Is Linux worth using for regular computer users? and if so why exactly?

[jediphx]

I know everyone hates big eveil MS and im not a linux basher. I have tried many many distros (PCLinuxOS 2007 seems to be my favorite because it works mostly out of box for me) and I guess I just don't "get it"

 

[The Keeper]

I have installed Ubuntu for my parents as well as sister's computers. They've never complained and I've never had to provide tech support for them. For me Ubuntu is "install, set-up and forget about it". I've set up automatic updates that keeps everything up-to-date.

In Windows you're only be able to auto-update Microsoft products from Microsoft/Windows Update. And you need admin rights to install software updates for pretty much all 3rd party software. Most software don't even have auto-updates, or at most only tells there's an update available and the user would need to download and install it by himself/herself. Not to mention a regular user won't even update a software even if he/she gets an update notification.

In Ubuntu everything is updated from the repositories automatically even if the user is using a regular user account. No viruses, no malware, no setting up firewall rules. So far I haven't had to reinstall Ubuntu for my parents or sister. Unlike with Windows when I had to reinstall it every now and then, or at the very least do some system maintenance.... *sigh*. It was annoying and time consuming.

The only thing I need Windows for is gaming. For everything else it is linux (Ubuntu). It is so much better operating system for people who just don't know jack shit about computers. Wine can run most Windows based kids games just fine if that's a requirement, since kids games are designed to run on old computers.

 

[Nothinman]

The question you should be asking is why not? It's completely, monetarily free and comes with a ton more applications than Windows ever will. There's ~22,000 packages in Debian sid right now (and Ubuntu has most of those packages in universe and multiverse) that are all installable and updateable via a single interface, there's no way MS will ever be able to compete with that. VMware is the only thing I can think of that I use on a daily basis that isn't in Debian and if you want you can always use VirtualBox, qemu or kvm which are distributed by Debian.

If you have a job that requires something that only runs on Windows or you have some other 3rd party stuff that doesn't work on Linux then they've pretty much made the decision for you but otherwise you should think about it. The initial learning curve can be steep, especially if you have troublesome hardware, but once it clicks the whole system makes a lot more sense and really is a lot simpler.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: The Keeper
I have installed Ubuntu for my parents as well as sister's computers. They've never complained and I've never had to provide tech support for them. For me Ubuntu is "install, set-up and forget about it". I've set up automatic updates that keeps everything up-to-date.

In Windows you're only be able to auto-update Microsoft products from Microsoft/Windows Update. And you need admin rights to install software updates for pretty much all 3rd party software. Most software don't even have auto-updates, or at most only tells there's an update available and the user would need to download and install it by himself/herself. Not to mention a regular user won't even update a software even if he/she gets an update notification.

In Ubuntu everything is updated from the repositories automatically even if the user is using a regular user account. No viruses, no malware, no setting up firewall rules. So far I haven't had to reinstall Ubuntu for my parents or sister. Unlike with Windows when I had to reinstall it every now and then, or at the very least do some system maintenance.... *sigh*. It was annoying and time consuming.

The only thing I need Windows for is gaming. For everything else it is linux (Ubuntu). It is so much better operating system for people who just don't know jack shit about computers. Wine can run most Windows based kids games just fine if that's a requirement, since kids games are designed to run on old computers.

..sounds like I should be using Ubuntu as well. will it auto configure my DSL?

 

[nova2]

@IGBT:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=ubuntu%20dsl%20modem

I don't think you'll have any problems unless your DSL modem is connected via USB.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: nova2
@IGBT:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=ubuntu%20dsl%20modem

I don't think you'll have any problems unless your DSL modem is connected via USB.

..:thumbsup: thanx!!

 

[Bateluer]

Right now, the only things holding me to windows are gaming and support for brand new, cutting edge hardware. Wish all vendors would, at a minimum, publish open source drivers for their hardware.

 

[Nothinman]

The minimum should be specs, usually releasing open drivers is less likely because it costs a lot of time in development and laywering to make sure all of the code is licensed properly.

 

[CTho9305]

ATI's driver sucks for recent hardware. If you have a 2900 XT, linux will be an unpleasant experience. I use my nvidia onboard graphics under linux, and my Radeon under windows.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: jediphx
I know everyone hates big eveil MS and im not a linux basher. I have tried many many distros (PCLinuxOS 2007 seems to be my favorite because it works mostly out of box for me) and I guess I just don't "get it"

PCLinuxOS 2007 is working like a champ for me for almost 4 months now.

I originally installed it on an old BP6 system and it worked great.

I am now running it on a KT333 system with an XP1800+ cpu and 512 megs of ram. This setup is great as a second PC and helps me learn more about linux.

Stable and plenty fast, not to mention well organized, I can't recommend this distro enough.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Every PC my family has boots LINUX either full time or part time.

My main PC runs LINUX 100% and it is great.

I run Vista dual booted on another PC just to play the occasional video game and to do Microsoft based software development.

My partner's PC ran LINUX 100% but only switched to dual boot Vista when we got an unusual printer that doesn't have LINUX drivers, and when she wanted to run Photoshop.

So really to me those specific kinds of exceptions (unsupported hardware, high performance video games, and high end windows 3rd party software) are the ONLY reasons to run Windows.

Everything else runs BETTER on LINUX. On windows you typically have to pay lots of money for applications like office / backup software / photo management / desktop publishing / DVD burning (that actually works), good software development tools, web servers, databases, etc. On LINUX most all of that is totally free for an array of decently high quality tools.

For basic needs like email, web browsing, office applications, etc. I'd say LINUX is better for the average user since it is much more uncommon to have the system as a whole crash, get corrupted, get virus / malware infections, get flaky / bog down over time, etc. As the previous commenter said, the updates are usually much more pervasive and automated than Windows' are. Also the security model of UNIX makes it easier to run your normal set of applications and not shoot yourself in the foot by accidentally doing things that will make the whole system not work after you reboot it.

Actually for VERY reliable / basic web / email / light office application use LINUX is VASTLY superior since you can (as is often done in schools / libraries) set it up to boot from a live-CD or over the network from read-only media, offer a full set of tools to whoever is using it, and yet TOTALLY reset its configuration to a known working state with only ever a quick reboot needed. Unless the hardware itself breaks a 100% guaranteed fix is "just hit the reset button", and the software is free and easily setup to do that on even a VERY low end PC (like an old 80386 and up).

Obviously no common version of Windows can easily be installed to work like that by the typical end user with a "Home" operating system license and without having additional "server" and "thin client" type products or an "embedded" OS version etc. You just can't make a typical Windows install "read only" or boot into a nicely rich set of usable software from a read only boot medium without necessarily even having any hard disc at all.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
ATI's driver sucks for recent hardware. If you have a 2900 XT, linux will be an unpleasant experience. I use my nvidia onboard graphics under linux, and my Radeon under windows.

False. I have 2900XT with the 8.2 Catalysts installed. Ubuntu's help pages walk you through building an .deb package from the ATI binaries step by step. It really wasn't that difficult.

I do wish the ATI drivers did have support for the 3000 series though, they've had several revisions to finish it.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: CTho9305
ATI's driver sucks for recent hardware. If you have a 2900 XT, linux will be an unpleasant experience. I use my nvidia onboard graphics under linux, and my Radeon under windows.

False. I have 2900XT with the 8.2 Catalysts installed. Ubuntu's help pages walk you through building an .deb package from the ATI binaries step by step. It really wasn't that difficult.

I do wish the ATI drivers did have support for the 3000 series though, they've had several revisions to finish it.

False for you, maybe. I played around with it this weekend, and loading Google Earth crashed X. Enabling mipmapping in compiz resulted in things turning white (e.g. window previews). It was generally a pretty awful experience. The beta driver I played with late last year was much worse (any app that did blitting - smooth scrolling - crashed the system).

 

[EQTitan]

My new years reso was to get off of Windows completely and I have to say after testing 4 distros between Dec. 25th and January 3rd I love linux thanks to Linux Mint. I was thinking the whole time how I might have to run dual boot just to hang on to some apps that I thought I needed in windows. To my relief I have now had linux running full time for about 3months and have not once had to use windows.

I chose linux for two reasons:

1) I'm a computer builder and it is very hard to get a customer to pay out of pocket for a PC your building for them + the cost of the operating system.

2) Support.

OOTB (out of the box) Linux Mint Live CD: (and pretty much all good distros)
1) Setup cd bootable
2) Insert CD wait for live CD screen
3) Double click "Install" from desktop
4) Enter your name, and password you want
5) Setup Location, Date and Time
6) Choose how to partition the drive (manual or automatic)
7) Click finish...wait

Welcome to linux,
as soon as the computer rebooted after installing the system you get a nice new loading screen followed by your login screen. Once you login in your presented with a nice clean (Gnome) desktop. If your have internet access (synaptic) will look for updates to ALL software currently loaded. If you have updates you will be prompted to review and update, after this it will install everything in the back ground leaving you free to look around. It is truly a set it and forget it operating system. I have rarely if ever had any past or current customers call me about problems they are having with the computer (OS wise).

 

[Hyperblaze]

Better question: Is Windows worth the hassle to use?

For what I do, no it isn't. The only thing I really need from Windows is really IE for testing out web pages (since they were so thoughtful in making their own non-standard standards and making life difficult for everyone, gotta love them for it)

The operating system that meets my needs the best is typically Linux. I don't have any other real reason to use it. When I'm not working I am typically outside doing other stuff. I grew out of the geek stuff. Yet I'm still using Linux, there has to be a reason for it.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: CTho9305
ATI's driver sucks for recent hardware. If you have a 2900 XT, linux will be an unpleasant experience. I use my nvidia onboard graphics under linux, and my Radeon under windows.

False. I have 2900XT with the 8.2 Catalysts installed. Ubuntu's help pages walk you through building an .deb package from the ATI binaries step by step. It really wasn't that difficult.

I do wish the ATI drivers did have support for the 3000 series though, they've had several revisions to finish it.

False for you, maybe. I played around with it this weekend, and loading Google Earth crashed X. Enabling mipmapping in compiz resulted in things turning white (e.g. window previews). It was generally a pretty awful experience. The beta driver I played with late last year was much worse (any app that did blitting - smooth scrolling - crashed the system).

This occurred in Ubuntu? I was fooling around with Compiz last night without any problems. Don't much care for it though, a little too heavy on the eye candy for me.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Better question: Is Windows worth the hassle to use?

For what I do, no it isn't. The only thing I really need from Windows is really IE for testing out web pages (since they were so thoughtful in making their own non-standard standards and making life difficult for everyone, gotta love them for it)

The operating system that meets my needs the best is typically Linux. I don't have any other real reason to use it. When I'm not working I am typically outside doing other stuff. I grew out of the geek stuff. Yet I'm still using Linux, there has to be a reason for it.

Honestly, what's the hassle of using windows? maybe for mom and dad or someone who click around where they shouldn't and get viruses, but i consider myself a power user and yes, while i'm always scared im gonna get a virus or some spyware, i think thats about it. everything is pretty compatible stable, and fast... most importantly next to games, im probably the only one here, but i think office 2007 is amazing!

i also like ubuntu as well. i think it kicks ass... but there are always some quirks (just like windows) to get it to play right, especially if you have new hardware. it wouldnt recognize my 8800GT till i had to install some special driver, even then, the fan on my card is always on lol

at first i hated vista, but now it runs butter smooth on my acer laptop. it was one of the most painless re-installs i've ever done. I wish MS would back-port the install scheme of vista into XP, for hte love of god, get rid of the thing where you can only use the floppy disk to install drivers!!!!!!

 

[Genx87]

Hehe that floppy disk for drivers was baffling. XP was released at a time when USB and CD-ROMs were the norm.

I have tried Ubuntu in a VM. I was mildly impressed. Would I use it as my main OS? No, but it is light years ahead of the last time I gave Linux a serious try.

 

[Nothinman]

Honestly, what's the hassle of using windows?

Pretty much everything. Installing software, removing software, finding drivers, etc all take a lot more work than they do on a Linux distro with proper package management.

at first i hated vista, but now it runs butter smooth on my acer laptop. it was one of the most painless re-installs i've ever done. I wish MS would back-port the install scheme of vista into XP, for hte love of god, get rid of the thing where you can only use the floppy disk to install drivers!!!!!!

Yes, installation is another place where Linux kills Windows in ease of use.

 

[Rottie]

I bought Suse 6.2 few years ago and never bother to install on my PC and now I downloaded Ubuntu I tried Live CD It is ok but I am not ready for Linux sorry

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Honestly, what's the hassle of using windows?

Pretty much everything. Installing software, removing software, finding drivers, etc all take a lot more work than they do on a Linux distro with proper package management.

at first i hated vista, but now it runs butter smooth on my acer laptop. it was one of the most painless re-installs i've ever done. I wish MS would back-port the install scheme of vista into XP, for hte love of god, get rid of the thing where you can only use the floppy disk to install drivers!!!!!!

Yes, installation is another place where Linux kills Windows in ease of use.

The unfortunate part, and not "linux's" fault, is that this is contingent on linux drivers being available. For the ones that are available, it's SO much easier, but if no drivers are available, you're up sh*t creak. Other than my broadcomm wireless card though, I've never been missing drivers (the latest high-end video cards may also be problematic, but I don't use anything close the the latest high-end video cards).

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: CTho9305
ATI's driver sucks for recent hardware. If you have a 2900 XT, linux will be an unpleasant experience. I use my nvidia onboard graphics under linux, and my Radeon under windows.

False. I have 2900XT with the 8.2 Catalysts installed. Ubuntu's help pages walk you through building an .deb package from the ATI binaries step by step. It really wasn't that difficult.

I do wish the ATI drivers did have support for the 3000 series though, they've had several revisions to finish it.

False for you, maybe. I played around with it this weekend, and loading Google Earth crashed X. Enabling mipmapping in compiz resulted in things turning white (e.g. window previews). It was generally a pretty awful experience. The beta driver I played with late last year was much worse (any app that did blitting - smooth scrolling - crashed the system).

This occurred in Ubuntu? I was fooling around with Compiz last night without any problems. Don't much care for it though, a little too heavy on the eye candy for me.

Yes, Ubuntu (Gutsy).

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I haven't tried any recent Linux versions, and will be trying Ubuntu on a new build when I get around to it.

But I am certainly in no particular rush to get away from properly slipstreamed XP installs (with RAID and other text-mode or generic drivers, updates, favorite progs and utils, etc all done as I like), backed up by an install image. My firewall, AV, anti-spy and eyes-open downloading have yet to get me into trouble. I like Windows. I have played with it since 1.0, and used it since 3.0 (to get those WYSIWYG charts from Excel 386).

And XP, well, I couldn't really live without going online and stopping those idiot French who are always trying to shoot the moon in Internet Hearts (Zey are zo obsessed with estratagee!). There's Oblivion... and Duke Nukem, too! I like XP.

 

[The Green Bean]

I would've moved to Linux full time if it supported all the fonts that I use. Anyway to get around that?

 

[BD2003]

Linux is a very strange beast. Its incredible in so many ways, yet there are just a few little things about it that make it nearly totally unusable. Its most popular implementations such as Ubuntu seem to be straddling the line between making it super simple for everyone to use, and yet requiring plenty of nerd skills to get it working right. I've been expermenting with Ubuntu Gutsy again for the past couple of days on my Dell 600m.

The initial setup was super simple of course. But of course, it required plenty of support forum searching and configuration file editing to get it just right. The boot time was absurd, and I was greeted with a black screen instead of a loading screen - had to edit a config file to manually enter my screen resolution. Suspend and Hibernate were completely broken - again, had to edit configuration files here or there. Scrolling and video with compiz effects enabled were also screwed up...guess what I had to do? Edit arcane configuration files based on suggestions on support forums. I'd say I've got it mostly sorted out at this point, although its a bit bothersome that these issues didnt nearly exist to this extent in feisty like they did in gutsy.

I'd imagine if you bought a preinstalled ubuntu dell laptop, you wouldnt have these problems, but don't expect the install to be super duper smooth in all cases. Thankfully the support forums are excellent and you can usually find the solutions you need, but be prepared to edit config files.

Still though, after you've sorted out the issues, the way applications and such are handled is amazing. Installing and uninstalling are basically one click affairs, although there are still plenty of apps I'd like to remove (such as gimp) which I cant do without basically breaking the desktop. It definitely needs to be made a bit more modular.

The applications themselves are hit or miss. You cant go wrong with firefox, but openoffice is a joke compared to microsoft office. I like so much else about the system that it breaks my heart that I just cant feasibly use it for work, I'll always have to boot back into XP or Vista in order to do so. Even though abiword would work well enough for most of my uses, the fact that it cant open a file over a network share is an absolute deal breaker, not to mention ridiculous beyond my understanding. Some apps can open over a share, some apps cant. Its completely inconsistent. I like to keep all my important documents on a backed up server, and I just cant use it like that right now. With XP/Vista, I can easily turn on offline files and edit my documents as if they existed on my laptop, and then everything syncs back perfectly. With linux, I cant even edit the docs straight on the server. I guess the general suckiness of openoffice already precludes using it for work, but hopefully it will all be worked out and consistent soon enough.

On the other hand, firefox and such work as well as they do on any other system. I've begun to migrate a lot towards web apps such as gmail and gcalendar, and they work beautifully. In the future when these apps begin to take over more and more, the difference between OSes will become far less important.

The interface in general though, is far more sophisticated and beautiful than any incarnation of windows. In fact, on this laptop, I couldnt even run Vista aero, but it can run compiz on full blast and look ten times better than vista with a much more powerful graphics card. Especially impressive is the virtual desktops, which I have set to switch when my mouse cursor hits the edges - I dont even miss my dual monitors anymore. I'd LOVE to have this kind of functionality in windows.

Sadly though, battery life is about 50% less on ubuntu, even with every power management hack I can find. I dont know why it is, but it just is. That combined with suspend/hibernate issues make it totally inappropriate for a laptop that you actually want to use on battery.

So its in appropriate for a laptop, inappropriate for work, in appropriate for gaming - so whats it good for? A totally badass internet terminal that stays plugged in all/most of the time. This makes it pretty appropriate for a noob who doesnt use their computer in the same way that most of us here would. Especially if its their only computer and don't have to deal with network sharing issues.

Truthfully, if anything, ubuntu makes me want a mac more than it makes me want ubuntu. A mac has the same prettiness as ubuntu, a solid inclusion of preinstalled apps, the same lack of security issues - but it also comes without the battery life and suspend/hibernate issues, the hardware configuration issues, the network sharing issues, and the ability to use a competent version of microsoft office, allowing me to get actual work done. Unfortunately, it is also quite the opposite of free, being more expensive than any PC.

Every release gets closer and closer to being a true replacement for windows/apple, but theres still too many underlying issues to allow me to use it full time. I'm sure in a few years it will be all the way there, especially as web applications progress.