Why Linux? - Page 3  

Common! Research!

Do you realise that THIS
is exactly what puts so many of us off from Linux and other "speciality" software?

I am trying to "brainstorm" and find a reason WHY linux is not found in every home, school, office...

I don't see any of my statements as invalid. This is what I have learnt through my experiences and it is just quite possible that every other individual who goes through this will come to the same conclusion that Linux is nice but ultimately not worth it.

My situation? I play games...I need windows to play games. All programs function very well in windows without any problems that I cannot fix. I dont need to download half a dozen files and libraries to get my mp3's and DVD's to play. I havent had any security problems with windows...im not running a server...

Why do I need Linux? Try to approach this as a marketing exec. Try to sell me your Linux product...

Saying aah its free and aah its stable is fine and dandy. Nobody (from the demographic that I am talking about) is going to go with this...

Not related to your private flame war but Linux will always be free - Linus released Linux under the GPL and since he owns the code noone can take it and sell if for profit - thats the beauty of GPL. Different companies can package it differently - they can add content in the form of SW and patches to the kernel. But at the end of the day the "OS" will always be free.

Yes I will downgrade it the way you downgrade Windows because that is also very unfair in my opinion.

I take a balanced view without taking sides. I like Linux...I just feel it should be easier. I like windows...I just feel it could be cheaper (I have nothing else to complain as far as windows is concerned because it detects ALL my hardware and runs ALL my software...I am sorry if this is an unacceptable quality in an operating system ).

I dont want to do "research" to use my computer and get the hardware and software working...it just has to work.

To the others :-
----------------

If you guys think I have some valid points and that some of my ideas are wrong - please pm me or post here and we'll discuss it. I have an "almost" fully functional redhat installation here and I need some help.

Thanks!!

Linux will always be free - I agree.

But a fully functional OS based on Linux will not and cannot be free if it is to have the kind of functionality I am looking for. I dont really care if they want me to pay $100.00 for an OS that works without putting me through hell to get my hardware and software running.

Have I made the difference clear? Anyone can download a kernel or an iso of a linux distro - not everyone can make it work...

The only area that I have downgraded Windows in is security. lol

I don't believe I am taking sides at all, as I use both. The fact is, the only uses Windows is good for is ease of use, gaming, and being infected worldwide by the latest malware.

I agree with the "malware"

but I can download software from cnet, lavasoft, spybot S&D which keep my system clean...a $20.00 System Mechanic cleans my registry, defragments my HDD...

I dont have ANY problems with windows security from my usage point of view. If this was a server then yes - I may have issues...but how many domestic users have a server in house?

If I went into the underlying architectures of the security in the debate of Windows vs Linux, I would most definitely lose you. Trust me when I say this, spyware/antivirus scanners along with a firewall isn't much defense for a home user. Windows is easy to hack.

The only reason I seem to be "praising" all of Linux's virtues is because you seem to be downgrading it. On the contrary though, if you've read my previous posts, it is clear that I provided strong & weak points for each respective OS.

I don't think I've been painting a rosy picture at all. I would have to agree with your theory of Linux's ease of use having to increase greatly to grab the eye of mainstream users, but that's not what it was intended for. Like I said, it has come a long way, and still has a long way to go.

You know, for what you do, Windows may be the best fit for you. You want something that "just works," and the rest of the stuff doesn't seem to concern you much. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

From my perspective (and, like I mentioned earlier, I'm a network security consultant and probably look at this stuff a bit different than Joe Sixpack would), I'd much rather be able to tweak my heart out, and have a more secure system. If that means I need to download and install a package to play my MP3s, rather than have it come with the OS, I'm fine with that.

That "one package" reference, incidentally, was in response to your earlier comment about installing a bunch of different files and libraries -- it may have been that way once, but most decent Linux distros have it down to one command to download and install whatever particular piece of software you want. On Debian, for example, "apt-get xmms" is all you need, and "emerge xmms" will work on Gentoo -- dependencies are handled automatically. Red Hat's always been a bit behind the curve in that respect, but I believe they have similar functionality these days.

Anyway, from where I'm standing, I couldn't give a flying fsck whether or not Linux ever surpasses Windows on the desktop. For what I do, it's great, and in my humble opinion it beats the pants off Windows. However, I'm not the typical computer user. I'm a former C programmer and work with Unix systems for a living.

As you mentioned, the stability and security aspects of Linux may not matter to the average user (though I wish they did -- we'd all be a lot better off if people finally got fed up with the IE and Outlook flaws and made MS do something serious about them), but to me those are a lot more important than whether the OS supports every little obscure piece of hardware I might throw at it, or whether it comes with an MP3 player preinstalled. I don't need it to "just work," I need it to work right. My reputation and career depend on it, and I wouldn't trust Microsoft with either.

If your priorities are different, and Windows is what works for you, I support your choice. That's really what Linux (and the GNU Project, and all the other Open Source stuff) has always been about: giving people the choice to use what works best for them.

One last note: on the driver side, I don't think being a free OS is an impediment at all. It's all about installed base. It's hard for a hardware manufacturer to justify writing drivers if not many people use a particular platform.

Linux use is still growing, though, and at some point a critical mass is going to be reached where manufacturers will need to write Linux drivers or lose a good-sized chunk of the market. How soon that'll happen, I have no idea... But at the rate things are going, it'll happen eventually, and the fact the Linux is free isn't going to be a factor.

There are also several companies selling Linux products and services who have a vested interest in seeing it supported well (cf. IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and others). They've got money, and Linux is still free. That's where you're going to see needed cash come from, while Linux itself remains free.

These are the kind of statements that add to the persona of "linux geek with superiority complex".

If linux hasn't yet "begun to fight", it sure better get started before it ends up in the landfill next to betamax.

I'm not a computer expert, or a professional in the field, but I do know something about what makes products succeed in market. "Organized chaos" is not something appealing for people who are trying to use IT in their business to make money. I agree with TrickM that the base requires a 'critical mass' to take off and become successful. Alienating the home-user is an excellent way to keep that from happening.

No, these are the kind of statements a professional in the field makes when he doesn't want to go way off topic and lose half the readers of this thread. Now if I actually posted half a web page of info up like I should have, you would have REALLY been calling me the "Linux geek with superiority complex.".

I believe that you will truly be eating those words one day.

You missed my point. Linux is barely controlled chaos, in the sense that it has a mission, and is going to get where it's going regardless of any major determining factor.
Whether the industry is going to blindly follow that mission or not, I can't say.
Simply because it hasn't "taken off", as if it were a proprietary movement, doesn't mean that it's not a force to be reckoned with.
For example, the only embedded systems magazine in existence is ELJ,
(Embedded Linux Journal). That speaks in volumes, and is only one of the many achievements Linux has made in the past few years.

In conclusion

I think it is safe to say this :-
=====================

At the moment Windows does have the upper hand
Linux is starting to make headway. Hey - If I know that there is something called linux and if I actually dared to mess with it (albeit for a very short time) then the new is getting around to the "common man" that there is an option.
Hardware/Software - windows has the upper hand
Free/Fully Customizable/Security/Reliability - Linux has the upper hand (although I have had a single crash using Windows XP-Pro in the last 6 months)

People should try Linux...more awareness needs to be created. All along the members who posted on this thread seem to think I have some hidden agenda against linux...this is not true. Bratag - YOU helped me install RedHat for the first time and you know how excited I was. I had a blast with it and I cant wait to install it again on my new 8790...

What will really really help is if all the people who have the knowledge and the time get together and put together a "Readme" to install Linux on specific laptops (Brand, Model etc.)

I would like to offer my 8790 as the "test dummy" for this purpose and I will help in any way I can to make this possible.

No complex stuff - KISS so that EVERYONE on this board can give it a shot and thats all it takes to kick off...a start...

Who knows where it can go from there? We can probably send PC Torque our own version fine-tuned for the Sager and offer it as a OS option

Dream!!!

well for me, being a relatively new linux guy.. it's about server market. I don't use linux cuz i prefer it on a desktop, in fact for most people i don't think it's there.. not yet. We have 2 machines running it as a desktop at work, and it does ok, but users stillhave issues with breaking from what they know.. moreso then moving to mac.

For me it's about learning an upcoming server technology. The only reason I am learning linux is that so many servers are using it.. it isn't just the cost of the os, it's all the related licenses per seat in the corporation.... as stated about it's also about not having to reboot for a security patch.. about the fact thatbecause it is opensource, and anyone can see the code.. there is no devious **** going on behind the scenes....is it more secure.. well if you mean compared to windows/oe/ie then yes.. if you are talking major distros like redhat..

i do however think that post service pack two on xp.. out of the box xp will be more secure for non technocal people then linux. Before you guys jump on me for that let me say that xp in the hands of an idiot post service pack 2 is going to be pretty tight.. linux in the hands of an idiot is well.. complicated and probably less secure depending on how it's setup and what options they choose..

that said.. i would love to be more knowledgable about linux.. the reason i don't use it for everything other then games right now is that i can't get my wireless card working.

MmmHmm. It's not off topic, and it comes across as an attempt to bully.

Wouldn't that be exactly why it's NOT such a force?

Professionals don't like unprofessionalism, and linux reeks of it.

We know that linux is better for some niche users, at least for now. What does linux offer the typical home user? How about the small business who doesn't care a bit about computers, except for their direct usefulness? As the linux niches get proportonally smaller and smaller to total users... I just don't see it happening.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. I'm usually right about stuff but there have been cases where I get it completely wrong. For example, every time Apple does anything, I'm sure that I'm seeing the end of the company (i-pod makes money... who'd a thunk it?). Clever marketing is the bane of logic and reason.

Sorry if I've threatened anyone with my knowledge..

I'm not a big Linux fan, I just give respect where its due. I'll say again, I'm a _huge_ *BSD fanatic.


The typical user? A chance to unplug from the matrix.


What about them? They obviously won't be playing a role in the integration of the use of Linux as a common household name, which is what I thought was the basis of this entire thread, ie., "Why Linux?".
Besides, I have yet to see the small business that will survive on simply the "direct usefulness" of computers without some shape/form of a tech-savvy administrator.




Me neither..but too bad It isn't, and its use is growing in numbers as we speak.

Yup... keep at it. Eventually you're going to have to back up extravagant knowledge claims with... some display of actual knowledge.

How about a REAL reason, and not silly melodrama?

So you think every small business should employ a tech-administrator? Not going to happen. Business is always out to reduce costs, and the software that greatly reduces or eliminates the need for tech support will win all the marbles.

Irrelevant. As the total number of users increases, the proportion of linux users relative to mac and windows isn't rising. Good data on the issue is hard to quantify, but the BEST (i.e. most slanted towards linux) estimates I've yet seen puts linux's user percentage at just over 1%.

The question is "why linux", and I just don't see any compelling reasons for the majority of us.