Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
Things I've heard when I proudly mention I use Linux.
It doesn't have antivirus software. (NO it doesn't but we don't need it!)
It's different. (Well, duh. What do you want Windows under a different name?)
Its free. (Is that supposed to be a bad thing?)
I can't do ..... (Yes you can, you just need to find the FOSS alternative.)
But the one that made me laugh was from my husband:
"It's for geeks." (Apparently he thinks that Linux is some geek-elitist OS... I laughed and smiled all the way to the bedroom. Yep baby, I'm a geek, and you're the man who married the geek.)
It doesn't have antivirus software. (NO it doesn't but we don't need it!)
It's different. (Well, duh. What do you want Windows under a different name?)
Its free. (Is that supposed to be a bad thing?)
I can't do ..... (Yes you can, you just need to find the FOSS alternative.)
But the one that made me laugh was from my husband:
"It's for geeks." (Apparently he thinks that Linux is some geek-elitist OS... I laughed and smiled all the way to the bedroom. Yep baby, I'm a geek, and you're the man who married the geek.)
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
Man isn't that the truth! Get that from my wife all the time!exploder wrote: It is true, my Wife has told me so.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
there are a picture LOOLYownanymous wrote:Microsoft (insert picture of Satan here) would like you to think not so...AK Dave wrote:"Linux? Is that legal?"
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
I see it more as an illegitimate first cousin twice removed of Linux, as it is based on UNIX, and Linux is UNIX-like, so.From an ex of mine, heh. (of course, deep in it's heart MacOS is an illegitimate child of Linux )
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
From what my old man once said in a discussion with me about Windows and Linux, to his believe: "Linux and all the stories, that it's safer than Windows, are a big fable." "So why use Linux?"
My comment on that was that i use Linux because viruses and other stuff can't harm a Linux OS like they do on Windows, so no antivirus program is needed. You don't have to clean up or/and defrag the harddrive anymore. In most cases you don't need to search for drivers and it works most of the time out of the box, it basicly plug and play. The most important thing for me is that you don't have to throw away your money on programs because it's already there in Linux and the download is just a few clicks away. All for free and they work great.
I can go on but then i'll be writing until the next morning. lol Too bad that is still couldn't convince my dad to switch over to Linux. So i thought let him be and believe whatever he want's.
My comment on that was that i use Linux because viruses and other stuff can't harm a Linux OS like they do on Windows, so no antivirus program is needed. You don't have to clean up or/and defrag the harddrive anymore. In most cases you don't need to search for drivers and it works most of the time out of the box, it basicly plug and play. The most important thing for me is that you don't have to throw away your money on programs because it's already there in Linux and the download is just a few clicks away. All for free and they work great.
I can go on but then i'll be writing until the next morning. lol Too bad that is still couldn't convince my dad to switch over to Linux. So i thought let him be and believe whatever he want's.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
I am sure there are all sorts of dumb reasons that are used as to why Linux and not Windows
I am sure there are all sorts of dumb reasons that are used as to why Windows and not Linux
I don't know which is worse; the naive windows user, the naive Linux user
There are so many legitimate reasons why not windows, but saying it is crap is probably not one of them
I am sure there are all sorts of dumb reasons that are used as to why Windows and not Linux
I don't know which is worse; the naive windows user, the naive Linux user
There are so many legitimate reasons why not windows, but saying it is crap is probably not one of them
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
"If it wasn't for Microsoft, we wouldn't have computers as they are today, so we should respect Bill Gates's work by only using Windows"
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
The first part of that is true. If it was not for MS we would have very different computers. We would have a vibrant and competitive OS market that would give us much better computers."If it wasn't for Microsoft, we wouldn't have computers as they are today, so we should respect Bill Gates's work by only using Windows"
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
I know these threads can be fun, but they always seem a bit self-serving to me.
i do have to give MS credit for one thing -- they democratized computers.
i do have to give MS credit for one thing -- they democratized computers.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
I think they did the opposite as far as software is concerned. The imposed central control on the market for PC operating system and office software. Those markets operate in a way Stalin would have approved of Bill G add Steve B ultimately decide what is good for everyone.i do have to give MS credit for one thing -- they democratized computers.
The only good they did was popularise the relatively open IBM compatible PC standard - the real credit for that should go to IBM and the people who clean room reserve engineered the IBM BIOS. However, this was not the first open standard for hardware - it was preceded by, at least, S100.
In addition, a lot of hardware standards would have existed anyway: the hard drive connectors, the external connectors, and memory would have been standardised anyway; so it is only the BIOS and internal bus stuff that would have been non-standard without IBM/Wintel standards, and even that could well have been standardised anyway.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
As far as I'm concerned, the stupidest reason for using Windows over Linux is the reason that most people seem to have:
"I use Windows at work, I've always used Windows, I'm used to using Windows, I've never even really thought about why I use Windows. It's just there. "
"I use Windows at work, I've always used Windows, I'm used to using Windows, I've never even really thought about why I use Windows. It's just there. "
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
No, what they did was popularize an easy to use GUI. Easy enuf for non-specialists to use. Without that there wouldn't be so many people using computers today. What does the average user care about hardware specs? He cares about balancing his checkbook and writing letters. Doesn't matter what hardware Windows runs on. Its easy.I think they did the opposite as far as software is concerned.
The only good they did was popularise the relatively open IBM compatible PC standard.
MS is a monopoly (so I'm not sure exactly how you confuse this with Stalin), and they have had a stranglehold on the OS. But Windows brought computing to the average guy. MS at least deserves credit for this.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
Actually, that's a pretty good reason. Because its the standard.markfiend wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the stupidest reason for using Windows over Linux is the reason that most people seem to have:
"I use Windows at work, I've always used Windows, I'm used to using Windows, I've never even really thought about why I use Windows. It's just there. "
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
There were plenty of options for GUIs before MS WIndows.No, what they did was popularize an easy to use GUI.
If anything, their grip on the market slowed down the adoption of Windowing OSes. I cannot find a reference for this right now, but I have read that MS accelerated work on Windows because other software companies were close to launching GUI shells for MS-DOS and they feared losing control.
Non-MS-DOS users had lots of options. I had an Atari ST before Windows was usable (have you ever tried using Windows 2? I switched straight back to DOS). Then there was MacOS (the first mass market windowing OS), Atari GEM, Amiga, RiscOS, X-WIndows, Andrew, etc. These all preceded Windows 1, and were many years ahead of the first version of WIndows that was good enough for the average user to use (by which I mean 3.0).
If MS had not launched Windows, we would have used one (or more) of the above. If MS-DOS had not dominated corporate desktops, we would have adopted them much quicker than we eventually adopted Windows.
Re: Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows
We should make a clarification here. By 'democratize' I mean taking computers out of the realm of specialists and giving them to the average guy. If by 'democratize' you mean the choice of several GUIs on the same platform, then no, that did not happen. The GUI was specific to the HW.
Ahh, maybe. I'm not sure though, about any of those you mention, outside of the MAC. But something would have come along. What you seem to be saying, though, is that if Ford just hadn't built cars, we could all be driving something else. True, but that's true of anything. Your argument seems to be that you WISH it had been something better than Windows that had claimed the desktop. I won't argue with you there.
I don't like MS business practices, either. Nor do I like it that their software is written by the marketing department. There were several questionable things MS did to make Windows the dominant software platform on PCs. But it was Windows that brought computers to the average guy.
There were some. How many were viable for use on a PC is another question. But it was the GUI that brought computing to the masses, and MS won that battle.There were plenty of options for GUIs before MS WIndows.
Why would you blame a corporation for accelerating work to compete with other companies? You seem to be blaming MS because you wish Windows hadn't happened.If anything, their grip on the market slowed down the adoption of Windowing OSes. I cannot find a reference for this right now, but I have read that MS accelerated work on Windows because other software companies were close to launching GUI shells for MS-DOS and they feared losing control.
Not really. The GUI was wedded to the HW platform. So yeah, there were choices, but it meant buying different HW.Non-MS-DOS users had lots of options.
I wrote imaging software with a Windows 2 front. Yeah, it sucked. But I'm not talking about the technical worth of Windows. Clearly, its lacking.I had an Atari ST before Windows was usable (have you ever tried using Windows 2? I switched straight back to DOS).
X, Andrew, etc, were high-end software that the average user would have had no reason to adopt, unless he went out and bought a workstation. I'm not sure the PC even had the power to run these interfaces at that time. The MAC interface was good, but the MAC was closed/proprietary, and Apple overcharged for it, so more people bought PCs. Atari and Amiga were considered gaming machines, and not in the same class as PCs and MACs.Then there was MacOS (the first mass market windowing OS), Atari GEM, Amiga, RiscOS, X-WIndows, Andrew, etc. These all preceded Windows 1, and were many years ahead of the first version of WIndows that was good enough for the average user to use (by which I mean 3.0).
If MS had not launched Windows, we would have used one (or more) of the above.
Ahh, maybe. I'm not sure though, about any of those you mention, outside of the MAC. But something would have come along. What you seem to be saying, though, is that if Ford just hadn't built cars, we could all be driving something else. True, but that's true of anything. Your argument seems to be that you WISH it had been something better than Windows that had claimed the desktop. I won't argue with you there.
I don't see that connection, between the average user and corporate desktops. The handwriting was already pretty much on the wall that Windows (or, to put it another way, DOSs successor) would be the home desktop OS, before Windows was adopted in the corporate world. The only real question was OS/2. You can decide for yourself whether it was IBM or MS that messed that up. But then, OS/2 was effectively Windows.If MS-DOS had not dominated corporate desktops, we would have adopted them much quicker than we eventually adopted Windows.
I don't like MS business practices, either. Nor do I like it that their software is written by the marketing department. There were several questionable things MS did to make Windows the dominant software platform on PCs. But it was Windows that brought computers to the average guy.