Linuxtard...

[Alexandru H.]

... and loving it.

Tired of all the bullshit my computer was giving me in conjunction with the Windows XP, I switched to a 100% Ubuntu environment last week, leaving the Windows section (and the games) on my travel laptop.

Linux had some amazing transformations ever since 2003, my last real encounter with it. First of all, it formatted my hard-drive, installed the system, matched all my hardware with the necessary drivers (even the internet worked at first click) and placed a few necessary programs (video and audio players, photo editing, browser, office pack), all in 15 minutes. As a comparison, an usual Windows installation (with all the following steps) could have taken at least an hour.

Everything moves smoothly, the interface resembles Windows and the tons of Internet informations about Ubuntu means that it's a breeze to resolve even the hardest task. While Wine is not extraordinarily stable and I might have missed some games if I wouldn't have had the laptop, I wouldn't go back to Windows and its multiple issues.

Are there any Linux users here?

[Josquius]

myeah, ubuntu seems alrightish but the lack of games and having few other programs ruins any chance of me using it full time.
And of course for general usability its lacking- it took me ages to get the darn thing to recognise all my hard disks.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I use my linux'd netbook once every two weeks or so. I like the ubuntu. it's user friendly.

[Alexandru H.]

Judging by its rate of evolution, I'd say Linux is on the right path. Already it's more stable than any Windows version I've encountered (tried it on a computer that was overheating and restarting every hour using XP... no restart whatsoever in the last three days), it's more user-friendly at start and it's safer. Since most people use two computers nowadays, it's the perfect system for the work station and, I'd say, a perfect addition as the second OS in the main computer (leaving Windows to deal only with games).

Now, some game companies have proved more supportive of Linux than others (id is the most famous of these companies). It won't be long until their products will be ported on Linux from the start. But I'm not obsessed about it since nowadays I'm more interested in a stable system than a game rig.

[DontSayBanana]

Xandros and Ubuntu in particular have definitely evolved into something that can keep up with the mainstream OSes.  PuppyLinux must also be embarrassing for MS and Mac, since the interface looks so polished with such a small footprint.

[Barrister]

About a month ago, anandtech presented a very thorough "review" of Ubuntu Linux.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=3616

It's conclusion:

In searching for an answer to our question of whether Ubuntu is good enough to convince me to switch, I ultimately have failed to find enough compelling reasons to entice me as a user to switch to Ubuntu for my day-to-day operations. I should make it clear that this is not taking price into consideration – this is only taking into account my current situation as a Windows Vista user. Ubuntu does plenty of things well and I could certainly use it for my day-to-day operations, but there are few things it does better and more things it does worse as compared to Vista, such that using Ubuntu likely hurt my productivity even after I adapted to the differences. It's hard to fully compete with commercially developed software when you're giving yours away for free, so I don't consider this a surprise.

From a performance standpoint, there's little reason to switch in either direction. As I stated early in this article performance was never a serious condition for evaluation anyhow, and the results don't change that. Ubuntu outperforms Vista at times, but at other times it looks to be held back by compiler differences and the disadvantage of needing to play nicely with proprietary products that don't return the favor (e.g. SMB performance). As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu performed no worse than Windows for my day-to-day needs.

The author also had some harsh words for the difficulty in trying to get certain items (namely wireless) working, and that when Ubuntu's otherwise flawless installation would break down, it would break down spectacularly requiring access to the command line interface and the need to compile your own drivers.

Other than the pure geeky joy of it (which I do understand) I can see no real reason to move to Linux.

[DontSayBanana]

The configuration curve with Linux is pretty steep.  JACK (audio drivers) in particular doesn't like to play nice with onboard soundcards, I've noticed.  Also, I never found out: have the latest flavors of Ubuntu or Xandros made DVD decryption any easier?  With my version of Xandros, even after installing additional codecs, it would pretty much only read DVDs as data or if they were homemade video.

[Alexandru H.]

Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.

While I agree that the Linux distributions aren't ready for the average user (which makes the majority of all computer users), competition is clearly needed. Because the way Microsoft treats its number one product is not normal. The author speaks about the difficulties of getting the wireless working? The same wireless that worked with Ubuntu "out of the box" needed for Windows drivers I could only locate after two hours of gruesome internet searches and close to twenty different installs. Not to mention the sudden death of the OS once in a while... or the bloatware it has become over the years... or the stupid action of saving all used files in a hidden temp folder, so as a single session might eat away half of your hdd...

[derspiess]

I did give it an honest attempt, but I couldn't ever use any Linux distro as my main OS-- way too many Windows-only programs I'm dependent upon.  I also tried making a home theater MythTV box using Ubuntu, but got fed up with all the necessary tweaking. 

And one of the best things about Linux (it's free) has been negated by the fact that MS has given me Ultimate editions of both Vista & Win7, and I only had to pay $79 for the OEM version of Vista Home Premium I run on my home theater pc.

Having said all that, I think Linux is great for 'secondary' computers & devices-- I run Ubuntu on my netbook, and have a few devices that run embedded Linux.  And my next phone will run Android

[BuddhaRhubarb]

About a month ago, anandtech presented a very thorough "review" of Ubuntu Linux.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=3616

It's conclusion:

In searching for an answer to our question of whether Ubuntu is good enough to convince me to switch, I ultimately have failed to find enough compelling reasons to entice me as a user to switch to Ubuntu for my day-to-day operations. I should make it clear that this is not taking price into consideration – this is only taking into account my current situation as a Windows Vista user. Ubuntu does plenty of things well and I could certainly use it for my day-to-day operations, but there are few things it does better and more things it does worse as compared to Vista, such that using Ubuntu likely hurt my productivity even after I adapted to the differences. It's hard to fully compete with commercially developed software when you're giving yours away for free, so I don't consider this a surprise.

From a performance standpoint, there's little reason to switch in either direction. As I stated early in this article performance was never a serious condition for evaluation anyhow, and the results don't change that. Ubuntu outperforms Vista at times, but at other times it looks to be held back by compiler differences and the disadvantage of needing to play nicely with proprietary products that don't return the favor (e.g. SMB performance). As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu performed no worse than Windows for my day-to-day needs.

The author also had some harsh words for the difficulty in trying to get certain items (namely wireless) working, and that when Ubuntu's otherwise flawless installation would break down, it would break down spectacularly requiring access to the command line interface and the need to compile your own drivers.

Other than the pure geeky joy of it (which I do understand) I can see no real reason to move to Linux.

See this is the thing I don't like about these arguments (and maybe this is just me but I don't think so) Why is it always that you have to switch OSes? I use OSX at home, Ubuntu in Cafes, and Windows at work. Why do people feel the need to only be champion of one OS. I think all the ones I use do the job, and fairly well. Each have their flaws.

non issue for me. I can use any computer, almost any software you put in front of me. You should be able to as well (and by you I mean anyone on Languish)

[Alexandru H.]

I agree. In fact it's much better to know more operating systems than getting stuck in the mindset of an user of limited experience.

I remember that few years ago there some Linux die-hards that advocated against the appearance of a Windows-like GUI for their distributions in the same "extremist" voice that doesn't do any good. And I have a very weird experience with some Microsoft vendors that actually endorsed piracy for the Windows OS. Their reasons? "It's better for them to use it and get accustomed with it rather than getting a Linux for free and fighting for the enemy" 

[Barrister]

Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.

If ease of use is your main criteria, I can't imagine why you wouldn't recommend a Mac.

My parents, neither of whom are particularly computer geeks, have two iMacs and never have any problems with them.

While you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup.  You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.

[Threviel]

Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.

If ease of use is your main criteria, I can't imagine why you wouldn't recommend a Mac.

My parents, neither of whom are particularly computer geeks, have two iMacs and never have any problems with them.

While you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup.  You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.

But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.

[Barrister]

But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.

Mac Mini is pretty damn cheap.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

While you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup.  You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system, regardless of which one it is, and everything to do with the OEMs selling hardware.