10 Reasons Why Linux will never One UP on Windows
 

Here's something for everyone to knaw on..I think #10 is absolutely true..it happens everyday in this forum.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=556

Is there a question in there somewhere? It looks more like a troll.

Click...

Is there anything actually new on that list that has not been said repeatedly in the last five(?) years? A lot of it is just FUD and some of it is just funny.

To me that list looks like it's made up by a guy (gal?) loving his (her) Windows to the roots. Or I might be wrong, but those "reasons" just don't hold, not in this part of the globe anyway. For every "reason", or "claim", I can think of more than one "counter claim" that can be equally well argumented---so this sounds like marketing, and I wouldn't wonder if the author was getting paid for it..

+1 I mean Linux is not Windows and never been. It doesn't have to do what Windows does, I don't even see how one can compare Windows to Linux. To me it's like comparing Linux to a tree..

well, it might be old, but for those who don't know it yet:

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/

Don't get confused by the name of this blog. There are good and _very_ true articles there about the shortcomings and problems of linux (from the perspective of a desktop user !). Just ignore the troll articles like "Evolution of an ubuntu user" and so on ...
Good reads imho :
I hate linux graphics
At least we don't have any viruses

my personal favourite :p :
One bug report to rule them all

This reminds me of those very old DOS vs Macintosh and Windows vs Macintosh compare lists and "10 reason" lists. Taking the DOS vs Macintosh example: 8 char filenames vs 31 char filenames, no desktop vs GUI desktop, etc. The common man of those days rather used DOS. I recall a manager stating those days that GUI desktops are for idiots, no sane man would want it - I really hope he still uses DOS, that would be the adequate punishment.

I have to admit that the Macintosh lost against the MS operating systems in terms of sales and quantity, but even so the Macs gave a better experience then that other OS. The main point is: do you want to be a common man (whatever that means), or rather be yourself and making your own choices?

I don't really care if Linux dominates the world or not - the current Linux community is a world on it's own and I appreciate it as it is. Dominating the world is a traditional Microsoft concept, an approach that is also reflected is such "10 reason" lists. The whole list only makes sense to those who think that Linux should become or replace Microsoft. I'm not one of those - I actually want to have Microsoft around: it allows me to compare Linux with something else and be happy with my choice.

Arch Linux

Those are all great replies..make sure ya'll also post those on techrepublics forum for the guy who came up with the list..and no its not trolling, I spent many a night learning Linux and was actually begining to get where I could use the comand line only. This website helped me most of the time, just wanted to post something that is being circulated around that is not in this Linux bubble. Take care..

It's funny you should mention Mac, because today that system is entirely Unix. Underneath the covers it's every bit as "complicated" as Linux. But what makes it (or anything...) successful is: how easy is it for the common-person to use, and what can they do with the thing without having to ask anybody any questions? In a word, practical usability. "They don't care that it's Unix."

And really, I think, "they don't care that it's Microsoft Windows, either." Either they have to use it, or they like it, or they just don't care ... what matters is how well it does or doesn't do what they want.

Sundialsvs hit the nail on the head
 

Absolutely. I think that was the whole point of the 10 reasons list..for the common joe out there, it could be called POC Operating System (Pile Of Crap)if they only have to click a few buttons to get their work done then that's the one they will use. The common joe does not care what happens under the Desktop Screen...I like Linux, I really do, but until developers, power users, programmers, etc change their mind-set to use the KISS theory Linux will never catch on with the masses..my opinion and those that I have read..

I'm missing something here. The Linux and OpenSource community is crawling with people trying to make applications and OSes easy to use. Just look at the user interface on typical Netbooks--including the OLPC whatever-it's-called.

Another poorly-publicized example is that the typical modern Linux distro is--on average--faster and easier to setup than is Windows. (The only reason this might not seem true is that many Linux newcomers can setup Windows system in their sleep.)

As someone has already observed, many of us do not care if Linux "takes over" or even gets to 10% market share. Personally, I would settle for just having a level playing field.

Remember that the article you linked was almost certainly paid for by Microsoft---directly or indirectly.

I think the whole idea that windows is easier is really a farce. Atleast with my ubuntu install, it took me all of maybe 5 minutes of fiddling with the installer (granted, this is with a completely fresh, non dual boot system, that i wasnt really worried about partitions on so i let it do it automatically*) and then i let the installer run, and maybe an hour later if that, i was booting into ubuntu. the ONLY snag i hit, was with my broadcom wireless nic. Found the warning about proprietary drivers and enabled it, and boom, i was online, and fine.

Honestly, i think the biggest hurdle to getting linux to the common user, is software, especially when it comes to gaming. In this regard, i think open source maybe hurting more than it helps. I understand that there are a few native games that are excellent, but there are just as many that are, at best, based on older windows games. Now, in some cases, these linux games maybe just as old as the windows games they resemble, but in some cases they arent, i'm sure.

*a note to people that are going to tell me that i should have a separate partition for /home. I realize now that it is the recomendation that people make. But also realize, that there are a LOT of windows that do this exact same thing, in fact, my parents relatively new dell is like that. it has one partition for data, and one for the restore partition. Maybe thats something i'll research today....