I guess this is why a lot of people have been saying for years that it's a Good Idea to place /home - or at least the user's "data directories" - on a separate partition?
Orbmiser wrote:Linux is a mature and stable OS. It's the device drivers that are unstable and buggy. Aim your concerns at the device manufactures that refuse for the most part to create stable and bug-free drivers for linux.
And to some extent - I don't know how much, but suspect it's rather significant - on all the folks who "would like to try linux, but stick with Microsoft because it has..." and even those who dual-boot linux and Microsoft because they want some things that are only available in a Microsoft OS.
It's hard to be a motivator for companies/entities to develop for the linux world if every time we want to use their apps/etc., we just boot into Microsoft and do so - I think it's like the person who has both a PS3 game console and a home computer... Would like Game Z to be ported to the PC... But goes ahead and buys the game in its PS3 form. The developer has at that point already got the person's money, why bother expending effort on a port when that person might
also purchase the port? Sure, a portion will - but probably a (relatively) small percentage.
Complaining about a thing not being available for linux - a game, a driver, office suite, what have you - and then going ahead and using the Microsoft OS version "because its there" doesn't seem anywhere near as productive a strategy as complaining because that thing isn't available in linux and refusing to use the Microsoft OS version, just doing without said thing altogether.
I could be wrong. However, consider this: IDK how many hundreds of thousand (or millions) of computers are sold each year with OEM installations of Microsoft Windows. A fair amount of people (I cannot quantify the amount) buy them and dual-boot linux or even erase Windows and use linux as the sole OS. But the people's money has already been spent... In truth, they have bought and paid for Microsoft Windows whether they choose to use it or not. Buy 10,000 Chevrolets and push them all over the nearest hill because you don't like the engines GM puts in them, lol, GM doesn't care because they're already spending your money. To get their attention, you'd have to spend your money on 10,000 Fords instead in the first place and just send a note to GM letting them know how happy FoMoCo must be with GM for causing you to give your custom to the competitor. To throw a wrench into the gears, so to speak, would require a significant percentage of computer buyers to refuse to purchase computers that have Microsoft on them and to stop purchasing "made for Microsoft Windows OS" hardware, regardless of whether the things can be made to work under linux or not.
that linux is free. But it could be considered unfortunate in a way, too. If I buy a computer, I know I can add linux to it for $0.00. If linux cost me $249.99, I'd probably be looking for a computer that didn't include Microsoft - and charge me for same as a portion of the computer's price - so that I could spend the "OS fee" part of the price on linux.
The above would probably be a rather painful shot to the linux user numbers. To me, that's a lot of grocery money, lol. But it would - I speculate - cause a drop in the number of Microsoft OS licenses sold in a year's time. Probably wouldn't be significant enough to change things, but the way it is now, people who dislike Windows - for that matter, even people who hate
it and have no intention of using it... are still contributing to Microsoft's profits.
Got to stop that, lol. Stop paying Microsoft for the chance to run linux on a new computer. Stop purchasing graphics cards, printers, and other hardware that can be made to work in linux and start buying graphics cards, printers, and other hardware that is made to work in linux