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

[Mike the Progressive]

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

Because someone on the internet told you that it's better than the OS you have, and if you don't care about that as much as people on the internet, you're a monster.

And pretty much the interwebz version of Hitler.

[Renewed Dissonance]

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.

I wonder how many individual users actually do this kind of auditing, even those with the technical skills to do so. I think it would probably be safe to conclude that the vast majority of individuals users of free and open source operating systems don't check the code themselves, and are, therefore, putting precisely the same amount of faith into the software they use as anyone else.

At any rate, direct access to the code is actually not required to find and report vulnerabilities. And if someone finds a vulnerability in a proprietary product, and, for whatever bizarre self-defeating reason, the owner of that product doesn't fix it, people will migrate to something else.

Probably the stronger argument to make from the perspective of open/closed source is the problem of orphaned code. With open source software, if the original author decides to move on to something else, the code is open and another developer can directly take over or fork the code (that is, incorporate it into another similar product). Abandoned proprietary code, on the other hand, is lost forever.

Because other users [of open source software], not a centralized authority, protect the user who doesn't understand the workings.

Unless you have the knowledge and skills to directly audit, edit, and compile code yourself, you are, in fact, entirely dependent on the competence and attention of the open source software project. I'm actually rather amused by this argument; "I use a linux distribution, so I'm not totally dependent on a single source or authority! Now, to automatically download and install a mass of updates from a single software repository I don't own or control..."

[AiliailiA]

Accidently didn't split my 1TB HDD in two partitions when I installed Windows and I have tons of stuff I'm too lazy to uninstall,I'm stuck on windows

Microsoft would like you to believe that. But there are many ways around it.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Managing viruses and being free of adware is simple on Windows. Just don't download download managers and files from suspicious websites.

With a "Professional" version of your favorite Windows, you'll have the administrative tools you need to make it beyond stupidly easy.

I've run XP Professional and now 7 Professional for years now and, with 15 minutes (maybe) of policy configuration at install time, I've had precisely zero malware problems.

[AiliailiA]

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.

I wonder how many individual users actually do this kind of auditing, even those with the technical skills to do so. I think it would probably be safe to conclude that the vast majority of individuals users of free and open source operating systems don't check the code themselves, and are, therefore, putting precisely the same amount of faith into the software they use as anyone else.

Putting faith into other users of the code, not just into the publishers of the code.

This was my essential point, and since you missed it ... in fact, deliberately snipped it out ... I will return the favor. The rest of your post goes unquoted, and unreplied-to.

[Tekania]

Accidently didn't split my 1TB HDD in two partitions when I installed Windows and I have tons of stuff I'm too lazy to uninstall,I'm stuck on windows

Microsoft would like you to believe that. But there are many ways around it.

Microsoft doesn't even need you to believe that. Ever since Windows Vista users have the capacity of resizing partitions without the need of any third-party software.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Putting faith into other users of the code, not just into the publishers of the code.

In open source, what is the essential difference between "users of the code" and "publishers of the code?" I'm not sure there is one.

The essential difference between open source and proprietary code in terms of vulnerability auditing depends on whether the mass of people out there using open source software actually do that auditing, of if that responsibility is actually left to the developers. If it is left to the developers, then the situation is the same as with proprietary software.

This was my essential point, and since you missed it ... in fact, deliberately snipped it out ... I will return the favor. The rest of your post goes unquoted, and unreplied-to.

umm..OK?

*shrug*

It's a shame since I actually tend to agree with you; open source software obviously provides the opportunity for crowdsourced auditing. I'm just wondering the actual extent to which this happens. I imagine that open source developers would want to ask this question as well, since encouraging such auditing practices is obviously in their interests.

Sorry if I offended you. Somehow.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Nice sentiment, and overall I agree.... but pointless. The vast majority of this site (like pretty much people anywhere else) are busy popping blue pills and lack relevant real-world experience to make true informed determination on the context here. As such, they're going to continue down the path of how they think things work and remain generally oblivious.

And, I'm generally fine with that, since it also means they or someone like them will give me money.

I find that calling me stupid is the quickest and most efficient way to convert me to your cause. I'm stupid afterall.

Also, individual users who need to hire someone else to "fix" their computers will probably do so no matter what OS they are running. Probably for the same reasons most people don't repair their own cars, roofs, and spleens, either.

[Renewed Dissonance]

Take that hammer and sickle out of your flag. Right now.

Paying forf stuff is fine, but paying for the time software coders spent writing the programs that he likes using is tyrany and must be squashed.

Or in short, he's a communist that hates the workers..... Stalinism.

The is actually one advantage open source software probably has: it shifts the value of the software onto the labor that maintains it, rather than simply into the favor of those who can afford to hire the most intellectual property lawyers.

[Renewed Dissonance]

The upgrade path, though, especially for distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are fairly seemless and easy.

This is consistent with reports from some family members of mine who use Fedora. My upgrade from XP Pro to 7 Pro was pretty mindlessly simple too (which surprised me, to be clear, although the effort Toshiba made to make it so should be acknowledged; at least one proprietary company doesn't hate its customers ).

So I can't (and don't) say that a Linux distro is worse, but "it's not worse" still isn't a good reason to make the switch.

[Xemnarius]

You make an excellent point. Back when I was in college, going for my Computer Science degree,

Which you got?

Pardon the personal question, but it really does seem pertinent.

I was forced to use a Linux based OS, and be surrounded by Linux fanboys/girls.

I remember I once (with the intention to troll, of course) suggested in CS major's lounge/computer lab that Mac Users are like some new-age desert cult that would be willing to commit mass suicide the moment their leader asks it, and Linux users were like one of those religions that goes door to door trying to convert people. And if you say you like another OS over theirs, they look at you as some blasphemer.

Arts grad then.

You weren't answering my previous response to this, so I'll try and reword it:

Where do you get Arts grad from that? I have a Bachelors of Science from Rutgers University BTW.

[Tekania]

The upgrade path, though, especially for distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are fairly seemless and easy.

This is consistent with reports from some family members of mine who use Fedora. My upgrade from XP Pro to 7 Pro was pretty mindlessly simple too (which surprised me, to be clear, although the effort Toshiba made to make it so should be acknowledged; at least one proprietary company doesn't hate its customers ).

So I can't (and don't) say that a Linux distro is worse, but "it's not worse" still isn't a good reason to make the switch.

Well, Fedora is on a 6 month release cycle, which means a new version comes out about once every 6 months.... so there is incentive to make version upgrades as easy and seemless as possible.... in fact, I'd say the fedup (Fedora Updater) process is as easy as a Service Pack update on windows. What it does is ads the next version repositories to the system, downloads all new repositoryt packages for the new version of installed packages, downloads installer images, modifies the bootloader.... asks you to reboot, reboots to the installer, installs new version automatically reboots and bam you're on the new version.... the only interaction was starting the process in the beginning and selecting reboot once.... everything else is automatic.

[AiliailiA]

Which you got?

Pardon the personal question, but it really does seem pertinent.



Arts grad then.

You weren't answering my previous response to this, so I'll try and reword it:

Where do you get Arts grad from that? I have a Bachelors of Science from Rutgers University BTW.

"Arts grad then" was a joke.

BSc is good, I should have got my own but dropped out after 2 of the 3 years. Regret it.

You didn't graduate in Computer Science though?

[Xemnarius]

You weren't answering my previous response to this, so I'll try and reword it:

Where do you get Arts grad from that? I have a Bachelors of Science from Rutgers University BTW.

"Arts grad then" was a joke.

BSc is good, I should have got my own but dropped out after 2 of the 3 years. Regret it.

You didn't graduate in Computer Science though?

My degree was in fact in Computer Science. I'd try and go back and finish it. There sooooo many well-paying jobs that you can get just by having the degree... even with a 2.2ish GPA

[AiliailiA]

Putting faith into other users of the code, not just into the publishers of the code.

In open source, what is the essential difference between "users of the code" and "publishers of the code?" I'm not sure there is one.

The essential difference between open source and proprietary code in terms of vulnerability auditing depends on whether the mass of people out there using open source software actually do that auditing, of if that responsibility is actually left to the developers. If it is left to the developers, then the situation is the same as with proprietary software.

Similar perhaps, but not exactly the same. If the open source publisher puts a "backdoor" or deliberate vulnerability in their code it might ... not definitely will, but might ... be discovered by a user or rival developer, and it can be proven much more clearly than if a closed source developer has a vulnerability discovered by hackers. This means a commercial and reputational risk in tricking users into running software which disadvantages them.

See, I'm not that worried by hackers. They're after money or fame. I am worried by centralized and unaccountable power, which seeks ever more power. I didn't used to worry about this much, but Snowden's stuff has made me more wary.

Ideally, software could still be sold while also being open source. The vendors would risk their long term reputation, because on release any deliberate vulnerabilities would go on record, yet by the sheer size and complexity of their source they would still have time to profit from it before a functional equivalent could be produced.

Assuming that copyright is still a thing. Maybe a weak link in my argument, since copyright may well be unenforceable with open source.

This was my essential point, and since you missed it ... in fact, deliberately snipped it out ... I will return the favor. The rest of your post goes unquoted, and unreplied-to.

umm..OK?

*shrug*

It's a shame since I actually tend to agree with you; open source software obviously provides the opportunity for crowdsourced auditing. I'm just wondering the actual extent to which this happens. I imagine that open source developers would want to ask this question as well, since encouraging such auditing practices is obviously in their interests.

Sorry if I offended you. Somehow.

Sorry about that. Trying to get to bed. Impatient. My fault not yours.

[Aeken]

I like Linux and Windows.

[AiliailiA]

I'd try and go back and finish it.

That was a good idea 20 years ago. But course credits expire.

[Casinoria]

~snip~

I do like your hammer analogy, though. Let's extend it.
Stanley hammers and Craftsmen hammers are both on the market. However, people always buy Stanley hammers, even though Craftsmen hammers work just as well, even better in some ways, and are much, much cheaper. Now, Stanley is releasing a hammer which is much worse. However, people think that Craftsmen hammers are much worse, due to a number of misconceptions. This thread is meant to correct these misconceptions.

Except Stanley is Windows and Craftsmen is Apple. And you're telling people to hit the nail with a rock roughly shaped like a hammer and forge their own from that template. Then saying it's as good if not better.

Of late, I've seen a number of people here communicate the impression that "Linux is only for the tech-savvy". This sentiment is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I'd like to take a moment or ten and address it.

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. The user interface is entirely due to the OS, which is why Red Hat looks so different from Fedora, which looks different from Mint, which looks different from Ubuntu, which looks different from Minux, and so on. If you find a Linux "distro" (short for "distribution") that has a bad user interface, it's the fault of the distro, not the fault of Linux.

That in place, I'd like to specifically point out that there are a number of Linux distros that have user-friendly interfaces. In particular, if you've never used a Linux-based OS or you just want a very well-supported, "newbie"-friendly one, I'd recommend Ubuntu, as it's built with new users very much in mind. There's also Linux Mint, which has become a much stronger contender of late, but I'd still recommend Ubuntu for users new to Linux-based OS's.

Now, to address several especially common misconceptions about Linux-based OS's, other than the eternal "Linux is hard to use!":

1) "I'd need to have another hard drive"
Nope - Ubuntu at least is able to make itself a new "partition", as it's called, on your current hard drive. I do not recall whether or not this is the case with other distros.

2) "But that would take up a lot of space"
Nope - a fresh Ubuntu install takes up something like ten gigabytes, last I checked, though that number may have gone up or down since then

3) "It takes a lot of time and effort to install"
Nope - the Ubuntu installer, as of a few years ago when last I used it, and to the best of my knowledge, this is still the case, has fewer screens and requires less user intervention than the Windows 7 installer, which I also used. I don't know what the Windows 8 installer is like, however, as I've never used it.

4) "I'd have to re-learn everything"
While you will have to learn a number of new commands if you are a heavy command-line user, the basic interface elements such as windows, the minimize/restore/close buttons, icons, and folders, just to name a few, are still very much in effect. Frankly, I've been saying that the jump between Windows XP and Ubuntu is actually easier than the jump between Windows XP and Windows 8.

5) "I want everything to 'just work', right out of the box"
Somewhat covered by previous points, but Ubuntu does work "right out of the box" - for the average user, there is no need to mess around with all the complex settings that Linux distros are known for having.

6) "Doing anything at all is a huge, involved process"
Another one that is covered somewhat by previous points, but still worth addressing. Linux-based OS's are known for being incredibly flexible and extremely user-customizable, a reputation which is well-deserved. However, it is worth pointing out that this doesn't make it any more difficult to change a setting. The addition of another few pages of "deep" options makes it no more difficult to access so-called "top-level" options, especially since the former are usually kept from getting in the way by hiding them behind menus and buttons.

---Space for later edits---

7) "Why should I upgrade when my current OS will work just fine?"
Because commercial OS's become outdated over time (as that's simply the business model of both of the major developers of 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.
Basically, Your OS works now, but it won't work forever.

---End of later edits---

So, NSG, and particularly those do not think Linux is a viable option for OS - has this addressed your concerns? If not, what concerns/questions do you have? I'll add more sections to the above list as necessary.

So, reading through this, I'll address your relevant points.

1) Not really relevant. This does not say anything about why Linux is better/as good as the other OSs available.

2) Not too much space admittedly, but it is competing with your current (and usually already paid for) OS for space. Say Windows = 100GB and Linux = 10GB. Total space being taken up by OSs = 110GB with the partition thing. So still more space than just one OS.

3) There is relatively little intervention needed for the Windows 7 installer anyway. It ain't that hard and not necessarily better either. Not too relevant.

4) So you'd have to re-learn all the same stuff anyway, plus new stuff for whatever different OS you use. Not really relevant.

5) An OS should work "right out of the box". Period. Irrelevant.

6) So it's as long, if not slightly longer, than changing settings on another OS.

7) "Basically, your OS works now. It won't work forever." You're either telling us that Linux will be just as outdated as other OSs or, alternatively, Linux is eternal and you'll never have to upgrade. It is an OS. It's not designed to work forever and a day. Irrelevant.

I'd quite like to know how Linux is as good, if not better, than Windows/Mac. In your OP, and the thread where you refer to the OP, you haven't really explained a bit except (by my interpretation anyway) that Linux is an OS. No benefits have been adequately explained.

Why should Joe Public consider switching to Linux when he has an OS that does everything he wants it to? (Look at boobs, work on documents and surf the internet.) You're just making extra work for people without explaining the benefits. Can you explain to people why it is worth the effort?

Cheers.

[Sdaeriji]

I haz internetz I get every program I want from there.

I also live in greece hardware stores are fucking non existent here.

I think what he's pointing out is that you won't buy the games, but you'll buy the platform.

No, I'm pointing out that someone who likes their money would never buy an overpriced piece of shit Alienware.

[Tekania]

Nice sentiment, and overall I agree.... but pointless. The vast majority of this site (like pretty much people anywhere else) are busy popping blue pills and lack relevant real-world experience to make true informed determination on the context here. As such, they're going to continue down the path of how they think things work and remain generally oblivious.

And, I'm generally fine with that, since it also means they or someone like them will give me money.

I find that calling me stupid is the quickest and most efficient way to convert me to your cause. I'm stupid afterall.

Also, individual users who need to hire someone else to "fix" their computers will probably do so no matter what OS they are running. Probably for the same reasons most people don't repair their own cars, roofs, and spleens, either.

Stupid isn't what I would use.... blind, yes.... hardheaded, yes.... stupid no. There is really little difference between the various OS's when it comes to an average user perspective. MacOS, Windows and most Linux Distros each provide just about anything the user needs to get their job/task done, and for the most part does it in almost the same way. On the surface their operation and interface is nearly identical, and presents very little to need to relearn to accomplish tasks. For powerusers this changes, as powerusers get involved in "under the hood" type stuff and in that point things change, and do so drastically between them. The general problem in this threads is that people tend to know about what is in front of them, and not know about what isn't.... and judge what isn't based upon their misconceptions of what they are unfamiliar with..... This typically makes me money... because when their own things update and change....they end up paying me.

[Bythibus]

I think what he's pointing out is that you won't buy the games, but you'll buy the platform.

No, I'm pointing out that someone who likes their money would never buy an overpriced piece of shit Alienware.

Alienware's competitors aren't much better in pricing, so let's not be selective there.

[Hindenburgia]

1. "Far easier"? So invisible active zones are easier to navigate with. What purpose do they serve that would not have been better served by an icon?
2. Exactly. The layout has changed. Users have to learn the new layout. Also, these things were previously much less distributed, being more centralized through the menus.
3. What is wrong with a list of applications? And I fail to see how it is "nice", considering that it uses screen space extremely inefficiently, providing access to far too few active zones to justify its existence.
4. What can you do now with the start screen that you could not do with the start menu?
5. Possibly, though I was referring to those that still remain after the 8.1 update, and we will simply have to wait and see how many will be fixed by the 8.2 update and how many more will be introduced. There's still the more intentional things, like the removal of any sort of information from the ever-famous blue error screen.

1. Yes, having an invisible and easy to open menu is very easy to navigate with. An Icon is in the way, on the screen.
2. Not in any significant way. So fucking what, the layout changed, It's still functionally similar to XP and therefore easier to learn for an upgrading Windows user.
3. You realize that every charm box can be shrunk down to a 15x15 (or 20x20 i don't remeber) box, right? That's a total of 160 charm boxes right on opening the start page.
4. Nothing, I said it was a part of the replacement. It's functions are split between the sidebar and start screen. Easy to access search and setting on the sidebar, and easy to start applications on the start screen.
5. Almost everything that is being shown to Microsoft staff is being worked on. If you have any issues, you can contact technical support and help them further improve the OS for your convenience.

1. I'll just quote your statement right here: "Yes, having an invisible and easy to open menu is very easy to navigate with. An Icon is in the way, on the screen."

...I am no longer certain if you are seriously responding to me, or if you are being satirical. Sometimes satire doesn't communicate well through text alone - could you confirm whether or not you are being serious? These two sentences are, to be blunt, absurd. I have three main issues with them:
A. You are saying that a menu that is opened by interacting with an undistinguished section of the screen, is easy to use.
B. The menu is "easy to open", yes, but it's to the point where it's very easy to accidentally open it. There's a reason that the start menu has always had to be clicked on to be opened.
C. An icon would be "in the way" of what? On your desktop, your icons are on top of a background. They aren't "in the way" of anything. The same can be said of menu options - they can't be "in the way" of anything, as nothing can be behind them.

And this isn't even touching on the fact that the active zones are in the corners of the screen, so one must move their mouse quite far to go from corner to corner, when previous iterations had buttons bunched closer together, or on the difficulties that active zones in the corners of the screen tend not to work well with multiple monitors, which is a very valid concern with a computer.

2. In that case, any interface that can potentially perform the same functions as another interface is easy to learn if you already know that other interface. You are saying that, if I were to take the menus in a program and completely shuffle them without rhyme nor reason, then the interface would be just as easy to use because it is identical in function, just not in layout.

3. 160. And how many icons can you fit on a desktop? And what measurement are you using? It's clearly not pixels.

4. Alright, I'll rephrase. What can you do now with the start screen and sidebar that you couldn't do with the start menu?

5. It really should not be the user's job to diagnose bugs, especially not with a paid OS. I do still report whatever issues I find, though, as I find it enjoyable.

Java is a program that you have to run in order to run any program written in Java.

I know that. You may be misunderstanding me, so I'll try and reword my response: I enjoy working with java as a programming language.

Linux supports Java very well, by the way.

I forget which post I said it in, but I know that already (Minecraft for example). My point was that Java based games are not enough.

Also, to resolve some misconceptions, I actually agree that a linux based system is better for work, particularly at a large enterprise level (my company for example). I mainly dislike Linux when it comes to home/recreational computing.

Mostly, I look for strong/fast computers that are also convenient. While Linux based OS's may be more efficient, it doesn't really matter since my year old laptop has 16GB of memory with 8 cores Yes you read that right. I spent a crapload buying that online. At that point, having a slightly bloated OS, doesn't really matter, so I end up going to the more convenient Windows over Linux.

My point was that you objected to needing to "run a program to run a program", but Java is a program that you need to run in order to run other programs, just like Wine.

You don't need to know any of that. Just grab Lubuntu (as that seems like it'd most suit you), install, and you're perfectly fine.

So you say knowing nothing about what I have or need, but if I do a google search I'm willing to bet that I'll find like eleventy billion different dudes with passionate opinions about why you're wrong and should feel bad and that this diddlywop is way better.

I do like your hammer analogy, though. Let's extend it.
Stanley hammers and Craftsmen hammers are both on the market. However, people always buy Stanley hammers, even though Craftsmen hammers work just as well, even better in some ways, and are much, much cheaper. Now, Stanley is releasing a hammer which is much worse. However, people think that Craftsmen hammers are much worse, due to a number of misconceptions. This thread is meant to correct these misconceptions.

And yet, at the end of the day it's just a fucking hammer and they all drive home nails in a fashion that is indistinguishable to most people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about nailing things.

You probably should focus your energies on people who give a shit and don't have as the pivot point of their position access to boobs. I apologize, I never meant to catch you up trying to argue "I don't care" "I care" with someone. It's my fault for thinking it would be clever to word my apathy.

Just hammers they may be, but if you go the hardware store today, you would be hard-pressed to find a hammer of the same style as one made a hundred years ago. This is because we have honed the hammer design, and over time more and more innovations have made their way to the "mainstream" hammer design. Even if you don't understand why the hammers are like that, you can still benefit from the decreased strain the new designs put on you.

Perhaps cars would be a better analogy, though - most people probably don't understand the difference under the hood between an F150 and a Hummer, but they probably have a good idea of why one would use one over the other in a given situation. You don't need to know the difference between a differential and a drive train, but you can still figure out if a Hummer or an F150 is better for your situation. The reason three-wheeled cars are no longer produced is because the general public realized that four-wheeled cars were the better option in pretty much every situation.

Realistically, for most users, the difference between Windows 7 and Mint are not exactly major. The sort of person who just doesn't care what they use isn't really my target audience I suppose one could say, but then, that could be said of any debate - the audience is only those who could be persuaded to care.

You're opening an post on why Linux is not only for the tech-savvy with a description of operating system archetecture and the role of the kernel.

If you find a Linux "distro" (short for "distribution") that has a bad user interface, it's the fault of the distro, not the fault of Linux.

This doesn't change the fact that Windows is Windows, and MacOS is MacOS. There are different versions of Windows and MacOS, but these are relatively infrequent compared to the distro of the week (and all of its sub-versions, "spins," etc.). We also need to take into consideration the fact that variation between the distros often extends well beyond purely cosmetic differences.

By using either Windows or MacOS, I don't need to concern myself with all that.

7) "Why should I upgrade when my current OS will work just fine?"
Because commercial OS's become outdated over time (as that's simply the business model of both of the major developers of 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.
Basically, Your OS works now, but it won't work forever.

This is also true of all Linux distributions, which eventually reach end of life and lose support. As such, what is the "business model" you refer to, which distinguishes Linux distributions from proprietary operating systems?

One could update and upgrade a non-supported Linux distro version oneself, but we're trying to demonstrate why Linux is good for the non-tech savy.

1. Well, yeah. A short explanation that "Linux is not an OS" and what is meant by "distro" is not outside the comprehension of most people, I think.

2. Why would you be changing distros every week, then? Also, for an example of how "Windows is Windows" in particular is not necessarily the case, look at the difference between Windows 8 and every other version of Windows. Again, if you don't like MacOS's interface, then you don't blame every OS for that, you blame MacOS.

3. If you were to start using Ubuntu right this moment, and continued to use it as time goes on, you would not need to install a new OS ever again, as long as the project collapses. But then, Microsoft could well go bankrupt, having the same effect, and the open-source nature of most Linux distros means that, as long as you choose one that has a fair number of people behind it, it's extremely unlikely that it will collapse, as another group can simply resume development.

Microsoft will soon discontinue support for Windows XP, as it reaches the end of its lifespan. You have the choice of using an outdated (and thus vulnerable and lacking in functionality) OS or upgrading, installing an entirely new OS. Ubuntu, however, updates "smoothly", where each new version is simply an update to the last, no install required.

Also, I know that, at least among the major computer manufacturers, Acer and HP both offer "No-OS" options for their computers. I don't know about Dell.

Maybe in their commerical/small business storefronts. Which means you'll be paying more for two reasons: 1) its the commerical/small business storefront, and 2) that pre-installed Windows OS you've given up would have come with a bunch of bloatware which software companies actually pay Acer and HP to include, and which, while genuinely obnoxious, is nonetheless often used to lower the price of the computer system in order to get the sale.

1. ...No, I do mean from the standard consumer store.
2. That bloatware is there to subsidize the cost of the OS, but I very much doubt that a half a dozen programs would be enough to cover the entire cost of the Windows install, let alone start to eat into the computer's sticker price.

[Hindenburgia]

I'll split this into two posts, I think.

2. For most people, their choice of OS doesn't really matter that much, frankly. This thread is not intended to convince people that Linux is better, just that it is not worse, which is a rather common sentiment, it seems, and one that I feel is not justified.

That the thing though. Spending the time, money, and effort to get something that isn't any worse (or, rather, isn't any better) than what I already had is worse.

This is why people keep asking "what is better about Linux" that justifies that time, money, and effort.

You are going to upgrade your OS sometime.

Basically, for most people, the difference is minimal, and any advantages are marginal at best. So, for most people, it doesn't really matter. Most people, however, think not that Linux is about the same for them, but that it is much worse, due to a number of misconceptions commonly held regarding Linux.

For above average users, Linux is very beneficial, but that's not the group that holds these misconceptions, generally.

I could probably find a better way to word my purpose with this thread, though. I'll have to think on that for a while.

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.

I wonder how many individual users actually do this kind of auditing, even those with the technical skills to do so. I think it would probably be safe to conclude that the vast majority of individuals users of free and open source operating systems don't check the code themselves, and are, therefore, putting precisely the same amount of faith into the software they use as anyone else.

At any rate, direct access to the code is actually not required to find and report vulnerabilities. And if someone finds a vulnerability in a proprietary product, and, for whatever bizarre self-defeating reason, the owner of that product doesn't fix it, people will migrate to something else.

Probably the stronger argument to make from the perspective of open/closed source is the problem of orphaned code. With open source software, if the original author decides to move on to something else, the code is open and another developer can directly take over or fork the code (that is, incorporate it into another similar product). Abandoned proprietary code, on the other hand, is lost forever.

Because other users [of open source software], not a centralized authority, protect the user who doesn't understand the workings.

Unless you have the knowledge and skills to directly audit, edit, and compile code yourself, you are, in fact, entirely dependent on the competence and attention of the open source software project. I'm actually rather amused by this argument; "I use a linux distribution, so I'm not totally dependent on a single source or authority! Now, to automatically download and install a mass of updates from a single software repository I don't own or control..."

Putting faith into other users of the code, not just into the publishers of the code.

In open source, what is the essential difference between "users of the code" and "publishers of the code?" I'm not sure there is one.

The essential difference between open source and proprietary code in terms of vulnerability auditing depends on whether the mass of people out there using open source software actually do that auditing, of if that responsibility is actually left to the developers. If it is left to the developers, then the situation is the same as with proprietary software.

The upgrade path, though, especially for distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are fairly seemless and easy.

This is consistent with reports from some family members of mine who use Fedora. My upgrade from XP Pro to 7 Pro was pretty mindlessly simple too (which surprised me, to be clear, although the effort Toshiba made to make it so should be acknowledged; at least one proprietary company doesn't hate its customers ).

So I can't (and don't) say that a Linux distro is worse, but "it's not worse" still isn't a good reason to make the switch.

For most users the differences between OSs are not terribly significant. What I am more attempting to address are the common misconceptions people hold about Linux, that cause them to come to the erroneous conclusion that Linux is decidedly worse. See previous posts about it being a "Frankenstein" of an OS.

Though you will have to change your OS eventually.

~snip~

I do like your hammer analogy, though. Let's extend it.
Stanley hammers and Craftsmen hammers are both on the market. However, people always buy Stanley hammers, even though Craftsmen hammers work just as well, even better in some ways, and are much, much cheaper. Now, Stanley is releasing a hammer which is much worse. However, people think that Craftsmen hammers are much worse, due to a number of misconceptions. This thread is meant to correct these misconceptions.

Except Stanley is Windows and Craftsmen is Apple. And you're telling people to hit the nail with a rock roughly shaped like a hammer and forge their own from that template. Then saying it's as good if not better.

See, this is exactly the sort of thing I am attempting to address. I telling people that the thing that they thought was "a rock roughly shaped like a hammer" is actually a perfectly good hammer. The forging has already been done.

Of late, I've seen a number of people here communicate the impression that "Linux is only for the tech-savvy". This sentiment is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I'd like to take a moment or ten and address it.

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. The user interface is entirely due to the OS, which is why Red Hat looks so different from Fedora, which looks different from Mint, which looks different from Ubuntu, which looks different from Minux, and so on. If you find a Linux "distro" (short for "distribution") that has a bad user interface, it's the fault of the distro, not the fault of Linux.

That in place, I'd like to specifically point out that there are a number of Linux distros that have user-friendly interfaces. In particular, if you've never used a Linux-based OS or you just want a very well-supported, "newbie"-friendly one, I'd recommend Ubuntu, as it's built with new users very much in mind. There's also Linux Mint, which has become a much stronger contender of late, but I'd still recommend Ubuntu for users new to Linux-based OS's.

Now, to address several especially common misconceptions about Linux-based OS's, other than the eternal "Linux is hard to use!":

1) "I'd need to have another hard drive"
Nope - Ubuntu at least is able to make itself a new "partition", as it's called, on your current hard drive. I do not recall whether or not this is the case with other distros.

2) "But that would take up a lot of space"
Nope - a fresh Ubuntu install takes up something like ten gigabytes, last I checked, though that number may have gone up or down since then

3) "It takes a lot of time and effort to install"
Nope - the Ubuntu installer, as of a few years ago when last I used it, and to the best of my knowledge, this is still the case, has fewer screens and requires less user intervention than the Windows 7 installer, which I also used. I don't know what the Windows 8 installer is like, however, as I've never used it.

4) "I'd have to re-learn everything"
While you will have to learn a number of new commands if you are a heavy command-line user, the basic interface elements such as windows, the minimize/restore/close buttons, icons, and folders, just to name a few, are still very much in effect. Frankly, I've been saying that the jump between Windows XP and Ubuntu is actually easier than the jump between Windows XP and Windows 8.

5) "I want everything to 'just work', right out of the box"
Somewhat covered by previous points, but Ubuntu does work "right out of the box" - for the average user, there is no need to mess around with all the complex settings that Linux distros are known for having.

6) "Doing anything at all is a huge, involved process"
Another one that is covered somewhat by previous points, but still worth addressing. Linux-based OS's are known for being incredibly flexible and extremely user-customizable, a reputation which is well-deserved. However, it is worth pointing out that this doesn't make it any more difficult to change a setting. The addition of another few pages of "deep" options makes it no more difficult to access so-called "top-level" options, especially since the former are usually kept from getting in the way by hiding them behind menus and buttons.

---Space for later edits---

7) "Why should I upgrade when my current OS will work just fine?"
Because commercial OS's become outdated over time (as that's simply the business model of both of the major developers of 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.
Basically, Your OS works now, but it won't work forever.

---End of later edits---

So, NSG, and particularly those do not think Linux is a viable option for OS - has this addressed your concerns? If not, what concerns/questions do you have? I'll add more sections to the above list as necessary.

So, reading through this, I'll address your relevant points.

1) Not really relevant. This does not say anything about why Linux is better/as good as the other OSs available.

2) Not too much space admittedly, but it is competing with your current (and usually already paid for) OS for space. Say Windows = 100GB and Linux = 10GB. Total space being taken up by OSs = 110GB with the partition thing. So still more space than just one OS.

3) There is relatively little intervention needed for the Windows 7 installer anyway. It ain't that hard and not necessarily better either. Not too relevant.

4) So you'd have to re-learn all the same stuff anyway, plus new stuff for whatever different OS you use. Not really relevant.

5) An OS should work "right out of the box". Period. Irrelevant.

6) So it's as long, if not slightly longer, than changing settings on another OS.

7) "Basically, your OS works now. It won't work forever." You're either telling us that Linux will be just as outdated as other OSs or, alternatively, Linux is eternal and you'll never have to upgrade. It is an OS. It's not designed to work forever and a day. Irrelevant.

I'd quite like to know how Linux is as good, if not better, than Windows/Mac. In your OP, and the thread where you refer to the OP, you haven't really explained a bit except (by my interpretation anyway) that Linux is an OS. No benefits have been adequately explained.

Why should Joe Public consider switching to Linux when he has an OS that does everything he wants it to? (Look at boobs, work on documents and surf the internet.) You're just making extra work for people without explaining the benefits. Can you explain to people why it is worth the effort?

Cheers.

1. It's still a misconception that I often see people believe.

2. Space is cheap and plentiful now. Most computers above the budget level come with a least a 1.5 TB hard drive, with 2 TB being more common. I've seen people thinking that they need multiple terabytes just to hold the OS, which is not true.

3. Certainly, neither is particularly difficult, but, again, I've seen people thinking that installing a Linux distro is a multi-day, hyper-complex operation, when it is not.

4. I don't understand your phrasing here. Could you clarify what you mean?

5. ...Which it does. I said that, right in the OP. Just because you can change the toolbars to be made out of kittens and meow whenever you click on them doesn't mean that you have to tell it to not do that.

6. It's not longer - that's my point. You don't need to wade through ten pages of checkboxes to change the system font or connect to a different network on either OS. The problem is that people think that you do.

7. Of course it's not going to work 'till the end of time, but at that point you might as well argue that you shouldn't buy a computer at all, just because it won't work forever. Or a car. Or a fridge. My point is that, if you bought Windows XP way back when and kept with Windows, you'll probably have upgraded at least once since then, or are looking at upgrading, a process that includes installing an OS completely from scratch. If you'd installed Ubuntu back then, then you'd still be completely up-to-date right now, without ever needing to perform the install again.

This thread isn't about the benefits of Linux, much as I might like to pontificate on them. The way I figured it was that the OP was already quite long, and that the thread could benefit from a more narrow focus.

Regardless, the benefits of Linux, from my perspective, fall into a few overarching categories:
A. Linux is more secure. The way it handles permissions means that malicious actions are impossible without notifying the user, unlike with Windows, which is, as I like to put it, a quite well-secured shell a mile across, surrounding a structure made of tissue paper. The moment you get in, everything is yours. MacOS is a little better, in that it is made of wood instead of tissue paper, but its problem is that it has only a very weak shell around it.
B. Linux is more flexible and customizable. If you are so inclined, then you are free to modify anything you wish, though if you aren't so inclined that's perfectly fine, too.
C. Linux is faster. Linux distros usually have no qualms with throwing out legacy code if a new, better method becomes apparent, so it is not bogged down by the spaghetti that lies behind Windows or MacOS.
D. Linux is more trustworthy. This really isn't that big a deal, but that Linux is open-source means that users can review the code at will (and if even 1% of users do so, an extremely low estimate, then a project with a million users will have ten thousand people combing through the code, looking for issues). Additionally, since Linux is developed by its users, you don't run into the conflict that you get with Microsoft or Apple where the company wants to make money and the users want to save money. Again, this one is a bit of a minor point, and most people won't really care about it, but it's there.

[Ifreann]

You make an excellent point. Back when I was in college, going for my Computer Science degree, I was forced to use a Linux based OS, and be surrounded by Linux fanboys/girls.

I remember I once (with the intention to troll, of course) suggested in CS major's lounge/computer lab that Mac Users are like some new-age desert cult that would be willing to commit mass suicide the moment their leader asks it, and Linux users were like one of those religions that goes door to door trying to convert people. And if you say you like another OS over theirs, they look at you as some blasphemer.

What would that make windows users, street gangs turned crusader?

Windows users would be those people who never go to mass, except maybe at Christmas, and don't really act like they believe in God, but they tick "Christian" on the census forms.

[Geilinor]

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.

Commercial OS's have been keeping up with modern software just fine.