The question of why Linux is not made ot be exactly like Windows should be considered in a way that encompasses the history of these two entities. I switched my machine over to linux after using windows because of how complicated it is. Technology is advancing exponentially. I believe that windows has made people completely unable to keep up with this progression. The linux/unix system is for those who want to progress with what is to come. Along with making tons of money for very few and creating monopolies, windows has caused the people who use it to rely on these companies for "up to date" technology and hardware maintenace. It's unfair for a population to be held back when there is a constantly developing community available that is "free"

.
.
Here's MY two cents:

1 cent) * most of us want to get away from drag and slop and plug and prey

2nd penny) * The one thing Billy-boy did right was market, and he did his homework well - M$ is aimed at the same IQ level as television: an 8th grade intelligence

Anyone over 13 knows that Linux is far superior to M$ but they litterally think they'll have to get a degree in Astro-Physics to use it....

It's a matter or marketting - the first thing billy-boy did was invest in a marketting ploy - all Linus did was dump it out on the Net...

BIG difference in presentation - something Linux is still trying to catch up to......

If someone took the time to invest in a Shell Silverstein type ad and put it on TV (something like: I can do that too - and I don't crash every day) it would go a l o n g way to stepping over the pile of M$ droppings......

PM

One problem with linux (distros like Lindows aside) is that most distros don't know whether they're coming or going. They try to be too many things and end up not being as good as they could be in any particular area. If the people at XYZ Linux decided they wanted their distro to be a 100% desktop distro then they could concentrate on one area, not need to shit it with gcc or any of that and spend all their time working on the GUI rather than kernel enhancements and stuff then yeah, then they'd have a kickass desktop distro that'd be functional and look good in that area without any configuration. You install Windows and you get a functional and reasonable looking system out of the box, you don't get that with all linux distros, they need a little mucking around to get it working properly.

man lol its funny when ppl get hyped over OS questions kinda sad to well any way i think linux is great BUT the support for it is horrid more companys need to invest in linux and kinda sorta move a little bit away from windows but if linux stays on the same track as it is now and moves towards simplicity you can say good by to microsoft the only thing thell have left is xbox beacause simplicity + average user = success seriosously usually somthing simple is the best way to do things take a look at cars for an example if you live in the US i bet you know more people who drive automatic the manual why beacause less hassel and much simpler


but thats if you want to make it for the general population

You have a point there... Fortunatelly for linux, it's free, so it doesn't matter that much if people don't buy it because it's too complicated... The people that like it will still use it. It's a matter of having an alternative...

I personally don't like windows anymore (starting from win95) because it simplified matters too much, and didn't let me 'look under the bonnet' as much as I wanted...
With linux I can do all the damage I want, and I know I learn something from this experience...

DJ P@ckman: You say that linux distros should be more specialised... In part you're right, but you must remember that linux (and unix for that matter) relies on having hundreds of small interconnected programs that do the job. So you can't just not install python or gcc, because (if you don't prevent it) a lot of other programs will break!
Besides, gcc is responsible for installing new apps (if you don't have a package system)... So I wouldn't throw it away!

I've found this thread really interesting, and I want to put out some comments on it.

Remember, Linux is the way. Don't make it more windows-alike. In fact, Windows will improve if they make it a little bit more unix-alike. And if you know a little bit about unix, you'll know that's what they (M$) have been doing in the last versions. Even in desktop functionality they have copied things. For instance

FAT/FAT32: no permissions/security
NTFS: fixed

Windows 2k and previous: No skinning of the graphical interface (and they are the "masters" of GUI ???)
WinXP: fixed

Windows 9x: Single-user environment
Windows NT/2K/XP: fixed

Win2k and previous: no tab completion in the command line
winxp: fixed

windows 2k and previous: single-pc could only have a single user logged in at a time
winxp: fixed (but when the computer is attached to a windows network domain server, this feature is unavailable. And guess what, that's because windows domains was designed assuming this wouldn't happen, and they were too lazy to modify windows domain networking)

And all these features were available first in unix/linux. Most of them from the very beginning.

When I first came to Linux, I was, as many people here, a full time Windows/IE user. I read about the / and c: thing, and I can tell, at first I was shocked. The idea of having each partition assigned a drive letter was so deep in my mind that linux way seemed so wrong. Now I can tell you how stupid feels this letter/drive stuff. Linux gives you abstraction. It doesn't matter where your files physically are. For instance, I have my /home folder contents in one partition I never format or delete. Then when I re-install linux (changing to another distro, for instance, or simply needing a clean install) I mantain my user files right away. Something simmilar can be achieved by mounting /usr remotely, thus having the same programs installed once in a NFS server for several PC's, or having /home remotely, mounted through NFS in every host, so that my files and profile is the same across any computer in a network environment. I know simmilar things can be achieved in windows, but if you look at how they work you'll see they're hacks over the previous horrible design, whilst *nix has it in its core, it was desing for this. So going c: just because people don't want to change for something better, it's not the way.

Linux is free (as in free speech, not free beer) which means you are not a hostage anymore of a huge corporation, that can do anything with windows and you have no other option than to do what they want.

It's also free as in beer, and in my case that's not a great advantage, because here in cuba where I live M$ stuff is free of charge, because US ignores Cuba and M$ has no legal way of preventing this. So I can tell you that even having any M$ products for free I have the choice and I prefer linux, like many other people here. And I can tell you I can have any M$ product in existence, free of charge.

People often say, "what do I care if it is open source. I am not a programmer and I am not going to hack into the source code or modify/recompile anything." Well, that's ok. In fact I am programmer and I still have no intentions yet of hacking/modifying/recompiling anything. But knowing is open source means that, even when crackers know how is done, they can't break it as often as they break windows. Imagine what would happen if M$ code leaks and crackers manage to see how it's done. Without knowing how it's coded they have managed to prove it's the most unsafe major OS in existence. And if you think this code leak is impossible, already part of the code was leaked a few months ago. M$ even initiated an investigation with the FBI.

I could go on forever here, with arguments on why *nix is better than windows, but it will be so long most of you wouldn't read it all. The bottom line is that the right way to go is to spread the word about *nix, giving this and so many other arguments of why the alternative is worth changing and learning, and forgetting the old way.

I am not an expert and I managed to give a few good arguments. Imagine what a real linux/unix expert could give you, with much better explanations.

Finally, english is not my native language, so I may not find the best words to express myself. I often know what to say pretty well, but don't know the best words to do it. Sorry. (and for the spelling too).

Wow, I think this is the longest post I have ever made.

For a Windows-like OS, try out "ReactOS". It's cool!

are you trying to say it isn't already? Saying that because something popular is the best is like saying mcdonalds is the best food

Itd exists. www.reactos.org