Thread: Reasons to use Linux

Imagine the porn you can buy with the $250 you'll save/not waste.

Really, the only thing right now that I find to be inferior in Linux is flash support. Flash is really shitty, in fact, but it works, and I don't need it that often.

Really, think of it not in terms of someone who's had windows for years and might want to switch, but in terms of someone who's never had a computer and wants to start learning. It's not that much harder to get started with Ubuntu than it is to get started with Windows.

Other than running the latest windows-based games, you're not missing out on much with linux, and frankly, the price is right

Originally Posted by Replicon

Really, think of it not in terms of someone who's had windows for years and might want to switch, but in terms of someone who's never had a computer and wants to start learning. It's not that much harder to get started with Ubuntu than it is to get started with Windows.

Sorry, but to get my PPPoE working in Ubuntu, I had to use a freaking console application I found out about after searching the help. What, is this Windows 3.11? Why is there a graphics editor but no internet setup? The text-based manuals are just ridiculously uncomfortable, the file system is retarded. To optimize the fonts, I had to edit a bunch of config files, use commands and shit and they still looked like garbage. I can't use half of my mouse because there are no drivers (That is, unless I edit a bunch of config files again) and I still can't configure my scroll wheel. Getting the graphics card drivers to work wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The list goes on.

Other than running the latest windows-based games, you're not missing out on much with linux, and frankly, the price is right

Yeah, "right" is the correct word. Because anything other than free would be too much.

Well I've definately had my fair share of Linux fun with three prior attempts over the years at using Linux as my daily desktop took quite a toll on me. That was before I discovered Ubuntu. I love it, Unbuntu takes Linux where I've long hoped it would go. It's easy to use, reliable, dependable with great applications as well. I could even go as far as to say that it has some elegance to it. I guess that's a strange concept to think about in regards to a Linux OS. For me it's not an exageration at all.

I believe that the future of software in an open-source dominated world is going to be significantly different than the world dominated by Microsoft "windoze". One things for certain is that software will increasingly compete on ease of use in the total software experience more than on features. The future will be more about being simple than about any other dimension. (just an opinion guys)

Originally Posted by Replicon

Imagine the porn you can buy with the $250 you'll save/not waste.

Yes, because it's not as if Windows comes preloaded on most builds for free, is it?

I'm trying to be objective, here....

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

I can see no reason for a typical home user to switch to linux. In fact the only benefit I can see is that Linux is immune to 99.9 percent of viruses.

Not the only valid reason,
but certainly the most prominent for the average home user

Other reasons include system stability and software freedom

now, having a stable system & having the most cutting edge software are two opposing forces
Oddly enough, Windows XP & major desktop Linux distros have swapped sides

Ubuntu, is updated every 6 months
with a Long Term release every 2 years
it's fast moving, and loaded with the latest & greatest software

Past Ubuntu releases have been very stable
however, I do feel they put their toe over the line of stability with 8.04
not a particular problem, but out-the-box stability wasn't up to par with previous releases

However the minor issues were corrected over the first few weeks of release, and since then it's been business as usual

On the other hand, Windows XP is old - in software terms, seriously old
Debain stable (known for it's extensive testing and slow release cycle) has had 3 stable releases since XP was released

Software & drivers have matured enough that there are virtually no show-stopping bugs in XP today
In my opinion, XP has been pretty rock solid for nigh on 3 years

Plus, it's old enough (7 years old) that cheap hardware have no issues running it - and running on yester-year's hardware is hugely important for your average home user

but there's no getting away from it
XP is being killed off

I see absolutely no point having an XP vs. Ubuntu stand-off at this time
as your average home user cannot buy XP anymore

If you want to compare Windows & other OS's,
compare Vista to Ubuntu to OpenSuse to OS X Leopard

XP has no place here. It's now a product of the past

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

it took me 3 hours to figure out how to get my Nvidia card working correctly in Ubuntu.

well....
I obviously don't know the details
but I find that extraordinary
3 hours doing what, exactly?
anyway...

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

As far as a typical desktop user, I can't see a reason not to use windows.

If someone wants to use a particular OS, let them
it's about choice

Originally Posted by Identity X

Yes, because it's not as if Windows comes preloaded on most builds for free, is it?

Pre-loaded Windows is not free.

OEM's pay approx. £50 to MS
They pass this cost directly onto the consumer

the rest of the costs for Windows is offset by software companies paying for "trial" versions to be included on OEM systems (anti-virus, games, internet providers, etc.)

Windows is included in the price....

I would only use Windows if I was trying to break my computer.

Ubuntu is lacking when it comes to games. I use my Mac for gaming and there are still a few companies that are clinging to DirectX and don't make Mac versions of their games. Windows wins there.

Not only viruses, most people are fairly well protected against them. It's spyware that normally slows down your computer. Linux is immune to that as well. Another advantage to Linux is that the way that it's designed, it has a shelf life that is much longer than PCs.

Windows uses something called a registry. It stores lots of stuff about programs and files that it doesn't need. If you delete the file, the registry entry remains so it gets really cluttered and fragmented. Windows has no way of fixing that so with time it seriously slows the computer down.

Windows is included in the price. My dad just got a brand new laptop, it was $100 cheaper than a Windows equivalent because it was preinstalled with Ubuntu.

This thread seems to be Windows XP vs. Ubuntu rather than Windows as a whole vs. *nix as a whole. Let's compare the latter two groups:

Windows

• you can play most games on the market (some won't run in Wine)
• you can use Internet Explorer 7

UNIX-like OSes

• the software is free (gratis and ususally libre)
• command-line tremendously improves productivity (technically Windows has MS-DOS, but I don't know anyone who uses it for their daily tasks, so I'll assume it's not very good)
• faster
• more secure
• more customizable
• more choice (e.g. doesn't force you to use the desktop metaphor)
• great package management (depending upon the distro)
• you can use insanely efficient X setups like this (I do)

Windows wins hands down.

Originally Posted by dsr

This thread seems to be Windows XP vs. Ubuntu rather than Windows as a whole vs. *nix as a whole.

*for the typical home user

Originally Posted by Serkat

*for the typical home user

Originally Posted by Ynot

your average home user cannot buy XP anymore

.

Originally Posted by dsr

Windows

• you can play most games on the market (some won't run in Wine)
  

Some? I think thats quite an understatement.

• you can use Internet Explorer 7

Mozilla firefox is becoming very popular among the windows browsers. It is easily installable and usable. I'm sure though that a good chunk of the typical home users are still using IE out of ignorance.

UNIX-like OSes[LIST][*]the software is free (gratis and ususally libre)

So is anything on Bittorrent

[*]command-line tremendously improves productivity (technically Windows has MS-DOS, but I don't know anyone who uses it for their daily tasks, so I'll assume it's not very good)

And how many typical home users want to use a command line. It's all about the GUI baby.

[*]more customizable

It is much more customizable, I agree. How much of a pain in the ass is it though? Remember I am talking about the typical home user.

[*]you can use insanely efficient X setups like

And what do you have to go through to get it setup like that?

So yes, Linux is great for the power user. I have 5 machines and I have linux on one of them (my main laptop) and I enjoy using it. I enjoy learning new OSes as well. But I also know that I have been playing with it for months and have not even scratched the surface. Ubuntu is the most user friendly Linux distro I've used. But IMO it does not come close to Windows.

Ynot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serkat View Post
*for the typical home user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
your average home user cannot buy XP anymore

As far as I know the majority of windows users are still using XP. I understand that Vista is coming with all new systems nowadays, but XP is still dominant. (I think)

Originally Posted by Serkat

*for the typical home user

Right.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Some? I think thats quite an understatement.

Many games run on Linux. Of those that don't, there aren't a whole lot that won't run on Wine or Cedega. There are some, however. Hence the word "some."

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Mozilla firefox is becoming very popular among the windows browsers. It is easily installable and usable. I'm sure though that a good chunk of the typical home users are still using IE out of ignorance.

I was joking. When a Linux user claims that Windows at least has IE going for it, he or she usually is joking.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

So is anything on Bittorrent

Not libre (or legal for that matter, so let's not discuss that on DV)

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

And how many typical home users want to use a command line. It's all about the GUI baby.

Studies have shown that the command-line interface is no harder to learn than the GUI. I don't see any reason why home users should prefer a bloated GUI-centric OS like Windows XP, Vista, or the default Ubuntu installation for that matter. My post wasn't talking about current Windows users contemplating the switch to *nix; I was talking about tabula rasa users. See Replicon's first post.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

It is much more customizable, I agree. How much of a pain in the ass is it though? Remember I am talking about the typical home user.

It's very simple if you're comfortable with your distro's init system. And that comes from having actually read the documentation when you first installed Linux (or another UNIX variant).

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

And what do you have to go through to get it setup like that?

I had to actually use my package manager: pacman -S screen ratpoison gnome-terminal (plus adding a few lines to .screenrc and .ratpoisonrc). Very difficult stuff indeed.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

So yes, Linux is great for the power user. I have 5 machines and I have linux on one of them (my main laptop) and I enjoy using it. I enjoy learning new OSes as well. But I also know that I have been playing with it for months and have not even scratched the surface. Ubuntu is the most user friendly Linux distro I've used.

Ubuntu might very well be the most Windows-friendly distro, but it shouldn't come as a shock to you that you prefered XP since you treated Ubuntu like an (inferior) XP substitute. A different operating system requires a different methodology. If you used the *nix command-line your whole life and one day tried Windows XP, you'd feel hobbled by the bloated GUI and claim that your couple minutes with Command Prompt didn't measure up to the UNIX way of doing things that you're so accustomed to. I say ditch the desktop metaphor entirely (or at least don't rely on it and do learn the command-line) and go with a less hand-holding distro like Arch, Slackware, or Gentoo, so that you'll really learn how Linux works.

Originally Posted by Ynot

OEM's pay approx. £50 to MS

And who here is an OEM? The fact is, although the price is inflated as a result, you still get a copy of Windows. A downgrade, if an option, usually involves no discount. Unless you are building a PC yourself, you're likely going to get a copy of Windows.

I use a mixxture of Windows and Ubuntu at home. Ubuntu I find I get bored on, because all I do on it it seems is surf the web and struggle with the still patchy flash support (I'm using Adobe's, the default one is terrible (nay, broken)). It's a very nice environment to do it in though, and stable, too (8.4.1 is; I had a terrible time with 8.4 aka segfault central). Plus, there is no media player on par with Foobar2000 in terms of lightweightness, simplicity and ease of use, and Foobar doesn't run on Wine. I'm using a bloated thing called Exaile that is full of annoyances. I've tried others, and they are worse. Tunapie, a Linux only Shoutcast client, kind of makes it up though, but I can never find anything good on.

Originally Posted by dsr

Studies have shown that the command-line interface is no harder to learn than the GUI. I don't see any reason why home users should prefer a bloated GUI-centric OS like Windows XP, Vista, or the default Ubuntu installation for that matter. My post wasn't talking about current Windows users contemplating the switch to *nix; I was talking about tabula rasa users. See Replicon's first post.

Ubuntu might very well be the most Windows-friendly distro, but it shouldn't come as a shock to you that you prefered XP since you treated Ubuntu like an (inferior) XP substitute. A different operating system requires a different methodology. If you used the *nix command-line your whole life and one day tried Windows XP, you'd feel hobbled by the bloated GUI and claim that your couple minutes with Command Prompt didn't measure up to the UNIX way of doing things that you're so accustomed to. I say ditch the desktop metaphor entirely (or at least don't rely on it and do learn the command-line) and go with a less hand-holding distro like Arch, Slackware, or Gentoo, so that you'll really learn how Linux works.

It seems you've never actually talked to an average user. Let alone a kid who uses the PC for the first time.

christ...
people should use what they want to use

most people don't care about OS's
they care about applications

this is why cross-platform apps are important
Firefox, OpenOffice, yadda, yadda

an OS is a highly technical thing
(probably the lowest in low-down, nitty gritty technical software)

Your bog-standard user should not need to worry about choice of OS

Reasons to use Linux are technical by default

The only reason I use Windows is because I can't install Ubuntu on this PC, and games.

That's it.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Sorry, but to get my PPPoE working in Ubuntu, I had to use a freaking console application I found out about after searching the help. What, is this Windows 3.11? Why is there a graphics editor but no internet setup? The text-based manuals are just ridiculously uncomfortable, the file system is retarded. To optimize the fonts, I had to edit a bunch of config files, use commands and shit and they still looked like garbage. I can't use half of my mouse because there are no drivers (That is, unless I edit a bunch of config files again) and I still can't configure my scroll wheel. Getting the graphics card drivers to work wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The list goes on.

Yeah, "right" is the correct word. Because anything other than free would be too much.

I don't know why, but for some reason, you sound... offended... that I chose to switch to Linux for reasons I think are very reasonable. I guess the PPPoE thing left you pretty scarred. I remember having a lot of trouble setting up PPPoE a while back, but I was on Debian, and it was about 6 years ago. And even ignoring the OS support, most modern DSL companies provide modems that give you a plain DHCP so you don't have to bother with that crap. The silly days of having to install software provided by the ISP have been over for a while. Except maybe for AOL users, but I don't care about them.

When I got my laptop, I turned it on for the first time, it asked me to create a new account (through *gasp* GUI), and then everything was set up. I saw firefox and thunderbird at the top of the screen, and that was it. It was done. Support was already there for media, and everything worked out of the box. That satisfies 99% of usecases right there.

Granted I'm a techie, so I went beyond that and did all sorts of configuration and scripting, but all of that is optional.


Though to Windows' credit (and I'm not sure if this is still true in Vista), in XP, you can change your window manager, so instead of Exploder, you can use something different. I had Fluxbox for a while. It was ugly though, cause the windows still load with the default skin.

I'm not really offended, just pissed because I'd actually really like to use Linux for a number of reasons but I can't because the fonts look horrible etc. I'm pretty adept at computer stuff, but I just feel I'd rather club a seal than worry about the look of fonts on my OS. Fonts should be basic and look super awesome out of the box.

I could have sworn I just installed some fonts package (ms-font-somethingorother) from the repos and it just worked.

Originally Posted by Replicon

I could have sworn I just installed some fonts package (ms-font-somethingorother) from the repos and it just worked.

msttcorefonts

Microsoft TrueType core fonts
most often used with programs running under wine, so the fonts match up with native windows

but, of course, you can use them outside of wine

One thing,
make sure you've selected the right rendering mode for your monitor

personally, I think the default gnome fonts are lovely
but it's purely personal preference
you can always change them if you don't like them

Originally Posted by Replicon

I could have sworn I just installed some fonts package (ms-font-somethingorother) from the repos and it just worked.

Well, it didn't, it was all blurry and shit, and Google was out of shape.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Well, it didn't, it was all blurry and shit, and Google was out of shape.

well, sounds like a resolution or refresh rate issue

nought to do with fonts...

Well, I donlt know if this is relevant, but I;ve been wanting to upload Linux as soon as my new (read: rebuilt from more cannibalized chunks than Frankenstein;s monster) computer is up and running. It seems interesting, and this thread has given me several more reasons to try it.

Google should get its fat ass on a treadmill then