loeren: No doubt boatcrew will be along shortly to answer your question, but in the interim here's my view:
To me, one of the biggest problems with Linux is that it isn't one product - it's thousands. Many have their own different binary formats, so if you download the pre-compiled version of OpenOffice for say RedHat, then it won't work under say Debian. If you're using a less common distribution, or using a less common tool, you may end up having to compile things yourself - which as I'm not a programmer is tedious, assuming I can even work out how to get the project to build.
Whilst there's a heck of a lot of documentation out there, it's often written by programmers for programmers, not for end users - or makes massive assuptions about your base levels of Linux knowledge. Installation of some of them can be rather arcane too - in my experience 9/10ths will be easy, then there's something important you'll need to configure yourself to get it working, which means wading through thousands of configuration files trying to find the right one. Even if you find it, you'll have to work out the syntax and what changes you need to make.
You also forego Windows apps by default, so if you want to run (say) Photoshop, you'll need to install a Windows compatibility layer like WINE. Installation of WINE+app is usually pretty tricky, and the application might not quite work properly anyway. Photoshop is needlessly complex anyway, with the activation etc, so if something doesn't quite work, you're hosed. No doubt it will be suggested you run TheGIMP instead. Don't get me wrong, TheGIMP has an impressive feature set - but to me the user interface is even more bizarre than Photoshop - and Photoshop isn't exactly the best designed package to begin with.
There also tends to be a strong belief that open source is good, and closed source is evil - so if you want to get the aforementioned Photoshop running, you'll probably just be told to install TheGIMP instead, probably a few hundred times before you get the answer you're looking for. If you think Mac zealots are irritating, try the open source lot ;)
To be honest, at this point in time, for end users, I'd still say the best choices are either Windows or Mac. Linux is still too complex for most people.
If you want to experience it, the most often recommended distro is Ubuntu - so I'd start there if you have a spare machine, or if you just want to dabble try a liveCD like Knoppix.
Lan. Thanks very much for that. I doubt that I'd be any good with Linux so I can't see myself dabbling.
No worries, like I say, I'm sure boatcrew will be along shortly with a more positive spin on the Linux experience.
Personally I think it makes a reasonable choice for servers, but a poor choice for most desktop users.
OP, Steve Jobs will probably agree with you. And my brother-in-law (a network security specialist!) agrees with you to.
Here's an interesting thread about Linux on another message board, they're mainly ex-Amiga users, but it's interesting to see how they discuss the different options, and what they see as the problems.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Here's an interesting thread about Linux on another message board, they're mainly ex-Amiga users, but it's interesting to see how they discuss the different options, and what they see as the problems. <hr></blockquote>
That is not a fair post -- some non-Linux user is installing Gentoo. Gentoo is a type of Linux for serious tech people, not for the average user and definitely not for someone who is experimenting with Linux for the first time. Ubuntu is for the average user. For a more balanced view, try the Ubuntu Forums -- 150,000 pages of free tech support. Or this example of Linux as a desktop operating system: French parliament dumping Windows for Linux
Some reasons to avoid Vista:
Forbes.com says, "Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out."
TheStar.com says, "Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge. During the installation process, users 'activate' Vista by associating it with a particular computer or device and transmitting certain hardware information directly to Microsoft."
Microsoft-platform developers say "This is about the best way to describe my experience with Vista: it simply sucks!" and "Vista is awful. Either Dell sends me a Windows XP system CD or I send back my new notebook for a refund."
> Crossover Office
It's unfortunate that neither Photoshop CS2 (the current version) nor CS3beta run under Crossover Office, it's also unfortunate that it costs money...
Here are some instructions for getting Photoshop CS2 running under Ubuntu - that looks nice and simple, it only requires a machine already running Windows to install it on, some registry editing, file copying between systems, and faffing around on the command line. Definitely much easier than double clicking on an installer ;)
> Virus issues: "That is not because "Windows is popular""
In part, yes, it is. When a platform has 90%+ of the market share, it will be the most heavily targetted system out there, that's inescapable.
In addition, there are also rather more inexperienced users on Windows - and they tend to do things that more experienced folk wouldn't, like downloading screensavers from infectmycomputerwithavirus.com.zz. Doesn't matter how secure the system is if a user hands the keys over ;)
IMO Windows is getting better over time - and more people are aware of the potential hazards, so have a firewall, anti-virus software, and anti-spyware software installed (all free). I suspect the infection rate peaked between 2000-2003.
Still, at least securing Windows is well documented, and doable with a few simple downloads, which you double click to run. How easy is it to properly secure Linux?
> "That is not a fair post -- some non-Linux user is installing Gentoo."
Hate to break it to you, but later in the thread (#5) he says "I've been a casual linux user for about 10 years now"
> WGA, activation
I'll agree this is muttonheaded at best. Haven't had any problems with it, but I hate it conceptually. Point.
> With Windows, when something breaks you have to take it to a store. With Linux you can go on IRC chat, newsgroups and forums and get free live tech support.
How to put this politely - that's hogwash. You know I can get any answer I need online, there are literally hundreds of forums, and I've never had to go to a store in my life. I can if the need arises though - can you as a Linux user?
> "Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush ...[out]... and rip somebody's liver out"
I disagree with their assessment - unless you substitute Linux for Vista ;) Linux is spectacularly frustrating for a newbie, and trust me on that, I've tried it several times now. Have you even tried Vista?
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>It's unfortunate that neither Photoshop CS2 (the current version) nor CS3beta run under Crossover Office, it's also unfortunate that it costs money...<hr></blockquote>
Linux is not the best choice for people who need Photoshop CS2, although it will run Photoshop 7. Disney's animation studio uses Photoshop on Linux for their work. If it's good enough for Disney, the average user should be ok. Most software for Linux is Free. Crossover Office is the only one I know of in general use that costs money. Programs for Linux that cost money are generally highly-specialized programs that the average user would not ever use (e.g., some of the programming IDEs).
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>In part, yes, it is. When a platform has 90%+ of the market share, it will be the most heavily targetted system out there, that's inescapable.<hr></blockquote>
The idea that "Windows gets viruses just because it has the market share" is a myth. Linux is powering most of the Web sites on the Internet and still does not have the same virus problems as Windows. Mac has a rapidly growing share of the laptop market and there are no viruses for Mac OS X (which is based on Linux's cousin, BSD).
The reason Linux and Mac are much more secure than Windows is because they are Unix-based. Unix was developed in a networked environment and has been around for decades. Windows was developed as a single-user at-home system and security was tacked on later once the Internet became popular. Also, for business reasons, Microsoft integrated certain elements of the operating system in an insecure way. Example: Internet Explorer was deeply integrated into the operating system and is a very large security hole because of it.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>In addition, there are also rather more inexperienced users on Windows - and they tend to do things that more experienced folk wouldn't, like downloading screensavers from infectmycomputerwithavirus.com.zz. Doesn't matter how secure the system is if a user hands the keys over ;)<hr></blockquote>
The difference between Unix (Linux/Mac) and Windows here is that Windows runs in the admin account by default. All you have to do to totally compromise a Windows computer is plug in a thumb drive for a few seconds. Windows also has other insecure features like "hiding extensions of known filetypes". So you can download mypic.jpg.exe and Windows will show it as mypic.jpg (removing the extension). Double clicking on it will execute code that has access to the core of your operating system. If you try that on Linux or Mac it won't let you run the code. It will even warn you if the file has the wrong extension. Unlike Windows, Linux will warn you if it's an exe file even if you save it as a .txt file.
Vista has some new "security features", but it is a new operating system apparently rewritten from scratch. I expect that Vista will be buggy and insecure for a long time.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>IMO Windows is getting better over time - and more people are aware of the potential hazards, so have a firewall, anti-virus software, and anti-spyware software installed (all free). I suspect the infection rate peaked between 2000-2003.<hr></blockquote>
This is where Windows gets confusing to the novice computer user. You need a lot of software to make it secure, and some of the advertised security software is acutally spyware. All of that "safety software" eats up memory and causes other headaches (like Norton). Vista by itself already eats several hundreds of megabytes of RAM... Many Windows users are surprised to find that you don't need any security software on Linux and Mac. Computer viruses are generally a "Windows only" problem.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Still, at least securing Windows is well documented, and doable with a few simple downloads, which you double click to run. How easy is it to properly secure Linux?<hr></blockquote>
Ubuntu is highly secure out of the box. You don't even need to run a software firewall (unless you start adding extra services). There is no need for any extra security software.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Hate to break it to you, but later in the thread (#5) he says "I've been a casual linux user for about 10 years now"<hr></blockquote>
Gentoo is very advanced. It's not even for the long-term casual Linux user. It is a special type of Linux that requires compilation of the entire operating system and all software from raw source code.
For regular desktop use, Ubuntu is the best (in my opinion).
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>I'll agree this is muttonheaded at best. Haven't had any problems with it<hr></blockquote>
I've had problems with "software activation" in Windows. I have two genuine copies of MS Office at the moment that I can't use because of it. One tells me that I have activated it too many times (because I reinstall Windows from scratch every few months). Another one is an upgrade from an OEM version of Works on my old laptop. There is nothing to upgrade on my new laptop. I would have to spend more money just to use the software that I have already paid for. Microsoft knows this and are happy to regularly charge people again for software that they've paid for.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>How to put this politely - that's hogwash. You know I can get any answer I need online, there are literally hundreds of forums, and I've never had to go to a store in my life. I can if the need arises though - can you as a Linux user?<hr></blockquote>
When I have a problem in Windows it takes a lot longer to find the answer than when searching for the answer to a Linux problem. With Linux you have resources like usenet and IRC chat. The ubuntu IRC channel is highly active. It's essentially free 24/7 Linux tech support by chat (if you ask nicely and search Google first so that you don't ask an obvious question).
You probably can't get software support in Linux at a mainstream computer store, but I've never reached a point where I couldn't find the answer online. Example: when my Windows computer became unbootable it took at least a week to get it back online. When my Linux installation became unbootable, I was still able to boot into the command line, surf the net and find the answer. The Linux installation was rebootable within 15 minutes. The Windows installation never became rebootable. I rescued the data with a Linux live CD (Knoppix), and then made my first dual boot system...
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Linux is spectacularly frustrating for a newbie, and trust me on that, I've tried it several times now. Have you even tried Vista? <hr></blockquote>
Linux can be especially frustrating if you are already an experienced Windows user because you have to relearn some of the basic things. It can also be frustrating if you choose the wrong distro. Wait until the next version of Ubuntu comes out next month and try the live CD. Check out the new Linux desktop managers like Beryl. You know a lot about computers already and I don't think that you would like changing your main OS to Linux, but it might be interesting to experiement with.
I've tried Vista, and Office 2007. Was not impressed with either.
trusted partner
