Brian_GP1200R

I haven't tried to go "Linux only desktop" for a while... but... my issues with it always were:

1) Things aren't just 100% easy - example A) I go to a web site that requires flash, with Windows I get a notification, I click accept, and 3 seconds later I've got flash running successfully. I don't have to open a package manager, I don't have to resolve dependencies, it just works. Example B) I notice that my printer is having streaks in the print out and I want to run some of the manufacture cleaning options... which may or may not exist in the home grown open source driver... not to mention when I call for support they inform me that these "streaks" could be caused from my un-supported driver / opreating system. While I know this isn't the case, I still can't get my printer RMA'd because they need proof it was running on a "supported" operating system.

2) There are too many options with Linux - Sure it's great that you can change to a million different shells, etc... but simply put... it's not consistant. I don't want to learn different shells, I want one well designed shell that isn't going to change every other week. I also don't want to have 5 different poorly written tools to configure 1 option. All these options don't scale well from a support stand point. I would HATE to run the IT help desk for a large scale Linux desktop deployment.

3) Linux is not that much more secure. Neither is MacOS X. If you think it's really that much better you're only fooling yourselves. Look at how many packages your average distro has... it's crazy. Look at how often and how many patches are released... Fortunately the defaults for Linux tend to include better firewalling, etc... which help prevent most of the bugs from being exploitable, but Windows is doing the same thing now with Vista.

4) Software support... name one good tax prep software that I don't have to run in an emulator. Gaming in Linux? Sure some of it can be done, but why hastle when Windows works fine.

5) Windows isn't THAT expensive. An OEM copy of Windows Vista Ultimate will run you $190 which buys you updates until they release a new version, which typically is about every 3 - 4 years. That's less than $50 a year for a solid operating system. Is Linux cheaper - of course. Is MacOS X - Nope, they get you all the time. Also you don't have to buy a new copy of Windows everytime you replace the motherboard, you only have to do that if you replace the whole machine, as in the chasis. You affix the sticker to the chasis and it's good for whatever M/B, you put in it, sure there is a SLIGHT chance you might have to call to get it reset, but realistically even that's unlikely, and MS won't charge you for the reset anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I actually love Linux, but only as a command line only server platform. My firewall is pure iptables from a script that I wrote and my distro has no GUI installed what so ever. What I LIKE about Unix / Linux is the command line, what I don't like is the GUI for daily use. My desktop box is Vista Ultimate 64bit and it runs GREAT. It never crashes (seriously), it's very fast, it looks pretty, it supports all the software I want to run, and it's compatible with any hardware I've thrown at it. I've run RHEL 4 (with GUI) on some dual proc Xeon servers at work, and I was surprised at how much slower the OS felt compared to my home C2D machine running Vista. I think Linux has it's place, just not as your "average user" desktop.

rocketman331

I have to say CompizFusion is awesome on my brother's Ubuntu rig. I have to agree tho as far as software goes that is why I use windows more. I use CAD programs that require DirectX and as a result i need to use Windows....and it's just easier to use a single boot on my main rig....now if only I could get dual boot on my laptop to work....

__________________

Truambitionz

About a week or two ago I tried installing Ubuntu.
The only real reason was to try Compiz
I didn't like having 4 partitions on one hardrive at all. It gives me bad energy and makes me feel cluttered.
I tinkered with it for a day and couldn't install....anything. The update kept failing and worse of all it was having trouble giving me a viewable screen. I figured installing drivers would help.

After spending hours upon hours on Linux forums and reading articles I just couldn't get those damn Nvidia drivers installed and working. There was also a bunch of other things I needed layered with that which I felt was unnecessary.

Then the next day I tried logging into Vista again and I got all kinds of errors and random babble about missing boot files.

Linux is not for me, at least for now.

With windows I have something that I'm used to and know my way around.

Open source? I don't even understand how to operate it let alone make core changes to it.

Free? So is walking....but I'd rather drive.
But seriously, I think this is Linux's major high point but I'm not building a new computers every 3 months. I'm lucky if I have a new build every 5 years.

Stable? Vista isn't as unstable as everyone says it is. Xp was worse when it was released and SP2 seemed rock solid to me.

__________________
"Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing."

! Contribute to the Pixel Wall ! "Just click and find out"

OSAMT: "Member of OCN Songwriter and Musician Thread"

The Hundred Gunner

You might like to try Mint. IMO, it's more well-setup than Ubuntu is.

What game is this? Is there a Linux port?

Come, now. We call ourselves leet around here. And we hate OSs that don't let us tweak, and we hate proprietary systems because they work out of the box and can't be OCed It wouldn't kill to learn a couple terminal commands.

All I know is BASH (and not much of it), and I'm doing fine

Linux and OSX and Unix in general ARE more secure than windows...

Frequent updates are a good thing.

Windows stealth-updates users' systems, so no one can really say what's going on with them.

Wrong-O! This is false information; do not listen to this!

Vista IS $400. You think they would make it that easy?

If you want one license for one machine EVER, an OEM will cost you $190ish. But the key will die with your motherboard. Once the warranty on the board is up and it dies and you can't get it fixed, $190 also dies.

If you want to be able to move the license to another motherboard, you can buy that kind (retail) for $400. But my house has 5 computers... And I don't have $2000 to give to m$.

m$ OEM policy clarification: http://www.overclock.net/windows/156...ification.html


I have to agree that for the average joe, Linux cannot become mainstream. However on a leet computer forum like OCN, there should be no problem with people learning Linux.

__________________
"But you would be amazed by how many people think that the only reason to have a computer is to play games, and that playing games is all that anyone with a computer does." - dangerousHobo

"Linux is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. " - mbp

"I have used a mac before. And they still don't have right click I mean come on. - aakar

Sistum Id

Well I have spent hours and hours now trying to work Compiz. I cant get GLX enabled. I cant install nvidia drivers. I to have read blogs and pages of people saying this works. Compiz Fusion, Emerald stuff, Beryl, Compiz, GLX XGL, Gusty, Fiesty, it goes on and on. I just learned Compiz and Compiz Fusion are different. I didnt realize XGL and GLX. Now I installed Ubuntu on a fresh hdd and now am having trouble getting the sound drivers in.

If i cant get this Compiz running with GLX tonight or tomorrow night. Thats it, i give up.

Its called Rappelz and as far as I know...there is no Linux port.

__________________
I don't like condensation.

Q6600 G0 400*9 3.6 on Stock Air with insane vcore http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=351003

The_Rocker

The only reason every linux enthusiast hates Windows is because its made my Microsoft which choke the market and crush the little guys and therefore use majority % to overule any competition. And if they still loose, they throw money at the problem.

stanrc

I mainly use windows (xp) and have dabbled in linux a few times (FC6, Ubuntu, and a handful of other random distros) but yet I still use windows. And it comes down to one thing, its what I'm comfortable with. I know if I break something in windows, I know how to fix it. Not the case in Linux. Of course I could take the time to learn it, but who has time for that anymore? And yes there are more than enough online guides for Linux, but I don't want to search the net every time I want to do something new in Linux or every time I break something in Linux.

__________________

Ramrod 1.5 + DFI LANPARTY DK 790FX-M2RS + AMD Phenom 9850 BE = Ramrod 2.0! Coming soon...

Quasimojo

First off, let me say that I've installed and run Linux *many* times - typically for its server apps (Unreal, Neverwinter Nights, Apache, etc.), but I have tried on more than one occasion to give the desktop GUI's a go. Of all the distros, Gentoo was my favorite. It's not the best option for Linux n00bs like myself, but I really like the Portage package management system, and the ability to install even a desktop GUI on a very lean configuration (no more apps or other memory consuming features than I absolutely needed - take a note here, Microsoft) was a big plus.

However, and this applies to just about every distro I tried, including the 'buntu's, here are the main reasons I just couldn't stick with it:

1) Driver support. Sad to say, but while the vast majority of hardware sold in the last several years, regardless of manufacturer, has Windows drivers available, Linux users have to rely on someone having at some point written a suitable driver for Linux. More often than not, the hardward manufacturers do *not* provide Linux drivers, and this support must come from the Linux community. Network adapters are a big problem here. I have a wireless PCMCIA NIC that works fine in Windows, but the only distro I have been able to get it set up in has been Ubuntu and Xubuntu.

2) Odd design elements. I'm just talking about the way things work as compared to what has proven effective in other OS's. For example, I have Xubuntu on an old Compaq laptop right now. This thread prompted me to fire it up and play around with it for a bit last night. I went into display properties to check the resolution I was running, and in the list of all the available resolutions, it had "Default" selected. Not 1024x768, not 800x600, but "Default". I had to bounce around to different resolutions, applying them each in turn, to find the one that matched what it was set to to even determine the current resolution. It did not show the specific current resolution settings. There was no way to determine which refresh rate it was set to (well, I guess I could have done some research and figured out which config file to fire up in a text editor and sift through to find it, but come on...). This is one of those things that just makes you scratch your head and wonder what the OS devs were thinking. I mean, I agree that it shouldn't just copy the functionality of Windows, but in many cases they try to be different to a fault, and *that* is a turn-off.

3) Acronyms and otherwise cryptic app names. Seriously. I get the names like gimp that form an actual word that people can associate with the application, but Linux application devs need to step out of their C++ mindset when they give their product a name. A couple of examples: hsqldb and PyQt. Here's a tip, devs: used real words and use capitalization. Otherwise it just looks like something some hack threw together with little to no testing, much less thought-out design goals...which in reality pretty much describes half of what the typical user will find out there. This is, unfortunately, one of the undesirable side-effects of the open source model. I love that there are so many people contributing apps and drivers to the Linux community. I hate that so many have little incentive to make their offerings as accessible and functional as the commercial offerings.

4) Not a show-stopper by any means, but this has always bugged me in Linux GUI's. My mouse never seems to have a very high resolution. The mouse cursor always seems unresponsive and laggy. Maybe there is a way to improve that, but that's one of those things that I really shouldn't have to bother with.

Aww, come on. You knew there was a better than 50/50 chance that the answer to that question is No.

Terminal commands don't bother me in the least. However, one of the biggest reasons people use a GUI desktop is to avoid them. Add to that the fact that even being able to determine the commands needed and how to use them is a real pain sometimes.

Actually, Windows only updates my system when I want it to do so. I can read the update notes to determine what it's going to do if I choose to, but I typically don't. I don't really care. Odds are pretty good that whatever they are updating is a good thing. /shrug

This is interesting. I've never run into it myself, but I have read about others being able to transfer their OEM OS to a new machine when their motherboard failed. I'd be interested to hear from anyone here who has had any luck in that regard. I understand that their official policy is one license for one machine, but I always thought they were a bit vague (perhaps even overly-restrictive) in the details, just to give them some room to bend in the interests of the paying customer as they see fit.

Linux as a whole has taken some *huge* steps toward becoming more mainstream accessible over the years, but at this point, from my own experience, it's not there yet. It remains an enthusiast's endeavor...which of course describes the OCN community pretty well, so I *do* continue to take the periodic stab at it. I just wish it weren't so unnecessarily esoteric in so many regards.

__________________
"You might be a king, or a little street-sweeper,
But sooner or later, you dance with the Reaper."
-- Grim Reaper, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Brian_GP1200R

I stand corrected on the motherboard / license issue... but realistically... does anyone here believe that if you have a computer with a genuine Microsoft Sticker on it, that MS is going to sue you / put you in jail because you upgraded the MB? Seriously, MS doesn't care... what they would be worried about are large corps doing it as policy.

On the security front the only advantage that Mac, Linux, and the other Unix flavors have is that they aren't nearly as popular. Windows has greater than 90% of the market share, Apple somewhere around 5 - 7%... why would anyone looking to write viruses / malware / exploits want to shoot for the 5% of the market share when they can code for 90%? A prime example of "things not being right" was discovered with Solaris 10 about a year ago, all you had to do to get root on a box was telnet to it with a few parameters set, and presto you were in. Solaris 10 had been on the market for a WHILE with that.... Linux and Mac I'm sure are no differnent, these vulnerablities are there waiting to be found. Microsoft is under the microscope for EVERYTHING. Look at how long it too Apple to release a fix for the latest quicktime exploit... pretty lame really. Linux is usally pretty quick, the problem is the number of them. Not to mention it's a real pain in a corperate environment where you need change windows and testing prior to deploying patches. Microsoft consistently turns around fixes in record time, does it on a predictible schedule, documents the updates fairly well, and rarely makes anyone mad in the process.

Like I said, I love Linux / Unix... but only for servers and with no GUI. I don't like having a million different GUI options, and I really don't want a hastle to troubleshoot something just because I decided that I wanted watch a .mov format instead of a .avi. Linux many times just makes the simple things more difficult than they should be, it's not that I can't figure it out, and it's not that I haven't figured it out in the past... it's that when I want to get things done... Windows is there, and works everytime. In the past 10 years of running NT 4.0 through Vista, I've never had the operating system fail on me, I've never had to reinstall, and it's always been there ready to work when I was. Linux would be too, but who wants to fight with it every time you try to get something done?

__________________
Desktop: E6600 @ 2700, P5B-Deluxe Wifi, 4gb ram, ATI x1950PRO 512mb, 2 x 250gig RAID 0, 1 x 250 gig non RAID, Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit

File Server / Utility: Athlon XP 2100+ 1 gig ram, TI4600, ubuntu

Web Server: OLD Sun Ultra 10, 333mhz Sparc, 256mb ram, Solaris 9

Firewall: OLD Compaq P3 450mhz, 192mb ram, Linux command line only

thenailedone

Dear Brian,

We have noticed that you are using your copy of Vista on a "different machine" and you have to pay for a new license. Vista will not run on this machine without a valid license... please pay up!


Sincerely
Uncle Bill.


You won't go to jail but your copy of Vista won't work either...

__________________