<<
Linux is a very good and stable OS, but still cannot match Microsoft's Windows GUI and user friendliness. >>
If you define "user friendly" as "acts like Windows 95/98/ME" then you're right, but the comparison is biased. I read an article a while back that summarized the results of a study where they placed inexperienced users in front of computers for the first time and evaluated their ability and comfort level with the system after a period of time. IIRC, the systems were Windows 9x, Mac, and *nix + X (I think Linux, but my memory is fuzzy).
The result? No measurable difference between the systems
when the users didn't have any preconceived ideas about how they should interact with a GUI. Surprising? Not really.
<<
Linux is harder to deploy compared with Microsoft Windows even for power users. >>
Ummm. This is true with trivial issues, but Windows can be a
major pain in the ass whenever you need to fix something real. One of the trade-offs with "easy to use" is limited functionality. It's "easier" because you can't do as much with it. The learning curve may be gentle (or not -- see my point above) but you max out your abilities quickly.
<<
I will consider to use Linux as my main OS only after: Most general or advanced settings, options or configurations can be configured directly from the GUI. >>
Try Redhat. You never have to touch
ifconfig if you don't want to, you can simply use the GUI tool instead. You're seriously limiting your growth by doing so, but you can admin the box just fine without ever having to dirty your hands with a command prompt.
<<
Natively support multi language >>
Try a newer version of Redhat (7.1) or SUSE. SUSE does a
great job of supporting multiple languages (after all, it was developed in Germany with the goal of multi-language support). I'm about to donate a number of machines to an organization that does some computer education in Ecuador, and I'm seriously considering Redhat 7.1's option to install in one language but have the installed system use another.
<<
Many softwares can be installed without typing commands in the command prompt. >>
Go to
Ximian's web site and look at Red Carpet. Not only will it interface with RPM or DPKG databases, it'll check for newer releases of installed software and complete the upgrade for you automatically (while tracking package dependencies and keeping the underlying package databases intact and up-to-date). Ever had to search the 'net for some obscure Visual Basic .DLL because the guy who built the program assumed you would already have it (or was too dumb to know what he needed to install for his app to work)? I have. Stuff like Red Carpet and dselect mean you don't need to suffer through that.
<<
Have good support of my favorite 'Win32' games >>
Oh yeah? Well I won't like Win32 until it supports my favorite FreeBSD applications.
I don't know. I'm building a box for a friend of mine who's new to computers and I've seriously considered installing Redhat 7.1 so that it boots to Gnome, with AbiWord, GnuMeric, and Star Office installed. It'll cause less headaches once it's set up correctly than Windows ME. The trade-off is that it's easier to find a "for dummies" book for Windows-based systems (and they all assume the user is running Windows). I'll probably install ME because then she can get support from anyone, but I know I'm not doing her any favors...
As an aside -- one of our larger clients budgets $120,000 every 3 years for Microsoft license upgrades (operating systems and Office). They received a call from their Microsoft rep about 2 weeks ago and were told that they are now going to have to pay $80,000
per year on the XP subscription plan. That's
double the current cost, for the same level of functionality they've been getting. They're pissed, and as more people get pissed, more people will look for alternatives, and linux is sitting there waiting.
You'll see some serious improvements in the next year. Count on it.