OSNews

No, I don't see the point. Windows lacks a lot of software that I need. I can't run Windows. Put me behind Windows and I can't get any work done. Here's a list of software that I need:
- Ruby and Ruby on Rails. Kinda runs on Windows, but suboptimal and slow.
- A sane terminal for general stuff. cmd.exe is not sane.
- A simple compiler toolchain without the need to tie myself to an IDE. Visual Studio is bloated, slow, eats up my screen real-estate and generally does not behave like I want to.
- Git. This is hands down the best revision control software I've ever used. I use it to not only manage my source codes but also personal documents, for recording history, backup and easy synchronization between computers. The Windows port is suboptimal and slow.
- No POSIX support on Windows, which I need for developing an entire class of server software. Cygwin works but is suboptimal.
- Valgrind. It doesn't work on anything but Linux. Absolutely critical for debugging many C and C++ problems.
- No virtual desktops or OS X Spaces equivalent. The Nvidia driver has a sort-of imitation but I don't have an Nvidia card.
- No mplayer, as in http://mplayerhq.hu. This is the best media player for me, and it does not work very well on Windows. Windows Media Player, VLC and other players are too bloated and slow for my taste.

The question should be: why should I use Windows if OS X and Linux already do everything I need?

Edited 2009-05-20 15:42 UTC

I agree with you in some of those concerns. But man, the only thing in that list that a casual user does or might need is the media player. and mplayer is available for Mac OS X.

And yes, many computer oriented people run Linux, but the reality is, We are not the whole world. In fact, we are not even less than 1 percent of the whole computer business.

And when we discuss Why desktop Linux is not ready, it is implied that desktop is what casual users perceived as a computer. Not what an enterprise sees as a computer and certainly, not what insiders (people who live on computers like you and I) see.

Reason #1:
GNU+Linux+Wine is Free.
Why should I pay for Windows if it is not absolutely necessary?
Microsoft is a criminal corporation; not a charitable cause.

Reason #2:
Scores of useful Linux software is not available for Windows.
Grsync is a perfect example of this. While it can be compiled in CygWin, why would I want to do this when Linux readily meets all of my needs without me having to compile anything?

Fact #1: Windows is not free and is limited to only running Widnows software.
Fact #2: Linux is free and runs all Linux software plus a lot of Windows software, especially the more popular Windows software.

What is the point? -OR- better question
What logical conclusions can be reached from the 2 undisputed Facts above?

Learn the difference between civil and criminal law, then maybe you can be taken seriously.



There is no dispute that Linux is free, but you and so many utterly fail comprehension. The logical conclusion should be to look inwards. When product A is free and loses to product B that costs, you have a problem, any junior business, marketing, or economic student can tell you that. Doesn't it bother that there are many that prefer to actually purchase over the free option? In any other sector that did not have raving fandom this would be shooting the largest red flag up the pole.

I don't believe there is an issue with the technology, but when you consider what Apple has done with OSX, one certainly can question whether the development model and community are at fault. Now you can jump up and down all you want, blame Microsoft for every evil act commited since the dawn of time, and lay whatever baseless claims you can think of, it still is not going to change the facts on the ground.

I think some really need to get outside some more to see how the world really is, instead of living in a shell. What makes a good operating system is numerous things, but what does not make a good OS is simply being the anti-Microsoft.

While Windows is not free, it is not impossible to buy... And so far, many people buy it.

And Linux is free and is not mainstream. (But it should. Don't bash me. I believe in open source.)



Right... Grsync is so necessary for the casual user. Keep focus on the discussion... Not everyone is a system administrator.



That would be a wonderful argument, if most apps available were not for Window. Even opensource apps like OO.org are also available for Windows.



You are overestimating free... As you can see in my previous posts... People prefer stealing Windows than using Linux.



I do not know, I do not care. I just care about the fact that Linux, despite Windows problems, and despite being FREE is really a no-one-uses-it product. It is a geek OS and no one except us, which are a minority by the way, uses it.

And big companies like Apple, are taking the benefits of open source and making big money.