How about this....
I do not feel that linux is supposed to be for everyone. I still enjoy the linux user community, and the way they can all work together. Linux is an OS for those who enjoy computing in a non M$ convention. People who value freedom of choice. Linux is not for idiots.

On the technical side of the house I would like to refer to my first Cisco class in which the teacher held side by side our new M$ server Xeon 500 MHZ with 256Mb of ram and his old notebook, Pentium 200 MHZ with 32Mb of ram w\Slackware. Each of which was running just a webserver. The M$ server had a slower response time and was using 76% of its system resources, the notebook, system resources were 92% FREE.

Without a doubt, the original Linux model was created for the software developer and enthusiast. The nice thing, though, about both Linux and UNIX like systems is that they are extremely adaptable. That flexibility makes the raw systems much too difficult to figure out for the average consumer, but it doesn't prevent someone from coming along, creating a subset of features and implementing somethng that is extremely easy to set up and use. A few vendors are now trying to do that. It's an uphill climb, but I believe it's possible.

Linux is about freedom, including freedom of choice. So can you make an easy to use Linux system? Absolutely, it is being done now. Perhaps such systems aren't as mature in every respect as their proprietary brethren, but they are closing in fast. I routinely use Lycoris, Libranet, Mandrake, or Red Hat on my desktop and never have to resort to using anything else unless I want to do so. I admit that I am technically inclined, yet not one of these systems was the least bit difficult to set up, especially Lycoris.

So is Linux for everyone and is it for the masses? Well, maybe not quite yet, but it is getting awfully close, enough so that millions of people can (and do) use it.

Just sounding in. I'm a ISP support tech. We don't support linux officially. At home my box boots Win98, 2k & redhat 7.3.

My preference is RedHat.

The cruel fact is that Windows is popular.. because it is popular. Most software designers and hardware developers have to aim first at the biggest market which only increases it's market share.

Why use linux? - It can do what you need to, it is inexpensive and relatively easy to use.

What can linux do that windows can't? - Provide you experience beyond the average user. Provide you with open source to most programs.

I wouldn't have Windows except my wife likes some of the applications.. (written for Windows) that are not as smooth in linux.

Hi,

I'm a huge Linux advocate. In the past year I've successfully managed to use Linux software exclusively as my desktop system environment. I've used Windows 98 and 2000 this year, but not for any crucial work, mostly either to help someone else or investigate some connectivity issue.

I've used Linux in some way since 1995. For the first few years, I used it mostly for personal investigation, for standalone editing, and for connectivity as a glorified terminal server to office UNIX systems that I was accessing remotely from my home system.

In 1999, I purchased a CyberMax laptop computer with Windows 98 SE on it, and then I purchased Caldera Open Linux eDesktop 2.4. I had already been a real Linux advocate, but I desired to use Linux more and more often until I could use it as my primary desktop system, and even my primary system, period. eDesktop 2.4 proved to me that it would be possible. At the time, though, I was attending online graduate school at the University of Phoenix, and many of the online collaboration involved sharing files in Microsoft Office format. So I wasn't quite able to get rid of Windows at that point, though I often accessed my classes via the Web interface and was able to do that on a Linux system.

In 2001 I stepped up my daily use of Linux and was spending over 50% of my time on either UNIX or Linux systems. By the end of the year, it was probably over 75% on Linux systems. I used Caldera Open Linux as before, but added to it Mandrake 8.0, Red Hat 7.2, Slackware 8.0, and SuSE 7.2. Ever since that time, I've had anywhere from four to eight Linux distributions active on my system at any given point in time. Later, I got very comfortable with Debian packaging, and that's now my favorite packaging method. I use them all, though. I've been upgrading releases and trying new distros, and I've tried between 20 and 30 different distros. I have four Debian distros alone at the present time: Libranet, LindowsOS, Knoppix, and Xandros. Each has its own set of characteristics, advantages and disadvantages.

Finally, early in 2002 I had a disk failure on my laptop system, where I had been running what was left of my daily Windows activities. I decided to see if I could get by with ONLY Linux software, even when I had to share Word or other office document formats with others. I wrote a freelance article in Word format, but I did it completely from open tools. There were no problems exchanging files and even yellow highlighting changes. That iced it for me - no need to go back.

One factor had me, on rare occasions, visiting my wife's Windows 98 system - it had a HP Deskjet 810C printer attached to it. I could've created a small Samba network, but I just moved the system boxes in between the printer, and I can move the USB cable easily from one system to the other. Now I have no remaining reasons to use Windows, other than to remember what it's like and/or help other people with Linux/Windows interoperability issues. Total success using Linux every day.

I sometimes use FreeBSD 4.7, too, but I use almost identical system utilities and desktop apps on both, so there is little to choose between them, both are very good.

Finally, I just want to say that I am not antagonist toward either the Windows operating system or to people who prefer to use it, but personally, I have long preferred environments that have a flexible look and feel to them over ones that are simple to use but tend to make all the choices for me. I like freedom of choice, I've been a UNIX professional for years, and now Linux fits me well on the desktop.

I happen to be using Mandrake at the moment, but I'm about ready to reboot into my Lycoris Desktop/LX environment and do some desktop computing for a few hours.

I have found that a Windows install is usually good for about a year, at best, and then the workstation bogs, locks and crashes I can't tell you how many times I have backed-up a slew of files and re-formatted.....

Among others already discussed, this is one of the main reasons I am in the middle of a LLC (linux learning curve)!

linux is only missing some kick-ass apps, and it will get 50%+ market share

I've just started using linux because I want to ditch windows.

The reason (and this all opinion - but that's what you asked for right?)

Firstly, Microsoft are evil :-) Plain and simple.

If you want to find out why they are evil do your own search. Or visit ...
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/undergradu.../evidence.html

or

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml


The list of stuff goes on.


They are designed for getting the money out of your pocket and into their bank account (like all businesses - though most aren't so underhanded or powerful) in contrast to the community efforts that linux provides.

It makes linux more trustable that people can actually see the code that makes up the various elements.

This, you may or may not agree with (though it's true.. true I tell you ) :-)

Secondly - buggy software, unsecure software.

True, few systems are 100% stable, so maybe this is a point of contention, but it is my opinion. Again, don't take my word for it, do some research for yourself.

Thirdly - linux is available for many different platforms, making cross platform development a hell of a lot easier. Can you imagine how much work it is to make a version of a program (say for e.g. Photoshop ) for the PC and then have to rewrite it for the MAC and any other platform you want it available on??

A lot of work I shall tell you. The decrease in development time, resource consumption and therefore cost, should mean that the price for any commertially developed application should be reduced and that product would be available faster.

It also means that people can use the same operating system for a PC and embedded boards, handy for programming and testing embedded projects - again potentially decreasing development time and costs.

I'm sure there are many people who have put information on the web about linux vs windows - that's just a search engine away.


One more thing - why do you say besides money?? Doesn't Money matter in your world :-) It certainly does in mine :-)

Regards,

Neuronet

What is needs is some simplified idiot proof distro's and the lates crop of games porting to it properly by the manufacturers, THEN is will take 50% + market share

I like Linux for my servers and Windows for my desktop. I am not a big fan of X, though there are some features (or programs) that I do really like, like virtual desktops and *sometimes* I like auto focusing on windows while not having it overlap them all (it would be really cool if I could assign one of these silly extra internet keys on my keyboard to change modes on window behavior - it's probably possible, but I'm not sure I could do it without 10+ hours of work, better yet, hook it up to my brain). I run cygwin on my Windows XP machine and export some X programs to it, but I generally try to keep as little X on my Linux machines as possible. I like responsiveness of Windows and I find it's easier to read what's on the screen for one reason or another.

Another thing I like about windows is that generally when you have a problem, your first attempt to resolve it is similar through most applications - you right click and hit properties. I think Linux could do with a bit of conformity like that, though this is not a panacea - sometimes going to the properties isn't going to fix your problem or option, and a lot of times the option to do what you want isn't there, short of trying to program in the Windows API.

Try using Xine (http://xinehq.de/), it's great and will play just about any kind of video format apart from Quicktime. It also runs quickly and seems to be stable so far.

this is a personal questiona and I think all of the points of arugement have been made in this thread.

I have a very high end system and I been using windows all up to the point of about a week ago.

now that I have exprenced linux I probally wount come back to windows for other than the fact if I want to play warcraft 3.

I like the look fell and the over all preformace of Linux but I consider myself to have a large *not a guru but more than the average joe* knowege base about computers. To me linux offers so much t increase my knowege about computers in general.

but one person to his/her own. you never know one day the evil empire will cruble. :P

I abandoned Microsoft after Windows98SE because I decided that they would never fix the bugs and security holes.

I haven't used XP or 2000, but my youngest son has Windows 2000 pro and he says there is some improvement in stability but it still crashes frequently.

I am trying to help a friend keep his up and running (he refused to take my advice to start out with Linux rather than Windows) for him.

I could possibly get my work done in Windows, but I have trouble finding out information on how to get things going smoothly. OTOH, Linux info is easy to find.

I dislike being forced to use one GUI, one shell and the general all around awkwardness of using Windows. Their favorite thing is to keep forcing you to click OK when there are no choices to choose from.

In Linux, you don't waste lots of time by having to re-boot the entire machine to change one setting or to add software. That is just plain bad design IMHO.

If you enjoy spending lots of money for the OS plus lots of money for more software to cure some of Windows ills and work at least 1.5 times as much more to accomplish the same task because of it's inefficient and poor design, then go Windows.

As for me and my house, Linux runs until I have to help a friend find the clicks for something in Windows. I usually have to stop a compile. I have been trying for 3 weeks to get kde compiled but keep having to go to windows to tell some one how to get rid of a virus or trojan.

My friends's Windows 2000 pro started a dos attack on some computer in Tennessee. I think he is starting to see the badness of his decision since he has lost almost 2 days of work getting it clean and firewalled properly.

I am just amazed that Microsoft is still in buisiness, but I think I can hear it's death rattle beginning now.

Linux multitasks well, Windows struggles with it.

You use the world's most insecure OS for banking?

The first time I do e-commerce anywhere on the web, I check netcraft to make sure they run OpenBSD or Linux or some other secure OS. If I see Windows listed, no sale.

My card number is valuable and I can't afford to let Microsoft let anyone access it and take the little moolah I have.

Really?

Are you aware of Microsoft's Really Hidden Files?

If you consider that true, then Linux will have to be tossed and an open source clone of Windows <shudder> developed.

Windows philosophy: One application to do everything is all you need
Linux philosophy: Small tools that do one job well.

That is the reason for the dependency troubles. Linux sees no reason to re-invent tools that do the job correctly without fail each time.

See Linux and the tools philosophy