Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Linux Business Software Linux

Five Reasons Not to Use Linux 1070

UltimaGuy writes "Linux-watch has a humorous article about the top 5 reasons for not using Linux. It does provoke some thought aside from bringing a smile to our lips :)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Five Reasons Not to Use Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:35AM (#13435739) Homepage Journal
    Sure, Windows is easier to use than Linux. But eventually you just get so frustrated that you have to take an angle-grinder to your computer, and it really takes a long time to get all the little bits of metal out of the carpet.
    • Have you RTFA?
      • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:42AM (#13435811) Homepage Journal
        Yes, that's why I subscribe to Slashdot(TM), so I can read things before you do.
      • Re:Anecdote time (Score:5, Informative)

        by LittLe3Lue ( 819978 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @12:47PM (#13437205)
        its been slashdotted.

        Here is a link coral cache link:

        http://www.linux-watch.com.nyud.net:8090/news/NS81 24627492.html [nyud.net]
    • Just give your computer *Zed* for a hostname...then you'll enjoy the meticulous job, Marcellus...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:13AM (#13436150)
      Oooohhh - did you notice how strongly biased the article is against Windows? It's even outright lying:

      "And, Microsoft also has Microsoft Office, which -- oh wait, you don't get that with the operating system, do you? You also don't get a Web page editor either, do you?"

      Windows comes with full office and web editing capabilities for free: wordpad
      • Whoa there tiger... no need to over do it!

        All I ever needed was the edit command from the command prompt. Quite possibly the first multi-tabbed text editor around. (I say "quite possibly" because I really have no idea)

        That was the best text editor I've ever used before I started working with TextPad.
      • by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @12:40PM (#13437141)
        No fair, you stole my joke! But I was going to say Notepad, which everone knows would be much funnier.

        Seriously though, they did leave out two very important points in Windows favor.

        1. Games. Yes, PC gamers much prefer the selection of Windows games over the selection of Linux games. It's not that Linux doesn't have a few gems, just that I had to use the word 'few' in this sentence.

        2. With Windows, you get to have the exact same warts as all of your friends and family. a) misery loves company and b) there's a much better chance your brother in law is going to be able to help you with a Windows issue than a Linux issue. Market share alone will fix this problem just as market share alone caused it, but until then the social networking of Windows users helping other Windows users with should not be underestimated.


        P.S. I know there's this whole internet thing with lots of friendly people just waiting to help you with your Linux issues. Grandma will not use it. She will ask her husband, then her son, then every other family member until someone can help. If none of those people use Linux, she'll be out of luck. If some of those people use Mac or Windows, they'll try to convert her to a "better" OS.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:35AM (#13435744)
    Reason number one: Linux is too complicated

    Linux *is* too complicated for a good many people but it doesn't have anything to do w/the system design or how it works. It's too complicated because it's different from what they use every day at work and at home.

    Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years.

    Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.

    You know, I consider myself knowledgeable with computers. I run multiple OSs at home and have run many more over the course of my life. You know how many times I've edited the system registry since its inception? Less than 5. I really doubt that anyone *needs* to edit their registry ever.

    You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a .conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux.

    I love Linux. I use it on my servers, I use it on my desktops, and I use it on my entertainment center, where it powers my HDTV TiVo and my D-Link DSM-320 media player, which turns my network into a media library with terabytes of storage. Heck, I even run Linux on my Linksys WRT54G Wi-Fi access points, which hook the whole shebang together.

    When was the last time you had to edit a configuration file with a text editor on your Tivo? I never have. When was the last time you had to fire up your WRT54G and wonder what all the fsck messages were? Never. Just because Linux is being used to power the device does not mean it wasn't designed to be user friendly. Most people don't surf the web and write research papers with a remote control or by hitting a recessed hard-reset button.

    I realize that this was a tongue-in-cheek article and I realize that it was mildly humorous but I just really felt that it was just as bad as Microsoft claiming that Linux costs more. This bullshit where Linux users fault non-Linux users for not switching because of the lack of difficulty is just bullshit.

    Linux isn't easy and it does have a learning curve. Most people just don't care to take the time to learn it.

    I wonder if Microsoft just releases their "research" to give us stuff to make fun of :) Maybe they have the sense of humor! :)
    • by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:45AM (#13435848) Homepage Journal
      Garcia (6573) wrote:
      Yes, it doesn't take that long to learn how to move around in the UI and find the alternative software that Linux runs. It's just different. People don't have enough time to eat, sleep, pay attention to their kids, or take their garbage cans in... They aren't going to have the time to install, adapt, and change the habits they learned using Windows for the past 15-20 years.

      I have a problem with this (apart from the obvious -- that Windows hasn't been around for the past 15-20 years) -- how is causing people to choose Windows as their first system?
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that for people getting their first system, Windows is even more common than average. This obviously isn't because they're used to it.

      Until you see nearly as many Linux boxes in the store as Windows boxes, and schools give kids Linux boxes, Windows will have an advantage.

      • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:48AM (#13435885)
        I'm confused:

        I have a problem with this (apart from the obvious -- that Windows hasn't been around for the past 15-20 years)

        This is 2005. From what I remember Windows 1.0 was released 11/85. Would you have been more satisfied if I had said 15-19.5 years?
      • by jim_v2000 ( 818799 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:13AM (#13436142)
        I'm sorry, but it is going to be a very long time before Linux makes it to retail stores in any large numbers. It just is not as easy to use as Windows. Slashdotters seem to forget that not everyone is a computer guru. I work in a tech support call center for ACT!, and let me tell you, 90% of people I talk to don't know jack about their computers...and throwing in things like roots, shells, and crappy application installs are only going to confuse them more.

        You want to see Linux go the the big time? Make it easy to use. Don't give the user a choice between KDE and Gnome. Don't even let them see the packages to install...the names will confuse them. Make applications easy to install...maybe even make them install dependecies automatically. Never mention anything about a root account...the end user doesn't need to know. Basically, let them drive the car without explaining how it all works.

        Anyway, just my $.02
        • When was the last time you had to choose between KDE and Gnome? I can't remember the last time I did. Maybe when I installed Redhat 8 or something.

          I agree that installation needs some work, but a lot of that is getting users to understand that they don't need to go google for some crappy piece of freeware; they need instead to fire up YaST or whatever the equivalent is in your favorite distro and find it that way. (YaST is not a perfect tool; it's just the tool that I'm the most familiar with.) It's a different way to install, but not inherently any more difficult. Have you used yum or apt-get? I know, they're command line, but they resolve dependencies automatically. YaST does too, but it's a little more verbose.

          My point is that none of the problems you point out are unsolved; we just need a comprehensive solution that includes all of the available technology.

          My girlfriend runs Linux. She doesn't know what a shell is, nor does she care. (When was the last time you needed a shell for a (l)user-level function? Again, Redhat 8.)

          Anyone who runs Ubuntu doesn't need to know what root is, either. You need to stop running Slackware 1, get with the program, and install one of the many polished, modern Linuxes with lots of promise to be viable competitors to Windows and Mac OS X. Seriously. Your post should be modded -1, Interesting Five Years Ago.

        • Oh give me a break. Is linux *very* easy to use? No, but it is easy to use. It is not easy to install, but Windows isn't either. Could application installation be easier? Sure, but people who have problems with synaptic are also going to have problems with the installer program that comes in the box they buy at the store.

          If you are going to separate your users, separate them all the way. You have basic users that need to have everything set up for them, installed for them, configured for them, but as soon a
    • by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:52AM (#13435933) Journal
      Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications

      Really now. I mean, most Linux systems only come with secure Web browsers, like Firefox; e-mail clients, like Evolution; IM clients, like GAIM; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0; Web page editors, like Nvu; and on, and on, and...

      People do not want new different IM clients or email or web editors or office suites or whatever, people want THE software their are used to use. Unless the other "new" software is identical to the old software they used to use they wont use it.

      As someone else said previously in /. when people is changing to a new technology, they are looking for something that is BETTER, EASIER and that will yield them less inconveniences than the technology they are actually using. And yes, the learning curve is an inconvenience for all of the people that DO NOT CARE about how computers work.

      Sorry to be the one to tell it but, that is the main reason all the Joe and Jane User keep using their old buggy software.
      • by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:13AM (#13436151)
        Do you know how your car runs ? Do you care? When you switch cars, do you switch to a manual transmission just for shits and giggles even though you don't know jackshit about shifting gears (supposing you use an automatic)? I would think you would look for a car that's as simple as the previous one, but faster, cheaper - better! People view their computers as their do their cars - goods beyond their comprehension that they can USE.

      • Unless the other "new" software is identical to the old software they used to use they wont use it.

        That's BS. Otherwise, everyone would be using Office 97 on Windows 95; newer versions of either product are nothing like the old ones.

        Upgrades are the perfect time to switch. If you're going to have to re-learn the system anyway, there's not much penalty for adopting something completely new.

    • by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:55AM (#13435962) Homepage Journal
      I think the first three points in the article are entirely valid reasons to stay away from it as a desktop. I use Linux for servers, in a MythTV system, in my APs, but not as my desktop.

      And the claim that Windows is a prohibitive fraction of the computer's price, it isn't. Scuttlebutt is that the OEM licence is around $40 in volume.

      You can say Linux is free in several senses, but time getting used to the new system, and frurstration are costs that Linux proponents don't consider. Relearning how to use every type of program is a daunting task for someone that just wants to USE their computer, not fiddle with it. I simply have gotten used to Windows, know how to keep it stable and how to protect it, and very little of that knowledge transfers.
    • by goldspider ( 445116 ) <ardrake79@gm a i l.com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:19AM (#13436213) Homepage
      "You know how many times I've had to edit a configuration file on Linux? I just did it 12 times yesterday alone for two different programs. Will editing a .conf file on Linux crash your system? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you're doing. But the likelihood that someone would have to do that editing is higher on Linux."

      Thank you! Thank you!! THANK YOU!! You and I don't always agree, but you're right on the money this time!

      This is the ONLY reason why I haven't pursued a switch to Linux (dabbling with Ubuntu a little...) with more enthusiasm. I spent 3 hours modifying .conf files trying to get a USB sound card working, with no success. You know what it took to get it working in Windows? I plugged it in.

      Somehow, Windows knows to use the USB sound card when I have it plugged in, and the on-board sound when it's not. Trying several suggested solutions from various Linux forums produced nothing.

      Until Linux comes up with some form of Plug-n-Play, the average user is going to stay away. People don't want to risk hosing their systems screwing around with .conf files. Take it from me; I'm one of them.
    • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:40AM (#13436481) Journal
      I teach a class at work (Data Structures and Algorthyms or how to code). The other day, I put one of my students on my Linux box. He put in a USB drive and then spent 2 minutes getting upset. The drive was on the desktop marked in clear letters "SanDisk USB Drive" with only 4 icons on the entire desktop. Yet, it never dawned on him to click on it.

      It amazed me that some things are very difficult for people due to it being ingrained.
  • Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:35AM (#13435746)
    It's a pity we can't moderate stories as flamebait
  • by Crixus ( 97721 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:38AM (#13435773)
    The article was mildly amusing, but on the whole it seemed like a bit of a sarcastic rant. Not that I don't like those, but I expect more out of a Slashdot headline story.
  • by CdXiminez ( 807199 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:40AM (#13435789)
    A reason not to use Linux: Choice.

    Many distro's of Linux to choose from, so many applications to choose from...
    Man, choosing is almost like thinking, it's hard!
  • by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:42AM (#13435812)
    • Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications
      [smarmy sarcasm clipped]
      Still, so long as you want to run Microsoft programs at Microsoft prices, Windows is the operating system for you!

      To expand on the OP, here's what usually runs on my home system:

      Sid Meier's Pirates!
      World War 2 Online
      World of Warcraft
      Europe Universalis 2
      Rome Total War
      City of Heroes
      Hearts of Iron 2
      Crusader Kings
      Disciples 2
      Homeworld 2
      Halflife 2 ...and that's most of them. There are a ton of other games I have insta
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:42AM (#13435819) Homepage Journal
    ...straight from the horse's mouth [darlmcbride.com]:

    1. OpenServer 6 Costs Less
    2. SCO Has a Superior Kernel
    3. OpenServer Has Better Security
    4. SCO Has a Customer-Driven Roadmap
    5. OpenServer 6 is Backward Compatible
    6. SCO Allows You to Focus on Your Core Competency
    7. SCO Owns and Warrantees its Products
    8. SCO is Unifying its Code Base
    9. SCO UNIX: Legendary Reliability
    10. SCO Has an Award-Winning Support Team

    Read TFL for buzzwordy drivel and meaningless tripe from Darryl himself. Didn't know he'd registered a website in his name to spout his n0nsense.

  • Objections (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 ) <bimoslash@nOSpaM.theness.org> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:43AM (#13435822) Homepage Journal
    While I think it's a good idea to write an article that addresses some of the common objections to switching to Linux, I think that having the article written in such a flamebaitish manner undermines the whole thing.

    Also, when trying to discuss the benefits of alternative operating systems, it does not help the argument if you (by this, I mean the writer of the article) come off as being sarcastic and condescending.

    My $.02 anyway.

  • by kgruscho ( 801766 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:43AM (#13435823)
    Ive tried several different linux distros on computers including my homebuilt Asus A7N8x-e deluxe AMD system and pentium 4 dell's at my lab. Ati 9600 level graphics on them.

    None of them boot DSL properly. Mandrake Move no. Gentoo liveCD works, can install gentoo, but massive pains in getting the bootloader to work with drive due to the existance of SATA.

    Your mileage will vary, until Linux gets better simpler support for hardware, especially with regards to X, ive yet to get X to run without having to abuse myself relearning conf files, don't even compare them to windows.

  • Mirrordot (Score:5, Informative)

    by Phil246 ( 803464 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:43AM (#13435826)
    Seeing as the linked article is grinding to a crawl, here's the mirrordot
    http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/384802a7fdfeda4ae 7ca3f011299d755/index.html [mirrordot.org]
  • Reason #6 (Score:5, Funny)

    by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm&icebalm,com> on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:44AM (#13435835)
    You already have MacOS X :D
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:44AM (#13435838)
    And there it is... I know it was an attempt at sarcasm, but until you can give me BF2, SWG, WoW, and HL2 without sacrificing a crap ton of performance (cedega I'm talking about you), I'll stick with Windows. Linux can power my webserver like no other, but I have no use for a linux desktop.
  • Slash-dud (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeff_schiller ( 877821 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:46AM (#13435869) Homepage
    One thing the article steps around is the fact that many people like to use their computer for games. In that respect, the availability of Windows titles DOES dwarf Linux availability. So this, a sarcastic and biased rant about Linux being better than Windows, is headline news, whereas a story involving Opera turning 10 years old today [opera.com] and giving away its desktop browser licenses (happening NOW) is rejected by the /. mods.
  • Mind you... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gunpowda ( 825571 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:46AM (#13435870)
    I don't see reasons 1 & 2 as being particularly far-fetched from the point of view of your average consumer - the usability experience still needs a lot of work before it's completely ready as a Windows replacement, and although the site is taking this point to extremes, there's still a germ of truth in there.
  • Coralized link... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Guano_Jim ( 157555 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:51AM (#13435918)
    Coralized link [nyud.net] so you might actually be able to read TFA.

    It's not that hard folks, just append .nyud.net:8090 to the first part of your URLs when submitting.

    e.g: http://www.linux-watch.com.nyud.net:8090/news/NS81 24627492.html [nyud.net]

  • Support (Score:3, Informative)

    by thc69 ( 98798 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:52AM (#13435925) Homepage Journal
    From article:
    Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive

    Are you calling Microsoft a liar? Those nasty Linux companies, like Red Hat or Novell/SUSE charge you a fee for support.
    He goes on to describe why Windows is more expensive through purchase cost in your computer and in additional software. He fails to mention that Microsoft charges for support after two calls:
    2 support request(s) submitted online or by a phone call are included at no charge. Unlimited installation support is available by phone at no charge.

    (866) 234-6020
    All additional support requests are $35.00 US per request or use an existing contract

    (800) 936-5700
    Advanced Issues $245.00 US
    (from http://support.microsoft.com/oas/default.aspx?ln=e n-us&x=18&y=6&c1=509&gprid=3221& [microsoft.com] )
  • by velocidisc ( 766718 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:53AM (#13435934)
    A Few Linux Administrators
    with apologies to Jack Nicholson (as Bill Gates, on trial for releasing his Code Red "update" and destroying the Open Source Software movement)

    You can't handle the truth!

    Son, we live in a world that has data. And that data has to be guarded by men with servers. Who's gonna do it? You? Linus?

    I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Open Source and you curse Microsoft. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Linux's death, while tragic, probably saves data. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves the Internet. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at board meetings, you want me in that Server Farm. You need me in that NOC. We use words like Start, Update, Explorer ...we use these words in a lifetime spent defeating software rivals. You use 'em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a user who surfs and emails on the Internet that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you format your C:\ drive and load Windows 3.11. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

    Did you release the code red?

    I released the update your servers were begging for.

    Did you release the code red!?

    You're goddamn right I did!
  • by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:58AM (#13436000) Homepage Journal
    It's bad for the economy!! Imagine buying a computer system and having it still usable for modern applications nearly a decade later. The various Linux distros allow for this. That cuts into profits for desktop and server sales. That's why Windows is the better choice. It pushes the hardware requirements up so quickly that you need to get new hardware every two to three years. This is good for the economy. Therefore Linux is UnAmerican.
  • by Lellor ( 910974 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @10:59AM (#13436010)

    That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream. I think that Microsoft's blackmailing of computer vendors has something to do with it, but there's no single factor.

    Where I work, for example, we are forced to use XP on the desktop despite the fact that the main tools that most of the core team use are available for Linux (Java, Eclipse). Ok, some of the tools that the core team uses are unavailable on Linux, like Photoshop, Lightwave, 3DStudio Max, etc. But a lot of people could be switched over tomorrow. Why, then, are the free *nixes relegated to the server-side? There are also issues with lockout on the server side, though, with some properietry packages such as our VPN software only running on Windows, yet Linux has still managed to gain a significant portion of the server market despite these factors. So why not the desktop?

    I think a lot of it has to do with the mindset of the managers at companies - for the most part they are not willing to give new technologies the go-ahead, even if it makes sense financially. The only way to solve this is to either get more technically competent management into companies (yeah, right), or to find a way to break Microsoft's strangehold of OEM and desktop markets.

    • Switching is hard (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
      ``Why aren't more people using Linux?

      That's a difficult question. After 10 years of being a viable, usable operating system, one would have thought that Linux would have made more inroads and become more mainstream.''

      It's not too difficult to see, really. Even if Linux really were a better operating system for everyone now using Windows, people would still not switch. Why? Well, the keyword is "switch". Switching costs effort, installing the new system, familiarizing yourself with it, figuring out what appl
  • by DaveM753 ( 844913 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:00AM (#13436017)
    Hellllooo.... notepad.exe
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:05AM (#13436061) Homepage
    We were promised a humorous article.
  • by axolotl_farmer ( 465996 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:13AM (#13436144)
    With friends like these... [nylug.org]
  • by mcn ( 112855 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:21AM (#13436234)
    5) still have to meddle with .conf files. not good enough for normal users

    4) slow. it used to be that one argument for linux and against windows is that linux is faster, but not anymore, it seems. on my old pc, winxp is clearly faster than linux (with kde/gnome) of any distro. response in graphical linux is not snappy enough.

    3) fonts. either it's fat and anti-aliased or skinny and aliased. in other words, it's plain ugly compared to windows.

    2) desktops (kde & gnome) and menus are still crude. as much as i hate windows, i find the xp interface is nicer than kde and gnome. their windows, toolbars and buttons are proportionately sized by default. you don't get dialog boxes shooting beyond the bottom of screen. and normal users tend not to know where to find what in the menus.

    1) no equivalent _and_ compatible applications. especially outlook. i can overlook this outlook thingy, but many many people cannot.
  • by re-Verse ( 121709 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:28AM (#13436322) Homepage Journal
    These "articles" aren't helping linux - they aren't funny, they aren't informative, and they aren't going to sway any windows users to linux. It looks pathetic, and desperate. I am a linux user, but have a lot of family members and friends who use windows. You can be quite sure that they have never had to enter in to the registry to make system changes.

    The fact is that anyone with a bit of knowledge can probably bring down their windows system, or their linux system. Its quite easy to delete or change important system files by thinking you know more than you do. An old systems guru, when I was just starting out in the world of IT but it to me this this: "It is ok to have no knowledge, and ti is ok to have a lot of knowledge. You can walk on either side of that road and be safe. If you walk down the middle of the road though, you will probably be hit by a truck." Is very true. Newbies generally won't destroy systems.. linux/windows/whatever... they just can't figure out how.

    I'm not sure why CmdrTaco says that the article provokes some thought, as the article is shouting the same thing some of the lesser informed linux zealots have been for years.
  • by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:34AM (#13436408) Journal
    1) Inconsistant copy/paste behavior between apps.
    Self explanitory really.

    2) Horrible audio support
      (Every card I've used on windows has done multi-open fine, but none do it on linux. at best I can get two DSP interfaces on one card which means hard configuring apps. Don't get me started on surround sound.)
      3) Major lack of applications/stuck with bad ports or buggy emulation
      (Port of AIM completely lacks features, and no third party client supports direct ims with the same content types as the official client. eg, no animated gifs, bitmaps, or just inserting a file-- No official yahoo client, stuck with third party clients that dont do webcams. No IDE comparible to visual studio, or debuggers/disassemblers that can compare to whats common on windows (IDA, w32dsm, olly, softice), etc.
      4) More of an extension on #3, but lack of games.
    I don't care how many different toolkits you can put on tetris, its never going to compare to a game like HL or WOW
    5) No reason TO switch

    Really, this is the reason why I started dual booting and ended up never bothering to boot out of windows. Theres nothing I can do in linux that can't be done in windows. Task wise, all I do is chat, game, browse the web, program, listen to music/watch movies, aquire them, and general remote administrative stuff.

    On linux: firefox, mplayer, openssh, gaim
    On windows: firefox, mplayer, putty, winaim.

    That point goes even further-- Anything worth running is worth someone porting to windows, off the top of my head: The entire cygwin project (which includes about as much stuff as your standard distro), firefox, mplayer, gaim, nmap, netcat, ettercap, etherreal, vim, and im probably missing a few.

    --Sorry for the bad formatting, HTML inside a tiny slashdot comment box is a pain to write.
  • My first distro (Score:5, Interesting)

    by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:41AM (#13436493)
    Was SuSe, I had only been using Windows for less than a year and had "heard of this linux alternative", I wanted to see what the hubbub was about. Coming from stricktly Windows, when I installed Linux I was surprised at how much easier it was to get on there than a normal 98SE install. Mine did most things for me, from configuring the drive to formatting and partitioning without having to guess. My first few 98Se installs were nightmares. Still give me cold sweats to this day.

    I decided to go with KDE, though I had no idea what it was other than "some gui". Had I known then what I know now KDE would have gotten das boot. What a resource whore.

    Well sometime passed and I have reinstalled the distro on the machine once since the initial install. And that was from user error. I had purchased a new larger harddrive and was very inexperienced and couldn't figure out how to install a new piece of hardware without a total reinstall. Sure taught me to RTFM. So for me, gaming aside, Windows 98SE installs in the early days --- 3 per month, my first linux distro installs to this day --- 2.

    My personal experience with both os's and derivatives leave me with one conclusion, both OS's have their uses, Windows mainly for those who would rather be controlled by their computer, and those who would rather control their computer.

    I still use Windows for stuff, gaming, video editing, audio mixing, but for tough stuff, security, networking I use linux.

    Thank you to anyone who reads this that has worked on any OSS project, and especially the Kernel itself. It's nice to have more than 2 OS choices.
  • by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:49AM (#13436583)
    Because servers running Linux evidently get Slashdotted pretty easily ...
  • by mikers ( 137971 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @11:53AM (#13436626)
    "Windows;Linux;Mac...Whatever, we're all equally edible"

    It depends ultimately on what you are looking for. I'm not a big "ease of use" user because I've found that Microsoft has introduced "training wheels" along with "ease of use". It has gotten harder and harder to remove the former. But then again, I am a hardcore computer geek.

    I look for:
    (1) Free as in freedom
    (2) Hackable (as in code is available -- Legally)
    (3) Controllable. That means simple. Can't beat .conf files for simple. Sure beats some strange "intuitive" gui with bugs in the UI that stores your settings somewhere like "the hive", which isn't all that editable should it get corrupted.
    (4) A system that doesn't treat me like I'm a stupid user (see Clippy).
    (5) I resent not having a choice. Nothing like getting a version of windows with a new computer when I don't want it and I can't get my money back for it.
    (6) I don't like giving money to a convicted monopolist -- regardless of how well connected (or slippery) he may be. In fact, a slippery convicted monopolist WON'T get any more of my money until he starts behaving. It's called voting with my wallet.
  • by srobert ( 4099 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @12:10PM (#13436807)
    Linux users have a vested interest, I think, in popularizing the use of linux on desktops. Obtaining greater compatibility with the rest of the world would be reason enough for that. We wouldn't want those occasional web pages that only work in MSIE to become the rule of the net rather than the exception. I have some questions that, I hope, would prompt thinking users to help popularize Linux.
      Average Joe Computeruser walks into a store and sees a desktop system with XP for $X and a hardware identical machine next to it, running Linux, for $(X-L). What value of L would induce him to purchase that one instead of the XP machine? How would the choice of user interface affect the value of L? How does the value of X affect the value of L? Who would provide the user support?
    Is there a way the Linux community could persuade the vendor or OEM to market the machines this way?
      I'm not providing many answers but I hope the questions prompt some thought.
  • by thomasj ( 36355 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @12:24PM (#13436956) Homepage
    I am not a geek in any way, I just use openoffice and mozilla for my daily tasks. But I was told to use something called Windows, which should be a bit like Linux, just made by a company.

    I could not find a download site on the 'Net for it, so I went to a local shop to get a copy, which actually cost you money. When I stuck in the CDROM and whatever I clicked on, nothing happened. Well, as it turned out, you actually have to make some weird sorta room for it on the harddisk, since it cannot be installed from an ordinary RPM.

    After an hour I managed to install it, but first of all, it was all so different from RedHat, and secondly there where hardly any software for it. All it had was a simple pixeldrawing program, a webbrowser and very plain text editor.

    I may be stupid, but I just stick with what I know. I know that there may be smarter choices, but my computer came with the system and that is all I need.

  • by Dracos ( 107777 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2005 @01:59PM (#13437960)

    Linux itself is a reaction to draconian software pricing.

    Anyway, Western society tells people they must experience rather than think. We've become an entertainment culture rather than a productive one.

    MS has been coddling windows users for 20 years, and doing it in such a way that the user simply can't be insulted by it: they're too busy being intimidated. Apple users generally aren't clueless, and they're not treated that way. The people who use Linux are those who have sought it out (frustration), been exposed to it for practical means, or think of and use a computer as a tool. The key words there are think, use, and tool: the basis of human civilization.

    We wouldn't be where we are now if our ancestors had just sat around laughing at the other jungle animals and staring up at the stars. We'd still be doing that now.

    Oh shit, we are. Except that our big, unused brains that give us the skill of language allow us to refer to these activities as "reality TV" and "Dukes of Hazzard on the silver screen".

    When people re-learn how to think for themselves, Linux usage will rise. That's just one change for the better.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein