Windows and MacOS are not Better than Linux, and Here is Why

[Valica]

-snip-

I stopped using Photoshop.
Check out Paint.NET. It's easier to use and just as capable.
There is an effects/adjustments pack called Megalo that really improves the default software.

That being said, Paint.NET is not on Linux yet.
But there is WINE support AFAIK.

[Lemanrussland]

I tried various distributions of Linux (and BSD) on the desktop for 2-3 years, and decided it didn't really suit my needs. I still use it (specifically a distribution called Alpine Linux) within VirtualBox on my Windows 7 machine for home server and networking stuff.

[Hindenburgia]

1. I sincerely have no idea what you mean by "Windows programs written by windows". Could you clarify? If you mean programs written by Microsoft, then I'll have to disagree - Microsoft Office works fine on Wine.

That's what I meant, and they don't update themselves. Not that this is a huge problem.

2. For my counterpoint, I'd like to present Windows 8. As I wrote in the OP, and as I still maintain, the transition from Windows XP (which many people are still running) to Windows 8 is more difficult than the transition from Windows XP to a Linux distro of choice, whether Ubuntu or Mint. Also, again, the primary purpose of this thread is to respond to the sentiment that Linux is worse than either Windows or MacOS. Like you said, it's more-or-less the same for the average user, with Linux having a somewhat marginal "lead".

And I disagree. Windows 8 is simply not that hard to get a handle of, even if you're somehow coming from Windows 95. The position of buttons might have changed and the desktop might have changed but it's still very much a classic Windows operating system and a Windows user will take maybe half an hour to pick it up completely. If you don't like it, you can put it back in the old desktop mode. Suffice to say, the most complex thing about Windows 8 is that the start menu is now a start screen. I don't know where you think that Linux has a marginal lead either, I'm yet to be convinced it does anything better than Windows or Mac.

3. I recognize that such a perception exists, but it's a rather silly one, especially since you cannot actually "try out" the specific computer you are taking home pretty much anywhere. It's a misconception that in-store purchases are particularly beneficial, especially since you have access to much more complete information much easier when you are shopping online.

Basically any decent computer store will give you a try of the computer you're interested in. If they don't, find yourself another computer store. You can test drive a car, I'd be shocked and appalled if staff didn't let you test drive a computer.

As for not having that complete information, that's a pretty weird contention to stake. Do you stop yourself from reading anything on the internet before you go out and buy something in person? I certainly don't.

4. I know that you can get an Acer computer without an OS, as the last laptop I bought from them I did just that. If memory serves, he bought it right from their website. I'll ask him when next I see him, though that will be a few days, as he's on vacation at the moment, tent camping in Canada. I shall never understand such people.

It's okay, I'll believe you. You needn't trouble your friend with a random "hey, this guy on the internet wanted to know..." question

1. ...They do update themselves. Again, I offer you the example of Microsoft Office.

2. Normally, I'm the sort of person to argue against catering to the lowest common denominator, but in this case I'd have to say that Windows 8 is very much not something that a user coming from even Windows 7 will be able to get a good feel for in half an hour. A few examples of what I'm talking about:
A. the indicator-less hotspots at the corners of the screen are decidedly not user-friendly
B. the start screen resembles the start menu only tangentially, with only some overlap in even intended functionality
C. the charm bar
D. the desktop has no start menu; it has a start button as of the latest big update, but it just acts as a shortcut to the start screen. If I may, I think this comic rather humorously sums this particular point up: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/28
And that's not even touching the various technical issues and the like that wouldn't really be a major concern to the average user, such as the... very silly simplification they have done regarding the blue screen of death.

Regarding Linux not doing anything better, I'd point to user customization/flexibility, speed, and security, but again, this thread is not intended to argue that Linux is better, but rather to respond to the perception (which you appear to share) that Linux is worse.

3. I have never seen a computer store allow you to "test drive" the computer you are buying. Laptops, sure, as keyboards especially vary widely between models, but towers? Never.

I'd meant more that the relevant information is much closer at hand - not only is much of it on the page, but you can also really easily search stuff up by highlighting a word or phrase and dragging it to a new tab. It's also much easier to do comparisons when information is already in a table. You could theoretically do these things from a store on your phone, but phones are not exactly great for anything more than very light browsing, and you end up standing in the store staring at your phone for ages on end if try.

4. Yeah, sorry about that. I'll see about looking into it later, as the Dell, HP, and Acer sites, as well as a few others, are all blocked here, apparently due to a miscommunication a while back that nobody has bothered to fix.

[The Black Forrest]

*Yawn* Oh goody OS holy wars......again.

The best OS is the one you happy using.

[Lemanrussland]

*Yawn* Oh goody OS holy wars......again.

The best OS is the one you happy using.

Wrong. The best OS is Temple OS.

[Hindenburgia]

That is entirely dependent on the distro, and has nothing to do with Linux itself.
Here's a screenshot of an example configuration of Ubuntu: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N78DvzoqV_o/U ... ubuntu.png
And here's one of Mint: http://www.linuxmint.com/pictures/scree ... _light.png

If you want more, I can give you more, but these are pretty good, I think.

I'm out. I already don't want to put this much effort into making my computer work. If there's this much distance between getting my computer and it showing me boobs that's just time I could have spent looking at boobs.

It's less work to set up a good Linux distro than it is to set up a Windows installation. And like someone else mentioned above, there's always Lubuntu for those who really don't want to have to maintain anything.

[AiliailiA]

-snip-

I stopped using Photoshop.
Check out Paint.NET. It's easier to use and just as capable.
There is an effects/adjustments pack called Megalo that really improves the default software.

That being said, Paint.NET is not on Linux yet.
But there is WINE support AFAIK.

Well I'm using GIMP at the moment. But most of the things I do (low-bandwidth infographics) would be better done in Scalable Vector Graphics.

Next stop Inkscape. Gonna be hard for me, as someone who grew up pixel editing in 64 colors, but SVG is where I gotta go.

See? It's back to little school for me. Shapes and primary colors.

[Deusaeuri]

I personally am happy with my Windows. I think I might switch to Ubuntu once I build my own computer at some point, because windows is expensive, yo.

[Soul Edge]

My main concern is why do I need Linux when I have an OS that does everything I want it to do?

Exactly, as I will never understand the 'Windows is garbage' card.

Especially when Linux is a pieced together barely supported Frankenstein OS that does nothing useful, the only advantage Linux users can come up with is that its free.

[Lemanrussland]

My main concern is why do I need Linux when I have an OS that does everything I want it to do?

Exactly, as I will never understand the 'Windows is garbage' card.

Especially when Linux is a pieced together barely supported Frankenstein OS that does nothing useful, the only advantage Linux users can come up with is that its free.

Linux is far from useless, it's one of the most widely used Unix-like operating systems.

[Hindenburgia]

My main concern is why do I need Linux when I have an OS that does everything I want it to do?

Exactly, as I will never understand the 'Windows is garbage' card.

Especially when Linux is a pieced together barely supported Frankenstein OS that does nothing useful, the only advantage Linux users can come up with is that its free.

This is exactly the sort of thing I am responding to with this thread.

Tell me, how do you consider the arguments I raised in the OP?

[Soul Edge]

Exactly, as I will never understand the 'Windows is garbage' card.

Especially when Linux is a pieced together barely supported Frankenstein OS that does nothing useful, the only advantage Linux users can come up with is that its free.

Linux is far from useless, it's one of the most widely used Unix-like operating systems.

Just because something is widely used, doesn't mean it's any useful.

Come on, you Linux users say the same thing about Windows.

[AiliailiA]

My main concern is why do I need Linux when I have an OS that does everything I want it to do?

Exactly, as I will never understand the 'Windows is garbage' card.

Especially when Linux is a pieced together barely supported Frankenstein OS that does nothing useful, the only advantage Linux users can come up with is that its free.

"It's free" doesn't mean a dang thing when a new, built and warranted computer comes with Windows "for free". Ask the salesperson if you can get $50 off if they tear the licensing sticker off it and format the hard-disk. Good luck. I think you'll find you're paying for Windows 8 whether you want it or not.

But why repeat myself?

You missed the best reason of all:

Open source allows more savvy users than yourself to search for, find and fix the security vulnerabilites in the OS. You have to trust the other users.

Closed source allows the publisher or a government to insert security vulnerabilities in the OS, which benefit them but not the user. You have to trust someone who provided the software (for money or for free) but won't show you exactly how it works.

Linux, and any other open-source OS, has better protection of the user's ultimate interests than Windows or Mac do. Because other users, not a centralized authority, protect the user who doesn't understand the workings. A "leaker" who exposes a vulnerability in open-source gains respect and improves their employability, instead of being sacked and possibly prosecuted as they would if they leaked on the closed-source they contracted to keep secret.

It's a world of difference. It's the only difference which really matters to me.

[Lemanrussland]

Linux is far from useless, it's one of the most widely used Unix-like operating systems.

Just because something is widely used, doesn't mean it's any useful.

Come on, you Linux users say the same thing about Windows.

I don't think anyone in here has seriously argued that Windows is useless, it's objectively not. It's also objectively wrong to say Linux, which is widely used for web servers, smartphones, network appliances and supercomputers, is also useless.

If it was "badly put together and useless", I doubt so many businesses would use it and invest heaps of money into its development.

[Sdaeriji]

Or you know be like me and bootleg your windows and pretty every program on your computer.

Because fuck you I like my money.

Pointed towards corparations.

Used to be a company that made gaming PCs, now a name Dell puts on its gaming machines. Cost a fortune, I believe.

I am planning of buying one.

DOES NOT COMPUTE

As to the OP, are there actually people that argue that Linux is worse than Windows? It seems to me that most people don't even know that Linux exists, and the ones that do generally prefer Linux. I feel like you're arguing against a position no one actually holds.

[Bythibus]

First of all, it has to be understood that Linux is not an operating system. Rather, it is what is known as a "kernel", upon which an operating system is built.

That. That is why people say Linux is for the tech savvy.

My main concern is why do I need Linux when I have an OS that does everything I want it to do?

Because commercial OS's become outdated over time (as that's simply the business model of both of the major developers commercial OS's), and as time goes on, the benefits of changing OS, regardless of what OS you upgrade to, increase, until eventually you will simply be unable to continue to use your current OS with modern software.

So the solution is to select an entirely new operating system, instead of the eventual upgrade to the one the I prefer by virtue of experience? No thanks.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Ok OP but you didn't explain what makes Linux better.

[Bythibus]

Ok OP but you didn't explain what makes Linux better.

Are you telling me you don't want a computer who's mascot is a penguin? What kind of *insert insult* are you?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Ok OP but you didn't explain what makes Linux better.

Are you telling me you don't want a computer who's mascot is a penguin? What kind of *insert insult* are you?

I'm a horrible cankerous slut.

[Nua Corda]

I'd have to become neckbeard first.

[Yaltabaoth]

Don't get me wrong, I fucking hate what Adobe have turned into.

For many years Quark XPress was the only game in town when it came to print production, and they were unbelievably arrogant. They didn't release an update for the best part of a decade and their customer support was literally non-existant.
And for a long time I was frustrated that a company like Adobe who could produce software as sophisticated as Photoshop wouldn't step up and make a challenge.

Finally they did with InDesign, and within a couple of iterations Quark were well demolished, and deservedly so.

However around the same time Adobe bought out Macromedia, their only other serious competition at the time.
And ever since then, they've effectively been a monopoly in the graphic design market. And they know it. And they've turned into monopolistic cunts. Because they can.

Well fulminated!

I must admit, I've picked up most of my resentment towards Adobe from friends and associates. I was never much personally invested in it. At this point, what I most resent is that otherwise worthy websites require me to use Flash to get anything out of them, and that "plain HTML" options are becoming more and more rare.

Thank you, I aspire to fulminate to the best of my abilities.

Flash is a dying tech, and has been for years.
It doesn't support any kind of touch-enabled features, and that's what tablets and smartphones are based around.

I don't think Mac are losing the share I think you think they're losing. Given that Macs have been using Intel chips for several years now, porting software is easier than ever. Adobe ceasing support for MacOS would be catastrophic to the industry and the backlash would be huge. The cost of replacing all hardware with non-Macs, plus all the re-training required (for the change in OS) and the loss of productivity during the adjustment...

Well it wouldn't happen overnight. The cost of replacing hardware is a recurrent cost anyway.

You're right about the cost of retraining. Also perhaps some middle management or creative design staff, who don't actually do graphic work any more, might blow a gasket and quit.

In my experience, just about everywhere I've worked has had a serious aversion to spending on hardware until and unless it's unavoidable.

Management tend to be more familiar with Windows, I think you'll find it's the designers/artists themselves who would generally be most resistant.
Like myself.
I know from experience just how much it slows me down when I try to use Photoshop on a Windows machine, just because I'm so used to performing particular hand motions (eg hitting the Command key instead of the Control key for modifiers).

Trying to maintain an efficient workflow while completely re-training staff in the core software, let alone all the complications of the OS-level interactions (eg with server connections, archiving and searching, etc) would be pretty prohibitive for a lot of design companies. Combine that with complications with suppliers (eg printers) who haven't similarly adapted to the new software and you've got a real nightmare on your hands.

(For the record, I've actually been tasked in the past with evaluating a shift from MacOS for a mid-sized design agency, these aren't just idle speculations).

[Regenburg]

I personally am happy with my Windows. I think I might switch to Ubuntu once I build my own computer at some point, because windows is expensive, yo.

Like,buy,like,windows?
Well I am windows user for 8 years and never had such experience.
You shall go with Fedora instead of Ubuntu.

[Valica]

*Yawn* Oh goody OS holy wars......again.

The best OS is the one you happy using.

Wrong. The best OS is Temple OS.

Just Googled that.

http://www.templeos.org/

1) You can talk with God through that OS, apparently.
2) It looks like Siri shat blood all over a computer from 1960. That shit is ugly, yo.

[Xemnarius]

I picked a great day to finally make my first forum post, but here it goes:

My (main) reasons to NOT get any Linux based OS:

1. As a gamer, the vast majority of games I like to play do not natively run on a Linux based OS. Oh, but I can run it through wine? Not good enough. I should be able to run any program I want whenever I want without having it to go through another program. Basically, no running a program to run a program.

2. If you have a problem in Linux, you're stuck having to ask unreliable Linux forums (more on that in point 3) with people with no obligation to help you, whereas a Widows or Mac user can call support or even send their machine back to get it fixed.

3. Linux users are horrible at giving help. Instead of explaining how, lets have an analogy of someone asking for help on how to build a bottle rocket (instead of Linux help) on a Linux forum:

- OP: "Hello. I'm trying to help my son make a bottle rocket, for his Cub Scout Troop. I have almost no knowledge on how to build bottle rockets so please try and not use very technical terms. My question is, how tall should the rocket be? I think it should be about 10 inches, but I'm not sure."

- Linux User 1: "You shouldn't be building a bottle rocket. Here's a link to a PDF of in-depth technical instructions on how to build a military grade helicopter: http://www.someurl.com/whatever"

- OP: "That's not what I asked for..."

- Linux User 2: "Read the MAN pages."

- OP: "That thing is enormous. Where am I even supposed to start looking?"

- Forum Admin: "The question has been answered. This thread is now locked."

[Soul Edge]

"It's free" doesn't mean a dang thing when a new, built and warranted computer comes with Windows "for free". Ask the salesperson if you can get $50 off if they tear the licensing sticker off it and format the hard-disk. Good luck. I think you'll find you're paying for Windows 8 whether you want it or not.

But why repeat myself?

You missed the best reason of all:

Open source allows more savvy users than yourself to search for, find and fix the security vulnerabilites in the OS. You have to trust the other users.

Closed source allows the publisher or a government to insert security vulnerabilities in the OS, which benefit them but not the user. You have to trust someone who provided the software (for money or for free) but won't show you exactly how it works.

Linux, and any other open-source OS, has better protection of the user's ultimate interests than Windows or Mac do. Because other users, not a centralized authority, protect the user who doesn't understand the workings. A "leaker" who exposes a vulnerability in open-source gains respect and improves their employability, instead of being sacked and possibly prosecuted as they would if they leaked on the closed-source they contracted to keep secret.

It's a world of difference. It's the only difference which really matters to me.

No, no, its a very limited operating system that requires a numerous amount of patches and complicated emulators to get the most common (and necessary) commercial-based software running. Nothing free that supports Linux (except OpenOffice) can possibly rival the necessity of commercial products. The only thing Linux has going for it is Ubuntu and its bundled software and as a active PC gamer, I still I prefer Windows 8.

There is hardly any supported hardware, has a serious learning curve for beginners, patchier driver support, a laughably lack of tech support in general, and a militant fanbase that stands behind no definitive distribution as its flaws heavily outweighs the "superior protection" everyone claims it provides. I don't give a shit if I have to pay money for a licensed and reliable software, higher quality material isn't free, that's just reality as I don't see the need to desperately shortcut it.

Windows is truly for those who have lives and jobs with no time to work around with the chronic problems Linux users are often faced, but who am I to say if you want to deal with such. As people would rather drown before admitting that water is wet, regardless of how much they hate Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.