@louiedog:

Here's a suggestion for you with Dell's printer. Some, if not all of them, are merely rebranded from other manufacturers. For example, a friend of mine got one with a laptop he bought. It said Dell all over it, but in reality it was a Lexmark printer. You might check to see if that is the case with yours (No idea how you go about that, though), and the drivers that work with the original manufacturer's printer may work with the Dell one.

Cheers!

SinisterMatt

@jsmorley & @Jezebeau

I appreciate that it can be done, but why not default in the first place? The reason? As far as Microsoft is concerned it is their PC.

the_boffin

@jsmorley:

Well not to be picky but what if I would like to have automatic updates and not have my machine demand to restart every 5 mins? This is actually more of a problem for me these days since I am usually in fedora but switch back over to XP for certain gaming. Of course then the updates start going and demand a restart while I'm playing which is particularly irritating.

eskimobob

@windsurfer619:

Oh come on. You certainly can go to control panel / admin tools / services and turn off the Windows Update service as well. Jezebeau was give a command line example since that was the flavor of this thread.

jsmorley

@Jezebeau: I find it strange that for an operating system that touts an "easy to use GUI" you need to go to a command line to make your computer not restart without your permission.

windsurfer619

Here's a good reason to dual-boot with it. Unlike in Windows, and to a lesser degree OS X, there aren't many games you can install on it. I use Ubuntu as a work environment to get things like writing papers out of the way. Unless I randomly get caught up in online flash games this works great! Open Office works just as well as what msoft puts out.

ep5760

I would love to switch to Ubuntu. Unfortunately there are two things stopping me. One is that Dell won't put out printer drivers for linux and no one else has either. I guess I could get a new printer, but I like the all-in-one model I have and it seems like a waste to do so.

The second is remote desktop. I have an old Thinkpad P2 laptop that I use a lot around the house. Often I just use it as a portable front end for my desktop so I can comfortable use my desktop from the bedroom or while on the couch. I stripped down a copy of XP and it runs pretty well on it, as well as Xubuntu, or close enough anyway. The only problem is that nothing I have tried works as well as remote desktop that is built into windows. I have tried every flavor of linux app that does the same thing, and none even come close.

louiedog

Re: update managers

Type "net stop wuauserv" in Run, and hit okay. No more update manager nonsense (including 5-minute reboot demand intervals) until the next reboot. The command-line that is there is just fine, if you know how to use it.

Jezebeau

On the Dell printer thing, have you tried just letting CUPS make the guess? In my experience, it's pretty good at figuring out what printers are attached to the USB port.

Also, if you are wanting to use the Scanner, SANE Is your friend.

englishman

I've been using Linux / Windows dual boot for some time, and have almost stopped using windows entirely. For me, one major reason is the swathes of free software available: to get the same toolset on windows, I would either have to spend hundreds of pounds or illegally copy everything.
The only reason I boot windows now is if I want to play a modern game (something that scummvm, dosbox or wine can't cope with), or if I'm in a rush: windows boots up much quicker for me. Anyone know any good linux boot profiling howtos? /me wanders over to google...

spookypeanut

Why not switch for Linux: more secure, faster, and free. Even gaming works using Cedega!

Stefan Neagu

@louiedog: I started using pendrivelinux on a thumb drive a few months ago. Linux has rdesktop which is a pretty much the same thing as Windows Remote Desktop. I have used it to rd into a Win2k3 Server desktop I have at home. If you don't have rdesktop on your Linux install just goto Synaptic (or whatever package manager) and install it. In my opinion, rdesktop is actually faster than the Windows version.

arod

Linux: crappy power management, crappy hardware support in general, crappy in general.

nortexoid

@SinisterMatt: Thanks for the tip, but I've already done the research and there doesn't seem to be anything for my model.

louiedog

@eskimobob: Because, on some computers, the update would never get applied if a reboot wasn't forced. Some workstations here at my work hardly ever get rebooted.

Vista lets you choose an interval when it reminds you again.

Daemonstar

I still have issues running a wireless network on Linux. I know it's supposed to be much easier now, but somehow, my hardware is never the "right" hardware for Linux.

tasselhoff76

@the_boffin:

I'm sorry, default to what? No automatic updates? For 99% of the users of PC, this would mean they just wouldn't get security updates at all, and they and the entire internet would be a far less safe place. Default to not offering to reboot when an update requires it to modify a core element currently in use and locked? No thanks, that's the same as no automatic updates.

Windows could make one welcome change and when a reboot is required just tell you once and let you say "no thanks, busy right now, I'll get back to you when I want to reboot". Popping up every 5 minutes to remind you IS annoying and although it can be turned off it's not their best thinking...

jsmorley

Linux Mint >> Ubuntu

puntai

a single OS is such a waste.

i bounce between a couple of macs (video editing), a couple of windows machines (desktop at work and gaming rig at home), and a couple of linux machines (servers). i think they each have their merits. having only one computer and/or only one OS on a machine is such a waste since you are limiting yourself. pretty much any PC can run windows and linux so why not install both? thanks to mozilla and open office, you can have access to the 20% of your software that you use 80% of the time pretty much anywhere.

unless a machine will be up 24x7 and never reboot (like a server or router) why not put windows and linux on it too?

chrizzle

Ubuntu seems to be the most friendly flavor of Linux if you're migrating from Windows but the horrible video driver support for my Nvidia 8800GTXs and the fact that I can't enable SLI is a major stumbling block. Also, The inability to rip music straight to mp3 without having to go searching for tar balls is annoying. I can't say that I've ever really had a problem with Windows and I use Vista currently. I'll concede Linux is interesting but not enough to get me to use it frequently or even have it installed.

Jamo

I always manage to get bogged down with something in Linux. I start playing with something that should work then a week later I'm so far down the rabbit hole I switch back to Windows. There's just a few things where Linux is still too broken for me and they're weird outlier cases or have to be fixed by vendors that the FOSS has no control over.

-Nvidia drivers + compiz = no vsync for videos. It's a known issue and it's not getting fixed till Nvidia fixes it apparently.

-No hardware accelerated h264 decoding or CoreAVC. There's a way to get CoreAVC working as a plugin for mplayer but it's a seriously involved procedure, way too much work.

-Flash still sucks. This one's almost fixed, Flash 10 seems as fast as Flash 10 on OSX for me. Still behind Windows but close enough to be usable.

The fact that these are my only real issues with Linux these days just shows how amazingly far they've come, but these kind of issues just blind-side you and then you run into a brick wall and "Sorry, it can't be fixed". It's frustrating because I really want to like Linux but I'm kind of an all or nothing OS guy. I don't really hate Windows, it works really well for me so that makes the switch to Linux less rewarding.

PhilK

I'm not sure if this reason was mentioned, but I switched to linux because I wanted "nerd cred" and I thought it would make me popular on the internet. I was actually right, so I guess it worked out, but eventually I got to liking some of the stuff that linux let me do that Windows was lacking, so I guess sometimes poor motivations have pretty good results. :-)

amaranthinenight

@the_boffin:
or you could just manually configure your updates yourself.
meaning only download them when you want to.

and saying that a package manager is better than windows updates is comparing apples to oranges.

one is a repository of only certain programs and the other is for the OS independent of anything else.

If Microsoft were to try and implement a package manager in Windows (they do to some extent if you want to use Microsoft Updates instead of Windows updates) people would scream bloody murder.
"Why do i have to go through MS to get the latest version of JAVA!!"
"Why do I have to go through MS to get the latest version of Firefox!!!"

etc.

and there are plenty of programs which are more up to date on their own sites than are available through the package manager for just about every Linux distro.

package managers are nice, but to say they are less annoying than Windows Updates is simply lying.
Case in point, how many times do I get the little red warning from Yum on my Fedora box?
Pretty much daily.

Buddha916

@arod: not even close.

i use and administer a remote desktop environment for companies all over the country.

while rdesktop has some of the functionality of the RDP client, it lacks most of the IMPORTANT functionality that people really desire.
Namely multiple monitor support, printer redirection, and straight save to remote hard drive access.

rdesktop is fine for people who just want to connect to a computer to check something, but is not in any way as good as RDP.

I wish it were.

Buddha916

@eskimobob:

One simple setting in Windows Update will tell it to either:

1) Download the updates but don't install them until you tell it to (reminder will show on your task bar, but no popups)

2) Check for updates but don't download or install them until you tell it to (reminder will show on your task bar, but no popups)

This whole automatic updates whine is just such a non-issue. It works really well and has gone a LONG way toward making computing in a shared (internet) world safer for all of us.

jsmorley

@chrizzle: agreed. Between VM's and physical boxes I run 10 OS's. It's pretty hectic so I'm in the process of cutting it down to 3. The only reason I'm not windows free is because I haven't converted my mp3's to flac yet (which I want to do by re-ripping them all).

rabiddachshund

I'll concede to the notion that hardware drivers for Ubuntu can be hard to find, and in some cases not even work at all. I have a Dell All-In-One device that I cannot use beyond printing because the drivers simply won't function for the unit. (From what I have found after searching Google, Ubuntu Forums, etc)

I'm happy with Ubuntu speed-wise and support wise. The installation I have now does everything I need it to without much [if any] fuss. It's almost like I have to go in and intentionally create a problem for myself in order to have to tinker around with my machine.

Dell GX Series | Celeron | 2GB RAM | 80GB HDD | 256MB AGP

I keep hearing good things about Mint, so I'll give it a shot.

sw4383

@Jamo: Ubuntu seems to be the most friendly flavor of Linux if you're migrating from Windows

Try Xandros. Handles any filesystem partition and is a cinch to network boxes running any OS.. windows, OS X, Linux.. Xandros is low on eye-candy.. but incredibly usable and functional out-of-the-box.

sisya

Open Source stuff is very exciting. I love the democratic nature of it. I will be more than happy to install the OS but not until: 1- It becomes more user-friendly (or more intuitive to compensate for the fact that I - and many others - have had access to Mac and Windows OS since first grade.) and less intimidating to us who don't program or are currently unfamiliar with command functions. 2- It can EASILY run Windows programs (games!)

jeevzycreezy

@louiedog:
Just for the record, Brother puts out Linux drivers for the multi-function machines. I don't know if they do it for all of them, just the current ones, or what, but I know they had one for my laser printer/fax/scanner. Surprisingly painless to set up.

DHT

I respect everyone's preferences, but I can hardly figure out "older hardware" as main motivation for swiching to Linux. Unless you use it through command line, Linux graphic server bloats, there's nothing you can do about this, and this it's true also if you use with Icewm or some other sad-looking environment.

Of course, if you compare them to Vista, Damn Small Linux, Puppy & C. rus faster. But I think you'd better compare Ice Wm & C. with Win 98, wich runs considerably faster on old machines (including my jurassic Pentium I - 128 MB Ram old pc) and it's also quite more usable.

ilcaroleader

@nortexoid: You like myself must be a fan of Linux Hater's blog

-Operating system versions that become obsolete in 6 months
-Building from sources / manual install a mess if a package isn't in repository
-45000 different incompatible sound APIs.
-Trivial reconfiguration tasks in windows require a 6-page HOW-TO under Linux
-6000 crappy knockoffs of one program instead of one really good one.
-KDE and GNOME bogging down Linux performance worse than Windows.

I've tried and tried again, nope I'll stick with Windows for now. I just took a Linux home server out of commision in favour of a WinXP one. Set up with a hacked Tserv.dll and I can have a remote session while someone's on the console without problem, unlike VNC server that I set up in Linux that swalloed RAM for lunch and supper, or NX server that had a 75 page how-to to get it to work with Ubuntu.

johnsmith1234

My biggest problem with linux is that it isn't user-friendly. I'm not computer-illiterate, it's just that my focus isn't on trying to get a OS system to work - it's using the programs I need to get the job done. Every time I try to use linux, it never works completely out of the box (or CD). XP never gives me issues, but it works 95% of the time. And that's fine for me. And until a distro comes out where I don't have to spend a weekend looking for the proper drivers or making custom ones, maybe then will I switch.

The less time I dedicate to making a OS work, the more time I have doing other stuff.

Cpryd001

@johnsmith1234: -Building from sources / manual install a mess if a package isn't in repository

Not to mention pulling your hair out for two hours because the package is in the repository but it doesn't actually work! Hah! That was me last night trying to get OMFS support working.

Linux is getting close to usable, though.

Troy F.

Given some of the comments on the original post and some that are appearing here I think it would be useful to have another list of reasons not to switch to Linux yet, for balance. I read a lot of positive quotes about Linux which simply don't match with my experiences of it.

I speak as someone who dipped their toe in the Linux waters and was left with a distinct feeling of something that's not quite ready for prime time - an OS for people who live to geek rather than geeking to live.

MattHall

I love that practically everything is under my control in Linux, and that the whole environment is conducive to experimentation. Swapping between different Window Managers and Desktop Environments is as easy as pie, which I don't think I would have done in XP at all. I've even gone and used tiling WMs, and love the concepts they put forward (multiple layouts? Multiple user-defined tags for applications? Yes please!).

Plus, whenever I use XP now (which is what's installed on my work laptop), there are a lot of little things I miss: the lack of focus-follows-mouse, not being able to use Alt to move the window, applications such as GNOME Do, the lack of desktop-wide zooming, no Scale plugin, multiple workspaces ... I could go on and on. So aside from the customization, I miss the functionality as well.

kayeoz

@jsmorley:

I understand you can just have it wait to install updates but how hard would it be for the restart or wait dialogue to just stop coming up if I tell it restart later? Instead it comes back up every 5 mins or whatever the interval is bumping me out of whatever game I'm playing. All I'm asking for is for it to install them and shut up till I restart myself but no, windows doesn't want to do that. It may be a non issue for some people but it bothers me, which makes it an issue on my end. I don't want to remember to install them, I'd like the OS to handle that like it does but then not demand that I take time out of my schedule to restart on the spot. Naturally I'll get flack for this stance but it seems like a pretty reasonable request to me.

eskimobob

Most of the problems with Linux are due to closed and proprietary hardware / software. Windows has an advantage due to the large install base, driver support, and huge software application library, none of which Linux as an OS can directly influence unless it grows market share. Yeah, chicken/egg thing. I realize that the "average user" won't care whose fault a particular deficiency is, but even so, it's ignorant and unfair to make a blanket statement like "Linux sucks!" based on those.

The improvements just these past few years are huge, though, and players who encourage openness such as Linux encourage interoperability as well as competition due to actual technical merits, and not vendor lock-in. Whether Linux is there yet is subjective, of course, but seeing the beneficial changes that software such as Firefox and Ubuntu have brought to the market, that's more than enough reason for me to support them and not to just dismiss them offhand.

Of course, the fact that *for me*, the actual merits and functionality of Linux are greater than those of Windows is enough reason for me to use it, even without all the other reasons above.

kayeoz

@the_boffin: All of the windows updates are to patch holes for the most part and secondly to improve piracy protection. Oh, and to slow down your old PC that worked just fine 2 years ago on XP.

My question about Ubuntu is this: when will they make a walk through to help you set up your wifi? Yea. I know about the lack of 'open source' and the patents and all of that. But Puppy Linux will walk you through it. Why can't Ubuntu?

quail

I have dual booted Ubuntu with windows vista, only to discover that i couldn't access the internet as my broadcom 802.11g wifi card isn't compatible. I tried various drivers but none seem to work... any help???

Thanks,

Michael Wilkinson

madmichael

I can't remember which reader said it but I remember someone posting that many Windows adherents (including longtime gurus) often confuse *familiarity* with *user-friendliness*. I could not have said it better myself; many of the people complaining that Linux isn't "user-friendly" are probably saying this because they're used to doing things the Microsoft way and believe this is somehow "standard". The problem isn't that Linux is inferior; the issue is that it's *different*.

And, as far the the learning curve is concerned, it's not like everyone came from the womb knowing their way around Windows in the first place. You had to go through the same learning curve for that, too.

tech10171968

I've used ubuntu 8.04 and winxp. I find that ubuntu is good for:

-email
-basic word docs
-web surfing
-feeling cool like a real hacker

but other than that, I can't use it for photoshop (don't say gimp, it sucks), printing or for playing my apple store songs, or for remote desktop for work, so it's just a hobby OS for me.

qrius

I love linux.
But driverwise, and programwise, it's a shambles.

If it actually worked on my PC (Without stupid amounts of config - Vista took 10 minutes worth of config to get working (More if you count the actual driver installations, and most of that was automated).

Something I feel linux would really benefit from would be something like nLite, where you can slipstream drivers and configs easily. From an OS that works.

Phoshi

Ah linux. I personally dual boot it along with Windows XP, since some features of windows you cant ditch no matter what. I Love the personality aspect of the OS, and the customizablity. And the sad part is that its free, and ppl are too stubbern to find out about it

Saad Baig

Only Linux would yell at you for typing "shutdown -r NOW" instead of "shutdown -r now" and then proceed to tell you that the system is going down NOW.

@kayeoz: It's not very hard to change the shell in Windows at all. Most half decent replacement shells will have an option to change / change back to explorer, if not change the registry entry "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\WinLogon\Shell"

Want Alt-drag? Fortunatly third party programs exist for Windows and you don't have to worry if they work for your distro: [www.deskex.com]

johnsmith1234

@madmichael: yeah, Broadcom doesn't provide Linux drivers. They're the major holdout among Wifi card manufacturaers >.< To get Broadcom cards to work, you can use ndiswrapper, which basically is a wrapper for Windows wifi drivers, so that you can use the Windows drivers in Ubuntu. You can probably search in the Ubuntu Forums for more information.

kayeoz

@tech10171968: That's true in some cases, but in others, the functionality is missing, or the UI is just plain bobbins. This is an old post but my recent experience was somewhat similar: [daringfireball.net]

There's a reason that most Mac switchers don't come back to Windows and a sizable proportion of Linux switchers do.

MattHall

@kayeoz: "the lack of focus-follows-mouse"

Install TweakUI >> Mouse >> X-Mouse >> select "Activation follows mouse" option.

mb

@Daemonstar: But why should the OS need a reboot after darn near every single update? Linux doesn't. And honestly, Windows shouldn't - stopping and restarting the service(s) that need updating should be enough. Of course, the problem is that no one knows which services they are - not even Microsoft.

Deadhacker

@the_boffin: Default to what? Just as some Linux updates require you to reboot to reload the kernel, so do some Windows updates. So restarting as quickly as possible to get the updated system in action strikes me as a good idea (Even though it can be a pain in the neck).

mb

I see a lot of repetitive FUD being listed here which leads me to wonder how many of you have actually seriously used any flavor of Linux let alone Ubuntu.

If you don't update properly and on time then you're machines are likely to be one of the future zombies that we all worry about. Honestly, if you can't be bothered to keep your system up to date and take the 5-10 minutes it takes to update and reboot then maybe you should consider not owning a computer. Computing comes with a social responsibility as well...

As to ripping MP3s and movies, there are licensing agreements and etc. that have to be covered, 5 clicks and it's all done.

As far as command line usage, arguably that could be better, But 'man' is your friend as is the plethora of available documentation out there.

Hardware drivers: be patient. Avoid bleeding edge hardware and gripe at hardware manufacturers. Otherwise you have to wait for some "reverse engineering" to happen. I just built a new computer,a quad core Intel on an Intel board. Worked first time, I only had to acknowledge the installation of one closed source driver.

We switched one client (3 servers and 42 desktops)with zero issues. The users picked up and ran with Ubuntu with minimal UI support. It's very intuitive and well organized. Scratch that - printing is a small issue but it's a confirmed bug in CUPS. We just cron'd a service restart every 30 minutes.

If I sound negative I apologize. It's just I hear the same stuff over and over and it's all corporate FUD that's been said about any Linux distro since the mid 90's. It's a matter of patience, learning and experimenting.

SaGR

My opinion is that if you want to run typical computer applications, windows works best. You are a user.

If you want to actually compute or program, Linux (and UNIX, and MacOS) wins.
You are a scientist.

Run both.

edrodgers731

Trying Linux out just for the fun of geeking with it and getting it to work is appealing, but every time I contemplate it I think, "yeah, but then what am I going to end up with other than some short term fun and a bit of knowledge?" I am in Photoshop every day, and have no intention of switching to the inferior Gimp. I play Team Fortress and Guild Wars and Call of Duty 4, and see no benefit to running them in a Windows emulator.

Every bit of my hardware is automatically supported by Vista, with the only after install work needed is to download and install drivers for my graphics card and sound card. (only to make them work to their full potential, they will "work" fine with just the automatic Windows stuff) My wireless router network was installed and configured automatically and I didn't have to do ONE thing to get it to work.

Windows update keeps my system current without having to even think about it, and there are thousands of really good software titles (business, internet, games, utilities) that only run on Windows. Yes, there are open source alternatives that run on Linux, but hey, guess what? 99% of them run on Windows too if you really like them better.

I have worked on Unix servers in the work environment for years, and also worked in DOS for many years before Windows came along, but is working in a console / command line environment my preference? Oh hell no... Been there, done that. I am ready to move forward with the GUI as it gets better and better, (Vista is slightly better than XP, and I have no doubt that whatever comes next will be slightly better yet) and have little desire to stay in the 1980's installing software at a command prompt.

I will probably setup Linux on an old laptop just for the fun of messing with it and to add to my computer knowledge, but let's face it. Linux isn't ready for the masses. It's a hobby OS.

jsmorley

no high quality gaming...
to get Half-Life 1 engine running proper i had to do half of hour fixes and tweaks...

bl.ueyez

@SaGR: It's a matter of patience, learning and experimenting.

That's pretty much the same thing as the "FUD," just worded more positively. What you call "patience, learning and experimenting" someone else calls "beating their head against the wall, spending hours googling, and resorting to blind trial-and-error with no guarantee it will even work."

Things have come a long way, but it's still not, as I say, "ready for prime time."

Ripping to MP3 is a great example. None of the "how-tos" for ripping to MP3 in Ubuntu has worked for me. Soundjuicer conveniently ignores the presence of the encoder even though I can run it from the command line. I ended up having to install GRip. That's fine for me (though rather annoying), but for an "average joe sixpack" that's a showstopper.

Normal people don't care about the whys and wherefores, they just know that they don't have to make this work in Windows so when it doesn't work out of the box in linux, they go back to Windows.

Troy F.

Wow, I really hate to enter this debate, but I thought I'd add my third option. I used Ubuntu as my primary OS all last year. This fall I bought an iMac. OS X seems to be the best of both worlds because I still have my Unix base and access to most of the familiar terminal commands, but I also have commercial application and driver support. Anything else I need can be ran virtualized through Parallels.

helixed

I recently attempted to switch to linux (ubuntu 8.10) due to some really buggy goings on with my browsers (firefox 2, 3, IE 6, 7, and safari would all crash after a varying length of time, not a virus, not spyware). The install went smooth and I was up and running in no time. However, my dual monitor setup wasn't working. After a lot of digging around with various settings and going back and forth with forums and irc channels... still no dual monitor. I also run a dual audio setup, and ubuntu wouldn't recognize the 2nd card even after another round of forums and irc... so now I'm back on xp... I'd like to use linux, I really would, but it's just not easy enough to configure some of the more advanced features for it to be usable for me. I have however setup ubuntu for friends on standard systems and that works fine (other then needing the command line to install flash player...) and they can use it without any problems. I'll have another go with linux in a year or so and see if it and my system can play nice then.

Servant2work4God

Thanks to everyone who mentioned Mint Linux. ^__^

Just visited the website and it looks very interesting...definitely going to download it and try it out. ^__^

Asian Angel

On occassion I've been using Linux since the Soft Landing distribution came out on a dozen floppies in 1993. Now I have Ubuntu Hardy Heron loaded on a 5 year old IBM laptop and alternate use with Vista on a Toshiba laptop.

Ubuntu is great until I run into a snag, like trying to watch Olympic's videos via Microsoft's 'flash' alternative. It won't run on Linux/FF but will on WIN/FF.

Printing from linux an issue, especially with Lexmark printers, which I tend to buy because of price.

I also use Vista for Adobe Lightroom. I would use Linux if a similar program existed.

aeronaut

I'm a bit late to the discussion (obviously), but I've been in the process of switching from Windows to Linux for a couple years now.

My primary reason? Sheer boredom with Windows. I use it all day at work, and I'm an advanced XP user, but there's just nothing there to excite me or challenge me.

So now I'm dual-booting XP and Ubuntu at home, but I default to Ubuntu. I enjoy learning a new desktop environment, and to a lesser extent, terminal commands.

Also, it's fun to distro hop. Don't like Ubuntu or the Gnome desktop for some reason? There's a million other different linux flavors out there, each with its own pros and cons to discover, and I've tried dozens of them. Eg., I had fun playing with the E17 version of gOS for a while, just because it's very different from XP and other "start menu + taskbar" desktops.

combat chuck

Linux, how quaint.

The reason "free" (read painful) software even exists is because of the hardware and software development from for-profit businesses that not only provide the computer for you to run it, but also gives the people a paycheck who poke at the code in their spare time. If the world were just filled with leechers wanting free stuff and no one handing out paychecks, no one would even bother. Altruism is only for the employed.

cliffordthered

@jsmorely: "My wireless router network was installed and configured automatically and I didn't have to do ONE thing to get it to work."

So you're running an unsecured wi-fi network, then? Shame.

Deadhacker

@MattHall: People who switch to Mac OSX don't come back to Windows because they've just invested a whole lot of money in hardware that won't run it (although most of the Mac users that I know run Windows in Parallels).

I can run Photoshop CS using Wine in Ubuntu, but I now prefer the Gimp because it's 1000% faster than Photoshop and does everything I need. But my partner really likes the Adobe CS3 suite and needs AutoCAD, so she stuck with Vista. To each their own.

There are a few applications that I preferred in Windows (for video editing in particular), but if I ever went back to it now I would miss all of the amazing FOSS software that I've come to love in Linux.

zoomZAP

Re: Dell printer drivers, have you looked on OpenPrinting? [www.openprinting.org]

freddybob

@ amaranthinenight: ...and then you discovered The Game of Life.... =)

Seriously though, some people have touched on this, but not gone into very much depth. If you look at what most hackers use (not CRACKERS...BIG DIFFERENCE...)you will see that they use Linux. They will also use Windows. And Mac's current OS. And any other OS they feel like using. It comes down to a simple concept... they key to efficiency is using the best tool for the job. I personally use a dual boot setup of Ubuntu and XP at home, and at work use Vista on one machine, XP on the other with Ubuntu installed as a guest VM. I'd use OS X if it wasn't for all the EULA garbage about installing Mac software only on Mac hardware. And let's face it... I'm not Mr. Moneybags over here...

Oh, and FYI I was using Puppy Linux this weekend to bring new life to an old HP Desktop.. 64MB RAM, 4GB HDD, 233MHz. Puppy still PWNED. XP was installed on the HDD and was PAINSTAKINGLY SLOWWWWWW.... It took 20 Mins. just to boot.

crouton976

@cliffordthered: So is charitable giving. And many a business has improved the quality of their own staff and products by 'allowing' R&D on company time. The world is a better place for it.

aeronaut

Reply
*

I wanted some computing freedom. I was tired of being forced to use the products of a company whose business practices made me cringe. I wanted to be a part of a world where knowledge is free as it should be. I wanted my desktop to look like it was my desktop - not just a variation of a standard theme, not just a different wallpaper and icons, but completely mine, the way I like to use it. I also wanted new stuff at a faster speed than either Windows or the Mac could give me. In a nutshell, I can simply say I wanted to do with my computing experience what Firefox allowed me do with my browsing :)

carleeto

@windsurfer619: Yes, we have an "easy to use GUI". You can probably even do that from the GUI. It's just that for most of us the command line is even easier to use, and it's always easier to explain in text.

ninjabob7

@LittleEnosBurdette: I hear the latest gnash is pretty good, might want to look into it.

Ohabu

I first tried linux out of curiosity. After a little research I found that Ubuntu would be a good starting point, spent a week or so looking around and getting everything working (6.06). I kept a dual boot with XP for a while, but upon realizing that I had not booted into Windows for 3 months I removed it.

Positives with linux for me:

- Just works. No searching for drivers, they are there after a fresh install. Few updated after install. I don't spend time on maintaning the system, I use it and it works.
- Secure. No virus or other malware.
- User-friendly. I love the logic and how easy and yet advanced the user experience is. Windows feels so .. amatourish in comparisation.
- Package managers and repos. Genious.
- I can access anything if I want to. No setting is hidden and I'm allowed to change everything to my own liking.

Ohabu

Being a laid off sysadmin, probably 90% of the job postings I have come across have req's for Linux/Unix, of which I have virtually none, except for running nightly backup commands on old legacy DEC systems back in the 80's. It's been a showstopper for jobs that I was otherwise overqualified.

I just loaded Ubuntu onto a 10 year old Dell desktop for the fun of it, at least to get some experience. Boots faster, runs faster, shuts down faster. I've only come across three issues so far. One was configuring the display adapter the way I wanted it to perform (got it!), and the other has been trying to get two different audio streams to play simultaneously (don't ask why). Third, Flash sucks (haven't tried the 10beta yet), but I don't sit on youtube all day so that's not really an issue. Other than that I love it. I'll keep it for the fun of it for the time being.

XP, Vista, Mac, Linux. Heck, I could give a million reasons to get app's off wintel servers and run them on AS/400's. People use different OS's for different reasons. To each their own.

LittleEnosBurdette

I love free and open-sourced software (who doesn't?), myself using GIMP, OpenOffice, and Firefox, among others; but I've tried Linux many a time (Ubuntu 7 and Fedora 8&9 mostly, and some others), but I just can't leave Windows yet. And I'll tell you why.

But first, I'll tell you why I want to leave Windows Vista: I hate UAC (even though I turned it off, Win Defender bugs me about it), difficulty of turning off startup programs (and a million other things that are harder than they could be), and the fact that I got 2 BSoDs in the same 24-hr period. So much for System Restore.

But I can't leave Windows for two reasons: (a) visual styles (I'm usually a function over form type person, but I want my PC to look sharp) and (b) I have other MS products that work with Windows (Zune & Xbox); will they work with Linux?

Can anyone point me to some nice visual styles, how to tweak GNOME's appearance guides, etc?

TIA :D

Labot2001

@Labot2001: Visual Styles: I've generally found linux to be far easier to customize than Windows. You don't need to hack dll's or buy/crack Windowblinds, and cruising the XP/Vista theme sites can be a nightmare of popups and fishy downloads.

Try Ubuntu Ultimate, which includes a whole bunch of themes at install, no extra downloading needed. Or check out kde-look.org, art.gnome.org, and related sites for stuff you can download. It's not any harder than customizing XP, and usually it's easier.

Connecting MS Products: I have a Windows Mobile pocket pc that I haven't really had success syncing with Linux. I know it's been done, but it's not as easy as in Windows. That's why I keep the dual boot around, in case I need to connect the pocket pc for a software install or whatnot. You might be able to sync your Zune to Amarok, not sure. At the very least, you should be able to connect it as an external hard drive and copy files over.

Hope that helps.

combat chuck

I would love to dual boot Ubuntu, but so far none of the versions have been able to handle my Wifi card out of the box, so I use Linspire instead.

Kiamat

Why is it that everyone who tries and fails at using Linux is expecting it to be Windows but nobody expects OS X to be Windows? I don't understand that. Linux != Windows != OS X. They are all different. True, they can perform similar actions, but they simply are not the same.

nobodyzhome

My move to Linux started a few years ago when software I bought didn't stay bought. MS Word that came with a new computer, for instance, nagged you to register 27 times and if you didn't, even after all that, it stopped working. That freaked me out. Next, they'd be bricking OSes and music players. (Oh, wait. . . .)

So, I moved to Ubuntu. Linux definitely has it's hiccups. It's like the nursery rhyme about the little girl who was very, very good, but when she was bad she was awful. 99% of it is easier to use than Windows. The remaining 1% includes little wireless quirks, stupid printer problems, scanner incompatibilities. Little stuff that can be absolutely critical. None of them are Linux's fault, granted, but that doesn't help you when you're trying to get work done. The moral of the story? Download the live CD, run it, and see if *your* hardware works. That's really all there is to it.

@madmichael: re broadcom wireless. Recent versions of Ubuntu should just be warning you that you need proprietary drivers and then downloading them when you click "ok." (Then it's not Canonical's doing.) If that's not happening for some reason, got to System -> Admin -> Synaptic and install both ndiswrapper packages. Hopefully, that will magically help ;-) I haven't had to do that myself (I have Atheros wifi, which has its own problems) so I don't know what else you might need to do. As the other commenter said search for "broadcomm" "site:ubuntuforums.org"

quixote

@nobodyzhome:
The thing is as much as I dislike some aspects of Apple's business practices, and some of their products have asinine aspects, for the most part OS X is a good operating system. It isn't Windows, it isn't trying to be windows, but it's methods of "doing things differently" hasn't posed a problem whenever I use OS X computers. Apple demonstrated that is is possible to make a *NIX based operating system ready for the masses.

Why is that? Apple (and Microsoft) have money to throw at that final polish of "usability". Human machine interface, finding the optimum layout for GUIs, etc. This is something Linux is greatly lacking. Truth is programmers are crappy at usability, which is why these companies hire other people to design layouts. Unfortunately Linux is developed almost entirely by programmers who don't know the second thing about usability. So Linux has almost eternally lacked that final polish required to make a finished product. Need I look any further than the orange/brown used in the Ubuntu default theme? At least Luna is a calming blue and not puke coloured.

Also lets compare installing Firefox 3 on Windows XP, Tiger, Ubuntu 7.10; three operating systems that aren't the latest and greatest when FF3 was released (because not everyone sees a point in upgrading, or doesn't want to deal with upgrade $$ or headaches):

Windows: download installer EXE from mozilla.org, run, keep hitting next.

Mac: Download installer DMG from mozilla.org , run, keep hitting next.

Ubuntu: Search repositories in Synaptic, notice they don't list anything newer than 2, learn what backports are, add to repository,sort through obscure dependacy names, discover that only betas are listed, because this 6 month old version of linux is already obsolete and practically abandoned. Search google. Find directions
Download tarball from mozilla.org
Follow instructions
cp -R ~/.mozilla ~/.mozilla.backup
sudo tar -jxvf firefox-3*.tar.bz2 -C /opt
rm firefox-3*.tar.bz2
sudo mv /opt/firefox/plugins /opt/firefox/plugins.backup
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/firefox/plugins /opt/firefox/plugins
sudo dpkg-divert --divert /usr/bin/firefox.ubuntu --rename /usr/bin/firefox
sudo ln -s /opt/firefox/firefox /usr/bin/firefox

It is true, Linux != Windows != OS X. While they can perform similar actions (install the Firefox web browser), one way takes 20 minutes longer. At the end of the day, for most people, computers are a tool. They want to install the browser and move on with their life, not get involved with the intricacies of why Ubuntu decided to arrange the file system slightly different than anyone else.

johnsmith1234

@johnsmith1234: um, how to put this politely?, did you bother looking at Firefox's download page? You didn't see the big green button that says "download FF3 for Linux"? (It sniffs out your OS.) And if you click that button, it -- I know this is hard to believe -- it installs FF3. I don't remember even having to click "next."

quixote

compiz fusion is enough reason to switch.

yriafelc

"I can't use it for photoshop (don't say gimp, it sucks)"

considering the price then GIMP is in some aspects even better then Photoshop (especially when you create or download some scripts)

if you still want to use Photoshop - install Wine - Photoshop works perfectly in Wine (tested)

Rastislav Stana

@Jezebeau: ........and if the windows command line isn't trying to act like any flavor of linux shell, clap your hands and stomp your feet

masskonfuzion

I remember when I tried Ubuntu two years ago. My XP install was full of virus, trojans and spyware and I was getting sick of having to format my Windows installation every other month to fend of virii, and I am very computer savvy. The biggest allure of Linux to me is still security and it was then. What I really like about Linux, and where its biggest strength lies, is its customizability. The only limit to tinkering with the system is your knowledge. For those determined enough, they can set up a desktop environment that perfectly suits their needs and accords to their behaviours, quirks and preferences. This is evident in the dozens of window managers available for Linux. But as a desktop replacement, and I do stress replacement here, Linux still falls very short. The issue here is simple: Microsoft and Apple both target the normal consumer with their products. Linux doesn't. Distributions are merely open-source programs given a usable structure and packaged for easy use with a bunch of tools for convenience - and here they have succeeded very well, by making newbies coming to Linux a very easy experience. But the problem is the lack of commerical software and support. There are thousands of apps available for Linux - the most usable and the best of the crop are already used by the majority of Windows and OSX users (like FF, VLC, Mplayer, Thunderbird etc.) and the security appeal of Linux is diminshed by OSX which offers the complete package of commerical apps, solid stability and tried-and-true security in a very easy to use way to the mainstream. To sum it up, Linux currently doesn't serve the diverse needs of XP and OSX users, it isn't made by the mainstream people, and it's not surprising it isn't used by them.

jeejum

I like PCLinuxOS because it let me keep the things I like about Windows and ditch the stuff I don't. For example, I am a minimalist. I don't like having over 200 languages, a 'virtual tour', windows messenger, and various other bloatware. PCLinuxOS gives me just what I need. The distro prides itself on using stable packages. Personally, I don't need to beta test something the minute I catch wind of its release.

Amarok is the best music player/organizer u will ever use. I love that I can configure a shortcut (in my case ctrl+alt+end) to bring up a skull and crossbones to kill any process immediately. Compiz is great for the multi-tasker in all of us, the negative window feature is easy on the eyes for insomniacs. The OS is rock solid stable if u use it for a torrent box. Synaptic makes add/removing apps a cinch. If I want to change a theme, I don't have to worry about breaking a dll or using an extra chunk of ram with WB.

Sure, Linux has its quirks, say goodbye to the days of downloading an exe that is 99% likely to work. Sometimes installing apps can be a headache. Wifi cards and printers have been known not to work. But hey, if u don't need big name games or Adobe products, PCLinuxOS is nice. Even installed it for the fam--been running for about a year with only minor troubleshooting. Got tired of the holiday spyware removal sessions. Feel free to ask any q's

y0urm0msname

I imagine that both you and me will change jobs a few times before we retire. In ten years from now, I think most employers will ask if we're familiar with Linux (more or less regardless of what job it is).
My answer will be yes.

Itangalo

I love Ubuntu, and i dual installed it cos it has a few cool web design apps (quantaplus) and amarok.

To be honest i almost never use it though... I'd rate it better than XP, but i always end up booting into XP for some reason.

If i get an eeePC then im getting the linux version though...

soul_grind

how about posting some pictures of people spending hours on the form researching how to do simple tasks?

or the hardware incompatibility errors?

better yet, trying to get critical software to work?

how about the black screen of death with linux crashes?

Ken

Why I didn't switch to Linux:

When I tried Ubuntu some time ago, I couldn't even get DHCP working. It was a mess. I tried another distribution (I can't remember what it was called, but it was not free), and it worked, but I didn't feel like paying for it. And...

I have lots of 3D games that wouldn't run under Linux. This alone is a deal-breaker for me. No, I don't want to dual-boot just to run games; that's a huge PITA. Waiting for the games to launch themselves is all the hassle I can deal with.

I find it funny that so many people claim to hate Microsoft's business practices, but are fine with everything else in American society. In my old town, the water service was privatized, then the private company's president was caught bilking the public out of at least 6 figures, while raising prices for no reason. Never heard a complaint. Toxic lead is still used in a slew of children's products, because it's cheaper, and I don't hear too many people complaining about it. Insurance companies profit by charging you out the pooper for a service you're not supposed to use, and by denying you the benefits you pay for... And most people seem fine with it. But if Microsoft bundles Calculator? OOOOOOH NELLY!

leftist

To play the Devil's Advocate: I often see "reasons to switch", "reasons I switched", or "Myths about linux that prevent people from switching) articles.

While I think these are helpful to Windows users thinking about switching, I've yet to see an article, "Why I haven't switched." or "Why I tried Linux, but switched back." (Really doubt that it's because it never happens). I think it would be instructive to the linux community to see where the adoption bottlenecks are- Heavy command line dependancy, GUI that doesn't "feel right", issues setting up a specific peice of hardware, 3 hours spent adjusting mouse acceleration in config file because it didn't feel right, etc. I'd like to see why people DIDN'T switch. I'm sure the distro developers would, too.

callingshotgun

@spookypeanut:
You asked how to get Linux boot faster. In a nutshell:
- disable all services you don't need
- add the options noatime and nodiratime to your ext3-partitions in /etc/fstab. This speeds up harddrive access (google for details)
- if you use Ubuntu and have a multicore or hyperthreading CPU, set CONCURRENCY=shell in /etc/init.d/rc. This allows you to use the fundamental speed improvements of Ubuntus new Upstart-system.
- install bootchart (bootprofiling) and check the results to identify the proccesses that hold up you boot the most.

In my case it was the graphical loading screen. Since I got rid of it, my laptop boots in < 15secs now.

rawfan

@rawfan:
So to expand on "Disable services" instead of being just a nutshell, searching "disable services ubuntu" we get the instructions from ubuntuforms:

For each runlevel x you have a link in /etc/rcx.d to a script in /etc/init.d for the services that are to start/stop when entering this runlevel.
(Links beginning with S start, those beginning with K stop a service)

You could just remove these links.

If you don't want to do it manually look at (man) 'update-rc.d', and/or install rcconf which is a frontend for update-rc.d

Response 2-------
Use :
update-rc.d
see : man update-rc.d
e.g.
update-rc.d -f sendmail remove
This removes the links.

So now we have to figure out what runlevels are, check different runlevels for different services, edit several different files, no idea if removing the links makes it harder to enable a service we accidentally enabled. Or check man pages to figure out what update-rc.d is, and have no idea if these two methods are compatible with each other. The second method looks easier but we have no idea what services are what, which are enabled, what they do, etc. Maybe this "rcconf" will tell us? Who knows, we have to install it to find out. Oh and it is also console based

Compare with Windows:
start->run->services.msc
Right click a desired service, properties, change startup behaviour. Windows will even give some descriptive information on what service does what.

Want to do it console based?
Check sc config /?

johnsmith1234

@quixote: You click it and it downloads the tarball, which was the first step just like downloading an EXE or DMG (which will appear on the main page when you visit from Windows or MacOS respectively). Then you continue with the install. You're right, you don't have to click next, because on Ubuntu 7.10 you have to type
cp -R ~/.mozilla ~/.mozilla.backup
sudo tar -jxvf firefox-3*.tar.bz2 -C /opt
rm firefox-3*.tar.bz2
sudo mv /opt/firefox/plugins /opt/firefox/plugins.backup
sudo ln -s /usr/lib/firefox/plugins /opt/firefox/plugins
sudo dpkg-divert --divert /usr/bin/firefox.ubuntu --rename /usr/bin/firefox
sudo ln -s /opt/firefox/firefox /usr/bin/firefox

If you want it to integrate into Ubuntu properly.

johnsmith1234

Linux is not recommended for novice users.

silentcon

@johnsmith1234: Just install the latest version of Ubuntu (Hardy Heron). FireFox 3 is installed for you! Or go to [getfirefox.com] and click on the button.

jackster

@nortexoid: Not true.

I have a Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop. EVERYTHING on it works. I can suspend, hibernate, built-in use CF card reader, CDWR/DVD/rw, hard buttons (volume up/down, pause, play, next...), bluetooth.

It properly supports power management.

Ubuntu: Hardy

jackster

Searching on some more about disabling services

Bluetooth is enabled into the kernel itself, as is a lot of other start-up programs and services. If you want to disable bluetooth and other things, you'll need to install the kernel sources and recompile your kernel.

recompile the kernel to disable startup processes? And people complain about Windows requiring restarts to install software.

Talk about monolithic. Maybe these micro-kernel guys are onto something.

johnsmith1234

Ok here's my question. I have a, must be 8 year old, G4 tower laying around. Great machine when I bought it but I haven't used it in a number of years now. Should I wipe it and try Linux? What would I do with it other then get to play around with the OS a little bit? I've been thinking of trying to get a few bucks for it. Is this a candidate for Linux?

ChristianNorton

@jackster: That is a perfect example of the "Works for me" attitude Linux Hater's blog refers to.

On my machine I can hibernate, sometimes. Other times it doesn't appear in the shutdown menu. And I've yet to find an easy way to do it from the command line. Say nothing about the fact that it takes almost as long to resume as a cold boot.

@jackster: You want me to upgrade / reinstall my 6 month old operating system just to update a web browser? Upgrading an operating system is a risky endeavor and Linux is no exception. I have a number of system files already tweaked (I've removed graphical login, have TightVNC server running, etc), and there are a number of reports of Ubuntu upgrades breaking hardware support, etc. If the current version supports my needs (browser upgrade aside) why should I waste the time required to upgrade just for a browser?

Also going to Firefox's website gives me a tarball, I have to follow the instructions to get the tarball to work properly with Ubuntu.

johnsmith1234

Listen, we dual boot for games. Mandriva give me the option to reboot or reboot into a particular operating system.

If I want to game, I click reboot, choose Windows (blah, ugh, yuck! grin!) and go get something to drink or use the bathroom or look at the TV menu and see what I want to watch on TV. By the time I finish with any of those items I hear the familiar sounds of the Windows desktop announcing its arrival and I'm ready to go.

Yeah, it would get irritating if I needed to do this 5-6 times an evening but when I play a game I'm in Windows for more than 45 minutes at a time. An extra 2 mins to reboot isn't a big deal.

Despite the 10 games on the Windows side, we haven't used Windows for over a week. My son is playing BZFlag, X-Moto, RacerNL, and VDrift most of the time lately. My wife is playing Linux puzzle games. I'm playing either "NumptyPhysics" or Chess on my Linux powered Nokia N810.

Not likely to go to the store any buy a $40 game anytime soon as we have plenty to distract ourselves.

Dual booting is not that painful.

busbodger

Linux ≠ Ubuntu only!

xkevin108x

@nobodyzhome:

The reason everyone expects that Linux and Windows/OSX to be similar with an equal learning curve now; is that this is the market it is operating within.

Imagine you are building a new jet engine. You want it to compete with RR/Pratt&Whitney/GE/et al. You are going to have to make it meet the same efficiencies and power outputs as your competitors. It MUST be as easy to integrate into an airframe as your competitors product. Before anyone says a word I know Linux is free but this is the world into which it is born. It must be as easy to use as OSXandWindows to penetrate the market in the way the Linux geeks want.

This is something technical experts don't get, I used to be a engineer and would increasingly be frustrated with non-techies not understanding about aerodynamic flow and adbiatic cooling etc. Making the leap to project management it is now my job to translate geek to average joe. Perhaps this is what the Linux community needs, open sourced project managers who are willing to monitor the flow of innovation to an acceptable level for joe public.

Saying that I love Ubuntu.

symo

Dual booting for gaming is "not that painful"? Maybe for you, but it is for me. I run a ton of software. Stuff I need for work (as a home-based consultant). Stuff that takes a while to find and load. I like to start my system, get everything just right, and let it be. I don't like having to reboot for ANYTHING; it's a pain.

I don't just play one game for awhile and that's it for the night. I don't have big blocks of time for that. I play for 5 minutes here, 10 minutes there. If I had to reboot each time it would not be worth it or even possible AT ALL.

So the correct sentence would be "Dual booting is not that painful FOR SOME PEOPLE".

The ideal setup, if you were going to run Linux at all, would be to have multiple machines. You could have one dedicated Windows gaming system, and not have to deal with dual booting at all.

leftist

I am a computer consultant and I work with a number of small businesses. I've recently, thanks to Lifehackers tutorial on VirtualBox, started converting all my customers to Ubuntu Linux running VirtualBox so that my business customers can run QuickBooks. I wish there was a MySql based alternative to QuickBooks that I could run in Linux. Just an idea for all you developers out there who would like to make some money.

exquest

@busbodger: wow, a gaming family.

qrius

@leftist: Or maybe use some VMWare Server or Sun's Virtual Box magic?

You have your windows as the main os and use linux inside the virtual machine... no reboot needed! Aditional RAM would be cheaper than a whole new machine.

Why not the other way around? Because maybe the games you like cannot be played on Linux? Or because Virtual Machines (at least in VMWare) do not use your Video Card resources.

whiskey

@jsmorley & @Jezebeau & @the_boffin

I love ubuntu and linux in general to bits but to be fair you can turn off windows automatic updates from the system dialog and just run an update via the windows update website manually. Getting rid of that pesky Restart now? prompt, Grrrr.

sckoobs

I've been using Windows since 3.0 and of late I trust Microsoft less and less to the point where Windows Genuine Advantage (pah!) made me switch. I actually own several retail copies of XP Pro and my new dual core laptop came with Windows Vista Home Premium but enough is enough I'm fed up with Microsoft trying to dictate what I can and can't do (nothing illegal) on my own PC.

I've been running Linux servers since '96 and now I run Ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop and it rocks. I actually enjoy working (I'm a software/web developer) with Linux as my desktop OS. Linux is so customisable I've been able to streamline my workflow and get more down without slowing down my PC or being distracted by Microsoft annoyances. Now I spend less time fighting Windows and more time getting stuff done.

Yes I have used Macs and they are very easy to use, a breath of fresh air compared to Windows, however I still feel constrained by what Apple believes I should do with their Mac. I think I'll be sticking with Linux from here on in. After 27 years of using computers I can appreciate the ethos of Linux it's all about the freedom to choose, it reminds me of the days when the consumer had choice, (Tandy, BBC, Spectrum, Commodore, Atari etc), where a computer lived or died based on how good it actually was not like now where you have the "choice" of PC's or Mac's, both controlled by corporations who give you the choice of "take it or well you've no other choice really".

P.S. I not a Linux fan-boy or whatever they're called, I'm just a disillusioned ex-Windows user.

tgellen

I switched because it is easier to use. For example: I open an audio CD and the file explorer (konqueror) shows its contents as mp3, ogg, etc! To copy a track/disk I do not have to use any other software, I just move a file (with my favorite extension) from the CD to another folder. At first I was surprised to see the contents of audio CD displayed in this form (with so many different file types), now I feel sorry for all Windows users, because most of the tasks under Linux are that simple.

lauea

I have never switch to Linux and do not see any reason of doing this. I have a computer with OpenSuse in kids bedroom. I access it remotely with full screen FreeNX and working from Windows everything (except movies and games) looks like I am not working remotely. Linux computer is in my kids bedroom, they have 1000s of applications to choose from, but their favorite are GCompris and Childsplay. Linux is not too hard for my 2 and 4 years old kids to use and they have no experience with Windows, because Windows was never designed as a multiuser system and would not survive long because of my kids. My Wife loves Amarok, and we all prefer to have movies copied on the hard drive and play them from computer (using samba to share it among other home computers). Most DVDs with movies are so scratched that we can not watch them anymore and I feel so offended wasting so much time just to go through all DVD menus and adds that I really like a local copy stripped from this nuisances. So as long as I have a local computer with Linux running I do not feel any compelling reason to completely switch. I like choice and my family likes to have a choice too. There are not so many computers with Linux compatible hardware, why bother to install Linux everywhere when we can access it remotely from everywhere. It is really hard to find Linux compatible hardware (you have to google "dell 755-N" to find 'N-series' computers that are designed to work with Linux. You will not find it using search within dell. I understand that nobody wants to be next netscape, borland or any other former Microsoft competitor.

lauea

I switched to linux in 2004. All my computers in the house have linux. NO WINDOWS IN THIS HOUSE. First I fell in love with Fedora. But when my dvd/cdrom on I could no longer install fedora as it needed dvds. I tried Ubuntu and I have never looked back at Windows again. The ONLY thing, and I REPEAT ONLY thing that windows does easier than UBUNTU 64bit is install software, This problem does not exist on ubuntu 32bit. Ubuntu does EVERYTHING that windows can do, but does it better and FREE. Here is a list of things that I do/have working on my computer. MP3 ripping, shoutcast streaming, cd/dvd burning, video editing, google earth, firefox, opera, msn mesenger, compiz (same as vista areo), Audacity, Gimp (photpshop), open office (Office compatible suite)......I think you get the point. How much did all this software cost me? 35cents. The cost of a CDROM....NOT DVD...A CD!!!!!! Take that to the bank Microsoft Slaves.....

webpirate

I recently installed openSuse11 linux on an old compaq laptop...

it ran fine and everything (though It didnt work when I installed using partitions, i had to use LVM's?...moving on..) till i started trying to getting other devices to work. It took me 2 to 3 days to get a wireless card driver working. I just figured it took me so long because this is the first time i had done ssomething like this on linux and kept prodding on. Then i wanted to install a webcam that i had. Google and YaST and everything else i could think of and still no dice what so ever. After a few days i just gave up... wiped the computer and installed XP back on it...

everythings fine now... i can do all the things i want and by turning off the services i dont need and turning off annoying start up programs via "msconfig" ... the OS runs just as well as the OpenSuse did...

Nighthawk4900

For me the Redmond honeymoon was over when I added an old hard drive to my Vista machine, and it decided that none of the files belonged to me, and that they could not be moved onto my new drive, or even viewed, under any circumstances. DEATH KNELL!

Someone suggested I try the Ubuntu live CD to get to them, and it was love at first sight.

neutopian

I am a Microsoft Sys Admin, and have been since the "early" days. I also have 10 years with Linux and Unix variants. I used Windoze at home for years, testing beta versions, and always buying my software legally. My systems had been dual-boot since 98 or so, as Linux was more of a hobby (work knowledge) than a passion.

That changed 3 years ago when I made the permanent switch at home to Linux. Thing is, I have no particular software that I cannot live without, in work or life. Some people are stuck using Proprietary tools, and there's no problem with that; I just don't need it. I run my own websites, create graphics, create podcasts, record my band, and do all of the common web-tasks as everyone else ... all within Linux.

Sure, I'm not a fan of the big companies, but since I don't have a software or hardware company that my work or life depends on, I'm a perfect Linux candidate. Just think, for the cost of the Operating System + extra software, or in Apple's case, the hardware + OS + extra software, I can custom build a Linux machine that out-performs everything else. Games? No worry, I have a Wii.

All of my hardware was picked to run with Linux. Note: My Dell printer has worked with EVERY Linux flavor I've tried. My final choice was to stick with Ubuntu at home. I use CentOS & Fedora at work. I use RDesktop for controlling our Windows Servers, and SSH for everything else, when I don't need a GUI.

Ubuntu's updates, and community support have been an asset since day 1. I love Fedora's community as well, they are invaluable. I guess for me, I don't want to buy something and have it "their way", or "just good enough" ... no way. I'd rather spend a little extra time learning and making everything work MY way, the user's way, without it being illegal. I can create [and have done it] my own distributions of Linux and GIVE them away ... yeah, for free.

Use what you want to use, it's OK with me. Everyone has to make a choice, right? So why switch? Better cost, no "pirate software", speed, and of course, FREEDOM <--- the best reason.

SurlyOne

I did it in 1996 after Microsoft killed its rival and made all my highly profitable skills obsolete. In Linux I have all the software except MS Office and games for free (Linux GCompris for kids that is great!). I believe that someone (like myself) who have more than fifty applications open for months, who use software that is addictive more than LSD (such as Amarok), who has already learned all shortcuts available in konqueror - such person would never abandon freedom of Linux. The only thing that keeps Windows and Apple alive is lock-in by greedy corporates that profit (at your expense) from all (artificial) barriers and limits.

HaldenSpork

I was a Windows fan until I discovered SHIPIT (the free source of CD's on Ubuntu's site). I made a 2 CD request, and I tried the new software. I came up with a software that uses much less resources, has a good stability, Is customizable, open-source, has a wonderful support (ubuntuforums), and why not, IS THE FUTURE OF OUR OS'S.

Every day, linux gets stronger, faster, more application-friendly, driver-friendly, and in near future we will give 1$ (or free if you order from SHIPIT) for an operating system, instead of giving 100-300$ for a complete crap that is bugging you.

The use of linux is exponential. If today are 100 users converting to linux, tomorrow will bee 200, and so on.

Is just wonderful !

Ciorapel

Thanks for the quote!

Made my day to see me quoted on Lifehacker!

beau.raines