I understand that it's not the fault of Linux, but should I care? I'm not interested in investing time or money in to writing code. IOW, Why would I use an inferior drivers (to windows/ or hw manufacturer) that might work, but not perform to its fullest? Even when the HW manufacturers release Linux drivers it still seems to be like a half-assed attempt at satisfying the linux users, it's obvious which drivers they've invested their best programmers and the most money in to. If the linux community was smart they'd start cracking down on which HW to support like Apple does so that it can guarantee a high quality user-experience.

well that's why I use XP. I can get awesome themes and everything works beautifully on my old p4 2.4.

Why can't you do that?

Before buying any hardware, just check if it has good Linux compatibility.

but it's not a linux vs window thread, it's a respect: windows, linux and apple thread. As previously stated, the thread was turning in to the same old tired winblows/M$ arguments and I think MS deserves a lot of credit for what they've brought to the PC market.

No, it really is. It's the nature of the subject - it's too broad. If you had a very specific instance where you felt that one OS was better then the other, then you could have had a focused discussion. Anyway, this has now been merged with the big thread.

... making a crappy OS that assumes you're a total dumb@$$.

Merging the threads undid my unsubscribe. I guess it's fate for me to keep seeing this nonsense.

why are being rude? stick to the topic please.

That's your opinion and your experience with linux. But others have success with linux. You can not compare your experience with others. Like I said earlier in this thread it depends on a person level in using linux.

I don't know about you, but I am productive in linux and use it daily for all my needs.

Linux is not windows. Linux is design the way it is. If you want windows, then you use windows.

Just admit it, that you don't like using linux. Why continue beating a dead horse comparing windows and linux. If linux is not to your standards as a desktop, fine.

For me, I admit I hate windows and I'm not afraid to say it.

I wasn't trying to be rude. I just stated my opinion that Windows treats me like some idiot that doesn't know anything and also tries to proect me from my every move.

Ahhh, fresh boiling blood I see, hehehe. 91 pages and counting, hehehe.

Yeah, I just love the smell of OS bashing in the morning!

I don't have any practical use for linux on the desktop because it doesn't have a lot of the software that I need for recording music, or the ability to play a few cool video games (and no, not tux racer or something ridiculous like that). But when I see linux installed in a piece of hardware like a router or when used as a standalone server I get a bit excited to think of the possibilities or options that it can provide for me vs closed source. I think linux is really neat for hacking/modifying software like an ipod or a gaming console for instance.

I honestly can't relate. I use XP pro. and I never get any warnings or notifications because I've turned them all off. I believe I am much more productive in this environment because when I use a comparable desktop like ubuntu I run in to problems for basic tasks. I don't see windows or osx treating me like an idiot, I see them as OSs that have rooted out the bugs and understand how people are going to use the machines. I am not very use to using a Mac but I figured out how to use it (installing/browsing files/customizing the settings) in less than 10 minutes, it's very intuitive and makes sense when you use a mac--it's a high quality user experience from power on to power off. Linux is just chaos; every piece of software installed is designed by totally different groups of people and there's no quality control.

I'll admit that I'm not accustomed to the workflow and environment in linux but some things drive me nuts to no end... i.e. 1. the method in which it installs apps/programs (I have to go through a package program [under a debian environment] and if I try to install software from another source, I'm lost and I just think I could've had it installed already in XP ), 2. crappy documentation, 3. that amount of resources it uses to run flash, 4. the lack of quality audio engineering software, 5. photoshop destroys gimp, 6. MS office destroys openoffice, 7.and my hardware generally seems to perform better in XP. I don't see what the big problem is with buying closed-source software if it works very well and they've ironed out the kinks.

One of the biggest problems with Linux on the desktop is that the programmers assume that the users are programmers as well and should be able to figure out what's wrong if things don't go right, or they assume people have hours to research a simple procedure.

I agree here.
I dont need no documentation That is independent of OS but the opensource philosophy destroys proprietary software Lack of drivers is the problem.Not a problem for me
I don't see windows or osx treating me like an idiot, I see them as OSs that have rooted out the bugs and understand how people are going to use their machines. I am not very use to using a Mac but I figured out how to use it (installing/browsing files/customizing the settings) in less than 10 minutes, it's very intuitive and makes sense when you use a mac--it's a high quality user experience from power on to power off.[/QUOTE]
Semi TRUE.