Linux is Not Windows

[hatool]

Essential read for any newcomers

[Herpy]

Linux better not be like windows, if linux was like windows I would not be useing it!!

[Linuxephus]

Just as Linux-detractors don't want to hear about why Linux sucks, so should we not want to hear any excuses about M[essy]S[horts]. All that junk is part and parcel of the M[ostly]S[hoddy] experience.
I'm sure I could go on and on, but you get the point. Leave it to the lawyers and carnival barkers to rip off hard work by others and pass it off as their own. It's taking way longer than it should but the market is slowly realizing they've been had by a master manipulator.
....let's see, where was I? Oh, yeah. Just need to close the 6-7 junkware, trial software, auto update and "can we sneak some sh*t onto your PC" pop-ups and reboot into a real OS (infer LinuxMint).
-->>Three of many reasons why long ago I switched from M[ickey]S[hucks] operating system to Linux.
http://www.unixmen.com/how-linux-is-build-nice-video/
A good pointer link for new people recently switching from Windows (I'm being polite) <evil cackle> to Linux.
-Special thanks to LinuxRocks @http://forum.pinguyos.com/Thread-How-Linux-is-Built?pid=19770#pid19770 for the original link-

[Miekuxi]

Linux is not Windows, nor should it be.

That said, I never had a problem with Windows when I ran it at home (98 SE) on a Compaq or at work (2000 and XP). I removed software I didn't want or need, I updated patches and anti-spam and virus software, and maintained the system regularly. I didn't and still don't game--but I'm an old fart--nor did I care what the desktop looked like. I was happy as long as the PC worked. Most people I know use either Windows PCs or Macs because they don't want to spend a lot of time configuring and tweaking so that things work they way they want them to.They just want it to work out of the box and not all Linux distros work 100% out of the box, but that is changing. Linux distros are improving all the time and even old farts like I can install them on whatever PC and get things to work quickly, if not right out of the box.

The advantage over Windows and OS X is that Linux (name your favorite distro) is free and that forums such as this one do a fine job--even a better job than corporate customer service reps.

I have the experience of running Windows spending hours to install and update software; Linux (I mostly go with Linux Mint and Xubuntu) rarely costs more than 2 hours to do that.

[Wolfen69]

Who cares? My computer runs perfectly. There's a reason I left the Ubuntu community. (I was a Member) after 8 years. It wasn't so so much because of ubuntu, but I'm pissed off in general at most computer people. I'm done with it. I did it for years, the arguing, the debating, the useless BS. I just want my linux computer to work. Nothing more. I'm too old and too tired.

[Wolfen69]

Just as Linux-detractors don't want to hear about why Linux sucks, so should we not want to hear any excuses about M[essy]S[horts]. All that junk is part and parcel of the M[ostly]S[hoddy] experience.
I'm sure I could go on and on, but you get the point. Leave it to the lawyers and carnival barkers to rip off hard work by others and pass it off as their own. It's taking way longer than it should but the market is slowly realizing they've been had by a master manipulator.
....let's see, where was I? Oh, yeah. Just need to close the 6-7 junkware, trial software, auto update and "can we sneak some sh*t onto your PC" pop-ups and reboot into a real OS (infer LinuxMint).
-->>Three of many reasons why long ago I switched from M[ickey]S[hucks] operating system to Linux.
http://www.unixmen.com/how-linux-is-build-nice-video/
A good pointer link for new people recently switching from Windows (I'm being polite) <evil cackle> to Linux.
-Special thanks to LinuxRocks @http://forum.pinguyos.com/Thread-How-Linux-is-Built?pid=19770#pid19770 for the original link-

..................................

[mysoomro]

Awesome article. Thanks for the link .

Just swtich a Windoze user over to Mint, they couldn't believe that after a 5 minute install that they did not have to download anything to view pdf, doc or zip files. The look on their face was even better when they found out that they could install most (if not all) of their applications from one place (no searching around dodgey third party websites).

I love this thing in Linux too.. Installation or Windows is too lengthy.. and then installing supporting software takes days..
But in Linux, You'll make your system ready in just one day. Maximum.
Though there are lots of things in which Linux still needs to improve.

[mysoomro]

Really nice article!

[krustymk]

I stopped reading at this point

'Linux/motorbikes don't have viruses/doors, so are perfectly safe'

Really.....? If Linux had the same market share as windows there would be 'NO' viruses?!?!

Using the car anology, (from what i have gathered so far) a better comparison would be

windows, a shop bought sports car
Linux, A project sports car

I used the word 'sports' as i dont know of many other types of home built cars

[Pikachu6708]

Yeah I always did play with legos a lot growing up .

Me too ... hmmm, thinking of it I'd still love to

Who wouldn't? Legos are a blast to play with, and heck, they make a legitimate art material as well, along with clay, paint, etc.

[dee.]

Kind of a dated article. It made some good points, but also some outright fallacies. Would be fun to know what the writer would think of the situation now, 6-7 years later.

[emperor_aniseed]

A computer needs Windows like a fish needs a bicycle.

[emperor_aniseed]

Kind of a dated article. It made some good points, but also some outright fallacies. Would be fun to know what the writer would think of the situation now, 6-7 years later.

Just out of interest, dee. What were the outdated fallacies?

[Orbmiser]

A computer needs Windows like a fish needs a bicycle.

Sorry that doesn't fly as there are many individuals & companies that do need the Bicycle.

As note I don't game but still use specific software that Linux Does Not provide!
Simple as that. Many linux users say well why don't you use yada..yada. as a replacement.
Simple fact many times the alternative are non-existent or of lesser quality or lack functions needed.

Sometimes due to locked in there isn't a choice by the users. As is required for their work,school,etc..

This whole Windows vs. Linux is just a mine's better than yours locker room debate. Using wide sweeping global condemnation
based on their own personal experiences.

As it doesn't matter how beautiful,smooth,secure and safe Linux is if it doesn't have the software that an individual needs. Or the time to learn the system when it doesn't behave as intended.

As to the will not be controlled and give your money to the evil corporations. Valid to a point. As then the same user's spouting that stance are then at the same time buying products produced in China,Taiwan,Thailand by slave labor with less than human standards and practices. Which is the lesser evil?

As to the argument because viruses & trojans,malware,etc... Just means maintaining & learning how to protect yourself.
I ran a Win7 for 4 years without nary a problem with hardware or viruses and such. But protected myself and did regular cleanup and backups.

As to BSOD's and Bad drivers well sorry can find just as many issues on the linux side. Just look into any linux forum about hardware issues. Even installing due to lack of understanding about partitions and how it works makes for a bigger headache than a windows install. I never had a windows update break anything. Can't say the same for linux updates.

I Love Linux don't get me wrong. And fills 90% of my needs. But I'm not so diluted that I need to justify one OS over another. Or blanket statement needing to prove that Linux is superior in every way over Windows. Different strokes and needs. And linux cannot fill all needs for all people. Simple fact.

I can Love Linux & Accept Windows when the need requires it without all the hate.
.

[emperor_aniseed]

I repeat: a computer needs Windows like a fish needs a bicycle.

Re your reply

Paragraph 1: Assertions with no details.

Paragraph 2: More assertions. Vague details about no alternatives. Microsoft Office is a network. The more people that have Microsoft Office, the more useful it becomes. The more people that have LibreOffice, the more useful it becomes. You don't need Windows. You need your recipient to be able to open your documents.

Paragraph 3: "as is required by their school etc." If other people are able to bully you through Windows, that doesn't argue in favour of Windows but rather argues against it.

Paragraph 4: You reduce this to conflict. My point was merely that the modern computer user doesn't need Windows to access the internet, send e-mails, watch videos, make phone calls etc.

Paragraph 5: Linux has all the software I need. Perhaps you could provide examples of what it doesn't provide. You needed time to learn Windows. Why should Linux be any different?

Paragraph 6: "As to the will not be controlled and give your money to the evil corporations." This comes entirely from you. Am I meant to answer your assertions for you? My point was that the regular computer user does not need Windows. I never said anything about evil corporations.

Paragraph 7: "Viruses, trojans etc." Funnily enough, I don't believe Linux is totally safe in this respect either. If it has been built by human hands, it can be unmade by human hands. Perhaps we are on the same side?

Paragraph 8: "BSODs etc." Again, this comes entirely from you. However, I do know that my own attempted Windows reinstall did not return my machine to its factory state. My OEM has a page of drivers for my model, one of which is the Intel driver. When I try to install this - and I have experimented with the begining, the middle and the end - it says I don't have the right hardware. That is the page for my model! Linux is not a cake-walk either but at least all my drivers have open source equivalents if the system cannot find the proprietary ones.

Your last 2 paragraphs: Again, this comes entirely from you. Who said anything about "hate"? I merely pointed out that to the modern internet-savvy computer user, Windows is not a necessity.

I don't hate Windows. Far from it. I recognise that 90% of users still use Windows and you'd have to be insane to think this doesn't matter. Internet Explorer 8 still needs to be taken into account by web designers even though it has long since been technically superceded by other browsers. Many people still use it.

While, I'm utterly disappointed with my OEM for supplying the wrong drivers, I don't hate Windows. Really, I don't. However, for 4/5 of users, Linux does everything required. Windows is simply not a necessity. Really it isn't.

If you're a business, I can understand. You have to adapt yourself to the world as your customer sees it, not as you would like it to be. However, for an ordinary home user, it doesn't make any sense to run Windows, except perhaps for greater laptop battery life. Even if you play games, there are consoles.

[dee.]

Kind of a dated article. It made some good points, but also some outright fallacies. Would be fun to know what the writer would think of the situation now, 6-7 years later.

Just out of interest, dee. What were the outdated fallacies?

Well firstly, the whole article seems to have this slightly elitistic tone, suggesting that "if you don't want to tinker with your operating system then linux is not for you and you should just use windows". I disagree with that idea. It has already been shown that it is entirely possible to make a Linux-based operating system that doesn't require tinkering, that works out of the box, that anyone can use just as easily as windows or mac os. There's Ubuntu, ChromeOS, Android... plus some other minor mobile operating systems. Those are all examples of Linux operating systems that indeed "just work". Ok, maybe you can say "but those are not the kind of Linux OS:s the article is talking about". Maybe you only want to limit this to the actual Linux distributions with GNU userland tools that run on desktop computers. Well, Ubuntu still applies to that restriction, Canonical certainly is trying to make their OS into something everyone and their grandmothers can use. The same can be said of many other Linux distros. Today, if you're an average user that only wants to watch videos and browse the web and maybe write some documents now and then and such, if you have a properly set up system, you don't necessarily have to ever use the command line at all.

So, that's one thing. Then, let's go over some specific points:

Linux users are in more of a community. They don't have to buy the software, they don't have to pay for technical support. They download software for free & use Instant Messaging and web-based forums to get help. They deal with people, not corporations.
...
So, to avoid problem #3a: Simply remember that you haven't paid the developer who wrote the software or the people online who provide the tech support. They don't owe you anything.

So, what's stopping the new Linux user from eg. buying RHEL and then getting paid tech support from Red Hat? Today, there are more and more Linux distributions that seek to sustain themselves financially, whether it be by donations, tech support, selling user data to Amazon... and this trend will only increase in the future, due to increasing interest in Linux and... well, economy.

Also, if you look at the Linux kernel, a large majority of submitted code is written by employers of various companies that use Linux in some way or other - ie. paid developers. It is a myth that Linux or FOSS software in general is written by hobbyists out of the kindness of their hearts - yes, some of it is, but not all.

The Linux kernel was not created by a company, and is not maintained by people out to make a profit with it.

See above.

So, to avoid problem #3b: Just remember that what Linux seems to be now is not what Linux was in the past. The largest and most necessary part of the Linux community, the hackers and the developers, like Linux because they can fit it together the way they like; they don't like it in spite of having to do all the assembly before they can use it.

So... this "doing the assembly before they can use it" apparently consists of inserting a CD/DVD, (maybe fiddling with the bios boot settings), rebooting and clicking through a couple of windows. Yes, we have Gentoo and Arch, but those are in the minority. These days, installing Linux is easy in most cases. Just look at the whole UEFI mess. The distros just saying "meh, Linux users know how to get past those kinds of problems, no worries here" - there's a huge uproar and lots of effort going into making sure that users can continue to install Linux as easily as inserting a CD/DVD and rebooting.

And anyway, are the hackers and developers really in the majority anymore? Linux is becoming mainstream, slowly but surely.

In an odd way, FOSS is actually a very selfish development method: People only work on what they want to work on, when they want to work on it. Most people don't see any need to make Linux more attractive to inexperienced end-users: It already does what they want it to do, why should they care if it doesn't work for other people?

They should care, because increased adoption brings benefits to everyone. With larger user base, there will be more interest from commercial developers and hardware vendors. If desktop Linux/GNU market share were to suddenly double or triple overnight, the effects would be dramatic: hardware vendors would start offering more preinstalled Linux machines, more games and other software being written for Linux, more hardware makers would work towards ensuring Linux compatibility... all kinds of benefits. And there are developers who really care about making Linux an operating system for everyone, one that is accessible to everyone, so that everyone can benefit from the fruits of FOSS. And that's a really good thing.

But, there's also a lot of good things in that article, and I don't disagree with it entirely. Only some parts of it. I really think the world will be a better place once every computer has a Linux or some other FOSS opertaing system. Linux can be an operating system for everyone - I think Google has already proven it with Android and ChromeOS. I don't like Google all that much - I think it's a mixed blessing, at best - but it has at least shown that it is possible to create a Linux-based OS that is acceptable for mainstream users.

[Wolfen69]

These days, installing Linux is easy in most cases.

I work with a mentally challenged person at work who was able to install linux mint all by himself. That, all by itself, says A LOT about how far linux has come. Plus, I know a bunch of people I've installed linux for 2 or more years ago that are still using it. Once you get used to it, it's hard to give up.

[ElectricRider]

I think this article is old enough not to be important anymore. In the 6 and a 1/2 years since it was written Linix has come a long way and more and mopre people know that. It's almost universality accepted that if you want good free operating system that does almost everything out of the box your Windows machine will do, try any one of the hundreds of Linux Distros.

React OS, love the idea. A free windows operating system. Too bad they shot themselves in the foot by choosing to abandon thier idea of rebuilding everything from scratch and started using Wine to fill in the blanks. This killed React OS IMO and it will never be mainstream even if it does get out of beta hell.

How about we all switch to PC-BSD Isotope 9.1. It IS a great OS for the desktop that can run hundreds of thousands of apps made for it as well as run almost any Linux app you throw at it. It has the most software written for it in the history of any OS. It looks sweet too, is similar to Linux in form and functionality Linux users can catch on fast. Trouble is it comes with a hefty 3.5 gigabyte size before instalation and bogs down the system if you dont have really fast hardware.

So Linx is not Windows, or React OS or PC-BSD or Mac But Linux can be just what you need when you need it most.

[dee.]

How about we all switch to PC-BSD Isotope 9.1. It IS a great OS for the desktop that can run hundreds of thousands of apps made for it as well as run almost any Linux app you throw at it. It has the most software written for it in the history of any OS. It looks sweet too, is similar to Linux in form and functionality Linux users can catch on fast. Trouble is it comes with a hefty 3.5 gigabyte size before instalation and bogs down the system if you dont have really fast hardware.

BSD's are a lost cause. And the most software written for it? I have to question that claim, I don't believe for a second that there's the "most software" written specifically for this one BSD variant.

Thing is, the BSD's will always be hindered and kept back by their ridiculous licensing, and unless someone takes a BSD and relicenses it under something sensible like GPL, they will be forever doomed to stay as niche OS's that cannot attract enough developers to stay competitive and relevant.

[ElectricRider]

How about we all switch to PC-BSD Isotope 9.1. It IS a great OS for the desktop that can run hundreds of thousands of apps made for it as well as run almost any Linux app you throw at it. It has the most software written for it in the history of any OS. It looks sweet too, is similar to Linux in form and functionality Linux users can catch on fast. Trouble is it comes with a hefty 3.5 gigabyte size before instalation and bogs down the system if you dont have really fast hardware.

BSD's are a lost cause. And the most software written for it? I have to question that claim, I don't believe for a second that there's the "most software" written specifically for this one BSD variant.

Thing is, the BSD's will always be hindered and kept back by their ridiculous licensing, and unless someone takes a BSD and relicenses it under something sensible like GPL, they will be forever doomed to stay as niche OS's that cannot attract enough developers to stay competitive and relevant.

I read that claim someplace.. probably on a BSD page. The claim included all BSD's in general since all BSD distros can all run the same software, It's not meant just for this one PC-BSD distro which is the most popular desktop flavor.

I agree the licensing sucks. They could be a strong desktop contender or compitition for Linux distros if they had a more open license. They would grow much faster. I just finished watching a speech by Linus made back in 2001 where he talked about how Linux is evolving so fast due to the GPL.