Poll: As a typical desktop computer user, have you ever considered Linux to be your main OS?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bremen

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
658
0
0
heh, Agreed Replayer :0)

As a computer science student I use linux for all my serious computing needs. As a devel and learning platform it is far superior to windows. Want to learn how a program works? Look at the source!! Dosn't quite work that way in windows :-( Of course I still use windows for playing games, and browsing the internet. Of course I still have problems when I need to write papers deciding what to use :-( All to often I end up with word, which imho is the best word processor around.

Anyway short answer: Linux is my main OS for serious computer work.
Windows fills in for games mostly.
 

Charles

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 1999
2,115
0
0
Our forums pal, Noriaki says: Unix is users friendlly, it's just picky about its friends. (correct me if I'm wrong). People like Priit is definetely its best friend, that's why it's nice to him! But for most of current desktop computer users can't be its friend yet.

Do you remember that computer users has grown so rapidly since Microsoft releases Windows 95 in August 1995? Why?

What I'm saying is: if Linux wants to grow in desktop market, it should be at least as users friendly as Windows. Windows 9x (95/98/98SE/ME) has never been my favorite OS because of its frangibility. Explorer error, BSOD, memory leak, etc. But we have to admit that Windows 95 was an incredible success that time! The reason is nothing but its GUI usability.

Now, Linux has made itself as a very stable and reliable OS. I think the next step should be improving its GUI in order to better approach the desktop computing market. Linus Torvalds can segment Linux kernel into 2 part.[*]Linux Server Edition - Focus on its existing path
[*]Linux Home Edition - Improve its multimedia function as well as GUI
 

chuckieland

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2000
3,148
0
0
i would run linux only if all my games, software all run on it
i'm mean, a computer is only as good as the software it run on
Linux is rock solid because it does not accept all the hardware and software windows support
if Linux support those, it will suck too
and it suck even more for not supporting them
 

HalfHuman

Banned
Jan 10, 2001
154
0
0
Right now I am using linux as my main desktop os. I HATE it! I am only forced to run it because I toasted my primary master hard drive and I didn't want to completely kill my backup drive. My sound card (GTXP) doesn't work, I have to go back to the sblive POS. It keeps forgetting I have a mouse wheel (kde and konqueror + mozilla). I want my 4th and 5th mouse buttons back.

Sure it is stable, but I am not running a server here. I play games, watch tv, surf the internet, and WATCH DVD's normally. Sure I can do them with linux. But it is too much work, and the results aren't worth the effort. Win2k was much more responsive than kde ever will be.

Edit: I usually dual boot though. Normally I just use linux to learn how to interact with a unixy OS. As an IT major, I think I will need it in the future.

Edit again: I am getting too redundant, I either need a thesaurus or sleep.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0


<< Right now I am using linux as my main desktop os. I HATE it! I am only forced to run it because I toasted my primary master hard drive and I didn't want to completely kill my backup drive. My sound card (GTXP) doesn't work, I have to go back to the sblive POS. It keeps forgetting I have a mouse wheel (kde and konqueror + mozilla). I want my 4th and 5th mouse buttons back.

Sure it is stable, but I am not running a server here. I play games, watch tv, surf the internet, and WATCH DVD's normally. Sure I can do them with linux. But it is too much work, and the results aren't worth the effort. Win2k was much more responsive than kde ever will be.

Edit: I normally dual boot though. Normally I just use linux to learn how to interact with a unixy OS. As an IT major, I think I will need it in the future.
>>



Then setup the mouse wheel to work all the time. Get the mouse buttons to work. Im sure the code isnt that hard. If KDE is slow, use another desktop environment or just a window manager. There are many faster ones out there. Dont use X if you want real speed and power. Its all about choice, and you have a lot of things to choose from. Except you dont seem to want the choice... Choose not to have a choice?

Ramblings of a tired man
 

Southerner

Member
Jun 21, 2001
129
0
0


<< Linux is a very good and stable OS, but still cannot match Microsoft's Windows GUI and user friendliness. >>


If you define &quot;user friendly&quot; as &quot;acts like Windows 95/98/ME&quot; 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 &quot;easy to use&quot; is limited functionality. It's &quot;easier&quot; 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. :p

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 &quot;for dummies&quot; 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.
 

Psychoholic

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,704
0
76
No. Until Linux can come anywhere close to running the software here that it would have to it will never be given the slightest bit of consideration either.

Linux just can't compete at this stage of the game.
 

AaronP

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
4,359
0
0
I would switch in a HEARTBEAT if all modern games supported Linux. Alas, they are all M$ lackeys. So the answer would have to be NO.
 

Charles

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 1999
2,115
0
0


<< You'll see some serious improvements in the next year. Count on it. >>

I believe so, Southerner. That's why I say 'maybe yes for the future'. It looks like that you are Linux's best friend. How long have you been using Linux? Which distribution do you use?
 

Charles

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 1999
2,115
0
0
From http://www.redhat.com/annualreport/innovate.html:

Sometimes when software companies become TOO POWERFUL, the will to dominate replaces the will to innovate.
-----------------------------------------------
That's when you change the rules.
-----------------------------------------------
Free software isn't about charity. It's about competition.
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0
I hardly play any games, so I won't miss them.

I now run Win2k and Linux (SuSe 7.1) on two different PC's (with KVM switch on one monitor) and I really could just leave one PC off and do everything on the other PC, whether it's Linux or Windows.

Sure, Linux has a steep learning curve, but once you get close to the top, you'll learn to appreciate its simplicity and customizability. You can literally tweak Linux to its core (kernel).
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0


<< No. Until Linux can come anywhere close to running the software here that it would have to it will never be given the slightest bit of consideration either.

Linux just can't compete at this stage of the game.
>>



So the only software you all are missing is basically games right? The linux/*BSD fans here have given you alternatives to pretty much everything else.

Oh well, I guess I should install FreeCiv sometime and check it out. Or get a linux box so I can play my linux version of Q3.
 

Charles

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 1999
2,115
0
0


<< No. Until Linux can come anywhere close to running the software here that it would have to it will never be given the slightest bit of consideration either.

Linux just can't compete at this stage of the game.
>>

This is exactly why I'm comparing Linux Mandrake 8.0/Red Hat 7.1 with Microsoft Windows 9x.
 

Psychoholic

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,704
0
76


<< So the only software you all are missing is basically games right? The linux/*BSD fans here have given you alternatives to pretty much everything else.

Oh well, I guess I should install FreeCiv sometime and check it out. Or get a linux box so I can play my linux version of Q3.
>>


No as a matter of fact I have no games on either my work system nor my home system.



<< This is exactly why I'm comparing Linux Mandrake 8.0/Red Hat 7.1 with Microsoft Windows 9x. >>


Why not compare it to W2K???

I have no need nor the time to run games on my systems. I have several specialized applications that do not have a Linux port but I also have many mainstream ones. Until applications like AutoCAD, Office and the like are ported to Linux it's just not a viable option. Sure, I could find a &quot;substitute&quot;, but why should I have my users relearn things they already know??? Why should I force them to spend more time to complete something while they relarn how a package works. That's wasted time, and wasted time is wasted money. There are more factors than the OS being free. That doesn't even touch on the compatibility issue with other companies that I have to exchange with.

Like I said before n0cmonkey, Linux just can't compete.
 

BlvdKing

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2000
1,173
0
0
I have had Linux as my main OS a few times. I have used RedHat 6.2, SuSE 6.3, and Mandrake 7.2 and 8.0. Unfortunately, none of them worked out. I was able to get Quake 3 and UT working under Mandrake 7.2, but I couldn't get my other games to work. Mandrake 8.0 had alot of potential, and I was loving it, but while I was on IRC one night, my computer locked up (I hit alt-F1 - alt-F8 to find another desktop) and it looked like a program was hogging resources, but there was nothing I could do about it. I hit the reset button (no good but there was nothing else I could do!) and LiLo would come up but Linux would not boot. After that I got fed up and installed Win2K and have been happy with the functionality ever since.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0


<<

<< So the only software you all are missing is basically games right? The linux/*BSD fans here have given you alternatives to pretty much everything else.

Oh well, I guess I should install FreeCiv sometime and check it out. Or get a linux box so I can play my linux version of Q3.
>>


No as a matter of fact I have no games on either my work system nor my home system.



<< This is exactly why I'm comparing Linux Mandrake 8.0/Red Hat 7.1 with Microsoft Windows 9x. >>


Why not compare it to W2K???

I have no need nor the time to run games on my systems. I have several specialized applications that do not have a Linux port but I also have many mainstream ones. Until applications like AutoCAD, Office and the like are ported to Linux it's just not a viable option. Sure, I could find a &quot;substitute&quot;, but why should I have my users relearn things they already know??? Why should I force them to spend more time to complete something while they relarn how a package works. That's wasted time, and wasted time is wasted money. There are more factors than the OS being free. That doesn't even touch on the compatibility issue with other companies that I have to exchange with.

Like I said before n0cmonkey, Linux just can't compete.
>>



We're talking about work desktops now? Most people are not ready for linux, I never said they were. There is too much for everyone to learn and most people are happy being ignorant. Most of the office substitutes look a hell of a lot like MS office. They are usually big, nasty, and increadible memory hogs. So they perform like MS office too. Those specialized apps... You sure there are no alternatives? And what compatibility do you need with other businesses that linux cannot provide? You mention a lot of things but offer no explanation. So my last question would have to be: Can you be anymore vague?
 

Psychoholic

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,704
0
76


<< We're talking about work desktops now? >>


Since the question asks about Linux on the desktop I assume work desktops are included, correct??? Are you afraid Linux won't cut it???



<< Most people are not ready for linux, I never said they were. There is too much for everyone to learn and most people are happy being ignorant. >>


Read my post. I never said anything about people not willing to learn. I said it costs money and time to retrain people on something other than what they use. Now exactly what would I gain by spending all that time and effort into switching my users to Linux??? We use W2K and NT, and have no stability problems, so again what can it offer me???



<< Most of the office substitutes look a hell of a lot like MS office. They are usually big, nasty, and increadible memory hogs. So they perform like MS office too. >>


I don't see any Office apps here being real memory or speed hogs. Maybe I just installed the items they needed, or else you forgot to turn off &quot;Clippy&quot;.



<< Those specialized apps... You sure there are no alternatives? >>


Not a chance. Not only that but if some hardware changes would be necessary the cost could quickly escalate into the millions. You accused me of being vague so I'll help you out a little bit. It's called remote radio telemetry, and for the most part you don't make major changes without replacing a large portion of the remotes. We have around 35 remotes that we control by radio frequencies, most of this is hardware driven and has to be keyed to each other to provide functionality in case one component would fail.



<< And what compatibility do you need with other businesses that linux cannot provide? >>


How about the capability to send engineered plans do the Department of Transportation, other engineering firms, etc. We need to stay with what is most compatible with people we work with. Having to convert a 10 million dollar project from a Linux CAD package to AutoCAD opens up room for error. If there is an error that costs time and money on a 10 million dollar project, someone's head is going to roll. It's not going to be mine. Would you like to place yours on the table??? Once again let me touch on the fact of retraining people to cope with these changes and the time it would take to do so even if it were viable.

Also in addition to CAD drawing but spreadsheets and detailed notes are also sent back and forth. Yeah I could convert, even down to plain old ASCII text if necessary, but that would throw off the spacing for the spreadsheets and specification columns. Wouldn't it be a real bitch if someone ordered a few million dollars of the wrong material due to a column that got thrown out of line during a conversion??? For that matter why should I or anyone I communicate with have to convert to begin with??? That's wasted time and money right there.

Did I clear things up??? Is that a little less vague??? If not, I invite you to come and see things first hand. I show you personally why Linux isn't a viable solution. I'm also not alone in seeing this.





 

Charles

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 1999
2,115
0
0


<< Why not compare it to W2K??? >>

Not yet. Win2K is so stable, supports multi language and yet its GUI is better than Win9x. I think Linux Mandrake 8.x or Red Hat Linux 7.x with Mature/future version of Ximian Gnome (maybe 2.0?) will be comparable with Windows 2000.
 

Psychoholic

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,704
0
76


<< Not yet. Win2K is so stable, supports multi language and yet its GUI is better than Win9x. I think Linux Mandrake 8.x or Red Hat Linux 7.x with Mature/future version of Ximian Gnome (maybe 2.0?) will be comparable with Windows 2000. >>


That's my point exactly. Anything than go head-to-head with Win9x and come out looking good. If you want to impress me show me something than match wits with W2K. So far then Linux community hasn't done that. Once they do then maybe they can address the issue of what they can offer me. It would have to be much more than W2K, and offer me the compatibility I need before I would switch.

FWIW I think it will be a while before we see that, if ever. Overall Linux has trailed behind NT/W2K for quite some time. I don't see them rushing to get ahead of the game.
 

Aureius

Member
Jun 14, 2000
67
0
0
I am fairly inexperienced here on the forums, so here goes!

As a Windows Systems Admin, 95-2k, in a Unix shop, i think that both have there desiganated rolls and until Linux makes an easier to use GUI interface it won't be on the average user or even above average users desktop. It's not widely available or used as a desktop solution unless you are using it to monitor large Unix based systems. We ingest satellite imagry and send it all over the world. We have guys who have been using Unix since its inception as a server solutions. Many go back to the days of punch cards, yet all use Windows on their desktops because it's just easier. Ever tried pumping out a large document using VI. It would kill most of these guys.
I personal am try to learn more and more about Linux for job and personal uses. It's the world leader in server OS. We just order 41 Dell Dual Xenon Linux based servers to replace our fading IBM PPs, SGI O2000s, and Sun Sparks. Why? Its cheaper and they are more versital. AIX, Solaris, HPUIX, all have there own quarks and are expensive as heel to upgrade. Linux is our server OS now and most likely the long haul. But on the desk top it will be Windows 2000.

I prefer both for there specific duties and run both.

-Andy
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0


<<

<< We're talking about work desktops now? >>


Since the question asks about Linux on the desktop I assume work desktops are included, correct??? Are you afraid Linux won't cut it???
>>



I know linux won't cut it.



<<

<< Most people are not ready for linux, I never said they were. There is too much for everyone to learn and most people are happy being ignorant. >>


Read my post. I never said anything about people not willing to learn. I said it costs money and time to retrain people on something other than what they use. Now exactly what would I gain by spending all that time and effort into switching my users to Linux??? We use W2K and NT, and have no stability problems, so again what can it offer me???



<< Most of the office substitutes look a hell of a lot like MS office. They are usually big, nasty, and increadible memory hogs. So they perform like MS office too. >>


I don't see any Office apps here being real memory or speed hogs. Maybe I just installed the items they needed, or else you forgot to turn off &quot;Clippy&quot;.
>>



Haha. No I hated clippy like the rest of you. Although vigor is pretty funny.. Anyhow Microsoft Office takes up horrible amounts of RAM on the machines I tried it on. Plain and simple. When they say a minimum of 16MB of ram for windows they really mean a WHOLE LOT MORE IF YOU PLAN ON RUNNING APPLICATIONS.



<<

<< Those specialized apps... You sure there are no alternatives? >>


Not a chance. Not only that but if some hardware changes would be necessary the cost could quickly escalate into the millions. You accused me of being vague so I'll help you out a little bit. It's called remote radio telemetry, and for the most part you don't make major changes without replacing a large portion of the remotes. We have around 35 remotes that we control by radio frequencies, most of this is hardware driven and has to be keyed to each other to provide functionality in case one component would fail.

<<

Ok, you got me :)



<<

<< And what compatibility do you need with other businesses that linux cannot provide? >>


How about the capability to send engineered plans do the Department of Transportation, other engineering firms, etc. We need to stay with what is most compatible with people we work with. Having to convert a 10 million dollar project from a Linux CAD package to AutoCAD opens up room for error. If there is an error that costs time and money on a 10 million dollar project, someone's head is going to roll. It's not going to be mine. Would you like to place yours on the table??? Once again let me touch on the fact of retraining people to cope with these changes and the time it would take to do so even if it were viable.

Also in addition to CAD drawing but spreadsheets and detailed notes are also sent back and forth. Yeah I could convert, even down to plain old ASCII text if necessary, but that would throw off the spacing for the spreadsheets and specification columns. Wouldn't it be a real bitch if someone ordered a few million dollars of the wrong material due to a column that got thrown out of line during a conversion??? For that matter why should I or anyone I communicate with have to convert to begin with??? That's wasted time and money right there.

Did I clear things up??? Is that a little less vague??? If not, I invite you to come and see things first hand. I show you personally why Linux isn't a viable solution. I'm also not alone in seeing this.
>>



Works for me. I never said linux was ready for everyone's desktop. I wouldnt even run it as a critical server, but thats just me.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0


<<

<< Not yet. Win2K is so stable, supports multi language and yet its GUI is better than Win9x. I think Linux Mandrake 8.x or Red Hat Linux 7.x with Mature/future version of Ximian Gnome (maybe 2.0?) will be comparable with Windows 2000. >>


That's my point exactly. Anything than go head-to-head with Win9x and come out looking good. If you want to impress me show me something than match wits with W2K. So far then Linux community hasn't done that. Once they do then maybe they can address the issue of what they can offer me. It would have to be much more than W2K, and offer me the compatibility I need before I would switch.

FWIW I think it will be a while before we see that, if ever. Overall Linux has trailed behind NT/W2K for quite some time. I don't see them rushing to get ahead of the game.
>>



On the desktop.
 

Psychoholic

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,704
0
76
n0cmonkey Linux has trailed behind even in the server segment. When was it Linux added support for more than 2 processors??? How long has than been a part of NT server pacakges???
 

Bremen

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
658
0
0


<< Linux has trailed behind even in the server segment. When was it Linux added support for more than 2 processors??? How long has than been a part of NT server pacakges??? >>


Well since nOc stepped out I'll respond here :0)

Where do you get the idea linux ever trailed in the server segment? Granted support for 2 procs is nice, but this has only become popularized recently, and even so in may instances two seperate boxes will serve you better than one dual (for server issues).

Anyway, as any admin will tell you stability is paramount. If the system goes down thats wasted money, irrate customers etc. Linux has been stable since before NT was even released. As for when NT finally became stable, that would be when they changed the name to 2000. A lag of what, 8 years?