Stupidest reasons for not using Linux over Windows

[sarahmarienc]

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.)

[dlkreations]

It is true, my Wife has told me so.

Man isn't that the truth! Get that from my wife all the time!

[mitsuzero]

"Linux? Is that legal?"

Microsoft (insert picture of Satan here) would like you to think not so...

there are a picture LOOL

[Old Marcus]

From an ex of mine, heh. (of course, deep in it's heart MacOS is an illegitimate child of Linux )

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.

[M_aD]

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.

[DrHu]

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

[trident]

"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"

[graeme]

"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"

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.

[pad-thai]

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.

[graeme]

i do have to give MS credit for one thing -- they democratized computers.

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.

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.

[markfiend]

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. "

[pad-thai]

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.

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.

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.

[pad-thai]

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. "

Actually, that's a pretty good reason. Because its the standard.

[graeme]

No, what they did was popularize an easy to use GUI.

There were plenty of options for GUIs before MS WIndows.

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.

[pad-thai]

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.

There were plenty of options for GUIs before MS WIndows.

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.

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.

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.

Non-MS-DOS users had lots of options.

Not really. The GUI was wedded to the HW platform. So yeah, there were choices, but it meant buying different HW.

I had an Atari ST before Windows was usable (have you ever tried using Windows 2? I switched straight back to DOS).

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.

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).

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.

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.

If MS-DOS had not dominated corporate desktops, we would have adopted them much quicker than we eventually adopted Windows.

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.

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.