Why do YOU prefer Linux over Windows?

[xtknight]

If you don't mind, I'm going to be blunt here but I perfectly respect your opinion not to use Linux because even I use Windows mostly myself.

Originally posted by: Malak
Cost

Came with every computer I've bought, so doesn't really cost me anything.

Uh, of course it costs you something. Do you think Microsoft gives out this OS for free, or that Dell just feels like throwing away $150 per PC? Has it ever occurred to you one reason those Linux PCs sold at Walmart were so cheap (it wasn't just because they used crappy components)?

Freedom

What freedom do I not have? I haven't met any constraints on my activities, whereas in Linux I did.

Utilities like cat are indispensible for ease of the likes of disk imaging, etc.

Security

As I've explained many times in the past, you don't need this on Windows. It's all paranoia. I have never paid a dime for security and never will, and I've never needed it. I don't even run free software. People get a virus or spyware because they are either ignorant or do things they shouldn't be doing. If you are smart enough to run Linux, you are smart enough to safely run Windows without any trouble. I've never had a virus at home, I run spyware scans once every 2 months just in case(very rarely anything shows up), I have no active virus protection or a firewall. Everything thinks the internet is a war and you need protection, but I seemed to have missed the battle.

While I generally share your point of view on this, I still feel the need to defend here because what you say is outlandish. I am ignorant because someone used Billy's little buffer hole in my OS (read: Sasser) to execute shell code? What you're effectively saying is I'm ignorant because I'm using Windows.

What makes you think just because you know Linux you will know Windows? That is not true at all. I've used Windows for years. Why don't I know Linux? The same goes the opposite way, absolutely. People can't expect to know Linux when they've used Windows all their life. Unfortunately some think they should know, they fail and think they're worthless or it's their problem, and that's not right.

Here's a perfect example. I know how to search in Windows. Start menu->Search->Files and go tell the little wizard what I want to search for. Up in front of me pops GNOME. Uh, where's Search? Oh...updatedb and locate in the bash shell ("System Terminal"), duh.

Also, it's important to realize people can think Windows is harder because Linux is all they've used all their life.

:beer:

 

[pkme2]

Writing code is where some purists find nirvana. But for me, in the real world, the programs offered by Windows make it easy for me to edit and adjust my pictures and video. Sure we can't forget Apple, but for the majority of users, my last name isn't Gates. Educational discounts make software affordable and thank goodness for AMD.
I've used AMD from day 1 and it made computing afforable.
Oh, yes! eBay was a godsend. Using computers now is more affordable for everyone. Whatever you want to use, go for it. Why can we get along? Thank goodness, we live in America. As my grade school teacher used to say: "Play nice with the other.........".

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Malak
Security

As I've explained many times in the past, you don't need this on Windows. It's all paranoia. I have never paid a dime for security and never will, and I've never needed it. I don't even run free software. People get a virus or spyware because they are either ignorant or do things they shouldn't be doing. If you are smart enough to run Linux, you are smart enough to safely run Windows without any trouble. I've never had a virus at home, I run spyware scans once every 2 months just in case(very rarely anything shows up), I have no active virus protection or a firewall. Everything thinks the internet is a war and you need protection, but I seemed to have missed the battle.

That's fine for you as a knowledgeable enthusiast but that's simply not an option for computer morons in the home or for corporate machines.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Freedom of choice, security, stability, ease of installation, ease of use.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Malak
Freedom

What freedom do I not have? I haven't met any constraints on my activities, whereas in Linux I did.

The freedom to modify the system at the most basic level (the code). The freedom to redistribute the system.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: kamper
That's fine for you as a knowledgeable enthusiast but that's simply not an option for computer morons in the home or for corporate machines.

You shouldn't have complete morons running your corporate network. The home guys can just use AOL, it has everything built in and automated so they don't have to know how to do anything.

Yes, I did just say use AOL.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: doornail
No activation. I hate the idea that I paid for something and yet I still have to ask permission to use it ? subject to monitoring in that changing hardware will require me to ask again. Plus, from a design standpoint, just having a [work|don?t work] check in an operating system makes me flinch.

I find Linux way more hobbyist friendly.

Lots of programs require activation, not just Windows. Windows, however, has been the least painful. You just click that button that says activate, 4 seconds later you are done.

I don't know what you are talking about with that work/don't work check.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Malak
Freedom

What freedom do I not have? I haven't met any constraints on my activities, whereas in Linux I did.

The freedom to modify the system at the most basic level (the code). The freedom to redistribute the system.

Well I guess I can understand that as taste to those who actually want to do that. I can't think of a single thing in Windows that I'd want to change and couldn't. I can change the BSOD to a green screen of death if I want to, but I've never seen the BSOD in XP so I'd be wasting my time.

 

[Nothinman]

Well I guess I can understand that as taste to those who actually want to do that. I can't think of a single thing in Windows that I'd want to change and couldn't. I can change the BSOD to a green screen of death if I want to, but I've never seen the BSOD in XP so I'd be wasting my time.

Off the top of my head, can you change how it reacts to ACPI events? On my notebook I have it setup so that when I hit the power button a script is run. I can do the same thing for anything that emits an ACPI event like AC power on/off, battery changes, pushing the sleep button, etc.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Malak
You shouldn't have complete morons running your corporate network. The home guys can just use AOL, it has everything built in and automated so they don't have to know how to do anything.

Yes, I did just say use AOL.

Did you bother to read this in my post? You don't have to be a 'complete moron' to be the only one getting hacked in to. You said you had no firewall. Even I wouldn't want to be using Windows on your computer hooked up to an always-on connection. And, ironically, usually I'm the one saying you don't need any antivirus software.

While I generally share your point of view on this, I still feel the need to defend here because what you say is outlandish. I am ignorant because someone used Billy's little buffer hole in my OS (read: Sasser) to execute shell code? What you're effectively saying is I'm ignorant because I'm using Windows.

You'll say a NAT router will prevent this. Sure, it will, but a NAT router is a firewall, and I sure hope you have at least one of those.

Now what about a hole in IE? Good luck finding a router to protect you against that.

It is not always the user's fault.

 

[Malak]

Simple enough, don't use IE. All these problems you describe can be resolved with little effort. IE isn't even any good as a browser, so you shouldn't be using it in the first place.

Do you think a complete moron that can't help but screw up his computer on windows will fair better on Linux? I can guarantee not. So that arguement is moot. I believe the question was why do you use one over the other, not why should others use it. Your reasons to support using Linux, IMO, aren't accurate, aside from the open source part. And if that's why someone wants to use Linux, more power to them. I've never required Windows to be open source in order to change the way it works for me, so it's not an issue for me.

I have used Linux, along with many other OS's. I have found that Windows works better for everything I do, and it's easier to use. I think most Linux users are too paranoid to give it a try, or too prideful. Evidence is in your reasoning.

 

[Nothinman]

I believe the question was why do you use one over the other, not why should others use it.

If you're talking about the OP, no it wasn't. It was why do you prefer Linux over Windows, if you don't prefer Linux then you shouldn't post in this thread.

I've never required Windows to be open source in order to change the way it works for me, so it's not an issue for me.

Another thing I thought of was that when you enable ICS you're stuck with the subnet that MS chose for you, you can't change it without installing RRAS and I'm not sure if that works on Pro or Home.

I think most Linux users are too paranoid to give it a try, or too prideful. Evidence is in your reasoning.

I started on Windows, just like most people. I used Windows from 95 through 95 OSR2, 98, 98SE, NT 4 and up to Win2K before I realized that I didn't need it any more. I even have a Win2K VM still lying around, but I start it so infrequently that I can't remember what state I left it in most of the time. At this point I just don't see any compelling reasons to use Windows.

And I tihnk most Windows users are too lazy to give it a try. No one denies that there won't be a learning curve, the same is true if you tried to use OS X as well. Things work differently in all 3 OSes so you can't just assume that you'll just know them all instantly. Windows only seems easy to use because you already know how to use it. I've seen a ton of people who have no clue try to use Windows, it's just as scarey to them as putting in control of a tank in the middle of a war.

 

[pcthuglife]

I've seen a ton of people who have no clue try to use Windows, it's just as scarey to them as putting in control of a tank in the middle of a war.

I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating...

 

[Nothinman]

I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating...

Since when do you have control over what I can and can't say?

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: Malak
Lots of programs require activation, not just Windows. Windows, however, has been the least painful. You just click that button that says activate, 4 seconds later you are done.

Not a single piece of software in my library requires this. And it's certainly not as simple as you paint it as evidenced by the ridiculous number of XP activation/license questions you'll find in this very forum.

Originally posted by: Malak

I don't know what you are talking about with that work/don't work check.

Then I'll spell it out more clearly. Your Microsoft operating system contains an assertion whether it should operate for you or not -- one derived from marketing, not engineering. When you boot up, Windows goes looking for excuses not to work, i.e. did you install a new NIC?

Operating systems should operate, hence the name.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Malak
Simple enough, don't use IE. All these problems you describe can be resolved with little effort. IE isn't even any good as a browser, so you shouldn't be using it in the first place.

The average user knows it as "the Internet" and they don't know any different than that. Sooner or later operating systems will have to cater to the average user. The point is, why should I have to avoid using IE? Go ask your neighbor if their internet browser has any holes in it and they won't know what the hell you're talking about, unless they read up on security often.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And I tihnk most Windows users are too lazy to give it a try. No one denies that there won't be a learning curve, the same is true if you tried to use OS X as well. Things work differently in all 3 OSes so you can't just assume that you'll just know them all instantly. Windows only seems easy to use because you already know how to use it. I've seen a ton of people who have no clue try to use Windows, it's just as scarey to them as putting in control of a tank in the middle of a war.

I can cruise around OSX just fine, I've never had a problem working on a mac. I knew how to do things in Linux, it was just more of a hassle than it was worth. Things are easier and smoother on Windows. The only OS that I found difficult to figure out was Novell, but I'm pretty sure I can figure it out now. I wouldn't bother though, I wasn't impressed with Novell on a whole.

 

[sourceninja]

smaller footprint.
UI is more customizable
does everything I need
i use it at work so i'm on a similar platform.

 

[M00T]

There's no bash scripting in windows.

 

[RideFree]

Originally posted by: doornail
No activation. I hate the idea that I paid for something and yet I still have to ask permission to use it ? subject to monitoring in that changing hardware will require me to ask again. Plus, from a design standpoint, just having a [work|don?t work] check in an operating system makes me flinch.

I find Linux way more hobbyist friendly.

Second that...
And having the hard drive thrashing away at all hours of the day and night bothers me to no end. The red light reminds me of...
Dave: Well HAL, I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it.
HAL: Yes, it's puzzling. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before.
Listen HAL. There has never been any instance at all of a computer error occurring in the 9000 series, has there?
HAL: None whatsoever. The 9000 series has a perfect operational record.

 

[Seeruk]

Linux

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me that despite the incredible amount of updates I download for a fresh installation which include among them security updates and patches that in fact Linux is more secure and that windows is really annoying to install because of all those updates they must download for good security.....

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me that it is in fact perfect despite all the problems with it and anything and everything that goes wrong or doesnt work is not linux's fault

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me I suck for wanting to use the latest greatest hardware. Remember it's not linux's fault

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me that its really simple before presenting me with a 2 page change including source hacks and further downloads to get something to work

- I enjoy its crazy users bestowing it's zero cost despite the fact I can only use Lindows, Mandriva and others if I pay a yearly subscription for updates

- I enjoy its crazy users bestowing it's zero cost despite the fact I have to buy a ton of new hardware to migrate to it

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me how stable it is when I am looking at a kernel panic caused by installing a media player from apt-get

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me how windows is all blue screens and viruses when I have seen neither in 5 years of using XP

- But most of all I enjoy it's crazy users

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Linux

- I enjoy its crazy users telling me that despite the incredible amount of updates I download for a fresh installation which include among them security updates and patches that in fact Linux is more secure and that windows is really annoying to install because of all those updates they must download for good security.....

Because it is. Ever bother to look at most of the updates you download and see what they are for?

 

[Seeruk]

What is??

Downloads for both OS's consist of security fixes, serious system bugs and in rarer instances driver updates.

No difference between the 2. Yet <insert distro here>'s updates and fixes seem to be magically invisible to linux zealots it seems

Ooh there is one difference - XP is a 5 year old OS yet the distro is probably less than 6 months old. Upon installing ubuntu 5.10 on the day of its release there was already 11 updates to download (for which incidentally I am playing 'whack-a-mole' with the reminder)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
What is??

Downloads for both OS's consist of security fixes, serious system bugs and in rarer instances driver updates.

No difference between the 2. Yet <insert distro here>'s updates and fixes seem to be magically invisible to linux zealots it seems

Ooh there is one difference - XP is a 5 year old OS yet the distro is probably less than 6 months old

Hmm...

Lets actually do some very simplistic research to determine which person is right. Secunia is a favorite because it has nice little pretty pie charts and colorfull items.


hmmm
Fedora Core 4.

This is a distro that is considured non-production-ready by it's makers, although many people use it for production stuff.
http://secunia.com/product/5251/

Ok. 0 unpatched vunerabilities.

How about Redhat WS 4? It's a Unix-style workstation system with subscriptions and whatnot.
http://secunia.com/product/4670/

Ok. 0 unpatched vunerabilities.

This is Debian's development system. Sid. Which I use for my personal desktop OS.
http://secunia.com/product/530/

ok. 1 unpatched vunerability of 'less critical' nature. Also keep in mind that this includes officially support of almost 20,000 peices of package software. The official cd set is 13 or so cdroms at this point.

Now lets take a peak at Windows XP shall we?
http://secunia.com/product/22/

Now in you 5 year old system (which should be mature by now, right?) backed by a multibillion dollar corporation and held accountable to clients has...


26 unpatched vunerabilities.. Plus a lovely one that is 'highly critical' that has been laying around and unpatched since being published in April of this year. And another gem that is a remote exploit (rated moderatly critical by secunia.) that has been open since 2002.


I guess your right. Windows XP is just as secure as anything else.

 

[Seeruk]

Seeing as how you like things simple

Study of one user (me)

Visits to porn/gambling sites = 0
Propensity to click on emails claiming to enlarge my wang = 0

Number of desktops = 3
Firewall = NAT Router Only
Antivirus software = 0
Viruses received = 0
Spyware Count = 0
Times Hacked = 0

Study of one company (mine)

Number of servers = 18
Number of desktops = ~390
Firewall = NAT Router Only
Antivirus software = 0
Viruses received = 0
Spyware Count = 0
Times Hacked = 0

Pretty conclusive huh?