Some thoughts
Assuming that Windows is the installed OS does give it an advantage. There are end-user systems, however, shipping with Linux as the installed OS. Indeed, the lower licensing cost make these machines more affordable.

Sure, Linux software still has some measure of maturing to do. Finding software for Linux often does not require even driving to the store. Utilities like Synaptic can make installing new software as easy as a click.

Modern distributions come with enough software that they require far fewer purchases than an expensive Windows system, anyway.

I also notice that your reasoning appears circular: Windows is more popular than Linux because of software availability [because Windows is more popular than Linux].

Ignoring the tautology
Have you even tried installing Linux. It isn't any more difficult than installing Windows and in come cases I would say it is FAR easier (try SuSE Linux sometime).

As far as finding and installing applications, most distributions come with more than you'll ever need (have you ever tried SuSE) and if they don't there are things called package managers (rpm, apt) that have done away with having to compile programs for the average user.

You probably don't realize it, but every argument you have made against Linux has been made time and again... for the past 6 years. All the while, numbers show Linux growing in server space as well as desktop space.

Also realize that in the time that it takes Microsoft to release its next version (3 to 5 years), Linux Distros will release between 12 and 20 updated versions. The release early, release often scheme has contributed greatly to Linux's upswing in capabilities as well as POPULARITY.

When is Longhorn due... now? 4th quarter 2006 (unless pushed back again)? Whenever, let's compare then.

Bunk. Period.
That writeup is so poor that I don't even know where to start. Sheesh, don't guess I'll waste my time.....

well written
Excellent points. And as usual the Linux zealots make them even better by their ivory tower attitude as displayed by their responses.

Have you even tried installing Linux. It isn't any more difficult than installing Windows and in come cases I would say it is FAR easier (try SuSE Linux sometime).

He has tried and so have I.
From personal experience I can tell that Linux installation while seemingly easy for some distributions is a complete pain if you want more than the bare minimum or defaults offered.
I gave up trying to get Linux working on one of my computers (it was an older one, its hardware should have been supported after 4 years for example) after half a year of trying to get things to work for 4-5 hours a day.
Installation of Windows 2000 including all configuration took about an hour, would have been faster except for the slow CD drive. No pain at all.

As far as finding and installing applications, most distributions come with more than you'll ever need (have you ever tried SuSE) and if they don't there are things called package managers (rpm, apt) that have done away with having to compile programs for the average user.

More than you'll ever need if you're a Linux programmer maybe.
Who needs 500 text editors, 100 cron schedulers, 10 broken spreadsheets that can only read their own custom formats, 5 C compilers and 200 obscure programming languages?

Also realize that in the time that it takes Microsoft to release its next version (3 to 5 years), Linux Distros will release between 12 and 20 updated versions. The release early, release often scheme has contributed greatly to Linux's upswing in capabilities as well as POPULARITY.

Yes, and that's another major weakness. If you had any sense at all you'd see that most users don't WANT to upgrade their OS to a new version (which with most Linux versions means wiping the harddisk and installing from scratch, sorry but we have too much fun writing the new version to worry about something as mundane as an upgrade option) every 2-3 months and then spend the interval to the next version trying to get it to work properly.

All the typical Linux zealot arguments basically boil down to "Linux is better than Windows because it is different and harder to use".

I'd never recommend an OS where the user has to spend several hours a day tweaking config files to get applications to work before they can use them to people who are a) not computer savvy and/or b) have something better to do with their time like getting their jobs done.

My humble opinion, sir.
Dear sir,

I've read with interest your little article. I respect your opinions, take it for sure. But, with all my respect, I wish to emphasize some points:

1. How much GNU/Linux software can I find in my local store? The odds are in Windows favor by a factor of 1000 or more, :-). Why? It's a complex question and it deserves a complex answer. But, even with that handicap, I can download in my Debian GNU/Linux more than 14,000 software packages with a simple apt-get install command. And without need to drive to my nearest propietary software store! So when you write about the superior availability of software for Windows I most be compeled to doubt it, sir.

2. With respect to the easy way to install Windows software, I agree. My question is: Is this easy way the better way? You can download an endless list of Windows software from the net: Gator-like freeware,...., etc., etc. many of them, garbage, full of spyware and other malware.

I disagree with your statement: "Windows will continue to rule". I think that GNU/linux systems are here to stay, even more: They are the future! Of course, that's my personal opinion.

Personaly, I don't care what OS people want to use. I think that what matters is that people must have the freedom of choice. I'm an active GNU/Linux "evangelist", but not a fanatic, :) If people wants to use Mac OS X, Windows XP, FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, etc.,..., Fantastic!

Let people the freedom to choose what software they want to use, but let them choices!

I don't look this as a contest. It's just about freedom. Just that.

Yours very truly, your Mexican friend and reader of some of your excelent books,

Andrés González Cantú
agc@member.fsf.org
Use free software.

Easy?
Had you tried to install Windows 2000? 4 floppies to boot, while any Linux distro are able to boot from CD since 1996 (at least). Text mode installation, and more than 1 hour to get a plain system without any program, office suite or anythig else.

It's easy to install if it comes installed with your new computer, and also cheaper than Linux if it's an illegal copy.

The weak point of Linux is that it's made for technicians for technicians. My girlfriend is a standart user, and was unable to install 'Gaim', since I think it's easy to install. That's our mistake: easy for me but, what about the others?

well written
"Installation of Windows 2000 including all configuration took about an hour, would have been faster except for the slow CD drive. No pain at all"

I have really doubt about your Windows experience. Either someone else sets up system for you or you have experienced only installing in one type of machine.

Your arguments are so poor that I feel sorry for you.

The compelling reasons *are* there
It's just that if you're already blinded by the FUD, then you can't see them.

Some drivers prefer automatic to manual transmission; some people prefer home-brew to bud; yet others prefer security to internet worms; a lot of us value freedom over serfdom.

Why is it, do you think, that real professionals choose professional tools? Is it brand? Is it cost? Is it efficiency or durability?

Often the "professional's choice" is not the mainstream "popular brand" - it may besome little-known (but otherwise legendary) name that you can't buy in "DIY" stores.

Often professional tools require a bit more skill to use or are a bit harder to use, but they offer something over-and-above the run of the mill "domestic" brands.

Savvy DIY-ers will often search a bit harder for the "right" tool, and be rewarded with superior results. Just because you don't recognise the name, doesn't mean a tool is inferior.

It's the same with operating systems. You can choose to be locked-in to the software-upgrade cycle, and deal with the worms, or you can choose freedom. The choice is yours - just don't moan about all the malware that's loose on the internet, or the cost of the latest version of your software, or that your vendor no longer supports your core application.

There will always be (at least) two "operating system" camps. Linux is the only viable competitor to Windows, and as such is the only thing driving it forward: without Linux, MS would have nothing to fight against, and thus no motivation to improve.

Just watch as Windows gets left behind. MS cannot plug the holes, and the news is out. People are slowly realising that things don't have to be this way.

I use Linux because I like it and its principles, and it lets ne get done what I need to do without loss of freedom. I use windows because it pays my wage - my time is mostly spent patching and worming servers and workstations, and educating users about how not to get infected.

The biggest point you always miss is that we just want a choice - we don't really care which choice you make, as long as we still have the right to choose. Freedom or servitude. Your call.

cybervegan

Planet earth calling a Mr. Preston Gralla... hello... hello?
In your last Earth bound transmission, you said: "and they'd have to have an extremely compelling reason to go through the pain of installing a new one."

Now a phenomenon on our planet is that hardware rapidly becomes 'obsolete' as bigger, faster, sexier machines not only become available, but do so 'cheaply'. Earthlings are 'compelled' to buy these new beasties for many different reasons. We earthlings don't worry about also getting a brand new OS with these new systems, especially if it is smaller, faster, sexier, easier, friendlier and free-er than our olde annoying M$ OS.

You also said, "And most people wouldn't even be able to install a new operating system, even if they did want to switch."

Check this out and see how everyone on planet earth (including our beloved 'Mother' super-species) can install Linux will cooking dinner.

You said: "There's so little easily available software (the key here is "easily") for Linux"

A Google search on "linux software" just gave me over 10,000,000 hits!

You said: "With Linux, you might be stuck with having to compile the code."

The last time I 'had' (sometimes I 'want') to do this was years ago in a distant past.

The upshot? Please, do come visit our humble planet before you beam out your next pretentious transmissions about it.

well written
Well, in some points, yo're right. The average user wouldn't be interested in changing the os he's running at the moment. Let's suppose we're studying Bob. Now Bob, he's just like anyone else. He goes to his local mall, and buys himself a computer. He's not a computer savvy, and the only thing he'll do with it is surfing the web, print his school work, and so on. Now, why would he need something else, as long as windows gives him all he needs? The answer is simple. In the begining, Bob doesn't know a lot about computers. So he's kinda afraid of things that are uncommon for him. Suppose the manufacturer of his computer offers killer support for windows. He's got everything he needs. Now suppose Bob gets better. He starts to understant the way computers work, and he wants to try something new, such as alternatives to the software he was using in the begining. Then, he'll want to try other stuff, such as setting up a home network (when Mary, his wife, will get her own computer). And after a year, when he installed tons of software (bought at the local computer store, because you can find lots of it there, as you said) he realizes that he won't need all that stuff. But, event after removing all this software, his windows still needs 5 minutes to but (on his flashy 3 GHz Pentium 4, or whatever you want). Now he doesn't like this, and he'll see Jack, his friend, that knows a bit more about computers than he does. Now, this is where I wanted to come. Bob needs to reinstall his windows in order to make in work again. Now, do you think that Bob will be comfortable doing this? No, he won't be. I know people that wouldn't do this. They are afraid of it. They never experienced it. On the other hand, we have the average linux user, the guy running suse, or fedora, or mandrake, or whatever user-friendly distro. When he's tired of he's softwar, he can use the package tools provided with the distro, and clean up his system without having to reinstall. I know there are ways to clean a windows system withoout reinstalling, but don't tell that the average windows user will go cleaning up his registry.

Now, another point was upgrading. Yes, having a new version might be a pain in the ass for large enterprises, but they won't be using the distros mentioned above. Your idea of upgrading comes from the windows world, where updates ar free, of course, but not upgrades. if you buy the current windows version (let's say 1.0, to simplify). A few years later, ms will send out 2.0. Now, if you want to get 2.0, you need to pay. If you want to upgrade from Distro Linux 1.0 to Distro Linux 2.0, you don't need to pay. And you don't need to update everything in the same time neither. New linux ditro releases come out when a significant number of changes have been done. But those changes don't come out all in the same time. So if you update you're system regularly (and oftet, you've got nothing to do, the distro's tool does it all alone), when the new version comes out, you've got everything inside it. So, no need to download cd images, burn them and then reinstall them while whiping your disk. Your vision upon updating a system is a windows' user's one, as i stated it, and it comes from a money driven world. You shoud reconsider this.

Now, the so called "linux zealots" have their "ivory tower attitude" because of the windows users that suround them, that wouldn't let them live with their os. Have you ever seen several "linux zealots" together? They have fun just like anyone else. I would even say they have much more fun. The linux world is an open world. Everyone is accepted. All you need, is a computer. even an old one will do (i run linux on a 100 MHz 486).

I should also mention the flexibility of linux compared to windows. The possibility of compiling the source code on your machine gives you ability to fine tune the software, so that it will take advantage of all the processor's features. How can windows xp take advantage of the 64 bit processing power of the amd64 family of processors, if it can (hardly, of course) run on a 400 MHz PII?

Now, all this said, what makes windows superior to linux? Software availability? What kind of software are you talking about, duh?
- video Editing, they've got much better tools for doing that on macs, which is unix
- computer animations? they've got killer tools on sgi's Irix, which unix, too
- powerful server applications? we've got several of them in the unix world: hp's UX, IBM's AIX, Sun's Solaris, etc.
- games, well, maybe this is the only point where windows beats the others, but it's not a long time supremacy, because more and more games are being ported to linux.
So what is it that makes windows so cool compared to other operating systems? Where does this supremacy come from? The ability of doing all kinds of stuff, and none of it good? (i think of a 2h video i was trying to compress on a windows xp pro, ahtlon64 based box, when it hung 10 minutes before the end) I admit, i don't know any other os that would do that. Come on folks, let's pay hundreds of dollars to microsoft, so we can get pissed of with our computers.

However, i'm an open guy, and I'm looking forward to head some real good points, from a "windows zealot", so that i won't be subjective.

We already do migrate every couple of years.
I moved from Windows 9x to Win2k and again from Win2k to WinXP. Everytime I had to find drivers for my scanner, digital camera, CD writer because the new OS couldn't use the old software. When I moved from Win2k to WinXP I had to buy Roxio CD creator because I got old Adaptec CD creator with my CD writer and it didn't work with WinXP. But with Mandrake linux, all my scanners, CD writer, digigal camera simply work. My Norton anti virus software is constantly nagging me to pay $40 with Windows but I don't need any anti virus software with Linux. I got a complete office suite with my Linux distro for free where I would have to pay some $100.. to get the new version of MS Office. I would have to spend 1 hour to istall WinXP alone (without any other software) but only spend 30 minutes to istall Mandrake 10 with all the 250+ software I use. I had some hardware problem with my machine which made it suddenly reboot. I had Win2k and Mandrake Linux dual boot system and I Win2k got currupted just after 3 times the machine rebooted. But my Mandrake installation didn't get currupted even after 10 reboots. It would not get currupted even after 100 reboots becuase it has a Journaled file system. So no loss. I've been using my notebook with WinXP preinstalled for 3 months and now it takes 10 minutes to start before I could do any work. It used to take only 20 seconds. My mandrake linux box took 1 minute to boot 1 year ago and still take the same time. So my point is if it is the hassle then Linux is better. If it is the trouble installing the OS, we install Windows at least once a year due to virus activities, file system curruption, peformance issues due to bloated Windows registry or simply because we buy a new machine about every 2 years anyway. The only problem that I find is that I cannot find computers preinstalled with Linux especially notebooks.

Absolutely
I agree with everything you've said so far. I tried Linux and couldn't see any reason to change to it. It failed to recognise my Winmodem and Audigy soundcard. It still seems to be an enthusiasts OS, people who like commandlines because they're 'powerful'. There's still more and better software for Windows and I want to use my existing software anyway.

Linux will have it's day, one day.

windows vs linux
yes windows has more programs for now.
Linux is gaining ground everyday.
More program will be comming and it is cost that will kill windows. Spending $200.00 for basic office program is nuts when you can use open office for free!!!!!!!

if you only need to do basic office tasks and e-mail LINUX can not be beat for the price.

anyone can test it for free with what's called a linux live cd, it will load linux into your ram and you can test drive it yourself.

You're right
You're right that Linux is not going to take desktop market share from Microsoft anytime soon. Those who say it's "easy," or that you "haven't tried [insert distribution here]" are victims of their own wishful thinking or have never used Windows.

I've installed most of the more popular distributions. Debian, Lycoris, RedHat, Fedora, Slackware, Gentoo, and several others. Each of them had their own strengths, each had one problem or another that I had to chase down and spend a lot of time on in order to get everything running well.

I'm a software developer by trade, on Windows. I'm not a Linux expert, but I'm not scared of the command-line either. And I normally use a Linux desktop and RDesktop to log into my Windows machine. It's not worth the trouble to me, except that I want to learn Linux.

If I just wanted to use a computer for whatever, and didn't want to learn the intricacies of the OS, I wouldn't be able to use Linux because Linux requires you to know the intricacies of the operating system if you want to use it effectively. That's a fact. If you don't have an expert to administer your desktop, sooner or later you're going to hit a brick wall.

I think it's irresponsible to say otherwise. If a Windows person tries to make the switch and is unsuccessful, it's not likely to ever happen again. And most Windows users are users, not developers. I am pro-Linux. I would like to see Microsoft get the competition on the desktop, and it might happen some day, especially with the huge increase in company sponsorship lately on the desktop. But it's not likely to be soon.

John

Windows better than Linux
I am in the process of trying my hand at Linux. I have been doing it over the past two months and even managed to build my own kernel. I am playing with a number of distros including Centos 3.1, RH, Suse 8 and Knoppix. So I think I am entitled to give some comment on the subject. So here are some comments in support of the original contention: Why Windows is better than Linux.

There is no doubt that Linux is more difficult to install than Linux - I am still battling to get X working on one of my old PC's that worked just fine with 95, 98 and 2000.
Ever tried to install a NVidia driver? Not only do you have to worry about different installation procedures for different distro's but even different versions of the same distro will have different installation procedures. And on top of that you are forced to do in with X disabled and then need to use something like vi to edit config files. Compare that with Windows.

KDE is not nearly as stable or functional as Windows. I once pulled a USB card without unmounting it properly - guess what? The system hung up on me and I could not even get into a shell with c-a-f1. It required the one finger salute and a reinstall because the file system was corrupt thereafter.

Konquerer regularly aborts and closes down.

Mozilla becomes irratic if you delete the history files.

The performance out of the box on a software such as partiview is 10 times or more worse than XP. It turns out in my case that RH did not recognise the video driver correctly. Suse did recognise it but did not enable 3d - that requires the commercial driver of nvidia. You saw my earlier comment on trying to get nvidia installed. It simply worked on XP.

Have you ever compared the documentation on Linux with Windows? The quality of the HowTos is pathetic and very dated. Further, the documentation of a distro is often out of sync with the actual software.

I can go on with this sad story but enough for now. I am going to continue for a while with Linux. But the experience to date makes me look very sceptical at anyone that claims Linux is better than Windows.

As a last word: I don't think for any moment Windows is perfect - when I talk to Microsoft, they think I am anti Windows. They may even confuse me for a Linux supporter.

OS's vs OS's -- continuing debate just different contenders
I've been working with computers since before even Microsoft was a household word, and it seems the whole OS 1 vs OS 2 debate has always been part of the industry... whether it be CP/M vs MS-DOS, MS-DOS vs Windows (I know, not real OS), Windows vs OS/2, Windows vs Novell, Windows/MS-DOS vs Mac, and now Windows vs Linux. It's a neverending battle to be king of the mountain, but in almost every instance Microsoft has triumphed.

Personally I don't care much for Windows, but I do believe Microsoft has the industry by the proverbial balls. Is it the best OS out there? For some people yes and for many no. I for one use Mac and Linux 100% at home, but I use Windows at work. I do web programming on Linux, I service Windows, Mac, and Linux boxes on the side for people and businesses, plus I setup networks on Windows and Linux. Bottom line is Windows keeps the computer food chain alive.

Think of it... you have hardware vendors that make money off Windows as it gets more and more boated with every new release, smaller mom and pop shops make money fixing all the fubars in Windows (myself included), software vendors sell the heck out of Windows software, and charities and schools get hand-me-down computers when people and businesses upgrade to the latest and greatest (use that term loosely) version of Windows and require a newer system. If we had stable computers that worked all the time and didn't require costly updates every 18 months, the industry would definately fall apart.

So Windows does keep the computer world flowing no matter how much we hate it. It keeps food on the table for myself along with most of my friends. Do we like it? No.. but it's here to stay.

Comments welcome...

Sam Alexander
samalex@gmail.com

Linux vs. Windows
Your article makes some very good points. People need a compelling reason to switch from their OS and from their apps. Your argument is basically that people won't do it when they can walk into a store and buy, buy, buy for Windows. You forget something, however. What people buy in stores is in support of the PC aftermarket and doesn't drive the industry as a whole.

What people use their PC's for at work is what drives how they setup and use PC's at home. Users basically mimick their workplaces at home. There are very strong and compelling reasons why the workplace may change to an OS other than windows. This is where your argument should be centered. What people buy in a secondary or aftermarket is basically irrelevant because the primary market of work/home can and may change everything. Now you need to make a strong argument that the workplace will not switch from Windows. Good luck, given the multitude of security problems and ineptness from Redmond. Open source is thriving for a reason. I don't claim it's the end-all, be-all for the industry, but open source inroads are being made on large scales for large reasons. Examine those closer. This entire issue is much more complex than most of us (including myself) are aware because the dynamics are global and incredibly diverse.

Easy?
Just a technical note:

Windows 2000 definitely can boot/install from CD. If I recall correctly, so did Windows NT 4.0 - but that may have been because we had the Enterprise version.

I'm certifiable: MCSE, MCSD, MCDBA, but I support Linux just like cybervegan, because of one thing: freedom.

Microsoft's Media Player license (can't remember the version) had language that provided a clause where Microsoft would be authorized to corrupt/encrypt/disable my MP3s. I don't have very many (I've paid for what I have), but that's NOT the point. I won't negotiate someone trying to take my data hostage - I'll look hard elsewhere. Win2K SP4 has similar language and so does XP.

Hence Linux.

Win vs. Linux
I do consider myself a power user... did CP/M once, do Windows, Mac, Unix... heck, even the kitchen sink!
I have to say I have only really tried one Linux distro, Sun's Java Desktop System (comes with SuSE's Linux plus a bunch of other stuff) and it did not strike me as particularly difficult to install or to use. Everything seemed to work fine from the set-go.
Must admit that I'm not using Linux right now, I needed a Windows machine for some purpose and reformatted the test machine I had used for JDS, but I expect to free another machine soon and start dabbling with linux again.
What strikes me most in this conversation is that what users need is really a basic email client, and a decent office suite, not a lot of bells and whistles or advanced 3d graphics, for those users I think Linux (at least in the pre-packaged "sanitized" form I have tried) is really come of age.
It's another story for users needing more advanced capabilities, the kind of users that are constantly downloading software or have to use the latest driver for their super-3d card... those users will do better to wait, or to get more involved into what really happens into their machines.
I still do not foresee a massive migration on the desktop to Linux, but I see the momentum growing.
Myself I'm going to keep on trying Linux, and maybe use it for a couple of things here at work... chores that do not require the capabilities of one of my Unix servers and that are better kept off Windows for security purposes.

well written
Change is difficult - users don't want to have to radically change their operating system. They like things as they are even if another way would be better. Would you like someone else re-arranging your furniture while you were out and you came back to a dark house and stumbled over whatever? No-one wants to have to relearn, through away all the experience they've honed over the years and go back to the beginning. I strongly doubt the average user will ever do this without external motivation.

However, I've just recently cleaned up two Windows boxes that were infected with worms/Netsky virus. I had to put firewall software on in an attempt to harden the target and make re-infection less likely/delayed. This is an excellent external motivation to move to Linux, but it's not my reason.

With Free and Open Source software, one has the freedom to make a difference. One can hire someone to make enhancements/more features to Freedom Software, not so with proprietary closed source. One can better troubleshoot problems, as opposed to being told by a vendor that it is a known issue but it will not be addressed.

When Linux gains sufficient market share, you WILL be able to go down to the store and buy Linux software. From what I see, that isn't too far into the future.

Installation configurations are getting better for Linux all the time. NVidia drivers are now provided with some Distros, such as Linspire Lindows. "CrossOver office" is now where you can truely run MS Office '97 or MS Office 2000 on your Linux box!

"Open Office", a different product, (see http://OpenOffice.org) is mature enough that it does a really solid job of opening all those MS Excel spreadsheets and MS Office Word documents and MS Office PowerPoint presentations, or SAVING BACK to that format (See menu "File.Save As"). Take a look at the Windows version of Open Office - you'll be impressed! While there is some functionality that I haven't yet found in Open Office (like the Outline view in Microsoft Word), Open Office can really get my work done - in a solid operating system like Linux OR in Microsoft Windows.

For those users that don't like/don't know "vi" or "emacs", there are many many alternatives like "jed" that works in a Windows User predictable fashion.

Just some thoughts...

Michael B. Johnson, Microsoft Certified System Engineer (MCSE).

well written
Well, that has not been my general experience and I haven't spent that long recently, but to say that it cannot happen is unfair. Suppose he was working with some obscure older hardware that had an IRQ conflict with another older device? Suppose when he went to the Windows Update site to get the most recent patches that his machine was hacked at that very moment and he had to spend time cleaning it out. Suppose he had a crash when installing a driver - oh, I forgot, that never happens now right? (I hope you didn't miss my sarcasm here.)

Rather than condemn the guy, why don't you ask him which part of the install gave so much trouble? Maybe he was installing on a slow/old machine? It could take an hour...

Linux installs are generally faster than Windows installs, now, in my experience, unless you are using an image.

Michael B. Johnson, MCSE, MCSD, MCDBA

Windows better than Linux
Are you sure of being using the same LiNuX everybody uses ?
You compiled your kernel, congratulations !! But it seems you didn't make it well cause of all your problems... Even a baby could have a more stable kernel than you.
NVidia drivers are really good for linux but maybe it is too much asking you to write 1 line in a config file (which is written in the documentation file).

Windows better than Linux
I doubt that Linux is more difficult to install than Windows. You say there is no doubt, but reasonable minds can disagree.

NVidia drivers do come with a few distros, now. If you tried Red Hat or Debian, that would explain your statement. Try buying the commercial version of SuSE or Linspire Lindows. If my memory serves me correctly, both those come with NVidia drivers.

You pulled a USB card out of a PC while it was still running? Windows can corrupt itself when doing that kind of thing too, you know. I doubt your average user is going to open his PC and pull cards out while leaving the OS running. That really is asking for trouble and does not reflect badly on the OS. You could well have arced and caused an electrical short/surge that caused your CPU/hard drive to do bad things. Always turn your computer off before putting hardware into the computer or taking hardware out. EVEN (or should I say especially?) IN WINDOWS!

Re. Documentation, if you cared to BUY a copy of SuSE rather than use the free download, you would receive a full set of books along with the media. You bought Windows, right...? But WINDOWS DOES NOT COME WITH hardly any printed documentation!!!!

I don't believe you have tried very hard to be intellectually honest in the comparison, nor are you comparing apples to apples - a paid for Windows license with a paid for SuSE or Red Hat support contract.

Michael B. Johnson, MCSE, MCSD, MCDBA

I agree
Yes, for the desktop, Windows is here to stay. For now.

Linux, much as I support the general concept behind it, has a ways to go before it will be a "compelling" option for average computer users.

As an example, my recent experience installing SuSE 9.1 went something like this:

-Download boot CD image and burn. (Easy)
-Boot target machine with CD. (Easy)
-Installer immediately says "Auto installation not found, dropping you into manual mode" (Uh-oh)
-Navigate text-based menus entirely with arrow keys (bit of a challenge when used to the mouse)
-Type FTP server's IP address, get a message that networking is not available. (Crap)
-Back up, find kernel driver loading menu. (Ok)
-Guess what NIC is installed in the machine. (Lucky I support these machines as an IT pro.)
-Finally connect to FTP site over company T3 line and begin install. (Whew)
-Four hours later, reboot and begin detecting hardware. (Yawn)
-Wonder why monitor only has basic VGA mode available. (Fix that later)
-Cannot connect to the network at all, discover that default install apparently did not include a DHCP client (Smack head)
-Cannot get one off the internet since I have no network connectivity. (Grrr)
-Start over at step 2 and remember to customize the packages this time so dhcpcd is included. (More fun than poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick)

Yes, I most likely did something wrong here, but that's the whole point: I'm an experienced computer user, and it was WAY too easy to screw up the install.

And if you say, "Oh, you should have bought the packaged CD version in the store," I say, "I thought the biggest hyped advantage to Linux was that it's free?"

Lotus123 and the IBM/Wintel PC
A long, long time ago, there was a huge variety of (P)ersonal (C)omputers and Microsoft had as a top concern in their software platform to be multi-platform (does someone remember Multiplan?).
Lotus 1-2-3 produced a revolution when they released their IBM-only spreadsheet. Non tech people (consultants, etc) bought not "an IBM PC" or even less remotely a "MS/Intel PC" but a "PC to run Lotus".
I agree with the author. While there isn't a "killer app" like the original Lotus 1-2-3 that ONLY runs in Linux, there won't be a mass migration. Corporate/Government offices, maybe, to reduce costs and improve securiy.

more windoze fud
Preston Gralla, a well-known technology expert ???

Hmmmm, never heard of this clown myself and I really wonder what compelled him to write a hit piece on GNU/Linux; a nice little cheque from Microsoft maybe? Or is he a member in good standing with AdTI? I wouldn't be at all surprised as poorly researched and executed as this blurb is but what can you expect from a guy who writes Windows books for children.

But he is basically correct: If you don't like to read documentation, if you don't like learning new things about computers and operating systems, if having to, maybe, troubleshoot sound on your system doesn't appeal to you, if you are willing to accept someone else's idea of how your OS looks and works then, by all means, stick with Windows. The rest of you, follow me ----->>> www.debian.org

Superficial reasoning
Your reasoning appears reasonable on the surface, but is very shallow, and ignores some very important facts on the ground. The uptake of Linux on the desktop will not take place by home computer users, for the reasons which you had described; but that is not the only place where desktop PCs are in use. It will initially happen (and is happening) in the corporate environment. Munich City Council or IBM etc., are only the beginning of that move. In a few more years time it will spread rapidly to many other corporate and government users. That will make millions of such users sufficiently familiar with Linux on the desktop to feel comfortable with using it at home. The problem of the lack of software support will be solved when the user base increases, because more companies will want their software to work on Linux when more and more people will be using it. This process will probably take four or five years, by which time Linux itself will have progressed a lot further; and the other problems you mentioned, such as ease of use, ease of installation, and ease of software installation etc., will have become a thing of the past.

In some countries, such as China, Russia, Vietnam, Brazil etc., the process will also be government driven. So I am willing to bet that in ten years from now there will be more Linux desktops around the world (including corporate users) than Windows ones! Do you want to bet?

Anonym

Precisely correct
As a DBA, I'm willing to go through an involved installation procedure: all the way from fdisk to re-linking the kernel with changed semaphore parameters. And I don't care what the desktop looks like, command-line all the way.

As a consumer at home, I demand wide product selection, one-click installation (two if downloading shareware), and being the first priority of consumer-oriented hardware/software developers worldwide. Windows is plenty fine here.

Preston is right!

Linux Advanced Tactical Resource
I will agree to a point. You must look the roll that the OS plays in an overall goal of your organization. The people that gravitate towards Linux and open source in general are techie and architecture IT professionals. Linux and open source is flexible and programmers can go under the hood and make the product more suitable to the driving operational needs. Yet with Microsoft and windows products in general you are not allowed to go under the hood and tweak and adjust stuff to fit your needs.

Like in the Air Force there are your transport aircraft that meet a broad scope of needs. But there are your unstable fighters that we are in awe of at air shows and it is clear what that can do and achieve after a good air show. Believe me after an air show many, many people wish that they could fly one of those hot jets, just once. Windows is that big air frame that meets a lot of needs. Linux is evolving at a strong pace.

One of the problems of porting applications to the Linux Desk top is Visual Studio and the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC). Microsoft encapsulated lots of Windows functionality in the MFC library for Visual Studio. This brought down the cost of development over UNIX and Mainframe development. Microsoft was also competing with Borland?s Turbo C and history shows that Microsoft won. The core of most desktop software is in windows and it could be an arduou$ task to port deck older top applications to Linux. So, yes, Windows is ahead in market share.

But we know that Microsoft has looked over their shoulder a few times in the past two years. What they saw was people, like me, using Linux and other open source products to meet their needs.

Windows the Path of Least Resistance
With Linux I can take an Intel PI, II, or III and put it to work it is already paid for. With Linux, Open Source, and know how I can $ave my firm money. To do that is not easy but it is easier that it was two years ago and it will be much easier in two years. The few venders that develop software for both Windows and Linux say that their software ? runs better ? in Linux. Gold is not found on the beaten path. Find out how weather.com found gold. [Click to Find Gold]

I say give it a few years. In the mean time try SuSE 9.1 the desktop is great and the installation is not difficult. You can order a pc with preinstalled software from IBM, HP, and DELL.

No _real_ arguments in this article
Arguments like "windows is ALREADY installed on most computers" and "linux software isn't found in a software SHOP" are really lame... that way a corporate monopoly will always win...

This guy clearly had some kind of payment of gun stuck to his head, and clearly he hasn't tried any new versions of Fedora and Mandrake. I use windows at work and linux at home and consider myself objective on this matter.

Linux: Free
Windows: $$$

Where's that in your story, mr. "Tech Expert"?

I agree
I can understand your difficulties, but why did you just download the boot image when you could have downloaded the whole thing and saved yourself that mess?

If it's just because you've never done this before, SUSE 9.1 is now available as a full system install iso image.

But there are tons of other Linux distros available that are super easy to install, and make it very easy to install additional software.

In my opinion, most major Linux distros are much better than Windows, and I have become spoiled by the amount of software available to me. More than I could ever have imagined. And it has cost me nothing.

The author shouldn't be looking at store shelves for Linux software. Buying a box with software seems old-fashioned to me now.

For instance, I was recently a little bummed about the lack of GPS mapping software for Linux, especially after watching friends using Delorme on Windows.

After a brief search, I found a program for Linux called GPSDrive. Since I use a Debian based system (hard drive install of Knoppix), I opened up a command line and typed in three words: "apt-get install gpsdrive" Amazingly enough, my computer downloaded everything it needed and installed that program, which I use frequently.

I rarely compile programs for linux, and nowdays with all the main distros using similar package management (with gui interfaces) systems, noone should have to.

Linux is VERY easy to use, VERY easy to install, VERY easy to add software. I cannot tolerate the thought of using Windows and all the hassle you have to put up with in the process.

Any users out there?
Show of hands, please? How many of the Linux proponents in this thread are actually doing work (with Linux or otherwise) other than software development or IT?

I know Linux is more flexible, more powerful, and just plain better than Windows. But you know what? I don't care. The reason why I don't care is that my clients don't pay me to futz with operating systems. They pay me to get work done. None of the pro-Linux arguments I've seen have anything to do with the ability of average (i.e. non-software professional) users to get work done NOW.

Linux
Take a look on shelf software. What do you see? Propaganda from the corporate slave master.
I use linux to be free, to get away from all the suits and dollar signs. It feels good to be able to work in an environment where i don't have to constantly look over my shoulder to see if the piracy cops are coming. Open source is the way to go.

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
I really enjoy most O'reilly writings, scratch that, up till this one, I probably enjoyed every single one I've read.
Unfortunately, This short article is one of the most worst judgements I've seen this year.
I am late for a gig, so I'll have to elaborate later, to put it simply, this type of article is so biased sounding it should be on foxnews.com. Not that Linux should be on 100% of computers, but look at these compelling reasons to switch.
1. No viruses ever found on Linux systems.
2. No Defragmenting Ever!
3. No unexplained errors.
4. Quanta plus beats the hell out of Dreamweaver or Golive.
5. Incredibly high security levels!
6. Mldonkey supports several p2p networks at once! Beats the Hell out of using, slsk, kazzalite, DC++, etc on a windows pc.
7. Open Office, Koffice both superior to windows office.
8. Cost Savings! Brazil Government, French Government already switching for this reason.
9. Community of super smart people to assist you on the web!
10. No Spyware,Adware, all that annoying crap.
11. Boy, does Evolution beat the living daylights out of some virus harboring app called outlook!

Look forward to responses, plus maybe a more objective and Open comment by someone in O'Reilly...

Brendan

http://www.againsttcpa.com

well written
Well Written,

I regret that your linux experience was so harrowing, however, I have to ask myself a very simple question. With all the various help services online, all the network of people who are expert at linux, and all the openness and power of the backing of linux, why did you not use any of these sources when trying to install linux?

If you had a similiar problem with windows, you'd call them right? Or would you just 'spend 4 or 5 hours a day working with the computer' and get frustrated?

If the resources are there, but you refuse to use them, who's at fault?

I've installed slackware linux on a pentium mmx 223 laptop with 64M memory. Installed, had DHCP networking, KDE, with full graphic support on my measly 2M video card, and within an hour, had a fully working, and _useable_ laptop. This was with Slackware 9.1.

For giggles, I tried to install windows 2000 on it. After failing to recognize the pcmcia devices, I had to download the drivers, on a seperate computer then install it. I repeated this for the video driver. I repeated this for sound driver. I repeated this for many things, that windows 2000 could not do 'off the CD'. So, the the exact reverse was for me. Does that mean it's that way for everyone? Of course not, but it does mean that I won't give a blanket statement saying 'windows sucks' nor will I give a blanket statement that 'linux rules'. The fact was ,for me, linux _did_ rule. But that, was for me.

I also only need one C compiler. GCC, which is the defacto standard, works fine for me. Text editors, I use VI. Others can use whatever they want. That's the beauty of choice. Cron schedules? I just use crond. It's again, the defacto standard. Spreadsheets? I use OpenOffice. It doesn't do everything that Windows Office does, but that's fine. I don't use everything Windows Office does either. And I prefer a 120M install over a 1.2G install anytime.

If you don't want the '200 obscure programming languages' don't install them. Pretty simple. But that's right, with windows installing, you don't have a choice but to install everything. Silly me.

And you don't _want_ to install or upgrade your OS to another version? Then I suggest moving away from windows. Their support contract ends after a few years on any major OS, and ususally the next OS won't even run in your existing hardware.

I'll stick with Linux. Why? Because it will still run on my 386/20 if I so wanted, and support is, has been, and never will be an issue. All you have to do is ask, and people will help. Have you tried that?

Maybe they're called linux zealots because you prefer to label them instead of just talkin to them like any normal human being. I'd call that biggoted. What would you call it?

There other aspects to consider too
Windows vs Linux is one of the most common debate in computer's community. And the question is so complicate that there is no definitive answer (depending of your criterias). And it is certainly not after a 2 week test that one can give a valid opinion. As mooted in another comment, Preston doesn't seem to have tried the "apt-get" command yet...

However, regarding Preston's article, I would like to add this: regarding the use of Linux on the desktops, it doesn't suffice to consider the end user point of view and in my opinion, Linux is very likely to appear on the desktop via:
- companies and public administrations that have other criteria than you and me (price, administration features, customization, etc.);
- computers companies in emerging countries (like Brazil) where the end user is not yet blinded by Microsoft's concept.

Any users out there?
I am a firmware developer and I use Linux almost exclusively. I find that my productivity has increased greatly since switching to Linux. As we are primarily a Windows shop, I have has to resort to wine to run some of the tools that we have chosen to use for our embedded development and in one case, I have to run the application on Windows on top of Linux using VMWare (I use the application only ocassionally). In all other cases; I find the Linux "alternates" more than good enough and in some cases even better than the Windows offerings. For example; in Word, graphics would always jump around and the using equation editor would often cause Word to crash (most of my documents are rather techincal in nature). None of thes problems with OpenOffice.

For analysing logs from devices, that the bash command line is amazing. Either spend an hour writing specialized C++ code to parse some log file or mucking with importing the feature into Excel, or 20 seconds entering the appropriate combinations of commands on the command line. Sometimes I'll import the output of such a sequence of commands into gnumeric or the OpenOffice spreadsheet, but the initial scrub provided by the command line always makes life easier.

Also, no viruses to worry about (it actually almost fun to watch everyone around me scramble to recover/patch their systems), no crashes, and in the times of power outages, the journaling filesystems generally seem to help prevent data loss.

Don't get me wrong; I had to come up a learning curve to really use these tools effectively. Newbies to Linux would likely find their productivity decrease until they learned how to use the available tools, but IMHO, the sime spent learning was well worth it.

Any users out there?
Yes I am a user of SuSE Linux.

go to [Click to Find Gold]

And see how Weather.com saved Bid Dollar$. you will find that Linux makes more Cent$.

Now if you can show a client how they can $ave money maybe you take might be bigger.

You think...

I understand you, but do not agree
Dear Preston,

I understand you, but can't agree with you.

I tried to switch to Linux two times before. First was SuSE 6.x (don't remember), next one was SuSE 7.3. Both of the time I switched back simply because life was not easy with Linux. I always found I can't play my favourite media with the standard distro stuff, websites looked ugly and some of them I simply can't view, etc. This is why I understand you.

I bought a new, fast box (3Ghz dual etc.) for not a cheap price in March, yelling "I never want to see the hourglass again!" . With Windows XP.

Guess what?

I was watching that bloody hourglass in June. My Windows simply... spoiled. All those viruses, all those spyware, all those trojans, all those memory-resident anti-spyware stuff I downloaded, all those harmful ActiveX web content, all those software installed and then uninstalled without defragmenting, all that stuff made my Windows bloody slow, and instable. After booting, and clicking on the ADSL dial-up icon nothing happened for a full minute. Don't know what the hell happened. I felt unstable, and most of all, UNSAFE. I felt that paranoia that when my box is slow then some bloody trojan or something does something that not only makes it slow, but does something directly malign.

I switched to Linux third time, and stayed there happily. I don't find any problems. I feel safe, I feel confident my system will stay the same forever despite all those crackers and virus-writing folkz out there. I am now not afraid to leave my box online while I sleep, because I don't see crackers and trojans lurking behind my back.

The mistake you made was SuSE and KDE. Forget them. They are slow and buggy. The Debian based Hungarian Linux Distribution called UHU (www.uhulinux.hu) is luckily based on Gnome. It defaults to Galeon for web browsing which is as good, as nice, as problem-less and all that stuff for browsing as MSIE but much SAFER and does not have the stupid Konqueror bugs, it defaults to Evoulution instead of slow KMail etc. Forget SuSE, please. SuSE is not the "real" Linux, it's just a kinda pseudo-Microsoft. Linux is GNU, and GNU is Debian and Gnome. Try them, please, and you will be pleased.

well written
It amuses me greatly to see people with no experience using windows claiming how this is perfect or that is broken. Its twice as funny to hear it from a windows user who tried linux for two weeks become evangelical about the superiority of windows to linux. Yeah your gonna have a hard time installing AOL in linux, sad but true.

You also going to find it impossible to install a program in windows by using the 3 magic words.
apt-get install "name of program".

sure you don't know about this after only one week or two of using linux, unless you research it but you also don't know about msconfig the first month of using windows.

Support: windows troubleshooters, wow, another oxymoron, after making it through a few screens of suggestions like "check to make sure device is connected correctly" and "check the drivers are installed correctly" your greeted with, sorry we are unable to help you, would you like to try something else?

I have been doing computers for 20 years now, windows is designed for the average idiot. Linux is designed for people who are not idiots.

My mother probably couldn't install Linux, she also can't install windows though so why would we expect her to set it up and get everything right?

Bottom line is this "Linux is improving at such a rate that windows will soon find itself playing catch-up instead of the other way around".

Your piece of hardware not supported by linux?
That is not the fault of linux that is the fault of your hardware manufacturer, let them know they have let you down and your buying something else from now on. Microsoft doesn't build drivers for any hardware other than their own, the only thing they do is take manufacturers money (why do you think hardware is so expensive)to include the driver in the windows installer. Everything that works or doesn't work in linux is because of what Hackers have done and all of their effort and code and the drivers they have made. In theory some day the hardware manufacturers will start doing this support so the end user experience will be painless.

Bottom line though is that getting supported hardware to work in linux is usually much easier than in windows. try losing the drivers disk for a networking device in windows, with linux its already there in the modules built for the kernel when you installed, with windows even if it does see the driver your hardware might not work till you dink with it for a while. several hours later you have a working empty shell. with linux once everything is working you have a complete OS with all the applications you need. And if you setup your system with a /home partition then upgrading or reinstalling does not cause data loss at all.
Have to remind my mom about that i guess.

Quit trolling.
Your arguments are nothing new. People have been whining about the Linux installation process for several years, which makes it seem like they are all using the same outdated version of an obscure distribution. All of the commercial Linux distributions, such as RedHat, SUSE, and Mandrake, all have a graphical installer which is just as user-friendly as the Windows installers, perhaps even more user-friendly at this point. Just put in the CD-ROM, choose your language, screen size, and time zone; and the distro does the work for you.

As for application support, the reason you don't find Linux software on store shelves is because a majority of the available software for Linux is free to download from the internet. seefreshmeat.net

Most Linux programs are available as binary packages which can be installed by simply double-clicking an installation file, or through the use of an installation/update program such as Yast, Up2Date, apt-get, or synaptic. Programs that are only available as source code can be installed by unzipping the source code, navigating into the program's folder and doing this relatively quick and easy procedure:

./configure
make
make install

I know some people are not capable of remembering 3 simple lines of code, and maybe those people are better off using Windows. For those who can handle it, this procedure will allow you to install any Linux program onto your computer.

Reasons to switch? How about better system security, near-invulnerability to viruses, more stable filesystem, and a better selection of programs.

...oh, and did I mention that many versions of Linux are free?

Computers are tools, what kind of tool is Windows?
To make sense of these comparisons, one has to recall that computers are tools, and tools are to solve problems. Of course I also have an ample experience with computers, and was exposed to horrors in DOS and primitive Windows, and, before Linux, I could use some Unix systems ocassionally in University, and I have a Mac at job.

When I have no problems to solve, Windows is extremely appropriate to use, but it is a toy system, even just to play with; try to record a cd, to download a remote file, and to run photoshop, all at the same time: you can't, the system crawls to its knees in the best scenario (I mean, in a good, modern PC; if your computer is a bit old, you're lost).

I bought my computer one year ago, and it came loaded with XP, so I tried the system and certainly it was nice, but not a pleasure: to make the minimal change to the system, implies to restart your computer, and, indeed, my system crashed few times. Then it came the blaster worm...

Since I want my computer to make abstract algebra computations, I couldn't use Windows: all the time the system crawled; so I started to find out and look for Linux with the Microsoft search engine, with what else? And at that moment the system failed (some essential system files were lost, according to the messages on the display), and then my hard drive was melted: "imminent hard drive failure: save your files", or something like that.

My PC provider replaced the hard disk, and then I erased the XP system and installed Linux. I cannot say that I am happy since then, but almost.

Most of us cannot remember what is to switch systems, but it is a nightmare: from DOS to Windows; form Windows To MacOS; form MacOs to Unix, etc. Once one masters basic knowledge, the new system is appealing, but not before.

But after switching several times, one is driven to compare, and Windows limits a lot our choices of system behavior: one has to stand the taste of Mr. Gates of what is what you like, and his choices of what you can and cannot do with your computer, and all the backdoors and security holes that he wants to put in.

If Simpson family cannot and want not to use Linux, so'll be it. But if Homer wants to use the system for something more than a toy, he should consider seriously a switch from Windows.

I guess this point of view is sound: as long as we remember that computers and systems are tools to solve problems, we can make all comparisons of the world, remarking why a system is appropriate for a given person, or problem.

Same old excuse
The same old excuse for status quo is what they were using during the IBM years where "people didn't get fired for using IBM", meaning that people could get fired for using non-IBM stuff. Now, we are in the Microsoft-Linux transition where people are comfortable for using Microsoft products but the liabilities for using them are getting higher and higher (viruses, etc.), until some time in the future people could effectively BE fired for using Microsoft products and rewarded for using non-Microsoft stuff, whatever that may be.

Hey Preston, pull your head out of your a$$
Click here.

Buy the $278 PC preloaded with LindowsOS. Check out the click & run library of programs that install more easily that Windows programs!

Consider that you are immune to email viruses and then write your article again.

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
I have to take issue with your assertion that OpenOffice is superior to Microsoft's Office. During the several years that I ran my PC on Linux, the lack of a good office suite, and in particular a spreadsheet program, was in my opinion a major weakness in the argument for using Linux. I tried OpenOffice and several others, but they just didn't stand up to MS Office. And none of the office suites that run on Linux had anything comparable to the Visual Basic that comes with MS. I know that VB is a security issue, but I use it strictly to write my own spreadsheet functions, and for me it's an absolutely necessary feature.
I'm not writing this to carry water for Microsoft - on the contrary, I truly believe that Linux is the future and that MS will go the way of DEC and others. But it does no good to ignore problems, or pretend that they've been solved when in fact they haven't.
Cheers,
David

You under estimate the users.
Reading your review was a surprise.
Not because your views of Windows are strong but you based your opinion on a 2 week test.

As an IT Professional with an armful of professional MS and Networking qualifications O can understand your judgement, but you have to give the Open Source community 10/10 for providing the world a very stable OS (you can't deny that), a mountain array of software (DTP, Graphics Manipulation Software, 3D animation, Office software, Database software, Multimedia, Scientific, Programming tools, etc) the list goes on and most very easy to use.
With every software that you buy, you have to sit down and read, practice and then be confident in its usage, the same goes with the Linux software.

Linspire 4.5 is a dream for first time users, the automatic download features for new software is excellent and take away the fear of installation.

Mandrake and Suse have excellent installers.
If you can install MS Win 09/ME/2000/XP then you can certainly install the Linux packagers mentioned and from my experience of 20 years in the IT industry, most people can install a graphic based OS.

The debate is getting tedious, which is better MS or Linux and in most of the cases it comes down to personal taste, requirements or a feeling of disgust against MS or Linux.
If you do place a Windows system against a Linux system with the same hardware i586/686 machines then taking into account 90% of the population just want office, music and the occasional game, then Linux can keep up with Windows without losing a sweat, with the exception of games of course, but even that is changing.

Why would a user want to go to a shop and pick up free software. The shop is there to sell not give away software so stocking Linux software would not be good for business, and anyway, with todays high speed internet access downloading Linux software is fast.

You may point out that Linux will not dent the market share of Desktop Windows, but who really cares, just as long as the individual is happy with what she or he has.

The server market is another story and I think rightly so that Linux is making huge strides in that market, MS has dominated and had gotten lazy, always touting themselves the company of innovation, did they invent or just happen to buy IE from another company, did they invent the desktop music player or did another company come out with the software, and now they want to incorporate a virus and superior search engine into Longhorn, I believe they bought a company so thay they could get their hands on the code.

I am happy to use Linux and as everyday goes by, the testing of Linux becomes less and less and the usage becomes easier and more natural.

You really should do a test for a few months not a few weeks.

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
no VB for Linux? That's good! Try REALBASIC.COM and compile your software for Linux, MAC and Windoze....

Juergen

Linux Advanced Tactical Resource
I have 4 XPee machines and 2 SuSE Linux (one is server) in my home network and the XPee's will be converted to Linux as soon as the stupid games run under Linux. The family is tired of the patches, the reboots, crashes and viruses and we all use OpenOffice and Mozilla as they are better then their crashy counterparts (ever tried to open a long document under CrashOffice?). Sure there are some websites made with Microsoft software which by purpose uses modified code so it doesn't display under any browser but the latest IE but heck, we just don't have to see them...

Juergen

Any users out there?
Yes. I use SuSE 9.1 on my desktop which, by the way, is simply AWESOME. My wife uses SuSE 9.1 (wireless connection). My son (8 years old) uses SuSE 9.1 and my youngest son (6 years old) also uses SuSE 9.1 (shared system with their own accounts by my 8 & 6 year olds).

As you can see, I have quite a few systems at home. On top of it, I run my file server on an old Gateway system (RedHat 8.0) and the only "Windows" machine I have which I hope to get rid of very soon is an old Compaq Presario running on AMD 500MHz chip with WindowsME on it. Don't even start me to tell you how often it crashes.

So to answer your question, yes, I can raise my hand very high and say, I use Linux not only for work but also for day to day tasks.

I have to agree with previous posters that the article was grossly biased against Linux.

I understand you, but do not agree
What are you talking about???? I run SuSE 9.1 with KDE as my preferred desktop over GNOME any time, any day due to user usability and interface consistency.

I run Pentium 4, 2GHz and I do not experience any problems you're describing. Please, do not try to start the flame war by belittling other destributions with words like "real" Linux. It does not help this thread and you look like a troll.

Any users out there?
Yes. I use Mandrake to do may day to day work on my desktop PC with Open Office, Mozilla, etc. The company I am working for is using Linux to deploy its products. The company I used to work for before is also using Linux servers to deploy its products and have been using Linux on the server for over 5 years. That company is now switching its development machines (desktops) to Linux with Evolution as the groupware. I only use Windows XP on my notebook because it came preinstalled and now it has become so slow that I am going to dump WinXP for Mandrake 10 within a month. (After the current iteration in my project.)

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
First of all, what I do for a living is Windows programming, and ocasionally Linux programming (not as much as I want). Linux supporters may or may not skip :). Second, I am not a native speaker.
Some comments on what you replied.
1. No viruses ever found on Linux systems.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I know a company from my country (Romania) called AVX (relatively recently acquired by MS), and I remember they offered a (one of the best) Linux antivirus solution. What should I think? They offered an antivirus solution for viruses that do not exists? Now seriously, I am really avid to know - please detail.
2. No defragmenting ever.
This is good or bad? I am a technical user, however I don't know this kind of details about Linux filesystems. Point the Windows users - as me - to a location where I can read a comparation between filesystems so we won't fill this thread with gory details.
3. No unexplained errors.
Installing a Linux distribution (on VMware, I admit) I get "Id gu respawning too fast." (or similar). I examined several google results, however I was unable to completely understand the error (not to mention to correct...). No suggestion, no help, no nothing. This is only an example, but please do take me seriously. I have reasons to believe that the truth is not not exactly the one described by you.
5. Incredible high security levels.
For sure is. I remember reading TAOUP, where the author have a chapter named "Unix security model is arguably too primitive" (memory quote). I DO posess advanced knowledge about the Windows security model and the large API (arcane, I agree...) about security (ACL, ACE, Winlogon, GINA and all the good stuff). I do not posess advanced Linux security knowledge, however I think the security model is at least equally powerful in Windows. You don't have just one root to do everything. You have Domain Admins, Administrators, Power Users, Backup Operators etc. Is this good or bad? That's probably not the point, but please, don't tell me that without an explanation. Compare with Windows, for example, and explain why Linux is superior.
7. OpenOffice, KOffice both superior to windows office.
Again, a plain afirmation without details. Explain or point to a comparison link.
8. Cost savings.
Agree. But we don't talk just about money spent on software itself. It's also the learning time. If the target are technical users, programmers, administrators, they do posess already (some) knowledge, so the transition will be relativeyl easy. But if we're talking about office/home users (the vast majority), the transition may imply serious costs for training. (This probably should belong to another thread).
9. Community of super smart people to assist you on the web.
So there is on Windows (Codeproject for example). Or on Windows you don't find super smart people (whatever that means)?
10. No spyware, Adware, all that annoying crap.
This is implemented at application level. Or is it implemented in the operating system for Windows?? Please detail.
11. Virus harboring app called Outlook.
I wasn't affected by ANY virus using Outlook (and boy, I do receive viruses daily). I do agree that there are many people affected. But there is difference here: Outlook (every Office application, in fact) is also a programming tool, supporting scripting, extensions etc. It is the user responsibility to correctly configure the security settings and permissions.
* * *
What I think generally about the article? It does have a point, even if is not very accurate. Personally, I think it's all about money, taste, and target audience.
Some people do decide (corporate, management) they want Linux because is (almost) free, while a good part of end-users want Windows because they think it's easy.
I think both statements are false, or at least insufficiently sustained.
Linux is not free when you came to the time needed to be good (neither is Windows, in fact). Windows is not good if you don't know how to configure it. After all, I have programmers as colleagues and they don't know how to set up the network card or DNS correctly (don't ask).

Final thoughts:
1. There is place for both operating systems and their applications, just because they are so different. Neither one will extinct the other.
2. Diversity is the key, and it should be allowed (and encouraged) by all means. I'm not talking about money considerents, this is beyond me - just as an more than average user/programmer.

Windows better than Linux
I need to make a correction in my description of the USB problem - I did not pull a USB card out of the hardware as was interpreted by Michael. I simply pulled a USB Memory Stick out of the USB port. The consequences were as described.
TryingLinux

Linux vs. Windows
Ok, I'm little bit sick of this Lin vs. Win wars. Which is better and why or why not.
Let's face it. For now as desktop system people use Win more than Lin. It's a simple fact. Yes the reason for this is Win is on the market longer then Lin. And few years back KDE, GNOME and othe x-window managers were not what are now. All Lin distribution installers were not what are now. And Lin software was nat what it is now. There were no Mozilla, Firefox, OpenOffice, mplayer, xmms and all the superior free software that exists now. Desktops like KDE, GNOME were not even close to drag-and-drop/other featuers they have today. I have to use both sys. Profesionally and personally. I had to obtain MCSE/MCSA becouse of job position, but still I USE LINUX at the office and at home. I just like it. Simple truth - for me is far more superior. Ask my mother at 52 years of age - she doesn't care. All she wants to do is write some articles and post them via e-mail or print them out. All she wants is an icon on desktop to click at it and start working. Let's face it - both systems are perfectly capable of doing that for an average user. To be honest - average users don't install the software by them selves - they ask somebody with experience to do the job. At the end now my mom is happy using Linux but she doesn't know that. Lin and Win are both here to stay. For a while.

True, even if i don't like it
Its true: Linux will be a desktop alternative to Windows if you can buy your computer with Linux installed, if you can play your favorite games on Linux and if you can go to your favorite software shop and buy the software you like that runs on Linux and can be installed without fiddling with some obscure files in /etc/whatever/config/... . I use Linux for years (started with Suse and went over to debian), and I use it whenever I can, but for some applications I have to use Win. For the majority of computer users it is really difficult to do something like setting up their email program, and installing Linux is IMPOSSIBLE. This is nothing like underestimating computer users, but respecting what the average computer user wants. It's like me buying a car: the only thing I want to do with this car it is driving. If the car comes with a big tool box and a heavy HowTo-Collection of how to do this or that with your car, I wouldn't buy it.

True, even if i don't like it
I don't buy it. With the recent distrubutions, installing LINUX for an average user is /far/ from impossible, any more than installing Windows is impossible for them.

Don't despise the common man and his ability to achieve once he gets a goal in mind. And with the newer distros, this task is eminently attainable.
----------------------
Michael B. Johnson

Linux vs. Windows
>> ...sick of Linux vs. Windows wars.

Granted. But the reason you bothered to post, and the reason we bother to answer is because it really is IMPORTANT. There are huge sums of money to be won and lost in this industry that are now at stake, and for the average peon there is a glimpse of hope.

The average user is in no position to continually upgrade...it's counter-productive. With Freedom and Open Source, we have a chance to make something of value - like a system that need not be upgraded year-to-year but would automatic patching perhaps (when you can better the system there seems to be no boundary), where those without money can still learn and benefit, where we can take those things we have slaved over and turn them into benefit for everyone by selling honest reliable service.

This is a vision that is contrary to Microsoft's stated desire to lock down content and to in effect rent out software so that one must constantly pay simply for the privilege. And where everyone else is locked out of the future.

Hence Linux.

Windows. ...a car to drive.
You compare the majority of PC users to people who just want to drive a car and don't want to have a huge notice explaining how drive the car....I'am this kind of user...with 2 cars. A Windows and a Linux. I can drive a car. It doesn't matter the label. But of course, I have some preferences ;-).

Who is ready to buy a car that has to go every week to the garage to recover from an accident or for a security check ?

Linux is safe enough. A security upgrade does not look like a disaster recovery under Windows when I catch the last virus that my antivrus I paid for does not recognize yet...

When I boot my PC under Windows, the first thing it performs are:
- downloading the last updates from Microsoft...
- donwloading the last anti virus updates from XYZ
- downloading the last virus that the antivirus
does not recognize yet.......
- I've not yet downloaded something "usefull" for my personal usage :-).

Then I can try to read my email, after a sanity check ...and crashing my documents....because I'am running low of virtual memory....or I plugged my USB Flash memory stick for which the driver has not been certified by Microsoft...the desktop or the editor hangs...and Microsoft doesn't know why and they would like me to send them the crash description...

When I boot my PC under a Linux distrib, the first thing I can do is to use my desktop as a normal user who drives his car to go to the office. I read my email, I edit my documents...I can save them on my memory stick without any trouble....normal business. No risk of unexpected reboot or crash. When the Linux distribution recommends a soft upgrade, it is scheduled and applied in very good conditions. It does not look like a disaster recovery. I have a clear technical description of the upgrade. It is not always like Windows where you don't know exaclty what kind of new bug or security hole the upgrage contains..."Critical Security Update they call it at Microsoft and they give you a very nice ID of the patch which means absolutly nothing to the human being I am !
With all the patches that Microsoft already applied on my Windows XP Desktop it looks like a mummy now:-). My Linux Desktop still looks fresh and young and free like a little penguin !

Do you remember the old advertising message of the early 30ies..the biggest world economical crisis. The picture showed people queuing for a soup and over them a picture showing a happy family in a car: "L'auto c'est la liberté" (car is freedom). If you have to apply this message today to the IT world...Which message would be the best:

"Microsoft is Freedom" or "Linux is Freedom" :-)

Have fun...with Tux.

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
LOL!

A pretty fair post by CristianAmarie, I'd say!!!

I will add though that the malware dregs of society haven't YET set it's sights fully on targetting Linux, so the Linux operating system is substantially less affected. This could change, BUT there are weaknesses intrinsic to current Windows architecture that make it inherently exploitable - I'm referring to the ability of one application to get a window handle and send messages to another among other things. While very convenient and useful, it is also a danger. *If* I remember correctly, there is a problem with allowing apps to write to memory not their own, and also allowing buffer overflow exploits. I could be wrong on some of the specific details here, but that's what I remember.

However, Linux has /also/ been shown to be susceptible to buffer overflows in the past, though I can't remember a single issue that hasn't been fixed. I can't say the same about Windows right now. But the point is made, both Linux and Windows are not static, development and improvements are going on all the time. Windows tends to rely more on secrecy and obscurity for security, while Linux tends to rely on testers to find & close holes that the designers overlooked rather than hope they won't be found.

Maybe some security experts could comment here...?

Linux Advanced Tactical Resource
>> The people that gravitate towards Linux and open source in general are techie and architecture IT professionals.

I disagree. My case in point is that Munich, for example is switching to Linux. Not all those city employees are techies and I.T. professionals. Do a bit more research and the evidence will bear out my point.

Linux is NOT to be compared with an unstable fighter - it is not a good allegory. It is a powerful workhorse, as borne out by the fact that the Google search engine uses Linux servers. Most Apache Web servers, the most common web server on the Internet, are run on Linux and Unix boxen. Sites that use PHP almost always use Linux, I believe.

Your point that Windows is ahead in the market is well taken. But it is NOT because it is better, it is because it was there first.

Porting applications (from Windows) to the Linux Desktop, applications written with Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) can be done quickly and easily using wxWindows now known as wxWidgets.

>> Microsoft encapsulated lots of Windows functionality in the MFC library for Visual Studio.

True enough, but MFC was in no way superior to the Borland OWL classes in my experience. In pure technical (not marketing) terms, the reverse could be said because Borland focussed on advanced features like templates rather than on ease-of-use. Many customers were angry at Borland for not maintaining compatibility with prior releases and let their displeasure be known.

Windows. ...a car to drive.
I did have one old version of Red Hat crash on me - I probably didn't have the right patches installed.

So if you're trying out Linux, make sure you get a /recent/ version, not an ancient one from an old book.

Lotus123 and the IBM/Wintel PC
>>> there won't be a mass migration (by home end-users)

I disagree. When people understand that the licensing is fundamentally changed, and what Microsoft's goals are, they will want out. The less "technical" they are, the easier it could well be in that they haven't got that much invested in their current setup.

When industry grassroots people like me start recommending Linux over the inequitable Windows XP licensing to their friends and family, and refuse to install/fix Windows installations, you'll see an impact. Little by little, people are going to be convinced that Linux is the best way for the future.

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
Unfortunately, I think it's a problem of attitude, not skill, neither knowledge.

While I suppose that the average Linux programmer spend considerable more time digging in other people' source code - I know I do this - , the average Windows programmer I know likes to visit expensive car websites, talk nonsenses on MSN with the project manager/analyst, or simply to open as many programs as possible (NetMeeting, Remote Desktop, something to give the artistic impression that he is really busy) - things like that. (I'm just describing what I see around...).

Speaking about the window handle, for example. Everyone knows that Windows is simple, no?, so it must be simple to write code. This feeling lasts until WindowsJoe discovers how many lines he needs to write just to display an emtpy window.
He doesn't like.

After few unsuccesful attempts to understand how to write a correct message loop (I doubt there are more than 5% of us that DO know this, because MSDN is soooo hard to read), he quickly moves to MFC - we all know this is going to solve all the problems. (Have you ever seen a critical piece of software, like a Winlogon/GINA hook, written in MFC just to use CString, or event log code in VB, just because WindowsJoe does not know how to correctly manipulate Unicode strings? I did saw such horrors).

More and more things are written, discussed, published, documented for Windows. Of course, if you want to read them. After all this, WindowsJoe does not like that his little window should handle:
- rather obscure Windows messages like system setting change like high contrast, notifications from shell, system shutdown request (who read the requirements for Windows 2000 Logo knows what I'm talking about...);
- should check who is the sender (that's why GetWindowText returns NULL if the sender is another process) etc.

His little empty window still does nothing, and there is more and more to handle: scroll bars, icon, background erase, painting, caption text etc. This is the moment when WindowsJoe stops thinking and continue to use MFC (usually to create monstrosities used for some kind of UI for a database), or, even better, moves to VB, because the deadline comes soon...

This may look funny (I hope), but believe me, is not. There are some (few?) Windows programmers - I am among them - that feel frustrated by the larger and larger pieces of "software", usually needed to perform a simple operation. Probably on Linux world you have to quickly find something else to do, but on Windows world you may simulate thinking and continue to wait ten minutes the logon screen appearance, without even bothering to check the event log or services' status.

What a heck, there are people in this company since 1998 and don't know what a socket is.

Buffer overflows. Yes, there are plenty of them. Why? I don't know. The StrSafe library/header file is on MSDN since 1998? 1999? Who cares? I also have downloaded a sample project (I don't remember the name) where I have seen comments like:
/* strcpy - banned function for overflow */
or similar, and replaced with safe versions of functions.

Again, a problem of attitude. Seems almost nobody want to discover or learn anymore - they are all looking for ready-to-go solutions, because they are too busy to think. (Five minutes ago a "programmer-ess" - payed almost twice as me - comes in and ask me how to determine if a connection to a remote SQL server is still active. A 30-seconds look in SQL Server Books Online gives me at least three replies).

A final word about easy of installation. During the last two years I installed: every Win32 known to man, starting from Windows 95 to Windows 2003 server; RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, Caldera, UnitedLinux; FreeBSD; Solaris. (I'm not a rich guy, so everything was under VMware). I did encounter problems, but in 99% cases was my fault. With some installation exercise, everything is now ok. I think this debate on "my X driver did not install on th Y operating system" does not make an OS good or bad.

Give it some time
I'd say all this comparing Windows to Linux is a bit premature. Sure, Linux has been around some time, but, as you pointed out, using a pc is using the applications; the average user couldn't care less about the OS.
So maybe we should all cool down and let the users choose and decide.

What about OEM licence?
Another argument: if Windows wasn't pre-installed on almost all of the new boxes and if the user had the choice between Windows for $1xx (without the office suite) and a complete GNU-Linux OS + applications for free, I wonder what would be his choice.

"let the users choose and decide" I totaly agree with that, but today, the user hasn't any choice when he buys a new computer (at least in Europe)!

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
Please be kind to the internet and don't waste precious bytes with your idiotic questions christianmarie or whatever you want to be called...

If you want explanations and details of the simple points I have made, do your own research and don't expect me or the world to educate you.

Goodnight and Keep Dreaming Christian!

http://www.againsttcpa.org

Windows. ...a car to drive.
Kudos Luc, your points are good.

Visit http://www.againsttcpa.com

Plain Vanilla Mind Blowiningly Absurd
Respect Juergen. He is Wise.

http://www.againsttcpa.org

Give it some time
You are absolutely correct Joris, users can and will decide what to use, however, a quick read of http://www.againsttcpa.com might give you an idea of why the time for people to view their options with open eyes is now.
The author of the article is clearly biased towards windows and I believe it is important to speak against his views as I certainly could have been deterred from trying linux had I read this type of propoganda, please don't be mistaken, the above is propoganda by definition and should not be endorsed by O'Reilly...
From the Free Dictionary "Propaganda is a specific type of message , aimed at serving an agenda. Even if the message conveys true information, it may be partisan and fail to paint a complete picture."

See: http://img.thefreedictionary.com/wiki/e/e7/Korea_%28179%29.jpg

Nice
1. Indeed, I must be dreaming. I asked some questions, and you called them idiotic, then you tell me to keep dreaming. Obviously, I don't expect to be educated by you - now I'm awake and I'll take my chances somewhere else.
(My name is indeed Cristian Amarie, not christian, not "whatever" I want to be called).

I guess this is the end of thread for me.

Installation very very difficult?!!
$> ./configure
$> ./make
$> su -c "make install"

It's as difficult as that.

An OS is only as good as the software that runs on it? Well I agree, I can look on sourceforge and finds thousands available for Linux. Thankfully I don't have to spend years waiting for updates and enduring the same bugs time after time. Windows may be better for the brainless, but if you want the computer to work for you rather than you work for the computer then Linux wins hands down. Oh and lets not even start on security. The good thing is that Linux is becoming easier and easier for novices to use. There are so many command line programs that now have graphical equivalents.

Don't settle for Windows, Open standard OS is the best way for the future.
Lately there has been a war of words about the future of PC Operating Systems. The focus seems to be on the here and now, which OS is better. To be honest, when it comes to a desktop system, both Windows and Linux have much room for improvement. Here's a scary thing, have you taken a look at Mac OS X lately? It's like the best parts of Windows and Linux all rolled into one. It's core is an open standard Unix based system, with a user interface that leaves both Windows and Linux for dead. It was using technology back in 2000 that Microsoft won't be implementing in an OS till 2007. On top of this it has a pretty comprehensive list of applicationsn written for it from many of the best software vendors.

The point is, to me, both Windows and Linux don't provide the idea desktop OS. Clearly there are 2 models on offer, closed source and open standard.

The Microsoft camp believes that the closed source model, as used for the Windows product, should be the preferred model into the future. They claim that their plan is the best for innovation and is the most economical. This may be the case in the short term, but is it in the long run?

There is at least 1 major flaw with this model that sooner or later will be realised by all involved. To understand this flaw, one must go back to the basics of what is the purpose of a computer operating system.

The purpose of a computer operating system is to combine with computer hardware to provide a platform for software developers to build on.

Today, the platform a majority of PC operators use consists of hardware, which could have been developed by any number of different vendors and a version of Microsoft's Windows operating system.

In this scenario we have hardware that is open standard and an operating system that is closed source.

The open standard hardware model means that it doesn't matter if I have a motherboard produced by Asus or MSI, or a CPU from Intel or AMD, or a hard disk made by IBM or Maxtor, the way in which it all plugs in together is still the same, or "standard". The benefit of this model is that the different vendors can compete on a level playing field, meaning as consumers we can choose what we buy based on the price and merits of the products available.

Currently, when it comes to operating systems and, in some cases, software we don't get this same benefit. As many people point out (often reluctantly) there currently are no realistic alternatives to what Microsoft have to offer with their Windows operating system. And this is because for many years now, Microsoft has held a monopoly over the PC operating system market.

This means that Microsoft effectively controls the platform for which software is built on. Because Windows is closed source, only Microsoft truly knows all the secrets about this platform. Now considering Microsoft also writes software such as MS Office to run on this platform, they have an opportunity to make better use of this platform and therefore making the merits of their software more competitive or in some cases, impossible to compete with fairly. This monopoly may make it difficult for other software vendors to commit as many resources to producing competitive products, as they are unable to grantee the same return on their investment.

This all means that Microsoft is able to charge big dollars for their products, making enormous profit margins. This also slows innovation as we all just have to accept the products that Microsoft offer as there is no opportunity for another vendor to offer a better alternative. All in all, this hits the consumer with a double-edged sword, being forced to pay higher prices and having to wait longer for improvements.

Having said all this, I come back to the operating system argument, and it's role as a part of a computer platform. One property of any platform is it's stability, weather it be the platform that you build a house on or a platform that you build software on, if the platform is unstable then the result is going to be cause for frustration.

Most of the time system hardware is not cause for instability in a computer system, take for example: I had an older system which used to be dual booted with Windows 98SE and Red Hat Linux 7.0. I had constant issues with stability when running Windows, causing much frustration, as I seemed to spend more time trying to keep the thing going than actually using it for any purpose. Before installing Linux I was actually convinced there must be something wrong with the hardware. However once I had Linux installed, not only was the system more responsive, I was able to have uptimes of in excess of 3 weeks without a single reboot or crash and I was using it to do all the same things I was able to do with Windows (Surf the net, chat on IRC/ICQ, web development, spreadsheets, databases etc.) in some cases I was able to increase productivity or have enhanced capabilities.

The point is, this clearly shows that the instability of that computer system, was entirely caused by the Windows operating system. Since then, the stability of Windows has improved somewhat, yet still it is far from bullet proof.

The ultimate goal of any operating system should be to provide a consistent, stable interface between the hardware and the software, enabling the software to efficiently utilize all the capabilities the hardware offers. As hardware capabilities improve, the operating system should evolve to enable these new capabilities to be utilized. This would provide software developers (including Microsoft) with a level playing field on which to compete fairly with each other and therefore avoiding the problems for consumers as previously mentioned. I believe, that an open standard operating system is the only way to achieve this goal. Standards put in place by the industry to achieve the desired goals; the same way standards are put in place for hardware.

So when it comes to a ch