One more for the road.

http://lifehacker.com/5042934/why-di...witch-to-linux

For me the "killer app" that helped made me switch was the command line and the GNU toolchain.

That "up time" thing is a big deal. The Droid that I was writing about in my previous note has now been "up" nearly 770 hours; before it's last rest it was up nearly 1,000 hours. I haven't left any Linux desktops or servers up for long periods any time recently, but in the past, I've left them up for months. Servers are routinely left up until either site shutdowns for maintenance, major version upgrades, or hardware replacements. Sometimes, servers configured in multiple, redundant configurations - network clusters - can remain up indefinitely, shutting down only redundant parts. So uptime is a big deal.

Another thing that originally brought me over was the fact that most utilities are actually utilities from the GNU project. My experiences prior to Linux were highly focused on UNIX workstation and server systems, and I frequently used a number of GNU utilities, so familiarity was a big factor for me, and to some extent, it still is, though it's been so long since I've used UNIX servers and workstations now that the reverse is true - my Linux experiences would help me to recall things I've done years ago on UNIX systems.

Flexibility is another big thing for me. I've yet to come across something that I cannot do on a Linux system. I can even run quite a few Windows programs if I ever REALLY NEED to do it, and I've tried it just to see if it's possible. It is, and I've done it with WINE, CodeWeavers Crossover, Cedega, and I've also run Windows software directly on a Linux system by installing a virtual instance of Windows on a Virtualbox server - using the Open Source Edition (called Virtualbox OSE). Similarly, I've gone the other direction as well, and I've run Linux systems from a Virtualbox OSE server installed on a Windows system. Before Windows 7 was ever released, I tested it out using Virtualbox on a Linux desktop system and it actually worked quite well.

Using more than one operating system is no longer a reason to avoid using Linux software. Having no interest or pressing need might be reasons, but I could show you reasons to give it a try: the availability of 100% free downloadable systems, the high reliability of nearly all of them, the good performance that is available, the great deal of flexibility that you gain, and the solid security track record. There is a cost; it takes time, reading, research, training, and familiarity to make it something productive. Those costs cannot be ignored, but in spite of them, the benefits achieved are well worth the time and expense taken to gain the expertise. The resultant savings in performance, security, reliability, as well as flexibility, make the trade offs well worth consideration.

I agree that Linux software is better. It is user freindly for advanced users, but Windows software is user-freindly for users who hardly have seen a computer for, making it very unfreindly for advanced users.

"Friendly" often means either "simple" or "familiar" when used in a computer desktop context. No question about it, in 1981 when Microsoft brought the Intel 8088 together with the MS/DOS operating system and Bill Gates managed to talk IBM into getting out of their usual space, taking an OS and a processor from another company, that changed the rules of the game. But it was 1995, when the HUGE announcement (complete with the Rolling Stones "Start Me Up" theme song) came out that August, that the rules changed even further, and not only the office worker, but nearly everyone, could manage to use a computer.

Turns out that many Linux systems are just as easy, but there are subtle differences that will confuse people who have already used Windows for ten years or more.

Put a kid with Linux like my nine year old boy and he has no trouble figuring it out. That ought to tell you something - it is not that hard to learn, but it takes inquisitiveness, moderate intelligence, and persistence. Not all people, believe it or not, have those traits in abundance. Choices tend to confuse people. So do past impressions. But don't tell me Linux is hard. Look at all the people now using Android phones. Android uses a Linux 2.6.29 kernel version and it sure is not hard to use! Millions say it isn't.

Also, the Mac OS X, the iPhone and the i this and i that are all based on computer technology that has BSD in it, and BSD stands for Berkeley Standard Distribution - an offshoot of the forty year old UNIX operating system. The OS may be strange, but when you put a nice user interface on it, you'd never know it was a geek operating system, now would you?

Linux, BSD, and UNIX are far more prevalent than most people realize. Your ISP almost certainly uses one of them. Google and Yahoo sure do, most routers have either a BSD or Linux kernel, too, so you use this kind of technology all the time whether you realize it or not. Frankly, it is the user interface and the reputation that precede UNIX and Linux systems. The sad news is that there are also plenty of good user interfaces on top of that awesome core, but they are well hidden stories. I am just scratching at a few of them for you.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

See Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"

I agree that it can be simple, it's just different. The first few times I tried Linux I was scared away by those weird things called "packages" instead of .exe's, and by the fact that I had no idea how to operate the command line.

Finally I read about it and knew it was not going to be like Windows, and I loved it! Now I realize that packages are far superior to exe installers, and I use the powerful command line all the time.

[QUOTE=MTK358;3921674]http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

See Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"

I agree that it can be simple, it's just different. The first few times I tried Linux I was scared away by those weird things called "packages" instead of .exe's, and by the fact that I had no idea how to operate the command line.


Sure! Everything that it's different knocks the door of our "inertia" (we don't like changes so much). But if you look at the changes of that "proprietary OS" from 98 to XP to Vista and 7, you see huge changes that confused the users, not just stetically but the way you do things there, and made working with peripherics more complicated (printers, scanners and other machines are NOT working in their new OS!!).

GNU/Linux was different from the start. It begins a little bit less "click and go", but evolved to a more friendly (every user) OS in the last decade. Today it is not something just for computer fans, hackers, geeks or whatever word you may want to use, is really for everybody. And new versions are improvements of older ones, do not go against them! (maybe when the graphic interface changes versions some things change more, however)

Let's not forget that in Linux we have the luxury of distinguishing between the "operating system" and the "desktop environment." If you really wanted to, you could actually make a desktop environment for Linux that (*shudder*) looks and acts like Windows. (Hopefully minus the blue-screens...)

In fact, somebody has:

http://www.xpde.com/

Of course, it's still not going to be exactly like Windows. The point I'm making, though, is that Linux tends to separate interface from functionality, allowing you to choose whatever interface suits your tastes. With enough time and effort, we can give everybody what they want, unlike some (*cough*) operating systems that are defined by their external interface.

Here's an interesting off-topic branch of the discussion: Is there anyone out there (geeky or otherwise) who /doesn't/ like the common interface paradigm that most operating systems (Windows, Mac) and desktop environments (Gnome, KDE, et cetera) are striving for?

Since the early Mac OS and Windows OS came along, most people are used to thinking in terms of windows, icons, sidebars, and expanding menus. But if I were to design my own external interface (and I hope to some day) I would want it to be more like the fictional ones in Star Trek, with colorful buttons all over the place, and with data and programs appearing in panels on the screen.

im a masochist

very interesting question. there are no many reasons why i opt to linux ?

Because u can see diffence between linux and any other os. linux is tough those who are familiar with windows and dont work on linux.
and offcourse i would like to use my brain and mainly linux is not for everyone.

For the sake of fun, knowledge and yes Money.

Linux is my bread and butter now

I was bored

I TRIED linux because the Windows 7 RC bored me and just seemed like Vista with a different kicker. I SWITCHED to linux because my Vista laptop did the 18 months and out crap thing that Windows does while I had a tower climber 300 feet in the air trying to troubleshoot a loss of connectivity. I haven't looked back.

Windows kernel hacking.