Why Linux?

[theprobbka]

OK, you acolytes of Torvalds, you evangelists of open source, you preachers of the Linux revolution: I've a question for you. I want to be convinced of the superiority of Linux, but I just can't bring myself to do away with Windows. I want to know why those of you who use Linux use it, instead of say Windows 2000 pro or whatever. Why do you use Linux? Or maybe... why don't you? That's basically the question.

Go ahead, just give me a reason...

 

[Nothinman]

Because it's nice to not have to pirate software to get all the software you could want for free.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Free
Customizable as all hell (you don't know the meaning till you've started from the ground up, and built your own linux system)
an intuitive file system (drive letters....ROFLMFAO)
fast
when bugs are found - they are actually FIXED! :Q
example:
<input type>
sexy desktops!!!!


NO NEED TO REFORMAT EVERY QUARTER!

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

p.s. portage

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

NetBSD sucks with SMP so far, I have no reason to use windows, and macs are too expensive (and even if I had a mac, I would not use osx for my main OS so I suppose it's not even worth mentioning)

 

[skyking]

I use it in server applications, because if properly configured, it is as stable as the hardware it is running on. I have yet to crash my freeBSD machines in any way, shape or form, or have to reinstall the OS itself, for any reason other than a hard drive failure.
I have misconfigured things so that the machine bogs or some service refuses to start, but after a bit of research, i fixed it with proper editing and No Reboot.
I have not had similar luck with windows........... I have hosed in some way or another every OS to date, with the exception of 2k3 server.

The vast quantity and quality of free server apps is mind boggling, and there are many many things that can be done on a linux machine that are simply not possible in windows. The apps have not been written for windows. On the other hand, there are a choice few things on the windows server side of things that do not have a counterpart in the linux side.
When run without a gui overhead, freeBSD will run on an astoundingly small amount of resources. My firewall box has 32mb of ram, but only needs 8 to work.

 

[theprobbka]

I suppose I should have specified desktop applications. Clearly Linux is the winner in server applications... hands down.

I guess I'll wait for them to improve Lindows before I switch I mainly use my desktop for gaming and stuff... lack of game compatibility is my main hang-up on switching to Linux. Hopefully Lindows will fix this... any thoughts on Lindows?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

You probably won't get many positive opinion on lindows. It does what it does, but normally people that already like linux are the type of people who dislike something like lindows.

 

[Cogman]

Lindows sucks, that is all there is to it. Build a decent system and get Wine, And basicly you have Lindows. Linux is more stable, faster, perttier. I mean, what os that you know of can you actually view the source code of. I mean, you could make a complete DIY project with linux as the base and configure everything how you like it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: theprobbka
Why do you use Linux?

Go ahead, just give me a reason...

It started with WinME. I bought it, I used it, it is a crap OS. Win98SE was better (more stable), but is/was crap also. I refused to buy Win2K to replace the crap because I do not like the idea of supporting a company that sold me crap in the first place (IOW, if Ford sells me a lemon, I won't buy another Ford model to replace it ). I also refuse WinXP's product activation. I'll get my merchandise elsewhere, thank you, and I'll test them for free then buy when I am satisfied with what I have (if I buy at all).

When I started with Linux, I installed Mandrake 8.1, and I had choices. Lots of them. Example: No crap IE, but Mozilla, Galeon, Opera, Netscape, and Konqueror. Stable, secure browsers. I had several choices for Mail, Multimedia, Office Apps, and Desktop managers, etc, and they are all comparable to, if not better than, the lone Windows selection. Sure I had to learn some things in order to get some things working the way I want, but it was worth it to me. There are other compromises as well, but again, worth it to me for what I gained in the OS by way of security, stability, flexibility. Whenever I install drivers, or change settings, I don't have to reboot. When applications cause my GUI to hang, I don't have to reboot.

I also don't like the idea of having to buy a third party product to keep an OS secure (Virus Scanner/Firewall), or stable (System Utilities suite) and have to run them constantly to protect the OS from itself. No more resource hogging background apps that ultimately cost as much as the OS.

So, after a little over 1 year of using Linux, I have 2 computers that run Linux exclusively (up 24/7) and 1 dual-boot computer with WinME. Sure, I still use WinME from time to time, but only for the few applications (mostly games) that I just cannot do in Linux yet. I love using Linux, and I'll never go back to a pure Windows system again.

 

[xSauronx]

ill be setting up debian on my spare system sometime this week

want to learn some networking stuff, amongst other things, and didnt see a good reason to use windows on it (have windows primarily for gaming)

its free, which is great, so is an enourmous amount of software (i dled the deabian isos, 8 of them, 8000+ programs i think) with alot of choices on what program to use for what task

its also a good way to taunt my brothers, since i can now tell them i have broadband...on two pcs *evil laugh*

 

[Soybomb]

I do use windows sometimes for a desktop because its quick, easy, etc. I also use linux/freebsd though because some of the tools I like to use as only available on *nix. Its quite nice to have secure tools like an ssh client come with your os too.

I want to be convinced of the superiority of Linux, but I just can't bring myself to do away with Windows

I wouldn't call it superior nor try to convince you to do away with windows before I knew what you did on your computer. What works for me may not work for you.

 

[theprobbka]

Well, now my question is: what distro should I get? I've heard good things about Mandrake for n00bs like myself. Maybe Red Hat? I dunno. But I'll definitely be putting some form of Linux on my new laptop

 

[drag]

Get Mandrake, SuSE or Redhat. Those are all fine. I have personal experiance with SuSE and Redhat and I prefer SuSE. Don't know about Mandrake, but it is probably pretty nice. Trouble wiht SuSE though is that they only offer install CD's for a $. However it's worth it IMO, but if you just want to try it out they have a little CD (as in small only 16Megs) that will allow you to install it off of a FTP server. So for the first time out I'd say Redhat, or Mandrake.

Lindows seems to me to be a effort by a con-man to turn Linux into a shareware version of Windows. blah.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Gentoo is fast and fairly easy to set up as long as you follow the directions.
Redhat, mandrake, etc are crap. Use them for a few days to learn what makes an OS suck.

(I'm a Gentoo zealot, but you might have figured that out by now.)
Debian isn't bad either, btw.

 

[Rainsford]

Why do I use Linux? Well, actually now it's mostly FreeBSD, but the reasons are the same.

I use it because I like to have all the power and customizability that it gives me. I like being able to think up something I want to do, and actually do it. I like being able to decide exactly what I want and don't want. I like being able to track down every single problem I have to something I did incorrectly, fix it, and not have it happen again. I like being able to have to do nothing besides keep the system up to date and use it. No babysitting has ever happened with me and Linux or FreeBSD. And finally, I like the fact that I know that the system works to make sure the consumer and not the producer are the ones that benefit.

 

[theprobbka]

Nuclear--could you be more specific about the problems with Mandrake, Redhat, etc?

Thanks to the rest of you for your suggestions and comments

 

[Nothinman]

Redhat, mandrake, etc are crap. Use them for a few days to learn what makes an OS suck.

If you really think that, your'e an idiot. They're all Linux, the only thing that's really different is the installer and the fact that Gentoo makes you wait for hours while you compile everything for no good reason.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

Personally I don't really like Mandrake/RedHat/SuSe. They tend to obscure things, and it seems to me that they're trying to turn Linux into Windows, whicn IMO isn't a good thing at all. On my own desktop, I use Gentoo, but for other people, I usually recommend either Debian or a Debian based Linux, like Libranet - which is very easy to set up and use, but does not obscure things like RH/MDK/SuSe do.

Mainly, I use linux for these reasons:

1: Stability: For the end user, especially the ones simply "going online" stability is an issue, they don't want to be looking at marthastewartweloveyou.com and have their computer crash. They also don't want their kids going to www.welovespyware.com and downloading so much spy/ad crap their computer runs like an Apple ][.

2: Security: Pick a day, any day for the past 8 months, and somewhere, someone has found yet another open port/bug/worm/blah blah blah in Windows. Linux, doesn't have this problem.

3: Privacy: Has anyone ever read the EULA for Windows?

I dislike Linux for things like its lack of support from the gaming community, and from manufacturers (in the form of drivers). Obviously though, for me the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

 

[thesix]

Windows is my choice of desktop. I've been working for Unix companies for 6 years (ever since I graduated), I have easy access to Unix machines at home or at work, really no need to have an UNIX/Linux desktop. Most of the Unix staff I do daily are text based, I can easily connect to them using Putty, if GUI is needed, use VNC.
Sometimes when I need the CPU power of my PC, I use Cygwin or AT&T's Uwin. I don't miss anything of Unix by using a windows desktop, and I don't miss anything of Windows because I AM using a windows box Security is not a concern at all for my desktop at home.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: NaughtyusMaximus
...
3: Privacy: Has anyone ever read the EULA for Windows?
...

Could you elaborate on this point? I've seen a lot of FUD regarding the EULA for Windows and how it invades your privacy, but I have not actually seen anything that shows how it does so without generalizing statements made in the EULA. Specific examples would be nice.

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer

That is from WinXP SP1, and Win2000 SP3. This is in the EULA. You can turn off automatic updating, but as you agreed to the EULA, they can turn it back on (or some other variant that does the above) at their will.

You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer.

That is from a patch to WMP. Looks tasty! Its too bad when I rip mp3s from my CDs, I can't 'secure' them.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Redhat, mandrake, etc are crap. Use them for a few days to learn what makes an OS suck.

If you really think that, your'e an idiot. They're all Linux, the only thing that's really different is the installer and the fact that Gentoo makes you wait for hours while you compile everything for no good reason.

Because bloat and RPM = cool am i rite?
Sure, you can go apt-rpm, but you still have to deal with the bloat and crap. bleh. redhat pisses me off.

If you don't like to compile stuff just go Debian. Debian is .

P.S. "no good reason"? That's laughable.

OH NOES YOU HAVE TO WAIT A DAY TO GET A SYSTEM UP THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!

The only thing different is the installer? Portage!

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Redhat, mandrake, etc are crap. Use them for a few days to learn what makes an OS suck.

If you really think that, your'e an idiot. They're all Linux, the only thing that's really different is the installer and the fact that Gentoo makes you wait for hours while you compile everything for no good reason.

If you want to be insanely general, yes, you're correct. However, you know as well as I that there are MANY reasons you use debian over redhat or gentoo, aside from the installer and compile time.

Originally posted by: NaughtyusMaximus

2: Security: Pick a day, any day for the past 8 months, and somewhere, someone has found yet another open port/bug/worm/blah blah blah in Windows. Linux, doesn't have this problem.

Yes, it does. Finding holes is no less common on linux, however, the response is different.

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n

OH NOES YOU HAVE TO WAIT A DAY TO GET A SYSTEM UP THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!

I think the point is that there is no reward for that wasted day, it is time wasted, which is stupid. If gentoo just provided a binary base system, it would be just the same once you got it up and running, and it would be set up in maybe an hour or two.

 

[Nothinman]

Because bloat and RPM = cool am i rite?

RPM is not bloated at all, infact the only thing RPM adds to the source of a program is a several K text .spec file, the program is still built just like any other. If you really feel the need to build them on your machine, for some strange reason, you can use .src.rpms which unpack the programs tar.gz, apply any patches included in the RPM and build a binary RPM file for you.

redhat pisses me off

I can't understand why, they use and support the same software that Gentoo uses and they're actually getting corporate relationships built. Do you honestly believe Oracle would be supporting Linux at all if it weren't for RedHat?

Sure support doesn't matter for your desktop, but it does when it's running on a $30K server.

The only thing different is the installer? Portage!

Maybe 'lack of an installer' is a better term, but wait LFS has been doing that for years. And portage is a copy of the BSD ports system, nothing new there either.

However, you know as well as I that there are MANY reasons you use debian over redhat or gentoo, aside from the installer and compile time.

Since I've put apt on a RH box I have to manage at work it's much better. Sure there's a lot less packages, but the box only needs a handfull of them to run and apt lets me avoid the damn up2date system. I won't deny that Debian feels like a more complete and cohesive system to me, but that doesn't mean RH is a bad system. I can't speak about Gentoo a whole lot though because my experience with it is quite limited, mainly because their support for Alpha was little more than "look, it compiles, I think" last I checked and I don't plan on installing it on my workstation any time soon.