Why is Linux so great?

[Adrian]

Ive tried out linux since one of the first distros of red hat came out...horrible support, etc so I removed it. Every year or so I try again and there is still horrible hardware support.

 

Aside from that, software runs much slower on Linux than on an OSX or Windows machine.

 

My Vista machine outperforms the software that runs on Linux -- such as open office(which is sluggish), image/video editing software, development tools, etc.

 

Whats the deal with this? A lot of people boast Linux as the "uber-OS", yet it fails to perform. I know im not the only one that feels this way -- a lot of people feel this way as well and thats why its not time to migrate as of yet. Sure, a lot of people that use it are doing it for the "cool" factor and more and more people are jumping on the bandwagon.

 

I do not have sensative data on my computer, so the "more secure" argument can be thrown out the window...even so, I have never had a securiy breach on my windows machine.

 

Not trying to start a flame-war...and its not a "Windows sucks" or "Linux sucks" thread...just a discussion on why it lacks support and speed of commercial OS's.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I use Ubuntu, and I haven't had performance issues, but then I don't use OpenOffice often and my use of image editing is minimal. My computer's relatively old and not the greatest, so it's not really fair to compare anyway. My experience has, in fact, been the opposite of yours: it takes my Windows XP install (on the same computer) several minutes to even boot, while it takes Ubuntu less then one.

 

I see the following advantages of Linux:

• Package management. Instead of installing software from random places all over the Internet, you can get it all from one central package repository, and it all updates automatically (and without you having to restart). This means you get the latest versions of software without having to check fourteen different product websites to see if they've released a new version.
  
• Free software, and lots of it. Need a spectrum analyzer? There's one in the software repositories. Need a Morse code decoder? There's probably a few of them. Need the latest version of Perl? It's there too.
  
• No need for anti-virus and firewall software that ends up slowing down the computer and being a pain in the rear. I operate with none at all. The BBC once did a test where they connected a Windows XP computer (with no firewall) to the Internet and found that it was attacked within 15 minutes. Linux is secure enough that I don't have to worry.
  
• Software development is easier. All the tools are right here: I don't have to install PuTTy to SSH into SFN's server, gedit has built-in syntax highlighting, and any compiler or interpreter you want is easily installed.
  

 

Oh, and as for hardware support: it's getting far better. I installed Ubuntu on this laptop and only had to do minimal tweaking to get the graphics card working properly. (The card is so old that the vendor's official driver dropped support for it.) If you check over on ubuntuforums.com you'll probably find instructions to get your hardware working easily under Ubuntu. The main problem is that Linux isn't well-used enough for vendors to even bother making drivers for it, but Linux awareness is going up and that problem will gradually solve itself.

[ecoli]

Linux is also a lot more customizable. I don't need to worry about violating some strange microsoft TOS if I want to "hack" my own system.

[Mr Skeptic]

The biggest advantage of Linux is that it is Open Source. A lot comes from that, since anyone who wants can improve it. No one, not even Linus Torvalds, can force an unpopular "feature", or drop support for the older version. It can be customized to an extent limited only by the skills and amount of time one is willing to spend on it. If someone finds a bug, anyone can fix it. Etc etc. All this makes Linux the ultimate coder's computer.

 

Of course, Linux has lately become an operating system for anyone, and user friendly distros like Ubuntu will make this more so. Currently, the major limit on Linux is that many programs, notably games, won't run on it. Attention has been focused on this, and some games that were designed for Windows can actually be made to run better on Linux. However, doing this is more complicated than a simple install, and possibly illegal/violation of the end user license agreement.

 

In any case, I predict that the open source model will eventually win out against closed source models, though that might simply mean that Microsoft makes their software open sourced.

 

Also, another thing about Linux and Open Source in general is trust. I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft has the ability to spy on users (too good an opportunity to pass up), whereas with Open Source such a problem would inevitably be found.

[bascule]

Linux is a great server OS. I wouldn't recommend it on the desktop, but some people try anyway.

 

That said Vista is thoroughly horrible. If you think Linux feels sluggish in comparison it's likely because the graphics drivers Linux was using weren't hardware accelerated or something like that.

[omnimutant]

The biggest advantage of Linux is that it is Open Source.

It's also it's biggest downfall at the same time IMO.

 

I think Linux suffers from too much freedom. There are so many packages so many base OS systems so many features, it's hard to know whats going to work for you. If your a hard core tech head then Linux might be your cup of tea(not for me though). I think it's too much choice for the average user though.

 

One of the down sides to open source is security. It's also one of the things that people use to promote its value ironically. Problem is, if everyone knows everything about it, they probably all know how to get in too.

 

I do like the concept of linux, but unfortunately newer builds seem to be getting real bloated. Don't get me wrong I think Vista has it's own set of serious problems (like bloated features as well), but this topic is not about the pains of vista.

 

The one real problem I have with Linux is that many of the more popular applications are not original ideas, but rather stolen designs of current Retail software packages. I know that Many Huge software companies (especially Microsoft) has stolen tons of code/programs/apps and called them there own. But it still does not make it right.

 

It's the fact that it's a constant work in progress created by thousands of people submitting ideas, that it will never become a gold standard. Because of inconsistencies, and updates, it simply changes too fast for everyone to be "on the same page" in the business world. (Yes windows systems are falling into this trap too). It's because there is not ultimate control over the Linux world that I think it will never be able to properly organize in such a way to be a Huge success and over throw the Current Windows World. There is also a learning curve which ironically becomes larger the more comfortable you are with a different OS. One of the reasons I have a hard time with Linux is because I've know the Windows/Dos Enviornment for 15+ years.

 

If anyone is looking for a recommended OS I'd suggest find a copy of XP and stick with that for the next couple of years while Vista gets the Kinks worked out.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's also it's biggest downfall at the same time IMO.

 

That I can agree with.

 

I think Linux suffers from too much freedom. There are so many packages so many base OS systems so many features, it's hard to know whats going to work for you. If your a hard core tech head then Linux might be your cup of tea(not for me though). I think it's too much choice for the average user though.

 

Not really. That is what distros are for. They contain most of the software you need so these choices are made for you by default. However, you are free to use different software if you want. Whereas in Windows they try to force you to stick with the choices they made for you. Not too many people like internet explorer or windows media player, but they are hard/impossible for the average user to uninstall. There's still lots of choice, but in Windows they try to force you to use their choice.

 

Of course, there are lots of distros to choose from. I'd suggest Ubuntu, since it is one of or the most popular.

 

One of the down sides to open source is security. It's also one of the things that people use to promote its value ironically. Problem is, if everyone knows everything about it, they probably all know how to get in too.

 

Yes and no. If people know of a security breach, they will generally tell the people in charge about it (unless they are black hats). Then it can be fixed, by anyone. In closed source, people who find bugs and vulnerabilities cannot pinpoint their location, nor fix the problem themselves (they need the source code to do both). And if you're really paranoid, you could consider that Microsoft could have a backdoor to Windows, and you would never know about it. Whereas to do that with Open Source would be nearly impossible.

 

I do like the concept of linux, but unfortunately newer builds seem to be getting real bloated. Don't get me wrong I think Vista has it's own set of serious problems (like bloated features as well), but this topic is not about the pains of vista.

 

Then you can use the distros that don't have bloat. Maybe Damn Small Linux. I don't think they'll be making bloat-free versions of Vista.

 

The one real problem I have with Linux is that many of the more popular applications are not original ideas, but rather stolen designs of current Retail software packages. I know that Many Huge software companies (especially Microsoft) has stolen tons of code/programs/apps and called them there own. But it still does not make it right.

 

Yeah, people steal concepts and ideas from each other once in a while, both in programming and the real world. That's a good thing. Imagine if only the company that discovered it was allowed to make cars, cell phones, computers, etc. I'd point out that people have stolen not only ideas but code from open source projects. For example, Microsoft copied Kerberos source code, then changed it so it would be incompatible with the original.

 

It's the fact that it's a constant work in progress created by thousands of people submitting ideas, that it will never become a gold standard. Because of inconsistencies, and updates, it simply changes too fast for everyone to be "on the same page" in the business world. (Yes windows systems are falling into this trap too). It's because there is not ultimate control over the Linux world that I think it will never be able to properly organize in such a way to be a Huge success and over throw the Current Windows World.

 

Some of this I agree with. I doubt Linux will become a gold standard anytime soon, but there is ultimate control in the Linux world. You can pay a group of programmers to work on a specific program in a specific way. Of course, if you want only the volunteer programmers, you can only give them suggestions. There are both volunteers and paid programmers working on Open Source projects.

 

There is also a learning curve which ironically becomes larger the more comfortable you are with a different OS. One of the reasons I have a hard time with Linux is because I've know the Windows/Dos Enviornment for 15+ years.

 

I don't know what you are talking about with the learning curve. The more OS's you are familiar with, the less trouble a new one would be. If you mean more familiar with a specific OS, then yes, switching to a different one might be harder than otherwise if you have to unlearn stuff. The same thing should apply to eg the Mac. Nothing ironic about it.

 

It goes the other way too. After using Linux for a while, and switching to Windows, I get really annoyed how I can't copy/paste by just selecting text and middle-clicking. It takes 3 times as many clicks to do with the mouse, or two key-presses. Little things like that can be so annoying.

 

If anyone is looking for a recommended OS I'd suggest find a copy of XP and stick with that for the next couple of years while Vista gets the Kinks worked out.

 

That is good advice IMO. XP is the "standard" OS, and Vista is the newfangled one that they had to release unfinished because they had missed so many deadlines. And the games run fine on XP

[Externet]

Perhaps it is not 'greatness', but being a very nice laxative when allergy to Windows develops, by whatever be the reasons to each user.

On my side, what bothers me the most is the intrusion perception Windows gives me.

Linux offers me peace of mind, the feel of being out of the crowd.

 

Ubuntu support on forums is great with the exceptions when finding a helper who seems to be more into answering quickly instead of providing detailed guidance.

 

The learning curve had and has hurdles at least for me, Linux found initially to be very confusing after years with mister Gates. Now I just bypass what I do not understand and use what I know. Learning by 'osmosis' helps with time.

Miguel

[insane_alien]

it is easier to use linux when you only rarely used windows, my dad is an example of that, he made the switch without noticing and still doesn't know. then again, the most difficult to pick up thing he does on the computer is check his bank balance online. and even then i have to help him.

[omnimutant]

See thats the difference IMO. For the average Point and clicker, one OS is probably just as good as the other. For Guys like me, it's a huge learning curve, and I often get annoyed and go back to XP or whatever. See I want to want to use Linux. But right now I really have no need to use Linux, and that in itself creates a hurtle when I do try and use it. I've got what I need in XP.

 

Another bigger issue for me too is that I'm a Graphic Designer, and GIMP while fun and a great graphics tool for Linux, is NO substitute for Photo Shop(no mater how many non designers seem to think so, and tell me often). Another issue is compatibility in programs like Open office. It works great for creating Office Docs that can be read by Microsoft Office. Unfortunately because of Marco issues and a few other missing pieces, it does not work as well the other way around. There are many Clone type programs that have the same issues. The work pretty good for being free, or cheap knockoffs, but not quite as well as they should for any serious business to take place on a larger scale.

 

The Linux community would be well served to create some complete original programs that are not clones of windows programs, that won't run natively on windows machines that Blow people away to the point, that it creates more of a need/desire for Linux rather then it just being "The Other White meat". As long as it continues to emulate Windows, and be the Anti Windows it's never going to catch as much Air as if it had it's own set of Wings.

[bascule]

Another bigger issue for me too is that I'm a Graphic Designer, and GIMP while fun and a great graphics tool for Linux, is NO substitute for Photo Shop

 

I think people who suggest the Gimp as an acceptable substitute for Photoshop are doing some pretty simplistic things.

[antimatter]

I have a friend who does all his graphic design using MS Paint, and it's actually rather complex.

[bascule]

I have a friend who does all his graphic design using MS Paint, and it's actually rather complex.

 

I take it he's using MS Paint for kitsch value...

[antimatter]

Not entirely, it's actually some pretty difficult stuff, I should know, I have photoshop, and I have a relative who is a graphic designer and he has trouble with some of that stuff.

MS Paint is actually useful in more ways than I thought, and to me it was always a sort of useless program.

Though Photoshop does have cool effects...