what would make you switch to linux? (if you're not already using it)

[nortexoid]

for me it seems like only one thing really - my blasted love for counter-strike and DoD...it's the only game I really like (aside from emulator roms)....linux has everything else I need, (i think..unsure about scanner drivers).

when i actually stop playing this game completely, i think i'd switch...

also, for those that don't have to pay for windows (i.e. arrr, piraters!), would you still buy it if you had to, or use linux even if it didn't offer everything u needed?

 

[kaishiden]

I think a ton of people would switch to linux if 1. It was easier. NO offense, but installing drivers is a pain.
2. Support for bleeding edge hardware.
3. Game support. If linux had these, hands down many gamers would flock to avoid windows.

 

[GuruMogens]

Well... The driver support is going better and better. More and more hardware manufactors write their drivers and think of Linux, very nice. The game support is also on the way. I have seen games run nicely on a linux box, but you must also understand thant games will never (in my mind anyway) a good part in linux. Linux and unix is made to run with multiple users, therefore a process does not get very much CPU time.

Linux is not made to be easy, it's made to be good. As in all things the very advandced things aren't easy to use... It dosn't matter wheter Linux is hard to use, as long as it fun to use.

/Rune

 

[kellygirlbeads]

I'll never use linux again.

I used it, briefly, in 1999. I quickly changed to FreeBSD.

For the most part, the graphical interfaces are getting better, but they're still not even close to Windows or Mac. Contrary to popular believe, Win2k is very stable, and IE6 is substantially faster than any other browser out there, and stable enough not to upset me. Thus, Win2k will be on my desktop until I buy a new box, preloaded with the latest version of WinNT (XP, etc)

My servers will never run linux. I no longer can stand the immature attitude of the linux kernel developers. While the FreeBSD developers are approachable and rational, the linux developers are (for the most part, I dont want to start a flame war) nothing but egotistical zealots. Linus drops patches, and the code is forked and split in more ways than one can count. And, more importantly, the stable branch isnt stable. They changed the VM in the stable branch! That's just nonsense. People rely on the stable branch to be stable, and there are two linux kernels in the 2.4 branch that aren't even fit for desktop use, much less heavy server use. (Besides, my boyfriend has code in the current branch of freebsd, he'd never let me use linux!)

SO, yea, I'll use FreeBSD for servers, and windows for my desktop.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

<< SO, yea, I'll use FreeBSD for servers, and windows for my desktop. >>



I totally agree with you. Getting stuff to install under Linux is a pain in the butt.
Sure there's rpmfind.net to help you find your missing dependencies, but I love the fact
that BSD goes out and installs everything for you.

Then there's debian, which does what BSD does and maybe even better, but I'm sticking
with BSD for now.

For desktop, I would have to stay with Outlook. I love IE6 too much to give it up. Until
Konqueror can render pages as good as IE6, then I'm staying put.

 

[Sunner]

More games.
Work aside, I also love games, and setting up WINE to run games is a PITA.

As for browsers, that hasn't been a big concern to me in a long time.
Mozilla, Galeon, and Opera all work very good, and supposedly Konqueror3 made huge strides in CSS/DHTML compability.

 

[Nothinman]

but you must also understand thant games will never (in my mind anyway) a good part in linux. Linux and unix is made to run with multiple users, therefore a process does not get very much CPU time.

NT is multiuser too, a process gets as much CPU time as is available, if all the other users are idle it gets it all. I've run Q3 in Linux and get nearly exactly the same performance as I do in Windows, and things like the gamma slider work in Linux that don't in Windows =)

Linus drops patches, and the code is forked and split in more ways than one can count.

If you didn't hear the main kernel is now kept in a bitkeeper archive so Linus has a lot less in the way of patches to keep track of. And I'm not sure what you mean by the code being 'forked and split', if you mean the other trees like -ac, Alan (and a few others, only 1 or 2) maintain their own tree because they accept things Linus won't yet, this way the patches get some time in the field without being in the main 'stable' tree.

They changed the VM in the stable branch!

Because the old wasn't working like it should. Linus was getting fed up with Rik not fixing and tuning his VM to an acceptable state so he dropped in another, the choice seemed to be between a known broken VM or an unknown possibly not broken VM. I don't 100% support that decision, but I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it out to be. And I think it's a testament to Linux's modularity that a single patch replaced the whole VM and everything just sorta kept going, nothing strange got broken.

Mind you, I'm not arguing with you, I just don't think the situation is nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.

 

[Workin']

<< As in all things the very advanced things aren't easy to use... >>

That's really backwards thinking. As long as people think along those lines linux will never be more than a curiosity for the desktop user. There are plenty of advanced things that are easy to use - actually, I'd argue that something that is complex but easy to use is MORE advanced.

The main reasons I don't use linux (except for fun on my NuBus-era Power Macintosh) are that keeping up with all the distros, updates, patches, etc. is a royal pain in the rear and trying to figure out which of the 50 versions of a single library will work with all the programs that need it is more hassle than it's worth. It all just seems so disorganized and unless you can afford to spend all day every day keeping up with that stuff it's impossible to do.

I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices, but even a borderline moron can successfully maintain a basic Windows 2000 Server installation. Once it's up and running it's mostly a matter of checking the Windows Update web site and running hfnetchk every day to keep it secure and up to date. I know linux+apache is not that easy - I've tried.

 

[starwarsdad]

I would have to say that the thing that is going to drive me into the arms of another OS is MS's current position that ALL contomers are pirates. I am not talking so much about the addition of product registration, but recent changes in the EULA that grant MS the "right" to examine a drive's contents and update fixes that they feel are necessary at their discretion. These are changes in the Enterprise licensing of XP, but they will trickle down soon enough. I do not update my machines with any new MS patches right away. I have lost 2 servers recently to "fixes" that my boss ran without prior testing on a server. At least it was on a weekend, and we did not loose anything but time.

I have tried OS 9.x. Not stable and not enough meat there for a network OS. I am installing RedHat and Mandrake as I type. We'll see. I have heard that there is a server version of OS 10 coming out (may already be out). We have a Mac guy that is going to test it.

I will probably be changing over to a Unix derivative of some sort in the near future though because of MS invasive, heavy-handed policies.

 

[Armitage]

The primary reason I initially switched to Linux was stability. I just got completely fed up with windows crashing ALL the time. I work with models & simulations that can run for weeks at a time, which was basically impossible with windows. This was back a few years when NT4 was the gold-standard for MS and the stability still sucked (though not nearly as bad as its predeccesors).
WinNT crashed on me and corrupted a drive on its way down. That was the last straw. I bought a box set of RedHat that day.

I stay with it now for a number of reasons:
- flexibility & control
- breadth & depth of applications & libraries
- Beowulf cluster computing
- Seamless remote access
- Multiple desktops! (really painful to do without when I have to use windows)
- Command Line! (again, really painful going back to windows)
- Not having to put up with Microsoft's B.S. (Priceless )

 

[Nothinman]

The main reasons I don't use linux (except for fun on my NuBus-era Power Macintosh) are that keeping up with all the distros, updates, patches, etc. is a royal pain in the rear and trying to figure out which of the 50 versions of a single library will work with all the programs that need it is more hassle than it's worth. It all just seems so disorganized and unless you can afford to spend all day every day keeping up with that stuff it's impossible to do.

That's a major problem using Debian takes care of, as long as you stick with the maintained packages (there's more than 8000 programs packages in Debian woody right now) you'll have practically no problems. Everything I use (minus VMWare and one other small program) has a Debian package. If you put a little effort into getting Debian running, the day to day maintenance and use of it is a breeze.

 

[manly]

I'm sorry but touting Windows for maintainability is hilarious. Nicer GUIs does not make a more stable, secure, maintainable server OS. I won't dispute that a borderline moron can admin W2K Server, because it sure explains why so many of them are cracked.

Obviously, there have been some problems with Linux 2.4, but it's only more noticeable now that W2K is roughly on par with Linux (depending on who you ask). When NT was a joke of an operating system, Linux's rough edges didn't look nearly so bad.

nortexoid, Transgaming's WineX is bringing gaming to Linux x86, although binaries are not free downloads. CS has run very well under wine for a while now, but AFAIK, you can't run an anti-cheat client like Cheating Death. I'm not sure how CSguard would react to a wine system, but in theory, I don't see that as untenable.

 

[Vadatajs]

If they improve the responsiveness of X, and agree on a packaging standard (deb, rpm, whatever just pick one) I would be more willing to give it another shot. I would also like full-featured support for multimedia hardware (5.1 channel sound and the IR control for my tv tuner) as well as dvd software that doesn't have to be patched to work.

 

[mcveigh]

I use linux only on myy desktop at home. on my laptop I dual boot linux and windows xp.

For those of you that say "outlook" give evolution a chance.

what would I like to see? Quickbooks for linux!!!

question, does openBSD have a ports system like other bsd's or gentoo linux?

 

[bugsysiegel]

I'm kind of curious, everyone points to Linux's stability, but Linux is a derivative of Unix, and Unix has been around for how long? Windows has been around for how long?

Hmmmm, I think people are so busy bashing M$ (yeah, they are money grubbing bastards, not the point here though) that they forget that te NT code really isn't that old. Even Novell's code has been around for quite a while. The biggest problem with M$, imho, is that they are in such a hurry to grab more money, they rush immature code to market before it's ready.

I've tried Linux a couple times, and always give up in frustration trying to do the simplest of things (installs, drivers, connecting to the freaking Net.) Once these issues are overcome, and once I can run my Windows games on Linux though, I'm there.

 

[Nothinman]

If they improve the responsiveness of X,

I've never had X responsiveness problems, maybe you should try a different window manager?

and agree on a packaging standard (deb, rpm, whatever just pick one)

They have, the 'standard' is rpm, but Debian won't be switching. And if you run Debian, you can probably work around that =)

I would also like full-featured support for multimedia hardware (5.1 channel sound and the IR control for my tv tuner)

Talk to your hardware vendors, you don't think MS wrote the Windows drivers do you?

as well as dvd software that doesn't have to be patched to work.

I don't have a DVD drive in my system so I don't know how much work it is to get decss working with movie players, but you can thank the MPAA for this and for the region codes that don't let you play foreign releases. The license for the decrypting software is very expensive, noone writing software for free can afford it.

For those of you that say "outlook" give evolution a chance.

Evolution rocks, and it has better IMAP support than Outlook.

question, does openBSD have a ports system like other bsd's or gentoo linux?

Yes it does, I think it's the same one FreeBSD uses.

 

[SinNisTeR]

-i want to be able to play any game i wish to play.
-want to have apps so that i can get pictures from my digital camera, connect to my iPaQ
-have the ease of windows, and still have stability. (by ease i mean installing a new sound card and updating drivers.) some of that stuff is over my head.
-if i had more knowledge of linux or unix (like n0c or BBWF)
-made suse ISOs available hahahahaha
-if KDE3 would actually install correctly.

those are my gripes

 

[SinNisTeR]

<< I use linux only on myy desktop at home. on my laptop I dual boot linux and windows xp.

For those of you that say "outlook" give evolution a chance.

what would I like to see? Quickbooks for linux!!!

question, does openBSD have a ports system like other bsd's or gentoo linux? >>




i tried evolution, but can it access hotmail accounts?

 

[mcveigh]

not that i know of, im pretty sure thats a MS only thing. of course if they would open their code....

 

[EHobaX]

Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 and Dark Age of Camelot.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< 'll never use linux again.

I used it, briefly, in 1999. I quickly changed to FreeBSD.

For the most part, the graphical interfaces are getting better, but they're still not even close to Windows or Mac. Contrary to popular believe, Win2k is very stable, and IE6 is substantially faster than any other browser out there, and stable enough not to upset me. Thus, Win2k will be on my desktop until I buy a new box, preloaded with the latest version of WinNT (XP, etc)

My servers will never run linux. I no longer can stand the immature attitude of the linux kernel developers. >>


but you use windows without complaining, you like MS' attitude better than that of linux's kernel developers?


<< For desktop, I would have to stay with Outlook. >>


i hear evolution is great, and by looking at its GUI (never used it myself), it looks pretty similar to outlook.


<< I bought a box set of RedHat that day.

I stay with it now for a number of reasons:
- flexibility & control >>


yes yes yes


<< - Multiple desktops! (really painful to do without when I have to use windows) >>


i am the same way


<< - Command Line! (again, really painful going back to windows) >>


what? no grep in cmd?!?!?!


<< - Not having to put up with Microsoft's B.S. (Priceless ) >>


definitely.


<< That's a major problem using Debian takes care of, as long as you stick with the maintained packages (there's more than 8000 programs packages in Debian woody right now) you'll have practically no problems. Everything I use (minus VMWare and one other small program) has a Debian package. If you put a little effort into getting Debian running, the day to day maintenance and use of it is a breeze. >>


i agree. debian doesnt hold your hand as much as some other distros when it comes to setting up certain things, but once you get things working (and learn something in the process), its totally easy to maintain an up to date system. i do use a few things which arent available in debian packages, but most of them are small, simple apps like tac (a tcl based text mode AIM client, i just untar it in /usr/src/tac/ and then make a symlink in /usr/bin which points to the main script), and a wm dock app or two, which are basically just the executeable in /usr/bin and maybe a manpage if you're lucky. no elaborate library dependencies or anything.


<< I'm sorry but touting Windows for maintainability is hilarious. Nicer GUIs does not make a more stable, secure, maintainable server OS >>


why does everyone think windows has a nice gui? its horrid in my opinion, and you cant do much to change it. that damn taskbar is always there, no window shading, i could go on and on. (hmmm...it looks like crap? )


<< If they improve the responsiveness of X, >>


elaborate. how is X not responsive? kde/gnome may be, but those are by far not the only options.


<< I would also like full-featured support for multimedia hardware (5.1 channel sound and the IR control for my tv tuner) >>


i knew a guy who was using a sbLive! and had 5.1 working, not sure how to do it but i'm sure theres info out there.


<< I'm kind of curious, everyone points to Linux's stability, but Linux is a derivative of Unix, and Unix has been around for how long? Windows has been around for how long? >>


sure, but linux was still written from the ground up, so its code had no jump start on windows. and look at beOS, that was stable wasnt it? its perfectly possible to make a stable OS without having a 20-30 year head start.


<< -if i had more knowledge of linux or unix (like n0c or BBWF ) >>


haha, if you're a subscriber, do some searches of my username + linux, and you'll see that i'm no guru. (i would give that title to nothinman ) i am still a newbie, i have only been using linux since last fall or so, and it hasnt been easy the whole time (TRUST me on that), but if you're willing to put some work into it and LEARN (you know linux was made by geeks/hackers, and its made for them too. mandrake/redhat/suse are not linux.), you can learn some really cool stuff and have alot of fun. see, unlike some people, i didnt want to install linux *just* to get away from MS (although that was definitely a reason), i am genuinely interested in almost anything dealing with computers/technology/etc, and linux lets you learn alot. again, if you're just into linux for the stability and the non-MS-ness of it, then you may be wasting your time, at least until more layman-friendly interfaces and utilities are made.

 

[nortexoid]

good read.

forgot about window emulators like Wine, but I have to wonder about their compatibility and performance (which I've heard is rather poor).

don't understand why so many hardware vendors don't develop drivers for linux...is it THAT difficult/costly?

 

[Nothinman]

forgot about window emulators like Wine, but I have to wonder about their compatibility and performance (which I've heard is rather poor).

What about all those people playing HL/CS in Wine?

don't understand why so many hardware vendors don't develop drivers for linux...is it THAT difficult/costly?

Because binary-only drivers go over very poorly and aren't guaranteed to work from kernel version to kernel version (even in the stable tree only source compatibility is guaranteed) And if they open source them so they work well, they give a way 'trade secrets'.

 

[nortexoid]

i see....

how are things regarding debian and BSD??.. - i have this notion of them being virtually identical to linux...(i've no clue)...I've seen them running X window managers (kde/genome), which is probably where it came from.

is driver development for them easier?...i see a few people here like debian and bsd over linux...

 

[SinNisTeR]

too bad winex isnt free