Do you ever get frustrated...

[gfree]

... about how many people DON'T bother trying to move to Linux, despite knowing about it?

I can understand if someone is tied to Windows or OS X or whatever due to certain needs or because certain things simply work better in these platforms (eg. my case). However, I've talked to and heard plenty other geeks who know of Linux, who complain about Vista or whatever problems they have on their Windows systems, but do not express any desire to even TRY Linux.

I've been hearing how Hardy Heron (the beta at least) is the best mainstream-level Linux distro out there. I suppose it's a bit distressing how a lot of problems people have with their machines could easily be dealt with by a change in system, but instead they either stick with XP or at best, move to OS X. Linux doesn't even get a second look.

Does Linux need more software or better marketing?

[ha1f]

Ugh, I hate it when I take fanboy bait...

Well the fact that you've 'heard' that Hardy Heron is the best mainstream-level (wtf does that even mean?) distro out is exactly why most people don't want to try Linux. So many people are out there talking about stuff they don't understand. They think Linux is ready for the desktop because they can spin a 3D cube around on their screen. There is an army of ignorance holding it back. Consider this an answer to your other thread as well:

Heron is in beta for a reason. It has a bunch of bugs. Don't put it into production or even close (yes, first person experience).

If people are touting it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, they're morons.

Linux will get a second look as soon as it gets support that doesn't require you jumping around on forums (read, money), as soon as it LOSES its army of ignorant fanboys (read, teenagers with their goddamn 3D cube lust), and most importantly, as soon as it gets some standardization. Also, when you can use Linux without EVER (I mean never, ever, ever, ever) having to go to the command line, then maybe, just maybe, Linux will get a real second look (and just a forewarning, if anyone comments that they use Ubuntu and have never had to hit the shell, I will smack them through their computer screen).

[gfree]

Uhg, I hate it when someone translates "fan" to "fanboy". :mad:

I don't even run Linux as a primary system. I WANT it to be popular because it has so much going for it, but the uptake is slow. That's all I'm frustrated about.

"Mainstream-level distro" means that out of all the Linux distros out there, Ubuntu is one which deliberately targets people who don't want to waste time tinkering, or at least, to minimize it. It's a distro where a heck of a lot works out of the box or is easy to get working soon enough. It's not a "geek's" distro like say, Gentoo, where you have to build it all first. That's all I mean. A mainstream-level distro should work without too much configuration at a level which a non-geek can use satisfactorily.

Jeez, can't someone just like an OS without being flamed? It's not the greatest thing. But neither is OS X or Windows. But there are obviously people who have got it working at a level superior to Windows, so it's possible. It's obvious you hate these discussions. Perhaps you suggest I spend less time at the Ubuntu forums? :cool:

BTW - you assume too much of non-geeks. What generally happens when things stuff up? They can't fix it themselves, so what do they do? They call their local geek friend (there's always one around). So even if the command line is necessary to fix things, so what? They would not have been able to fix things themselves even with a friggin GUI! So why dose it matter if some things require a CMD? Perhaps you are suggesting that normal computer operation shouldn't require a command line - in which case it already doesn't, if you don't want to use it.

[ha1f]

Well, first off, I'm not calling you a fanboy, but your post /is/ bait. And second, I'm not flaming you. Why are you on the defensive? Where did I say anything about you or your opinions?

And moreover, I actually enjoy these conversations when theres some conversation to be had. I told you what Linux needs.

Having to rely on a geek friend isn't helping anyone. If your geek friend doesn't know how to get something working, then you're screwed. Besides that there's no real support systems out there that aren't based on internet forums. How boned are you if your NIC isn't working?

I know it *sounds* terrible, but this is how I feel: if you aren't command line inclined, you should not be on Linux (i.e. if you aren't willing to get your hands dirty). Do I think distros like Ubuntu have a great idea on their hands? Yes, I do, because they know Linux needs to get easier. That said, even they have a long way to go. There's no reason to be frustrated because someone doesn't want to use Linux. Better to let them keep using what they know, then put them in an environment that could put them off of Linux for ever. Linux cannot take the same route to popularity that Windows or even OSX did. Linux is entering a market that actually has competition. Getting frustrated because someone doesn't want to give Linux a try is really just a waste of energy. When Linux gets more mainstream (which in my opinion wont happen until they at least address the things I said in my earlier post), then people will move over more readily, because there will be more support out there. No reason to rush it.

And I'm sorry if I seem agitated in Linux conversations, but I've had A LOT of battles with fanboys who really don't know shit about the operating system they're using. Now THAT is frustrating.

EDIT: And I maintain that Heron is buggy. Anyone who tells you its the second coming really is a moron. That's why it's in beta.

[gfree]

Ok, fair enough. I suppose I was on the defensive because I really dislike fanboys myself, and don't want to be thought of as one of them. Plus your post sounded a little heated before, but that's cool. I enjoy being educated. :)

You raise a good point I didn't think about: end-user support that's not in the form of a geek friend. If someone's running Linux, it's going to be harder for them to call a support service compared to running a stock Windows system. It's true about Linux, EVERY single problem I've had was only solved through research on the net. You need to know where to look, and to have good search skills to find the information. It's also often not presented in a gentle way, since it's mostly written by geeks for geeks. I like Ubuntu because it's powerful, yet still able to bypass a lot of the pointless crap I use to encounter in earlier years of my Linux experiences. Plenty more work to be done, but as far as a desktop system it's come a long way.

Now, I should clarify something - my frustration is NOT to do with non geeks not trying/using it. That's a whole different ball game. I suppose my issue is to do with people who do know about it, but don't bother investing the time to try it first. They don't have to keep using it if it doesn't work for them, but it would be nice not to simply brush it off so soon. It might meld well for them, but how would they know?

I wouldn't recommend an end-user Heron yet, it's still in beta as you say. The other thread was just to see what experiences people DID have, whether things that didn't work in Gutsy work in Hardy now, and so on. Maybe we'll get to the argument of Heron on a non-geek's system when it's finally released.

[tnvwboy]

As someone who likes all three of the majors (Windows, Linux, OSX), I have to say it all boils down to software, not the OS.

I like Ubuntu, I really do. I loaded the live-CD and it found all my devices and worked really well right away. That said, I'm not going to throw away my Office 2007 and Adobe CS2 Suite. Sure there are free alternatives, but let's face reality. GIMP is not as good as Photoshop. It's a great app but not to the level PS is. Inkscape, again, great app, but no Illustrator. Open Office is a very good office suite, but it's not nearly as polished as MS Office.

I'm not knocking the Open Source apps by any means but they are not as polished and thus not as pleasing to the general public, even if they know about Linux.

I'll stop short of saying it's all about the apps though. I'd say it's about the whole experience. Look at how Apple has taken off in recent years. Most users could care less that it's built on a BSD core. They are happy with the experience as a whole. It's polished, it's pretty, and it has the apps they need.

So Apple has the bling and Windows has the history and software library. Linux, unfortunately, still has command-line scripts that have to be run to do certain things and very biased (not that the other two OSs don't) forums that scream about how awful everything else is and that Linux is your God. Not such a great marketing plan really.

Linux is the geeky kid in the back of the class who just needs to accept his/her geek cred and go with it instead of trying to be the cool kid who has all the so-called friends.

[tokenuser]

... about how many people DON'T bother trying to move to Linux, despite knowing about it?

<snip>

Does Linux need more software or better marketing?

I'm not going to throw away my Office 2007 and Adobe CS2 Suite. Sure there are free alternatives, but let's face reality. GIMP is not as good as Photoshop. It's a great app but not to the level PS is. Inkscape, again, great app, but no Illustrator. Open Office is a very good office suite, but it's not nearly as polished as MS Office.

Yep. To be honest, there is very little stopping the HOME desktop from being replaced by Linux. Most people don't need the full features of the Wintel apps (and I'll include OSX in that comment), but they like familiarity and if you have anyone that works for a living, they will use what they use at work - it saves retraining, and allows you to take your work home with you.

Indeed, the laptop I am using was supplied by my employer (a software dev company), and my wife (a professor of Information and Computer Science) also has a Wintel based machine supplied by her employer. We are uber geeks. She lives in a Unix command line on a grid network grinding her experiments ... that she programmed in Java (with text editor, no IDE) connected to an Oracle DB. She could happily live in a *nix world, except for those bothersome things like - word processing, presentations, email ... all things that require compatability with her peers.

Linux is the geeky kid in the back of the class who just needs to accept his/her geek cred and go with it instead of trying to be the cool kid who has all the so-called friends.

That'd be the same geeky kid who claims he has hundred of friends as he pulls up his facebook/myspace page, but in real life has 3.

[gfree]

Fair points all.

A little sidetrack - one thing I believe hurts Linux is the completely realistic viewpoints of certain users, and I quote:

Well they will get no demand from me and other Free Software supporters. There is no benifit worth loosing freedom over. don't get me wrong your intitled to your opinion so If you want to have proprietary Software and you want to get them to port to linux fine. But I will continue to fight proprietary software every chance I get.

Out of all the things in life, why does one feel the need to "fight" proprietary software? I thought software exists to serve a purpose. I know for certain that a lot of the software I require for my work has absolutely no competition from the open source crowd (in my case, that would be Modelsim and Xilinx tools - ie. chip design). These run in Linux as well as Windows, but they're still proprietary. I'm certainly not going to fight against the software that's part of the tools used in my career. It's unfortunately Linux tends to pull a lot of extremist viewpoints - viewpoints which people are allowed to have of course, but also tend to hold things back I think.

[tnvwboy]

Out of all the things in life, why does one feel the need to "fight" proprietary software? Unfortunately Linux tends to pull a lot of extremist viewpoints - viewpoints which people are allowed to have of course, but also tend to hold things back I think.

Something to consider is that Open-Source is just as much, if not more so, a philosophy as it is a licensing platform. Just as with any philosophy there are going to be those who are loud and very committed to it. I personally believe there is a place for commercial (closed) software and open-source software. others do not.

Just as with religion and politics, don't ever expect there to be an agreement with software philosophies. It's just human nature. The best we can hope for is tolerance between the groups. Even that is unlikely I'm afraid.

Linux is built on the open philosophy and that's great, but it will have it's weaknesses (just as the others have theirs) because of it. There is no perfect solution.

[uteck]

The 2 things holding it back are Games, and coming pre-installed on machines.
Even coming pre-installed would be enough for people that don't play FPS games. If you are the local geek that people keep coming to, then the next time you have to wipe MS and reinstall, then go ahead and install Ubuntu for them. No current viruses, no malware, and stability that MS only dreams about, what else does the average user need?

[ha1f]

The 2 things holding it back are Games, and coming pre-installed on machines.
Even coming pre-installed would be enough for people that don't play FPS games. If you are the local geek that people keep coming to, then the next time you have to wipe MS and reinstall, then go ahead and install Ubuntu for them.
Even if that's not what they want?


No current viruses, no malware,
No, its all out there, as well as security vulnerabilities and some sketchy security practices. They're just better about not letting you know about it. (Software leads to vulnerabilities, Ubuntu sure has a lot of that...) Plus, once enough people care about Linux, there will be a spike in malware, no doubting that.

and stability that MS only dreams about, what else does the average user need?
Stability is pretty relative. We've all seen Windows systems stay up longer than Linux systems. And EVERYONE has seen Linux go into retard mode (other wise we wouldn't need the 6 bazillion support forums). Windows has been truly stable for a long time, that argument is dated. Less blaming Windows, more blaming PEBCAK.

By throwing people into Linux who have not looked into it and are not ready for it, you're setting up the "WTF is this shit?!" moment. So many people complain that people tried Linux before and it's gotten better... Want to know what they probably tried it the first time? Because some moron shoved it in their face until they installed it. With the current state of computers, there's still a chance of that happening, yet, for some reason in the past few years there's a new found sense of urgency. I'm not sure why, because now that Linux is finally making huge jumps in usability, why would anyone want to push a premature product out the door?

I say, let people use what they want to use. If they decide that Linux is right for them, they will start using it. If companies start deciding that they can make money with Linux, they will start to put it on prebuilt machines (which can't really happen without standardization). No reason to be frustrated, just be patient. I'm not even 20 yet, but I've been using this stuff for a long time, and I used to be gung ho about telling people about it, and trying to convert people (don't write me off ;-) ). But I have really begun to see a lot of issues with Linux (so much that I don't really even use it anymore) and if people would just step back and look at the current state of things, they'd realize that so much potential is there (shit, everyone knows it's there!), and it's just about patience now.

[uteck]

People who can not take care of Windows do not deserve to run it.
You are obviously upto date on all the security patches, virus updates, 3rd party application updates, and driver patches to keep your system running smooth. Good for you.
I can update Linux and all the applications with 1 command line, or even.. dare I say it...a easy to use GUI application. It will even popup in the system tray with a ballon to tell me there are updates available.
Other people do not understand how to keep such an easy to use OS like Windows running safely and securely and turn to other people to help them. Your statement to let these sheeple decide what OS to run, is idiotic. These people do not know what an OS is. I support both Linux and Windows at work, and half the people can not tell which is which. Put an icon on their desktop and name it "Word" and have it launch OpenOffice and they will be fine. If they really need Word, then install Wine.

"Plus, once enough people care about Linux, there will be a spike in malware, no doubting that." What an asshat statement
Linux is built using a framework biased on security that has been tested and refined over 30 years from when UNIX was first developed. Vista got a virus from its' feeking mouse cursor. A bug that affected ALL versions of the OS. How the hell is that security? Oh, and by the way Linux is popular enough to run over half of the internet, just how much more popular does it need to be?
Yes there are exploits for Apache and PHP that can be used to hack a Linux server, but that also goes for MS and Mac servers running the same code. The difference is that on Linux security like SELinux or AppArmor will prevent the exploit from running any further and affecting the system.

Throwing people into Windows just because it came with the machine is the same as letting babies play with loaded guns. You may think it is easier to use Windows because it is already installed, but it isn't.
Most people only know how to use a few applications, the OS is irrelevant. People will take just as much time to get used to Office upgrades as it would to use a different application. The differences between OpenOffice and Office 02 is far less then the difference between Office 02 and Office 07.

[ha1f]

People who can not take care of Windows do not deserve to run it.
But... they deserve to run Linux?

I can update Linux and all the applications with 1 command line, or even.. dare I say it...a easy to use GUI application. It will even popup in the system tray with a ballon to tell me there are updates available.

Really? A tray balloon for updates? Never seen that anywhere before... Not really sure where you're going with that one...

Other people do not understand how to keep such an easy to use OS like Windows running safely and securely and turn to other people to help them. Your statement to let these sheeple decide what OS to run, is idiotic.
So they're sheeple because they don't run Linux? What will they be if you install Linux for them? Are they then suddenly enlightened? Please, that's so ridiculous. I'm confused: do you think someone who runs Linux will not turn to others for help? or that Linux is magically secure just because it's Linux?

These people do not know what an OS is. I support both Linux and Windows at work, and half the people can not tell which is which. Put an icon on their desktop and name it "Word" and have it launch OpenOffice and they will be fine.So, because someone can't tell the difference, we should switch them. Do you not realize that the people you work with are not the generation that will really influence Linux popularity? The generation that does matter will be able to tell the difference, and that's why will (or will not) end up using Linux. That's the whole point: there is a difference. The user that can't tell the difference has no influence. "Oh hey Bob, what you got there? Oh the guy at work installed this Lunix thing. I have no clue, but it works fine, so I don't say anything. I really wish my bank website worked though." I mean, think about how many people didn't initially use cell phones because they tech was over their head (think of that generation), now think of how much influence they really had (and yes, Linux is really still at that stage)...

If they really need Word, then install Wine.

Oh lord...

"Plus, once enough people care about Linux, there will be a spike in malware, no doubting that." What an asshat statement
Linux is built using a framework biased on security that has been tested and refined over 30 years from when UNIX was first developed. Vista got a virus from its' feeking mouse cursor. A bug that affected ALL versions of the OS. How the hell is that security?
Yes, Linux has never had a security vulnerability...
The reason that Windows is going to have issues like that is the direct integration of the desktop. Linux doesn't do that, so of course you aren't going to see stuff like that. It's a different design, and something is only a bug until you fix it... Do you think Linux and applications get security patches for fun?

Oh, and by the way Linux is popular enough to run over half of the internet, just how much more popular does it need to be?
Yes there are exploits for Apache and PHP that can be used to hack a Linux server, but that also goes for MS and Mac servers running the same code. The difference is that on Linux security like SELinux or AppArmor will prevent the exploit from running any further and affecting the system.

Hey yeah! I'm writing this on a server right now! Oh wait...

Throwing people into Windows just because it came with the machine is the same as letting babies play with loaded guns. You may think it is easier to use Windows because it is already installed, but it isn't.
Most people only know how to use a few applications, the OS is irrelevant.

So why take it upon yourself to throw them into Linux? If you suggest it, and they don't want it, who the hell cares? When it becomes something they want or need to use, they will undoubtedly use it.

People will take just as much time to get used to Office upgrades as it would to use a different application. The differences between OpenOffice and Office 02 is far less then the difference between Office 02 and Office 07.Uh that runs on Windows too, why would I switch someone to Linux just to use OOo...?

And yes I am such a MS troll. Anyone who criticizes Linux is a troll. God forbid someone actually has a clue and know what the hell they're talking about. I mean, if I don't suck Linux off, I must be the enemy.
...And then people wonder why I have a sour impression of Linux users...:rolleyes:

The reason I criticize Linux is because it actually has potential. Why be happy with mediocrity?

[tokenuser]

Linux is built using a framework biased on security that has been tested and refined over 30 years from when UNIX was first developed. I love the "Linux is more secure" argument. Oops ... no its not (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/). The OS' are equally vulnerable. Infact since Linux IS the server of choice, the fact there are vulnerabilities there is of even greater concern to me.

Windows (XP SP2) auto updates on me. So does my virus scanner (McAfee Enterprise). I haven't had a virus in over 15 years that I didn't introduce myself for testing purposes (I used to have a virus "collection" for testing as part of a previous position). I also run IE and Opera, and the only firewall I have on my PC is Windows internal one that gets enabled when I travel (I have a hardware firewall in my router - that being Linksys is *gasp* Linux based).

Great - you can run Linux on the desktop ... which kernel, did you need to recompile to support the new scanner or the cellular modem card, what about that MP3 player your kids bought you? Sorry, you can't install *taht* app, it requires KDE, and you are running Gnome. You want support for the photoshop replacement you downloaded? Cool ... here is the fourm to ask the question ... what you tried that and they shouted at you for being a n00b and told you to read the FAQ that was buried behind a link on a wiki?

Love it or hate it, there is a reason the multitude of Linux/GUI combinations are only a fraction of the total desktop market ... standards. Sure, Linux is built on open standards. Thats the best part - there are so many standards to choose from.

I have to agree with ha1f - the thing that pisses me off about Linux is that is has the potential. That has clearly been demonstrated in the server market, but a lack of standardisation is hampering it in the desktop space.

[gfree]

I just want to address a few points token, and keep in mind I'm not a fanboy, merely trying to see things from a different side (remember, I'm using Vista primarily):

I love the "Linux is more secure" argument. Oops ... no its not (http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/). The OS' are equally vulnerable. Infact since Linux IS the server of choice, the fact there are vulnerabilities there is of even greater concern to me.
One could argue that since Linux is open-source, the number of vulnerabilities really doesn't matter. What matters is how many eyes there are to squash these bugs and hence the amount of time it takes to create and push out a fix. Since the code is open, there's no way to pretend something isn't vulnerable. In a closed-source system, Microsoft doesn't have to disclose anything it doesn't want to, and updates generally only get pushed once a month anyway, except in certain cases. I understand perfectly why MS does this - it helps corporate customers arrange their updating schedules as I understand. Still, I just wanted to point out that the number of vulnerabilities is less important than the time it takes to fix them, which (in theory) is where OSS has the advantage.

Windows (XP SP2) auto updates on me. So does my virus scanner (McAfee Enterprise). I haven't had a virus in over 15 years that I didn't introduce myself for testing purposes (I used to have a virus "collection" for testing as part of a previous position). I also run IE and Opera, and the only firewall I have on my PC is Windows internal one that gets enabled when I travel (I have a hardware firewall in my router - that being Linksys is *gasp* Linux based).
Yeah, XP really isn't that bad (SP2 onwards of course) for security. There's a lot more to do with the guy in the chair rather than the system. Good net security practices count for a lot regardless of the operating system being used.

Great - you can run Linux on the desktop ... which kernel, did you need to recompile to support the new scanner or the cellular modem card, what about that MP3 player your kids bought you? Sorry, you can't install *taht* app, it requires KDE, and you are running Gnome. You want support for the photoshop replacement you downloaded? Cool ... here is the fourm to ask the question ... what you tried that and they shouted at you for being a n00b and told you to read the FAQ that was buried behind a link on a wiki?
One could argue that if you're going to buy hardware, check whether it works for Linux first BEFORE making the purchase. Not that you can often work this out on the packaging of course, but you can always do a little googling beforehand. You wouldn't just buy any old piece of gear and plug it into a Mac before checking if the thing actually works on it. Also, I have yet to hear of any MP3 player not working in Linux at the very least as a removable drive.

If an app requires KDE and you're using Gnome, it doesn't matter; in Ubuntu at least, the necessary files will be pulled from the web anyway. You can run KDE apps in Gnome and vice versa. It really is very simple at times. As for forums, depends on the forum. I'd say the Ubuntuforums are quite friendly, but a little too zealotry for my tastes. Depends on where you go. Stereotypes aren't going to help Linux that much.

Love it or hate it, there is a reason the multitude of Linux/GUI combinations are only a fraction of the total desktop market ... standards. Sure, Linux is built on open standards. Thats the best part - there are so many standards to choose from.

I have to agree with ha1f - the thing that pisses me off about Linux is that is has the potential. That has clearly been demonstrated in the server market, but a lack of standardisation is hampering it in the desktop space.
Absolutely. We need more standards, but the Linux community tends to fight amongst itself about the issue. I'd say the good thing about Ubuntu being the most visible of all the distros is that it's kinda of a "defacto" standard. Everyone knows about it, so if you're gonna push to support a particular distro, just ensure it works on Ubuntu and you'll make a ton of people happy.

[computoman]

Listening to all the rhetoric in this thread makes me want to burst out laughing.

[gfree]

computoman, you're taking the "enlightened" position which doesn't do a whole lot of good. I suspect you've invested too much energy into the hardcore world of *nix systems to appreciate what a regular end-user might be wanting/asking. It's one of the reasons why I don't like to hang around Linux forums for too long - they've lost the plot, and don't understand the "common man" so to speak. It's even worse on Slashdot.

[tnvwboy]

computoman, you're taking the "enlightened" position which doesn't do a whole lot of good. I suspect you've invested too much energy into the hardcore world of *nix systems to appreciate what a regular end-user might be wanting/asking. It's one of the reasons why I don't like to hang around Linux forums for too long - they've lost the plot, and don't understand the "common man" so to speak. It's even worse on Slashdot.

GFree, I think you bring up an interesting point. John Q. Anyman who's never did much with computers except right a paper in college or use it at work, is going to have very little insight into the wide world of OSs.

So they are either going to go with what they know, generally Mac or Windows, just because they are most often on the workplace desktop. They might have buddies that suggest something else but they are going to gravitate to what they are used to using and where they think they can get the most help (from co-workers, friends, family).

Linux, while great in the server room, has very little foot print (in your average office) on the desktop. So where does John Q. Anyman get his Linux experience?

Additionally, I have asked or been asked many times over the years about Windows, UI questions, problems, etc.). The first words out of the answerer's mouth has not been, "Windows? Why are you using that piece of crap. You should be running Linux!" The words may change but that is very often the attitude that Linux users give Windows users. It doesn't get much better when the Windows user wants to try Linux and is having problems.

So why under those circumstances would a user want to keep using Linux?

Linux is good technology with a BAD image problem. It needs some serious PR help.

(NOTE: I'm generalizing greatly here and I know it. There are plenty of good and friendly Linux gurus out there. This is what I've experienced, seen and heard from many others.)

[uteck]

Pop the user in front of the computer with their application, or something that looks like it, and they will work. That is why they use Windows and will continue to use it until someone makes them change. Honestly people, how much of a system and software do you need to do some basic web browsing? Linux can do it with far less hardware and money then Windows. From there the differences just get wider.

We hear from the experienced Windows admins how secure and stable their systems are, but they have not dealt with average, clueless users in some time it seems. I guess they are too busy updating their systems to offer any help. People want to click on an icon and have things work, which they seem to only get from Windows after someone else spends lots of time updating and securing it. They don't want to, or know how to, keep up with updates for the OS, the applications, and virus scanner. The size of the various bot-nets show just how secure people can keep Windows.

Only inertia keeps people on Windows. The main voices of opposition in this thread have shown how little they know about it. They can link to some outdated 'facts' that were questionable when they were new, but they still can't find a decent answer that does not come back to their inability to play games on Linux.

Yes, game play on Linux sucks and that is why it has not grown much market share. Other then that, a Linux desktop can do everything Windows can. Plug in your mp3 player and an icon appears on the desktop. Same for your USB drives. You can even have your choice of applications auto open and begin to use them.
There is a Linux answer for most MS problems, but it takes people sitting down in front of the machines and honestly looking for the answer and not just running away from it because it is different.

There are people who use computers and ones that are used by them. Have you read your EULA lately?

[gfree]

I tried both Ubuntu Gutsy and Hardy (beta) on this laptop. The laptop uses an Intel graphics chipset which uses open source drivers, so it must be good right?

What happens when I try plugging an external monitor into the VGA output on my laptop? Well in Windows, the desktop is automatically extended, with the external LCD set to its native resolution automatically as well. Linux? Doesn't do a damn thing. The Ubuntu functions for working with an external screen don't do jack, and I'm not the only one. I hear that there's a command, xrandr, a very cryptically-worded command that can manually interface with the external display, but I haven't tried to hard to get it to work. It should JUST WORK FFS, and from what I've read I'm not the only one with external display issues. I don't want to be trying to get a presentation to output to a projector and struggling because of its inability to do the work for me, like any modern system. Anything else is just primitive in this day and age. Do you honestly expect an end-user to open a terminal and fiddle with xrandr? Are you crazy?

THAT's an example of a situation where I would rather put my faith in something like Windows, which would easily autoconfigure the display and where I'd have confidence the GUI controls would allow me to adjust things to my liking, than Linux which won't even detect the bloody thing.

Further experimentation with xrandr probably would reveal a solution, so yes you're right, Linux probably can do the same stuff as Windows in many cases. But can it do things BETTER and EASIER and bypass a lot of the BS? In many cases Windows just acts far slicker, so there's an example of a real-world situation where all the wobbly windows in the world wouldn't be worth a damn.

[nath042]

I have tryed to move to Linux in the past I had Xubuntu on my laptop (cos it was crappy laptop) it ran faster then windows. The lack of games didn't affect me much because I couldnt play games on it anyway (unless they were UTGOTY or freecell etc.). On my next laptop im planning to dualboot with Vista and Pentoo or Knoppix.

[computoman]

We all started at the bottom at one time or another. I have a big respect for that. I have some computer areas now that I feel like a novice, but i try to do as much research as I can while trying to learn about the subject. Thanx for the internet Mr. Bernier-Lee (sp?)....

I would prefer to use something else than ubuntu on a low end desktop unless it was being used as a server where speed and graphics are not that critical. Slackware and a few other distros in speed and stability leave ubuntu in the dust. Slax a variant of slackware could be a good choice. WWW.linuxreality.com is a good site for people starting linux. One user "Anita' is very hep on Ubuntu and would be a great source for answering questions about ubuntu. She would be ten times better than me and a great interview.

interesting link:
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Linux_Unhackable_At_TippingPoint_Contest_1574 3.html