Why not Linux

geosynchronous orbit

Jeez, is this argument still going on...

the desktop wars are long over - the 'good guys' won - history is written by the victors after all !!

Installing any os now is a trivial matter that takes less than 2 hours on any of them.
I have done an install of Fedora, OS X and Windows 8.1 on 3 different machines in the last week at home.

Fedora was nice - had a problem with wireless card but grand after a quick search from my windows machine.

Windows was nice - with maybe 2 reboots in total.

OS X was nice - nothing to write home about in terms of issues.

Setting up...
ninite for windows - grand, Pycharm and Eclipse - grand
OSX, xcode and libre office and vlc downloaded , good to go.
Fedora - updated Libre Office, updated system, - grand

They all pretty much look the same, act the same and can all do the same.
None of them crash more or less than any other.... with cloud storage, I can access data across all 3.

But to get to the nub of the original question? Why not Linux?
For the 99.98% of people (made up stat) who use the 'big two' and have not and will not use linux, I would answer, - unless you are interested in os's and messing about with them, why bother?

* Edit: Prompted by the statement above CinIO I had a look at the google to remind me when I first started using Linux. I remember buying 5.0 and installing on a 486 DX2 66 which was already running linux, so I am guessing( I think I still have the book that introduced me to linux - must dig it out) I started in '97 with Red Hat Linux 3.0.3)

Can anyone go back further I wonder?

Worztron

http://whylinuxisbetter.net

CiniO

geosynchronous orbit wrote: »

* Edit: Prompted by the statement above CinIO I had a look at the google to remind me when I first started using Linux. I remember buying 5.0 and installing on a 486 DX2 66 which was already running linux, so I am guessing( I think I still have the book that introduced me to linux - must dig it out) I started in '97 with Red Hat Linux 3.0.3)

Can anyone go back further I wonder?

Heh nice to bring old memories
Red Hat 3.0.3 (Picasso) according to google is March 1996. Nice one

I had my first contact with Linux when I started secondary school.
This was Sept 1997. And school was bit backward with technology as usually schools are, but at least they had access to internet. This was arranged by standard rented dedicated telecom line with 33.6kbit/s modem on both sides.
Modem was pluggin in to server which being some strong 486 (probably DX4) run Slackware 3.2 with 2.0.30 kernel . Local network in computer room for students was wired by BNC cable with Tee connector by each PC and terminators on each end. If cable was broken at any place, whole network was gone
Client systems had MS DOS installed, with some telnet client (telbin.exe or something like that) and we could use thet to log in to our accounts on server. There we could use pine for email, ftp for downloading, and BitchX for irc, etc...
Great times really and this started my interest in linux systems. In few months from total linux lame I managed to gain root access on the server using some tricks. And few months later they nominated me as school server administrator, as our informatics teacher rather had no clue about linux.
To be honest first linux I tried on my own PC was Monkey linux which I got with some magazine. It was installed on FAT partition just in separate directory (i think it was called umsdos) and could run it from dos level with loadlin.exe. I tried it for few days, and then eventually installed Red Hat 5.0 which I mentioned above and that when all fun began.

I would love to still use linux, and I obviously do occasionally, but there's not really a time and somehow as I said above there's not that much happening with linux these days. At least that's how I see it. Gentoo and Slackware (my two favourite distros) are nearly dead by now.

djerk

Funny.. i'd say my first ventures into linux was on redhat early 90s as well.. still have that 'phonebook' i bought complete with cd's at home in the attic at mums house probably covered in an inch or two of dust at this stage (cost a pretty penny at the time!). I had a tiny partition on our 3.2gb p200 family pc to dual boot win 95 via grub (loaded via floppy) to play around in my sandbox.. things have come leaps and bounds since then. Installing linux is just as easy as installing any other OS these days. We've enough power to run OSs in virtualboxes as well so don't see what all the fuss is about. You can search for repos from command line and it all gets installed automatically now... wasn't always the case. Anyone rem how hard it was to get a soundcard or modem working back then? nevermind a graphics card!

I was thrown out of my computer class in 97 or so, i just started fixing all the computers that had problems cause i was bored feckless sitting around watching everyone playing solitaire.. they didnt even know how to access the internet at the time!! Teacher hadn't a ****in clue what i was doing but just didn't like the idea that i knew more than her so she kicked me out. I used to login to the modem and ring the phone beside her just for the laugh while she was talking about what a mouse or a keyboard was.. that was the extent of her knowledge.

I used to want to know and learn everything about anything, i always wanted to be better and to be in control.. but i realise now that, its just not possible in one life.. focus on what you care about and what you're good at and share those passions with other people...life is much too short to be drawing conclusions.

geosynchronous orbit

djerk wrote: »

...life is much too short to be drawing conclusions.

^^
They should rename the internet to this

mcmoustache

People don't run operating systems - they run software. They don't care what's under the hood. They want to log into facebook, type their cv out on Word, play games and watch (netflix and porn). Software is what people want and almost all common software is available for windows. A lot of windows users can get themselves into trouble though.

For most of them, windows is already installed along with plenty of shovelware. When that's not enough, they can download some more software from cnet and add more spyware and browser plugins to redirect their searches and inject more ads and add more popups.

For windows users who know what they're doing, this doesn't happen.

I use kubuntu for most of my online activities because I find the whole repo (appstore) system really simple and I like the customisability and security. I also love windows 7 because it works well and I have a gaming machine so I need win7 for the AAA games. I have Steam on linux too but the amount of games available isn't great yet - maybe that will change in time.

To answer the OP's question, most people use windows because that's what was on their laptop when they got it. For the users that I mentioned in my second paragraph, I think that they should be using linux - they can't be trusted with windows. They inevitably wind up slowing their system to a crawl and come to me to fix it.*

I put xubuntu on my mother's laptop when winXP was EOL'd. She basically just uses a browser for facebook and watches videos on it. She also copies pictures from a camera's sd card to save and also add to facebook. Oh, and skype too. Linux works really well for this sort of user (so would a chromebook but that's linux anyway). I set her up with big icons for the stuff she does and she loves it. It runs better than xp did and there is less clutter on the screen to confuse her. I haven't had a single tech support call in over a year from her.

I'm rambling a bit but the point I want to make is that power users need to have windows and most can handle that. Other users, who facebook and send emails would be better off on linux. Although they are the majority of users (for now) they are given windows when they probably shouldn't be. It's just what was on their laptop when they bought it. That's why more people don't use linux.

Personally, I think linux is superior as an OS and the KDE/XFCE/LXDE (fúck new GNOME. Die in a fire you ****) desktop managers are awesome. But I like games and netflix so I need windows too.


* I actually like cleaning up crapware-filled pcs. I've never had to reinstall windows. I could spend up to 8 hours having a great time with the cleaning. I ask for beer and cognac though because it's a lot of time. I also lock the pc down as much as I can and also stick linux on the recovery (grub defaults to windows with a 1 second timeout) so that I can download what I need next time it happens.

Johnboy1951

cmoustache wrote:

I'm rambling a bit but the point I want to make is that power users need to have windows and most can handle that.

Why would a 'power user' need any particular OS?

Would it not be equally valid to say 'power users need Linux'?

I suppose it depends on what you actually mean by 'power user'.

To me it is someone who wants/needs to access the lower levels of the OS ...... and Linux seems to be the better fit for that.

CiniO

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Why would a 'power user' need any particular OS?

Would it not be equally valid to say 'power users need Linux'?

I suppose it depends on what you actually mean by 'power user'.

To me it is someone who wants/needs to access the lower levels of the OS ...... and Linux seems to be the better fit for that.

My understanding was that he meant power users as those who use lots of games, video, audio and photo editing software, etc...
It's not here about the system, but about availablity of professional software.
There's way more for windows than linux in those categories.

challengemaster

excollier wrote: »

Well when I mentioned Offfice, and adobe etc. most Linux distros come with these (Libre office, pdf readers, flash, drivers, zip tools) as standard, included in the install, without having to search for them.
What about the endless re-boots when bringing a Windows system fully up to date? Most Linux distros only need to pull in one set of updates after install and rarely, if ever, need a reboot at all.
I have yet to have a driver problem with Linux, on several different computers. Maybe I have been luckier than most.

You keep mentioning these "endless reboots", which is pure nonsense. Even if reboots are required, they take 1-2 minutes at most.

FYI Win 8.1 installs in about 11 minutes. If it took 2 hours to get a system functional something is very wrong. The installers for office, adobe reader, drivers, etc only take a few minutes if even.

mcmoustache

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Why would a 'power user' need any particular OS?

Would it not be equally valid to say 'power users need Linux'?

I suppose it depends on what you actually mean by 'power user'.

To me it is someone who wants/needs to access the lower levels of the OS ...... and Linux seems to be the better fit for that.

It's a lazy catch-all term for people who use computers to make stuff instead of just consuming stuff. People who use their laptops for work, for example. I don't mean server admins although I can see how the term "power user" would apply to them. I would guess that most servers in the world are running on a linux os.

Johnboy1951

I came across this tonight and thought it might be of interest here

Linux might not have found a comfortable home on the desktop, but for backend services, it’s everywhere.

Here’s a guide to Linux, showing why intermediate and advanced Windows users might want to take a look at this open-source operating system.

http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/an-introduction-to-linux-for-windows-users/

PropJoe10

challengemaster wrote: »

You keep mentioning these "endless reboots", which is pure nonsense. Even if reboots are required, they take 1-2 minutes at most.

FYI Win 8.1 installs in about 11 minutes. If it took 2 hours to get a system functional something is very wrong. The installers for office, adobe reader, drivers, etc only take a few minutes if even.

It does indeed install very quickly. What p***es me off about Windows installs is the length of time it takes to run Windows Update. Sometimes it can take hours to have an up-to-date system, and the number of times I've had "Update failed, rolling back updates" errors and had to start over again is beyond count.

syklops

I'm rambling a bit but the point I want to make is that power users need to have windows and most can handle that. Other users, who facebook and send emails would be better off on linux. Although they are the majority of users (for now) they are given windows when they probably shouldn't be. It's just what was on their laptop when they bought it. That's why more people don't use linux.

White man speak with forked tongue.

As a power user, why do I *need* windows?

PrzemoF

There are 2 posts in the thread claiming that "there isn't much happening with linux". I think it means gnu/linux reached the stage when an average user doesn't hit (almost) any problems and draws a conclusion that the development under the bonned stalled.

Worztron

mcmoustache wrote: »

...

Personally, I think linux is superior as an OS and the KDE/XFCE/LXDE (fúck new GNOME. Die in a fire you ****) desktop managers are awesome. But I like games and netflix so I need windows too.

...

I love the Mate Desktop Environment - Xfce is terrific too.

The amount of games available for Linux is much larger now compared to just a few years ago. You can watch netflix now on Linux.

PropJoe10

My personal favourite desktop environment is XFCE but KDE is very solid too. Havent really looked at MATE to any great extent.

Worztron

PropJoe10 wrote: »

My personal favourite desktop environment is XFCE but KDE is very solid too. Havent really looked at MATE to any great extent.

I never took to KDE. Mate is just like the old Gnome2 - just better.

geosynchronous orbit

PrzemoF wrote: »

There are 2 posts in the thread claiming that "there isn't much happening with linux". I think it means gnu/linux reached the stage when an average user doesn't hit (almost) any problems and draws a conclusion that the development under the bonned stalled.

This is certainly one way of looking at it from a Linux evangalist perspective who wants to share the best os with the world and is frustrated that all the sheep are just following Micro$oft

From an objective perspective - there isn't much happening with linux. ie it has caught up with the pre-installed os's but it has not pushed the envelope to such an extent that the mainstream are going to suddenly wake up and say - we were wrong all along.

Until linux becomes the first os to release the minority report interface (without the glasses) it will always be filed under 'specialist'.

I have been hearing the argument about 'why not linux? ' for the best part of 20 years, my main home system has always been linux since 1998. I am monitoring 18 production servers at the moment using PuTTY but posting on Windows 7 in my work place.

RAmbling because of age possibly. There is lots going on in the linux world, just not enough to count to the rest of the world is my opinion - but I am looking forward to the MR Interface on linux

Edit: As a matter of interest, I did a search of this forum to see the earliest that there was some back and forth on this type of discussion - earliest I could find was a 'Unix as a desktop' from September 2001 - proof enough that this 'discussion' will never be resolved

Johnboy1951

geosynchronous orbit wrote:

Until linux becomes the first os to release the minority report interface (without the glasses) it will always be filed under 'specialist'.

Is this what you had in mind?

They seem to have reached their funding goal .... now the wait begins ..... and it is cross-platform

http://mashable.com/2014/02/24/dizmo-minority-report/

geosynchronous orbit

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is this what you had in mind?

They seem to have reached their funding goal .... now the wait begins ..... and it is cross-platform

Is the developer dude at 1:11 on a 2011 Mac Book Pro

Dr_Bill

Why not Linux? Windows is easier to use, plain and straight and better is supported. Linux is fragmented into different distro's each with their own strengths, Windows / Apple iOS (BSD in disguise) is centralised and maintained and easier to obtain support. Each to their own thou.

Johnboy1951

Dr_Bill wrote: »

Why not Linux? Windows is easier to use, plain and straight and better is supported. Linux is fragmented into different distro's each with their own strengths, Windows / Apple iOS (BSD in disguise) is centralised and maintained and easier to obtain support. Each to their own thou.

..... and each to their own opinion .....

mcmoustache

syklops wrote: »

White man speak with forked tongue.

As a power user, why do I *need* windows?

You need Windows (either installed to HD or VM) for Windows-only software that doesn't play nice with Wine.

If you never use Windows-only software that doesn't run with Wine, then you don't need windows.

mcmoustache

Worztron wrote: »

I never took to KDE. Mate is just like the old Gnome2 - just better.

I haven't given Mate a go yet. I liked gnome 2 but when I played with gnome 3 I just lost patience and switched to KDE 4. At that time KDE 4 wasn't that mature but it was still better than the clusterfúck that was gnome 3.

I'll have to give Mate and Cinnamon a go. I'd love to go back to that sort of clean desktop.

Johnboy1951

mcmoustache wrote: »

I haven't given Mate a go yet. I liked gnome 2 but when I played with gnome 3 I just lost patience and switched to KDE 4. At that time KDE 4 wasn't that mature but it was still better than the clusterfúck that was gnome 3.

I'll have to give Mate and Cinnamon a go. I'd love to go back to that sort of clean desktop.

I have tried both Mate and Cinnamon ...... Cinnamon is a total non-runner for me ...... Mate is acceptable on hardware that has difficulty with KDE4.

I dunno why there should be any difficulty getting a 'clean desktop' on KDE4

mcmoustache

Worztron wrote: »

The amount of games available for Linux is much larger now compared to just a few years ago. You can watch netflix now on Linux.

I have around 30 Steam games for linux. They are mostly indie titles but the Valve games all run on linux as does borderlands 2. More games will certainly help linux adoption and Valve seem keen to push this.

I have netflix for linux myself as well. It's just chrome running through wine. It works OK but it's a bit clunky. I also think that setting it up would be tricky for users such as my mother.

mcmoustache

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I dunno why there should be any difficulty getting a 'clean desktop' on KDE4

Gradients, curves and shininess everywhere. It looks cool for showing off to people but I just liked the flat plastic window decorations in gnome 2.

Saipanne

I use Ableton.

Johnboy1951

mcmoustache wrote: »

Gradients, curves and shininess everywhere. It looks cool for showing off to people but I just liked the flat plastic window decorations in gnome 2.

All of those can be turned off I expect, as most things can in KDE4.

Another option is to use something like Openbox-KDE which definitely has none of the 'bling'

Worztron

mcmoustache wrote: »

I haven't given Mate a go yet. I liked gnome 2 but when I played with gnome 3 I just lost patience and switched to KDE 4. At that time KDE 4 wasn't that mature but it was still better than the clusterfúck that was gnome 3.

I'll have to give Mate and Cinnamon a go. I'd love to go back to that sort of clean desktop.

I find Gnome3 absolutely awful along with Unity. I never liked Cinnamon that much either. For me it is #1 Mate and #2 Xfce. If I had to pick a 3rd choice fave it would probably be LXDE.