digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ten things Linux distros get right (that Microsoft doesn’t)

warpedvisions.org — I use Windows and Linux every day. They ’re both competent operating systems, each with reasonable applications and windowing systems. I find myself more productive on a Linux system, though, because of a few very simple differences. So what are the differences?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thtroyer, on 10/10/2007, -20/+67Meh. Semi-distro/app specific. Apt is on Debain/Ubuntu/etc.

    Props for not putting 'UBUNTU!!!1 LOLZ!' in the title.
    • lengau, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19Still applies, though. Sure, apt is a Debian thing, but Portage is pretty much the same (well, when you use binaries).
      • BrainInAJar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16and portage is just a rip-off of BSD's ports
      • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Portage and apt are completely different. Portage was created with KISS in mind, not to mention designed for extreme customizability. Apt is for ease of use. But the basic idea of a package manager still applies.
    • mooninite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Don't forget that yum has totally redefined the usefullness of RPM. All modern distros are pretty easy to use and gain new features in a time frame of months where the commercial alternatives take years.
      • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yep. I know this will sound like blasphemy to all of the Ubuntu faithful, but yum has come along way over the past few years. At this point in time, it's my favorite package manager.

        And even though I try every new release, I've not yet seen anything in Ubuntu that makes me feel compelled to switch away from Fedora.
    • twtmc, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1for desktop, mint linux > ubuntu > all other distros
      • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Your mom > distro haters > you.
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2every distro has it's niche (well, *almost* every distro...) so it's really hard to say which distro is "better" than another.
    • cynicist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Its not distro specific. Show me a distribution that doesn't use a package manager.
    • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Why is there brackets in the title?

      Anyway I prefer LInux to any other OS but one thing I detest is the out-of-the-box look of most distros and most applications on Linux. They remind me of the old Windows 95 theme and we all know how crap that look was. The other thing I hate is how die hard Linux fans will contest to anyone resenting the UI or themes. In fact anyone that does mention the fact that Linux needs to seriously polish itself for sleekness and move into the 21st century gets bashed. That's why we never make any progress on the UI front.
  • schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -22/+10Good list, but let's be fair... "December 30th, 2006 "

    I think it was in the front page already. I saw it before.
    • Dokument, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10***** you
    • TehDoctor, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5I've seen your comments on the front page every day, Roy. Why don't you do us all a favor and go away.
      • HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In all fairness, schestowitz usually finds something positive and/or semi-insightful to say.

        It would be nice if you'd try to make that a standard, schestowitz. And, TehDoctor chould have had a point, had he chosen a better approach. We don't need your verdict on every article. Productive, dialogue-generating input is always appreciated, but nobody cares what's repeat material FOR YOU.
        • schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Fair enough, but I don't think it justifies hostility. I only pointed out that this isn't exactly news, which is what I'm hoping to find in Digg.
  • BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -8/+61I haven't read the list, but I *know* updating has to be on there. Updating every program in Windows can be a freaking nightmare.

    EDIT - Yep! #2.
    • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -18/+4going to microsoft update, or enabling automatic updates, despite what the FUDders say, is not a freaking nightmare. Its easy, and 99.9% of the time (on every pc i've owned, or managed) it's entirely nightmare free, and certainly no worse than apple's implementation on macos. I think the issue is because linux users generally do not like automated processes which run out of their control, such as automatic updates. for most people this works fine on both windows and mac os.

      again restarts are annoying, yes, for both macos and windows, but as the article says, things are better.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I'll explain this a bit slow so you get it... Updating - EVERY - program, that means third party programs as well... Winblows Update will NOT, and I repeat- *NOT* update Adobe Photoshop or that screensaver you downloaded last month (examples) for you, Ubuntu's update manager *will* update most software for you completely automatic and easy.
        jrbrewin, you sir are out of touch with Linux users.
        • HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4And what exactly is the nightmare? Decent software updates itself. Firefox and Azaureus make excellent examples of how to do it really well, but most other software does well enough.

          Linux comes with the repositories and software as a single package...it's sort of all one system. Do you expect Microsoft to be responsible for keeping Photoshop up to date? Do you expect large commercial systems like Photoshop to conform to an external updating system like Linux software does? Be reasonable.
          • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4no, but you can expect the OS distributor to keep up with third-party updates, and keeps the package-management system updated on the updates. This is what most of the major linux distros do. Firefox and Azureus are prime examples; they have no "standard external updating system" (the updates for Win and Linux are essentially the exact same changes to the source code, and even though different distros have different package management systems (apt, portage, yum, etc) nothing different happens on Mozilla's end for each distro). On my linux machine, even "unsupported" third party apps like Flash, Java, GoogleEarth, and Skype are all updated through the same central package management system (apt in my case).

            And to place the responsibility of updates on the individual software packages themselves is bad software design that leads to redundant code and inconsistencies between packages; it completely goes against the concepts of modularity, abstraction, and extensibility.
          • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1no, but you can expect the OS distributor to keep up with third-party updates, and keeps the package-management system updated on the updates. This is what most of the major linux distros do. Firefox and Azureus are prime examples; they have no "standard external updating system" (the updates for Win and Linux are essentially the exact same changes to the source code, and even though different distros have different package management systems (apt, portage, yum, etc) nothing different happens on Mozilla's end for each distro). On my linux machine, even "unsupported" third party apps like Flash, Java, GoogleEarth, and Skype are all updated through the same central package management system (apt in my case).

            And to place the responsibility of updates on the individual software packages themselves is bad software design that leads to redundant code and inconsistencies between packages; it completely goes against the concepts of modularity, abstraction, and extensibility.
    • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9@jrbrewin:
      Did that on a server, once...
      Found that Windows dumped a bunch of system files away, deleted the originals, and never restored the new ones. Had to do it by hand (and oh was it not fun trying to figure out why the server wouldn't boot).

      Never again.
  • purpmint008, on 10/10/2007, -8/+74Good list. Now can we get a list of 10 things Microsoft gets that Linux distros don't?
    /linux user
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -42/+50Usability.
      • mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -26/+14Nope, sorry. http://www.gnome.org/
        • iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15You have got to be kidding me...
        • ArthurSucks, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14You've either never used gnome, or haven't used it in like 6 years.
          • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What is with all the Gnome hating? KDE and the other window managers are nice, but I've always liked Gnome more.
        • bryhhh, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Why is mvent2's comment getting buried? Can't you see that (s)he is defending Gnome?
          • SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because, well... Removing functionality that is already there just for the sake of "making it easy" isn't usability. It's bad design.
      • BlakeEM, on 10/10/2007, -6/+32I don't know, I put ubuntu on my stepfathers computer, he knows nothing about computers. He does fine on it learning how to do stuff. It's really no harder than windows to use. Also viruses and spyware are a non-issue.
        • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7give your stepfather a windows install, but take his admin rights away from him, and enable auto updates. spyware and viruses wont be an issue for him either. it's not rocket science.
        • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Sounds more cliche than anything, being as he doesn't know anything about computes, I bet he rarely uses it for anything but porn surfing.
          I'd be more impressed if it could deal with the slightly-savvy, those who know just enough to beat the hell out of their computers, but not enough to maintain them.
        • dacomputerfreak, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9@jbrewin:
          This is the second time on this thread I caught you spreading pro-Microsoft propoganda with no basis in reality and common sense. May I remind you of the Blaster worm? 'Nuff said.
      • BlakeEM, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4I don't know, I put ubuntu on my stepfathers computer, he knows nothing about computers. He does fine on it learning how to do stuff. It's really no harder than windows to use. Also viruses and spyware are a non-issue.
      • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5ok... usibility.... and exactly what parts of usability... I really am interested what needs improved..
        • bryhhh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9For me, the biggest issue is fonts. Linux does everything I want, but every time I install it, I end up going back to XP because of the horrible fonts. The second biggest issue for me is running QT apps in a GTK based WM or GTK based apps in a QT based WM - the differences between the foreign toolkit and the native toolkit really spoils the look and feel of the entire desktop.

          Yeah, my gripes might be cosmetic, but that's really important for me.
          • CGA1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Right you are, that and the shaky wpa support.
          • cyberwiz01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Linux really does need a UTK (Universal Tool Kit) So that there is a uniformity to all applications. This is one area where the Mac really excels. All Cocoa apps have the exact same look and feel and follow pretty much the same HIG (more or less).
          • earlycj5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes because Opera looks just like Firefox or MS Office or OpenOffice or Auslogic Disk defrag on Windows. C'mon, that's a strawman argument and you know it. Windows doesn't have an integrated toolkit look either.

            Get over it.

            Macs, yes, Windows and Linux no. Do I let it bother me? No. It doesn't affect how it works.
    • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24ouch! but so true...
    • swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -7/+36Application Support
      Almost Universal Hardware Support
      • fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Right on one, so, so wrong on the other (unless there's some bizarre new definition for almost).
        • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm still waiting for X1950 Pro drivers...
      • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18LOL - Universal Hardware Support - haven't tried Vista yet? ;)

        Better still, tried Windows without driver discs? I'll admit you can eventually get everything running on a Windows box - but there's a ***** of stuffing around doing it. You've either gotta spend a couple of hours re-installing all your drivers after a fresh install or a LOT of hours trying to slipstream your drivers into a Windows install CD. It's pretty cool most Linux distros can pick up all the components of a modern system and run with them from the base install CD.
        • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2you'd be very hard pressed to find hardware made in the last year that doesn't support vista.
          the same cannot be said for linux. that's what he meant by almost.
        • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"but there's a ***** of stuffing around doing it"
          Woot for bloating truths to fit your theories, while I agree, Vista isn't great with drivers, you wont spend more than 15 minutes retrieving all the drivers you need for a machine for XP, unless you're using devices that haven't been used since like 1997.
          As someone who spent a good amount of a couple years building Windows PCs, it isn't that hard, I could train a kid to do it. Actually the place I worked for USE to teach kids how to do it. ;)
          • HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just wait until you want non-Vista Windows on a machine (esp laptop) that came with Vista.

            Better hope you're lucky enough to find XP drivers on the vendor's website, but don't hold your breath.
        • Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You may be doing something wrong if it takes you hours to install drivers after a fresh Windows installation mate, most device manufacturers make their drivers easily accessible and there aren't that many devices to search for drivers for in the average machine.
      • swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I guess what I meant was that the hardware is almost guaranteed to be supported in windows in some for, whether that be a separate disc or plug and play. In my experience linux can kind of be a crapshoot on whether something is supported: it either works beautifully or not at all.
      • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Oh OK, I'll just install Windows on my SPARC computer. Oh no, maybe I'll try a Power Mac. Darn, looks like Debian to the rescue!
    • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -20/+821) The ability to run any app required in an office, without any loopholes/emulators
      2) Because you have probably used Windows for years, there isn't going to be any learning curve
      3) Installing drivers is typically a "click and install" rather then a "install driver, recompile kernel, try again"
      4) Almost all popular software is written for Windows
      5) You can buy a device without researching first whether it works well with Linux
      6) Games
      7) (Copied from his list sort of) : Closed formats and protocol support : No jumping through loopholes to play MP3s, play DVDs, or open .docs
      8) Virtually everything can be done without a terminal -- on Linux, if you're installing something or configuring something, there's a good chance you'll have to search online to figure out just where that config file is
      9) Third party driver support - you would be hard pressed to find a sound card/wifi card/keyboard/video card/monitor/usb device/etc that doesn't work with Windows.
      10) Microsoft Office -- I already touched on this a little bit with #1, but this one deserves its own. Neither Office 2003 or 2007 is completely supported through Wine, and it can be a pain in the ass to install them. And, as much as OO.o is improving, nothing compares to MS Office when it comes to features. It is nice to be able to create a .doc or .xls without wondering whether the formatting will be completely screwed up by OO.o, making me look like an idiot to all those people I'm sending the file to.

      I understand most of this is 3rd party support, but that is a huge part of what makes Windows so great : it is popular enough that any third party would be stupid not to support Windows.

      /linux user
      • aywwts4, on 10/10/2007, -10/+43I don't know about the windows to windows learning curve, I spent (cumulative) hours with vista scratching my head going "Where the ***** did they put that option"
        • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Unlearn what you have learned!

          Seriously, though, it helps. XP had stuff thrown in any random place to make sure it was somewhere. Vista corrected a lot of that, though obviously through all of the people who'd learned XP's quirks for a major loop.
          • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But it had that neat search function which made finding things that were buried deep within Control Panel, a little easier.
        • phaed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3google is ur friend
        • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I took to Vista like a fish in water as far as configuration is concerned.
          Now to get rid of this stupid compete with OSX flashy *****.
        • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9hmm I learnt in about 30 seconds that the search on vista finds anything pretty much so need to look around...
        • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Control Panel Search
        • alienforever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1take 10 seconds to learn using desktop search.
        • linkinpark342, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To the above posters:
          But that ruins the fun of showing off the amazing skills of knowing where every single option is buried... its no longer a challenge...
      • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5#3 seems odd to me! drivers in linux are _all_ already installed for the most part..... i think drivers being sooooo easy in Linux is my favorite thing about Linux... but thats just my view. people are amazed i can just plug in a hardware-device and use it with out any drivers to install!!! way better then windows. drivers are hell in windows! ....ok i know there is a big lack of hardware support in linux and some things do NOT have any good drivers out and i think that is a problem, but is not what you said...at least in linux i know i can always submit a bug report and get it fix(windows jsut stops supporting your hardware after many years :( )
        • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13You've obviously never had hardware that wasn't supported by default by your distro. Some drivers are proprietary (Nvidia), or sometimes there is some other reason why distros don't include support for some hardware, and it is a pain in the ass installing them.
        • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5/sarcasm?
        • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Are you strictly using main stream 4 year old hardware? I literally spent days getting ***** as simple as sound to work when I was installing Linux on a system with a brand new sound card. I had to do everything short of learn to write sound drivers myself.
        • bzaks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Three words: Broadcom Wireless Card. 'nut said.
      • popothebright, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6..and NEVER HAVING TO USE A COMMAND PROMPT.

        Seriously... even with Ubuntu I'm still regularly having to do things that the average user can't do. And every time I drop to a command prompt I think, "How would my mom do this?"

        I hate to say it but Linux ain't there yet. Those who disagree are underestimating their own knowledge.
        • earlycj5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Right, because my mother-in-law who could barely use Windows can use Ubuntu without using the CLI?

          Next please!
        • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3honestly, after an initial unlearning of the whole "OMG bare white text on a black background!! SCARY!" thing; I've found the command line much easier to explain than alot of graphical configuration things; *especially* over the phone. Instead of constantly trying to visualize what they're seeing, and having to constantly describe what the screen looks like (or should look like), it's an easy matter of spelling out commands and having them read the response back to you. It doesn't really matter if they don't *entirely* understand what's happening (how often does that happen with the graphical stuff anyhow?) but in general after you explain the basic grammer to them; they catch on quick. "Computer, do COMMAND OPTIONS-ly on/at/with these ARGUMENTs" and after they realize that the manual is built in (just a `man COMMAND` or `COMMAND --help` away) it's actually a lot easier than a GUI in many ways:
          only one thing happening at a time, no fancy or ambiguous/distracting icons or graphics, help close by, simple plain text so writing down instructions for later is easy, no hunting through menus, no trying to click on tiny buttons for elderly persons with bad eyesight and arthritis, not having to learn different paradigms for doing the same thing in different programs, etc.
      • earlycj5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How is #1 the fault of Linux? Linux is the OS not the applications. Talk to the companies that make applications...
        • chaparyan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's not the fault of Linux, but it's still an advantage that Windows has
    • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13i agree with the idea of #7 but MP3's and DVD's are pretty easy to get working in ubuntu(and i am guessing other distros??). in ubuntu you click on the mp3 and it says do you want to install the software to play this??? in windows if you put a movie in the computer it say NO you can not play this untill you buy a dvd player package....SO windows is worse with DVD's then linux... atleat linux will play your dvd easly out of box... as for .doc's and a lot of other propitiatory stuff yes its a problem(users choice to lock them self in to one vender....what can we do??? :( )
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8That may be true, but it's also illegal to play a commercial DVD in Linux. It's a stupid law for sure, but that doesn't change the fact. Their open source everything approach makes it impossible to find a legally licensed CSS decrypter.
        • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I'm pretty sure it's only illegal in the United States of MPAA
        • Shootfast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yeah, It's illegal in countries that enforce software patents
      • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Completely depends on the version of linux. Ubuntu comes with a ***** load of apps preinstalled (including a bunch you'll never use) other distros, like say gentoo, come with nearly nothing on a clean install. Of course even in gentoo, all you need to do is type emerge mplayer, or whatever your media player of choice is. Windows you have to go online and find one. So really its the same as the package manager argument, which is a very good one, but already stated.
      • tgoose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's only Ubuntu and a handful of others (so far, anyway. The beauty of OSS of course means that anyone else can integrate the same ideas without too much work.)
      • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3the lack of mpg2 decoder in windows xp, by default, is laughable at best. This was purely a cost cutting excercise on microsoft's part. There are plenty of free alternatives out there though, such as videolan, or mediaplayer classic. Thankfully, vista does ship with dvd playback by default.
    • super_spyder, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9how about what they both get wrong.... TOO MANY FREAKING VERSIONS!! do i want home pro ultimate super delux puppy kubuntu edubuntu debian bsd suse red hat mandrake gnome kde
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7[snide OS X comment]
      • spacebar14, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5"They" didn't get it wrong. Its a matter of personal choice. Would you rather have ... 2 different types of cars to choose from?

        Microsoft Stationwagon Home Edition
        Microsoft Workvan Professional Edition

        or would you rather have hundreds of choices?
        Its a matter of personal preference my friend.
        • jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5OS != vehicle
          i wish people would stop with the stupid analogies.
      • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4TBH:
        Would you rather pay $400 for the "ultimate" version and have no other options?
        I can look up feature lists and compare. It's the 150 Linux builds that piss me off...

        So I use SuSE. :p
      • Icetype, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0+1 digg for "puppy"
      • chaparyan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I personally only use puppy, it's the best OS out there. Any other distros that snuggle up against you and lick your hand? I think not.
    • jejones, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9The advantages of being able to wave money in front of governments.
      The advantages of being able to coerce OEMs into offering only your products.
      The advantages of leveraging one's OS monopoly to gain monopolies in other areas.
  • johnny222, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6-ten +only
    • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1echo $title | sed 's/ten/only/g'
    • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4above comment was made to correct him....not because i agree with him...
    • HornyFox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Get a life...
  • n0va, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11I would add that Linux doesn't have many addictive games, which in turn increases productivity. On the other hand, Windows has tons.
    But then, that isn't something that Linux got right.
    • soopafly, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Why is that when any non Windows OS gets praised, the MS folks complain about games. Games, games, games!!! Is that all you Windows people do?
      • Nidy1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Jeez. We're not allowed to like our games anymore?
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Course its not all we can do, but we CAN do it. Without workarounds, loopholes and emulators you can forget anything even mildly entertaining in a linux box.
        • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10ZOMGZ have you forgotten the bubble game written in python!! and what about all those leet java games...crap...i already ran out...
          • RexStJames, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Right, that python bubble game!!!
            Or, you know, Quake 4. Or Doom 3. Or Darwinia. Those are just three of the games I've played in Linux, and I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Quake 4 doesn't like to play nice with Vista. I installed it normally, and it crashes on startup. I installed it normally under Ubuntu (after installing my graphics driver by, gasp, checking a check box in the restricted drivers manager) and it (sorry) "Just works."
            So eat it.
        • coredump0x01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Love ignorant comments. http://icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php http://happypenguin.org/ http://supergamer.org/ http://digg.com/search?s=linux+games&submit=Search ...
          It's funny you should say that right after i just get off an awesome 10v10 in Legends.
        • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6There are some pretty cool games that run on Linux and Windows. I have old hardware, so it's great to be able to play some free popular online games. The games I play mostly:
          Tremulous - http://www.tremulous.net/
          OpenTTD - http://www.openttd.org/
          Both are very addictive, and Tremulous has pretty reasonably good graphics. It's similar to the Gloom mod for Quake.
        • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Funny, I find my Linux box pretty entertaining. It automatically installed most popular audio and video codecs when I tried to play a file. I have a few commercial games (Quake 3, Quake 4, a few Unreal Tournament games etc.) and am eagerly awaiting Quake Wars. It also only took ten minutes to get steam and all my source (HL2 engine) and Goldsrc (Half-Life 1 engine)...
      • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It's not ALL we do, but we've gotta use that 8800GTX for something other than Compiz-Fusion. ;-)
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's a nice option. And while I don't play computer games much anymore (a bit on consoles, if for no other reason than never needing to configure anything, worry about drivers, etc), it is something I do miss somewhat about having moved to the Mac. And I'm sure that had I moved to Linux instead, I'd have the same complain.

        Yes, Wine, I know. I have it too (through Crossover, which makes it usable for normal humans, thank you very much) - and it still is pretty hit-or-miss, especially with games.
      • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Because gaming is important to some people? You don't drop hundreds of dollars on a graphics card if you're not going to use it for games, and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of games are not released for linux. The other reason it always comes up is that its one of the few things that Windows is clearly better than linux on...if the MS folks had other arguments they'd use them.
    • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Linux advocates should not dis games. Games are worth billions and can help to make or break something. Never tell a would-be convert that they shouldn't play so many games! They are not to be underestimated. Having said that, Linux has games. The major GUIs come with more games than a default Windows install, for those office types who like Solitaire and Minesweeper such, Linux has you covered. Many Windows games run on Linux. It's only "hit or miss" if you try to take any old game off of a BestBuy shelf and run it. You have to first look up the game to see if it can run in Linux. Further, there are actually many native ports of Windows games on Linux. You generally have to order them online, but they do exist. Most of the "big" games, World of Warcraft, Unreal series, Half Life2, etc., work in Linux as well with the aid of WINE. Half Life2 worked pretty much as soon as it was released. Good commercial games from all major categories are covered.
    • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wouldn't say a lack of games increases productivity... After all, I'd be wasting just as much time at work on Linux as I do on Windows, merely because of DIGG...
  • mumbler, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Buried for not having "BREAKING" in the title...

    I kid, I kid!
    • HornyFox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"i'm a kid" did you mean?
      • avatarpalin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1nah see that wasn't funny, and I came here for a giggle...
  • rabidmonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Just in case his server has any problems:

    "I use Windows and Linux every day. They’re both competent operating systems, each with reasonable applications and windowing systems. I find myself more productive on a Linux system, though, because of a few very simple differences.

    So what are the differences?

    1. A useful terminal emulator. So what if it’s only useful for developers: I’m a developer. I like a terminal with capable cut-and-paste, tabs, and resizing.
    2. All-in-one application sources. Man, I love my apt. Finding and downloading applications for Windows is a crap-shoot in almost every way. I find this especially handy when building new systems: it takes far longer to build, update, and add needed applications on a Windows system than on most Linux systems.
    3. Cut-and-paste, and focus handling. Middle-click cut-and-paste is even more useful than middle-clicking a URL to a new tab, and XWindows does scroll-wheel window focusing right (scrolls the window under the cursor).
    4. Frequent, painless patches and new stuff, all the time. I’ve had a 3d desktop (compiz) and funky search (deskbar) for more than a year now (and I avoid the bleeding edge).
    5. Multi-desktops. Using a single desktop now is a lot like working at a grade-school desk: it’s just too small to be useful.
    6. Good, free tools. Like vim (or emacs). I know they’re old and crusty, but they both live and breathe text editing.
    7. No reboots. I rarely have to reboot a Linux system when patching. Windows is getting better about reboots, but they’re still too frequent.
    8. Open formats and protocols. My stuff (and my network) is mine, locking my stuff in proprietary, costly formats doesn’t work for me.
    9. No need for paranoia. I don’t like the anti-malware tax: the cost, the CPU cycles, and the wasted fear. Signed application bundles are a big part of how Linux gets this right: you don’t have to fear installing new stuff (the rest is in frequent patching and limiting possible damage).
    10. Respect. Don’t tell me what or how to do it: give me choices. And don’t treat me like a criminal, because I’m not."
    • JackHarkness, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1OSX FTW

      1: leopards terminal is UNIX certified(no Linux distros are) and tigers on par with most linux distros
      2:Personally I like finding and downloading my own software from the authors website. it make me feel safer.
      3:If your such a haxor(yes all linux users think of themselves like that) then why aren't you ctrl-c ing anyway. and the scroll wheel on OSX can be changed to do anything you want. I have it set to spaces which is more useful than what your describing anyway
      4: All the official apple software does that. and any decently written software checks for updates on start up. In fact this week iLife and iWork both got updated.
      5: Me too - spaces in leopard and other freeware for tiger
      6. We all get free software too and there's always bittorent
      7. We beat you to it.
      8. I'm not sure who started the trend but were neck deep in open formats too.
      9&10 your just being paranoid. you'd think with how much you were saving on the os you could afford a new CPU so you didn't have to worry about the lost cycles. tho i will concede that locking hardware on mac's is a bit rich, it for quality assurance

      yeah i got bored towards the end

      • BRODEL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for arrogance. (I use OS X too)..
      • SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31) Leopard's default shell is bash. Most linux distros use bash, too. The compairson is between the actual terminal emulators (Konsole/etc vs Terminal.app, if you take it to the Apple side), and Terminal.app is crap. There are much better ways to run Bash under OSX, and even emacs beats Terminal.app.
        2) That's you. I hope you use basically only Apple stuff, because going to ~50 different sites to get all of your software isn't fun, easy or productive.
        3) Just selecting (it auto-copies to a buffer) and then pasting using the middle mouse button is faster, if you are using the mouse. About the scroll wheel, he only meant that you can use it to scroll a window in the back, without bringing it forward. I'm not sure if you can do that on OSX.
        4) Again, not all software does that (and some shouldn't... Would you want a popup asking you to update Apache on a production server all the time, or just after a new version came out?). Again, if all you use is Apple software, that isn't a problem, but if you have a larger variety, it could be.
        5) Finally, Apple included virtual desktops. But Virtue/etc cannot be compared to the native support under X, it's not stable enough and is very resource intensive.
        6) Why pirate if you can have good stuff (sometimes better than what you are pirating) for free?
        7) Linux has been "reboot-free" since way before OSX came out.
        8) iWork uses its proprietary format and Microsoft's proprietary OOXML; it doesn't support the open standard ODF.
        9/10) Why buy a new computer, if your current one does what you need it to do well? Also, for some types of load, you need every cycle you have: for example, my high energy physics simulations sometimes take weeks. A 10% extra load would make it last for almost one extra day. Is your time free?

        /Linux and OSX user
    • RexStJames, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"1: leopards terminal is UNIX certified(no Linux distros are) and tigers on par with most linux distros"
      What!?!?! You mean GNU (GNU's Not Unix)/Linux isn't Unix!?!? ZOMGWTFBBQ
      • JackHarkness, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It's not, it's pretty similar but not everything is cross compatible. check http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ for the full list of certified os's
        ie solaris, aix and hp-ux
        • RexStJames, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry about your broken sarcasm-meter. It's badly, badly broken.
          GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. That means it's NOT UNIX.
  • Takuro, on 10/10/2007, -24/+14A lot of these features aren't really earthshaking. Yay terminal editor?

    Linux is definitely wayyy overrated by the Linux faithful. I dare say even more than Mac fanboys to OS X.
    • pooptaster, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Said by someone who obviously doesn't have to do anything productive. Using a Windows command prompt is frustrating and half the stuff you need to do has no command line version, so you are FORCED to use a GUI to do your work. If you use a command line at all, you'd quickly realize how much more useful a Linux prompt is than a DOS prompt. And contrary to what I'm sure you believe, using a terminal is NOT slower than clicking around.
      • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1lol wait til you are asked to write a batch file....
        • pooptaster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Batch files are no more useful than the DOS prompt itself...or are you agreeing with me? You didn't make any sense to me.
        • coredump0x01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Bash > Windows shell by FAR.
        • doolittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1batch files are great for automating tasks, I don't know about you I hate typing lengthy command line arguments. Plus, if you install openssh/cygwin you have full remote admin capability between batch files and bash scripts. That is the type of logic that separates next-clicking lemmings and good admins.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Nobody's denying the utility of the command line (well, nobody intelligent anyways), or comparing it to command.com, which is as you point out worthless. But when it's the only option, that just sucks. It can be quick and powerful if you know what you're doing, but a GUI is a whole hell of a lot easier - and while using a GUI may be slower if I know the exact terminal command, I'm just wasting time dicking around in the terminal if I don't.
      • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apparently you're speaking for people who don't know how to use a computer. If you don't like the windows command line then install Cygwin. Just because *nix distros usually come with some nice shells doesn't mean that they're exclusive to *nix. I write scripts all the time for use on both Windows and Unix systems.
      • Takuro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah, because we all know that unless we sit behind a command prompt, we can't possibly do anything productive from a GUI...

        I'm just saying that honestly, as well-rounded operating system, Linux doesn't nearly match the features of either Vista or OS X. If you're a programmer or want to be a server admin, fine, Linux is better. But for a day to day operating system for doing tasks that relate to things other than maintaining your operating system, it's not the best.
        • doolittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Regardless of the OS, there are usually command line options to perform the same gui task.

          For example, you are helpdesk and have to set an option on dozens or even hundreds of workstations. It is more productive to manually sit at each one until you point-and-click yourself into a carpal tunnel frenzy, or do you write a batch file using remote admin tools... I know I will definitly choose the latter, write a batch file and feed it a list in a loop. I am done in minutes and you will take hours or days if you choose the former.
    • SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Those are the words of someone who has never had to use a terminal emulator for more than a very small number of commands on very rare occasions. When you have to use it all the time, to do all sorts of different things, you'd be amazed at how hard it is to go back to cmd.exe.
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Valid point, but you also point out one of the major flaws in Linux - you have to use the terminal all the time. Which is fantastic if you're all about doing development work where you can actually get something out of it, but it's a headache for the normal lay-person.
        • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Note that he also implied that he needed the terminal in windows, just because someone has to use the terminal does not mean that everyone will. I have to use the terminal to grab libraries for applications that I am writing, which is much more of a pain on windows as I can't use the package manager to find what needs to be installed to get a particular header file for instance. None of that implies that the "normal lay-person" needs to use the terminal constantly.
      • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Use cygwin. Seriously. Using a terminal in windows isn't impossible just because cmd sucks.
    • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5he said he IS a developer..... did you not understand?? for his work its really useful. although i think the list could be better;or explain some of the important points in more detail.
    • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1A lot of your generalizations are overrated. Yay Mac comparison?

      Windows' defenders really must be running out of things to say.
  • doubleblack, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3UBUNTU!!!1 LOLZ!
  • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Here's my comments on each and everyone of the points.

    1. Yep, even the terminal that redhat 9 included was far superior to the current one in windows vista.
    2. This only works because the distro is treated like an embedded OS. How can you possibly add in every app out their to be installed with apt-get? You can't. That's why I prefer autopackage since it is distribution neutral. But politics are the reason why no distribution out their includes it.
    3. I don't use this a lot, but it's nice to have it their.
    4. Most of these are considered beta and not final products. I have managed to successfully install compiz and it is not easy nor intuitive when install ing it.
    5. This would be nice to have. I believe third party apps provide this functionality though for windows.
    6. Damn right they are old and crusty. Their is some good modern text editors out their. You can even include menu's to make it easy in the terminal window. Menu's are the way to go.
    7. True. But if you take out the gui from the equation, a linux server can go on for months at a time. But adding a gui always makes it a little bit less stable I find.
    8. I can use openoffice and tcp/ip is an open protocol. As long as I don't use a Microsoft product except for the OS, I can follow that too.
    9. You can always guarantee this if you treat the environment like an embedded OS. But that limts what you can install. I don't like that.
    10. You mean like including 10 different text editors, not setting a certain amount of packages as being needed for the OS, you can't be so open to choice that you confuse the user.

    Ubuntu finally got this right. They included one of every app type instead of 10 of every app type. They finally added in a gui configuration for configuring the resolution, color bit depth, refresh rate without having to edit a damn text file. That's what I expect. Next just add autopackage and they'll get very close. Ubuntu developers finally understand what a desktop OS should be.
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8FFS!
      There = location (over there)
      Their = possession (it's their computer)
      They're = "they are"

      I can normally ignore it, but that was a problem on almost every line of your post.
    • JackHarkness, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2um, dude he only did it twice and it's digg rebutal not a peer reviewed journal.

      Also most of this stuff sounds like OSX, well at least leopard
      • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except if you want to use OSX, you gotta buy a mac while any recently modern PC should work with ubuntu. But OSX is a good example that a unix/linux/bsd based OS can have a good gui.
    • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree with some of what you had to say, I disagree about packages a bit. Autopackage is one of several methods that exist for installing Linux apps in a cross-distro way, and they should be used, for non-system level stuff. For most of what comes included, I think packages are the way to go to avoid Windows issues like "system rot" and to ease updates and autoupdates, especially security related issues and kernels. For games and office suites and such, sure. The Rox appFolders clone, or klick or maybe the new glick or autopackage or one of the other ways is probably more sane and yes, distros SHOUKD include support for ALL of these. They take a _minuscule_ amount of extra space and could easily fit even on 700meg liveCDs. I really dislike those cheap .run packages that commercial and third party groups ship. It isn't always obvious to a noob how to run such an installer from the file manager. It isn't much use having a nice GUI installer if you have to launch it from the console ;) I also disagree a tad about Ubuntu. I dislike their restriction of just one app for each category. Evolution is better than kmail, and Firefox is better than kong - both should be included in Kubuntu. k3b is the best open source media writer, it should be included in Ubuntu, and so on. Btw, Red Hat, Xandros, Mandrive and others have had GUI control panel tools, including X settings, for a long while now. The new "don't drop to console, drop to default VGA on fail" thing Ubuntu has coming is a genuine improvement. Kudos for that.
      • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well if Autopackage is one of several examples, then I agree that they all should be included. The point is that their should be distro independent package formats for installing third party apps. You can't include every possible app/game in a distro's repository. I still like the idea of only one app type though. Including more then one is just confusing. But if you don't like it, you can remove the default one and go install the one you do like. Windows and OS X doesn't do this, so why should linux?

        One more thing is that when I run ubuntu, I notice that I can run sudo from a command prompt to run an app as root, but I can't right click on an app shortcut in the gui to do the same thing. In windows its the opposite. I did run across this though:

        http://linux.about.com/cs/linux101/g/gnome-sudo.ht ...

        That should be included by default I think if it does what I think it does.
  • keyo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23if(list.length == 10){theList=*****}

    list either padded or cut down. Stop with these ***** "top ten lists". Any list is just filler news, at least make the list of proper length. Just because ten is a psychologically satisfying number doesn't mean you should to trim or pad your list to ten items.
    • rycan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2top eleven and 3/4 reasons why keyo is right....
    • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You should avoid a career in marketing. Using psychologically satisfying things brings people in (just like how 99¢ seems a lot cheaper than $1.00 even though it's only a penny difference).
      • keyo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Good point, Another reason I wouldn't be good is because I don't like pushing lies around. Look at George Carlin's video on the ten commandments and you'll see what I'm talking about.
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=SyWEBbFwU1o
        • Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ya'know, though almost entirely irrelevant to the original discussion here, that guy is actually pretty funny. Had never heard of him before, thanks for that :)
    • avatarpalin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hey it's worked for David Letterman for years..

    • Yarin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that wouldn't work, wouldn't it?
      List& theList = list; if(list.length == 10){theList=*****}
  • Fixthemedia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15We have these lists every single day.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Well the lintards need to feel special too.
  • CiscoBandit15, on 10/10/2007, -16/+16one thing that the microsoft distro has that the linux distros don't: a job.
    • devinx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6In a way, that's true because I wouldn't have a job fixing people's windows problems if not for windows. That doesn't stop me from using linux myself though.
    • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Um...? You make no sense!
      But some thoughts:
      Windows is widely used in the marketplace due to the fact that nobody knows anything else, and it's shipped with the computers.
      However, in businesses that know what they're doing, Linux is also used (not always exclusively) because of the power and security it offers.
      So, if by "has a job" you mean "is used in the business world" you're wrong.
      • alienforever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I disagree ... 'Windows is widely used in the marketplace due to the fact that nobody knows anything else"

        You really thinking Linux users know much better than Windows or Mac? Stop being ignorant. We choose our OSes for our use.
    • WhiteHamster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2my windows box is unemployed atm, but linux finally got promoted to assistant manager at the bp down the street
  • UltimateKylie, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6None of these "Ten" would make me switch. The only one kinda is the Updates, but Microsoft is working on that with Windows Updates etc.. I find the terminal just as easy in Windows except I almost never use it.
    Reboots imho are a lie as when I've used Ubuntu I've had to reboot here and there when install application updates or graphic updates. Linux still feels too much like Windows 3.1/95 in that the GUI runs over another OS rather than 'being the os'. So yes I could just restart Xorg instead restarting the computer to add new resolutions (that Ubuntu doesn't configure automatically like Windows does).
    • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The only reason you find the terminal just as easy is because you almost never use it. cmd.exe is at least a decade behind bash (let alone the terminal emulators that add addtional functionality on top of that).
      The fact that the GUI 'runs over the OS rather than being the OS' is a GOOD thing. Windows would be far more stable and far more secure if it were properly modularized. I do find that configuring monitors is still too much of a pain in the ass in linux, though.
    • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Linux still feels too much like Windows 3.1/95 in that the GUI runs over another OS rather than 'being the os'."

      You've got this completely wrong - it would be stupid to include a graphical environment in the kernel (unless maybe on an embedded system). X and its various desktop environments are not separate OSes like Windows 3.1, 95, 98 etc were. They ran on DOS (which is a 16 bit environment), which loaded Windows which then switched to protected mode and ran another system with its own drivers etc. This is definitely the wrong way of doing things.
    • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've noticed that the Ubuntu documentation online frequently asks users to reboot - perhaps this is what you mean? The alternative is to have them just restart what has changed, for example, restart just X or stop and restart something else, usually involving issuing a command from the console. Rebooting is meant to make it easier for noobs. Virtually the only time a full reboot is required is if you update the kernel itself. By the way, if you've been exposed to GNOME, I have to agree with you in part. It looks and feels like a Windows3.1 GUI to me as well. The file open/save dialog is OLD and featureless. Try KDE instead. KDE lets you rename files and do file operations in a file open dialog for example, it shows thumbnails there, etc. It has the "do anything, anywhere" ideal that I like. GNOME seems to emulate the OSX way of doing things more, including hiding the file system tree at every opportunity, something that personally infuriates me. KDE also takes LESS ram these days (look it up, it's true), and KDE apps generally run faster, especially the KDE image viewers.
  • Escamillo, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Boy, does that list suck. Linux better have a lot more going for it than that if it wants to compete with Windows, let alone OSX. 99.999% of the public couldn't give a damn about the items on that list.
    • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4a few of the items are "good"; but i agree its not a very good list.... but no reason to say suck.... if your interested try it out and make your own list....
      • Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's the problem - technically speaking, it IS a pretty good list. Which is - despite what the fans say - why Linux is nowhere near ready for mainstream. I swear that they're trying to keep it that way, regardless what they always say to the contrary. Well, it's a downside of having your IT guy working in marketing too.

        Tuck away the terminal in a little back corner of the OS like Apple did (well, MS did this too, but their terminal sucks), and you'll have a big start. Leave it in so people who want it can have it, but don't make it part of the daily routine.
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1to be fair, 99.999% of the public couldn't give a damn about most OS features that actually make a system usable.

      If you talk about what the "public gives a damn about" it's usually just marketing fluff about Bells and Whistles, that actually plays little part in day-to-day OS interactions. Most of the "general public" just wants to check their email and go visit myspace, maybe organize some pictures and listen to music or write a document (which, to be fair, isn't even really OS business...)

      So far, most of the talk that I've heard from the "general public" (ie, all my friends and family, minus anybody that professes to be a "computer person") about vista has been about the slick new graphics, or the supposed security under the hood (which none of them know how it works or what's really different), the "improved stability" (again, when they don't really know what it means), or the new way of searching for things. Essentially the only one of these that really carries any weight is the searching; the improved security and stability are just empty marketing words, they can say the same thing and it would be believed, regardless of it's truth.
  • Anafiel01, on 10/10/2007, -13/+18Switched to Ubuntu.
    I have the productivity AND the gaming.
    Wine is a wonderful program.

    Someone mentioned the "almost" universal hardware support. Hmmmm. I tried to set up XP on a NetVista I got from geeks.com for my son. Major failure...XP just couldn't get it's crap together and handle my LAN, 98SE was a little bit better after 6 hours of trying to find system resource inf's, Ubuntu installed flawlessly in 25 min, and has been cruising at warp speed ever since.
    What else can I say?
    • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8WINE is overhyped, it doesn't work when I need it to work, and in instances where it would work, I'd rather run it on a true Windows box or an emulated box under Linux.

      Also, you can say "I don't really know enough about computers to put a simple Windows XP box together". Seriously, the best argument Linux has for it is that if someone that can't run Windows switches to Linux, it can't be that hard.
      • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't use WINE. I have no need for windows apps on my Ubuntu computer.
        To be completely honest, I have a Windows desktop sitting on the desk right next to the Ubuntu laptop... But I rarely use the Windows computer. In the past month, I think I've used it maybe a total of 2 hours. And that was for browsing the web while I installed Ubuntu on my laptop (got a new hard drive to replace the old one) and installed Ubuntu Server on my other desktop (used as a home fileserver/webserver/etc.). Honestly, I have very little need for Windows or any other proprietary software.
        Want to know an interesting fact?
        My laptop is about 4 years old. It's got 512MB Ram, and a 100-gig HD (which i recently got new). Pentium 4 processor. It runs Ubuntu. My Desktop is about 1 year old, its got about 1GB ram, 120GB HD, and a processor about two times as fast as the one in my laptop. It runs Windows XP. I keep both systems very well maintained, and have practically nothing that runs on startup on the Windows PC (only antivirus and anti-spyware). On the Ubuntu laptop, I've got an Apache server, MySQL server, FTP server, CircleMUD server, and SSH server that are added on startup.
        Total time for my Ubuntu computer (with automatic login) to boot, from the time I see GRUB to the time the system finishes loading and I can begin work: 45 seconds.
        Total time for my Windows computer (with automatic login, MUCH better system specs) to boot, from the time I see the Windows loading screen to the time the system finishes and I can work: 1 minute 30 seconds.
        I always remove the useless things in Windows when I install, such as games and Outlook Express. I built the computer from scratch, with good specs and a fast processor. It's a damn nice machine. But still, my 4 year old Ubuntu laptop is faster.
        Windows is obsolete to me.
    • fortezza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WINE barely works for the programs that are supposedly certified to work with it.You are misrepresenting reality in order to mislead readers. Oh, it works fine for the 1 game you play, good for you. For me, I prefer that any game I purchase work fine.
  • gdgi, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3to the vast majority of the planet - ie the masses that use windows and mac's - the simple thought of opening a terminal makes their head assplode.

    trying to convince the world that the command line is 'teh bomb' does absolutely nothing for the linux cause.

    how about 'get into the 21st century and give me a fukin gui already' - i shouldn't HAVE to memorize the fukin filesystem of whatever distro i'm using to do day-to-day operations - i shouldn't have to remember that the graphics config file is in /etc/conf/blar/who/fukin/cares - i should be able to pop open a gui menu and click a few options.

    and don't even get me started on installing video drivers.

    the only distro that i've found that does anything right with linux is sabayon - they actually include real video drivers - that even work - with the distro.

    the 99% of the planet that uses ati and/or nvidia drivers should not have to use a hobbled OS just because someone's got their panties in a bunch about their religious beliefs...get overyourselves and serve your customers - we want a user-friendly (read GUI-driven), functional OS.

    There's a reason Mac is going to be the wave of the future, not linux - and it comes down to sheer usability. And no, i'm not a mac fanboy, never owned one, never cared to - until vista came out and i needed to start looking into a realistic option for my business.

    guess what- the next round of machines will be mac's
    • JackHarkness, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3FYI Leopards terminal is better than Linux's as it has been Unix certified. And tigers is about on par with the average linux distro. OSx ftw

      btw i agree with all of you points
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aside from it's UNIX certification (which obviously wouldn't be given to a GNU project for some pretty clear political reasons; heck, it's in the name...) how is the Leopard terminal any "better" than any of the linux terminals? (bash, csh, ksh, zsh, etc.)

        I've used both, and so far all I've found are shortcomings on the part of leapord (zsh has some amazing spell-checking and autocompletion features....)

        give me concrete examples here....
    • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"how about 'get into the 21st century and give me a fukin gui already' - i shouldn't HAVE to memorize the fukin filesystem of whatever distro i'm using to do day-to-day operations - i shouldn't have to remember that the graphics config file is in /etc/conf/blar/who/fukin/cares - i should be able to pop open a gui menu and click a few options."

      You don't have to use the command line for day-to-day operations, nor memorize the location of that graphics config file. Linux has (more than one, you can pick!) GUI's that are every bit as good as window's. On the other hand if you'd like to use the command line because its a hell of a lot more efficient for certain tasks you have a good one.

      as to video drivers, two words for you: emerge nividia-drivers

      I laugh whenever people say how macs are going to take over. After hearing about how macs were selling like crazy for about a year I looked at market share...they went from a little over 3% to a little bit more over 3%.
    • srg13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"the simple thought of opening a terminal makes their head assplode."

      I stopped taking you seriously there. Go back to five years ago, when you actually did need to use a terminal for some things.
    • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The vast majority of people on the planet use what the vast majority of desktops come preloaded with. There was an actual study of XP versus KDE, my personal favorite GUI for Linux, and they broke even as far as being easy [see the wikipedia KDE page, "criticisms" section]. True that most people can't open a terminal, but most of those same people also could care less about what GUI they run. As long as they can easily open their web browser, nothing else matters. Installing ATI and Nvidia closed source drivers hasn't been an issue for a while now. I'm using an older version of Kubuntu, and I was able to do it from the GUI.

      Btw, about MACs, lol, who's being religious? Perhaps you can explain to me why most people preferred DOS machines with no GUI at all back in the 80s and even the early 90's in many cases? In fact, for a time, PCs were the ONLY desktops which lacked a GUI. MACs were easier for noobs then, as they are easier for noobs now, yet they have something like 4% desktop share. Linux has a bit over 3% the last time I checked, though combined with all of the server machines, the number of Linux boxes far outnumbers the number of MACs...

      Then as now, the monopolistic nature of [previously] IBM and [now] Microsoft accounted for their popularity, not their user interface, nor their tech, which has always lagged behind the other players.
  • Herolint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+33Here's my list:

    1) BASH - Why do repetitive filesystem operations in a GUI (which takes all day) when you can be done with a single command?
    2) Apt - If only application installations/removals/patching could be this easy in Windows.
    3) Filesystem structure - Drive letters are SO 1980s.
    4) Focus and Z-Order - Windows always brings the focused window to the front. On Linux, you can have the focused window be behind other windows, which is very convenient and productive at times.
    5) Mouse focus - I like having window focus follow my mouse.
    6) Terminal command history - Things like the up arrow are great (and Windows finally does that) but CTRL + R to recall previous commands is a real boon for productivity.
    7) Shading windows - Not a huge thing, but I like being able to double-click on a window and have it roll up out of the way but still be on the desktop.
    8) Security - Vista has finally brought some security to Windows, but its implementation is lame. Linux security is implemented in a way that is elegant and doesn't annoy.
    9) The ability to tweak the kernel - This isn't as big a deal as it used to be, but it is still nice to be able to fine tune your system.
    10) Virtually unlimited, high quality, and free development tools.
    • bilgates, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3You should really try Vista. you linux lover. Oh NVM go play battle for wesnoth or linminesweeper
      or iluvubuntu, i love ubuntu expansion pack.

      While i will be playing World In Conflict and BioShock.
      • phaed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4CS:Source wine, all i play
        • Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You would prefer the option to play many other games though, no doubt? Grandparent was obviously a troll, but restricting yourself to one game when there's such a wealth of creativity available is kind of limiting :(
      • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Games are one of the reasons I keep a Windows box sitting around. But I rarely play, so that box rarely gets any use. Most of the time I use my Linux laptop instead.
      • RoboDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Once Unreal Tournament III comes out next month, us Linux users will be set for another three years.
    • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm personally not a fan of shading windows, but being able to maximize just vertically or just horizontally (KDE) is really useful.
      • mheath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is not a feature specific to KDE. I've been doing this in Gnome for years. You just need to configure the appropriate keyboard shortcut.
    • strangewill, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1NOOOOO!
      I love my drive letter file system, except I don't partition drives into more than one drive letter per physical drive... but it's one thing I miss on my Linux box, mounting them into the file system seems kind of messy.
    • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1WHY oh why do people seem to think you can't install a good terminal and shell on Windows? I use Cygwin and bash all the time. Just like a *nix terminal but ZOMG it works in windows. It really isn't so tough.
      • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Except for the fact that you have to install cygwin, download from mirrors, install, pick the right packages, hope it doesn't mess up, resume if it does...
        Installing Cygwin is MUCH too difficult for the Average User to do. Last time I attempted a cygwin install, I gave up because half the mirrors didn't work right.
        Cygwin is nice, when you can get it working, but don't consider it a realistic alternative to the console for the layman.
      • mheath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes and then you have Windows view of the file system (drive letters) and cygwin's view of the file system and so when you write a bash script that invokes any Windows executable, you have to translate the paths back and forth. It's a PITA. So, yes you CAN install Cygwin on Windows and get bash, sed, awk, and friends but they're not nearly as useful as they could be because Windows keeps getting in the way.
        • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Err, wrong. Cygwin setups a directory structure. I write bash and perl scripts which operate quite well cross platform and are used by large numbers of engineers.
    • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mentioning security... Windows has always sucked at it, but they're doing better in Vista.... However, Linux/*nix have been doing security right for a VERY long time. It's only just now that Windows is starting to come 'round... And they're failing miserably.
    • truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2strangewill, just mount your partitions to /c /d /e if you really want to.

      Something like this,
      $sudo mkdir /c /d /e
      $mount /dev/sda1 /c

      It's really that easy.
    • kalleanka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Visual Studio from Microsoft is indeed a "high quality, and free development tool".
    • FranTaylor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm no Windows fan, but you can most certainly set focus-follows-mouse, right in the control panel. cygwin will also give you a lot of other Linux-like functionality (bash, POSIX file paths) if you are forced to work with Windows.
    • popothebright, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Bash? Windows CMD can do anything you can do with bash.
      • RoboDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I hope you're joking...
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2really? you can program control structures like if/then constructions, loops, etc? you can create, assign, and modify variables? you can tab-complete? assign command aliases? use pipes and file redirections? inline evaluations? background/foreground jobs?

        I never knew you could do those things with cmd.exe....
      • Punch405, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, you can do if/then and loops with a batch file. Most of the rest, though, not really.

        /not defending cmd over bash, though. just pointing out a detail.
  • databoy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18The trouble with the ongoing OS wars and flaming is that the people writing the articles have never worked in the real world. In the real world a computer is set up for a certain job and used for data input. In the home environment the majority of people use computers for education to find employment, and gaming.

    There is just too much ***** regarding Linux versus Windows. OS2 was a better system than Windows. OS2 is used by the banking industry because it is secure. OS2 had a lot of functions which Windows never had. Windows was a cut down version of the OS2 gui because it was just too complex for the average user.

    99.99% of Windows users are appliance operators. They would not know how to load Windows let alone debug it if there is a problem. Windows has a simple point and click gui directly embedded into the OS; that is it's biggest advantage. In Linux, layered by X, layered by a gui. Too complex for your average Windows user. At the end of the day, ask yourself one question. As your a computer geek who earns his living from computers, or are you and appliance operator?

    For a geek, Linux has the best opportunities for earning a good living; for an appliance operator Windows is a no-brainer and the easiest OS to use.

    Bottom line. 99.99% of people do not care what the OS does on a computer, they just want the bloody thing to work properly and do their job. So if you have any skills in setting up or debugging any OS, use that knowledge to help people get a better understanding of computers instead of getting into a ***** flame war which in the end will only reflect your own stupidity on the subject.
    • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3"In Linux, layered by X, layered by a gui. Too complex for your average Windows user."

      I'll agree (most versions of at least) linux is too difficult to set up for the average windows user, but once its up and running its every bit as easy to use.
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5fusama... did you even read the post or just pick out the bits you're interested in? databoy is right and eloquent with it, and I've said similar things myself. STOP arguing is the point - it's gets us nowhere! Yet you reply with a pro-Linux defense that was completely unnecessary. I admit your tone is a lot more considered and muted than the typical fanboy, but in light of the thrust of databoy's post it seems nonsensical to me.
      • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree. To have an apples to apples comparison, you'd need to have a PC that has Linux pre-installed. While most non-geeks couldn't install Linux, most non-geeks couldn't install WINDOWS either. Most people simply do not install OSes anymore, nor bother hunting down drivers, etc. When you buy a PC, it comes with all of that stuff, or a recovery CD which puts it all back if you botch it up. The REAL issue of ease is maintenance versus third-party software install. Installing software in Linux is easy, so long as said software is in the repos. You can't walk into a store and buy software for your Linux machine (usually). This arguably makes the experience harder. With Windows, give it 6 months and despite your 3 CPU hogging programs that run to "protect" your PC, your Windows install starts to go very slow (system rot), your file system starts to fragment and so forth. Noobs do not CARE about reading pop-up security warnings. They click "yes" and want them to go away, They care not about such things as turning off the Windows default firewall after installing service pack2 for example, and other issues. Windows doesn't maintain itself, even with auto-updates. It gets progressively worse and noobs are totally helpless. All they can do is call a geek friend, run their recovery disk (and usually loose all of their saved stuff in the process, since they have no idea how to back up, say, their local email and bookmarks), or buy a new PC. But, they can walk into Circuit City and walk out with a shiny new game that will run great (for a time).

        Noting that Linux users have to us a console is mostly ***** - a Linux forum will advise you to paste something into the console - you need NOT actually understand what that command does. This is often far easier than describing how to navigate menus, which differ depending on GUI or theme, etc. Using the console is NOT part of the day-to-day experience of my mom, for example, who happily uses a Linux box that I setup for her. What POSSIBLE reason would she have to EVER do something in the console of her own accord?? She also never has to compile her kernel, or deal with the various other myths that applied to installing Linux on a poorly-hardware supported machine in 1997.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your post looks good on the face of it but it's so riddled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings I hardly know where to begin.

      The thrust of your first paragraph is that people user their computers as task based appliances. This is just not true. Whether it's a corporate computer or a home unit people bend and twist the computer in ways that have nothing to do with the task at hand. For instance they install smiley packs, web shots, hotbar, websearch, and other software that has absolutely zero to do with any task other than screwing around. I like to call these things tinkertoys. These tinkertoys can cause immense problems for the actual software required to perform a task.

      Your second paragraph is flat out inaccurate. Windows cannot be a "cut down" version of OS/2 because Windows existed FIRST. Windows 1.0 was released in November of 1985. OS/2 Warp was released two years later in 1987 when Windows hit version 2.0. You also argue that Windows GUI was too complex for the average user while implying that the OS/2 interface was easier. It wasn't.

      Your third paragraph says that Windows users are appliance operators and that the computer is essentially a 'black box' that they don't understand and just use. Okay, if that's true what does it matter that the Linux presents it's GUI through three layers? If your task based appliance operator views WINDOWS with its single layer as a black box what difference does the additional complexity make? If all they do is click the pretty icon, and that's all they're capable of doing, it doesn't matter how that icon gets there. If you can't swim does it matter if the water is 20 feet deep or 200 hundred feet? Either way you're in over your head and will drown without assistance.

      Your fourth paragraph is just nonsensical. I make FAR more money from rescuing Windows users that are drowning then I do drowning Linux users. For an appliance operator who just clicks the pretty icons and types on the keyboard the OS makes ZERO difference. They can't do anything with it anyway. As long as the OS can present that pretty icon and allow mouse movements it's all the same.

      In your last paragraph you go on about people not caring about what the OS does. Well, when the OS is so fragile that it gets in the way of clicking that pretty icon to do their task then they should care! If they don't have the technical ability to sort it out for themselves then they should have the good sense to listen to the people that they pay to sort it out for them. That means they should be ditching locally installed copies of Windows and applications and either moving to an OS that doesn't fall apart if you look at it funny, or they should be moving to a centralized and locked down installation of Windows and applications.

      Frankly I don't think you understand as much about how people use computers as you think you do. You're a likely a PHB, or one in training, who thinks they get it but they don't.

      I'm a Senior SE with multiple major vendor certifications and 15 years of field experience. I'm pretty sure that I live in the real world. I think it's your mailing address that's in question.
      • alienforever, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm still in favor of databoy's argument. Give you some background, I'm nobody, not a senior not nothing. I'm just a regular user out there who have been using Linux, Max and Windows in my different work environments. Apparently 99.9% of users out there are just like me.

        To me, OS is a resource management layer. I seriously don't care what OS is doing as long as my application runs fine. I've used Linux, Win and Mac, which one should I use? Whatever my boss gives me!

        In my opinion, you need to get out of your little world of thinking "computer is the single most important thing in the world". Computer is just a tool, not any different from a car if you ask me. If it requires reboot once a dya, fine I'll deal with it. I'm not going to cry in front of my boss to load linux/mac.

        Don't bother giving me any technical details cause I don't care. But hey! 99% of the world are like me :) Deal with it.
        • dahlek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But you should care which OS is running, and which company is responsible for that OS. Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly - a BAD thing - on two continents. If nothing else matters to you, shouldn't you take that into consideration? I get what you're saying, I really do, and I hear the oft cited, "who CARES, it's just software!", but there really are bigger issues at play here. Your opinion and usage are votes, like it or not. There is a political element, like it or not. Hey, I didn't make it that way. MS push for closed formats and such has negative consequences in the real world. Perhaps the issue is that 99.9% of people don't care and don't understand the issues. Scary in a way, that we live in a society wholly dependent on tech and most people don't know (nor care) in the least about the tech that makes everything go.
    • FranTaylor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Banks don't use OS/2 because it's secure. OS/2 is probably a lot less secure than Windows at this point; Microsoft has at least made an effort to run all their source code through tools to look for buffer overruns. I bet there are hundreds of undiscovered buffer overrun vulnerabilities in OS/2, nobody's ever bothered to look for them. Banks use OS/2 because the software was originally written on OS/2, and they have no compelling reason to change. The software still runs just fine, and it runs on modern hardware. No reason to change.
      Many businesses still run their systems on VMS for the same reason. Security has nothing to do with it.
  • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11"They’re both competent operating systems"

    Buried. Windows is in NO WAY a competent operating system. Not even close.
    • thomasprebble, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7And from a programmers perspective Windows is more complicated than it has to be and is bloated.
    • Ravatar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I'll be damned if I haven't been running the same Windows XP x64 install for about two and a half years now, with no noticable issues beyond a failed power supply. I'd certainly call it a "competent operating system".
      • andyakadum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, but it took XP to get there. Us Mac & Linux users have had this for ages. I've got a G4 thats literally been running for 5+ years, I just put it to sleep.
        • bruce89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You ought to have got a vet to do that for you.
    • fusama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5let me guess, you're a sys-admin? Here's a hint on administering windows...think of the most ass backwards way something could be done and try that first...its usually the right way on the windows boxes.
      • WhiteHamster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2its the magic restart, if something doesn't work, just restart it a few times and it usually fixes itself
  • PhilMoskowitz, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4That's a depressing list. Is that the best they can do?
  • Kemru, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6This kind of self-congratulatory, own back-patting bullcrap is why linux users will NEVER be taken seriously. You people spend more time saying how great you are, when you SHOULD be saying how bad you are and trying to fix it.

    So lame.
    • neko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Better to identify what you do well than to constantly point out others' flaws.
    • WhiteHamster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if you watch the development community they are constantly improving back end stuff, making things work better, adding features, etc . . .
      any internet community is full of idiots
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because, in order to be taken seriously, Microsoft has been very careful to never be self-congratulatory or spend time saying how great they are; and has always been to first to admit how bad they are and acknowledge what they need to fix.
  • neko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Cut-and-paste, and focus handling. Middle-click cut-and-paste is even more useful than middle-clicking a URL to a new tab, and XWindows does scroll-wheel window focusing right (scrolls the window under the cursor)."

    Hell yes! Whenever I do end up using Windows, it's always confusing when I go to scroll some text field or list box ... and something entirely different scrolls up! Having to click into the list to move the focus there first just feels clunky, especially as that focus-click may end up selecting something I don't want (because of course, the item I do want is currently hidden by the scrolling).
    One other thing I enjoy about this method - I can have an IM window open and on top, be chatting to someone, and still scroll a web page that I'm reading without switching focus.

    One drawback of this approach: Web pages with IFRAME adverts and Flash. They'll interrupt your scrolling if they land under your mouse pointer =(
  • neko, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2"Cut-and-paste, and focus handling. Middle-click cut-and-paste is even more useful than middle-clicking a URL to a new tab, and XWindows does scroll-wheel window focusing right (scrolls the window under the cursor)."

    Hell yes! Whenever I do end up using Windows, it's always confusing when I go to scroll some text field or list box ... and something entirely different scrolls up! Having to click into the list to move the focus there first just feels clunky, especially as that focus-click may end up selecting something I don't want (because of course, the item I do want is currently hidden by the scrolling).
    One other thing I enjoy about this method - I can have an IM window open and on top, be chatting to someone, and still scroll a web page that I'm reading without switching focus.

    One drawback of this approach: Web pages with IFRAME adverts and Flash. They'll interrupt your scrolling if they land under your mouse pointer =(
    • neko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Pardon me. Got a lousy connection at work.
    • br0ck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Katmouse at http://www.code-scout.net/katmouse/ completely fixes that problem in Windows. It changes scrolling behavior so that even background windows will properly scroll whenever the mouse cursor is over that area and the mouse wheel is scrolled. Note that you can get some weird results with middle clicking unless you go to settings and set the dropdown in the Wheel Button tab to 'None of the buttons.
  • TheSeeker11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Apt is seriously good. I use sidux (Debian Sid) and run a dist-upgrade every day, thus keeping my entire system up to date.
    • brim4brim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Powershell for windows in case your wondering and most Linux commands will work in it.
      Context is a very powerful free programmers text editor.

      Not disagreeing just pointing out they exist and I'm sure it'll be useful for people looking for these apps on Windows.

      Oops, replied to TheSeeker11 instead of replying to original comment. Apologies for that.
    • Icetype, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In Ubuntu I use cron-apt. I have it set to install every update that doesn't require a reboot. I take care of those myself once and a while.
  • momsshizzle, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Where's the Ten things Windows get right (that Linsux doens't) article? Linsux!!!!
    • avatarpalin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oh Snap.... 'Linsux' I am NOT leaving you hanging.... Dude high five over there beside the pool...


    • mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Its in a parallel dimension, which is also where Windows is actually stable and lightweight.
    • millson249, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0momsshizzle you make me smile =) You're like a naive little child that doesn't understand concepts above their mental capacity at the time, but thinks they do, and thats why you make me smile. =) Its almost like you're that child that, when informed that their mistaken, lashes back in desperation with "nuh uh! -You're- wrong!", and its entertaining to me =) I'd like to challenge you to perform some tasks with your 'superior' operating system, while I perform the same thing in half the time, plus some, with time to spare to subtly invoke the blue screen on your 'superior' operating system. Unfortinatly we're all annonymous in this world of digg so... oh well.

      Oh, and why don't you use the 'superior' browser 'Internet Explorer'? Its part of windows, therefor, it must be superior to firefox, yet you keep claiming firefox to be superior? Could you please enlighten us as to why your superior operating system has parts inferior to things such as firefox? Yet you claim windows to be perfect?
  • Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16I really don't know what I would do without all these lists and articles.
    How else would I know that:-
    Linux users love Linux, and think it's better than Windows.
    Mac users love OS X, and also think it's better than windows.
    Everyone else uses Windows, and don't really care what OS others use.

    Thank god for digg.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Sorry, I need to correct your Windows User profile. It's more like "Everyone else uses Windows and comes into Linux threads on Digg to bitch about the very existence of articles Linux fans like to read."
  • awp0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7All I learned from this article is that Microsoft should package Cygwin utilities with Windows for people who want a real terminal with editing tools such as VI.

    The rest of it I mostly disagree with, some of them sound quite childish actually.
    • iceschade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Or install pico/nano for those of us too lame to be able to handle vi.
      // guilty as charged, i'm no good at that vi stuff.
  • rifter01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Buried for these words appearing seemingly over and over in this and similar articles: "I know they’re old and crusty..."
  • WhiteHamster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I really am tired of the Linux news being like "Linux is awesome", well i didn't just wander over to the Linux section of a tech site by accident, i know Linux is awesome, give me something new or different.
  • donte, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Some of these aren't even right. I use windows... I have cygwin (the best terminal I've ever used). I use emacs daily (and could use vi/vim if I so chose). The windows reboots? Sure, I get prompted that I need to reboot for XYZ to take effect, but 9 times out of 10 it still works even if you don't. Cut and paste? Seriously? And if you really are the emacs guy you say you are CTRL+W or CTRL+K is all you need -- you should be pissed off you need a mouse at all. Painless patches? Windows updates and most programs that auto-update can do their magic with you simply clicking "OK" -- how extremely painful (and last I checked, Linux still had that step too). I could argue the other 5 items on the list, but frankly this article is already making my ***** bone tingle too much.

    I like linux and though my work comp is a windows machine, my home comp is Linux. I don't mind the list articles themselves, I'm just sick of the ones that quite frankly make up stupid crap that isn't really true in the least.
  • Acolyte357, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This is a year old, for f*ck sake people!
  • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What a dumbass.
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I really liked windows 3.1 that was a good OS it was fairly quick as well, sometimes i wish ms would make a modern os almost like 3.1
    • doolittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hated it, mainly because all my favorite dos stuff ran 100x better with qemm/desqview. I was forced to deal w/ it on the job when 3.11 was adopted. Funny I lol'd when I saw TWM on x11 running I was like "hey it's the linux version of win 3.1" - those were the days man...
  • daridave, on 10/10/2007, -6/+211. They work.
  • boyddl, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2What about the Apple way of doing things? Have 1 or 2 ways of doing a task instead of 40. The Linux way is not always right for all users. Some users just need 1 way of doing something.

    PS I'm not a Apple fan-boy, but have helped many newbs get started on the computer and found Apple is the easiest for people who don't know how to use a computer.
    • WhiteHamster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3But Apple's 1 or 2 ways are APPLE'S 1 or 2 ways, its called vendor lock in, and once you're in, you're stuck
      • alienforever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2where's Apple 2 ways? I can only find one.....
  • CoolWind, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's not Linux vs Microsoft, it's Linux vs Windows. Microsoft makes tons of software (and hardware too) other than Windows.

    That list doesn't include even one compelling reason to switch to Linux. And yeh, Linux fonts look like crap.
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have to give it to MS, they make darn good rodents.

      I've been using my IntelliMouse Optical for like 5 years now (even after getting a slick new logitech with my computer) , and for such a simple device, it's amazingly well designed.

      and as for the fonts: yeah, antialiasing is a bitch... but we're working on it. Ubuntu has actually got it down pretty good once you configure the right settings (which, yes, you can to with a GUI)

      -a linux user
  • bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Its really stupid to slam Windows because stuff that you can get for free doesn't come with the OS. I use Linux and Windows. On both systems, I use grep, vi, sed, diff, wget, and all sorts of other common utilities. There are plenty of key combinations for copy and paste, too.

    I would say the biggest advantage of Linux is that its hardware requirements aren't as heavy, and Windows XP tends to get progressively slow over time for no particularly good reason. Windows XP has to be completely wiped and re-installed every couple of years to perform well.

    There are just a whole lot of us who don't see operating systems as a religion.
  • nuxx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Linux! Windows! Linux! Windows! Duck Season! Wabbit Season! Duck Season! Wabbit Season! *BLAM!!*

    Are we done now??
  • ace1220, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Linux for compatibility, Mac for productivity, Palm for mobility, and Windows for Solitaire. (Great T-Shirt)
  • myranttoyou, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The average person won't use/care about any of these. Yes, even the multiple desktops. Just clean you ***** up. Also, the updating who cares? If you're 'legit' your machine will update and reboot overnight.

    This is why Windows still rules. Linux nerds just use your distro and STFU.
    • RoboDonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Just clean you ***** up."
      Apparantly you've never looked at the Windows registry.
      "Also, the updating who cares? If you're 'legit' your machine will update and reboot overnight."
      Now try that with 50 machines.
      "Linux nerds just use your distro