The REAL Reason We Use Linux 682
Vlad Dolezal writes "We tell people we use Linux because it's secure. Or because it's free, because it's customizable, because it has excellent community support... But all of that is just marketing BS. We tell that to non-Linux users because they wouldn't understand the REAL reason." The answer to his question probably won't surprise you.
It would be good... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really makes sense. Don't get me wrong, having the freedom to tinker with the kernel is nice. Having the ability to see the source code to ensure safety is great. But the majority of users don't actually use Linux (or any computer OS) for those purposes... they aren't a means to an end.
I personally use Linux third to Mac OS X (at home), which is second to Windows (at work). I like understanding the different systems, because that's how I can keep up with the extreme pace of the software development industry. But I almost never use Windows at home, and here's why: competition.
I want Microsoft to feel the pressure of competition. They have been feeling it for the past couple of years. And what do you know, it works! Firefox has caused the IE team to push towards open standards compliance. Love or hate OOXML, it's easier to work with than older formats (due to pressure from OOo and iWork). And there are many reasons to hate Vista, but it is more secure than older versions of Windows, it has much more advanced compositing, and a host of new things that are good for the future, even if they hurt now.
So, I care more about the future of the computing world... the future of my career, a future of openness by major corporations that enables someone little like me to start and run a business. And I'm doing my part to make sure that happens.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Linux because:
It's powerful, stable, simple, configurable, inexpensive, open, accessible... in short, everything that Windows is not.
The ONLY reason I still use windows at all is because the workplace wont let me use Linux on my desktop and I run some windows only games at home.
Down with proprietary lock-in mechanisms!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux definitely has its disadvantages, including lack of software and hardware support. But the migration of functio
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Installation (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to install XP (or -- gahhh -- Vista) on a bare machine, just to compare it against Fedora?
Re:Installation (Score:4, Insightful)
And, it seems to me, your issues weren't with the install per se, but with codec installation. Agreed, that can be a bitch, depending on your distro, as you found out.
Me, I blame the idiots who patented math and those who allowed them to do so.
Re:Installation (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that you rant on about graphics drivers and MP3 suggests one thing.... Never mind.
All the "major" distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc) ship with the X.org drivers for Nvidia and ATI. They are accelerated and work for the majority of users. AFIK both drivers will do dual head and TV out now as well. There's little need for the binary drivers unless you want uber 3D support (and really, at the moment Linux apps don't generally make great use of 3D).
The lack of MP3 is easily fixed in Ubuntu and Fedora. The wiki page for both explains the reasons for not shipping it (so they don't get sued out of existence). They also give the solution (open the GUI tool, add this thing, check that box install mp3 software and binary video drivers if you want them).
It's not a perfect solution, but what do you expect from something you can obtain for free? You're not going to pay the Ubuntu or Fedora projects so why should they pay licensing fees for the few things that you would expect to have in your distro but can't unless someone pays greedy patent holders? They're not stopping you from having them, but they are advising people to consider alternate formats in the interest of sending a message to greedy patent holders.
Windows is certainly far from perfect too. I can't install it on a machine then connect that machine to the Internet to get updates and download the requisite software because within a few minutes the POS operating system has been pwne3d by some worm/botnet/1337 h4x0rz. Oh did I mention that out of the box it's pretty much useless without thousands of dollars of other people's software? IF you are going to use all free software (FF, Thunderbird, OO.o, etc) then why not just use Linux because that's where it's all meant to run anyway.
Re:Installation (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reasonable explanation to this logic is that they already had their conclusion (that Linux is inferior to Windows), and their "reasons" are merely to give an impression that they weren't biased.
Re:Installation (Score:5, Informative)
That's ridiculous. Sure you might have to spend 15 minutes setting up mp3 support or nvidia drivers the first time you install a system, but once you do it works and it works well. There are many basic desktop features that windows just doesn't support at all. Off the top of my head, virtual desktops, window shading, focus following mouse, keep on top, package management. Shit, you can't even have 2 users logged on at the same time if you're on a domain. These are basic features that I rely on every day that just don't work on windows.
Sure there are kludgy work arounds for windows: MSVDM crashes my software. VirtuaWin is incompatible with X-mouse, X-mouse doesn't work with photoshop. I use windows every day at work, and linux every home, and the linux desktop far outclasses windows in every way that matters. At least linux has an excuse, there are legal issues that prevent implementation of a few features. Windows has no excuse at all.
Re:Installation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows isn't perfect, but it's so far ahead of linux on the normal every day desktop experience it just isn't funny.
Exactly opposite my experience, over and over again. Installation? I would take a linux install any day with MOST of the current Distro's. Just this past week I did this for someone else and even the end user was very excited with how easy it was to use. I was on the same machine, set up to dual boot, and the Windows side took A LOT more work. Anyway we have heard all this before. So lets get back to your point, it may ,of
course depend on the Desktop environment you use, but I would have to
say Windows is
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you there. I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side, but it is a myth that Windows is somehow inherently easier to use!
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never had a game bitch about having to download the latest point-release of DirectX? or the installer requiring some .dll file included in a runtime installer from Microsoft themselves that just-doesn't-work? or being prompted to download some shitty library, only to find out after half an hour in Google that you need to edit some .dll file hidden in an obscure directory with a hex editor instead? 'cause I've had all those happen within the last two weeks, and I'm not even a big gamer.
Every game I've installed in recent memory installed the required version of DirectX with itself (after asking). No one should ever have to go out and download DX to run a game, that's just laziness on the part of the game developer, since DirectX is redistributable. I've never had any of the situations you described happen to me, ever.
And let us not speak of the troubles you have to go through just to get the fucking game you just bought from nagging you about needing the CD on the fucking drive everytime you try to play it... something that, if I might add, hasn't happened to me yet on Linux, even when the Windows versions of the games *are* of the nagging type.
This has absolutely jack shit to do with the OS, and has everything to do with the game. There are, believe it or not, games on Windows which run without a CD check. Hell,
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stable: Are you kidding me? You have to be kidding. Either you really don't know how to work with Linux and you have made some fundamental mistakes that cause crashes frequently (though I can't for the life of me think of any that would be that bad), or you really don't throw much at your windows installations (or maybe you are just plain lucky with your peripheral purchases and the software that you use). BSODs are less frequent than they used to be. They are WAY more frequent in my experience than crashes in any *nix environment.
Simple: Personally, I'd never call any OS simple. Linux is less complex to install than any other OS, but that's about it.
Inexpensive: you don't get less expensive than free. If you consider the total cost of ownership, Linux wins any reasonable analysis. Linux means training. Windows means paying not just for the OS repeatedly and going through forced upgrades with great frequency (upgrades = rollouts = licensing + project planning and execution cost), but also paying for a great many things that are free in a linux environment. When 80% of your end user base uses Word as a typewriter, E-mail, and Calendaring as their only computer tasks, it makes you wonder why you spend upwards of $700 on software alone per end user when you could have it all for free. Besides, show me an environment where end users don't need training on how to use their PC's and I'll show you an environment where end users are not properly trained.
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux kernel is stable. However, from the user's poing of view, X crashing is the same as if the whole machine had gone. It takes all their applications with it because the default is to quit when connection to X is lost, and can happen quite often especially in a heavily stressed machine.
X and the graphical system in general is clearly the weakest point of modern-day Linux. It is an userland program, yet it has the same stability requirement than a kernel, and fails to live up to them. This is on top of various annoyances, like being apparently unable to switch the bit depth of the screen at runtime (affects at least Wine) and having to play around with modelines in config files to set up display modes.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to get fixed, because it only affects the desktop users and not the Important Server Guys.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Informative)
Our house has been running Ubuntu since Breezy. My children (now aged 9, 12, and 15) found it very easy to adjust to; in fact, my then-13 year old was bragging to her classmates about how Linux rocked. She is a heavy OpenOffice user, being saddled with homework and all, but she also uses it for her music, photos, and other media apps.
My two younger children don't really use word processing yet - they spend their time on various interactive sites (Gaia, Club Penguin), and yet they are fully capable of customizing their environment. My 9 year old worked out how to create gradations and such in his background, and is teaching his older sister.
The kids also appreciate the fact (as do I) that if, for whatever reason, they need to be migrated to a different computer, all we have to do is copy their $HOME directory and recopy it onto their new disk. Presto, all their email, bookmarks, chat logs, documents, and custom settings are instantly there.
My oldest is amused because she can recharge her cell phone (Motorola Razr V3) by plugging into the USB port; likewise, all her friends' digital cameras are instantly found and their photos made available simply by plugging them in, and her MP3 device has similar instant functionality. Her windows friends all have to find (or buy) and install special software just for this.
Our experience, especially with our children, is that Ubuntu is easy for a child of relatively average intelligence to grasp and use. Plus, if they only have user accounts without root privileges, those who are curious (and please show me a child who is NOT curious) can customize their environment to their hearts content without screwing any settings up.
It's been about two years of solid win in this house.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Informative)
You're not re-learning DOS when you switch to linux.
Instead you're learning a true unix shell. Which gives you
access to a large library of insanely powerful, time-tested
commands that can be combined in an uncountable number of ways.
Those not only enable you to solve a large number of problems
(actually whole categories of problems) quicker and more reliable
than any GUI could but they further enable you to automate your
solutions for re-use.
What may seem "inconvenient" at first is your first
glimpse at the power of UNIX.
Don't discard it so quickly because it's only white text on
a black screen and "looks like DOS". It's not DOS.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to draw you over to linux or anything.
The whole hardware-support story is an old hat. It basically boils down to: If you want to use linux
then buy hardware that's supported by linux. Which, for the majority of peripherals, is not hard anymore.
Google for "$name_of_my_gadget linux" in advance and in 90% of cases you'll learn that it runs without
problems.
Furthermore it's also an old hat that the driver-situation in windows is not flawless either.
Yes, you get a pretty GUI, but if the pretty installer fails then you're SOL.
Even if you wanted to tinker - there is no ndiswrapper to try, no kernel options to tweak
and usually no alternative source for drivers either. If your old $whatever is not supported
in vista - tough luck. Not even an uber-user can help you there.
So, finally, to each it's own. You prefer the GUI, so stick with what you like.
But don't label yourself as the prototype of an "end-user". I know quite a few "end-users",
especially of the technically clueless type, who have quite happily switched to linux
recently. If really all you want to do is browse the web and do a bit of office work (without
touching a command line) then an ubuntu box can serve you well and in fact *save* you quite
a bit of trouble with regard to "tweaking the personal firewall", re-installing after trojan infections,
re-installing after a windows update screwed up your drivers or re-installing after your office
began to behave wierd for no obvious reason.
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I have a folder with all types of files in it, say 1000 or so, which is common for me. I only want to move the *.gif and/or *.jpg files to another place. In the CLI, it takes 2 seconds. With a GUI, it is a nightmare.
2. I want to compare two file versions. Diff vs. what?
3. My internet connection appears to not work. I hop in a shell and ping www.yahoo.com. If that doesn't work, I ping a known good IP address. That works? Then DNS is the problem. Now, do that in a GUI.
4. I want to download a file fast to ANOTHER computer (usually to the server so everyone can access it). I find the file in Explorer using the GUI, then I SSH into the server, use WGET to download the file automatically to the right shared place on my Linux server. You can do that with a GUI, but it takes longer.
5. I see a domain name and want to know who owns it. I can either use Explorer, click to a few pages, to find out in 1-2 minutes, or switch to my SSH shell and do a simple "whois somedomain.com" and know in about 3 seconds.
6. Traceroute, dig, nslookup, and even nmap functions are very difficult or too time consuming to do in a GUI when compared to a CLI.
7. I need to take a comma delimited database, change the order of the fields, delete a few fields, and assign a unique ID number to each record. I can't even tell you how to do it in a GUI, but I can write about 20 lines of Perl in two minutes, and convert a 100 mb database over in one more minute.
I could go on an on. Although I use a GUI 80%-90% of my computing time, the other 10%+ in a command line are either impossible to do in a GUI, or insanely time consuming. There really ARE reasons to use a CLI for those of us that do more than run ONE program all day in a GUI. If you spend all day doing a singular task, then maybe no. The rest of us that fill a dozen shoes every day (particularly IT work) find it much, much easier to use the CLI.
It isn't like learning a few easy commands is going to hurt you.
The only thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine Linux with all the tools which say "you should never have to use the command line." Such a distro would be pretty bad for most of us who currently use Linux because a command-line is fundamentally superior to a GUI for a lot of tasks we use it for. I always have at least three terminal windows open in addition to any GUI apps.
Similarly, I find that OS X (which is almost but not entirely unlike BSD) has a number of shortcomigns that make Linux and BSD better choices for me. My sister uses OSX however because it matches what she needs.
Re:The only thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
GUI's take inputs from point/click interfaces generally. This means a mouse click which carries a lot less information than the number of key presses which can be typed in the same period of time. Hence for your time, when you need to convey complex information *to* the computer, a CLI will always beat a GUI.
Of course for other tasks (where the information passed to the computer is small, but the information delivered by the computer is rich) a GUI is far better.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you're running a webserver (apache) which connects to a postgre database. Do you check all the code in apache+mods? filesystems? DNS? NIS? FibreChannel drivers?
How is trusting Redhat/Debian/Suse to make sure their distribution is safe any different from trusting AIX or HPUX? I don't want to have to be the one at my company that audit's 1m lines of linux code to 'make sure it's safe' we just trust our distribution.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of being loaded with nagware, crippleware, and crapware that needs removed, it comes loaded with fully functional applications. It doesn't require paid upgrades to burn ISO's, use AV, create music CD's, use an office suite, etc.
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Interesting)
For the longest time I wouldn't leave Windows because of the Japanese language support. As I was (and always am) learning Japanese, I find it useful to have a good Japanese language user interface. And while there has been Japanese language support under Linux for a while, it didn't really start getting good until maybe 3 or so years ago. It was then that I went ahead to make the switch.
For the most part, using free software, I have little trouble doing the things I want or like to do, and rather like Mac users, if "it" is not available to me, I don't think about "it" too much and it's not much of a problem for me.
And since I actually start computing with TRS-80, Commodore and Apple II, I have never been afraid to learn something new or to even think in a different way. I've used everything from audio tape on up for program and data storage. I've used rare operating systems such as OS-9 along with others such as Orwell (which was a very long time ago and was used with Commodore CBMs) and a huge variety of things. Knowing the generalities of what goes on underneath the GUI gives me a more global understanding and comfort with just about anything. So choosing Linux over other things has more to do with trust than fun or just about anything else.
I don't trust Apple or Microsoft. I just don't. What I trust is software that I can compile myself and read the source code... not that I do -- I don't! I usually just install the binary packages and move on. But the fact is that in most cases I can and I know that others have and do frequently.
I left Microsoft because Linux was short on something I wanted to be able to do because it was important to me. If for some reason Japanese language support were to disappear (obviously hypothetical) I would probably move over to Mac or Microsoft but I wouldn't like it. Basic functionality does come first and foremost, but when I can get those basics covered in all of the choices I have available, then I choose based on other criteria... in this case, trust.
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
They include and exclude usability for the purpose of supporting the business models and interests they want to support, not those of the user or consumer. DRM is not there to serve the interests of the consumer. A wide variety of inclusions and exclusions of technologies are set that way for reasons other than for the use or benefit of the user. Not only do I dislike what they have done, but I distrust their motives. Other industries have done this; some successful, others not. The automotive industry had attempted to lock in maintenance of automobiles by restricting diagnostic codes, for example. This didn't work out so well in court. Big Content has had some failures and successes in influencing various Big Media providers to do their bidding. The creation of DRM was a big win for them where Microsoft and Apple complied. You may recall discussions about the FCC and the "Broadcast Flag." The intent was to prevent the recording of digital broadcasts through required implementation of the protocols surrounding the implementation of the broadcast flag. I forget where the discussion left off or if the issue is currently on hold, forgotten or if it's simply dead. (I doubt it's dead though... I expect it to return just as the end of 2009 approaches.)
All of this stuff is very anti-consumer and I prefer to remain free and unencumbered. I cannot trust Microsoft or Apple with my freedoms. Can you?
This isn't paranoia, or unfounded fear or mistrust. It is very well founded through numerous examples of user and consumer betrayal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The very idea that someone should make money on the mere playback of recorded material is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Should artists be paid for their work? Yes. ONCE. Should artists be paid for performance? Yes. ONCE. Just like you get paid for the work you do. You get paid ONCE. You don't generally get paid for life after showing up for work one day. Yet that's what this business model is all about! These ass-clowns want you to believe that the act of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS have put a whole layer of software that does NOTHING for the user at all. Absolutely nothing.
It is prone to error, and causes more resource usage.
There have been times that my legally bought DVDs have failed to play on my windows box, simply because the DRM in the video driver threw a fit. Had to reinstall windows to make it go away.
Now, I can afford to pay for content, and I do pay for content. Quite a bit of content actually.
But when you get treated like
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I have a bad back and I can definitively sa
Why was this modded troll? (Score:3, Funny)
In short, wtf?
For the record, I've also started running Linux as my primary desktop OS. I have a Linux desktop, Linux server, and Mac laptop that also runs Vista. I get all my work done just fine.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
My experience with windows is that it constantly needs attention, and I don't want to waste my time on that. The only reason Windows would be lower maintenance is Windows-only 3rd party applications, and for a software firm I don't need those. Any time someone thinks they need
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft does use stooges to spread their marketing online, but I doubt they'd bother to do it on Slashdot (it's a lost cause), and even if they did, so what? You have no evidence, so stop throwing around accusations because someone has a difference of opinion.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that I use Linux more or less exclusively makes people a lot less likely to ask for support on MS/MacOS related problems. Maybe that makes me asocial, but so what? Before I gave up on MS, my time did not belong to me, whereas now it does. If the phone calls in the middle of the night, it won't be one of my brothers having trouble installing a new sound card anymore. It'll be something that does actually matter in the middle of the night!
So I use other software that does the stuff I need, and my OS is also my hobby, and I'm not in the unpaid computer support business anymore - what's irrational about that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You also speak of using your OS as a hobby, which again, does not contradict my point about using Linux professionally. I think this article is pretty much spot on and most who are disagree may be in denial. I'm not willing to listen to anyone who says Microsoft's software and actions are judged objectively and by the same standard as their
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate Microsoft. I openly admit it. I have earned the right to hate them, having put up with their crap products, misleading advertising, outright lies, etc. In other words, I'm a formerMS-DOS and Win3x / Win9x user.
I use only linux and bsd professionally, 5 days aw week. Nothing from Microsoft. At home, its the same story.
My sister has an iMac. After a decade of futzing around with Microsoft's failures, she hates Microsoft as well.
As to why I use linux, it's not "because it's fun":
Since switching, I've saved tens of thousands of dollars on software, I also don't have to be as aggressive in updating hardware, for additional savings.
So yes, I hate Microsoft, and I despise Windows, and my use of linux has nothing to do with any "fun" factor. Continuing to use Windows just doesn't make sense, and the only thing keeping many users on it is inertia. Force them to switch to something else, show them the pretty icons, and they get used to it in a day. Then it grows on them. Sort of like dual monitors - so many people resist the idea, but force it on them, then try to take the second screen back a week later ... they'll do an Achmed the Dead Terrorist [youtube.com] on you - "Silence - I KILL YOU!".
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
A service provider who consistently provides poor service, overcharges, commits fraud, and lies about competitors is not intrinsically neutral.
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Interesting)
Realistically, I don't see a difficulty difference between the registry editor and the bash command line. Both require you to have some idea of where things are or what they are called before you can start (try using a command line if you don't know what cat is). Both often require searches before you work out how to do something you need to do, both can leave you confused as to why the key/command exists in the way it does and both often don't have a standard 'form' in placement or use.
I may have been lucky in my switch to Linux. Things worked, or worked well enough that I could always work out or find a way, to solve any problem I've run into so far. However, I will disagree completely with your comment on progress. I recently installed Kubuntu on my desktop computer, while I didn't agree with having to boot to a live environment to install*. It took me far less time to install and less steps overall to get everything working, even if you discount that it comes with Open Office. Kubuntu downloaded by graphics card driver and asked me whether I wanted to use that one or the free one. You don't get that service with Windows. I will point out that I have tried some Linux distros on this computer that just couldn't work out my config correctly (the same Debian installer either worked or had difficulty automatically detecting, depending on whether it was a basic or advanced install). For me, I love messing with my computer to try new things, but for now, I need a computer that just works. I am at uni while working and if my computer goes down, I can fall behind in schedule quite quickly. For that reason, I chose Kubuntu, lost some ability to mess with the computer (I can get that back though when I chose, for now though) and have a computer that hasn't given me a problem I didn't cause myself when I just couldn't help myself messing with things.
* if there is a way to install without booting to the live environment, it didn't jump out at me when I put the CD in.
Re:It would be good... (Score:5, Funny)
Lucky you. I get phone calls late at night from my little brother to get help with troubleshooting ALSA and codecs and obscure SiS driver problems with different linux distros. Cheap brat should just buy a decent used machine for a change instead of dumpster diving for hardware. I sometimes regret turning him on to OSS.
And I still get calls from windows users, because I "know computers."
Re:It would be good... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, why would anyone say that Linux is not able or unstable? It is because they have a beef with it. They don't like having to learn something new. They are set in their way (can't teach old dogs new tricks). They are a zealot for what they are used to (keep in mind I'm not disrespecting zealots--there are those that love a certain kind of car, or a brand of TV, or a favorite dish, etc.) It is those that actively seek to harm the others that make for a bad zealot. No, I'm not talking about those that are zealots that trying to bring an honest choice out and to balance the choices by giving others a choice. I'm talking about the irrational attack on an OS just because it is different.
Linux is ready for the desktop. The Linux market share is much greater than you can imagine. When the world is using 90% Windows and the rest is divided up by the other OSes, even small percentages in growth lead to millions of users. So, I really wish people would stop reacting like Linux has no users. It is estimated that world wide, across all distributions there are approximately 50 million Linux users. This is no small number. So, stop trying to belittle it. There was a time when DOS didn't have 50 million users and there was a time when Windows didn't even come close to the number of users that Linux has.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't wish to be drawn into a discussion about Linux vs. Windows and maybe I was unwise to have ever m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the truth to this story is ---- "But all of that is just marketing BS"
it's a one page, - THIS I BELIEVE page. Other then throw a sudden 30,000 hits on the author's site it will accomplish nothing. it's not anything I can tell a non-linux user that would draw any more of a response then when you tell your dog a joke..
They stripped out the article because its worthless.
The answer won't surprise anyone! (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is in all it's glory:
Re:The answer won't surprise anyone! (Score:5, Funny)
The REAL reason we use Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL reason we use Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL reason we use Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The REAL reason we use Linux (Score:4, Informative)
We use it because... (Score:5, Insightful)
David
And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at the drivers for UniChrome graphics cards. The installation process requires you to recompile both X and the kernel. I'm sorry but I bet if decent tools were provided for writing linu
Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:4, Insightful)
No but it is an excuse that gets us nowhere.
No, but Linux itself shares a lot of blame (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All I ever hear from Windows users is how they got a virus and had to reinstall, or how it crashed and they had to reinstall, or how an update broke some critical piece of software and they had to reinstall, or how they got a new bit of hardware and couldn't find drivers that worked
Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why it irks me to no end, when I log in as administrator on a Windows-box and tell it to please terminate a given process, and it does not. Not until you've told it to do that three times and waited for minutes anyway.
Or I tell it to delete a file, and it tells me I "can't" do that, because the file is "open". I don't want to fiddle with that shit. I know what I'm doing, I want the OS to get out of my way and just bloody do what I tell it to do. Which Windows won't.
And yes, I am -fully- aware of the WHY. The underlying reason is a weakness in the "file" metaphor used on Windows, but that's not much of an excuse. (on unix a "file" is a chunk of bytes with zero-or-more names. On Windows a "file" is a chunk of bytes with -precisely- ONE name) (okay, that ignores character and block-devices and fifos, but don't be nitpicky here...)
I want to be able to install a update, yet NOT reboot anytime during the next 4 hours. Yes, I'm fully aware that program FOO may then fail to work properly until I finally do reboot, I STILL don't want to reboot now. And I'd much prefer if the OS could refrain from nagging every 15 minutes about that....
Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:5, Funny)
Whenever someone invents an idiot-proof system, someone invents a better idiot.
Re:And this is why Linux is still laughed at... (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't get much easier than that, unless you want the computer to read your mind.
I do not know about the rest of you l33t people (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I pay donations to those software projects that I use, but it's affordable, and upgrades are free of DRM, spyware, and other nasties that I don't want to have to pay for. For me and my family, Linux works just as good if not better than MS products. That is why we use Linux.
Fun? The Internet is fun no matter what OS is on the machine you are using. Paying to use a program seems rather ignorant at the prices MS charges. On Linux I never get a genuine advantage check BS window. Thats fun.
Re:I do not know about the rest of you l33t people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I do not know about the rest of you l33t people (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not hate MS's guts. I hate their business practices of embrace and extinguish, of lock-in, of forced upgrades, of slack security updates, of
It does what it needs to do (Score:5, Insightful)
I switched to Linux from UNIX (Irix at that time) and did so because that is the environment I need for my work. These days I use OS X for much the same reason. Whatever MS does to Windows, it is still a very closed system. If closed floats your boat, fine, but don't try and say that closed gets you a more reliable and cost effective system.
Actually, UNIX is fun I guess
He's right (Score:5, Interesting)
- Automatic logout when left alone for more than x minutes
- Colored prompt, allowing me to spot the output between previous and next command fast
- Aliases like 'printcode' that calls a2ps with all the right options
- Fancy PROMPT_COMMAND variable that sets the xterm title just right
- Limiting the history
- Ignoring things like 'ls -l' in the history
- Expanding the tab-completion possibilities
And lots of more options, the list gets too long alreadyBecause it works! (Score:5, Interesting)
I find Linux to be a congenial programming environment, where I can noodle together scripts and programs to get things done. It provides lots of sharp tools that make things easy.
It doesn't get in the way like certain other OSs I could mention. It doesn't squander system resources on non-essentials (ditto), and I can tune it to allocate resources where they are needed. Oh, and did I mention? It just plain works!
...laura
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Under Linux you can be reasonably sure that everything works as intended by t
Command line??? (Score:5, Funny)
You know you are a real programmer when you speak in UPPER CASE. http://www.sorehands.com/humor/real1.htm [sorehands.com]
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Funny)
In yo face!
'All powerful' root? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and I've also had Linux do the same thing. It didn't give an error, but no matter how many times I "kill -9"ed it the process never paid attention to the command and carried on churning away. I guess that's the process rather than the OS, but it's still not always "all-powerful root".
I think a more accurate list (from my view at least) is:
1. Linux gives you complete control
2. Linux is free (as-in-speech)
3. Software install is easy
4. It has less potential problems with web dev for a Linux server
5. No DRM! You own the hardware, you own the software, you own the data.
Oh, and the penguin is more cuddly than some flag or some annoying animated critter
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah right. I just put my baby in her crib with a big, cuddly paperclip. There's no noise coming out of the baby monitor, so I can only assume she's fast asleep.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason is typically because the process is a Zombie process that no longer 'truly' exists. To remove it from the process list you'll need to kill the parent process. (See http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum40/ [webmasterworld.com]
Why I use Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Because I can't exactly afford the latest and greatest in computer hardware just to run the latest version of Windows. I kinda got tired of looking at XP. It is a good OS and it suited my needs but after 7 years, it was time for an upgrade.Vista was totally out of the question and I have been tooling-around with various distros throughout the years.
I finally settled on Gentoo due to the fact that it can be as bloated or as light-weight as I wanted it to be. Also, I could run as little or as much **bling** as I wanted depending on the load on the CPU and GPU. Linux suits my needs as well as XP did and was quite a learning experience in the total switchover process.
It's the people, stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted I'm a FreeBSD guy [insert comment about why BSD is dying here] but I think the arguments are basically the same as for Linux. I agree with most of TFA, but I enjoy using FreeBSD and other Free software for another important reason: the people.
Despite the fact commercial products can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, their technical support services nearly always suck: they're slow, obscure, vague, answered by people who don't know what they're talking about or are reading off a sheet of paper that assumes everyone they reply to is an idiot, or at the very worst you don't get an answer at all. Just speaking from my own experience.
Now granted there are plenty of jackarses on forums for Free software and the like, but on the whole I can post a question and generally get a useful response and in a fraction of the time. Plus if it's for a particular piece of ported software, generally I can either contact the port maintainer or the creator of the software directly and get helpful answers. I've NEVER got that from commercial software vendors. That's what makes the difference.
package management (Score:4, Interesting)
It is ridiculous to me that even today, tools for Microsoft package management are completely archaic. Microsoft has MSI files, but still the difference in add/remove programs between windows 95 and vista is minimal. Imagine if they allowed users to import catalogues of software, and search for software within the add/remove programs interface (which most distros have been able to do in some sense for 10 years or so). Hell, they could even deal with licence subscriptions right in the interface. It would allow them to better integrate their software with third party vendors, while at the same time making sure effective QA is happening (they could threaten key revocation), and also protecting the users, making sure that all software that gets installed gets downloaded from reliable sources, and does not have the chance to get infected by malicious warez kiddies.
Why I use linux: (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite often that's linux. Sometimes that's windows. But regardless of the choice, the end result is hopefully the same: A system that just works without me needing to constantly hold it's hand.
Well there's a reason I can take to my boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Because it's fun!
Boss: Thanks for your input. You can go now.
Boss (to the secretary): Please get me HR on the line. I think we're over-paying some staff.
This is possibly the lamest story I've ever seen on slashdot. The article then lists THREE other reasons - plural with an 's' - (not one) why the author uses Linux. By 'we' I think he's referring to himself, his blow up sex doll and his imaginary friends.
Re:Well there's a reason I can take to my boss (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well there's a reason I can take to my boss (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is a bit presumptuous to say "We".. but I don't take offense to it.. "Many" would have been better.
There are many reasons to use Linux, and I think the point he was trying to make is that the "fun" aspect is often overlooked.
His opinion is probably more relevant to the home enthusiast, than the corporate IT guy trying to sell his boss..
And BTW you haven't been here very long if you think this is the lamest story ever.
Because it's fun indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, you'll never find George W. Bush's face for the "unsharp filter" icon (Cinelerra) in a closed source program. That would indicate that the programmers were having fun, and that obviously makes the program of lower quality.
Personally, I think that if the developers are having fun, and are in a positive frame of mind, they'll make better software.
Reason #2 (Score:5, Interesting)
I can relate to this. Linux not being widely used.
Some years ago, I was in engineering and involved in 'fixing' a system built by our IT department. They had sunk about $300 million into a system that was just barely functional. We (engineering and manufacturing) were supposed to supply them with appropriate requirements so IT could start over (yet again) building another piece of crap.
We convinced our management that we should hammer out requirements by building a functioning prototype. As our IT department maintained a stranglehold over all things Windows, we chose to build on Linux and a few surplus Sun desktops with Perl, Apache and a few COTS packages. Keeping the IT dept. and Windows out of the picture allowed us to get a working demo of the shop floor interface up and running within a few weeks and half a dozen people completed the 'prototype' in about 6 months.
When our system was up and running, it actually outperformed the one running on the Windows backend. When management saw it, they just gave the order to pull the plug on the legacy Windows system and place ours into production.
Part of my job after the project completion (about 10% of my time) was to administrate 6 hosts that made up the new system. When our IT department made a pitch to management to take over administration, they quoted an recurring maintenance cost for their proposal of $50,000 per host per month. Management fell off their chairs laughing and I suggested that they pay me 6 * $50,000 per month.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They were probably including maintanence contracts on hardware and software, multiple support personal, backup systems, space, helpdesk time, and lots of other things you weren't considering.
Is thier price correct? I doubt it. Having done IT in a previous life, part of their job when quoting something like that is to be all inclusive in costs. They may have their own requirements for offsite data and service duplic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Inevitably, I simplified things a bit. We did locate our servers in IT-managed data centers. Some of that price goes toward that cost. Compare it to the monthly fee for commercial server co-location and take that off their price.
Hardware support was also part of the price. But we were running desktop class hardware, for which pats were cheap. Labor was provided by me, as was off-site backup. The systems were set up to be redundant and divided between different facilities. Not that this did any good. The
I use Linux because... (Score:3, Interesting)
* My Belkin wireless adapters never worked properly with it and required several reinstalls to work as they should.
* The Aero Glass effects make a perfectly servicable computer with 1Gb of RAM and a reasonably fast processor stutter if I dare have more than half a dozen windows open at once (I know it's Aero doing it, because it chugs along just fine if I run the same apps in the same state with the thing turned off).
* Niggly little 'features' like the Windows Sidebar reactivating itself whenever it damn well pleases and the 'You have disabled startup programs, would you like to view them?' (No I fucking wouldn't, that's why I disabled the bloody things!).
On the other hand, Linux (well, Ubuntu - your mileage with different distros may vary), when installed, automatically configured my wireless adapter and all I had to do was put in my network password and I was away. I don't know if it's using ndiswrapper to do that, because I'm not a techy and it never told me, it just worked. I'd assume it isn't seeing as I was never prompted to locate a Windows driver, but I couldn't tell you for sure - all I know is that my wifi works.
I can also have my computer look easily as good as Aero Glass with the automatically-installed-and-configured Desktop Effects and a swift set of clicks around gnome-look.org - the only qualm I have is that the default window decorations take up a few pixels' more room than the 'Windows Classic' ones, but with the resolution I have, that's not really an issue. I also don't get any annoying pop-ups whenever I start my machine asking if I want to start the programs I asked it not to start (I asked you not to for a reason, ffs) or re-activating 'Ubuntu Sidebar' modules.
In short, maybe I'm strange, maybe I'm not the typical Linux user, but I don't use Linux because I love tinkering with the command line - I don't. I use Linux because it's fast, does what I want it to, is shiny without compromising performance and doesn't bug me about things I've no intention of looking at. A couple of years ago when I first checked it out it didn't do that, and kicked up all sorts of hassles about all sorts of hardware issues, etc, but it's really come on since then. I'm not the 'granny wanting to surf the internet for pictures of the grandkids', I'm a twentysomething screenwriter, but I'm not the
The answer is simple... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the overall "feel" of Linux reflects the fact that there is no vendor telling you what you can or can't do with it. It lets you be in control. There's nothing in the user experience that reflects corporate arrogance. It lets *me* be arrogant.
Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is a fecking black hole where all manner of shite can happen without me knowing. Until Microsoft gives the average user a complete view and complete control over processes, they're crap.
perverse economics of proprietary apps (Score:4, Informative)
I use Linux because proprietary apps suck to high heaven, and if you want to run OSS (desktop) apps, Linux is by far the best system.
There's a horribly perverse system of incentives pervading the economics of proprietary apps. A user buying a proprietary GUI app typically has no way of knowing whether it's slow and/or buggy until he's already bought it. Performance is hard to judge until you have it loaded on your own system, and bugginess is hard to judge because the vendor does their best to keep bugs secret, and generally succeeds very well. Because buyers can't make decisions based on performance and quality, they tend to buy based on features. So vendors have a huge economic incentive to bloat their feature list, and push slow, buggy products out the door.
Two experiences that helped to sour me completely on proprietary software:
I teach physics at a community college. Recently I started working on a project to clean up the horribly messed up software situation in our student computer labs. Perfect example of what a mistake it can be to hitch your wagon to proprietary software. We have all these proprietary Windows apps. Every app has a different licensing scheme, and some of them have no explicitly stated licensing scheme at all (e.g., CD-ROMs that came with textbooks). Nobody can find half the original disks and licenses. Some software was bought to run on DOS or Windows 95, and isn't compatible with Windows XP. Some software is abandonware. In one case, faculty are downloading a particular piece of DOS abandonware/shareware from an untrusted third-party site every time they need to teach a particular activity -- can't ask IT to permanently install it, because the vendor is gone, so random people are just posting the .EXE on their web sites, without so much as a checksum. The whole thing is a nightmare.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, the main reason why I and many of my friends, relatives, etc, all use linux, is that it is plain simpler to install than Windows. Sure, Windows comes with many (most) PCs, so that's great. Once the HDs bit the dust, or Windows slows down to a crawl, or the PC is infected with viruses, or [insert any reason] and you need to rebuild a PC, it is infinitely faster and less painful to install Ubuntu than Windows -- especially now that only Vista is mostly available, and many peripherals don't work with it.
Windows used to have the advantage, but no more. I installed Ubuntu for relatives, friends, including people whose knowledge of CS is zero and they hate the command line. It is plain simpler. Takes about 20 minutes, then all just works -- printers, internet, openoffice, firefox -- most people's needs, if you take out gamers and the like (and they are a small percentage of real users) are pretty basic, really.
It is actually amazing how much the balance between Linux and Windows changed in the last couple of years -- in part thanks to Ubuntu, and in part thanks to Vista.
Transparent. (Score:3, Informative)
My favorite explanation ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I heard this sometime after I'd been using unix systems for a few years, and it made a lot of sense. I could explain very simply why I preferred unix to all the other computer systems I'd ever used: On a unix systems, I usually won. When I told it to do something, it almost always did what I wanted it to do. Granted, there were occasional problems with running out of resources, and no OS can prevent that. But even then, it happened at a much later stage than on other systems, because unix tools were mostly small and sleek, and didn't hog resources.
Linux is just the current favorite in a long chain of unix-like system that let me win in both the programming and computer-user games.
I've used OSX a bunch, and in fact I'm typing this on a Mac Powerbook. I like to work on different computers occasionally, to keep up to date on what they do well or poorly. But I don't win nearly as often on OSX as I do on linux, for a lot of reasons. It's always doing something bizarre, and when I investigate, I usually find that the bizarreness was intentional in the design. And it's full of little time-wasting gotchas that aren't nearly as common in linux apps.
Of course, as with any system, you do have to learn its basic tools to get anything done. Most of the non-linux users I know use this as their excuse. They "know" Windows or Macs, and they aren't about to learn some other system. So they're stuck forever in a computer game that's designed to lower their score at every opportunity. When I watch over their shoulders, I have to keep my mouth shut about how painful it is to watch them laboriously fighting with their computer to do the simplest tasks. But I generally don't say anything unless they ask, because I don't want to insult them. And telling them how much easier it could be would be an insult, because I'd be telling them how much of their lives they've wasted on zillions of little time-wasting design snafus.
The only reason I'd even bother mentioning it here is to see the reaction of other linux (or solaris or whatever) users. How many of you have heard this video-game model applied to all computer use and programming? Does it really have the explanatory power that it seems to have, or do you really have some other basic motivation to use what you do?
Windows Server / Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
No crappy applications where you can't find the right button to turn off a frature, but simple text files with settings. Nice. I like it.
AND Linux it's fun to play with
Switch to something else? (Score:3)
Bull.
I use Linux because:Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More than one person here have shout "IDIOT" to me just because I use Windows
I'd be more inclined to believe that they call you an idiot for your appalling grammar and the fact that you call Mac OS X 'MAK OZX' and Linux 'Linuzz.' Probably more of the latter than the former, since it could be assumed that the former comes from not being a native speaker while the inability to spell a word that is written in the title bar of your browser while you type indicates a deliberate misspelling and firmly marks you as an idiot (hint: it's not clever when people say 'M$ Windoze' either).
Oh,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I could download these, but why bother?
You don't understand *NIX. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a million reasons why a single text file in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So basically you want the windows registry for LINUX!?!?
The Windows registry is not a database. It's an unstructured tree. There are no indices, no tables, no record structures, and no locking. You can't look up anything, other than by brute force.