digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at linuxhaxor.net —

Linux Myths: Busted!

linuxhaxor.net — One of the main reasons that most people are afraid to try Linux is because they have this preconceived notion about Linux being too hard to use and difficult to maintain..

show profanity settings
expand all
  • cartisdm, on 08/12/2008, -6/+105The mad scientist thumbnail alone should've scared people away
    • sint4x, on 08/12/2008, -15/+3It is symbolic for item #6 which was oddly omitted:

      Myth# 6: Can’t play WoW - Confirmed

      Which is not that bad, WoW only has a user base of 10 million or so. Oh but wait, you can use wine! But,... Wine is more advanced and at times requires advanced skills that power users have (i.e. Terminal)
      • stattek, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8I don't personally use Wine for WOW, but I know many, many people do. Wine does not require advanced skills to setup, and there are plenty of guides online that provide step by step tutorials on how to get things running. Especially so for big name products like WOW.

        If a PC gamer has the skills to maintain a gaming machine (keep drivers updated, upgrade hardware as required, tweak games for optimal performance, etc.), there is no reason they couldn't follow a tutorial to get Wine to run something like WOW.

        Like Windows, Linux and Wine will have problems for someone out there. And, like Windows, people are generally able to solve their problems by doing a like research.
      • mooninite, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Maybe it was omitted because it is false? I used to play WoW strictly through Wine, and it required zero setup and zero config file editing. I popped in the CD, double clicked on "SETUP.EXE" and off it went. It created short cuts and all I had to do was double click on them to start the game.

        Does that sound *any* different from using it under Windows? All of that process was done and mastered by people doing work on their own free time! Thank the Wine people instead of calling them names.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -2/+2"Maybe it was omitted because it is false?"

        And yet the first five myths, all false, were not omitted...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Maybe it was omitted because the author realised that Linux isn't trying to be a gaming OS!

        Gamers make up way less than 10% of the PC market. A lot are also early adapters & tech heads(geeks) so, irrelevant but some of these will use Linux anyway.

        More than 90% of the market don't play games on their PC. Linux wants to be on the desktop in your bank, local council office & car dealership. Throw in you mum using it on her laptop & they'll have serious market share. The gaming market will not EVER make or break this.

        Gamers need to realise that they are a tiny market & Linux won't even consider devoting resources to them until they have picked the 'low hanging fruit' of the 90% of the market made up by corporate & home users. I'm also certain that if Linux achieves significant market share in these sectors, they won't have to do a lot for gaming because the developers will react & code for the platform anyway!
    • tomarocco, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Funny, I felt an odd attraction to it. Or maybe I'm just jonesing for more meth.
  • upick, on 08/12/2008, -9/+31Myth# 1: Linux Installation is difficult.
    I always thought so... I think windows has made me dumber. If you think about it everythings there your GUI, etc but with linux I always thought you have to learn all the raw commands to use it. I guess not!
    • ExRe, on 08/12/2008, -5/+37Linux is easy to install provided all of your hardware works right away or works after connecting to the net to get updates.

      Getting the back/forward buttons to work on your mouse for example is a nightmare.
      • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -10/+13If by nightmare you mean adding a couple lines to /etc/X11/xorg.conf (you probobly do..) then you'd be right! Took about a minute between the google search and the actual edit for me however. Call me competent!
      • TRScheel, on 08/12/2008, -7/+22@czarr

        What a joke. That is NOT easy. Easy is something where if you plug it in... it works. Guess what!? Windows & Mac manage that amazingly. Guess what OS doesnt?

        Lets be entirely honest: Linux is not an easy to install OS. Having to go to the command line is NOT AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE JOE BLOW USER. This is a hindrance. Let me repeat that because I doubt it went through the first time

        Having to research how to install trivial pieces of hardware and being required to use the command line repeatedly is a hassle, not to mention confusing for the average user.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 08/12/2008, -7/+8Really? I have a Razer LACHESIS and it works ***** great - back and forward are fine. I guess there are some driver issues going around.

        TRScheel: Calm the ***** down. Linux is easy to install if it supports your hardware - sorry. I know for a fact - i installed SuSE 11 with absolutely nothing but following the guide and checking off some extra software i wanted by default. You don't need to use the terminal at any step nor have i had to use it after install for installing more software (but i do programming so the terminal is my friend a lot of times)
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -6/+13@TRScheel

        You know what's even harder? Trying to get unsupported hardware to work in Windows.


        P.S. Making a small edit to a text file != having to go to the command line.
      • Scalpels, on 08/12/2008, -5/+11@Buu700

        Ask your grandmother to correctly edit a text file without your help. That is the point people like TRScheel are trying to make.

        Is it easy for a competent user? Yes. Is it easy for every user? No.

        If you can get Linux to recognize 95% of devices and install all the drivers automatically without needing to do more than plug in the hardware, then it'll be considered easy to the end user.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7Scalpels: The problem is we (the Linux community and developers) need more market share (for more developer and corporation attention) before that will ever happen. Open Source is incredible in what it can achieve - nonetheless, it's not infinite so both Linux and some of the device developers must work to provide drivers for Linux in order to make it easier to use - something that more desktop marketshare would be needed to do.
      • Blandyman, on 08/12/2008, -3/+2But if basic functionality for most hardware can't be somehow integrated from the get-go, then it won't be possible to get larger marketshare, because that marketshare you're missing are the people who don't wanna deal with it.
      • dtraneighty8, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4I still can't even get the 4-way scrolling to come up with the middle-click.
        Maybe it's my mouse.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1@Scapels

        Of course, but asking her to correctly write a Windows drivers without any help would be even harder, which is exactly the point I'm making. Sure, Windows currently supports more hardware (or rather, more hardware supports Windows), and I'm not denying that, but Linux is close and it's not completely fair to judge its ease of use based on getting unsupported hardware to work. Rather, its flexibility should be praised in that situation. (Its flexibility being that practices such as kernel drivers for similar hardware being combined allow the possibility of getting unsupported hardware to work, albeit more often than not in a "hackish" way.)
    • kalvinb, on 08/12/2008, -11/+2It's not a myth unless you use Ubuntu or other distros which correctly autodetect your hardware. It's been awhile but a lot of distros (used to) require you to wade through menus manually figuring out what drivers to install.

      And if your network card isn't supported you're screwed.
      • secrity, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8I haven't ran into an unsupported nic in a long time.
      • arjie, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5I have, secrity. On the Indian market, you will find NICs made by Intex and Zebronics. Do not touch these, they have "RTL8139D" (that's the Realtek chipset) printed on the chip but they lie. It is actually a Silan Microsystems SC92031 chipset. These didn't work a couple of kernel releases ago (but you could use ndiswrapper, even on these ethernet cards) but I think they do now.

        Then again, those cards were awful under Windows also.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2"It's been awhile but a lot of distros (used to) require you to wade through menus manually "

        And Windows 3.1 required you to do the same - what's your point?
    • Dustin00, on 08/12/2008, -10/+3I went to try to install Ubuntu. I've only found ISO images and that is the ONE disc format I can't burn to a CD without going and buying specialized CD software.

      So much for free. Or simple/easy.

      So I gave up and still have never installed Linux.
      • gurudrew, on 08/12/2008, -0/+12They will send you a CD for free. It doesn't get much easier.
        http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu
      • stattek, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Have a look at installing Ubuntu from USB if you're still interested. Or, alternatively, try a disk image emulator (like Daemon Tools) to load the ISO image then copy the files contained within it, and burn those to a CD.
      • chryso, on 08/12/2008, -0/+13Easy-to-use, free-of-charge ISO burner for Windows:

        http://isorecorder.alexfeinman.com/isorecorder.htm
      • Dustin00, on 08/12/2008, -1/+41. Options noted... after I ship these 3 games at work in Oct/Nov, I'll have time to look into these.

        2. Why did somebody dig down the free ISO burner link??? Is it malware? (no I haven't clicked the link)
      • utnow, on 08/12/2008, -11/+2Guy complains about a distro of linux being hard to install (the easiest of the easy by reputation) and the recommendations are as follows:

        1) Wait 6 months for them to mail you a disc
        2) Install from a USB thumbdrive (tried this.. not as easy as you might think)
        3) Use a disk image emulator package to mount the disk image as though it's a real disk.
        4) An easy to use ISO burner

        WTF is wrong with you people? :P What part of "charge me $10, mail me a disc tomorrow, and let me install it the right way" don't you understand? :P

        Yeah all of these are viable solutions, and yeah they're all simple enough if you have a fair amount of understanding of what you're doing. But none of these options are acceptable.
      • arjie, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8But the instructions on the web site suggest InfraRecorder. When the instructions tell you how to get and use the damn software, I don't see how you can lie about having to buy specialised CD software (okay, maybe you weren't lying, maybe you _are_ incapable of downloading something free). Jesus, man. The odd thing is, when you shoot your mouth off like that if I call you an idiot, there'll be the fool who says, "This is why Linux doesn't take off."

        I just checked to make sure. If you go to the download page, and select a download location, the next page will start your download and below the link there will be a section saying "Need Help?" and the FIRST link is instructions to "Learn how to create a CD from your newly downloaded file: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto"
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5You can buy Ubuntu CDs at Best Buy, can't you? I don't know why you would when you can just download a copy for free and burn it using a free utility, but hey...
      • theodenking, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Huh? There's a link to a free program to burn ISOs in the Ubuntu installation how-to.
      • Dustin00, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1The "InfraRecorder is a high quality CD/DVD burning solution for Microsoft Windows." description is teh suck for finding this tool on SourceForge. I searched for "ISO burner" (or something like that) and that completely misses InfraRecorder... and finds a ton of other junk.

        ISO is a primary distinctive feature of this tool -- they should call it out more!
      • aquasov, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but if you cannot find the way out to burn ISO image on a CD, then you should just forget about using PC at all...
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1@aquasov

        Not that you aren't 100% correct, but that's exactly the mentality we need to steer clear of. I remember once a few years ago in the MythTV forum when I wasn't familiar with the term "swap" (though I did know what virtual memory was (this was before I had actually started using LInux)), I was basically talked down to and told not to use MythTV (not very helpful).
    • Mier, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3What about adding support for playing MP3s and other Video formats? I had a heck of a time trying to get that support on Feisty Fawn. Sorry to say it's why I went back to XP.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2VLC works fine for me - i don't know how Ubuntu goes but I have DVDs and more video formats than you can count working on VLC and Mplayer. Unfortunately my current OS does not include them installed by default - it's not hard to add a repo but it could be easier. Luckily, SuSE 11's One Click install does save the day in making it easier.

        As for MP3s alone, Amarok still seems to have support even in SuSE 11.
      • EstT, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Dude, adding mp3 support in Feisty took me 2 clicks!
        (asuming u have internet, that is...)
      • srg13, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3In Ubuntu, if you open a file it can't plat, it pops up a notice "This file requires restricted drivers to play". You just have to check a box and hit Install and then you can play pretty much anything.

        DVD playback is a little harder - you have to add the Medibuntu repo and install a package. Or you could copy and paste these two lines into the terminal:
        wget -c http://packages.medibuntu.org/pool/free/libd/libdv ...
        sudo dpkg -i libdvdcss2_1.2.9-2medibuntu4_i386.deb

        (See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu because Digg messes them up)

        Keep in mind that doing this without buying licences is illegal in the US - which is why no free software can legally be distributed there with the ability to decode many formats.
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1You can't have those things easily because software patents prevent it. Instead of criticizing Linux for that, why don't you go out and protest the patent holders to open their standards?
    • sk11, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2OMG guys, really old people have trouble using a remote control, it'll never catch on I tell ya. :P
      • Smegzor, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1YOU FOOL! You pressed the wrong button when you tried to add your comment!
        Now look what you've done.
      • sk11, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1"Wrong button?" Har, har, har. Perhaps you should give up your day job and become a professional comedian. :rolleyes:

        And they say a compulsory IQ test when registering for digg is unnecessary.
  • ostracize, on 08/12/2008, -6/+50Newbies can't install flash. Has this been busted yet?
    • heartless_, on 08/12/2008, -2/+15I'm not sure if it has been busted, but flash has befuddled me more than once on Fedora 8/9 and I'm fairly comfortable with Linux.
    • AmaDaden, on 08/12/2008, -5/+17I can't remember having any issues with it last time I installed Ubuntu.
      • sublimemm, on 08/12/2008, -5/+14dont try it with a 64 bit version of ubuntu or firefox
      • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 08/12/2008, -12/+5good luck installing it and getting it to run with an ATI card and/or no net connection
      • Grokmoo, on 08/12/2008, -2/+33Why would you need flash if you have no net connection? Seriously, I am not being sarcastic, just curious.
      • Shadow503, on 08/12/2008, -3/+6@Grokmoo
        He may be working on localhost developing a website.
      • sint4x, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13@sublimemm Don't even try the 64 bit version of XP with anything
      • chris062689, on 08/12/2008, -3/+8@sublimemm: Are you kidding me?
        All you have to do is: sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree!
        It automatically installs the 32bit libraries, and downloads / installs Flash.
      • sodade, on 08/12/2008, -4/+9"All you have to do is: sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree!"

        ROTFL - you do realize that that sounds like total arcane nonsense - particularly to the windows user who understands: download the app you want to install, run setup.exe, next next finish.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Just type a bunch of arcane commands into a terminal and it's installed! So easy a kid could do it.
      • terminal157, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Chris - well, there goes the bit about not having to use the terminal.
      • aaaantoine, on 08/12/2008, -1/+9@Chris: Or better yet...

        1. Open up Firefox.
        2. Visit a site that requires Flash (other than YouTube; they force feed their own Flash detection).
        3. A bar appears at the top of your browser window saying that a plugin is required. Click the button that says "Install Missing Plugins".
        4. You can choose to install Flash, or one of its FOSS counterparts. Flash is still the best option, though.

        One browser restart later (maybe), you have Flash. Huzzah.

        @Those who pick on Chris for posting a terminal command:

        You're right. You don't need the terminal. You can do the above thing instead, or if you want to specifically install flashplugin-nonfree, you can follow these steps...

        1. Go to System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package manager.
        2. Type in your password.
        3. Click Search.
        4. In the modal dialog window, type "flashplugin-nonfree" into the search box, and click the Search button (this is technically two steps, but I'll be nice).
        5. Click the box next to flashplugin-nonfree.
        6. From the list of options, click "Mark for Installation".
        7. If a list of dependencies show up, click Okay to mark them for Installation as well.
        8. Click the Apply button.
        9. Click Okay to confirm.

        Yeah. That's SO much easier than typing "sudo apt-get install flashplugin-nonfree". So many keystrokes saved.
      • lonnieh, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8to those who just love to hate linux because it's different than windows, there is no need for a terminal in this scenario. you can check "flashplugin-nonfree" in your favorite package manager and click "Apply".

        yet, some of you will block this out and continue arguing that the terminal is a necessity.
      • theaceoffire, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Ok, how about this...

        Go to " apt://flashplugin-nonfree " in ubuntu Firefox, or click a link that points there.

        It will ask if you want to install it, then it will install it to your OS from the safe, secure repositories.

        ^_^ 1 click, say "ok", and it takes care of dependencies, etc.

        Seems easy to me.
      • chris062689, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2I'm not saying the terminal is a necessity.
        I'm just saying it's a quicker way of getting things done (most of the time.)
        What's so hard about opening a terminal, and pasting some "code" in?

        (For some reason in Firefox 3, I never get asked to install flash, even when viewing a youtube video, Ubuntu 8.04.1 64bit)
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3'What's so hard about opening a terminal, and pasting some "code" in?'

        Nothing at all. For most problems, a simple "rm -rf /" will do the trick.

        Get it? We're talking about regular average people who haven't a ***** clue how their computer works and don't want to learn (and SHOULDN'T have to learn, for that matter).

        Instead of teaching them how to use their computer, you're being lazy and giving them a command to run, fostering a mindset in the user that it's ok to copy and paste arbitrary commands from the Internet into their terminal.

        When Linux catches on, this mindset will be responsible for Linux's security being even worse than Windows, since users will copy and paste whatever they're told without understanding what it does, leaving them wide open to social engineering.
      • chris062689, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2I get what your saying, and I agree with your point.
        But isn't that like saying...
        If I wanted to install a certain program, I'll just download a bat file!
        (Sounds risky, doesn't it?)
      • AmaDaden, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2@sublimemm Actually I am running 64 bit but i might be using the 32 bit flash player.

        The point of avoiding the command line is not because it's hard to use or people can't understand it. It should be avoided because it's something you have to learn to use. Any configuration should be able to be done with just a simple GUI. Having to learn some random command line to make one quick change is dumb. Having said that there are many things that are better done in the command line.
      • Garjon, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0"you do realize that that sounds like total arcane nonsense"
        Um... To those who don't understand computers, what _doesn't_?
    • FTLJohnson, on 08/12/2008, -12/+10Apparently, Linux doesn't have a spell checker.

      Or maybe this guy is listening to too many differant itnues.
      • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6oh, irony. Whats the global vista spell checker that i'm not aware of anyway?
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Muphry's law!
    • rabiddachshund, on 08/12/2008, -9/+3Your mom's been busted.
    • foxmajik, on 08/12/2008, -8/+2You watch to much ***** television.
    • TheZorch, on 08/12/2008, -4/+6Yes, Flash installation in Linux is now as easy as it is in Windows.
    • kenij, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6I still haven't got flash working correctly in Hardy. It's annoying the heck out of me. It continually crashes, even when I've followed tutorials that are supposed to fix it. (They keep firefox from crashing, but they don't stop Flash from dying.)
    • infiniphunk, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Just go to youtube with firefox, firefox will prompt you to install it. done and done.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Right. When it works, it works! (When it doesn't work, you're screwed.)
    • evilgourmet, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4My little kids have installed Flash, I guess the old folks are right; " you kids are smart, I can't even set the VCR..." Linux is now the proverbial VCR.
      • benplaut, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I've been using Linux since SuSE 9.1 and I STILL can't set the VCR. Goddamn olympics keep making me try, too.
    • realestateloop, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Yea... Flash site has a linux download..
  • heartless_, on 08/12/2008, -12/+100Overall, the list just restates what has been said a million times elsewhere. I think the perception is real. Linux is a pain to manage on a regular basis unless you are a true diehard and stick with hardware that is compatible.

    In my eyes, the greatest potential for Linux as an everyday OS is laptops, where security is increasingly more important. However, laptops is where the majority of hardware issues arise, especially wireless networking. Sure, its better, but it still is not clean in my experiences.

    Also, with the general trend of most Linux distributions to become bloated to make it "user friendly" most Linux installs randomly break. Not because of Linux (the whole is Linux just the kernel debate), but because of the bloat.

    Lastly, gaming. Yes, I am a gamer and Linux gaming is not worth the time of day currently. It is a fun project to get games working, but for the most part the time spent fixing ***** is better spent gaming and thus keeps me on the Windows bandwagon. Though, I do support Linux dual boots now. A sign to anyone that knows me, that Linux IS getting better.
    • Grokmoo, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13I think as long as you have hardware that is compatible, it is very easy to install. I have plenty of hardware on my system that was much easier to get running under Linux than Windows.

      Unfortunately this is not always the case, but if you get Linux preloaded on a laptop or desktop, you won't have any problems. Once this becomes more common, I think Linux could become very popular on the desktop.

      As far as distributions being bloated and easy to break, my experience has been that if you try to enable bleeding edge or advanced features, you can run into trouble. However, with a basic, tried and tested desktop, Linux has always been rock stable for me. I think actually that most users with minimal knowledge wouldn't experience the problems you have had because they would not even try to tweak their system in the ways that you probably have.

      As far as gaming, I still think we are a long way away from Linux getting any support there. While I do think Linux has a very good chance in the low cost desktop and laptop markets, this obviously isn't going to help much with the current gaming situation.
    • coopa, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3I'm looking into getting cheap laptop that can fly with Linux. I've used it a few times in the past, dual booting on my desktop with XP.

      I'm not scared of the terminal, as i grew up with DOS and still have a set of tools that use cmd on XP for when things go awry. I've impressed people (myself included) by fixing and recovering data from a broken Windows install using nowt but a Linux Live CD.

      The one thing that has always turned me back to XP is game support. Now, as i understand, Wine and Cedega make this much better. Especially compared to 8 or 9 years ago when i first tried out Linux but my Steam account and other games are very much a priority for me.

      I'd be happy to use Linux more - Does anyone have a forum/link to a good 'Guide to Wine'? Also, is a Asus EeePC worth getting to try out Linux? I understand that this won't be viable for gaming but for everyday connectivity and use it would be a great personal solution.
      • sloppychris, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Here's a wine guide a quick search turned up:
        http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=497332

        There's honestly not a lot you need to know about wine, that guide shows probably way more than you'll need.

        To install wine in Ubuntu, go to add/remove programs, search wine, and install. That may be a bit obvious.

        To launch an exe, just type:
        wine Program.exe

        And you're done. You could also double-click on the exe, but the command line method is a bit more reliable.
      • coopa, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Cheers, thanks for the link.

        I'll keep it bookmarked until i decide on a solution. So far i'm thinking dual booting keeping XP and Linux on different harddrives whilst i save for an Eee Pc.
      • crossmr, on 08/13/2008, -4/+1"And you're done" assuming your software works under wine. All those people who claim "run it under wine" is some defense to applications not working on Linux fail to remember that a lot of applications run like ***** under wine even if they run at all. But if you need an 8 year old power point application, you're all set..
      • sloppychris, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I run Photoshop CS2, Dreamweaver, Photomatix Pro, Slingplayer, and MVP 2005 in wine. Yes, not every application works great, but those are flawless.
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Get a Dell laptop. Seriously, they rock with Linux.
    • eggsovereasy, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5The only security concern that laptops have that desktops don't is (or do, to a lesser degree) is physical theft. If I have physical access to the machine I can root a linux box in like 30 seconds.
      • JPong01, on 08/12/2008, -1/+0There is also the possibility of using random wireless networks. But that falls on responsibility of the freeloader if that persons personal info gets stolen.
    • norman619, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2What do you do with Linux that you have to dual boot? This is an honest question.
      • Amiga501, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3Gee, maybe this is a clue:

        "Yes, I am a gamer and Linux gaming is not worth the time of day currently"
      • lolfanboys, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I think maybe he meant that if you're going to bother keeping Windows around to play games why not just use Windows for day to day ***** as well.

      • mrBitch, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3@lolfanboys RE: "... if you're going to bother keeping Windows around to play games why not just use Windows for day to day ***** as well."

        Reasonable question. The answer is that once you use Linux for "day to day *****", you do NOT want to go back to using Windows.

        Just because I may play an occasional game by booting into Windows does NOT mean I should have to suffer Windows for my "day to day *****" ( which Windows is OK for, as long as you have no other OS to compare with ).
      • norman619, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Amiga:

        Ummm.... That just tells me what he uses Windows for. I'd like to know what he uses Linux for. Reading comprehension is great. You should learn it. I use Linux as well but not as my primary OS. I don't dual boot it. I use Linux on my file and media servers.
    • Fr33th0t, on 08/13/2008, -5/+0At least with Windows you don't need compatible hardware.
      • norman619, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4You trying to tell me Windows will work with hardware not compatible with Windows? You ***** me?
      • Fr33th0t, on 08/15/2008, -0/+0I should have used sarcasm tags I guess. Re-read Heartless_'s first paragraph.
  • 10goto10, on 08/12/2008, -29/+211Some more:

    2005 is the year of the Linux desktop!
    2006 is the year of the Linux desktop!
    2007 is the year of the Linux desktop!
    2008 is the year of the Linux desktop!
    2009 is the year of the Linux desktop!
    • solidus636, on 08/12/2008, -8/+222009 IS the year of the Linux desktop!! You just wait and see.
    • TheZorch, on 08/12/2008, -30/+7You sir are a tool and an *****.
      • plarp, on 08/12/2008, -5/+19you sir are living a fantasy
      • AussieFox, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Just because he's a 'sir', 'tool' and an '*****' doesn't mean he's incorrect
      • burketo, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1you can't be both the tool AND the *****.
    • mbsjoblom, on 08/12/2008, -4/+6For me personally all these years have been the year of Linux desktop. In fact 1998 was the first year with Linux desktop for me and I don't think I will use any other kinds of desktops in the future either...
      • tuxguy, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Yep. Switched away from Windows in 1998 and never looked back. Currently on a detour to OSX, but linux is still a virtual machine away and, of course, all over my server room.
    • thebaron2, on 08/12/2008, -1/+10Sounds like Linux fans and Cubs fans should get together; the mantra is nearly identical.
    • evilgourmet, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4It's been the year of the Linux Desktop for me since 1997.
    • Stonekeeper, on 08/12/2008, -4/+4yawn
    • DrPh0bius, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Outstanding!
    • 1timeuser, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2It's just something you add to historical documents. Kind of like "The year of our lord".

      For instance in the US constitution rather than:

      "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

      It would be:

      Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of the Linux Desktop one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

  • SaadGhouri, on 08/12/2008, -33/+4MYTH # 6: WINDOWS PAWNS LINUX = BUSTED
    • cricketsymphony, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8i'm glad you made it more articulate by likening it with math, and physically clearer by putting it in all caps
      < /sarcasm >
    • norman619, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1Let me know when you Linux has a nice non-linear video editor and can play current games like Crysis naively. The biggest nail in the Linux coffin is major software vendor support.
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1Have you ever TRIED to play Crysis? Windows can't ***** play it! Seriously, why is everyone using it as some holy benchmark to compare to? It has such bad performance because its coding is *****!

        The stupidity of the anti-Linux crowd continues to astound me.
  • wisam, on 08/12/2008, -2/+36A few years ago, all these "myths" about Linux were partially true.
    But why should anybody care? I mean, I wish if more people use Linux but deep inside, I don't car that much. All I want is for widely-used, non-standard, vendor-specific formats to not cause me any compatibility problems. In other words, as long as I don't get harmed by people insisting on using Windows, I don't care that much.
    I'll stick with Linux and it's flexibility and others will stick with Windows with it's "ease of use".
    With all the web apps, it's already happening.
    • HillerMylife, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3As far as I'm concerned, web apps excel in one arena only: asynchronous collaborative editing. For everything else, the desktop application will prevail.
    • rolf, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6"But why should anybody care? I mean, I wish if more people use Linux but deep inside, I don't car that much."

      Increasing Linux marketshare will give you more options as vendors take notice and make apps/drivers to cater toward your segment.

      We don't live in vacuum. If IE still had 98%+ marketshare and Firefox was under 1%, you'd still be seeing many IE only websites.
      • norman619, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Linux won't be more widely used until major software vendors start supporting it. Major software vendors won't support Linux until it is more widely used. Funny how that works eh?
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1@norman619: Luckily though, some large-scale vendors are getting on board. It starts with the enterprises, and trickles down to the desktops. Dell's already started selling laptops with Linux. It'll just take a b it more effort and we'll see a lot more companies supporting it, not because they want to, but because sooner or later the corporate arena will MAKE them support it.
    • wolferz, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3"A few years ago, all these "myths" about Linux were partially true."

      They still are. That's the real problem. Linux fanboys are spending all their time claiming linux is ready instead of pushing to actually get it ready. End result: Linux is stagnating.
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1You sir, are an idiot. "Stagnating"? I guess you haven't tried to use Ubuntu 7.10 and then 8.04.
    • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3It's important that more people use Linux because then there will be more people working on the code and more cooperation from hardware manufacturers, so that it isn't a headache to do the simplest things anymore.
      • wolferz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2In that case we have a catch 22.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Agreed. That's why I've made the effort and have been using Ubuntu for the last year, and am trying to learn to code. It's a lot of work, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone yet, but if I can help make the OS actually usable for the average Joe, I'll feel like I've accomplished something.
  • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -13/+64sorry, but until you never have to use the command line a single time, linux is never going to become mainstream.

    normal people aren't going to want to ***** around with ndiswrapper and stuff just to make their computer usable
    • earlycj5, on 08/12/2008, -11/+14Uh huh, I see you've used Ubuntu recently then, right?

      Because my office mate just tried it on his Dell Laptop. Everything worked out of the box except wireless. Dang, CLI, oh, no wait. Just plug in the Ethernet cable and click the pop-up for restricted drivers, no CLI needed.

      Sorry, but you'll have to give a better reason than that.
      • bpoteat, on 08/12/2008, -5/+27"except wireless".
        That's a pretty big exception.
      • WhoDoneIt, on 08/12/2008, -3/+18Um.. maybe because someone like me has NO knowledge of the ***** that just dribbled out of your mouth, hence it won't become mainstream.

      • lolfanboys, on 08/12/2008, -3/+20No, there doesn't need to be a better reason.

        If wireless doesn't work out of the box than Linux needs to give me a pretty ***** convincing reason to install it, not the other way around.

        You're gonna have to give a better reason than "it's free", since I don't mind paying so long as everything actually works.
      • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9a better reason?
        like having to remap some of my keys, editing fstab, and messing xorg.conf?

        that's all i remember since i set it up a while ago, but if you think you can use linux and never use a CLI once, then you must be crazy…

        even if you set up linux for the average computer user, the first thing they'll do is ask "where's internet explorer?"
      • wehrmanweb, on 08/12/2008, -3/+14And wireless works out of the box on a fresh install of Windows?

        I just reinstalled XP SP2 on a Dell laptop here at work and guess what... I had to hunt down a driver from Dell for the wireless card and wired nic... I also had to download the drivers for the video card, sound, modem, touchpad... Let me see a novice windows user do all that... To top it off the drivers that Dell has on it's site are hard to find.

        For fun I popped in the Ubuntu live disk and guess what... The thing booted up and I had the correct video resolution, wireless, wired, sound... And it noticed I had an nvidia video card and wanted to know if I wanted to use nvidia's drivers...

        Want to know why windows seems easy? Because the computer comes from the factory with it pre-installed with the correct drivers. Try out a Dell with Ubuntu pre-intsalled and it's just as easy.
      • ScrewedThePooch, on 08/12/2008, -3/+4Your problem is that Dell sucks
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -1/+12I use Ubuntu and I have to go to the command line all the time. Stop living in a fantasy land.

        Even Ubuntu, the greatest Linux distro so far, is still not usable enough for the typical person. I mean, my coworkers can't even figure out how to save a file from Outlook that I emailed them. How are they going to understand adding non-free repositories to support their graphics card or modifying file permissions? Linux still needs a LOT of work.
      • Haplo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Dell Vostro 200 ST: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2008/08/05/fixing-the-v ...

        Acer Aspire 4320: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2007/12/29/enable-wirel ...

        So in short, it's not always that easy.

        Should we care? I don't.

        What worries me more is that there are still applications in Ubuntu that when I click on Help
        I just get a page making clear there is none.

        The former (CLI hacking to make something work) is something that can be fixed by some geek in the family
        slash neighborhood. The latter is just clearly a sign of how OSS often works: nobody cares to write
        the manual.

      • johnomaz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+10Fine, how about installing updated video card drivers. I just installed ubuntu on my desktop for ***** and giggles, and guess what, video card drivers aren't just a single click install. You have to do the whole sudo apt-get install build-essentials in the terminal, then you have to close the X-Server, log in as root then use commands to navigate to the place where you saved the file, then install it. Oh, then when you restart the X-Server, guess what, GDM won't start. Somehow, a simple driver update has ***** up the system. You decide to restart your computer and still, no GUI, just a command prompt. Too bad uninstalling drivers is in no way easy. Then if you manage to get X-Server back running, its in 640x480. Ya, a simple driver update often results in a ***** up X-Server. No, Linux isn't ready for mainstream. It hasn't been ready for it, nor will it be ready for it in the near future. I was very please to see a .deb file install by itself, but still, nto enough.

        And yes, Linux has a lot of apps to download through the Synaptic Installer, but most of them suck. People want an easy to use program, click buttons. ***** me if its anything like that. Everyday, common users will not easily learn Linux, any flavor of it, until its made 'point and click' simple.
      • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -4/+2@whoDoneit: Let me dumb it down for you!
        He said:
        step1: plug in ethernet cable
        step2: click "ok" to install restricted drivers (box pops up)

        Du yuuuu undarstend?
      • ScottyDelicious, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3A dell with Ubuntu pre-installed works perfectly out of the box.
      • Frosty122, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1installing binaries......
      • 1platypus, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1That's because dell supports ubuntu. I would like to see you try a non-dell laptop.
    • SQLserver, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5AutoNdiswrapper is like a 1 click install...
      • Haplo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Does it also clean up a not working madwifi default install?
    • freezerburn666, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8when i did tech support for verizon i had people go into their command prompt and type things all the time, it was what we were supposed to do, and it let them sign in to msn. the command line / terminal is used on all platforms, linux, mac, or windows. u can run linux without knowing command line just as you can run windows without knowing that. some problems require you to use it, on all platforms.
      • mrBitch, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Good point, the CLI is used under all OS when you need to do tech phone support. Also, much easier to take the user through command lines than it is to say things like "now find and click on admin tools under control panel ... "
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Hence why, on the internet, where typing is king, most help is given in the form of terminal commands.
    • bokep, on 08/12/2008, -3/+12wtf is autondiswrapper

      all i know is when i install ubuntu my wireless doesn't work. i plug in ethernet i don't see any popups. i have no idea how to work the terminal.

      if ubuntu worked with my wireless card fresh from install i wouldn't be on vista right now
      • GavinZac, on 08/12/2008, -10/+3wtf do you think Auto NDIS Wrapper is?

        does your wireless work fresh from install with vista? oopsies! you're installing it off a cd. that means you've got a driver on a cd! so lets open ndisgtk - thats only the project name by the way, it shows up in an install as "Windows Wireless Drivers" - open the cd and BAM wireless.

        What more do you want, someone to act it out with a few Duplo bricks?
      • thebaron2, on 08/12/2008, -1/+9"wtf do you think Auto NDIS Wrapper is? "

        I sure as ***** don't know - I thought that's why he asked the question.

        And as to the CD thing, it is FAR easier to pop in a CD and hit "install" when the screen pops up than to open a command line and type the sudo root blah blah blah crap that's been mentioned above.

        I'm sure YOU know what the hell those terms mean, but I - an average computer user - have no freaking clue and don't have any incentive to learn! That's the problem with Linux. And for the record, my brother and his girlfriend's wireless cards DID work out of the box when they upgraded to Vista. They may not have been the proper drivers but whatever "default" drivers Vista used worked just fine.
      • lolfanboys, on 08/13/2008, -2/+4Obviously it is the USERS fault that Linux devs can't just give things a simple, yet meaningful name.

        "Lets see we got this software here that uses Windows wireless drivers to make wireless work in Linux... this is pretty ***** important to Linux's success on the desktop, but what should we call it?"

        How about AUTONDISWRAPPER.

        That's perfect! and it certainly won't lead to any confusion as to what in the holy ***** the software actually does, and now we have wireless in Linux. Time to trumpet this as a huge success and proof that Linux is ready for mainstream acceptance.

        Don't feel bad bokep and thebaron2, the only way you'd know what autondiswrapper is would be if you were trying to set Linux up and were forced to google it in order to make wireless work.

        Last time I checked installing wireless in Vista from a cd required no googling nor any knowledge of what retardedly named software does.
      • djbon2112, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1AUTO = it works without configuration
        NDIS = no idea
        WRAPPER = it's a wrapper for drivers, meaning it translates system commands designed for one OS into those for another.

        You don't seem so smart now. Ignorant people need to kill themselves.
    • sadhesati, on 08/12/2008, -4/+4Have you even tried the latest Ubuntu version? I never once had to use the terminal during installation, and the times I have used the terminal were out of sheer preference. I didn't have to ***** around with NDISwrapper either; everything worked out of the box (two versions ago, I wasn't able to say that, but Ubuntu is ever expanding its list of compatible hardware).

      The great thing about Linux is that it's open source; ANYONE with programming knowledge can work to solve common issues for the next version. It is always improving. If you have not tried Ubuntu lately I would really encourage you to give the newest one a try. It's a huge improvement over previous versions, more user-friendly than ever, and it's a lot more secure than Windows.

      I do keep Windows around on my computer to play WoW (and believe me, when they day comes that I can play WoW on Linux I will have no problem deleting Windows for good), but for everything else I use Ubuntu and I love it.
      • beccabob, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1" The great thing about Linux is that it's open source; ANYONE with programming knowledge can work to solve common issues for the next version."

        That statement right there shows the problem. How many people have any real knowledge of programming?

        By the way, I have installed and used Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Puppy Linux (lightweight xfce gui). I had issues, on the same machine installing the Nvidia driver, one time it worked perfectly, the next rebuild it crashed X, and had to command line change the xorg.conf file and command line install and configure it. I use Windows for most things because it has the programs I use available with no hassle.
    • tomarocco, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1Licensing and IP issues are thwarting Linux, not a technical ones.

    • Fr33th0t, on 08/13/2008, -1/+0May as well say until nobody every has to pay attention to the Hardware Compatibility List....

      I rarely have to use the command line in Ubuntu, I choose to because it can be more efficient and I like to learn.

      Oh, and I use the command line daily in Windows.
    • GrantTLC, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1No need to apologise, JimtheEnglishman: you're wrong.

      I'm new to linux and have had my Mandriva installation working since April. In all that time I have never once been forced to use the command line for *anything*.
  • leerayIG88, on 08/12/2008, -3/+13In the year 2000.
  • mrfrosti, on 08/12/2008, -9/+82One of the main reasons that most people don't try Linux is there is no compelling benefit over Windows XP or Mac OS X. Its all about the quality of software.
    • RgyaGramShad, on 08/28/2008, -31/+10i find the quality of linux software (and most mac software) much higher than the quality of windows software
      • mrfrosti, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14What software exclusive to Linux are you referring to?
      • wolferz, on 08/12/2008, -2/+11Then you are a retard. Most of it has more bugs, less support, and a far inferior interface. GIMP is a perfect example. So is SAMBA.

        In fact the only Linux apps to reliably be up to par or better are the ones backed by large entities such as Sun or Mozilla.
      • johnomaz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3you sir speak out of your ass.
      • mjw2025, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2I've tried Ubuntu and tried the "quality" software. By current Windows standards Linux applications are still in the '90s. I used Wine to load Quicken and a diabetic that were nothing but problems. Electronic Workbench? Not even going to think about loading that.
      • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Amarok bitch!
    • booyahbitch, on 08/12/2008, -23/+6Uh...how about the attack surface? How about the stability? Oh...and how about it being FREE?!?!?
      • Lythium, on 08/12/2008, -2/+18I'm willing to pay for something that allows me to game.
      • yessuz, on 08/12/2008, -4/+17I'm willing to pay for something that just works
      • lolfanboys, on 08/12/2008, -3/+15Vista has been exponentially more stable than Ubuntu for me recently.

        So all you got is that it's free? I'll think i'll pay for the more stable system that allows me to game, thanks.
      • arobar, on 08/12/2008, -2/+16It's that kind of attitude that makes people ignore your ideas. You're correct: Linux can be more stable, more secure, and of course is free. But saying, "Uh, what are you, and idiot? Here's why you're wrong!" will make people simply ignore what you're saying. If you want to spread the word, spread it intelligently. Nobody likes something crammed down their throats, especially if it's done by someone with a superiority complex.
      • Monk22, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3footnote to arobars comment...

        this concept also applies to politics.
      • johnomaz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Free is the only truth in your statement. Go install a video card driver, lets see hwo stable X-Server is after. Oh, and lets hope to hell you don't have a wireless card installed either.
      • peterjmag, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Monk22: No it doesn't. Millions of people every year listen to and believe the mindless blathering of politicians with superiority complexes. It SHOULD apply to politics, but doesn't.
    • jdelator, on 08/12/2008, -21/+3Name 1

      btw Firefox is a windows software.
      • Grokmoo, on 08/12/2008, -5/+6Amarok.
      • je12u, on 08/12/2008, -5/+4compiz is cool/fun and blows away aero. It's not truly productive software but still awesome.
      • johnomaz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3@je12u Compiz is not that cool. Its mostly annoying, and its effects are rather ***** looking. L2FSAA.
    • aautopsy, on 08/12/2008, -4/+6@ mrfrosti and the quality of software

      Media players, rythmbox, bmpx, and amarok are all far superior to anything I've used in windows. Maybe its just me, but I think theyre great. Even compared to foobar. I also prefer Epiphany to any browser available for windows. The integration of the KDE/Gnome desktops is unparalleled by anything in Windows, although lag behind OSX. Gnome do is amazing. As is compiz. Also, cheese is a pretty cool application. As is empathy.

      Another thing, the choice to use a GUI or the command line. For some things the command line is just better. Bash scripts are incredibly useful for doing file conversions/renaming. If I need to encode a file I'd much rather use a command line application than something in a GUI. It just makes more sense to me.
      • actionscripted, on 08/12/2008, -6/+2Almost all media players blow in the (F)OSS world. How about a GUI convention that allows me to browse my music without scrolling through a HUGE ***** LIST.

        Maybe something with three panes, split by artist/album/genre/whatever...like iTunes or WMPlayer.
      • lolfanboys, on 08/13/2008, -1/+0AmaroK is coming out for Windows and that's far and away the best media player Linux has to offer, imo.
      • mrmacky, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5@actionscripted - Amarok has a left pane that lists all your music by Artist, expanding that shows said artist's albums... it will then add them to the playlist on the right - far from a 'huge list' if you ask me.
      • aautopsy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4@actionscripted, all 3 of the players I listed do that. The only big music player that didn't was banshee, and with 1.0 it does. They don't blow, you've just never used them.

        @lolfanboys, debatable, honestly it comes down to preference. Most of the open source media players are really solid, it just comes down to what you want. I personally like bmpx the best.

        bmpx.backtrace.info check it out (:
      • reformation, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Yes but how many average users ever need to do convert or rename many files? It just doesn't happen, therefore its not an advantage to most users.
      • aautopsy, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2@ reformation, if you have a large media library I'd say its incredibly important. I have hundreds of DVDs and even more CDs. Having them all on my hard drive, well managed, and properly labeled is INCREDIBLY nice. Especially since all the media in our house is accessible from anywhere in the house with our laptops HTPC and xbox running XBMC.

        Maybe for "average" users its not necessary, but for the more experienced its a great thing to be able to use.
    • quiggibub, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4You just opened up a linux fanboy fap session. Good going.
    • whodoes, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1PLEASE DONT FLAME ME
      Im too busy to spend time learning "the linux way" of getting the same stuff done. Ive already got the windows O.S. and there are free apps for most everything I need. I might be more inclined to give it another shot if it had (PLEASE dont kill me) a windows skin of some sort. I tried ubuntu Gutsy or fiesty and within 5 min im smashing my head against a wall trying to install flash....
      ***** that *****. ive got a life.
      also why cant i just download an executable and run the damn thing ?

      I gave it a shot, eventually ill try it again. maybe the flash nonsense, right out of the gate, soured me.
      honestly though the internet needs to be functional.

      • anksrivastava, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Were you trying to install .exe ?

        If yes, You dont deserve to use linux.

        As an after thought try Wine.
  • ebarras, on 08/12/2008, -6/+36Does anyone really care about this anymore?
    • TheSuperunknown, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7Apparently a bunch of people who derive superiority from the OS they use.
  • BlackJackJester, on 08/12/2008, -11/+60myth - setting up a RAID in Linux is hard as *****....TRUE
    myth - there aren't too many high profile games native to Linux....TRUE

    balls.
    • FTLJohnson, on 08/12/2008, -5/+30myth - Photoshop CS2 runs like crap on Linux.... TRUE
      myth Photoshop CS3 doesn't run at all.... TRUE
      myth many other adobe apps you probably need don't run at all.... TRUE
      • yessuz, on 08/12/2008, -19/+6Myth - There are many alternatives for all the software, which is more or less the same quality as software for osx/windows
        BUSTED
      • krische, on 08/12/2008, -2/+12please don't tell me you think GIMP is as good as Photoshop.
      • arjie, on 08/12/2008, -5/+3Your comment history shows that you pirate software. At first I was going to say, "Well, if you paid $649 for software, you're not going to care what OS you run it on so long as it runs." But apparently that does not seem to be the case. I see now how you 'need' these apps. Likely to follow Internet Photoshop Tutorials.
      • actionscripted, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2@arjie: it's possible that he/she uses a legal version at work but cannot afford/justify the same expense at home.

        Also, there isn't anything comparable to CS3. Inkscape and the GIMP are damn good for (F)OSS, however they're still not as bad-ass as Photoshop and Illustrator.
      • Wargasmic, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3And you've never "needed" ketchup on your fries, arjie.
      • arjie, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2GIMP and Photoshop aren't comparable if you consider both of them 'free'. But $649 vs free, I think the GIMP wins. If everyone had to pay that price, you'd all be singing a different tune. But you don't. The elephant in the living room is piracy.
    • sdubois92, on 08/12/2008, -13/+6myth - GIMP sucks - FALSE
      myth - Inkscape sucks - FALSE
      • haterofps3, on 08/12/2008, -2/+11Its like you haven't been listening

        Want Photoshop don't want GIMP.
      • EtherGnat, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9If GIMP were as capable as Photoshop then everybody would use it for free, rather than pay $700 for Photoshop.
      • krische, on 08/12/2008, -1/+10What is this paying for photoshop you speak of?
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Most people don't need Photoshop, though. Unless you're in graphic design, gimp is fine for most folks. The interface still sucks, but someone will fix it ....... eventually.
    • foxmajik, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3How was setting up RAID in Linux hard? All I had to do was plug in the card, plug in the drives and configure the RAID BIOS.
      • BlackJackJester, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3software raid using mdadm - I don't want to buy a RAID card for a server full of semi-legit movies.
      • mctom987, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5I think he meant FRAID, which isn't a RAID at all.
        Why the hell would you want a software RAID (FRAID) anyway? Hardware RAIDs have nothing to do with the OS, and EVERY OS would see the RAID as a single drive (if done like as a real RAID).
      • eggsovereasy, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4I think he meant software raid.
      • Philter, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7On top of that I really wouldn't consider setting up a RAID array a "normal" task for most people. Average home pc users probably barely know what a hard drive is unless they've done some reading.
      • 4sak3n0ne, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2@mctom987 Some people (me included) have nVidia chipsets, which are software raid. Why spend money on a raid card when it isn't entirely feasible? It makes it harder to install Debian-based Linux distros, but luckily Red Hat distros sympathize, and set up mdadm out-of-box (Fedora and Cent do at least). Setting up softraid in Linux isn't difficult, but over the head of most home users as Philter stated.
    • nonsequitor, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1I just spent the weekend learning about LVM2 and dm_crypt. There are plenty of easy tutorials, understanding what they're doing takes effort, and understanding is required before proceeding with Linux RAID.

      The RAID part was easy, I now have my unencrypted boot partition in a RAID1 across 4 physical volumes. The OS partition is encrypted in RAID1 across 4 disks. The encrypted SWAP is RAID5, and the rest of the disks are divided into 150GB RAID5 paritions and pooled with LVM, so the other encrypted logical volumes (usr, home, tmp, var, opt) can be dynamically grown from the 1.5 TB pool of RAID5 partitions.

      A good partition scheme is important since it is extremely application dependent. For instance, if you have an image database, RAID1 is your best bet for speed since you can independent read threads seeking on each disk independently. Though if your requirement is storage capacity, RAID5 would be best. Once you understand what you are doing, actually doing it is quite easy. The commands are simple and powerful, mdadm now creates your dev nodes for you, which is what I hear was the "tricky" part.
    • pHr34kY, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3You probably haven't tried installing WinXP SP3 (slipstreamed) onto a RAID or AHCI drive. Two words - im-possible.

      Linux on the other hand picks them up easily. Even the fakeraids aren't too bad with dmraid.
  • kaod, on 08/12/2008, -3/+45you need to remember that most people who use computers are pants-on-head retarded. desktop linux is certainly picking up steam but some elements are still too confusing for the masses.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/12/2008, -0/+24Dugg for pants-on-head retarded.
    • CrazyZ, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6It's this attitude that will ensure that Linux never finds any real market share on the desktop. EVERY single person I work with is an engineer or graphics designer. Hardly "retarded", and they all live off of AutoDesk and Adobe products. They'd fall out of their chairs laughing if I even suggested a Linux alternative....
      • DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1The problem is that the alternatives don't cut it for professionals. I've tried to use GIMP at home while I used Photoshop at school for projects. I finally had to pirate Photoshop (broke college student) just to do my work.
    • slugicide, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2Totally. I think that's why Apple's are becoming so popular--people are so ill-used to thinking now that the prospect of having to figure something out scares the ***** out of them. They don't even want their pc to be called a pc (It's *not* a pc, it's Mac! [As if a Mac isn't a personal computer]).
      • mrmacky, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3For the record (as a person who only owns 2 [working] PC's running Linux and Windows respectively) Mac users do not call them PC's because when in a heated argument, do you really want to say "Well, my Apple computer can do X better than your IBM-Compatible/Windows-based/Inferior OS." - No... it's easier to say "Well my Mac can do X better than your PC."

        Also it stems from the whole IBM-Compatible PC thing back in the day. Mac was shorthand for an Apple made computer, PC was shorthand for IBM-Compatible-PC
    • lolfanboys, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3Funny, every day I read Linux threads from people who certainly don't come off as pants-on-head retarded. But let them post in a thread about how they had problems installing Linux and they're met with "lol go back to windows, linux probably isnt for u". This from the same people who SWEAR TO GOD Linux is ready for everyone's computer right this second.

      There's even a sect of Linux users that trash people who use Ubuntu "lol get a real distro... ubuntunoobs are dumbing down linux".

      What is a real distro? Something totally built for hobbyists with an endless amount of time on their hands that makes it as long and tedious as possible to get a working desktop up?

      Setting up an OS that is more difficult to set up than it should be isn't something you should feel superior for. You should feel like a tool for wasting so much time in this day and age when it's really not that hard to set most PCs up anymore.
  • HillerMylife, on 08/12/2008, -8/+8There will never be the year of the Linux Desktop, and it's because of marketing. A group of volunteers might come together to make a great product, but it will never win when you pit its nonexistent marketing team against one that's backed by millions of dollars.

    Linux has found its niche in mobile devices, routers, and similar hardware. It does its job well.
    • ExRe, on 08/12/2008, -0/+12If you haven't noticed, Microsoft's marketing department sucks.

      It only took them 1 3/4 years to think of something like their Mohave experiment for Vista to clear up the BS, but I still haven't seen any advertisements on TV or anything regarding them.

      If marketing was all it took, Apple would be dominating the PC market.
      • HillerMylife, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8You're right, but ***** marketing is still leagues better than no marketing at all. Kind of like bad publicity.

        The truth is, Microsoft have spend the past 15 years pounding their brand into consumers' heads to much the same end as people think "tissue" when you say "Kleenex."

        But people have been getting frustrated with Microsoft, and rightly so, which provides the perfect opportunity for a competitor to steal some market share. And that's why Apple's market share has been increasing relatively dramatically -- they shamelessly point out this situation, in fact, in their wildly successful marketing campaign.
    • stattek, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Firefox has done surprisingly well with little marketing. They just made a quality product and word spread.

      Same with countless other software. If it is what people want, word will get around.
      • HillerMylife, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5Firefox has done amazingly well, but Internet Explorer is still far and away the big kid on the block. And actually, the "Colbert Bump" shows how even Firefox, with its amazing cult following, profited immensely from a just a short mention on cable television: http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/07/08/colbert ...
      • EtherGnat, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3The barriers for entry are a lot lower for an application than they are for an entire operating system.
      • DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Firefox has had plenty of free marketing from magazines (both Technical & non-Technical) as well as the media at times.
  • drmangrum, on 08/12/2008, -14/+40Honestly, why do all the Mac and Linux junkie feel the need to try and convert Windows users? It not like people don't know Mac and Linux are out there. If people are happy with what they have, leave them alone.
    • rrife, on 08/12/2008, -6/+10It's about 3rd party support. If I can get 20m people to use SkyOS, then maybe EA will port Madden 09 to it.
      • yessuz, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2Why do you need that?
      • TheDreadDiggerD, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4"It's about 3rd party support. If I can get 20m people to use 'fav. OS', then maybe 'large corporation' will port 'wanted software' to it."
        There, much better.
    • bstock, on 08/12/2008, -2/+10I generally don't try to convert just anybody, but when people come to me complaining about virus, spyware, or BSODs and need to have windows re-installed, I'll talk to them about it. I've converted both my parents to linux and they have had significantly less problems since.

      It all depends on your use. If all you're doing is web and email, linux will work fine for you, but if you're running the latest and greatest games and have lots of software made for Windows, then maybe not.
      • CrazyZ, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2Who gets this crap anymore? I haven't seen a virus/spyware laden computer in a couple years now as user awareness is through the roof. Coupled with better browers (IE7, Firefox, etc.) a lot of this stuff is a thing of the past. BSOD's? If you are getting them, you have a hardware issue! I haven't seen a BSOD that didn't have a reason behind it in ages...
    • init100, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8"It not like people don't know Mac and Linux are out there."

      Yes, most people are aware of the existence of Macs, but I'm pretty confident that many ordinary users have never heard of Linux. But even with Mac, many people think (because of hearsay) that Macs are only usable for certain special tasks.

      I got a new job this January, and with it I got my first Mac (MBP). I showed it to my parents and they were really impressed with the nice looks and the ease of use, but when we later discussed laptop options for my little sister (she begins studies at the Royal Institute of Technology next week) and I suggested buying her a MacBook, they questioned the usability of Macs for ordinary users ("Can you really use a Mac for such things as office software and other stuff used by ordinary users? Isn't it better to be compatible with the rest of the world instead of using the incompatible Mac?", etc, etc).
      • actionscripted, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2These "compatibility issues" have long since died. Thank god, too, because I was tired of having to deal with *.sit files.
      • init100, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1@actionscripted

        I know they have, since I use it every day at work. But my parents had a hard time believing me. They thought that other operating systems necessarily would be incompatible with Windows, and that those other systems could only be used for very specific tasks.
    • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3As was already said and is getting dug down: its about 3rd party support for me. Most of the restrictions on linux at this point are because it is unsupported.
    • evilgourmet, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Indeed, you are correct!
      Why would anyone want to convert Windows users to Linux?

      You cannot be elite if you are just one of the masses, let most people use Windows (vista,XP, whatever), then Linux users can remain elite.
    • slugicide, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2Well, maybe we're sick of a malicious corporation having a monopoly on operating systems? Maybe we want a newer, more arrogant corporation to take over that monopoly? Maybe we are doing it for your own good.
  • bumcheekcity, on 08/12/2008, -15/+53You have to compile more than I would like in Linux. The amount I would LIKE to compile is "none".

    I'm sorry that I don't want to download a .tar file, unzip it somewhere, run the make command, sort out the dependancies manually (which would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to the average user), compile and install manually. I'm sorry that I prefer downloading a single .exe file, double-clicking and then running a GUI which does everything for me.

    I'm sorry that the RPMs etc. don't come out instantly, and you have to wait a day or so for them to be made for the latest version of a given program. I'm sorry that I like the fact that as soon as the latest Windows program comes out, I can download the .exe right away, without having to wait for people to make it into a DEB file or whatever.

    Oh, and I'm sorry that I dont like having lots of different precompiled files (DEB, RPM, YUM, etc.) for different flavours of linux. Forgive me for this crazy opinion I have, it's just the kind of man I am.
    • rrife, on 08/12/2008, -15/+8apt-get works well and there are nice GUIs for it.
      • Relasz, on 08/12/2008, -6/+8congratulations on typical fanboi response. Synaptic is *****, and is no alternative to the installer system used in windows.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6Wow I didn't see that one coming.

        Clue: Many software titles do not have pre-built packages and need to be compiled from source.
    • adkenc, on 08/12/2008, -19/+1you are sorry.
    • init100, on 08/12/2008, -4/+8"I'm sorry that I prefer downloading a single .exe file, double-clicking and then running a GUI which does everything for me."

      If you've been using Windows for a while, you might know that things aren't really so simple as you try to make them. Dependencies exist in Windows too, except they are usually fewer separate packages. Many applications are e.g. dependent on a specific version of the .NET framework being present, and some .msi packages require a specific version of the Windows installer already present to work. If you don't have them, you'll have to go and download them separately. Or you could have it all bundled with every application, which essentially means that when you download the umpteenth .NET application, you also download the (umpteen-1)th instance of the .NET framework, even though you only need one.
      • DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1If a person does not have the correct version of .net installed two things will happen. The program will either install the "re-distributable version from MS" or the program/os will go to Windows and download/install if for you.

        Also, .net framework still isn't as bad a Java with versions.
    • infiniphunk, on 08/12/2008, -9/+8Welcome to 2008. You don't have to compile a program to install it. But you say you would rather download an exe, and then click through the gui. So first you have to go to a website, and find your exe. I hope you are then scanning it with some decent anti-virus tool, instead of just blindly installing whatever exe you downloaded. Then you have to click 'NEXT' (forgive me its been years since I've used Windows) about 3 - 5 times. And somehow you find this easier than typing

      'sudo apt-get install nameofprogram' ??

      But I forgive you for your crazy opinion.

    • lynx44, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8I completely agree. I prefer Linux over Windows, but this is the single biggest shortcoming in Linux. Yes the package managers are great but as you mentioned, not everything is available. When you can do "sudo apt-get install" thats great, it works arguably better than Windows, but when the program you want isn't available its a gigantic pain. I'd say probably 70% of the time the application is available through a repo, but its that other 30% of the time that's incredibly frustrating to users.

      In Windows it is just about always the same. Download the installer, run it, done. You don't have to worry about it being available in a repo, if it was created for Windows there's a 99% chance that you will have zero problems installing and running it. And about the .NET framework - the redistributable is almost always included in the setup program, and if it isn't there's only maybe 4 different versions max (2.0 being by far the most commonly used), which most everyone has had for an incredibly long time. I'd deal with that any day over the different dependency problems in Linux.
    • czarr, on 08/12/2008, -6/+6I like being able to download any program i want with one command and not have to scour the internet.
      I also like that every program on my computer is kept up to date with one command.
      oh, wait i'm using linux.
    • Fr33th0t, on 08/13/2008, -3/+1The simple way is to open the package manager, choose the app you'd like to try, click install and then apply. All in one GUI--none of that confusing downloading in one app, then switching to the download folder and double clicking just right....

      All the snark aside, this is really only an issue of familiarity and laziness.
  • rrife, on 08/12/2008, -9/+25At this point I don't really see what Linux buys any user. I could see back in the Win2k and early XP days that it may have taken off, but now the desktop is less relavent and there is no compelling reason to use linux. The bottom line is that Windows and MacOS have way more 3rd party application support, are way easy to use and have tech support out the wahzoo.....so why switch? And don't say it's more stable or secure, because from my experiences Linux is just as flaky as any other current platform. The only reason I can think anybody would consider it would be for the cost or multi-architecure support.....but anybody thinking of switching is probably run a COTS x86 PC that came preinstalled with Windows, so they've already spent the money and picked the hardware platform.
    • earlycj5, on 08/12/2008, -4/+9Because it looks better and runs faster than Vista on my HP Mini-Note?

      Because currently I use programs only available for a Unix environment?

      Because I've found out that for doing some operations R manages large datasets in Linux better than Windows?

      Because I can't see any compelling reason to use Windows?
      • rrife, on 08/12/2008, -9/+4Can't argue about speed, although my core solo 1.1ghz gateway mini notebook seems to run Vista w/ Aero w/o any problems.....and my quad core desktop is slow as dirt. And what are you running that makes Linux look better than Vista? The interfaces I've always used are inconsistent, clunky and generally not asthetic pleasing.

        Port your Unix apps to Windows.

        Have you tried in Windows? I use large datasets (large by my standards) all the time w/o any problems.

        Applications, hardware support and tech support aren't good reasons?
      • yessuz, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1Pics or it didn't happen!
      • saranagati, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4i really don't see how anyone finds the look/feel of windows appealing. Granted I haven't really used it in the past 8 years but it just looks horrible. Just because they changed the colors, rounded some buttons and made some menus slightly transparent doesn't mean its not the same interface that microsoft gave you back in `95. Then again I guess i'm just a minimalist enlightenment junkie.
    • Lythium, on 08/12/2008, -6/+4Remember the old phrase "To Each Their Own?"

      Linux = flexibility, for the tech-savvy
      Mac = status, for those willing to pay premium for a pretty case/GUI
      Windows = simplicity, for the average user (or for any halfway serious non-console gamer)
    • javaroast, on 08/12/2008, -2/+71.) I don't game on the PC.
      2.) I don't want to have a gimped tcp/ip stack on my os, because I do a lot of network oriented work.
      3.) I don't want a DRM controlled OS. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080514-nbc- ...
      4.) I'm comfortable with Linux/Unix and prefer working in that environment
      5.) Because Linux has tech support out the wahzoo
      6.) Don't want to have to upgrade my hardware to run the latest version of the OS
      7.) Because I don't take OS's without built in SSH seriously.

      There are plenty of reasons for someone to switch, just as there are reasons not to switch. We need to have more balanced arguments on both sides. The fanboy ranting for each of the major OS's really gets old. I have heard all the rants from OSX, Linux and Windows, and I'm tired of them.
      • DarkShroud, on 08/13/2008, -3/+1DRM does not control the OS. The Linux alternatives of Windows Media Center can't even play a lot of the premium channels because of broadcast flags. So your choice is put up with DRM at no cost or don't watch at all. Sorry but I'll put up with the DRM since WMC will let me burn content to a DVD to watch on my DVD player.
    • daddymcguire, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Personally, I use Linux because it works out better for the things that I use my computer for. Depending on what you use a computer for there are advantages and disadvantages with every OS. My distro of choice, Ubuntu, offers me a more secure and reliable environment, but falls short in other areas. This is true of any OS.

      I am not one of those open source evangelists. Open source is all about choice and that option also applies to someone who chooses to use an OS that doesn't incorporate the Linux kernel. If they're happy using Windows, good. A person's choice of an OS really shouldn't be the jumping point for a holy war.
  • twiztidsinz, on 08/12/2008, -8/+22Myth# 2: I have to know the Linux terminal in order to use Linux.

    False. There is absolutely no reason for a regular computer user to use linux for years, without having to use the terminal.

    Wording: BUSTED!
    • hashfail, on 08/12/2008, -3/+15I disagreed with that one too. Even with Gnome I have to use the terminal constantly.

      I rather enjoy hacking bash now but I remember being miffed at this when I started using Linux. It remains the barrier that's keeping the rest of my family from converting.
      • Fr33th0t, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1What are you doing that you HAVE to use the command line daily? Seriously, there aren't any daily tasks that most folks do that call for the command line. Even the support forums that tell you to open the terminal don't really have to most of the time. So what exactly do you have mis configured, or do you not know how to do, or is the application that you have to use that has you in the command line that often?
    • flammenwurfer, on 08/12/2008, -0/+13That was a horribly written article....grammatically speaking.
    • adml_shake, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8I was a little confused by that too, every time I've needed help in figuring something out I almost always end up in some article or forum post that says I have to get into a terminal and change some settings. It's been about 6 months since I've used my linux machine, but I don't imagine that it's changed all that much with any of the new releases.
      • Fr33th0t, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0Yes it is about the same, but it is also the same folks who bothered to learn how to use the terminal that are answering those questions. Most of the time I just sudo nautilus and navigate to the file, open and edit.
    • Unlgued, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2That myth fell apart the moment I plugged in my NTFS formated USB drive, and again when my laptop didn't shut down cleanly.
    • lolfanboys, on 08/12/2008, -3/+4Yeah, it's wishful thinking to believe that you can be command line free in Linux today.

      But fanboys just keep shoving it in peoples faces blind to the fact that first impressions are a bitch and Linux is still not ready for public consumption.

      When it comes down to it I think it's less about spreading freedom of OS and more about recruiting more beta testers for Linux so that the fanboys using it now can have a better OS.
    • Syntaxis, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3As a simple web developer I wanted to setup Apache with Wordpress, just for kicks. Not even for business. Try to figure out how you can, for starters, enable yourself to write the folder where Apache's root is set to. When you figured that one out, try setting up that mod_rewrite for Apache 2. Im-*****-possible (for a newbie to Linux).

      3 Or 4 more years and Linux will be "there". But not quite yet.
      • MWeather, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3"Try to figure out how you can, for starters, enable yourself to write the folder where Apache's root is set to."

        You can only write to a folder if your user can, just like Windows. Try messing around in system directories as a non-admin in Vista, or XP in a domain.

        "When you figured that one out, try setting up that mod_rewrite for Apache 2."

        a2enmod rewrite, or editing httpd.conf just like Windows (editing the conf, that is).

        This is stuff you should have found right in the help files that came with the OS or 5 minutes on Google.

        Regardless of the OS, setting up a web server is not easy.
        IIS is not a trivial install. If you don't know how to do it already, you are going to need to search for the answer.

        If you're used to a pre-installed Apache, like XAMPP, they do have a Linux version.



      • BurgerPunch, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0Mac OS X
        System Preferences>Sharing>Web Sharing>Start
    • infiniphunk, on 08/12/2008, -3/+3"OH NOES!! I might actually have to know how to read and type in order for linux to work well for me!!!"

    • lilSears, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3There's too much stuff that doesn't go the way you want it to and the only way to fix it is through the terminal and it takes a couple hours of searching the forums to find out how to do it.

      Secondly, minus the install packages, you have to use the terminal to install stuff. Yeah packages are nice but lots of times they're just unavailable and only come in .run's which take a miracle to figure out and other crap that doesn't want to work right...but then again, I don't have the most experience so the average user would be seriously stuck. It's getting better, but it's not near "there" yet. Honestly, there needs to be a simple executable file that runs across the board with all systems that should install and run programs like a .exe. Otherwise it's going to continue to be one hell of a pain and a wall that are going to keep people from switching.
    • Amiga501, on 08/12/2008, -7/+2Yeah, #2 is a dick in the ass to anyone who has had to change file permissions or ownership. As usual, the Lying Linux Assholes selectively cherry pick ONLY the examples that suit them best. ***** faggits, every god damn one of them.
  • HillerMylife, on 08/12/2008, -0/+19I'm pretty sure whoever wrote this article learned English as a second language.
    • init100, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4I'd rather say third or fourth language. At least for me, I know my second language (English) really well, especially in reading/writing. But of course, I'm also somewhat of a spelling nazi, at least with regard to myself (in other words, I usually don't complain about other peoples' spelling unless it's *really bad*, but I'm pretty meticulous in making my own spelling correct).

      But then, YMMV.
    • zdre, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1On average, people who learn English as a second language in a non-English speaking county are better at English grammar than native English speakers.
  • Skooma714, on 08/12/2008, -9/+22Yeah Linux is sooo easy. Then how come I have to install Ubuntu like 3 times before GRUB decides to work properly?

    I still can't GRUB to recognise Windows, and I want to do more than use the net, type up reports and make my desktop into a cube so Windows wins this round.
    • Lythium, on 08/12/2008, -4/+8I gave up trying to run Linux when I installed a couple of new fonts and my machine quit being able to connect to the Internet. Wha-what?? I don't even care if it was user error (10 to 1 says it was most likely my fault); the point is that if it's THAT touchy, it's not worth my time - just a personal preference.
    • k3rfuffl3, on 08/12/2008, -2/+10OH IT'S EASY!

      Just use a LiveCD to mount the partition, figure where your Windows partition is in terms of how GRUB (not Linux) sees it. Then edit your grub.conf in your Linux boot directory display the following:

      title = Windows XP
      rootnoverify (hdx,y)
      chainloader +1

      Where x is your Windows hard drive number and y is the partition number. So ***** easy a retard could do it! Right after they google a million useless listserv posts and ***** Ubuntu message board n00bs who think they're Linux experts 'cause they got Ubuntu working.

      /sarcasm
    • init100, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1"I still can't GRUB to recognise Windows"

      What do you mean?`It is usually the OS installer that recognizes the other OS, and sets up Grub accordingly. Grub does not recognize any OS, it simply does what it's told in its configuration file, or what you tell it on the Grub command line.

      What happens when you boot the system? Is there an entry for Windows that doesn't work, or is there no entry for Windows at all. In the former case, the fault is usually with the Windows bootloader, and in the latter case, the fault is usually with the OS installer. The former case is usually caused by the Windows bootloader being unable to boot Windows off anything else than the first hard drive, but this is fixable using the "map" command in the entry for Windows in the Grub configuration file.
      • Skooma714, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2I inputted the correct commands but it justs says "Starting up..." and doesn't do anything after that.
        Ubuntu does boot though.
      • init100, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1@Skooma714

        Do you have several hard drives? It is possible that Windows sits on the second hard drive, and if that is the case, the Windows bootloader freezes unless you use the map command in Grub to trick it to believe that it sits on the first instead.
      • BurgerPunch, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0"Do you have several hard drives? It is possible that Windows sits on the second hard drive, and if that is the case, the Windows bootloader freezes unless "
        Seriously……
        how can anyone offer this as an alternative.

        Would Apples bootcamp run into the same problem? ***** DOUBT IT
      • Skooma714, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Yes but Windows in on the same hard disk as the /boot partition.
      • init100, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2@BurgerPunch

        "Seriously……how can anyone offer this as an alternative."

        Offer what? Windows? Because the problem is with the Windows bootloader, nothing else.

        "Would Apples bootcamp run into the same problem? ***** DOUBT IT"

        If the problem does not occur on the Mac, Bootcamp obviously contain a replacement for the Windows bootloader that works, unlike Microsoft's crappy bootloader.

        @Skooma714

        "Yes but Windows in on the same hard disk as the /boot partition."

        That does not matter. It could still be the case that the Windows bootloader considers that drive the second, and thus refuses to work. Try adding the following commands to the entry for Windows in grub.conf, or even try it first by adding them to the Windows entry during startup (select the Windows entry with the arrow keys and press 'e'):

        map (hd0) (hd1)
        map (hd1) (hd0)

        They need to be added before the

        chainloader +1

        line, which invokes the Windows bootloader.
    • infiniphunk, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4you're doing it wrong.
    • MWeather, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3I'll agree that GRUB sucks when you get the Windows Boot Loader to recognize Linux automatically. Grub isn't perfect, but it's better than NTLDR.
  • lnxfi, on 08/12/2008, -4/+22Look, it's a good server. There's no arguing that. As a desktop... it's a niche group and they like it. It's not the final answer or solution. Nothing is guys...
  • Snarfy, on 08/12/2008, -13/+21NO GAMES!
    • clickwir, on 08/12/2008, -6/+4That's not Linux's fault. If I write a game, and I make it only for Linux and don't make a Windows version... same thing!
      • bpoteat, on 08/12/2008, -2/+20Nobody's placing blame. It's just a fact.
      • Acidictadpole, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9Yea, but its still a problem for a lot of people. I run vista solely because linux doesn't play the majority of games I play (properly at least) and when I do try and dual boot it I just end up never booting up the linux partition since I can do pretty much everything I need to in vista.
      • Lythium, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14I don't give a ***** WHOSE fault it it - Linux's, the developers', Bill Gates', God's, the Flying Spaghetti Monster's, I don't care. The bottom line is that if you want to game, your options are "or Windows."
      • sindex, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4But that doesn't happen. At least not with any game I'd want to play.
    • EXTER, on 08/12/2008, -8/+4Busted

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_gaming
      • lolfanboys, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13Yes we're all well aware you can play old Windows games through wine and Linux games with goofy names.

        But with Windows I can play old Windows games AND new Windows games. New Windows games, coincidentally, being the games most games are going to be most interested in playing.
      • haterofps3, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4No until it runs crysis I don't even care
    • exspasticcomics, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2plays morrowind, oblivion,, neverwinter nights, quake & doom. has heard of people playing world of warcraft. (obviously- you can tell my preference when it comes to gaming... ..)
  • jdelator, on 08/12/2008, -7/+15#6 Games are not supported on the linux.

    Well after 20 long years, you still need to use wine!
    • slugicide,