LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2007, 06:48 AM   #31
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31

>> "I made this thread because I'm wondering all those that switched from Windows, why you chose to switch to Linux from Windows ..."

nowadays probably because linux is way way cooler on the desktop than on windows ... and things about security , source codes and 24/7 and the likes are most probably second thoughts after the first one ...


>> "What is it about Linux that has kept you from wanting to switch to Windows?"

that second thought ... probably ... ??



//[BTW ::] damn it !! its free and as simple as that ... and you dont even need to write your own from scratch again and again and again ...


.

Last edited by alred; 06-12-2007 at 06:49 AM.
 
Old 06-12-2007, 06:29 PM   #32
oskar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Austria
Distribution: Ubuntu 12.10
Posts: 1,138

Rep: Reputation: 49
Quote:
>> "I made this thread because I'm wondering all those that switched from Windows, why you chose to switch to Linux from Windows ..."
I had only one or two non hardware related crashes on linux last year. It never hangs. A single program will never lock up the system. It feels snappier, even when I have lots of programs open - which I usually do.
+ free programs from reliable sources... and so on

I still have windows. It wouldn't boot since febuary. I think it's harddrive related. I didn't need it lately. Will rescue when GTA4 comes out
 
Old 06-13-2007, 06:34 AM   #33
rider123
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Posts: 0

Rep: Reputation: 0
good posting....
 
Old 06-13-2007, 07:37 PM   #34
Chargh
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Seba Beach Alberta Canada
Distribution: Fedora 16
Posts: 251
Blog Entries: 24

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzume
With the games thing---if you can get GTA San Andreas and Second Life working in Linux with at least a similar framerate as in Windows, I'll be sold on what you said.
Well you got Second life (Whatever that is) working and I have no idea what GTA San Andreas is Either
 
Old 06-13-2007, 07:38 PM   #35
Chargh
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Seba Beach Alberta Canada
Distribution: Fedora 16
Posts: 251
Blog Entries: 24

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chargh
First of all, nice to see a Fedora user Amberp

To why I use Linux as my main system (Except for School, but I hope to Fix that ) Windows XP on my machine was slow as Hell then died. I re-installed it and it is better than then, but it is still doing weird things and I wont forget how bad it got.

Linux also for me is a much better gaming platform. All the corporate games I play have Linux versions or WINE well (Except for Age of Empires, and I am trying to Fix that http://freeempires.yoll.net) and I love the open source games I have on Fedora. I don't see why people criticize Linux as a Gaming platform.

Linux is the only system on my Computer that the Sound is working, and It is the only system I have installed things on after the Re-install of Windows (Well I installed OpenOffice.org, Lotus Notes, SeaMonkey and a Math program but thats for School).

And with LQ I never have to worry about getting help for Linux
I forgot to Mention DOSBox for Games (I love DOS Games)
 
Old 06-13-2007, 07:53 PM   #36
Kizzume
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chargh
Well you got Second life (Whatever that is) working and I have no idea what GTA San Andreas is Either
That is true, and like I said, it runs better than the windows version.

GTA San Andreas--what can I say other than it's the most free-flowing open-ended close-to-being-almost-boundaryless do-anything-you-want run-over-people have-the-government-chase-you type of game that's really fun, and it's easy to mod.

If I could run that, at that point, the only thing that would make me even occasionally boot up Windows is VST instruments (and if that's the case, I'll probably only have 5 services running in Windows, disabling the internet connection completely).

 
Old 06-17-2007, 07:37 AM   #37
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudoxiah
Who the hell did ever say that everything on linux must be open-source? Creative is currently working on closed-source drivers for Linux and they will come out... god knows when
Well their previous strategy was just releasing documentation so that the alsa team could provide the drivers. But if you like closed-source drivers than that's fine. I personaly dislike closed source because it's mostely buggy and not very compatible. When I say buggy and not very compatible I'm looking at closed ATI and nVidia drivers. Say for yourself; it sucks. And like you said yourself; it takes forever to get it.
 
Old 06-17-2007, 03:51 PM   #38
rocket357
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Distribution: OpenBSD-CURRENT
Posts: 476
Blog Entries: 118

Rep: Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by amberp
>> "I made this thread because I'm wondering all those that switched from Windows, why you chose to switch to Linux from Windows ..."
Windows ME...'nuff said.

I've been around computers my entire life. I cut my teeth on DOS and I've been programming since I was 8-10 years old. Before Windows ME came along, I thought that Microsoft OS's were the only available (grew up around *home* computing), and I figured it couldn't get any worse than <previous release of Windows>. I felt that Win95 was a giant step forward, and Win98 (SE) was a great operating system...

But one day I decided to "upgrade". Ahh...Windows ME. Destroyer of confidence and cause of balding.

I went on a short hunt for the ideal OS (given my personal needs), and I settled on Gentoo and FreeBSD/OpenBSD. Haven't looked back since.
 
Old 06-17-2007, 09:26 PM   #39
Mojojo
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia/PA
Distribution: Mint/Debian
Posts: 447

Rep: Reputation: 32
Same as above windows ME did it for me. I started with Mandy 7.2 and was hooked after a month of trying to figure out how to figure out how to get everything working it was little buggy but nothing like M$. I actually bought 9.1 when it came out because I was so impressed with it.Then did the club thing after that,after the name change though I started experimenting with others because mandriva always made it a chore too upgrade kde. I always liked red hat/fedora and slack but when I got a suse 10.0 dvd in a magazine I popped it in and was hooked. It is amazing how linux has came along in just the past 5 years when you go back and look at screenshots from kde 1 to kde 3 its amazing.My biggest hurdle then was much of the hardware and software you were looking for was hard to find or get working now I have no need for a windows machine in my household.

Last edited by Mojojo; 06-17-2007 at 09:27 PM.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 11:01 AM   #40
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
i'm kind of agree with that ...

we should give credits to 95 and 98 a bit ...

i'm not sure what will happen when there werent any 95/98 system appeared on the scene ...


.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 04:52 PM   #41
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by alred
i'm not sure what will happen when there werent any 95/98 system appeared on the scene ...
Apple, IBM or BSD would have taken over. But with the GUI I think that would have been Apple.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 08:32 PM   #42
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,397

Rep: Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114Reputation: 1114
I think that the most-balanced take on the whole situation is to say that you don't have to "choose between" Windows and Linux! Both systems can peaceably coexist, although I do recommend that you simply buy two computers (or, two disc drives, if you need to run both on the same machine).

An operating system is "a means to an end, not an end unto itself." You don't have it around just to admire it (unless, of course, it is Linux ). You have it because it enables you to do 'something', whatever 'something' is. You tolerate it, to the extent that it succeeds in getting you "from point 'A' to point 'B'." So, if you have this really-cool program that "only runs under <X>," that might well be sufficient reason, in and of itself, to run <X>!

Still, I also believe that it is nigh time for all of us to recognize "the handwriting on the wall" with regard to Microsoft Windows. A sea-change is coming, and nothing in all of Microsoft's well-funded marketing department can do anything to stop it.

The Linux system, and open-source, has overwhelming technical advantages over the entire business-model that is represented by Microsoft and Windows. (Mind you, I say this without intending any sort of slight either to Microsoft Corporation or to the very skilled, very hard-working professionals who work there!)

Here's the bottom line: when I do ls /usr/src/linux/arch, I see (currently) twenty-six architectures listed there. How many of those can Windows run on? Perhaps three. Case closed! {Sorry, pal. No, it's not "fair," but ... Technology's like that.}

All twenty-six of these architectures are listed there because a great many people found it well worth their time to do all the hard work that's necessary to make Linux run, and run well, on every one of those systems. No matter how hard Microsoft may try, and no matter how many (~$125,000 apiece in Redmond, ~X-and-growing-fast what you think they're stupid because they speak Hindi Rupees in India) programmers they throw at it, Microsoft cannot match that. It simply cannot be done.

And it must be done. So, sorry, Microsoft loses the game. It's only a matter of time.

Now, let me be quick to say that "loses" is a relative term, because computer technology has one very important characteristic: what it does is a great deal more valuable than what it costs, so companies hang on to technology for a very long time. Windows will remain a "cash cow" long after it has lost its relevance... which, I submit, it already has.

Look at Apple: they've skunked everybody with the "OS/X computer sitting in the palm of your oh-so-kewel hand masquerading as a telephone," and they know it. They leveraged open source, and Unix, and all the rest to do it, and nobody can match them, and they know it. Case closed.

Now, what does that mean to you, or to your mom or your grandma (the ones who, bless 'em, still don't "get it" )? Actually, this very-familiar situation is a whole lot closer to the one that's faced by a corporate business than you might at first appreciate! Windows might well be the "best" solution for them, and it might always be. (Or, as is the case for my parents, Macintosh OS/X keeps them happy and I fight off every mention of 'Windows' with a stout stick.) "What it does" (that is to say, "the fact that it does it") is a great deal more valuable | important than, well, just about anything else.

"The fact that 'when Mom calls, it is only to invite us over for supper'" is ... as we all know ... priceless.

And for businesses, the same darned thing is true.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-18-2007 at 08:38 PM.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 08:48 PM   #43
rocket357
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Distribution: OpenBSD-CURRENT
Posts: 476
Blog Entries: 118

Rep: Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Here's the bottom line: when I do ls /usr/src/linux/arch, I see (currently) twenty-six architectures listed there. How many of those can Windows run on? Perhaps three. Case closed! {Sorry, pal. No, it's not "fair," but ... Technology's like that.}

All twenty-six of these architectures are listed there because a great many people found it well worth their time to do all the hard work that's necessary to make Linux run, and run well, on every one of those systems.
Microsoft did try a "HAL" type of approach...but reverted back to "native" code because of performance issues. I mean, face it...hardware abstraction is nice and all...but it can't beat the previously mentioned ARMY of developers who have a personal interest in making Linux run on their <name an architecture>...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESR
1. Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch.
That right there states it all. If Microsoft's developers had the dedication that many Linux developers do (let's face it...if you do something because you get a paycheck, it's not as rewarding as doing something you love), Microsoft would still be at a disadvantage due to the sheer number of people that contribute (time, code, bug reports, etc...) to Linux.

Microsoft has "home-field advantage", however, with the group that gets commonly called "typical home users" and "corporate cash cows". Microsoft, with centralized control, is easily held accountable for "oopsies" that occur along the way (how often it actually happens is a different story, but the point is that businesses feel more secure in knowing they can sue if the $hit hits the fan). How these two pros and cons will leverage out is a story only time will tell, IMHO...
 
Old 06-19-2007, 03:21 AM   #44
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
"The fact that 'when Mom calls, it is only to invite us over for supper'" is ... as we all know ... priceless.
I love that sentence
 
Old 06-19-2007, 04:24 AM   #45
Kizzume
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Oh man, WinME was just rubbish--it was Win98 with dos missing, incompatibility issues, just an absolute mess. I thought I'd be staying with 98 forever until I tried Win2K. Then when WinXP ended up being Win2K with extra crap--a year later I started trying out different Linux distributions. 2007 is the year where Linux will become a permanent addition to my computer. I'm --this-- close to getting it to be exactly what I've been wanting.
 
  


Reply

Tags
error, linux, update, windows


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Solution Dual Boot Windows & Linux [ALL DONE IN WINDOWS] No Linux terminology DSargeant Linux - Newbie 35 02-07-2006 03:29 PM
linux/ windows dual boot. Windows XP is in portable HDD (already installed) izquierdista Linux - General 1 02-03-2006 10:23 AM
Solution Dual Boot Windows & Linux [ALL DONE IN WINDOWS] No Linux terminology DSargeant Linux - Newbie 4 11-10-2005 11:37 AM
Red Hat Linux 9 + Windows Server 2003 + Windows XP + Fedora in same domain wolfy339 Linux - Networking 5 03-02-2005 06:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration