninstall. So your comparison doesn't seem valid to me because every application pre-installed on every distro of linux is easily uninstalled.

      I do agree with your opinion though. If it works for you, why change? That's why I run linux, others run osx and you run windows.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Whats funny is that as consumer Linux adoption has risen, I have seen a lot more longtime Linux/Windows power users and developers like myself move to Windows and MacOS (using terminals like SecureCRT to servers for unix use).

      I am currently working on a contract with a top 20 unix-based website that has been around forever, and *EVERY* unix developer is running Windows or MacOS at their discretion with terminals to the development servers - just a handful of unix desktops in the sysadmin area.

      I see this in unix shops all the time, except when there is a legacy of mirroring a current copy of the production environment on the developers workstations and pushing out the code from there as a defined workflow (which I never recommend, in some of these shops I see the developers spending up to 30% of their time maintaining the mirror vs developing new code).
      • wattersm, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1OS X gives you the best of both worlds. Unix is great for servers, it also makes a nice desktop OS but sometimes Windows or OS X are better for your needs.
      • brundlefly76, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I though so too so I bought a MacBook, but Darwin was much further away from Linux and even FreeBSD then I had anticipated, so it didnt make for a very appealing development environment.

        But you're right different strokes fro different folks is the only true mantra of the best OS debate.

    • andycr512, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6"No Half-Life 2"

      http://i24.tinypic.com/256crk9.png (HL2 runs perfectly as well)
      • wattersm, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Meh, who needs it? Unreal Tournament has a linux version, Quake Wars is coming out soon and the next version of Unreal should also have a linux port.
        • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1True. I mostly just play UT2k4. However, I do like the occasional surf session in CSS.
      • yogiri, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1If you need to run a Windows emulator to make linux useful, why should I uninstall Windows????
        • andycr512, on 10/21/2007, -2/+2If you need games to be useful, I'd hate to see your definition of useless. Also, Wine isn't a Windows emulator. It's an implementation of the Windows-related API's on top of Linux.
    • daftman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3I think this post is past a certain threshold where people actually read before digging up. I'd say around 40 diggs
    • Gavagai80, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5If you don't encounter anything you dislike about your current operating system, then sure, keep using it. XP may well meet your needs, it just didn't meet mine. On the other hand, the people who spend their time complaining about their OS should give a few alternatives a real chance.
    • PRlME, on 10/18/2007, -5/+1You guys need to stop that Linux is free *****. I dont promote the use of warez but lets be for real this is Digg I know where 90% of you got your WindowsOS from, and dont say you dont do that stuff cause when the HDDVD code hit Digg it was all over with thousands of diggs.
    • doolittle, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1>why should I change somthing that works for me?
      >Would it allow me to paly all the games I've paid for on my pc? What about all the software I've already bought?
      >6. Dual Booting - Why do i want to dual boot? My Windows install does the same as a linux distro, plus all my games work. Why waste the hard drive space?

      We all have different needs. You describe many that would be a good reason to stick to windows, I really have no idea why people think they HAVE to switch completely 100% when they read articles like this one - you don't have to it is a choice! And if you do try it, there is absolutely no reason to have both running in a heterogeneous environment. My game box (dual core, 2gb, etc) runs windows for very similar reasons you describe (yes I still play games). It has no problem connecting to my linux file/print server. It also has no problem connecting DHCP to my linux firewall / gateway under IP Masquerade. I even put VMware workstation on it so I can test out appliances and a variety of linux distros. My question to you is why waste all the power a modern PC can offer under a single OS? An entire network can run on a single box if you desire. Your answer will be you don't want to.


      >Would Linux let me use my XBOX360 as a media center extender?

      I also have an old desktop PC that has a tv-out and no hard drive. It boots GeexBox off the CD rom and sources media over the network. My solution is my choice, I would call your choice vendor lock-in.


      >5. Security - Comon sense + AV helps keep my pc clean. I don't really want to open XXXSCREENSAVER.scr.exe do i?
      >11. More security - I don't get this one. What does "Hard manual labour" mean? Insatall OS, Install AV make sure router firewall is on and don't b a fool with emaill attachments or warez.
      >9. Keeping track of software - I manage to install all my apps. Typing in the odd cd key isn't too hard now is it?
      >10.Updating software - Firefox updates itself, Office 2003 updates itself (With MS Update), Photoshop updates itself.... What is wrong with that?

      These are things the "average desktop user" has many problems with (yes even common sense). They want to install whatever they like without thought of consequence. When things go awry they will take it to the Geek Squad if they cannot find a person of our experience to fix.


      >7. Installation - Installing an OS is a pleasure now eh? No thanks.
      >8. Reinstalling the OS - So i have to run windows update eh? Is that really such a pain?

      Many times I have seen hardware / software corruption this is inevitable. WGA has made this much pain for "average desktop users" who have had hardware / software failures and had contractor work to have a reinstall WGA labels as "non-genuine". An advantage linux has, it just needs to have a list of packages and they system can be "fresh installed" to it's original state. If a backup of the users' home directory exists you are finished. Windows needs a complete partition image to be restored. Several times I have heard stories of MS techs themselves tell customers directly to reinstall windows since they are having many problems, too many to resolve even for MS techs.





      • bamapachyderm, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1One minor point:

        "These are things the "average desktop user" has many problems with (yes even common sense). They want to install whatever they like without thought of consequence. When things go awry they will take it to the Geek Squad if they cannot find a person of our experience to fix."

        And the "average desktop user" who has problems with auto-updates should try Linux?
        Eh, I don't think so. What those people need is Windows with crappy AOL, like my techtarded mother has. Linux would be a disaster for them.
        Honestly, until Linux is easy enough for my mom, it's still going to be a niche OS.
  • crichton101, on 10/17/2007, -7/+18To be honest there is one thing that keeps me from getting and using linux, and that's the inability to easily play many computer games on it. That looks to be changing as time goes on, but currently it's not exactly an easy fix. I can download wine or another program that will help me but they're aren't 100%.
    • mckooiker, on 10/17/2007, -3/+8Ok, thats is for now a good argument (and one of the few good ones) to vote for windows. It is indeed changing fast with quake, UT and the older games (like WIII) that already run on linux.
      • yessuz, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1yeah.. that's kewl.. to buy a new pc and to play 10 years old games for which win98, 500 pentium, 64 mb ram and voodoo II would be enough...
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/17/2007, -4/+3Or you can buy a PS3 or Xbox and leave computers for computing.... Just a thought.
          • theaceoffire, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Or buy a PS3 and install linux to it, getting both...
        • benitojuarez, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3computer games have been around since before the nes
      • credence, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Also a good many newer games are starting to see ports: Think Enemy Territory, possibly Steam related stuff (though that's blatant speculation at this point), etc.
    • Anoobis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3That was one of my reasons but as they're releasing UT3 for linux I might have a go at switching. The only other thing is using custom buttons and dpi on my logitech mouse. I use all the buttons during web browsing (swapping through tabs and closing tabs) and to have that taken away will be very annoying.
      • Greywhind, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1It's possible to set custom buttons and DPI for most mice - I did so for my Razer Diamondback - though depending on the distro you might have to use a text config file. I've heard it'll get easier (as everything about Linux is these days).
    • Dylan47, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I once hesitated for the same reason, but as i aspired for a career in programing i knew i had to get familiar with linux and playing games was placed as a much lower priority.
    • daftman, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2There's not much games release for the PC anyway. Most games are on the consoles. Eventually you will get past the PC gaming days and use it more for work than games.
      • witebuddha, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2wtf kind of statement is that? 'youll eventually stop playing pc games anyway!'

        /prefers pc fps over console fps hands down
        • daftman, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I quote myself so you can read it properly "Eventually you will get past the PC gaming days and use it more for work than games."
          I think you kinda jump all over the place when you read.
      • Greywhind, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I disagree. PC gaming is much more interesting to me than console gaming, and I don't see that changing.

        And there's no doubt that gaming on Linux is becoming more and more viable - I can only think of a few games that I can't play on Linux that I'd actually consider buying.
  • hackerdiggo, on 10/17/2007, -5/+5http://digg.com/linux_unix/25_Reasons_to_Convert_t ...
    check tis out to find more reasons
  • brstilson, on 10/21/2007, -27/+91 Reason Linux should NOT be on your desktop:

    1. Nobody makes games for Linux
    • baalzebub, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4computers are can be buggy & troublesome pieces of crap no matter what OS is on them is the very reason i don't use computers for games, i rather use a dedicated game console (sony playstation on a large LCD HDTV)...
      • Kratisto, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Enjoy your inferior control methods, getting raped in the ass by your patron company when it comes to online, having no access to the custom content that has made PC Games live on for years past similar console games, and having to totally upgrade to year-old technology every five years when you can keep up by occasionally buying a new PC component every two.
    • ScottyMcBaggs, on 10/21/2007, -1/+26Some people actually use their computers for things other than games.
      • chrismgtis, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2Very true, but most of those people also don't like Linux.
    • Melenor, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12Wine/Cedega run all my games just fine, from World of Warcraft to Half Life 2 to Bioshock. Compared to my Windows machine, I don't even see a frame rate stutter (unless compiz is running at the same time). I've never been happier on a computer than I am with Linux running, playing my entire game library.

      In other words, no one makes games for Linux, and as far as I'm concerned, they don't have to.
      • brstilson, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Cedega is not free. With windows, I don't have to buy a program that will allow me to play games, and then hope to God it works on my particular hardware setup.

        I've tried Cedega. It didn't work.
    • cbrunet, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9Ummmm...http://digg.com/linux_unix/Quake_Wars_Linux_Demo_R ... ...?
    • willemmulder, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7you obviously didn't ever try to find them as well.
      There are a lot of them, including most Windows games via Cedega/Wine.
  • zhlimnick, on 10/21/2007, -17/+19writer obviously is a linux fanboy, even i as a mac user disagree with some of the points made up, like all da gibberish about taking days to install windows. bullcrap.
    • mwalker05, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4thats not what he said. he said by the time you get all your apps and settings put back how you like it can take days, which is true. from experience it generally takes a few days after a reformat to get windows the way i like it.
      • vvelox, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2that is true for any thing you don't have backed up
      • CrazyZ, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Bull. I use autocad, office2007, visual studio 2005, quickin, firefox, avg, utorrent, dvdshrink, paint.net, google earth, picasa, plus a slew of network administrative applications. Just did an install on a new pc. Total time including the gazillion patches was about 4.5 hours start to finish. I've spent longer than that getting my sound card to work with OpenSuse 10.1
        • daftman, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I guess you just have a ***** sound card.
    • daftman, on 10/21/2007, -1/+2It does take longer to install Windows than Linux. Pop in an Ubuntu CD or an OpenSuse 10.3 CD and you would be done under 30 minutes. WIndows literally took hours. And that doesn't include hunting for drivers.

      What do you mean by "even I"?
  • linksus, on 10/21/2007, -4/+13It already is.
    • skidooer, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1It was several years ago, but then I switched to OS X.
  • mvent2, on 10/18/2007, -16/+14What's with all the clueless Microsoft fanboys trolling the Linux section all of a sudden?
    • lsweet, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4By 'trolling the Linux section' do you mean 'reading the front page'?

      Because if it is, then you're right... I guess they are.
      • RoboDonut, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1They're trolling, regardless of whether this is on the front page or not.
        • exeprime, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Truth is all these "why linux pwnz ass" articles are just straight-out annoying. It it weren't for these retarded articles every other day, maybe i'd actually try it again. But honestly, stop trying to convince everybody Linux is gonna save the universe and stuff like that. It has plenty of flaws (or let's just call them "less perfect points"), and for many of us, there are just as many reasons why using linux simply isn't really appealing.
  • digitalghost1, on 10/18/2007, -4/+4When Dell invited comments/suggestions to their Idea Storm I voted for having systems with Linux to give people more choice.
    I had the choice between getting relatively low maintenance low cost system that does a lot bundled with many apps (LINUX under any distro) and a much higher cost system able to play the latest games and initially a few hurdles to deal with because things were just getting started (VISTA and its drivers).

    In the end I choose Vista because I wanted to game and I didn't want a stagnant console. But up until that point I had a low cost pc with Ubuntu.
  • Digibull, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4I am curious about Linux but ill only get it when I get around to buying a new PC. No point bining an OS I've already paid for. As chazuk said, it's like buying a car and taking the bus.
    • Dylan47, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5its like buying a car and getting a private jet.
    • theaceoffire, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1Not to mention, you can dual boot.
      Its like buying a car and getting a drag racer too.
    • Gavagai80, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1You'd have to be a serious risk-taker to want to buy the computer with no experience at all with the operating system you're getting. Considerably less than 100% of people who try linux end up wanting to stick with it, so it make a lot more sense to do a test run as a dual boot or on a spare PC before commiting.

      This, in fact, is the main reason I'm unlikely to ever try Mac OS X. I can't justify spending the money when I estimate a very significant probability that I'd just end up wiping the hard drive to install linux.
    • p0ss, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Its like buying a car and fixing a bus
  • SoCalMario, on 10/21/2007, -18/+4Reason why NOT to run Linux

    Which one? Mandrake? RedHat? Ubuntu? etc. Etc., Spend countless hours trying to find drivers to make anything work, runs smooths till AGAIN you need to go on a safari to find drivers AGAIN.

    Mac or Windows is the way to go because while you are busy tweeking your system every 5 mins to get ANYTHING to work, I'm on then net, begin productive with anything else on my Mac.

    have fun!
    • cbrunet, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10Its obviously not for everyone, but to say you need to spend hours hunting down drivers is just you being ignorant. Ubuntu has made HUGE STRIDES in including compatible plug and play hardware. My MP3 works natively in Ubuntu, but I have the hardest time getting it running in Windows. It works both ways, I've had to track down my fair share of Windows drivers as well.

      As for MAC, well, I hope for the price I'm paying it all works fine. Sweet science.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I fully installed a FC6 system on a PC that chugged on XP with SP2. A complete format, install, updates and running within 2.5 hours. Complete with all DVD codecs, MP3 support, etc, etc, etc, etc..

      It found every peice of hardware I had, printers, scanners, camera's, my treo, etc, etc.... While all they also work from XP - I needed disks for the scanner, camera and treo. Not so with FC 6.

      I believe you're working on a much outdated assumption.
    • willemmulder, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9You fool, I recently installed XP again, NOTHING worked out of the box on my laptop.
      Installed Ubuntu, EVERYTHING worked out of the box. Yes, really everything.
      • Tippis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Now, was that the original, 5-year old XP, with no recent drivers slipstreamed into the install (to make the two equally modern), or one that was decked-out with the latest releases? If it was the former, then all you have is a strawman....
        • MicrosoftBob, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I had the same experience as willemmulder, and was using XP SP2 retail I bought six months ago.
          • Tippis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Again, not slipstreamed with recent drivers and updates.
    • arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5That driver argument with Linux is stale. I've NEVER had a problem with drivers. Plugging in printers, they work right away. If there is an accelerated driver for your video card, Ubuntu will find it automatically. Every single peripheral or PCI card I've ever plugged in has worked right out of the box, no setup, no drivers. Everything just works.
      • aaronm67, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1...have you ever had hardware that doesn't come with drivers installed? It can be pretty tough to install drivers for sound cards or video cards.

        With Linux, either your hardware is supported by default or you will spend weeks trying to get it to work. With Windows, not much hardware is supported by default, but installing unsupported drivers is pretty much "Double click -> Install"
      • MicrosoftBob, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1But you get to miss out on the HP printer Windows driver that installs at a svelt 30MB.
    • heliosys, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Even if it does take ages to setup Linux compare to windows, how many times are you going to installing Linux?

      I hope to HIGHLIGHT to you that it is not Linux fault that you choose to reinstall it every 5 min, and start to tweak it

    • Schpariel, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Reason why NOT to run Windows

      Which one? Windows XP Home? Windows XP Pro? Windows XP Pro x64? Vista Home Basic? Vista Home Premium? Buisness? Ultimate? ..etc. Spend countless hours trying to find drivers to make something work, runs smooths till you break something AGAIN, reinstall and you need to go on a safari to find drivers AGAIN.

      The "too much distros" argument is old and stupid. Just go with a well-supported distro and you're fine. And most desktop distros make it easy to install drivers (like Ubuntu).
    • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Which distro: Just run Ubuntu, problem solved. It's not "better" than other distros, I'm not a fanboy for it (well, maybe a little :) ), but I give it credit where it's due - it actually works out of the box for most hardware, and that's what's needed for most people new to Linux.
    • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Which distro: Just run Ubuntu, problem solved. It's not "better" than other distros, I'm not a fanboy for it (well, maybe a little :) ), but I give it credit where it's due - it actually works out of the box for most hardware, and that's what's needed for most people new to Linux.
      • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Crap, clicked submit twice because I didn't think the first one registered. Sorry.
  • tibbon, on 10/18/2007, -13/+10Linux as a whole still isn't there yet IMHO. I have seen so many problems with it still, and usability-wise it's still frankly retarded.
    Don't believe me? Sit down a relative that's only used Windows in front of OS X, and then down in front of KDE/Gnome... ask them to do some basic tasks (install software, add a new piece of hardware like a webcam). See which one comes out on top for 'working every time' and speed. I'd like to see your mother try to set up something akin to Time Machine (Leopard auto versioning/backup feature) in Linux.
    Linux is the best thing I can imagine for most servers, for desktops... the cost isn't an issue for me. Getting work done is. Give me OS X anyday.
    • arcticblue, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Your argument works the other way around too. Try sitting someone who has mostly used Linux (let's say Ubuntu for this example) and ask them to install a piece of software in Windows. My 13 year old brother started using Ubuntu on his own about 2 years ago after his 3rd time installing Windows due to viruses and spyware (he's a Limewire whore). He had no input from me (I'm in another country), had no problems installing it, and has had no problems using it. His computer is now Ubuntu-only and he is going to be upgrading to Gutsy tomorrow. I gotta say, he's a smart kid... I thought Windows was all there was when I was 13.

      Your hardware argument is semi-valid, but there IS a list on the side of the box the hardware came in that says which OSes are officially supported. Same with games. If a piece of hardware doesn't work in Linux, then it is the hardware manufacturers fault for not giving specs.

      Linux is still a little rough around the edges, but so is every other OS. In all honesty though, I think the heart of Linux surpasses just about everything out there, but what kills it for many people are the lack of specs for some hardware (leading to the lack of hardware support, or hardware only half-working), the lack of consistency and cooperation between developers ("MY way is better", "No MINE is better"...and then nothing gets done), the lack of really good UI designers (have you seen Rhythmbox? Gtkpod? Great apps, but an eye sore), and the evangelical part of the community (you know, the people who demand everything to be open and would rather rather drink their own pee than have to convert their OGG collection to the more widely accepted MP3 )
    • Dylan47, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2if i had grown up using linux for the first 10-15 years of my life i would have the same trouble learning to use windows, whats your point?
    • theaceoffire, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"Sit down a relative that's only used Windows in front of OS X, and then down in front of KDE/Gnome... ask them to do some basic tasks (install software, add a new piece of hardware like a webcam). See which one comes out on top for 'working every time' and speed."
      Gave my mom a copy of ubuntu (Only used windows xp).
      She was already able to add/remove software (Lots easier than xp honestly), add printers with one button, and so forth.
      She still uses it, and I don't get as many tech calls now (Before it was "XP keeps doing ___, how do I fix it?")

      If you have family, try linux on em. Especially if they only do basic things.
    • TypeEE, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I have used all three and I know I can't live w/o windows.
  • rexprime, on 10/21/2007, -8/+2call me when they perfect "screen and graphics". i tried the latest distro and still a lot of bugs for something a day away from being released. and its used up 95% of my processing power (with nothing open) they have a day to fix that crap. have a nice day
    • mwalker05, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1im going to go with user error on this one. that or you are running a packard dell from 1993
    • Gavagai80, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Probably another person who doesn't understand that the desktop search needs to build an index. Perhaps Ubuntu (I'm guessing that's what "the latest distro" means) shouldn't enable it by default.
  • databoy, on 10/21/2007, -8/+2There are too many people playing with themselves.
    A computer is an appliance. Use the computer and OS to do your job not because of initial cost.
    You do not use a four cylinder to tow a cabin cruiser. The same with a computer; buy the hardware to do your job.
    If you want to play games buy an Xbox or Playstation.
    • STKD, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4Let me know when Crysis is out on the Xbox or Playstation then. Or Portal (standalone). Or Battlefield 2142. Or S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. Or an acceptable version of F.E.A.R.. Or Civ 4. Or... well you get the idea.
    • vvelox, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3on behalf of every one who owns a decently speced computer... ***** you

      Why the hell should I own two computers just for playing games? This idea, simply put, is just ***** stupid. Consoles have way since over lived their usefulness.
  • Lasereth, on 10/21/2007, -14/+7Windows works. 2 words. Sorry but it's really that simple. It works and it works well if you're not an idiot. Idiots do make Windows horribly ineffective, but then again, idiots aren't going to be able to use Linux.
    • bowens44, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5I guess that depends on your definition of 'works'.
    • dcherryholmes, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6Some Windows problems lie between the keyboard and the forehead, sure. But there are many, many other ones that do not. Not every issue seems relevant to every person, but things like DRM, or Vista's hoggish nature, or vertical lock-in via non-standards, or virii and the need to piss away cycles to deal with them.... the list could go on and on, but I think you can see my point.
    • andycr512, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8Really? I switched to Linux precisely for that reason - Linux works, Windows doesn't.

      XP, after only 2 months of being installed, ate my partition table, causing it to bluescreen on every boot - including "safe" mode. To add insult to injury, the Windows install disc couldn't read the partitions, but Linux could (after complaining about them being messed up).

      I do programming, mainly in C++ and python. On Windows, I had two major choices - Visual C++ Express or Eclipse/MinGW. VC++ Express is minimal, and they want thousands of dollars for the simplest of extra features (multicpu compiling comes to mind, and I've been told they don't even do that right after you've paid thousands). Eclipse on Windows buys me SVN, CVS, task-oriented development and multicpu compiling, among other things, but the debugger really doesn't work on Windows.

      So, I switched to Linux. Eclipse and GCC work perfectly together, and the debugger works. I have all the features of VC++ and tons more, and out of curiosity asked a Windows developer with thousands of dollars of MS tools how quickly he compiled a given project we were both working on - both clean and in debug mode. His time was 1:18 - mine was 0:18 on a machine that was 50% slower. Needless to say, he was ticked off. I guess you don't always get what you pay for...
      • p0ss, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2"XP, really? I do programming, so i switched to linux." - There, I fixed your post.
  • tdelet, on 10/17/2007, -12/+4Reasons not to have desktop linux: You still need a windows box. Linux requires more work. Games. Nothing wrong with having a linux box, but if you want max compatability it's windows.

    As for emulation...it's the old OS2 story. My beef with OS2 was always that it never gave you anything beyond windows. The best thing about OS/2 was that it ran Windows apps...well, so does Windows.
    • vvelox, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Actually IBM never really tried truely pushing OS/2. They just sort of rolled over and took it from MS.
  • blakespot, on 10/21/2007, -14/+8I recently installed Ubuntu on a spare PC on my office - a 2.5GHz P4 (or so) and I was extremely disappointed with the sluggish response and disjointed feel of the desktop experience. Yes, in screenshots it looks pretty, but it was just unfortunate to face this.

    Nearly all Linux optimizations target server installs, not desktop installs. And recently the biggest coder in this area (I do not recall his name offhand) walked away from the effort.

    I'll stick to Mac OS X (or even Windows).
    • arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Firstly, there are plenty of Linux distros that are targeted to the desktop. If you found Ubuntu not to your liking, try a different distro.

      Secondly, you really need to back up your claim. If you're talking about "the biggest coder" in Linux walking away, then you need to cite a source or just keep it to yourself.
      • Gavagai80, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I bet he's imagining Con Kolivas as "the biggest coder"... people piece togeather crazy ideas from random bits of information sometimes, when it comes to things they're almost entirely ignorant about.
    • daftman, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I don't think you know what you are talking about. It seems like you are just regurgitating digg news without much substance.
      You can stick to what ever you like because in the end, nobody really care what you use.
  • ShyGuy91284, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I couldn't agree more with the installation step. When I used Gentoo and wanted to reinstall, I just backed up my world file (a record of every application installed), fed it into the package manager of the new install, waited a very long while (Gentoo is source-based, so stuff has to be compiled unlike other distros), and done.
    • wattersm, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Or you could install CentOS and be done in about 10 minutes.
  • ereg, on 10/17/2007, -7/+1The only reason I'd use Linux is if it was either that or OSX
  • dhVyse, on 10/17/2007, -12/+6I can get through a windows install in under an hour...
    • chrismgtis, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4As can anyone that knows how to tell time.
    • arcticblue, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Yeah, if you make your own custom unattended installation disc that includes the drivers required for your hardware. By the time you finish creating the disc, I would have already had Ubuntu installed and been surfing the internet (aka, downloading porn).
      • theaceoffire, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Hell, I can surf for port WHILE installing Ubuntu.
        • sacherjj, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1But you don't need to surf for wine, it is available via apt-get.
    • STKD, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3You can get through a Vista/Server 2008 RC0 install in 20-30 minutes. I got it down to 16 with a heavily edited custom version. They just like to push misconceptions as facts. Poor Linuxists. :(
    • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah, at 800x600 resolution with no sound, internet, or 3d. I can get Ubuntu set up with the right resolution, sound, internet, 3d, everything in under an hour, and I could probably be playing UT2k4 by then too. Plus, I would already have an MS Office quality office suite, excellent email program, the browser I actually -want- to use by default, and more.
      • CrazyZ, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0Bull. I just setup a new pc. Threw in the xp sp2 disk, it found everything but the nic, which I had the driver for on usb already, after that, installed all the updates via ms update, installed office 2007, visual studio2005, autocad2006, quicken, firefox, avgfree, utorrent, picasa, google earth, dvdshrink, battlefield2, and slew of network administrative apps. All in about 4.5 hours. I've spent longer than that getting sound cards to work in Linux.
        • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1In years and years of installing Windows on many, many machines, I have never found a PC that Windows has graphics drivers for out of the box. Same goes for sound, wifi, ethernet, etc. You must have found the magic PC - but it's certainly the exception, not the norm, as anyone who has installed XP from a retail CD will attest to.
  • iMoth, on 10/21/2007, -13/+1mac os for life.
    • arcticblue, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3I love OS X, but I hate the way a basic Paint-like program isn't included. I can edit movies and compose music, but I can't draw a circle around something. Another thing that really bothers me is the way just about every person who makes a piece of software for OS X feels as though it's worth $15 - $50+. Their are a few exceptions (Handbrake, Firefox, and Quicksilver off the top of my head), but the majority of developers out there want you to pay for some simple program they made one afternoon after reading a "How to Program for Mac" tutorial that would otherwise be freeware on Windows (nearly everything is free in Linux so that would be a bad comparison). Thank God for iSerialReader.
  • hassmaschine, on 10/18/2007, -4/+18I'm all for linux, solaris, windows, whatever you want to run, but God almight can we stop with the evangelical approach to desktop OS's?
  • airiox, on 10/17/2007, -1/+8Nice, this week I switched to Suse 10.3. I've always hated linux, there has been some growing pains over the past week, but fortunately I stuck it out and must say as of tonight I am loving linux.

    Now just awaiting Epics UT3 beta to hit linux.
  • Azimuth1, on 10/22/2007, -12/+8"You can't just download an updated version of Windows. You have to use the CD that came with your PC and download all the patches Microsoft has issued since the CD was made."

    Windows Update?

    "Vista is greedy: a single-user PC operating system that needs 2GB of RAM to run at acceptable speed"

    How am I running it perfectly fine on my system that has 1GB of RAM then?

    Linux advocates: people like the author of this article are one of the main reasons people are put off of Linux. They're not helping your cause at all.
    • chrismgtis, on 10/18/2007, -5/+3"Linux advocates: people like the author of this article are one of the main reasons people are put off of Linux. They're not helping your cause at all."

      That is so true.
      • daftman, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Kinda like Mac Fanboy is putting off people from using Mac
    • RandaII, on 10/22/2007, -6/+2Don't for get the ubuntu crowed. They are the worst of the bunch
      • theaceoffire, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Why not TRY it if your going to be insulting us? It doesn't even need to be installed for you to test it out, see if you like it.
        I just hate people who go out of their way to insult something they have not experienced.
        • daftman, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2It's fear and ignorance. It's better to feel comfortable and insult than to change and try something different.
    • arbulus, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4How is it bad to get the word out about Linux? How would you know of it otherwise? So we're just supposed to sit around and accept the monopoly of Microsft of the lockdown of Apple and not talk about alternatives? Are we just supposed to keep our mouths shut and just take what we're given by the big guys?

      Everyone starts out small, and there's a LOT of FUD and myths out there about Linux. Letting people know that there is an option and debunking the myths is not a bad thing.
      • heliosys, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4The problem is those people don't know much about Linux and start witting crap. If you want to be a Linux advocates please do your research get your facts right, then publish it.
    • STKD, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4Server 2008 (yes, 2008) and a reasonably tweaked Vista will run just fine with 512mb all the same. I use it on virtual machines all the time, sometimes with as little as 256mb once the mandatory memory requirement is removed.
      Stories like this don't help, particularly when they're filled with random "facts" like that one. It just makes it clearer the author doesn't actually know through experience.
    • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"How am I running it perfectly fine on my system that has 1GB of RAM then?"

      I'm running it with 1GB of ram, and it's almost normal - at the desktop. Open two programs and it gets as slow as molasses
    • daftman, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2> Windows Update?
      Go ahead, try downloading a whole new version of Windows through Windows Update. It only give you security patches and Service Pack.
  • jopsen, on 10/17/2007, -5/+7The things about antivirus are confusing... Fact is antivirus is sign that your OS and apps are broken!
    Antivirus is ONLY needed on linux if you run a server and want to scan the information you pass on to others... Not needed on desktop computers, just keep your desktop fairly updated and well configured... Perhaps a firewall...

    The only reason antivirus software is needed on windows is because OS vendor (Microsoft) and Third party applications vendors doesn't patch their security flaws... And mostly because there's not package managment tool to make sure all the users applications are kept up-to-date!
    • chrismgtis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3"The only reason antivirus software is needed on windows is because..."

      You mean, because idiots think opening HEYCHECKTHISOUT!!.EXE as an email attachment is somehow a bright idea.
    • STKD, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3That's funny. I wonder what these security updates I keep finding do then.
      That or you were talking rubbish. A firewall and those updates will keep you as secure as anyone else. Plus, common sense. The most valuable tool of all.
    • heliosys, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3anti virus is needed because windows have the largest market share. If you are a malware programmer, which OS would you target Linux, OSX or windows?
      • daftman, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Oh please not this dumb logic again. IF you are a malware writer try to infect different distro of Linux. You literally need to release different version of your malware thus making your software easily tracked. That's considering you are good enough to get past the security of Linux.
        • heliosys, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1by your logic, there need to be different source code for different distro. Heard of morris?
        • heliosys, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1by your logic, there need to be different source code for different distro. Heard of morris?
        • daftman, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Not different source code, just different package management. see emerge, apt-get, yum, etc
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/21/2007, -11/+214. games