Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:05 UTC, submitted by Luis
Linux Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista 'costs too much', 'has onerous product activation', 'requires too much hardware', etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: 'I'm just going to switch to Linux'. But in today's landscape, how viable is that statment? Is the threat to switch to Linux an empty one, or is it entirely possible?"
Order by: Score:
Of course it is
by gdanko on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:23 UTC
gdanko
Member since:
2005-07-15

Windows is not a "necessary evil". I've not owned a Windows PC since Windows 95 was new. I've been able to get along without it for going on 12 years. I do not buy anyone's insistence that we cannot live without it.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Of course it is
by GhePeU on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:27 UTC in reply to "Of course it is"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want to play video games, you need Windows (or a game console, but some games can't be played without a pc).

Edited 2007-03-07 18:27

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Of course it is
by rayiner on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Of course it is"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Another great reason not to have a windows machine...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Of course it is
by steviant on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Of course it is"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

And some games can't be played without a console.

What's your point?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Of course it is
by GhePeU on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Of course it is"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't understand YOUR point.

There are some games that are only playable with Windows. Ergo, if you want to use those games, you need a Windows pc.

If you don't play, if you play only games with a console version or games with a native linux version or games working without glitches in wine or if you play just abandonware games, then you don't need Windows, but in any other case (and this means a relevant share of the games released in the last 10 years) you need a Windows pc.

Edited 2007-03-07 20:51

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Of course it is
by fretinator on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Of course it is"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm currently in the situation of having to dual-boot on my laptop strictly because of Half-life 1. It does work with wine (I have crossover office), but the video is just too choppy for me to tolerate (my 64MB integrated ATI card works with OpenGL, but not as well as under Windows).

However, I just found out that there was a port of Half-life 1 to the PS2. I wonder if that would still work for me (e.g., how does it update itself for network play??).

If it did, I could give up dual-booting. (I also use Parallels for when I have to do VB.NET and C# programming.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Of course it is
by Almafeta on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Of course it is"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I don't understand YOUR point.

There are some games that are only playable with Windows.


If I read him/her right, the point is that the reverse is not also true. There is no significant piece of open-source software that does not exist in Windows. Firefox, Open Office, Apache, GIMP, Blender, Second Life... but all are available for Windows.

As it stands right now, Linux support and functionality is a subset of Windows support and functionality. And as long as the Linux community continues to use an open-source development model and as long as there exists even one Windows user with a C++ compiler, that is the way it will stay.

Reply Score: 1

ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

That's actually one of the things Aaron Seigo pointed out in 2004, http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-to-kill-open-source-on-deskt... :


"
Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows. How many Windows users have debuggers or compilers or even receive awareness marketing on the part of their primary software vendor (Microsoft) to "Get Involved and Give Back"? Moreover, resources that could be spent making the Open Source desktop environments more compelling are instead being spent on making Windows more compelling in the form of superior applications.

Microsoft owes us a big "thank you" when you think about it: we are giving them the opportunity to react on the playing field they most effective on while we are limiting our own resources.

...

This "strategy" ensures Free Software desktops remain a 5% fringe in the market. This translates to ISV interest in desktop Linux/BSD being kept to a barely noticeable minimum. In turn this means fewer software packages, which in turn means even fewer reasons for people to use Free Software operating systems. Can you hear the dominoes falling as they approach?
"

Of course now KDE4 will be releasing many of its apps as cross-platform. Some of the commenters on the blog brought up how the file format may be more important than having a killer ap on the web eg., how Firefox on Windows is opening the web up to Linux users again, OOo or KOffice with ODF., etc.

Edited 2007-03-07 23:17

Reply Score: 5

chanmix51 Member since:
2007-02-23

I do not agree with the thought «porting gpl softwares to windows make users stick to windows».

From my point of view, that allow them to use and get used to free software. Would firefox be 20% of browsers "marketshare" if not available on Windows ?
If we do keep free software only for Linux/bsd users, most of the people would not know about it and would be relunctant to use it.

The big advantage of linux on windows is not only being free software ! If people begin to use KDE on Windows or Mac, they will be more keen on trying it on Linux because that would not change dramatically their habits and they might even find Linux better using the same graphical environment.

«Share the software !»

Reply Score: 2

stabilep Member since:
2006-04-02

You raise and excellent point. There is no reason to force GPL software only to reamin on Linux. All that does is doing the same thing that most Linux users hate about Microsoft. They are making software that is propietary that runs only on one type of OS.

So I agree with you: Share the software!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Of course it is
by butters on Thu 8th Mar 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Of course it is"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

There is no significant piece of open-source software that does not exist in Windows. Firefox, Open Office, Apache, GIMP, Blender, Second Life... but all are available for Windows. As it stands right now, Linux support and functionality is a subset of Windows support and functionality.

In general, you're right. Consumers choose a platform predominantly based on the apps which are available for it. However, the trend towards consumers choosing OSS applications on Windows means that the Windows-only applications are gradually becoming less significant. Moreover, the features of the platform itself are becoming more significant as the apps are increasingly available on both platforms.

Windows will always have some software that Linux does not, whereas most Linux software will gradually become available on Windows. However, this subset will get small, and Windows will be forced to compete with Linux as a platform. Linux has its weakness as a platform, to be fair, but given a little more market share and a little more investment, many of the glaring weaknesses will go away. If Linux received even 10% of the capital investment that Windows receives, it would make Windows look silly by comparison (if it doesn't already for some users).

The synopsis of this article (if you read the whole thing) is that outside of the few features that don't quite work as intended, (Ubuntu) Linux is an outstanding desktop system. In a way, Linux is a lot like Vista. It has plenty of features that provide a sense of "wow" and a few gotchas here and there that are pretty frustrating. But I contend that the gotchas are getting more and more frustrating on Windows, while they are becoming much less so on Linux.

The bottom line on the article is that the author compared a completely free (gratis) platform and its completely free (gratis) applications against a relatively expensive platform and its often outrageously expensive applications--and found that the former is pretty damn close to being a complete replacement for the latter while offering some really compelling advantages.

Games? There's really no way to commoditize and replace a game, so it really depends on the game developers perceiving an advantage to developing for Linux. I think that a huge market awaits a project that develops a high-level OpenGL abstraction library for Linux game development. Make game development for Linux easy and powerful, and make it "build" away to standard OpenGL code, and game developers would gladly ditch DirectX. In truth, X hasn't really been ready for high-end gaming until recently, and it's not completely there yet. When game developers can easily hook into Composite to overlay their interface elements on top of the rendered environment, things will get sweet for Linux gaming in a hurry.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Of course it is
by twenex on Thu 8th Mar 2007 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Of course it is"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

And as long as the Linux community continues to use an open-source development model and as long as there exists even one Windows user with a C++ compiler, that is the way it will stay.

I fail to see what the use of open source software has to do with the range of Linux software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Of course it is
by stestagg on Thu 8th Mar 2007 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Of course it is"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

By 'Open Source' they really mean cross-platform. And, of course, most open source software really is cross platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Of course it is
by Almafeta on Thu 8th Mar 2007 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Of course it is"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Well, no... by open-source, I meant open-source.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Of course it is
by lemur2 on Sun 11th Mar 2007 08:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Of course it is"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

{And, of course, most open source software really is cross platform.}

Only if it is designed that way.

Java programs (such as azereus) are inherently cross-platform. Same for Python programs, and I'm sure a few other similar languages as well.

C or C++ programs are only cross-platform if there is an underlying library layer that is cross platform. An excellent example of this is KDE, which has an underlying library called qt. All versions of KDE to date are Linux/BSD only, since qt was Linux/BSD only. Since qt4 is now available also for Windows, then the first version of KDE that uses qt4 (which will be KDE4) will be the first version of KDE available for Windows. Meanwhile, GNOME desktop remains Linux/BSD only.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Of course it is
by B12 Simon on Thu 8th Mar 2007 10:43 UTC in reply to "Of course it is"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

I notice your comment tackles only "necessary", not "evil" ;o)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Of course it is
by aGNUstic on Thu 8th Mar 2007 14:04 UTC in reply to "Of course it is"
aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

I agree completely. I also don't buy into McSoftie's reasoning that it is needed. Between Linux and OS X there is absolutely no reason to run Windoze. I went completely McSoft free in Oct. 2003 and have never looked back.

Reply Score: 1

v One day with OSNews
by kotter71 on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:31 UTC
RE: One day with OSNews
by KenJackson on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:13 UTC in reply to "One day with OSNews"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Since Firefox is available for Windows, this advantage is not a Linux-only advantage, but here it is: AdBlock https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/

Reply Score: 2

RE: One day with OSNews
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "One day with OSNews"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

It must be all those Microsoft ads.

Seriously, I want to see more Linux ads here. Novell has some. Where are they?

OSNews has alot of Linux/FOSS content; it should be suplimented with ads that corrilate to that kind of content. Microsoft's 24/7 Get The Facts engine only serves to annoy readers.

Why can't OSNews pay their bills from other sponsers?

I tried removing Flash player but the Microsoft flash ads are only replaced with GIF ones.

Edited 2007-03-07 20:39

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: One day with OSNews
by cobbaut on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE: One day with OSNews"
cobbaut Member since:
2005-10-23

Xaero_Vincent wrote
It must be all those Microsoft ads.

Seriously, I want to see more Linux ads here. Novell has some. Where are they?


Ain't it cool that Microsoft is paying for all these pro-linux comments. Let them waste money on ads, i removed the last Microsoft software from my home in 2003, and i see more and more friends do the same.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: One day with OSNews
by cobbaut on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE: One day with OSNews"
RE[2]: One day with OSNews
by SEJeff on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE: One day with OSNews"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

OSNews has ads? Wow sense when? I haven't used IE in a very long time and Epiphany or Firefox both have phenominal adblocking extensions that make it all go away.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: One day with OSNews
by SlackerJack on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:35 UTC in reply to "One day with OSNews"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Use Epiphany and it's extensions with adblock, then OSNews browsers like it's on your hard drive.

Reply Score: 2

Hmm
by SeanVernell on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:33 UTC
SeanVernell
Member since:
2005-08-06

If you've read a lot, or even just a few of these 'switch articles' then this one will probably be exasperating. That colours my judgement of the article somewhat. However I can say this: I got myself a copy of Linux for non-geeks back in October (like the author of the article), and while it doesn't contain any revelatory or super-secret information that you couldn't find elsewhere, what it does do is present information in a lively, readble style. I'd certainly reccomend it to anyone trying Ubuntu for the first time.

Edited 2007-03-07 18:41

Reply Score: 3

64bit
by unoengborg on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:35 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

With both Mac OS X and Vista in 64-bit versions, Linux can no longer lag behind if it expects to be taken seriously.

It should be noted that 64bit on windows isn't exactly a dance on roses. The performance benefits from using 64bits are small if any regardless if you use windows or Linux. My advice would be to stay away from 64 bit boxes if you don't need the additional address space that 64bit offers.

As far as I know there are no specific problems with 64bit macs but the Apple situation is somewhat different as Apple controls the hardware, and the Linux test was performed on hardware not specifically selected to run Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: 64bit
by TaterSalad on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:41 UTC in reply to "64bit"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't tell people not to use 64bit OS's. There may not be a lot of applications that take advantage of it but that doesn't mean there won't be in the future. As more people upgrade they will only be able to find 64bit chips and manufacturers will start producing more 64bit applications, then pretty soon everything will be 64bit. Its kind of like when we went from Windows 3.11 16bit to win95/98 32bit. Its very rare to find a 16bit application nowadays.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 64bit
by kaiwai on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE: 64bit"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Excuse me, that has to be the worse comparison I've ever seen; the move to 64bit will be *nothing* like the move from 16bit to 32bit.

Move from 16bit to 32bit yeilded protected memory, pre-emptive multi-tasking, fine grain threading and so forth; the move from 32bit to 64bit yielding alot less for the amount of pain it is actually bringing to the party.

90% of people who use their laptop for 'ordinary stuff' won't *need* what 64bit brings; the hardware they buy can't handle the amount of memory of which 64bit claims to support, if they want more than 4gigs, the current 32bit CPU's can support it by virtue of PAE.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: 64bit
by KenJackson on Thu 8th Mar 2007 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 64bit"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

90% of people ... won't *need* what 64bit brings ...

That reminds me of a guy I met back in '81 that said a similar thing as he steadfastly declared that CP/M can do all you need to do in only 64KB, so you don't need an IBM PC with 128KB that runs PC/DOS.

Personally, I find 512MB is plenty of memory for my software development, browsing and office-app needs. But the growth in demand for more is inexorable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: 64bit
by kaiwai on Thu 8th Mar 2007 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 64bit"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But there is a difference, I am talking about the here and now; there is a difference. Maybe in 2-4 years time, then sure, 64bit processors *might* become the status quo, but lets remember that its only been recently that 64bit processors came out from Intel - I doubt software companies are going to throw out the opportunity to sell to customers.

But like I said, if customers want *more* memory than 4gigs, the current range of 32bit processors can do just that, and given the improvements in SSE3 - you can do 64bit (or even 128bit) computation just as efficiently, especially with the way SSE instructions are executed on the current range of Core and Core 2 processors.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 64bit
by CowMan on Fri 9th Mar 2007 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 64bit"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

...BUT! If we didn't have 64-bit now, there would be no incentive to make those 64-bit programs. Without which, there'd be no need for the hardware. Which wouldn't be developed then, as there would be no use - you'd have nothing to run on it.

Hardware has tossed out the eggs. Let the chicken be a chick first, so when it comes time to use 64 bit, we're all set up.

I want my 64-bit mIRC program!!!!!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: 64bit
by Isolationist on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: 64bit"
RE: 64bit
by anda_skoa on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:49 UTC in reply to "64bit"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

With both Mac OS X and Vista in 64-bit versions, Linux can no longer lag behind if it expects to be taken seriously.

I haven't read the article yet, but if they really complain about 64-bit Linux "lagging behind" they probably should check a resource about computing history, because Linux has been supporting more 64-bit architectures than Windows and OS X together for years.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: 64bit
by HappyGod on Thu 8th Mar 2007 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE: 64bit"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

It's not just the lack of a 64-bit option, but the default Gnome theme now looks really old.

The windows are kind of OK, but the mouse-grey task-bar and Gnome-bar are very Windows 95.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 64bit
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 64bit"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's a rather old version then. Newer Gnome versions come with the Clearlooks theme and Tango icons. And it makes a hell of a difference.

But yeah, older Gnome 2.x versions looked pretty dated. No doubt.

OTOH many socalled "modern-looking" desktops are horrible to look at.

Clearlooks2-Squared + Clearlooks-Quicksilver + Tango icons give a pretty sweet desktop. A bit to bright perhaps, but I can live with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: 64bit
by rayiner on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "64bit"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Given that a 64-bit version of OS X isn't even out yet...

Reply Score: 5

RE: 64bit
by l3v1 on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:06 UTC in reply to "64bit"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

With both Mac OS X and Vista in 64-bit versions, Linux can no longer lag behind if it expects to be taken seriously.

Well, it's pretty weird reacting to such lines from a ~1 year old 64 bit gentoo install with a 64 bit debian in the vicinity. You know what, I'll just lag with them a bit more longer here :]

Reply Score: 5

RE: 64bit
by Drawnstories_studios on Thu 8th Mar 2007 03:36 UTC in reply to "64bit"
Drawnstories_studios Member since:
2005-12-12

ummmn dude, you do realize that Mandriva had a fully operational 64bit version the week AMD_64 hit shelves. Linux was flying through the 64 bit world way before microsoft would even acknowledge it as a viable platform...

More over, Linux has more that's compiled to true 64 bit where windows just skirts around it.

All this said, 64bit linux was hell to live through for me, primarily because I insisted on having true binaries of eveything so I compiled eveything I had for like a year and a half.

Reply Score: 2

good
by SK8T on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:35 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

Imo it's a good article.

I tried linux the first time in 2004, Fedora Core 3. Also using Gnome. And after a few days I said "hey, I can do everything I can do with windows, too". (I'm no gamer). So I just switched, because I got:
- free updates
- no security problems
- and it felt a bit faster as Windows

Reply Score: 5

RE: good
by Luis on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:51 UTC in reply to "good"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

Yes, the article is long and with many details, but it presents a quite accurate picture of how it is to switch to Linux from Windows for someone who's willing to give it a serious try and put a little effort into learning the differences and solving problems.

It's a fair article with balanced conclusions from someone who seems to have nothing for or against Linux (or Windows, presumably) and just writes down his experience. With all the "anti-*" articles written nowadays, I thought this one was worth submitting.

Reply Score: 5

Talk of going to linux
by TaterSalad on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:36 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

I hear this a lot, many people on forums and boards will say they are switching to linux and giving up Windows completely forever but rarely does anyone do it. I usually say sure you will, then 6 months down the road its "well I had to download patches for windows yesterday!". I thought you gave up windows 6 months ago? Even if it is possible to use strictly linux there is a lot of talk about switching but no action.

Edited 2007-03-07 18:43

Reply Score: 3

RE: Talk of going to linux
by twenex on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "Talk of going to linux"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

many people on forums and boards will say they are switching to linux and giving up Windows completely forever but rarely does anyone do it.

Speak for yourself. The only computers I use Windows on are the ones I can't put Linux on. And the reasons I can't are responsibility-, not tech-, related. And so it has been for 8 years now.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Talk of going to linux
by tomcat on Wed 7th Mar 2007 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk of going to linux"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Welcome to the sub-3% club.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Talk of going to linux
by twenex on Wed 7th Mar 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk of going to linux"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Oh, woe is me! Only two percent of people use Linux on the desktop! Why, WHY didn't I choose to use crap and be popular, instead!!!

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Talk of going to linux
by tomcat on Thu 8th Mar 2007 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Talk of going to linux"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Yeah, that 98% must be comprised entirely of idiots. Either that, or they simply like using industry standard apps such as Adobe Photoshop and MS Office -- or they like playing a huge selection of cutting-edge games. I don't know who's the bigger idiot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Talk of going to linux
by archiesteel on Thu 8th Mar 2007 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk of going to linux"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

a huge selection of cutting-edge games

There's a much bigger selection of cutting-edge games on consoles.

You can be a total gamer and still do your computing on Linux. You can also run MS Office and Photoshop from Linux, using Crossover, if you don't want to use the fine alternatives.

I thought you had given up spewing your anti-Linux crap here...I guess I was wrong.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Talk of going to linux
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk of going to linux"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Or more likely they don't know about other choices ;)

2% on the Linux desktop is still evidence that Linux is THE choice for people with knowledge.

I wonder what PC-BSD and DesktopBSD can do for FreeBSD in terms of desktop usage. Mac OS X and GNU/Linux has proved there is room.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Talk of going to linux
by twenex on Thu 8th Mar 2007 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Talk of going to linux"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Yeah, that 98% must be comprised entirely of idiots.

I didn't say that. My point, (since you seem to need things s p e l l e d o u t f o r y o u ) is that I don't care
what
percentage of users use the system I use, as long as it works FOR ME.

Either that, or they simply like using industry standard apps such as Adobe Photoshop and MS Office

Well, since The GIMP and OpenOffice do all I want in that department, and since they and programs like Amarok run without any of the virus- and DRM-infested crap on Windows why should I run APS and MSO?

or they like playing a huge selection of cutting-edge games.

I don't play games, if I did I would buy a console, and I'm not going to use Windows just to keep other people happy - especially not defamatory morons like you.

I don't know who's the bigger idiot.

Really? I do.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Talk of going to linux
by jcinacio on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:50 UTC in reply to "Talk of going to linux"
jcinacio Member since:
2006-03-12

I can be wrong, but i don't think anyone would switch back to windows after 3 months of using Linux unless...

like it's been said before: games are to be blamed it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Talk of going to linux
by tjolley on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:57 UTC in reply to "Talk of going to linux"
tjolley Member since:
2006-03-14

It is entirely possible to dump Windows.

I Dumped Windows 2 years ago. The only place I use Windows is at work where I have no choice - but I use open source apps wherever possible.

My main workstation is a Mac, my laptop Runs OpenSuse 10.2, and I have a server running Novell Open Enterprise Server (based on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server)

Thinking I would 'need' Windows, I even put boot camp on my Mac..LOL what a waste of space..I've never booted into Windoze since installing it and testing it.

Heck, after I started using open source applications: OpenOffice (and I write tech documentation for work - thousands of pages, so don't tell me OO doesn't work or isn't up to the task), FireFox, Operal, 7-Zip, Gaim, etc,etc,etc.. I found the OS irrelevant, so I switched to better OS's that I don't have to worry about viri, etc.

I have yet to find a reason to 'Need' Windows..just doesn't exist for me. If I want to play games, I fire up the game console, or run the Linux versions of the game or run them in Wine, if I must - but I find I rarley play games.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Talk of going to linux
by TaterSalad on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Talk of going to linux"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

I never said it was impossible, just said people talk a big game about dumping windows then never do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Talk of going to linux
by Doc Pain on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk of going to linux"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I never said it was impossible, just said people talk a big game about dumping windows then never do."

That's correct as far as I experienced. Ut seems to be because of all these little problems, such as a serial mouse not working, a video card not supported or no idea how to install a scanner driver.

As it has been mentioned before, the myth of "But I need it!" is one of the main reasons. Most people treat their PC as a better typewriter, some use it as a gaming console. They simply do not know about alternatives, they don't care about security (their own and the one of others) and they expect everything to work by itself.

Most people (at least here in Germany) use pirated software, famous programs they get from their neighbors, coworkers, friends. This software is the reason they use "Windows", it's not the OS itself they're interested in.

So I could say about Linux (as it has been said about MacOS X): The underlying OS is nearly irrelevant as long as there's a GUI and all the functionalities (not "all the particular programs"!) available. And regarding Linux, it is, that's a fact.

I've installed SuSE Linux (one year ago) on my father's laptop. Until now, he even does not know he's not running "Windows", and he hasn't had any problem using the machine. To add a personal line, I didn't own and use any MICROS~1 product for all my life. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Talk of going to linux
by twenex on Thu 8th Mar 2007 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Talk of going to linux"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I never said it was impossible, just said people talk a big game about dumping windows then never do.

Yeah, and your BS has been called, not solely by me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Talk of going to linux
by isaba on Thu 8th Mar 2007 13:30 UTC in reply to "Talk of going to linux"
isaba Member since:
2006-12-30

I completely agree.

As a linux user I see that most people who show interest in Linux -and even say that they´re fed up and will abandon windows- just try one liveCD or two, then think it is slow, they do not find programs where they think they should be, find out that some browser plug-ins are missing, then try to watch a DVD, then...

These people fear change, they fear making a partition for dual-booting, they think they will spoil information on their HDs. In short: even well intentioned (towards linux)people have too many mental barriers to demolish. They just do not dare to change. That's the problem (imho). They have to cope with lots and lots and lots of problems with Windows, but cannot bear a small fail in linux.
And all the previous is about people who really want to make a try, most people do not. It is not a problem of software nor knowledge, it is a matter of following-or-not the herd.

Reply Score: 3

Courage to be an Individual
by yoursecretninja on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:05 UTC
yoursecretninja
Member since:
2006-01-02

I will not attempt to speak for everyone, but in my personal experience one barrier to using 'alternative' operating systems is the fear of being different - or - quite similarly, the lust to have what everyone else has. I remember when I was about 12 years old I had a Mac running System 7. I had this computer for a few years by this time and had loved it. However, around this age, all of my friends' families starting getting PCs with cool games like Doom, the neat IE web browser and newer versions of ICQ than were available for my 68k machine. How I yearned for a PC. Unfortunately, I didn't have the money to buy a PC myself, so I lived with my Mac for more years as it got older and older. When I finally got a PC, I was happy that I had what everyone else had.. that I could play the same games, use the same apps. Of course, I no longer care about what others are doing. I use my computer for what I need to get done, and for this reason I prefer Mac and Linux as my OS. But I think other people may be a little like how I used to be - they do not realize what they need a computer to do, but they think they need their computer to do what other people use their computer to do. And since most other people use windows, they think they need windows.

Reply Score: 4

v About critisism
by bibe on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:06 UTC
You said:
by CVDpr on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:19 UTC
CVDpr
Member since:
2005-10-17

Vista "cost to much" etc..., so that mean that you wanna use windows, Why dont you continue using XP instead of trying Linux?

Reply Score: 1

RE: You said:
by stabilep on Wed 7th Mar 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "You said:"
stabilep Member since:
2006-04-02

The author is not bashin Windows Vista at all during the actual article. he was simply pointing out that on the forums a lot of people make this claim of switching from Windows to linux.

He basically is seeing how it is for a Window user to switch to linux and use only linux for 30 days. And then posts his conclusions. it is written quite well and he makes a lot of valid good points. But he actually does not sit there and bash on windows the whole time. Of course since it is from his perspective it is a subjective article but it is a well written and balanced one.

Edited 2007-03-07 19:41

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: You said:
by kaiwai on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: You said:"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

He basically is seeing how it is for a Window user to switch to linux and use only linux for 30 days. And then posts his conclusions. it is written quite well and he makes a lot of valid good points. But he actually does not sit there and bash on windows the whole time. Of course since it is from his perspective it is a subjective article but it is a well written and balanced one.

True, hence the reason it would be stupid for people to come out and parade the one guys experience with Linux has some sort of benchmark to which all other end users will reach when switching.

You have to first have to find out why the person is moving and whether their hardware is compatible; if Windows is unstable, is it due to crap being loaded on by the halfwitted end user, or them tweaking with crap they know nothing about, is it because their hardware is plain well crap? because if the issue lies beyond Windows, then Linux will simply trip over the same problems again.

After deciding why they're going to move, they then need to lay out what they use their computer for and are they willing to give up access to all their favourite applications in favour of relearning how to do things using new applications on their new platform.

The problem is that too many people leave Windows only to come back after they realise they can no longer run their favourite card making application or play their favourite game(s) or run their favourite widget of some sort.

Its about realising the limitations of the new system, and weighing up the benefits yielded by moving vs. the work required to move both in time of installation, configuration and learning.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: You said:
by roverrobot on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You said:"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23


You have to first have to find out why the person is moving and whether their hardware is compatible; if Windows is unstable, is it due to crap being loaded on by the halfwitted end user, or them tweaking with crap they know nothing about, is it because their hardware is plain well crap?


Or maybe they want to leave Windows because they are tired of having to worry so much?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: You said:
by kaiwai on Thu 8th Mar 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You said:"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Or maybe they want to leave Windows because they are tired of having to worry so much?

Worry about what? if the idiot is cocking up their Windows installation, its going to be the same idiot who will cock up their Linux installation - same lyrics, different tempo.

Like I said, if they're having problems with Windows, the first port of call is to ask whether they're cocking it up - the number times I see shit loaded onto peoples computers like Incrudy Mail, a massive picture of their pig ugly kid for the background coupled with a massive *.wav file for their start up fanfare, then wonder why their machine is slower than a polician coming clean about alligations.

You make or break your own computer - Bill Gates doesn't sneak in at night, through your window, to stuff up your computer - you yourself stuff up your own computer, and no one else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: You said:
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You said:"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

then wonder why their machine is slower than a polician coming clean about alligations

I don't believe a machine can be that slow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: You said:
by stabilep on Thu 8th Mar 2007 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You said:"
stabilep Member since:
2006-04-02

"Worry about what? if the idiot is cocking up their Windows installation, its going to be the same idiot who will cock up their Linux installation - same lyrics, different tempo.

Like I said, if they're having problems with Windows, the first port of call is to ask whether they're cocking it up - the number times I see shit loaded onto peoples computers like Incrudy Mail, a massive picture of their pig ugly kid for the background coupled with a massive *.wav file for their start up fanfare, then wonder why their machine is slower than a polician coming clean about alligations.

You make or break your own computer - Bill Gates doesn't sneak in at night, through your window, to stuff up your computer - you yourself stuff up your own computer, and no one else."


So true kaiwai. So very true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: You said:
by twenex on Thu 8th Mar 2007 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You said:"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Worry about what? if the idiot is cocking up their Windows installation, its going to be the same idiot who will cock up their Linux installation - same lyrics, different tempo.

I'd like to meet the idiot who cocked up my Windows installation, but I doubt anyone at Microsoft would have the cojones to own up. So I loaded Linux and have never looked back.

You make or break your own computer - Bill Gates doesn't sneak in at night, through your window, to stuff up your computer

No, he gets PC company employees to do it for him by preloading Windows.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: You said:
by steviant on Mon 12th Mar 2007 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: You said:"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

"You make or break your own computer - Bill Gates doesn't sneak in at night, through your window, to stuff up your computer - you yourself stuff up your own computer, and no one else."

Riiiight.... google for 'windows bitrot'.

You must be used to using something other than Windows.

My company has clients with desktop machines so locked down you can't browse a web page without seeing a security warning or being completely blocked, yet somehow those machines still manage to get infected with drive-by crapware.

That is not the fault of the administrators or the users, it's a fault in the operating system.

Bill Gates may not be interested in sneaking through my window to break my computer, but there are people out there who would like nothing better than to get my computer to do their dirty-work.

It's a whole lot easier for those low lifes to target my computer if it just happens to be running the OS with more than it's fair share of security holes.

Reply Score: 1

first glance
by historyb on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:00 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I noticed some things at first glance. Number one it seems the author might give to much credence to 64 bit, most people still use 32 bit. The test would have been better if he had used that, as one poster said 64 bit is no party on MS either. Number two is his choice of Linux flavors, while Ubuntu is okay it's not the premiere distro it just has more marketing exposure. The better would have been a more newbie friendly flavor such as PCLinuxOS or Mepis.

I don't believe we will see a mass exodus to Linux yet, those that want the latest and greatest will go with the flow and by a new machine. Others will stick with XP until support has ended or they get tried of it which ever comes first.

This last group usually does not play high powered 3d games or do power things. They check email, surf the net, play solitaire etc. For them Linux is more than ready and it those who can't fathom buying a new computer when the time comes that are the likely ones to make the jump to Linux, all mho.

Edited 2007-03-07 20:02

Reply Score: 3

Quite Frankly
by Ressev on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:11 UTC
Ressev
Member since:
2005-07-18

The only reason I stick with the Windows platform is for the games. I dislike Console games due to the limited interface and Mac/Linux/BSD do not offer a a very wide or compelling variety.

Quite frankly I am surprised someone is not specifically trying to develop games for the Unix/Linux platform since you can easily ship the OS with the game itself.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Quite Frankly
by acobar on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "Quite Frankly"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

They probably don't develop too many games because there is a small fraction of computers with Linux on it. So, the main reason is a economical one: less potential customers.

There is also the API, Microsoft must be lauded for pushing hard Direct X and improve it to the level it is today (of course it is not perfect).

I suspect that there is one more reason, but it is based more on people I know use Linux (or *BSD for the matter) and I can be totally wrong on that: average Linux (*BSD) users (even the ones that also use Windows) are a bit different of Windows ones, tend to be a bit more technical and spend more time tuning/learning than playing. On this regard, they probably are less prone to expend the same amount of money to buy games as a regular Windows user.

Edited 2007-03-07 20:45

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Quite Frankly
by Babi Asu on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:09 UTC in reply to "Quite Frankly"
RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by Ressev on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
Yes, that is a known problem and related to one of the reasons Macs have few games developed for them.

2. The game must be released in GPL.
Does it really?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by roverrobot on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23


No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


1. The original post raised a point: you can put a whole linux OS together with the game, so that it can be run anywhere. Though I think it is an overly-engineered solution, it did not attempt to say develop a game targeting linux only.

2. No if you develop a game for Linux, you DO NOT have to release it under GPL, depending on what toolkit you use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by jaylaa on Wed 7th Mar 2007 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


1. There are lots of stats which say different things. That one is on the low end.

2. Oh really? Well then, I'll just download Doom3 right now. Remember Doom3? Released for Linux the same day as for Windows?
# apt-get doom3...
Nope, didn't work. Lots of non-GPL'd stuff, including games, are released for Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Quite Frankly
by raver31 on Thu 8th Mar 2007 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite Frankly"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

emmm, it did not work because it is actually

apt-get install doom3

lol

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Quite Frankly
by ichi on Thu 8th Mar 2007 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite Frankly"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

# apt-get doom3...
Nope, didn't work.


I don't know about apt-get, but you can emerge doom3 and all it's patches and mods on gentoo (you obviously still need to own the game in order to install the data files).

Same with UT200x, postal2, serious sam...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by archiesteel on Wed 7th Mar 2007 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%


Actually, it's probably closer to 2.5%...but let's not get into that sterile discussion again.

2. The game must be released in GPL.

That is completely and utterly false.

The reason there are few commercial games for Linux is that the PC games market *in general* has been hurting for quite a few years now, and only a handful of large companies can make it (by opposition to the console game market, which is thriving).

Most game development these days is for consoles, with the PC market increasingly considered an afterthought.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Quite Frankly
by Babi Asu on Thu 8th Mar 2007 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite Frankly"
RE[4]: Quite Frankly
by archiesteel on Thu 8th Mar 2007 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quite Frankly"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

You can play WoW quite easily with Wine/Crossover. Everquest is moribund, and other mmorpgs are struggling to compete with the WoW juggernaut (City of Heroes is doing well, though, I've heard).

"If you want to play game, buy a console" excuse is lame.

It's not lame: most game development is for console, by a wide margin. Even mmorpgs represent but a fraction of the game industry as a whole. Non-casual PC gaming represents about 10 to 15% of the game market, as opposed to about 85% for consoles.

The game must be release in GPL.

Stop saying that, it's utter BS.

Sure, you can a make commercial game in linux, but no one will use it because it's not GPL.

Again, that's completely false. People have bought non-GPL (or other FOSS licenses) apps and games for Linux before (such as Neverwinter Nights, for example). And it doesn't matter if people with coding ability make a GPLed clone: most of what makes a game isn't programming, but art assets (models, scenarios, animations, textures, sounds, etc.)

I'm sorry, but what you're saying just isn't true.

Edited 2007-03-08 01:10

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Quite Frankly
by spudley on Thu 8th Mar 2007 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quite Frankly"
spudley Member since:
2006-01-08

I have to agree with archiesteel, mmorpgs aren't the whole market, even though sometimes it seems that way. My kids seem to love the casual games on my linux pc.

And yes, people buy non-GPL games. The only game I play (on Windows and Linux) is Neverwinter Nights. I bought it specifically because it was community expandable AND it ran natively on Linux. Yes, it wasn't released with the linux version ready, but they did follow through and release it.

I WON'T be playing NWN2 however, because of the same reasons. They didn't release a linux version, and I don't know if they can if they wanted to. It's not a OpenGL game like NWN1 - they went DirectX and locked themselves into windows this time. Sure, they could probably rewrite, but really, why would they?

I really don't understand it when game companies do that, because if they wrote their games as OpenGL it would be portable to many OS's and consoles, instead they lock themselves into one market. Sure it's the biggest pc market, but why not shoot for all of it?

Well, I'm not a big gamer anyway, and Ubuntu works great for me. I've been dual booting since Redhat 5.2, and Ubuntu 6.10 works best for me. It seems like the only reason I have left for windows is when I run CAD like Solidworks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

1) Incorrect. You are hinting a certain webstats-companies creating webstats for a certain kind of websites. Other sites and other usage measuring shows between 2.5 and 5% on the Linux desktop.

Linux passes the 2% mark in 2002.

2) Incorrect. They can be proprietary. Even when using GTK+

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Quite Frankly
by chemical_scum on Thu 8th Mar 2007 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Quite Frankly"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


You obviously know nothing about the GPL or software licensing in general. It is not true that games and programs must be released under the GPL for Linux. Programs can be run on a Linux system that are released under any license including proprietary ones. That is why you can run Acrobat Reader, Flashplayer, Sun Java, Opera all released under proprietary licenses.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Quite Frankly
by Babi Asu on Fri 9th Mar 2007 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quite Frankly"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

No developers will make a serious game for linux because:
1. Linux only has very low usage share, about 0.4%
2. The game must be released in GPL.


You obviously know nothing about the GPL or software licensing in general. It is not true that games and programs must be released under the GPL for Linux. Programs can be run on a Linux system that are released under any license including proprietary ones. That is why you can run Acrobat Reader, Flashplayer, Sun Java, Opera all released under proprietary licenses.

Ok, I stated again my response that was lost in several pages back, so unread by you.

The game must be release in GPL. Sure, you can a make commercial game in linux, but no one will use it because it's not GPL. Some people who are interested will make a petition to make it GPL, and some people with coding ability will start a GPL'd clone. How can you make money from that?

Some readers comment that 15% PC game share is nothing compared to 85% share of console game, but in the other hand they considered 0.3% usage share of desktop linux is such a quantum leap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Quite Frankly
by ichi on Fri 9th Mar 2007 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quite Frankly"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

The game must be release in GPL. Sure, you can a make commercial game in linux, but no one will use it because it's not GPL. Some people who are interested will make a petition to make it GPL, and some people with coding ability will start a GPL'd clone. How can you make money from that?

Unreal1 -> not gpl
Unreal Tournament -> not gpl
UT2003 -> not gpl
UT2004 -> not gpl
Quake3 -> released with dual license (one of them being gpl) only years after initial release, when it was no longer the hottest engine to develop games with (and only the engine. Artwork, music and stuff not included).
Serious Sam -> not gpl
Serious Sam SE -> not gpl
Postal2 -> not gpl
Doom3 -> not gpl
Quake4 -> not gpl

While I think it's great that ID released Quake3's source, I still don't see anyone asking for any of those games to be released under the gpl license as a requisite for playing them.

I can buy any of those games and install them from my distro's package manager, same as with any other package only that grabbing the game data from the cd/dvd.

As I gamer, I don't care if it's GPL'd or not. As a programer it's a different story, but still has nothing to do with whether I play those games or not.

And it's not only about games... how about Maya on linux? VMWare? Shake? Mainactor? Pixar's MenVee? Disney running photoshop on linux through wine?

Reply Score: 2

Great article
by moleskine on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:21 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Look at the positives. Hardocp is primarily a tech news, gaming and overclocking site whose natural territory is hardcore Windows stuff. The fact that they are happy to look at Linux at all is good news.

In addition, had this material been posted as a "review" on a different and more neutral website, folks would probably be saying how thorough it was compared to the usual Linux review which is often just a couple of pages of lightweight remarks about installing a distro. Hardocp really give Ubuntu a work over and they've also tried out a raft of applications and uses. In fact this is probably the most thorough review of Ubuntu I've read.

You may or may not like the hardocp team's conclusions but to me they are interesting because they suggest that the traditional Windows world is beginning to shift towards Linux.

That's because what the hardocp team end up suggesting is increasingly seen as quite normal rather than evidence of insanity or hardcore geekery. That is, dual boot using Windows for what you need to (gaming and specialist stuff like high-end Photoshopping) and using Linux for everything else because Linux is cheaper, much more flexible and a heck of a lot more secure.

Yes, this option is still only going to appeal to a limited number of people, but that is still many, many times the number of folks who were running Linux just a few years ago.

Reply Score: 5

Excellent article
by tristan on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:51 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

This is one of the best articles I've seen linked on OSNews for some time. Unlike many such articles, the author went in with an open mind, and was prepared to persevere when he ran into the occasional problem.

The negative points he raised about Ubuntu are all perfectly valid. The main ones were:

* X configuration requires you to mess about with a config file. This is really appalling in this day and age, and isn't going to get any better in Feisty. Hopefully x.org 7.2, when fully integrated, will sort out this embarrassment.

* The Ubuntu printer config dialogue is poor. He's right, it is. I recall reading that the Mandriva people had come up with a much better Gnome printer config system -- I wonder whether Ubuntu will be able to integrate this.

* Photoshop isn't available for Linux. It's true, and apparently it's very important, but I don't know what can be done about it other than begging and pleading.

* There are hardly any mainstream games available for Linux. Yep.

* If you run a 64-bit system you're more likely to run into difficulties than if you run a 32-bit system. This is also true, though happily seems to be less so in every release. I'm willing to bet the same is true of Vista, too -- it certainly was for XP. There isn't anything fundamentally broken here though -- there are just bugs in some programmes that need fixing.

All in all, I think this is a very fair review of someone starting out in the Linux world, and I recommend it to anyone who's thinking of making the switch.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Excellent article
by superstoned on Wed 7th Mar 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "Excellent article"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

X and printer configuration are already a lot better in Kubuntu compared to Ubuntu, though I guess it has other disadvantages to make up for it... At least it wouldn't use Gstreamer by default, so he wouldn't have had to switch to xine ;-)

Anyway, loved the article as well. Realistic, not flamy, thourough.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Excellent article
by kaiwai on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:42 UTC in reply to "Excellent article"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Photoshop isn't available for Linux. It's true, and apparently it's very important, but I don't know what can be done about it other than begging and pleading.

Photoshop isn't needed, features from Photoshop are needed - there is a big difference.

GIMP needs to drop the MDI zealotry, adopt GIMPShop as the default GUI, and fine-tooth-comb Photoshop listing the features in there that GIMP lacks, then asking for feedback from the user community to triage features into high, low and medium priorities.

For me, GIMP doesn't suck - its the interface and lack Photoshop features that makes it a non-Photoshop replacement; the moment that you focus on features rather than the application itself, is when you'll make progress.

Photoshop will never come to Linux or some other platform - I'd sooner see GIMP make the necessary user inteface change and add the feaures required so then atleast I won't be forced into running an operating system - I can then choose to move to Linux, OpenSolaris or FreeBSD for example rather than if I were to ask for Photoshop and find that I am then stuck with Linux, with my choice once again castrated because of Adobes political posturing.

Edited 2007-03-07 21:45

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Excellent article
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent article"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18
RE[3]: Excellent article
by kaiwai on Thu 8th Mar 2007 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent article"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Which suffers from the same problem as a hypthetical Photoshop gives me - it locks me into a platform; if I wanted to be locked in a platform, I would be contently running Windows, Office and Creative Suite.

The fact that I want GIMP is because it is opensource, and enables me to change operating systems whilst still allow me to run my favourite application irrespective of what the platform is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excellent article
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 8th Mar 2007 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent article"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Uh...

Pixel runs on Windows, MacOS X, Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, Zeta, and eComStation.

The license you buy (currently $38) is good for multiple platforms.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Excellent article
by archiesteel on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "Excellent article"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

X configuration requires you to mess about with a config file.

Correction: X configuration *may* require you to mess with the config file. On my Kubuntu Desktop (NVIDIA) and Laptop (Ati) I didn't have to edit xorg.conf at all with Edgy. However, YMMV and this is still (unfortunately) a valid criticism with some hardware setups.

Photoshop isn't available for Linux.

Yes and no. It runs pretty good under Wine. Illustrator and InDesign, however, do not. There are OSS alternatives to these, but they are not as mature as, say, Gimp, which despite what many will say *is* a good alternative to PS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Excellent article
by knightrider on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent article"
knightrider Member since:
2006-12-11

Gimp replaces Photoshop, Inkscape replaces Illustrator and Coreldraw. Xara Extreme will quite possibly replace them all. http://xaralx.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent article
by archiesteel on Wed 7th Mar 2007 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent article"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yes, notice how I said that other OSS alternatives were not as mature as Gimp...Inkscape and Scribus are very good, but don't compare to Gimp in terms of maturity.

I hadn't heard about Xara Extreme...thanks for the link, that looks *very* promising (though it's not a bitmap graphic editor like Gimp/PS, it could be a worthy competitor to Illustrator).

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Excellent article
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excellent article"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Aaaah... Scribus is very mature actually. It's a bit cumbersome in the beginning until you get the hang of the interface, but the same is true for Gimp.

Scribus is however a completely different type of application (DTP) and Gimp is a bitmap image editor.

As a DTP-application Scribus is really good. And light years ahead of MS Publisher - especially in regard to usage of open standards. I use Scribus to create magazines for printing. Print to pdf (specification 1.4) - remember to embed the fonts - and send the file to a printing service. Digital printing is fine for small quantities - if large quantities go with offset printing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Excellent article
by archiesteel on Thu 8th Mar 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Excellent article"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Aaaah... Scribus is very mature actually. It's a bit cumbersome in the beginning until you get the hang of the interface, but the same is true for Gimp.

Scribus is however a completely different type of application (DTP) and Gimp is a bitmap image editor.


Yes, I know, please re-read my original post.

Basically, what I'm saying is that Gimp is more mature as a Photoshop replacement than Scribus is as a InDesign replacement. Not much more, but a little bit (it's been around longer).

As a DTP-application Scribus is really good. And light years ahead of MS Publisher

Yes, I agree - although it's not that hard to be better than that abomination called Publisher...

Reply Score: 2

v I can't use Linux...
by tomcat on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:29 UTC
Hmm.. I feel old...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:33 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

or my machine does ;)

I would consider my PC relatively new (it's 2˝ years old) and works quite well and most applications starts instantly.

However, it's only a 32-bit Sempron running @ 1.5 GhZ. And he calls an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ for lower end? O_o

Oh dear oh dear.

Reply Score: 5

Vista great for Linux
by Supreme Dragon on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:38 UTC
Supreme Dragon
Member since:
2007-03-04

Windows Vista is the best thing to happen to Linux. I am sure we will be reading many more articles like this in the future.

Reply Score: 3

ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

Thanks for posting that; I was just going to mention that Xorg 7.3 should solve the X configuration problems. Actually a lot of comments in that thread are very interesting considering it is a Windows site..

Edited 2007-03-07 23:25

Reply Score: 3

Wrong OS Picked
by qa1433 on Wed 7th Mar 2007 21:52 UTC
qa1433
Member since:
2007-01-14

Hi all,

Personally I would have used PCLinux over Ubuntu for this comparison. PCLinux is a better OS for and lends itself better for this type of comparison. A lot of the issues he encountered with Ubuntu would have not been an issue with PCLinux.

That said I thought the article was well written and compared the real world problems of switching OS's. The negative points he raised about Ubuntu are all perfectly valid points.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wrong OS Picked
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:02 UTC in reply to "Wrong OS Picked"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Yeah PCLinuxOS 2007 is really making inroads now. It has a fantastic control center like Mandriva but is spared the agony of Mandriva's bugs (like my USB mouse not working on bootup) and far less bloat.

Now it just needs a 64-bit edition.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wrong OS Picked
by Supreme Dragon on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "Wrong OS Picked"
Supreme Dragon Member since:
2007-03-04

I agree, PCLinuxOS and Freespire would have been better choices. But it could have been worse, it could have been called "Thirty Days with Vista".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wrong OS Picked
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong OS Picked"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Or one day with Linux XP.

Wait until you see the 30 boot (not 99) evaluation period and proprietary Java tools. After the 30 days your Fedora Core 3 clone locks your user-account.

Linux XP's massive repository of *eight* packages is also amazing.

Edited 2007-03-07 22:10

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wrong OS Picked
by raver31 on Thu 8th Mar 2007 00:40 UTC in reply to "Wrong OS Picked"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really, he picked Ubuntu because that is the Linux distro people are talking about.

Windows users, who are looking for alternatives ask me about Ubuntu. They have not heard of PCLinuxOS, or Mepis, or even a really promising looking one.... Linux Mint.

Reply Score: 2

A good and honest article
by Serenak on Thu 8th Mar 2007 01:14 UTC
Serenak
Member since:
2006-01-11

I thought this one of the best "switching" articles I have read either here or many other places in a long time. In fact the sort of article we really do need more of.

I am a long time Mac user and a relative n00b on Linux but have tinkered with Kubuntu, Xandros OCE, Freespire, DSL, PC-BSD and one of my favourites a lesser distro called Ark.

I think this was a very fair and honest article addressing real world problems the average "OK I've finally had it with MS, I'm gonna try this Linux thing" switcher might come up against. Vista and MS were not bashed and I think in the context of the article the "bad points" raised were pretty much all valid.

The biggest thing I see happening over the last couple of years is that even "hardcore" Wintel PC magazines and websites mentions of Linux are no longer relegated to the "loony fringe" pages but often discussed openly as "not necessarily for beginners" but positioned in "if you do not use your PC primarily as a gaming box or rely on proprietory software packages might well be something to look into" territory...

Sure a lot of people spout about shedding Windows and don't do it - but the very fact that consumer awareness of alternatives to the MS monopoly OS is slowly reaching out to these people is a HUGE improvement...

Remember the Win95 and 98 launches? Huge advertising, people queueing all night to get a box to rush home and install? By comparison Vista is a huge "damp squib". Don't get down hearted though geeks, the "Evil Empire" will still shift millions of copies of Vista as OEMs roll out the new boxes with Vista pre installed. But even so people are beginning to look around and wonder "does my computer have to be like this?" so we can both feel good about getting more converts AND still have an "Evil Empire" to bash!

Linux year of the desktop is an irrelevance - but it is now ready and capable enough for a lot of Mom & Pop users who want e-mail, surfing, WP, IM, IRC, and the ability to use their digital camera etc.

Reply Score: 4

Flash Sucks
by Sphinx on Thu 8th Mar 2007 01:57 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

It's proprietary infestation in the web is a disgrace and sites that depend on it should be shunned. Hell of a good read, pretty typical experience in frank detail, really lets you know what you're in for should you choose that path. Does not mention just how awsome quake-4 is under linux and privateer gaming is pretty damned entertaining, too, must have missed http://happypenguin.org/

Reply Score: 3

design issues with vista
by hraq on Thu 8th Mar 2007 07:57 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft seems not to care enough about designing their software.
2 incidents noticed by me recently on windows vista ENTERPRISE edition

1. a limited account user can shutdown the system and render other (more important) logged users with administrative accouts got terminated and thus corrupt their files and programs.

2. Turn windows defender off by an administrator and switch to another limited account user and you will find that "security center" gives false indicators that your security is on! now click on it and you will see that a message will popup to tell you that windows defender is off! (so an indicator that doesn't reflect the real state of your system on an enterprise machine! how comfortable!)

stay tuned for other annoynaces to be discovered

Reply Score: 1

RE: design issues with vista
by dylansmrjones on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "design issues with vista"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

1) Wooot? O_o

Reply Score: 2

9 months and counting with Linux...
by vasper on Thu 8th Mar 2007 09:26 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

If I played games, I wouldn't have switched. However an occasional Diablo II plays well on Linux with Wine...

As for being compatible with work, I use VMWare Server with a Windows XP installation.

Also something I have seen from experience, Linux is no more difficult to install than Windows. But we don't notice that, because most systems come with Windows preinstalled. The average Joe will call an "expert" to install Windows, as he would installing Linux.

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Windows is actually significantly MORE difficult to install in a non-standard configuration than Linux, btw.

Reply Score: 2

excellent article
by anyweb on Thu 8th Mar 2007 10:15 UTC
anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really liked the content of the article and the included video (which i watched) plus the realm of screenshots and detailed info. Very well written review and good to see this type of material for a change.

It even inspired me to try out beryl in Fedora http://www.linux-noob.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2793

I give the author of this article full marks for writing a well written piece and providing end users with real information that can help them decide whether or not to jump on the linux bandwagon.

I may even consider trying out Ubuntu for 30 days myself ;)

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 2

Can we live without Windows? Uh, yep!
by MrMotane on Thu 8th Mar 2007 17:47 UTC
MrMotane
Member since:
2005-12-31

If there is so many forums complaining about Vista, why use it? XP usually suits most just fine, but I've switched to Linux a long time ago. You also can buy a Macintosh. If your a gamer, sure your stuck in windows world, but for everything else...why stay? Buy an Xbox. It's a hell of alot cheaper than buying a retail version of Vista Ultimate and all the software you need to replace for it. I'm tired of this old arguement. Unless you use standerds that require an a Windows OS you can live just fine without it. In fact, you'd be better off.

Reply Score: 1

infiniteblue
Member since:
2006-12-19

After using linux system for 3 months, i found linux is good enough for most users. though, i still need to work under win2k for some AP which r only for MS windows system. but, i dont need MS system in home when i am not playing games.

i consider that 3D, Wine and automatic AP update r main issues for desktop linux in the future.

and, i hope i can live without win2k in 3 years.

Reply Score: 1

Mom and Pop
by owlarse on Sun 11th Mar 2007 04:55 UTC
owlarse
Member since:
2007-03-11

"It also seems to be viable for “Mom and Pop” end-users who just want a machine to write letters, send email, and browse the Web (although, admittedly, a guru will probably have to set it up for them)"

A guru to set up Ubuntu! Now I know why there is a market for rubber incontinence pants ;)

Reply Score: 1