Windows is free

[Jokerswild]

Here is the best argument I've heard yet for Linux and I'm sure that quite a bit of it is true.

Windows Is Free (A TLUG Article)

[Dread]

Great article, and funny in a weird way.

[Carl Martin]

Interesting article, Joker. Without comment about the author's somewhat confused notions re. ethics and morality, I really find it difficult to believe there really are so great a number of pirated copies of Windows out there. I really have to wonder what sort of friends he has when: "...I can't help but notice that among all my friends, all sorts of people I know from various walks of life, almost no one has paid for it."

However, I, like Gutteridge, digress.

The question remains, regardless of prices or morality: Does Linux work as well as Windows? (I speak here of XP.) In my experience, the answer is a resounding no. I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu, openSUSE, Freespire, and Mandriva, and none of them works on my desktop (ATI card, MS keyboard, printer...) and the same distros fail on my laptop. (A Toshiba, and, according to the forums, this is common.) I realize that all these problems are due to lack of driver support, and the blame for that lies with the vendors, but none of that helps my situation.

On the other hand, I can not recall one time that either of my computers has crashed. Since I switched from ME to XP I have never seen a BSOD. I'm not claiming that Windows is a perfect system, and I don't like playing Microsoft's games. (Validation, Genuine Advantage, silly EULAs, poor security...)

I really wish that my experience with Linux had been different. I like the idea of a free, community developed and supported operating system that's safe and secure, that's updated regularly, that's highly configurable. I must admit, also, that I like the idea of thumbing my nose at Bill Gates. I like the idea of having the $$ I'd pay for Windows sitting in my bank instead of lining Microsoft's coffers.

The bottom line is that for me, Windows does the job, and Linux just doesn't work.

[Jokerswild]

I have tried quite a few linux distro's and aside from the gaming aspect they all worked for web browsing, documents and photo's. My big gripe is the gaming and having to use a command line for installing some things. I know that RPM works somewhat for installing apps but not all the time. Aside from that Linux is not all that different from windows.

I would think that microsoft doesn't lose all that much from piracy due to the fact that companies can't afford to take that risk and every new computer sold from a OEM has windows installed on it.

[OCNoob]

Originally Posted by Windows Is Free

But once I had someone tell me that they didn't want to switch to Linux because their printer model wasn't supported. Their printer was a little older and would have been easy to upgrade to a newer, Linux compatible model, for about 120 dollars. So, they were effectively trying to claim that they would rather pay 200 dollars in order to save themselves from paying 120 dollars. Which is obviously a claim that can only be made by a sane person if they're really bad at math, or their copy of Windows wasn't actually 200 dollars.

But why would anyone spend $120 for a new printer to switch from Windows to Linux when they have a good enough printer?

Honestly, an OS switch is a pretty big commitment (and rather time consuming IMHO), and this guy swears that getting a free MP3 player rather than an iPod is the same thing. This is, of course, put in the perspective of a "user". Bottom line is, would you rather take out time to install, configure and learn a new OS rather than use the same one that you, your friends and just about anyone has used for the past decade, and that you already have on your machine?

[Jokerswild]

If you haven't tried linux lately ubuntu is not all that different from windows as far as general use such as internet, e-mail, photo's and the occasional office document. Which is what most people use their computers for. Other than video drivers there wasn't much that I needed to do myself on my last install. I still use windows and I try linux now and then to see if anything has improved.

[halutzparilla]

this is just another end-user opinion... although ignorance of some people with the availability and capability of other OS, and the monopoly of advertisement of Windows, creates big cloud of doubt on people that are not aware of the dependability of Linux Distro for everyday use.

but i agree that most of my games requires me to run it Windows for it to use potential of my Video Card and Graphics Aesthetics, which makes me dont want to use Distro's aside my nasty experience right now with the Linux Config of my Comp for my LCD, which is giving me a crappy resolutions... just FYI i used Ubuntu 6.1 / 7.04 / Fedora Moonshine 7 / Xubuntu 6.1, none of them are compatible with ym BenQ FP91G+....

[MantaBase]

Interesting article Joker

"...There he talked about "The Mac Effect". The idea was that people are capable of switching, and the fact that they chose Mac and not Linux, and paid for it, was supposed to be further evidence that Linux was not delivering a decent product...."

Well, I have to agree. The linux folks have done themselves little favor in the past by producing an attitude of arrogance in both users and developers. When I first saw OSX (before most folks did), I got training on it. The bright folks in the government lab I was at realized that, because it was *nix based, a large number of linux and Sun folk would be switching over. They would be switching because they could migrate in house software (and analytical hardware interfaces) over to a more glitzy, and user friendly system. I recall thinking that Sun should be ashamed. Solaris 8 was out and fresh - and OSX kicked its ass even in pre-release. Why couldn't a company that focused on a *nix interface for years get someplace close to OSX?

Not sure - but it really made me aware of why Linux and *nix were being poorly received.

If Linux wants to be in the market (for real), we/they really need to stop referring to Linux as an OS and start referring to it as a kernel or base for an OS. When you use Ubuntu, it should be referred to as a linux based OS - or better yet - as Ubuntu version X.XX and forget mentioning linux at all. That may irk some Linux folk - but these folk are actually the problem holding Linux back from going truly prime time.

People hear the term Linux and think "complicated." Why? because Linux folks like it that way (generalizing). How do I know? Well, consider some of the post you see around here (or similar) for *nix newbs on setting up updates -as an example. Advice often starts as, "All you have to do is drop to the CLI and type..." - blahblah (even in Ubuntu I read).

What part of modern OS do the Linux folks not get? The CLI is important - but something so basic should not require typing at all. Don't believe me? I refer you to the other 90%+ of home OS's out there that don't require a CLI drop for something so basic. The Linux folks can't run and hide behind "It's the hardware people's fault" on this. The simple fact is that a modern Linux based OS of any flavor should be as simple to install and use as Windows or OSX. Not almost as simple - as simple. In fact, simpler - since piracy is not an issue and no keys are needed on install. There should be no - I repeat - no CLI involved (at least for common stuff).

Some may think I'm siding on the Gnome side of Torvald vs. Gnome vs. KDE. Not really, I'm siding with Torvald. The GUI is not an idiot space - it's the OS interface. It needs to be as functional as possible. As long as Linux folk fail to understand that and look upon the GUI development as simply a lure to get newbs on board who will then learn CLI culture, Linux is not ready to be a mainstream OS. The GUI is - for 90% of users - the OS. It is the experience. Little things, like dropping to the CLI and typing three lines, are actually very important - and so easy to thread into a GUI that there is little excuse.

But you might wonder why I'm so sour on the *nix community. Actually, I am not. It has been a long and hard road to get to where Linux is today. People have contributed for free - for fun, for hobby, for personal reasons, for fame and glory - but for free. They should be proud of this - and frankly amazed that such an endeavor is beginning to bear fruit.

That said - let me iterate something(s). First, of my personal list of 10 worst flames (ever), I have received ~7 of them trying to get Linux help on a Linux forum - most when trying to push Knoppix beyond it's design and use it as a full OS (which I did for about 6 months - native on dual boot no less - even though I got told you could not). The negative and pompous attitude many Linux users take doesn't endear folks to an experience - or bode well for support - something that is just as important as the product - and make no mistake - Linux is a product - free or no. Second, is Torvald's misunderstood statement of a year or so ago. The GUI is not the idiot zone - the GUI is the zone 90%+ users work in 100% of the time. Ignore it and - frankly - all you have is a hopped up version of DOS (yeah, I said that - don't bother with the history lesson).

With all that said, I actually do agree with most of the article at hand. Ironically, piracy is actually a big threat to linux and *nix. If Windows is free - why bother with Linux. I mean hardware support is better in Windows (Vista 64 excepted currently). Linux folks should be praying for better Piracy control.

And to the folks who post that Windows is not oft pirated, go hang at a Uni. I have first hand experience with the rampant Windows OS piracy that occurs at Universities. Many of whom already have an OEM install and simply Pirate because they can and somehow feel entitled to. I even recall a frustrating conversation with one geek who thought I was "uncool" for even suggesting that, with Linux available, Windows piracy was uncouth. With 2.5 million + students in the US - you do the math.

Lol - rant for the day....TTYL

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Jokerswild

I have tried quite a few linux distro's and aside from the gaming aspect they all worked for web browsing, documents and photo's. My big gripe is the gaming and having to use a command line for installing some things. I know that RPM works somewhat for installing apps but not all the time. Aside from that Linux is not all that different from windows.

I always have Linux running on one of my computers. I can do everything on Linux that I can do on Windows except play games. Yes some games do work on Linux either with Linux install files or using Wine, but they just play better on Windows.

[Yellowhello]

I've had Linux Ubuntu 7.04 running on my secondary comp, and I must say, it does have function to it. It's fine for web browsing and learning Linux code and the like. I like it for practice. I might use Linux fulltime on my main rig (in sig) in the future.