Thinking of switching from XP to Linux...should I?

[GMaq]

OK...
I am 3 months into testing out Linux (SimplyMEPIS32), I think "switching" would be ill advised for anyone without an extended testing period. I have been on several forums looking to get the inevitable newbie questions answered and I will say up front that tekkieman and disturbed1 are both extremely helpful and our videohelp Linux community is second to none!

Here's what I've learned so far:

I've installed MEPIS 6.5 on 3 DELL'Computers, 2 Optiplex desktops, and 1 Inspiron 9400 laptop. I did not have to install ANY 3rd party drivers or special drivers on any of these machines to utilize the hardware present. On the laptop I did have to enter some settings for the WiFi. One of the desktops had an ATI AIW in it and required the basic supplied(VESA) video driver to work. I will heartily agree with Nelson37 that capture with ATI cards will bring any average windows user to a fetal position crying. I would suggest making sure you have Video4Linux supported hardware prior to testing or switching.

The repository system is point and click, my only complaint is that many of the versions of the applications are several revisions out of date, if you want the latest versions then you will have to get package savvy, or learn how to install from source. Most common applications are relatively current. Many source writers do not have the time to package specific binaries for specific distros, so there is a bit of a delay in new versions getting into the repositories. If you are not CLI-friendly stick with the repositories or know that your packages don't require "dependencies" or you will be frustrated very quickly.

Many of the video applications are GUI's for Mencoder or ffmpeg so really there's not a whole lot of difference under the hood compared to windows apps (i.e SUPER). I will say that personally I am a little dismayed at the lack of tools specific to creating H.264 iPod compliant Hi-res Video, but when you take the relatively small percentage of Linux users and add in the relatively small amount of iPod video zealots, then this shouldn't be surprising. I also am not a coder so who am I to complain?

At this point I am still dual booting with XP and will be for some time, If you are truly interested in what Linux will be like try some cross-platform applications like Audacity, VLC, Open Office, Firefox/Thunderbird, AviDemux in Windows to see how you like them.... they are all free, Then try a Linux distro and take your time, the real beauty of Linux is that you can test drive it as long as you want. You don't have to buy it, bring it home and then be pissed off because your hardware and software doesn't work anymore!!!

[tekkieman]

OK...
I am 3 months into testing out Linux (SimplyMEPIS32), I think "switching" would be ill advised for anyone without an extended testing period. I have been on several forums looking to get the inevitable newbie questions answered and I will say up front that tekkieman and disturbed1 are both extremely helpful and our videohelp Linux community is second to none!

Nice to see you hanging in there GMaq! Has it really been 3 months since we started into this?

Here's what I've learned so far:

I've installed MEPIS 6.5 on 3 DELL'Computers, 2 Optiplex desktops, and 1 Inspiron 9400 laptop. I did not have to install ANY 3rd party drivers or special drivers on any of these machines to utilize the hardware present. On the laptop I did have to enter some settings for the WiFi. One of the desktops had an ATI AIW in it and required the basic supplied(VESA) video driver to work. I will heartily agree with Nelson37 that capture with ATI cards will bring any average windows user to a fetal position crying. I would suggest making sure you have Video4Linux supported hardware prior to testing or switching.

I can't disagree with you there. While ATI does supply binary drivers for linux, the consensus in the linux community is that they are not really linux friendly. My slightly over 1 year old laptop has the downfall of having M200 graphics. With the 128M of dedicated memory that can't be used by the driver! I have to allocate system memory to it! Ridiculous! Trying to get 3D functionality will also put a user into the "fetal position, crying". The community created driver has slightly better results. My NVIDIA 5200? Fully supported by the binary driver with full 3D.

The repository system is point and click, my only complaint is that many of the versions of the applications are several revisions out of date, if you want the latest versions then you will have to get package savvy, or learn how to install from source. Most common applications are relatively current. Many source writers do not have the time to package specific binaries for specific distros, so there is a bit of a delay in new versions getting into the repositories. If you are not CLI-friendly stick with the repositories or know that your packages don't require "dependencies" or you will be frustrated very quickly.

Your observation about package versions is somewhat specific to the MEPIS distro you are using. While it does use the Ubuntu repositories, it uses the ones from the Long Term Support, and they are really starting to get dated. Warren is planning on changing that in the 7.0 release, so they should start falling more in line with Ubuntu, and it's 18 month cycle. On the other hand, although Ubuntu puts out a new release every 6 months with current software, they suffer from the same pitfalls of any new OS release in having a few more issues with new versions without a lot of testing time. As you note, there are ways to help yourself to newer versions not currently supported, but if you live on the bleeding edge, you're bound to get a few cuts.

I tend to stick to the repos, unless something I need just isn't there (like DeVeDe, and tovid), so my system is stable, and I have zero installation issues.

Many of the video applications are GUI's for Mencoder or ffmpeg so really there's not a whole lot of difference under the hood compared to windows apps (i.e SUPER). I will say that personally I am a little dismayed at the lack of tools specific to creating H.264 iPod compliant Hi-res Video, but when you take the relatively small percentage of Linux users and add in the relatively small amount of iPod video zealots, then this shouldn't be surprising.

The video tools in linux are pretty robust. In the grand scheme, H264 is relatively new, and there is initial support, and it is getting better. As the changes in ffmpeg/mencoder filter down to the repositories, you'll see the improvements. Yes, you could get them from the source repositories, but then you put yourself in the position you described, which could be uncomfortable for new users. Perhaps a negative, but I see it as a positive: Be patient and have it delivered in a neat package with a bow, or get your hands dirty and get what you want, when you want.

I also am not a coder so who am I to complain?

You are a user, that's who. Although, there is a difference between requesting and complaining. Again, being a part of the community does not mean being a coder. It means being involved, doing whatever part you feel capable of to make it better.

At this point I am still dual booting with XP and will be for some time, If you are truly interested in what Linux will be like try some cross-platform applications like Audacity, VLC, Open Office, Firefox/Thunderbird, AviDemux in Windows to see how you like them.... they are all free, Then try a Linux distro and take your time, the real beauty of Linux is that you can test drive it as long as you want. You don't have to buy it, bring it home and then be pissed off because your hardware and software doesn't work anymore!!!

Sound advice!

[Nelson37]

I can see this as an inexpensive, basically functional "locked box" for the very old, the very young, the very poor, or the feeble-minded. Also as an interesting and powerful tool for the hobbyist willing to invest significant time and effort to do things a different way than most everyone else.

Most of us here understand the mass-consumer issues created by Beta VS VHS, +R VS -R, and now HD-DVD VS BluRay. Can you imagine DOZENS of competing formats??

Still trying to do a software install, Was absolutely fascinated to read about the command-line options available for the video editor. Command Line options for a Video Editor?????????

As for the software installation (Routine or Procedure does NOT apply here), WTF were these guys thinking? DOS 2.0 was not this bad. The average user will not accept a command-line requirement. Nor do they expect 57 different versions and options to try do install one piece of software.

Video performance seems slightly worse than XP, using WMV test files, both play the 720p file OK, both stutter on the 1080 file, but Linux stutters worse.

I read there is ONE optimized driver for about a dozen ATI cards, but the multi-page installation instructions for several softwares that MIGHT enable capture (while not making use of the card's hardware capture features) specifically says NOT to use that driver.

My test box has an Nvidea card, not sure if using "hi-performance" drivers or if they exist.

What Linux needs is somebody to due what IBM first did for hardware, and then Microsoft for software. "Folks, we are going to do it THIS WAY."

Just for fun, I'm gonna figure out the software install, then try 3 or four different emulators to see if Office, Quickbooks, Peachtree, Sage products, and AutoCad can be made to run. Substitutions for these programs, with the possible exception of Office, are just not possible.

If they could settle down to a couple versions, and develop something similar to Setup.exe, and find some guys who understand Marketing, it could be a viable alternative to Vista. But the time is NOW, while MS stumbles, and it is the very independence and lack of leadership for Linux that will prevent this from happening.

[courtrrb]

Quote: Nelson37

Video performance seems slightly worse than XP, using WMV test files, both play the 720p file OK, both stutter on the 1080 file, but Linux stutters worse.


I play 1080i files all the time on my Mandriva box to my 42" plasma with no stutter. It's my pvr.
My son quit trying to play 1080i video clips on his 3gig Windows XP bcause it would crash his system.

So what type of hardware are you using?

[Nelson37]

Athlon 3000 with one gig RAM, GeForce 7600 GS.

This is just not worth the hassle. Slightly more useful out-of-the-box than OS2 but about the same after that. Can do quite a bit of what I want to do, but NOT all. XP does everything I want to do.

This experiment is over for me, this thing is just not ready for prime time. Yanking the drive now.

[courtrrb]

Now that funny my son has the same exact hw. He has a triple boot system XP, Vista & Mandrive2007.1 Spring version. He watches all his HIDEF 1080i video clips under Linux because Windows kept giving him problems with them.

So if your having a problem with Linux than maybe its the version of Linux your using. I've tried most of the other distro & I kept coming back to Mandriva. I can get all of the video editing SW I need & they work without problem. If you give up that easy than windows is your best bet after all it's much much easier to use.

I use to use only windows but got tied of encoding a video clip & after 6-8 hours It would crash & I would lose all my work. Or if it didn't crash I had to wait for the clip to be finished before I could check the results.

What up with the MS Updates? You download an update & that update forces you to update the update. You would never see that in Linux. They take the bad update off the servers & replace with a corrected one. I can't stand updating a Windows machine because just as you finish putting all patches in you load the latest IE7 the next thing you know their is a lot of update to it. Why not put a patched version in it place so you don't have to download a new set of patches for it no no not MS

[tekkieman]

Some interesting observations Nelson37, and ones that prompt a few questions in my mind if you would indulge me...

I can see this as an inexpensive, basically functional "locked box" for the very old, the very young, the very poor, or the feeble-minded. Also as an interesting and powerful tool for the hobbyist willing to invest significant time and effort to do things a different way than most everyone else.

The "locked box" comment confuses me. Are you referring to linux? Most linux users find it to be anything but a locked box. With the freedom to change whatever you wish, I'm confused by the statement.

The same goes for "the feeble-minded". Again, I ask: are you again referring to linux? Considering how most newcomers/naysayers insist you must be an uber-geek/developer/ CS major to use it, I am again confused as to which OS you are talking about. As for the very young, I think they are in the best position to be able to migrate back and forth. With no years of force-feeding of one OS, they are not set in their ways. My 4 year old has no trouble moving between her mother's Windows machine and my linux machine. She starts school this year, and they are Mac based. There will be a Mac-mini in the house before the end of the summer. I have no doubt she'll take to it just as easily.

Most of us here understand the mass-consumer issues created by Beta VS VHS, +R VS -R, and now HD-DVD VS BluRay. Can you imagine DOZENS of competing formats??

Dozens of competing formats for what? OSes in general, or the large number of linux distros? If OSes, I think competition (once in the 10% share or so) is a great thing. MS has been aware of the potential of linux for a long time. Now it is seeing losses to it (no matter whether you consider the number large or small), and it certainly sees the losses to OSX. If nothing else, it might drive MS to focus more on what its user really want, rather than what they think they want you to have. I could be wrong, but MS is a successful business, and businesses don't stay successful by ignoring their customers. I think the competition could be great for all the OSes.

Now, for the large number of linux distros, it follows a different drummer than Windows and Mac OS. Since one of the fundamentals of linux is choice, and the freedom to make it what you want, it's no surprise to see the number of variations. Are there too many? Perhaps, and I don't deny it could make it difficult for newcomers to find the "right" linux that works for them. But is it any worse than OSX with the one "take it or leave it" choice? I personally though MS had it right with the one version for home, one version for the professional, but I also think that most Windows users with the attitude of "just work" fits that scenario well. The number of versions of Vista is too much. The reason I don't feel that way about linux is because it was made from the beginning to be tailored to the individual using it.

Still trying to do a software install, Was absolutely fascinated to read about the command-line options available for the video editor. Command Line options for a Video Editor?????????

Sure, why not? Remember, linux was primarily used on the server until recently. Not exclusively, but in the server world, the GUI is a waste of resources. Also, the linux applications were built to do one thing well, with powerful options. While this may make it more difficult for the average user, it lends itself well to scripting, passing the output to the next process, and making simple option changes quick and easy. I can recall the last command line and change a single option as fast as it can be done through a GUI. As more GUI oriented users migrate to linux, more GUIs are being created for them. Unless you are doing some very specific things, the use of the command line is seldom necessary.

As for the software installation (Routine or Procedure does NOT apply here), WTF were these guys thinking? DOS 2.0 was not this bad. The average user will not accept a command-line requirement. Nor do they expect 57 different versions and options to try do install one piece of software.

Again, I am confused. I have asked several people who say this, and have yet to get an answer: What software are you installing that requires this? There is no software installation that requires the command line! Ok, fundamentally false, but I'll take the arguments on a case-by-case basis. Any software that resides in the repositories have a simple single-click installation. Even those that aren't in the repositories have as simple an installation routine, such as deb packages. A single click on a deb package launches the installer. However, there are times it is more convenient to use the command line. If I know what software I need, I can install it quicker through the command line via "apt-get install <package_name>" than going to the repository listing, finding it, and selecting it for installation. It may not be faster for others, but they are not forced to do it this way.

Video performance seems slightly worse than XP, using WMV test files, both play the 720p file OK, both stutter on the 1080 file, but Linux stutters worse.

Can't comment here, not having done this type of test, but it sounds interesting. Can you tell me what you're using for the 1080 source? I would like to try this test as well. However, it would not surprise me to find that Windows does a better job of playing a Windows Media File. How is Windows at playing Ogg Theora?

I read there is ONE optimized driver for about a dozen ATI cards, but the multi-page installation instructions for several softwares that MIGHT enable capture (while not making use of the card's hardware capture features) specifically says NOT to use that driver.

I believe that understanding is true to some degree. There is ONE official driver, but there is also one community created driver. Neither offer stellar performance. I'm not sure I've heard of a success story with video capture using ATI, but I know bt based cards work very well.

My test box has an Nvidea card, not sure if using "hi-performance" drivers or if they exist.

My NVIDIA card is not high performance, but NVIDIA is somewhat response to linux with drivers.

What Linux needs is somebody to due what IBM first did for hardware, and then Microsoft for software. "Folks, we are going to do it THIS WAY."

Another way of looking at things, but it does defeat one of the founding freedoms of linux, and that is to have it your way. If one company get the power to dictate what you do and how you do it, we will end up with...oh, wait...

No, you do have a somewhat valid point, and I think that is where Ubuntu is headed. They are the most popular choice for newcomers to linux, and Canonical is creating a pretty much "no choice required" distro. Rather than give you ultimate choice up front, they give you the selections they feel best, then leave it to people who wish to wander to find their own way. I think there is room for both. One "beginner" distro, with specialized distros for those who like to experiment.

Just for fun, I'm gonna figure out the software install, then try 3 or four different emulators to see if Office, Quickbooks, Peachtree, Sage products, and AutoCad can be made to run. Substitutions for these programs, with the possible exception of Office, are just not possible.

First, I don't think you're going to have 3-4 choices of "emulators". You have WINE, and Cross Over (which are the same thing). You have choices for virtualization, but then you are just running a Windows install.

Second, this is another question I keep asking, but never really get an answer: Why is it that substitutions for those pieces of software not possible? Aside form the fact that I don't think there is a substitution for AutoCad. There may be, but I am not in that field, so I don't follow it. If you need software with these types of functionality, then I think you can find it. You may need to relearn how to use it, but such is life with new software. If the reason is because your business mandates these specific software packages, then I guess you need Windows. Again, it amazes me the number of people who fault linux for not running Windows programs. LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS! Do you fault Windows for not running Mac applications? Unless the vendors supply a port, you need to find an alternative or run it under its native OS. The fact that linux runs ANY Windows apps is a plus. Why do people insist on trying to make it a negative? I don't see the other OSes making any effort to run linux applications.

If they could settle down to a couple versions, and develop something similar to Setup.exe, and find some guys who understand Marketing, it could be a viable alternative to Vista. But the time is NOW, while MS stumbles, and it is the very independence and lack of leadership for Linux that will prevent this from happening.

Perhaps, but the other side of the coin I think I have covered: CHOICE. There would be far fewer choices if the people creating specialized versions stopped sharing them, but this is how open source software evolves. As for marketing, no doubt it would benefit linux, but where do those funds come from? Remember, a large portion of linux comes from the community for free by people donating their spare time. Some of the community feels it should be up to the commercial entities to support the advertising since a good portion of their profit comes from our free contribution. How many millions did HP make last year providing paid support for the free Debian software? On the other hand, they are under no obligation to do so. It does happen. Mozilla advertised Firefox to a small extent (compared to MS's marketing budget), and look how well it has done. IBM aired a linux commercial during a previous Superbowl, and Canonical is starting to advertise their server products. Again, I agree about the marketing, but it just isn't clear where the money comes from.

Well, in the time it took me to write this, I see you answered one question and quit. Don't bother answering. I was simply donating my time to people who want questions and issues answered to the benefit of all. However, since there are millions of us using it, I don't think the issue is that linux is "not ready for prime time", just more like you are not ready for linux.

Oh, now that I've seen your system specs, I don't know why you are experimenting so much with HD. Other than your own personally created videos, the only HD that will work on your system would be "legally questionable" HD.

[Nelson37]

System used for test is not my main system, nor is it my video system. The HD playback was simply a demanding test, as a check on Linux's supposed better performance. I ain't seeing it. Nor am I seeing freedom from lockups or software failure.

The apps I mentioned are required and mandatory because that is what business users want, and pay for. They run on Windows. It's like wayback with Visicalc and Supercalc, then Lotus. There is no "must have" app for Linux, and way too many "can't haves". Open Office imports my documents, but mangles them so badly an almost complete re-creation is necessary.

I call it a "locked box" because there is just no way in hell an average user will be able to install software of any kind on a Linux PC. I spent more time trying to figure out software installation than anything I've looked at in a long time. Pre-installed with all the user will ever have, sure. Tarballs and BZ2 files and make this and make that, configure, lists of dependencies and variations, gimme a break.

It's like selling someone a car and saying "here, now install the camshaft". You are confusing the freedom to do something with the ability or even the desire to do so.

It won't capture with my ATI card, it won't play games designed this millenium, I already own multiple copies of XP, There is just no point to spending the time to figure out what should be simple operations, might as well go back and brush up on Cobol coding.

I don't have any Ogg files, few if any of my customers do, no set-top boxes play them, I can't playback tubular wax recordings, either.

This was less an excercise of "Should I switch to Linux?" than "Do any of my customers have a use for this?". No advantage, and serious drawbacks, for me. Absolutely unnacceptable for a customer, except perhaps as a simple shared storage PC, or just simple e-mail or browsing.

Sure there are decent Linux apps. The average PC user, much less consumer, has never heard of them. "What do you mean I can't install xxxxxx? " The list is too long.

For those who like it, great. What I really want is a viable alternative to MS products and this is not it, at least for 99% of PC users. This is a hobbyist's toy, not a tool for the great unwashed.

[buttzilla]

In the end, Linux still sucks.

[tekkieman]

Great, the entire argument has boiled down to people who think it sucks because it doesn't run Windows software, and tries to install software from developer's source instead of the ready-to-run single click software installer, and the people who thinks it sucks but can't provide an intelligent argument as to why.

Yet, they are the first to name-call elitist geek because some average people are smarter than them and don't have these issues. Of course, then they'll turn around and call it a toy, but can't figure out how to make it do the simplest things. My 4 yr. old can make any toy work that you put in front of her, so I would ask is this a genetic learning disability, or was it chemical induced?

If you really need the fanboy fanaticism rather than logical intelligent argument, you'll need to find someone else. While it holds amusement for a short period of time, it quickly becomes mind-numbing. Although, I suppose with your no-intellect required OS to click,click,click, I would guess mind-numbing is all you know.

[Nelson37]

If you want to get into name-calling, sonny, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am far smarter than the average person, and have multiple test results to prove it. You wanna discuss nuclear physics, International law, or mezzo-thermoneal stabilizers? I used to do differential calculus in my head. I can justifiably be called a lot of things, but stupid or ignorant is NOT one of them.

The methods you describe do not function on my installation. The methods I used were those described where the software was made available. Instructions were comparable to what PC software was doing 10 or 15 years ago, in other words, they leave out key components of the installation. The single-click software you describe would be one of those left out of my original installation.

If you wish to have a PC where getting a mainstream app to run is a major accomplishment, and what you seek is bragging rights, great. One where many mainstream apps simply will not run is just not good enough. In the words of Lex Luthor, "that crap closes out of town".

If the software that a majority of the public wanted ran on tin cans and string, then something that wants to be more than a marginal OS needs to support tin cans and string.

FanBOY would be defined as an irrational, immature insistence that something is Better, because of some liking They Personally have for it, while completely ignoring its unsuitability for what the majority of users want to do.

Windows is BETTER for the same reason that the internal combustion engine is BETTER than the steam-powered car. It's what people actually USE.

I'm sure its great for the Heathkit crowd, but for the general public, no way. To say it sucks as an Operating System is just not accurate. It is no more an OS for the Personal Computer than Novell was.

[courtrrb]

I quote Nelson37:
For those who like it, great. What I really want is a viable alternative to MS products and this is not it, at least for 99% of PC users. This is a hobbyist's toy, not a tool for the great unwashed.

Again that's funny my customer base is about 70% Linux 5% dual boot 25 Windows.
The 15% is mostly for high end games & mid range cad packages. I even have a elderly customer that never loads anything they just use it (Which in reality most people want). I was checking with them last week. He tells me that he now has more time to enjoy retirement because he not having to do as much maintenance as he used to not to mention the amount of money he's saving for all the virus software he not having to buy.

[tekkieman]

@ Nelson - No, we want to discuss linux as evidenced by the thread title. We also want to discuss how linux works today, not how it worked 10 years ago. Since you're so smart and have all that proof to back it up, I would have thought that this would not need to be explained to you.

Feel free to discuss your nuclear physics in a nuclear physics forum. In a linux forum, we discuss linux, and if the methods I describe do not work in your installation, either your installation is fscked, or you need to study for one more test - how to use a computer, because you are obviously doing it wrong.

While I'm sure I would swoon over your self-admitted intellectual superiority in other arenas, in the linux world, it simply is not present. If one click installation of software is too difficult for you, the community is here to help.

For the love of God, would anyone who insists on failing the one click install test kindly tell us what the freakin' software is? We can't help you until you can help yourself.

[buttzilla]

Tekkieman you need to lighten the hell up. Your taken someone not liking Linux like it's a personal attack against you. Is your real name Linus by any chance?

[Nelson37]

Thread title is Should I Switch, not How much I love Linux.

SFAIK, there are very few places on the PLANET where the installed base is 70% Linux. Does the sun reflect off all the tinfoil hats there?

Learning this product is not a useful skill. I have yet to see a Linux box in commercial use in an area including almost a half million people. One adventurous user tried it, and gave up, as there was no practical purpose.

You questioned my intelligence for noting the terrible state of the install clusterfuck, I offered evidence that you are wrong, and you bitch about that. Now you question my ability to use a PC because I am not doing it your way. Thought Linux was about personal choice? It's hilarious how you bitch about name-calling, yet you are the first to engage in it. "Elitist
geek" was YOUR term, seems to fit.

I'm a pro, sir, and this product is not suitable for either my, nor my customer's, needs. It is to Windows what a Soapbox Derby car is to a real automobile, and a Yugo, at that.

The comparison Video file was MS "mystery of flight" something or other. It runs better in XP. Program was Cinerella. Got as far as extracting the tarballs and checking the readme. The number of items to check and things to do was probably the worst software install I have ever seen. Dip-switching manual IP addresses and WSGENing specific NIC drivers was less hassle. And more functional.

The "one-click" method you are pushing was described as netting software that was years old. Also described as NOT AVAILABLE for at least two major programs, I believe by you yourself. Tovid and DeVeDe, if I recall correctly.

Rather than use a simplified method which appears to yield inferior software, plus not always work, I chose to attempt the more difficult method, in order to learn a procedure available in ALL circumstances, and for software made This Year. The more I learned about the required steps, the more I thought "No way in hell the average user does this. For software that is not as good as what I am using now, this is just pointless".

You kids have fun, make that plywood car go faster. I got places to go.

[tekkieman]

Excuse the cutting out of all your miscellaneous crap. I decided rather than continue a pointless discussion, to address any specific issues you may still (or not) want addressed...

The comparison Video file was MS "mystery of flight" something or other. It runs better in XP.

Again, I would have no doubt that a video file from MS would fair better in a Microsoft OS. I still question how well MS would fair in a test of a linux format video file. That aside, I will make it a point to find the file and run a few tests as well. Since the business I'm employed in is writing video conversion encoders, it would be interesting to see how many other formats fair between the Oses.

Program was Cinerella. Got as far as extracting the tarballs and checking the readme.

Finally, useful information! What would also be helpful is to know what distro you were using. There are a couple of different packaging methods, and depending on your distro, it is somewhat likely we can demonstrate this one-click installation method. On the other hand, this is a complicated program, and it might actually require a few clicks. I'm prepared to stand corrected if this is the case.

The "one-click" method you are pushing was described as netting software that was years old. Also described as NOT AVAILABLE for at least two major programs, I believe by you yourself. Tovid and DeVeDe, if I recall correctly.

Close, but not quite. What I specifically said is that in the specific distro that GMaq is personally using that the distro maintainer based that on the Long Term Support release of Ubuntu. Ubuntu agreed to maintain that release for 5 years. Ubuntu releases every six months, so at absolute worse, software in that repository may be close to a year old, but not necessarily. If Ubuntu chooses, they may back-port newer versions of software into that repository. Nowhere did I say the software was "years old"

In addition, the two specific pieces of software that I mentioned are not in that specific repository. I did not say that they are not available for one click installation. They are. Rather than have it immediately available in the repository, I must find it on the internet, download the deb, and single-click to install it. Tell me, how do you (if you do) install the likes of DVDShrink, etc. The method sounds pretty much the same to me. So, in the case of these two programs it is true that I must use a method just like Windows, not the method that is demonstrably (forgive me, I'm not a self-proclaimed genius, but I believe that is the correct word) better that Windows.

<rest of message snipped as pointless, and already proven inaccurate>

Now, would you care to continue to install Cinelerra? You appeared to have an interest in it...

[Nelson37]

I am interested in useful, commercial grade software. This is not it.

I am interested in software that gives me capabilities or options I do not already have, not ones that make common tasks impossible to perform.

Have yet to have a single request from anyone, nor any personal need of or interest in, OGG or any other non-standard video format.

The "years-old" quote was from a website giving further information about Linux. May have been the Mepis homepage. Spent a lot of time reading, haven't worked on a Unix-based system in probably 15 years. It didn't make it then, either.

Not once did I state that I was a genius, but since you mention it, as a matter of fact - not opinion - I am. Don't care if you don't believe it.

Enjoy it, really. It is what it is. It's not already erased only because I don't need that drive for anything else right at the moment.

The experience was useful in illuminating for me numerous reasons not to recommend this to clients, friends, or myself outside of extremely limited narrow ranges of functionality.

[tekkieman]

@ Nelson -

Interesting conclusion on the software you never got installed. Do all geniuses make such informed conclusions?

Good luck with the genius thing, although it doesn't seem to be serving you too well in this case, does it? I guess geniuses aren't as smart as they think!

By the way, you do know what you look like spouting anti-linux crap in a linux forum, right?

I'm almost sorry it didn't work out for you (only because I actually care so little).

So, feel free to spout some lame reply. As for me, troll feeding hours are over.

Sleep well.

[Nelson37]

I can understand how an immature individual such as you have shown yourself to be, would confuse an entire OS install with that of a single piece of software.

All you have is insults for anyone who disagrees with you. Typical of your type.

No response whatsoever to a professional evaluation of the shortcomings of this OS.

Quite similar to the KVCD crowd.

I stopped caring what such people thought of me 30-some years ago.

Have a nice day.

[RabidDog]

I would not switch, at this point in time (01/05/07 04.10 GMT), to Linux, from windows XP.
However I do have duelling pistols that havent been used for a number of years.

Most of the web pages render fine in thunderbird, but some of them only work correctly in IE

[courtrrb]

Nelson37. I quote again

The comparison Video file was MS "mystery of flight" something or other. It runs better in XP

I have the exact video you taking about The Magic of flight. It in IMAX format 1920 x 1080 in MS Windows Media Video 9 format. It plays fine on my Linux box. Oh by the way it also plays fine on my Amd 2000 with 256 meg of ram. Guess what no stutter.

So don't give me the crap that you see stutter on a Linux box because I KNOW FOR A FACT thats a bunch of crap. It's most probably a very poor installed version of Linux. What don't you give somebody that knows how to install a Linux machine & have it run with no problem. My 8yr old is free he can load one for you if you want.

[tekkieman]

Most of the web pages render fine in thunderbird, but some of them only work correctly in IE

You probably mean Firefox, Thunderbird is an email application (available for linux and Windows).


The number of web pages that only render in IE are diminishing rapidly as web developers are now realizing that they must adhere to standards more than was required by IE, and the IE specific active content is less tolerated by the hoards of people dumping IE now that there is a better choice. Hell, many IE specific pages won't render in IE7 either...

[CrayonEater]

To all-

Great, the entire argument has boiled down to people who think it sucks because it doesn't run Windows software

Windows-compatible software dominates the market. As you would say, "GET OVER IT!"

The HPLib in linux is far superior to the drivers in Windows. I have never has a single HP printer issue in linux right from out of the box Same with the scanner. My capture card? Nothing in Windows without loading drivers

Then why don't they work? PS If you have a driver for a K-World DVD-maker (Conexant CX23883) capture card, please let post it or let me know where to download it. Please also post a better 9102-chipset NIC driver. On FC4, it took about 8 hours to get mine working, and not much better on FC5.

Hell, how much easier could it be than saying "here's the source code to tell you exactly how we work"

Please tell of spyware or similar that specifically targets Linux boxes or software. There are none, because the market share of Linux doesn't even begin to justify it. Servers are somewhat different because most sploits use some kind of shellcode injection in a running service; attackers don't rely on exploiting browser or email client flaws.

I have run into a lot of the same problems as nelson37. Moreover, simple things like file caching do not exist in Linux, at least not Fedora Core 5. In fact, Linux doesn't seem to cache much of anything, and if it does, it doesn't to much of a job of it.

You claim that consumers won't put up with a command-line interface, yet fail to point out where it is required for the consumer to use.

This was your original claim in the post I replied to, so my answer was entirely correct. If you wished to amend your statement, you could have edited your post at any time or posted a follow-up. Nevertheless, however, we apparently agree that the CLI is better sometimes (shit, I use DOS every day on my Windows boxes because it's easier for some things) and the GUI is better at others.

To all Windows fanatics. Have you ever stopped to think that the reason we never developed games for linux is because we don't care about games? Ok, so there are a few, but we were more interested in writing the games engines so you could develop your own games if you want them. Commercial games? Not for us, we understand using the correct tool for the job. If we want games, we go to the console or the arcade.

I personally don't care for games, save for a few, but this is really dodging the issue. Could it be there are few games available for Linux that Linux' performance pales in comparison to Windows? Or because nobody cares enough about Linux to develop games for it?

You are still arguing linux circa 1995.

Relative to Windows and even Mac, Linux isn't even in 1995. More like 1990. Just look at the GUI, for one.

Anyone who uses the word compile is instantly revealed as a shill

Then tell all these "developers" to offer binaries, rather than leaving it to you to compile (and debug) their garbage yourself. Although things have come a little way in the last year, there's still too much out there that you have to compile (and, more often than not, debug). I remember, last year, it taking about 6 hours to get mplayer working on FC5. Ugh! Tell me, honestly, do you really think anybody but a diehard geek is willing to spend 6 hours to get their media player working, when Windows has it built-in, not to mention has just about every codec under the sun easily available?

IN SUMMARY:

Listen, it's the attitudes of the Linux people here that scare the shit out of many people willing to try it, who are otherwise struggling with a way to boot Microsoft. Between the incompatibility, poor performance, headaches of installing and upgrading, etc., few people would see a benefit from Linux. And this is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather than live in a fantasy world about how good Linux is, try to take what those of us are complaining about and use that criticism constructively to improve Linux. Standardize on one distro and windowing system. Computers need standardization and three dozen different distros is the antithesis of that. Then tell people to use that one. Then improve the interface and applications so they integrate with each other. Improve the system performance. Make it EASY for the average dumbass to install and use the applications he or she needs. Make functional and more-or-less Windows-equivalent apps readily available and dumb it down enough so anyone can understand what they are and how to use them. In other words, do what Microsoft and Apple figured out 20 years ago and make an OS for dummies.

[lordsmurf]

. I even have a elderly customer that never loads anything they just use it (Which in reality most people want). I was checking with them last week. He tells me that he now has more time to enjoy retirement because he not having to do as much maintenance as he used to not to mention the amount of money he's saving for all the virus software he not having to buy.

This sounds like nothing more than effective brainwashing on your part.
- Saving money on AV software? Huh? You can use any number of freeware AV software, I use AVG, and then if you're not a total dumbass, you won't get a virus anyway.
- More time to enjoy retirement? This comment does not even make sense. He probably just uses the computer less now, because you told him to. Apparently the man is unaware of hardware failures, so hopefully he does not have much to lose on that hard drive of his.
- User base of 70%? Out of what, 10 people that had to be hard sold and brainwashed first?

I'm not an OS elist, but I do remain firmly grounded in the real world. Most people want AND need Windows. A few can use Mac, a few can use Linux, a few can use others (BSD, Solaris, etc). It's really about the task. If you're using Linux to check e-mail and browse Web pages, you missed the point of the OS.

Nelson37, myself and most others have no need (and thus no more desire) to use Linux, although we gave it some experiment time. I have a feeling most "Linux users" are really just playing and experimenting. When they go back to work or their serious hobbies, they boot up a Windows XP machine.

Should you switch? Probably not. Give it try though! Everybody else does.

[Nelson37]

I find it difficult to understand that someone who has installed 4 OS's on 4 PC's per week, every week, for an entire year (anybody else find that just a bit odd?) and then that person does not understand that PC's have differing levels of performance, often specific to that machine.

Same box, Linux install off the disk, no modifications made, Linux has a Wonderful Nvidea driver, the 1080 file stutters on XP and on Linux, it stutters worse on Linux.

When somebody is telling me for a certainty what it is that I am seeing on MY PC, and that is different from what I actually viewing, that is somebody I quit listening to. Because they are a certifiable dumbass.

The correct assertion would be that "it can be done", rather than "you can't be seeing that". Whether the assertion is actually factual would require testing and evaluation, and is pointless as the other problems would still remain, ASSuming that what you say is actually true.

Same PC plays quake4, Doom3, and does video rendering at reasonable speed. Simple file copying was a tad slower on Linux.

[courtrrb]

Not when it take 2 1/2 hr to install & doesn't needed to be baby sitted & reboot after each update!.


Again: Nelson37
Same box, Linux install off the disk, no modifications made, Linux has a Wonderful Nvidea driver, the 1080 file stutters on XP and on Linux, it stutters worse on Linux.


I have no stutter on any of my Linux boxes & it crashes on my son's XP & Vista box. So please get your facts straight before you post any FUD like that.

The poster was wondering the thing he required was available on Linux and not your
you limited experience of Linux. Let somebody who REALLY know the OS to give him the answer he needs.

You are so pro MS because you really don't have a clue to Linux true ability.

Before you say I'm pro Linux & yes I am. I upgraded & installed many a windows machines & have one my self.

I write c code for windows & Linux all day long & I see the fundamental problems with windows. I just don't sit around
& navigate thru menus all day & wonder what to do if the menus don't address the problem I'm having. I actually have to fix it.

[tekkieman]

@ CrayonEater -

You have a couple of interesting points here, so I want to respond to a few of them, and get your feedback, since at the end of your post, you suggest that this is what linux should be doing: Taking the opinion of of non-users to make it better.

To all-

Great, the entire argument has boiled down to people who think it sucks because it doesn't
run Windows software

Windows-compatible software dominates the market. As you would say, "GET OVER IT!"

Yes, it does. And I'm over it. I would still like to know why does anyone insist that Windows software run on a non-Windows OS? Mac users don't. Linux users don't. The only ones who seem to demand it is Windows users. If anyone wants to run Windows software, the should run Windows. I don't know why there is an argument here. If there is a specific function required, we will tell you what software you need to run to do that function. No, it will not be Windows software, but it will do that function. Now, if it does it better or worse than the equivalent Windows software is entirely up to you to decide. However, what I ask is for the honest evaluation. What we usually hear is that "it sucks". Why? "Because it doesn't work like Windows". When I had to start using DVDFab Decrypter instead of DVDShrink, I didn't like it. I didn't like the interface, I didn't like the options...Why? Because it wasn't Shrink. Now I have my process down, and I'm fine with it. Given the time and effort to learn something new can yield the potential rewards. So, if linux sucks because the applications suck, then fine, use Windows. If linux sucks because it doesn't run Windows software (which it does), then use Windows. If linux sucks because you don't want to expend any effort to learn something new, then nothing we do to improve will make you happy, and you should use Windows.

The HPLib in linux is far superior to the drivers in Windows. I have never has a single HP printer issue in linux right from out of the box Same with the scanner. My capture card? Nothing in Windows without loading drivers

Then why don't they work? PS If you have a driver for a K-World DVD-maker (Conexant CX23883) capture card, please let post it or let me know where to download it. Please also post a better 9102-chipset NIC driver. On FC4, it took about 8 hours to get mine working, and not much better on FC5.

I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I might be able to if I research it a little. Every piece of hardware is different. My capture card is BT based, and works very well. Great for me, but not so great for you. However, the first mention of a problem is hardly proof that something doesn't work, or just sucks. If that were the case, many people would be saying tha SATA sucks.

While I won't knock Fedora as I think it is a fair distro, I need to mention a couple of things. First, FC4 is two years old. FC5 is still outdated. The current release is FC6, and there are release candidates for FC7. How does your hardware fair with those. I have mentioned it previously in this thread, but FC is Red Hats "beta program" for their commercial offering. While I wouldn't expect you to purchase their commercial offering, do you submit these issues to anyone at Fedora? That is the point of it. Find the bugs and report them so they can be fixed. So, if you wish, I (or anyone else in the community) will be glad to see if we can resolve the issue, but if you prefer Fedora, you really should report it there. That is what they are there to help with. Bugs cannot be fixed if they are not reported.

Hell, how much easier could it be than saying "here's the source code to tell you exactly how we work"

Please tell of spyware or similar that specifically targets Linux boxes or software. There are none, because the market share of Linux doesn't even begin to justify it. Servers are somewhat different because most sploits use some kind of shellcode injection in a running service; attackers don't rely on exploiting browser or email client flaws.

There's a phrase for this, and I'm not sure what it is...maybe someone with superior intelligence could help me out, but I believe it is something like a paradox. You claim we are not vulnerable because nobody cares. We claim we are not (actually we claim less rather than not) vulnerable because we are more secure. One may be true, both may be true, neither may be true. What is true is that there is NO malware/spyware, or viruses in the open for linux. At this point in time, it really doesn't matter why. Until we reach whatever magic number you feel it is until somebody cares, we will never find out. And if we never get there, we will have been more secure for all that time. Strange, isn't it? Can you say that there is a flaw in this logic?

I have run into a lot of the same problems as nelson37. Moreover, simple things like file caching do not exist in Linux, at least not Fedora Core 5. In fact, Linux doesn't seem to cache much of anything, and if it does, it doesn't to much of a job of it.

Well, the only problem specifically mentioned by Nelson was one piece of software he couldn't install, when he also specifically stated that he purposely decided to do it the hard way, then claimed it was too hard. Go figure! There was also his issue of playback of HD. I'm still testing that, and I hate to disclose conclusions before I run a fair test, but so far, playback was abysmal in Windows (although I was using VLC for playback). It played well (one or two minor stutters) in linux in KMediaPlayer, but would not play at all in VLC, and threw an error in MPlayer.

Anyway, on to caching...Linux has fantastic caching. Post the output of top for us to all see (or use the graphical tool if GUI is your thing). The caching is so good in linux that MS has "innovated" this feature for Vista, although not as well in my opinion. That is, we don't need an external memory stick with a limit of what, some tens of thousands of write cycles to do it. When I start linux, the majority of my system memory is grabbed for use. Top will show me that the majority of it is reserved for cache. When an application is exited, it remains in the cache for faster retrieval the next time it is used. What you seldom see used in linux is the swap. Why? Because the memory utilization is so good, it is rarely needed. This is a fact, and it is proven by the top command. If you have any proof to the contrary, I am prepared to examine it.

You claim that consumers won't put up with a command-line interface, yet fail to point out where it is required for the consumer to use.

This was your original claim in the post I replied to, so my answer was entirely correct. If you wished to amend your statement, you could have edited your post at any time or posted a follow-up. Nevertheless, however, we apparently agree that the CLI is better sometimes (shit, I use DOS every day on my Windows boxes because it's easier for some things) and the GUI is better at others.

Ok, so somehow, we agreed with each other and both missed it. We agree that for some tasks the command line is faster and easier. Some people are too afraid of it to see it and use it, but we seem to also agree that it is not required for the greatest amount of tasks in linux.

To all Windows fanatics. Have you ever stopped to think that the reason we never developed games for linux is because we don't care about games? Ok, so there are a few, but we were more interested in writing the games engines so you could develop your own games if you want them. Commercial games? Not for us, we understand using the correct tool for the job. If we want games, we go to the console or the arcade.

I personally don't care for games, save for a few, but this is really dodging the issue. Could it be there are few games available for Linux that Linux' performance pales in comparison to Windows? Or because nobody cares enough about Linux to develop games for it?

I don't know that it's "dodging" the issue, and I don't say that your conclusion is wrong. Honestly, I don't know. I'm like you, I don't care for games. I'm in my forties, and honestly, between job and family, I don't have time for them. Since I don't have demographical proof, I can't say if this is why most linux users don't care about games or not, or why the games aren't made for linux to begin with. I also don't know if the games aren't made because nobody cares enough, or if it is because it isn't profitable enough. In the end, it comes down to the fact that they are not there. If you specifically want computer games, Windows is your choice. That fact does not make linux less of a choice if games is not what you need.

You are still arguing linux circa 1995.

Relative to Windows and even Mac, Linux isn't even in 1995. More like 1990. Just look at the GUI, for one.

Ok, this is where I would like some honest feedback. I'm looking at the GUI as I type this. You have said this before in this thread. Please tell me what it is about the GUI you find distasteful. I really am looking for your honest opinion here. Personally, in my distro, I don't think the stock GUI is overly attractive, but I also have done nothing to change it. If I choose to, I have multiple choices of what I can do. I have options to make it look like XP, Vista, OSX, or something completely different. I have transparency, spinning blazing cubes of death, expose-like functionality, and probably any other feature you care to name. Name some, and let's see if it's there. So, what about the interface don't you like? Also, whether or not we agree with the approximate date, give or take five years, the linux kernel wasn't even created until 1992. How much of a head start did Microsoft and Apple have over it? Opinions differ, but as a daily user, I think they are relatively close. If you feel otherwise, fine, but state some specifics. Many others may feel the same way, but if you don't ask for it, you can't complain when you don't receive it.

Anyone who uses the word compile is instantly revealed as a shill

Then tell all these "developers" to offer binaries, rather than leaving it to you to compile (and debug) their garbage yourself. Although things have come a little way in the last year, there's still too much out there that you have to compile (and, more often than not, debug). I remember, last year, it taking about 6 hours to get mplayer working on FC5. Ugh! Tell me, honestly, do you really think anybody but a diehard geek is willing to spend 6 hours to get their media player working, when Windows has it built-in, not to mention has just about every codec under the sun easily available?

Ok, fair point. But, remember, there are multiple facets of the linux community. There are the, as you put it, "developers" who create the code. For free. For fun. And share it with the world. For free. For fun. Then, there are the distro packages. They are the ones who decide what applications are available for your distro, and how your desktop looks, and what drivers and codecs (or lack of) are included, etc. Then, there is the distro community who asks for the features they want, create documentation for the specific distro, etc. So, if MPlayer was not compiled with the options you want, it is the distro packages issue. Ask them for what you want.

As to media players, Windows has one built in, and I questions it's usefulness. I recently wrote a VC1 encoder for Windows, using the Microsoft specification for it. The encoded media would not play in WMP. It tried to download the codec and failed. Failed for its own codec! It also fails intermittently on playback, and even Microsoft hasn't been able to figure out why. In my default install of my distro, I have three media players. It is also capable of playing most formats out of the box. The only reason some do not is due to the patent encumbered codecs. They are not distributed for legal reasons. There are distros that you can purchase that come with them out of the box. But then, Windows is a distro you pay for that comes with them out of the box. Do you see my point? If it is something that requires the royalty, you need to pay for it. Linux has reverse-engineered many of them, and fluendo will sell you any you need. So, while some distros have media issues out of the box (as does Windows), these problems are easily fixed.

Look at the new Feisty release of Ubuntu. If you try to play a media file with no codec on your system, it offers to download it for you. Very Windows-ish. Why? Users asked for it. See? We do listen.

IN SUMMARY:

Listen, it's the attitudes of the Linux people here that scare the shit out of many people willing to try it, who are otherwise struggling with a way to boot Microsoft. Between the incompatibility, poor performance, headaches of installing and upgrading, etc., few people would see a benefit from Linux. And this is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather than live in a fantasy world about how good Linux is, try to take what those of us are complaining about and use that criticism constructively to improve Linux. Standardize on one distro and windowing system. Computers need standardization and three dozen different distros is the antithesis of that. Then tell people to use that one. Then improve the interface and applications so they integrate with each other. Improve the system performance. Make it EASY for the average dumbass to install and use the applications he or she needs. Make functional and more-or-less Windows-equivalent apps readily available and dumb it down enough so anyone can understand what they are and how to use them. In other words, do what Microsoft and Apple figured out 20 years ago and make an OS for dummies.

Again, I think you have some very valid points (especially here in your summary, but I am countering with some different points of view. We do not need to agree, but neither side will learn if we don't listen to each other.

Points of your summary:

Yes, linux users with get the cackles up when our beloved OS is attacked by people who don't use it. I see the same behavior from Windows users. However, in the last 10-11 pages of this thread, I have had numerous PMs from people who are interested in linux. They are not using PM because of the attitude of linux users, they are using it to avoid the attacks of the linux-bashers here.

You mention incompatibilities again. I think I have covered that. If you mean incompatible with Windows, it is not meant to be. We can run many Windows apps, we can read and write Windows file systems, I just don't know what more is needed. Since linux is not Windows, I would think nothing. If you think otherwise, list some specifics, and we'll see what we can do.

Headaches of installing and upgrading have been beaten to death. Installs are single click operations, as are upgrades. If your experience is different, it is possible you have the wrong distro, or have some unique situation that we should resolve for you if possible. Specifics are key.

The numerous distros I have already covered. While I agree with you that there are too many, the point is that this is one of the features of linux. To make it whatever you want. If that means fewer people use it because they are not interested in choice, then that is the way it is. The same argument applies to "dumbing it down" If we change it to be like Windows or be like Mac, then it would no longer be like linux. Some people don't appreciate that this is what we want. Image if we repeated told you that Windows had to be more of this or less of that, and you were perfectly happy with the way it is. Do you really want people who don't use your OS telling you how to make it? The people who use linux use it because it is what it is. Yes, it could be better, but not necessarily for the reasons you think (although some do apply).

This concept could be a pointless and unending argument, because in essence, we are both right. Linux could be more like you want it to be and it would be better for you. In making it that way, it would be worse for me. Again, that is why so many choices in linux. Some easy ones that try to cater to what you wish of it, and others the try to cater to what I wish of it. What you wish may not be ready for you yet. For what I wish, it is.

Excuse any typos. After this long typing, I'm not going back to fix them.

[Nelson37]

First, to the clueless among us - What I see on my monitor is a FACT. What you see on your monitor is a FACT. When you are telling me, essentially,is that since what you see is different from what I see, that must mean that I did not see the stutter which was worse on Linux than it was on XP. That is ABSURD. Fancy word for stupid.

Curious what happened to the money spent to purchase the 200 copies of XP you report installing, it would appear 70% of those people should have gotten their money back??? Your description of your business practices, if accurate, appears IMO unethical and possibly illegal. If a dual-boot HD which the customer did not request crashes, and valuable data is lost, you may have a problem.

The performance I observed is what occurred. Coupled with file transfers (4 GB), opening documents, printing, and a few other comparable operations I determined that there was no performance advantage to Linux, and in fact all operations were slightly slower, with the exception of boot time being a bit faster. Web browsing seemed about the same.

Referencing Linux and viruses, It would be a Conundrum rather than a Paradox.

I believe that higher distribution numbers will obviously lead to more attempted attacks, only then will we all know the true security level of Linux.

As for the kernel of 1992, since it is heavily based on Unix and that is far older, age of the OS is actually predating Windows, and even DOS. XP would have a start date of mid-90's, whenever the NT kernel first came out.

I had no real problems with the graphical interface, other than having to look for basic tools I have come to expect. Never did like the Unix filing system, godawful on a command line and not much better with a GUI. Usable, just different. I would guess that network shares can be made without knowing the IP of the sharing PC, but did not see any network browse.

Research revealed multiple promising projects and upgrades which never materialized because the development team had a "falling out". Too many versions of everything, too many failures reported from lots of people, procedures to fix are just simply beyond the capabilities of most PC users.

I mentioned several programs, Primarily accounting apps for which there is no substitute, and AutoCad. Companies will not waste thousands of dollars in training and risk their entire company assets on programs that are "similar". DOS did not beat CPM until Lotus. Windows did not beat DOS until EXCEL. A PC professional does not recommend Quattro Pro to their customers, and Linux isn't even that good. The "killer app" for Linux Might be the HTPC, but not for my capture card, or anybody else with an ATI.

As for "Linux has games, just not the ones you want to play", I'm just not sure where to go with that. The Penguin Racer was fun, but while the graphics were slightly better, the framerates were about what was expected 3-5 years ago. I do enjoy blowing up a few aliens now and again, and unfortunately for Linux, so does a very large segment of the PC purchasing population, this being heavily concentrated in the home market.

Source code availability? Wonderful. That will satisfy all the requests I get for people wishing to modify the internal workings of their software. Equally sufficient would be no source code at all, because no one requests this.

So it is NO for business, NO for gamers, MAYBE for a few users who either have very limited needs or enjoy getting into the nuts and bolts.

Describing thoroughly and carefully what Linux is does not constitute "bashing". It is an OS that works. It is an OS that allows for most common operations. It will not run the apps that most users demand, it is not an OS that most users can customize or even install software on. Even this needs correction as "Linux" does not exist. There is no "Linux" to discuss. There are quite a number of things that are similar, yet each is different. Just a browse through the names offers an education of what it is you are dealing with. It's multiple OS's written by geeks, for geeks, with true usability a secondary concern.

It IS an OS which has a possibility of replacing MS's dominance of the market. It will almost certainly never happen because of the "mine is better than yours" attitude of the developers, and the entire community. An opportunity lost.

[lordsmurf]

Most Linux GUIs remind me of Windows 3.1, since you asked.

[courtrrb]

Just for you information Nelson37
The world's 2 largest & leading PCB Designs software both run on Linux & windows. Cadence Design System & Mentor Graphics. Their are more reported problems for the windows version than the Linux version. Cadence was Orignal devolped for Windows. So please get you fact straight before say that business don't use Linux for Desktop Apps.