Discussion on:

Linux: The big misconceptions

It is hard finding (good) help.
Perhaps you could post a list of good Linux help forums/sites.

That said, if you've never used any other OS, it probably isn't any harder to learn the necessary tricks.

I'm not sure if Unity is particularly user-friendly if you have to find something that isn't on the Unity bar (what is it called?).
You have to try your luck with HUD.
The same thing is true of Metro.

I prefer the "discoverability" that menus provide (but I've used menu-based operating systems for years).
I prefer Ubuntu 10.04 or Linux Mint 13 (MATE).

To start off, thanks for the cert links! LPI.org had a link to a free ebook (Linux Essentials) from linupfront that should be really helpful for the IT side of things. I'm in a Windows shop but would like to replace some of our file and web servers with Linux. I've tested Ubuntu Server 12.04 on a VM, but have had mixed results--Apache install/removal failure, failure halfway through the GUI install. Speaking of which, everyone on the forums I read said never to install the GUI on a Linux server in the first place because of the performance hit, although they also seemed to be purists. There was a fairly clear message, at least in those forums, that GUIs are for the incompetent.

Anyway, I know the errors happened because I'm a Linux noob trying to do tricky stuff, but for this to work, I'll need to be able to convince our team that a Linux server is safer, faster, and not too difficult to learn and fix. I'm convinced on points 1 and 2, but the last one is looking like a hard sell.

The real issue is they just don't work that well. They often lead you to waste your time trying to get something done via point and click that you could have done in seconds on the cli....only to find after wasting your time....the subset of things you wanted to make the server do isn't in the menu at all.

A friend of mine went to an interview a couple of days ago. Some of the questions were about how to deal with various tech support problems he would be facing. When he suggested that to solve one of them he would use the CLI, the interviewer got very excited and practically offered him the job on the spot. He made such an impression that they are going to pay him the salary they advertised, althoug he did have to push a little to get that.

I am a coder, not a techie, and in recent years have come to rely on tech support to solve my problems faster than figuring them out myself (my employer is quite insistent about that). But I have a couple of copies of DR DOS 6 that I keep in the loft, despite all the clear-outs that have seen me throw out other software. Don't worry if you don't know what that is, it's getting to be quite an elite group who do.

If you mean use the desktop, then the question is nonsensical.

If you want to go below the desktop then that's much harder, than learning an other desktop...
Harder than learning what's under the covers in windows, or any other OS for that matter?

Much of a muchness. Some things will pop up in google, or a book or a course straight off, others you'll have to dig for.

If you don't want to, that's what the desktop is for...

as part of the compulsory subjects to study, as well as a couple of Unix courses, in the IT certifications.

I've also found some good Linux reference works in good bookshops, those that carry the O'Reilly publications and the McGraw Hill ones are good.

I use and recommend Zorin OS as it's based on Ubuntu but has a few steroids added, especially in the GUI area where it has a range of GUIs so you can look at what looks like Win 2000, Mac OS, Win XP, Win 7, and many others.

My 30 year career has revolved around DOS/Windows, so there is little opportunity to use Linux on a regular basis, but I take every opportunity to play with Linux when I can. I have seen wonderful changes in operating systems and general software usability that today makes computing a joy to learn, instead of the daunting task that I faced all those years ago.

Unlike Windows it is not going to break the bank trying it out.

Much software developed for Linux also has versions that run on Windows, although the reverse is quite rare. So it is easier to go from Linux to Windows than the other way, where you often have to re-learn many apps.

Most problems I have faced over recent years have been resolved by answers found with search engines. I haven't even needed to post a question because someone, somewhere has faced the same or similar, and the answers are right there to be found.

The trouble is the lack of support for laptops. My company, like many, replaced most desktops with laptops, and at home, also like many others, I want a laptop that can be put away when not in use, not a desktop that clutters up the space. But I couldn't find a distro of Linux that will install on my laptop, and I see no reason to put it out to grass whilst it can give good service running XP.

So is Linux still archaic? Yeah, a little bit.

My Dell Inspiron 14 ran away from Windows 7 six months ago. will never go back, and settled in with Xubuntu 12 which in "my" opinion is the easiest distro for either Mac or Windows laptop users to master. For the rare instances I need to run Windows only apps or Microsoft Office, I have XP & Office installed in a Virtual box that runs like a Champ! I also have an Asus eee Pc 900 SSD netbook that dual boots XP & Puppy Linux 5.2 (another easy to learn distro) that can be installed and will boot from a usb or in my case an SD card.
I have Windows, Mac and Linux laptops & desktops.

I haven't had any problems loading Ubuntu on a 5 year old HP Pavilion... Granted, it didn't like 12.04 too much but it runs 10.04 great.

If you learn Linux, you will see layers of patches, the program installation hell (which version works? Repeat for each and every dependency) and years long stagnation on critical problems, like linked 10-bit video.

All that "easy Linux" marketing bla-bla is in fact trading ease of doing easy things (easy things are EASY, the very idea is fundamentally flawed) for the ease of fixing. Overall, both Windows and honest Linux (like Arch) are better than "easy Linuxes" including Ubuntu.

The more I look at Linux, the more I understand that its current culture cannot go beyond a mess of half baked apps desperately combined in a "distribution". More so, there are signs that commercial culture is penetrating into Linux unable to compete with Windows or iOS but able to spoil the FOSS ecosystem even further.

Thus, I guess that the desktop Linux has peaked, and I do not care if it were 1 or 2 percent.

I would say if you are new to Linux - Try UBUNTU. It is one of the easiest and most USER FRIENDLY Distributions out there. There are plenty of distributions out there - just go to http://distrowatch.com/ to get overwhelmed. Then there is the "interface" which can be used. "Gnome 2.X" or now there is "Gnome 3.0" or "Unity", KDE, Mate .... etc. The beauty is you can "try" them ALL without having to "commit" - well you will have to commit to one of them at least, and did you hear about the FREE part - Open-Source = FREE.
I think it is the verity of choices that is scaring away new users. WHERE DO I START ?.
My answer to that is at the easiest point Ubuntu 12.04 LTS with Unity. Then go from there.

"Open-Source = FREE"

It definitely does not always equal 'No payment'. Just because a program is open source does not require the author to give it away, and does not prevent him or her from charging a fee for it.

I agree that the range of choices can be overwhelming, especially if the potential user doesn't know enough to make an informed choice.

It depends on the license, but at least with the GPL (what the Linux kernel and most of the standard Linux tools are released under) you need to distribute the source with the binaries and the users are allowed to redistribute it. The author can charge for it, but then the person who buys it can just give it away to everyone for free, put it up on the Internet for free download, etc. so there's no realistic way to require anyone who uses it to pay for it. Other licenses are more permissive and it could be possible to keep things more closed.

The choices really aren't overwhelming... if you're looking for a general desktop distro, that rules out most of the distros right there. There's a handful of major desktop distros, and if it's a newbie not looking for a bleeding edge rolling distro or a source-based distro, that leaves a handful of choices. The best part is that you can't go *wrong* with any of those choices, and provided you've got a separate home partition, it can be easy to change later on.

A newbie coming from a Windows background may not understand different distros are targeted toward different purposes. It's way outside their experience; pre-installed Windows pretty much comes in one variety at a time. They buy the hardware and take what comes on it.

Odds are pretty good they won't know the difference between a partition and a hard drive. (Many won't know the difference between the hard drive and case it and the other components are mounted in.)

... they may actually have to - - *read* something!

Windows 8 itself comes in four editions, Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro, Windows 8 Enterprise, and Windows RT - that's not counting things like the Pro Pack or Media Center Pack you can pay additional for to upgrade the OS. Older editions of Windows actually came in even more editions, especially in the netbook era.

32 bit and 64 bit, the same as most Linux versions do.

Another point is the Win RT comes so locked down that there's very little option to install anything on it after purchase. And it comes with special Microsoft spyware that reports back and you can't turn it off.

aren't going to have Enterprise as an option. RT is only pre-installed available on selected tablet models.

But most consumers won't even make the Pro / non-Pro choice. They'll buy a new computer and take what comes pre-installed. Linux doesn't come pre-installed, so they're forced to make a decision.

When they get a choice they're "forced" to make a decision; meanwhile the use of "forced" isn't applied to the consumers who have no choice about the version of OS they're getting on their new device.

Everyone always recommends Ubuntu to newbies to the point that it's becoming the AOL disk of Linux. It really depends where they're coming from. If they're Windows users, something with a default KDE desktop might be much better suited for them - in fact, KDE is more similar to Windows 7 than Windows 8 is to Windows 7.

But you are right that one can (and should) try more than one distro at first. My early mistake was going for a rolling release distro first. What I liked about the last one I tried - OpenSUSE - was that the install DVD offered KDE, Gnome, LXDE, and XFCE as desktop choices so you could easily try out the different desktops. It also installed several PDF manuals including a quick start guide to KDE, to LibreOffice, etc. as well as more advanced manuals on security and system optimization. The installer was very pleasant to use and smart enough to find my Windows partitions and offer to mount them correctly in Linux, which made the transition easier as well. In fact, I started "testing" OpenSUSE and a year later I realized I was still running my "test" without having gone back into WIndows.

Although the interface is indeed user friendly and well set out,
I have tried Ubuntu but printer and scanner drivers were not available except in a very rudimentary fashion with mediocre results. None of the adjustments like best quality, no borders, paper type etc. Same for scanner. This is important to me since I use them commercially.
Also it is very difficult to install new programs even by following the instructions maticulously.
Photoshop not available with Linux.

two peripherals designed to be Windows only and have a critical application that's also Windows only. In that situation you have little choice, just as Microsoft intended when they pressured some hardware manufacturers to walk away from the industry standards to make stuff suitable for Windows only.

This is one of Linux' biggest problems. For desktop environments, and probably in truth office servers, Windows IS the industry standard! I use Linux for lots of things, but in truth it is a half baked solution stuck firmly in the 1970s. "Standards" means it can't evolve. And that is probably why so many people stick to it religiously - an article of faith not a reasoned choice.

that sets them and Microsoft is part of it. They were very vocal in helping set the standards in the early 1990s. However, when the committee insisted any proprietary stuff had to be given up licence free if they wanted it to be an approved standard. Then MS went on to ignore all the industry standards since then, except where the market has forced them to comply, such as USB. The worst thing about Microsoft is that every standard they've ignored they change every few years to increase their profits

...that's called "vendor lock-in". Vendor lock-in is when a proprietary format means you're stuck without requiring a great deal of time/effort/money to switch. I once used a new scheduling program and wanted to switch to another. I learned the vendor had gone out of business in the meantime and the export data function was "unimplemented" when I tried to use it. The format the data was saved in was also unreadable and proprietary. I had to run a new system and old system side by side for three months until I didn't need the data in the old one anymore; the only alternative would have been manual re-entry of it all. That's vendor lock-in.

MS has fought standards forever. Internal documents revealed at one trial against it declared that anytime a programmer developed for their de facto standards they "won" and anytime they coded for an open standard MS "lost" in their mind. They also wrote about co-opting standards; this is what the industry dubbed "embrace, extend, extinguish". For example: MS loved HTML... so much, in fact, they added their own custom extensions to the standard and encouraged developers to use them. What happened? A lot of websites that would only work correctly with Internet Explorer 6, which naturally people like you blamed on Netscape and switched to IE 6. MS tried doing this with Java, implementing a VM for Windows and then adding their own extensions here too. This broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise of Java and Sun successfully sued them over it. It's evil and pernicious and it's a symptom of a desperate need by MS to avoid ever having to compete. It's the reason Gates' biggest fear at MS was that other OSes would come into existence and MS did many things to kill of nascent mobile OSes, including breaking an NDA and announcing their own handheld (that didn't exist) to convince other software makers to hold off backing a startup's PDA and see what MS planned to offer, which ultimately killed off the start-up.

Linux didn't exist until the 1990's, so I don't know why it's stuck in the 1970s in your mind. In fact, Linux constantly evolves (new kernel releases about every six months, major distro and desktop releases every 6-9 months) so it's actually leading rather than being stuck. That's why Windows users have had to wait until the imminent release of Windows 8 to finally get native USB 3 drivers unlike Linux users, with Linux being the first OS to incorporate them. (Think it's not a problem? Try installing Windows on a set top box or thin client with only two USB 2 ports. Since the install disk doesn't have USB 3 drivers, you can only have a keyboard OR mouse during install since you need one port for the external drive and need to keep switching.)

Standards evolve all the time... HTML1-5, USB 1-3, ODF (open document format) 1.1 and 1.2, etc. Standards are ALWAYS a reasoned choice. As I illustrated above, not using them can leave you stuck. In fact, it's been suggested it's like nuclear power plants. When budgeting for them, the power company needs to incorporate the end-of-life cost of the plant: decommissioning, disposing of radioactive material, cleaning the site, etc. Sooner or later you're going to need to replace any piece of software. If it's proprietary, you similarly should include the cost of switching away from it in your total cost of ownership projections (rather than in the cost of any new software). Now if you do that, the proprietary app often becomes much more expensive than using an app with an open standard or open source in the first place. It's simply best practices to use official standards wherever possible, and my mind boggles at anyone who thinks it's faith. If you were buying a house, would you be ok with the outlets being custom-shaped and only able to connect to the appliances that came with the house, only available from one (aging) vendor? That's vendor lock-in, and that's what you're championing. I'll take standard outlets and USB connectors over proprietary ones any day.

the same about Microsoft Word .DOC format being the document standard! Well, the Industry Standard is, and has been been for a lot of years, the Open Document Text or .ODT and it's fully compatible over all version. Those who use Microsoft and only ever use .DOC have major issues as Microsoft has used the ,DOC extension for a number of non-compatible Word formats; they are - Word,original DOS to Word for Windows 2a; Word 97, Wor2000/XP, Word 2003, Word 2007/2010 (last two also have .docx too). So which is the proper MS Standard you wish to claim as the Industry Standard?

If you have a MS Word document saved in any format prior to 2000/XP it won't open and be saved safely in Word 2003 or anything since. In some cases you can get special extension programs for Word to open and resave older format documents. That's worth keeping in mind because there are legal requirements to keep some documents like contract negotiations in their original form and with their original creation and modification dates. Open a Word 97 Document in Word 2003 with the extension program and you find the document has a new creation and modification date, thus blowing away the legal proof of their original dates.

I'm sure someone will go off their nut about keeping documents that are that old. Well, you can either store electronic documents or rooms fool of printed copies which have no record of when they were originally made. Laws from back in the 1990s allow the use of the creation and modification dates of electronic files to be valid legal evidence in many case. For legal reason the documents on contract negotiations are required to be kept for the duration of the contract, and many are also needed for the seven year take review period beyond the last tax year the contract was valid for. With the introduction of email and electronic document exchanges in the early 1990s many contract negotiations were not put on paper and signed until towards the end. I have copies of negotiation documents from the early 1990s for long term contracts that did NOT finish until Dec 2007. Final tax year was 2007/2008 as our tax years is July to June. I can destroy those Word 2a documents in July 2015. Until then I have a legal obligation to maintain them as original documents, and I've had the need to review them over the years. I've never been able to review them in MS Word 2003 or any version of Word since, but have been able to safely review them in Open Office and now in Libre Office.

edit to fix typo out - our

The ODF did set the first officially recognized document format standards, but Microsoft succeeded in getting their formats recognized, too, if I remember correctly. That might mean something to government-ordered procurements, but the real standard is what the majority of people use. Is there a standard for AA batteries? I don't know, but I can buy any battery labelled AA and expect it to work in a device that wants AAs. How many documents exist in .doc(x), .xls(x), and .ppt(x) files? I can send a document in any of those formats to almost anyone in the world and expect it to be opened. What fraction of PC users can open a .odt file? That's the realistic definition of standard.

the older versions of MS Office, which currently out number the the MSO 2007 and MSO 2010 - also the versions in MSO 2007 is NOT the same as MSO 2010 due to the legal case MS lost on the code.

MS may be using their money to try and force there stuff down people's throats, but they're losing ground with each attempt. The only reason they included the ability to use the Open Document Standards in MSO was because the US Dept of Admin Services told them they had to or they could not sell to US Gov't agencies as they needed that format to deal with the rest of the world.

An earlier posting said later versions of Office cannot open old documents. Not true. Office 2013 can open documents as old as Office 97 and Works 6, and can save them in those old formats.

That pre-dates OO.org, and for Microsoft if you really need to go farther back than that you can keep an old system running just to convert documents to Office 97 or later.

In the other direction Microsoft has free downloads for Office 2000, XP(2002), and 2003 for Windows and 2004 for Mac that will open OpenXML files created by Office 2007 and later. I have many clients using those and none have had any trouble.

I also know Windows and Linux users who use LIbreOffice. They all use Microsoft default formats because that's what the majority of the world understands.

US Federal and State agencies might specify support for ODF formats, but that doesn't mean they get used, and Microsoft Office supports ODF formats in addition to their own.

I have used MSO 2010 and every version of MS Word and Excel prior to that. I know that MSO 2003, 2007, and 2010 could NOT open any documents saved in any version of Word or Excel prior to MSO 97 without getting extra apps downloaded and installed, yet Open Office and Libre Office can do so with the basic install. The reason for the problems was deliberately introduced changes in the formats by Microsoft that provided no benefit to the user. Like a lot of people I have documents created in version of Word and Excel prior to MSO 97.

Star Office, later name changed to Open Office when Sun gave its development control over to Open Office Org (from which Libre Office is derived), has been around since 1984 as a multi app package. Microsoft Word was created in 1983 as Multi-Tool Word for Xenix based on Bravo created by people at Xerox PARC. Word wasn't bundled with other apps as a package until 1997 as MSO 97, and Microsoft Excel came into being in 1985. Thus, technically MSO came into being in 1997, 13 years after Star Office came into being.

I should not need to have to keep an old system around just to be able to read these older documents. Thanks to OO and LO I don't have to as they can do things Microsoft Office can't do or refuses to do.

Microsoft support Open Document Formats NOW, but only since the US government forced them to, despite the ODFs being the Approved Industry Standards for many years prior to MS including them in MSO.

I know many US organisation still use MSO formats, and insist on getting documents in them, but that the number of people insisting on the use of MS formats worldwide is on the decrease, and I think you'd be surprised at how many organisation accept ODF and how many now prefer ODF.

" I can send a document in any of those formats to almost anyone in the world and expect it to be opened."

Assuming they've spent $100, $200, $400 on the right Microsoft Office software. And as was pointed out, Microsoft Office has not been very compatible with Microsoft Office.

I'll one up the poster above you - through Office XP, Word saved margin information based solely as an offset from the margins of whatever the default printer was in Windows. This meant that if you opened the document on another machine - even with the same version of Word! - the margins/formatting could be different if the default printer on different on that machine. Heck, if you changed the default printer on the machine the document was created on, your files would then appear different!

Open Office dealt with this by surveying many machines for their default printer settings and then creating an average and using those average margins to open Word documents. The result? Often, Open Office was MORE ACCURATE to the original document than opening it with Word itself!

And again, you still don't quite grasp "standard". I can send a document in PDF format to absolutely anyone in the world and expect it to be opened CORRECTLY, regardless of operating system or version or what PDF reader's used. That's because PDF is now an ISO standard format and any developer can implement it in their products.

What version of PC users can open an .odt file? 100% of course, especially since they can download LibreOffice or OpenOffice among others for free. Since it's a sane standard rather than a dictated defacto standard, it's designed well enough that you don't have to worry about version incompatibilities or printer margins like you do with Word.

"Assuming they've spent $100, $200, $400 on the right Microsoft Office software." That's usually a valid assumption. Add to the high fraction of Microsoft Office users the OO.org and LibreOffice users and it's safe to say almost anyone can open a .doc file.

On pre-Office 97 formats I stand corrected. I knew that StarOffice goes way back but I did not know that OO.org can open antique Microsoft documents.

I believe your comments about margins, but none of my clients have ever had such a problem.

I understand standards quite well, formal and de-facto. Once upon a time there were formal POSIX and OSI standards that many IT departments were forced to purchase support for. Those purchase requirements were met, but the standards were rarely used. POSIX faded into oblivion before ever being taken seriously and OSI was superseded by IP. ODF and OpenXML are both formal standards, and I found it ironic that a prior version of Microsoft Office once had better support for ODF formats than OpenXML. Although more complex than any sane person would want to read, OpenXML is just as much a standard as ODF.

Again, standards are what get used. Once upon a time IE6 interpreted HTML and CSS far removed from standards, but web site designers used the IE6 dialect because that's what was used. As Firefox became an embarrassment to Microsoft, newer versions of IE were forced to be more standards-compliant, not by any standards body but by users.

As for PDF, older Adobe PDF readers cannot open some documents created by newer PDF writers. My clients exchange far more .doc(x) files than .pdf, yet they've had more trouble with .pdf files than .doc(x).

Sophisticated users and corporate IT departments can keep reasonably current software that opens any .doc(x), .odt, or .pdf on any desktop. Less sophisticated users, small businesses, and under-funded IT departments should not be ignored.

Some users need Outlook, Publisher, and/or Access, which makes Microsoft Office obvious. Realistically, the cost of Office is a very small addition to a business PC. On the other hand I just installed LibreOffice on a Windows PC that runs an inexpensive Windows-only application that helps run a business. She's thrilled that she can open .doc files for no extra cost. I don't know what the future is for OO.org with Apache, but both Microsoft Office and LibreOffice are good products, and both have their markets.

I missed the part where naval_z mentioned the exact models of printer and scanner he's using. Either that, or you're making assumptions

... about recommending Linux, much as I love it. The reason: those that might be interested actually want Windows without the hassles. IOW, they want Windows without Windows. They want a better Windows. But still Windows.
They would be the first to whinge about having to copy and paste something into terminal. The would prefer downloading and running and .exe or .msi. These are metaphors they finally 'get'... they're not about to learn something totally new, even if it is more robust.

I have talked to people about Linux when they complain to me about how "this is the seventh time my PC has gone in to service to have a virus removed" (and blame the kids). When I tell them I don't run AV software, they look shocked. But I also tell them I generally don't use admin privileges except for specific tasks... and they start to look bored. I generally lose them when I tell them I full-stop never log in as root.
And the Linux discussion ends on a quiet fade-out... they see me as an egghead - something they have no desire to be - not realising that by not having set up user accounts in Windows they have taken the first step towards letting the nasties in. And of course, the service centre is just going to pocket the money: Windows and ignorant users who wish not to be bothered to learn an OS properly - any OS - is licence to print money.

So, condition of wanting to move *up* to Linux: master your Windows system first. Then, we'll talk.

is ignored by fanboys on either side, and by commercial types everywhere.

GIve the most ardent unbuntu fanboy a headless server with no GUI, they'll loathe it just as much as a windows proponent.

Then there's the deliberate confusion between intuitive and familiar, which even different versions of windows suffers from...

When the other flavour of fanboy reads it...

I strongly dislike the use of the word 'intuitive' when discussing software. Windows is not 'intuitive' (especially Metro or whatever we're supposed to call it now). User have become comfortable with the skills they've acquired, not remembering their initial learning curves.

that's a major problem the designers either never learned or forget.

A classic example is the old nod of the head for yes, some cultures don't use a nod as a yes gesture - thus the whole thing is NOT intuitive or communicative to them.

Once you are familiar, then "intuition" comes in to play.

The idea that moving that oojah next to the big flat thing with loads of buttons designed by someone who didn't know their alphabet moves the arrow on the tv infront of you over a big blue e and the clicking the left hand button on the oojah twice quickly opens some other thingamatwatsit called a browser, is intuitive, is quite frankly ridiculous.

I like reading certain types of biographies. In one a fellow tells of when his group were the first to encounter a group of natives whose biggest technology was the bow and arrow. So, when one was handed a rifle and told it's used to hunt game, they tried it out and soon found they weren't able to throw it far and said it was useless. Pointing the barrel and pulling the trigger was NOT intuitive as it was not part of their culture, but it's part or ours so almost any kid can now use a pistol or a rifle as they know the basics from the cultural activities - although they may come unhinged by the safety switch

Keys were originally arranged in a more logical sequence. The problem was the original typists were too fast. With the most frequently used keys located around the index fingers, typewriter hammers would catch against or block each other. That's why the QWERTY layout was developed. Dvorak layouts didn't make sense until physical hammers went away, but by then existing typists had become accustomed to the 'intuitive' (HA!) layout.

...Ubuntu is like the AOL of Linux. If we're talking about real sysadmins rather than grandmas, they'll run rings around the Windows sysadmins who cling to their GUIs. MS looks to be making web-based and CLI the main interfaces for their newest forthcoming server release, which many are taking as admission that they've been wrong all this time.

does not make you competent. Being able to use more than one, helps...

Until recently, GUIs were sometimes the only option. It's not 'clinging' when there is no other choice, and adding options doesn't indicate there was anything wrong with the previous ones. Does the creation of new distros indicate the old ones were flawed?

Anyway, the tools used don't demonstrate competency as much as what's done with them.

I love the IDEA of Linux. I use it on personal, redundant systems for its reliability and because it's simply very robust. In the business world, learning curve = $$. The reality is that OS's like Windows and OS X are the standard at this point. As a developer, MS makes it very attractive to use Visual Studio because of it's ease of use.

It seems that most people (average computer users) are not really aware of the choices they have. You see a bunch of Apple and Microsoft commercials and ads. In stores the systems come preinstalled with OSX and Windows. You have to ask or inquire about Linux and even then you most likely still get a machine with Windows installed on it. Let's take someone who has heard of Linux and actually wants to investigate what it can do and if it's right for them. They have to do some work, by searching and finding various distributions, each with different choices, learn new lingo, etc. it can soon become overwhelming. With Mac and Windows you are guided down a path to a destination (marketing), with Linux you have to be a seeker that wants to find your own path.

Looking back to the days of punch-cards, it seems like everyone has gotten "soft" and "spoiled." I resisted switching over to "Windows" years ago, complaining that it was just a fancy "overlay" running on top of DOS. Well - it was! As a few months passed, Windows became the norm. We all cussed about the "limitations" - and I still do. What people seem to forget is we all had to learn Windows. If you look at the first sentence, you can tell that when I was taking Comp-Sci, Bill Gates hadn't thought of Windows yet.

I've been using Ubuntu for a few months on a machine I've got next to my Windows machine (I still have to use Windows for AutoCAD because I need speed & efficiency - plus, I've never looked to see if there's a version that runs under a Linux distribution - I'm too cheap - and lazy.)

I have worked through "interfaces" that allow me to use a Linux machine in a Windows environment - not too difficult once you start digging. I have found that Gnome is as easy to use as Windows desktop - just "different." People complaining about applications and installation haven't used a Linux machine enough - it's really very easy.

I don't have to worry about Microsoft screwing up Windows anymore. I'm running XP and AutoCAD on one machine and don't need it for anything else. Open Office will run spreadsheets with Excel macros with no problem...

Try it, you'll like it!

Update: I installed WINE on the Ubuntu machine and am now able to run Autocad on it. Since it's a Windows emulator, it's not as "smooth" as a native Windows machine but it seems to work well. I wouldn't use it for productivity but could use it in a pinch, if necessary.

Update: 10/25/12 - I installed "Synergy" on a "Windows XP" machine and an "Ubuntu" machine - two monitors, two boxes (1) Keyboard (1) mouse. Works exactly like an external monitor on a laptop or a dual monitor setup - or like a KVM switch without the 'delay.' You just have to be on the same 'network...'

I learned Windows years ago, picked up some Apple, and came into Linux/Unixa few years ago. I think that at the heart of the matter, is that Linux allows you more choices over the closed platforms. I think all 3 OS's will do most of what you want, it is just that there way of going about it are different. I think that most people are one or the other because that is what they know. I think Linux is a bit different because a lot of people, like myself, become converts after being told for so many years that there is only 1 way, when in reality, there are many ways.This issue is also on the smart phones as well.

I think Apple does a great job of making things easy, pretty, and idiot proof. Microsoft does allow for a bit customization, and delivers a solid product that has given most of us on this site jobs. Linux has it's pluses and minus.
The big plus is you have as many choices as there are available, or you can create. The biggest minus is there is not one major company that pushes the product to the masses to let them know they do have a choice.

Linux needs a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Where is our open source savior?

There are many forums but no spokesperson. Any volunteers? I'm not smart enough to figure this one out...

I do agree with the concept of the Ford, Chevy, Dodge argument. However, many make their choices based on familiarity and ease of getting help. That being said, it becomes even more important for Linux to make more than a 1% or 2% inroad into the OS marketplace. A number of applications that I wish to use simply will not be available to me on Linux. That leaves me with the decision on whether for my necessary work (not play and education), I wish to deal with different OS'es. Sad to say, I usually don't. Hence, I end up in the MS Windows fold, which may not be my first choice if not for the application dilemma.

choices are pretty much the same, based on familiarity and ease of getting help. Plus once you own one, you want to defend your choice.

...a prerequisite to switching was to begin following this rule: when all else is equal, choose cross-platform, and if all else is still equal, choose open source. I began this process about two years before a very screwed up XP partition led me to start considering reinstalling XP, installing Win7, or installing Linux (the time cost would be the same since I was going to need to reinstall the OS and all applications one way or the other). Since I'd begun replacing software two years prior, by this time a large amount of the software I was using was already cross-platform, which made switching very easy with minimal impact. I was actually more locked into a .Net scheduling program than I thought (didn't run right on Linux and wouldn't export my data in a standard format) so I ran it side by side with a replacement using VirtualBox for three months until I didn't need its data anymore. For the smaller stuff like optical disk burning software and the like Linux had plenty of comparable or better alternatives to what I was using so that wasn't an issue either. Investing the time into removing vendor lock-in is a very worthwhile investment. Sooner or later every piece of software needs to be replaced (it gets upgraded, discontinued, bought out, no longer suits your needs, incompatible with something else, etc.) and you're going to pay the vendor lock-in price then, perhaps with little warning. Beginning now to pay it upfront (and factoring in lock-in removal cost when making any future software decisions) will pay dividends later on. In my case, I ultimately chose Linux and got just about all of the features of Win7 vs. XP plus all of the major features in Windows 8 two years earlier for free. I also get to avoid the Metro mess and the uncertainty a lot of Windows developers find themselves in over MS changing preferred programming interfaces again and whether things like Silverlight still have a future, not to mention the Metro software store lock-in (or out depending on how you look at it).

Well, Gates and Jobs were Chairmen/CEO types. When you speak of "Linux," there's no equivalent here. You're not talking about a company. Moreover though, you're not just talking about an OS either, but really an entire culture -- and an extremely fragmented one at that. There is no unifying entity around whom/which all factions can rally.

Linus Torvalds himself would be the obvious choice, except for the simple fact that when the young Finnish student decided create this new operating system kernel, it was FREE -- a personal project -- just a hobby. He's the titular "head" of Linux, but no more than the Queen of England is the British sovereign authority. He has a job, and it's not at Linux, Inc. His bottom line is not impacted by sales of Linux.

I suppose Richard Stallman would tell you he is the one true saviour of open-source, but a self-made proclamation and a neckbeard do not a messiah make. I mean, sure he has a cool monogrammatic moniker and a foundation, but he wields no real power.

People listened to Gates and Jobs because they were both charming & geek-chic in their own quirky ways, and yet they were both very shrewd, cut-throat businessmen that took their shareholders along on a fantastic voyage to the top. Every geek wanted to be them, and their names became ubiquitous in every household.

Ubuntu's Shuttleworth is probably the closest candidate for the saviour job right now. He's pretty enough, but Unity and the Trinity are entirely different concepts...

The real problem is that the landscape has wholly changed, and as it stands, we'll never see an "open source saviour," per se. In our brave new Goog-Tube-Face-Twit-Amaz-ulu-Wiki-flix-Bing-hoo!-world of 140 characters or less, I don't think our culture as a whole has the attention span to devote to a single saviour.

No, if you want an industry-defining savior, you have to follow the money. Make no mistake, that is where the cult of personality is born. By it's very nature, however, "open-source" is decentralized and moneyless.

Ergo, there is no single eye of this hurricane from whence a savior shall arise. Sorry, but there will never be one single Linux distro to rule them all because it would inadvertently have to become a proprietary platform, and that whole GPL thing kinda throws a gorilla-sized monkey wrench in that.

As for me, I neither want nor need an "Open-Source Saviour." I'm a man who knows a thing or two, you know what Im saying? I'm Oppan Gangnam style...

if you want.

...some of Linux's spokespeople are really detriments. Richard Stallman appears to have Aspergers, obsesses over word definitions, trashes Steve Jobs before the man is buried, is an uncompromising extremist, etc. He's very smart, but a horrible spokesperson. Linux Torvalds is also very smart and occasionally says some very wise things. By his own admission he's a man of few words though, and often those words are four-letter tirades against someone. Recently he suggested the OpenSUSE security team should "go kill themselves" and also said "F*** you, NVidia!" with a raised middle finger during an interview. No, Linus is a smart and wise man who also lacks communication skills and never attempts to temper his speech. He's rather like Joe Biden in that respect, of whom it's said that you'll always know what he's thinking... because he's just said it.

Stephen Fry the actor/comedian/author is using Linux and once made a video for its anniversary and could probably make a very charming spokesperson. I also wish we could sway Steve Wozniak over to our side... he recently revealed that he fought at Apple to make/keep things more open, but lost.

that has to be an issue with his upbringing as he's a lot more obsessive than most people with Aspergers.

Edit to add - if you want someone who's obsessive, look at Gates and his desire to have Total Vendor Lock-in and how he's gone about working it in by stealth and lies over the last 20 years

...although a lot of GNU groupies refuse to admit that there's anything wrong with Stallman's behavior. I prefer to think of MS-era Gates as "ruthless" rather than "obsessive". But now that he's turning that ruthlessness against malaria I'm all for it.

Several of my units are set up dual-boot with Linux in various (mostly UBUNTU 12.4) flavors. It is my 'safety - net' for when (not 'if') MS goes 'belly-up'. Yes, Linux reads everything that is 'MS' although the reverse is not necessarily true. My Acer netbook is set up dual-boot Win 7 Ult / UBUNTU 12.4 on individual partitions. After everything is up and running, No Sweat.
BUT: Getting there is 99% of the battle. After numerous installs on numerous units I'm still insecure on the initial set-up and I would really like to see a basic checklist for this. (1) Download & burn to CD/DVD/USB-'stick' the ISO of the distribution you want. (2) Prep the Hard Drive - Create separate partition for Linux - Min size and format with what? (ext-4?) and also create a Linux 'Swap' partition (what size). (3) what are these 'SDA' things, etc.? (4) Having completed this, (with numerous 'boo = boo's'), Installation of Linux itself is usually fairly simple. (5) (Finally) on boot-up, you are confronted with a 'boot menu' (GRUB). The first (and default) choice is Linux. You can 'Arrow' (NOT Mouse) to other options. (Windows, etc.). My challenge here is, Can I edit the GRUB Menu? i.e,, Can I move Windows to the default position? Can I delete unwanted lines? Can I add false or misleading data (honey-pot)? (6) One of the really great things in UBUNTU (& other distro's) is the multiple screen feature. You can do different stuff on different screens. With 12.4, however, the multiple screen selector moved from the 'Task Bar?' to the selection panel on the left side. This is (IMHO) very difficult to use (hard to get to). Also, how do we edit the content and position of the items on that left selection panel? This is really a sticking point in daily use.
Jack, these and other comments from other readers should give you fodder for many new articles for the next year. - Have a good day, and thanks for the article.

We'll have a replacement already in use, until we have that replacement in use, MS is not even close to belly-up, regardless of what they do.

I am a little curious as to why you consider converting someone to Linux a win. Do you feel they really get an environment that serves their needs better, or is it just that you are a Linux bigot, or perhaps an anti-Microsoft bigot.

The fact that Linux is free is wonderful but the cost of the hardware that most people use far outweighs the cost of a desktop copy of Windows which is usually bundled into the cost of the machine. So to me the thing that matters most, and always has, is helping someone get the most use and/or enjoyment from their system regardless of the OS running on it. My use of Linux finds nothing in it that makes it better than Windows, the newer are also not worse, especially for someone that already knows how to use Windows.

If I find someone with a machine that doesn't have or can't find a legal copy of Windows and or the machine is a little older so maybe Linux will run better and I think Linux will serve their needs I will put one of the Linux distros on the machine for them. But not to win another Linux convert rather to serve the needs of my user.

OK Linux fan-boys have at it, flame me and eat me up to blow off steam that I dared to talk against your beloved OS.

or even anti-Microsoft if you wish, it is a personal choice.

But as a hardened Linux user myself I'd have to agree with Jack. Anyone converted from a Windows system is a win, simply because they are being given something that will do what they need. Not even sold something that might, but given.

Linux can do anything the hardware can do, where Windows can only do what its currently programmed for. Unless you can buy a program to increase its abilities, thats all there is with Windows, and programs are only produced if it's worth it financially. There is a lot of open source software for Windows, yes, but it still can only do what Windows can do, and that is not negotiable like it is with Linux.

Linux on the other hand is designed to be customised for free, and there are many, many specialised distros out there if a general one wont fit the bill. Some are written simply because one person needs a feature that doesnt exist anywhere else - that doesnt happen if its proprietary, ever.

I love Linux, because my work is highly experimental and Windows just wont let me poke around in my computer's guts to make things work better. Linux lets me, its that simple.

There is however one exception, which is the likes of our dear Loverock, who has no need for Linux whatsoever. If a person is happily entrenched with Windows, and all they ever do is Windows things, then trying to convert them is, well, pointless.

If Windows already does what they (or I) need, why bother? Why spend the time rebuilding a functional system?

Linux may be customizable for free, but no neophyte user has the skills necessary to do so. Sure, they could pay someone else, but they could also pay someone to develop a custom Windows app too.

I often read Loverock, just to see what nonsense he's going to spout next.

Its not just the time, you've paid for the license you might as well use it.

But it does come to a point where you might as well spend the money on getting what you need from Linux, when it comes to it. And you only have to do it once, with Windows you'll be paying for a new version AND a rewrite to go with it. Every few years...

Thats if Windows does whatever it is you're asking. A Windows program is a series of calls to Windows routines, and if there isnt a Microsoft endorsed routine to do it, you are boned. Long gone are the days where you could run unsigned code on bare metal unless you take very deliberate steps to circumvent Windows itself.

Linux CAN be completely free (of charge), but a professional system will usually cost something. There arent any free lunches...

usually done instead of a total rebuild of a totally crashed Windows system - thus it's NOT doing what they want at the time I convert it. In a way it's a bad option as the people I convert only every call me back when they want me to upgrade some hardware, instead of every few months to fix another virus or software stuff up like the Windows clients do.

>If Windows already does what they (or I) need, why bother? Why spend
>the time rebuilding a functional system?

The anthropic principle... of course Windows does all you need it to do now or you wouldn't be using it. But that doesn't mean it's doing all the things you originally wanted it to do.

There are many intrinsic benefits to Linux including increased security, much smaller target vector for malware, and the last remaining major desktop OS that retains user control over the system once Windows 8 and its Metro app store hits. It has a more rapid cycle of development that leads to new technologies being adopted earlier (for instance, no native USB 3 drivers in Windows 7, which can make install on a nettop or thin client quite a pain). It can access many different disk file systems, leading to increased compatibility in the multi-device, multi-platform world we increasingly find ourselves in. Thanks to package management one tool can update not only the OS but all the software on the system. Drivers are present in the kernel and the users don't need to hunt for them either, nor do they need to wait once a month for security updates. Resource use is lower, an effect even more enhanced by not needing to run real-time virus scanners. Tom's Hardware found a system running Ubuntu and the ext4 file system could copy large files around the hard drive a whopping 20% faster than the same system running Win7 and NTFS. Every Linux system is inherently multi-user without needing to purchase a server edition. One doesn't need to run an "ultimate" edition of Linux to get necessary features like full disk encryption (vital for laptops). Users can run portable versions of their systems from flash drives (legally) and not worry about a change in their hardware requiring product re-activation or using their OS disk to make virtual machines. In fact, because the drivers are in the kernel, they can often make radical changes to their hardware and expect the system to boot back up nicely, something impossible with Windows.

That's just a few things off the top of my head without even getting into issues of choice and customization.

Linux doesn't erect a walled garden. There's nothing holding you back from doing what you wish (even dangerous or destructive things). When I was evaluating Windows 7 vs. Linux I tried installing Win7 to a separate hard drive. It kept failing and telling me there was no room on the drive even though the drive was empty. I did some homework and found out what was happening. Since I wasn't installing to the boot drive, Win7 decided without telling me to create a boot partition on the primary drive. I did NOT want to do that, as it would mess up the existing system on that drive. Fortunately there were no more free primary partitions left, causing the failure. I needed to temporarily change the boot order of the drives to "trick" Windows into installing onto the second drive. A poor soul with the same problem needed to open his case and disconnect the main drive to get Windows to install where he wanted it!
When I installed Linux, it saw what I was doing, told me it might lead to an unbootable system, and then ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO DO IT ANYWAY. That was the moment I began to understand what Linux was all about. The install also gave me the option of not installing any file it had selected for install or adding others. It displayed a list of every single thing it intended to do before beginning and gave me the opportunity to change any of them. It even helpfully highlighted possible destructive changes in red. The difference between this and the Win7 install (no customization, no clue what was going on, no respect for my own wishes, the belief it knew better than me) was day and night. Linux had me sold at the INSTALL process as the better operating system before I even got to a desktop.

A system that doesn't presume to think for the end user and lets one go as far as their desire, effort and imagination take them is a boon for any user. Windows is only going to get more radically locked down in Windows 8, including forced use of Metro and the prevention of any Metro apps being installed any way other than the new Microsoft software store... which of course has in place an additional set of restrictions on the type of software they'll sell, what licenses can be used, how the programs need to behave (e.g. start up in 2 seconds or less), etc. Keeping control of one's system in the hands of the user should be something we should be promoting to everyone. Corey Doctorow put it correctly in the title of a recent talk of his: "The Coming War Against General Purpose Computing".

>Linux may be customizable for free, but no neophyte user has the skills
>necessary to do so.

Really? A neophyte user (which I was two years ago) can't create new virtual desktops or activities in KDE, rearrange and add widgets, install things like FTP servers or samba shares?

One doesn't need programming skills to add DKMS,share files over a home network, radically customize the desktop, activate a VNC server to allow remote logins to their system, etc.

Looking at your third paragraph, there's almost nothing there I'm interested in doing. I'm not worried about malware; I haven't had an infection in the over 20 years I've been running Windows, and good anti-malware software is free these days. While drivers may not be in the kernel, Windows does a pretty good job of finding them on the web, so they're more likely to be newer than the ones in the kernel; and why take up hard drive with drivers you may never use? I don't have multiple users. I believe you can legally run W8 from a flash drive (although I don't plan on doing that or running W8 so I can't confirm). I doubt many average users are interested in booting multiple OSs, or are interested in overriding the 'safety' features. Obviously they don't care about walled gardens; see the popularity of the iDevices.

As to customization, most of what you've listed are customizations to the desktop or apps, not to Linux itself. My comment was in response to those who claim open source programs are customizable because the user has the source code. My point was regarding those users inability to read, understand, alter, and recompile that code.

Don't get me wrong; I think Linux is a great OS. I understand how you feel, but I don't think the average schmoe is any more interested in getting the most out of his computer than he is in tuning his engine or making his own clothes. There's no motivation for me to bother replacing Windows, finding replacements for my existing applications, putzing with an emulator for those apps that don't have Linux counterparts, etc. It already does what I need (or want, if you will). At home (as opposed to at work), I'm interested only in USING my computer with as little effort as possible. I drive an automatic transmission for the same reason; I'm aware I'm sacrificing some performance, but it isn't worth it to me. I suspect most home users feel the same way.

"Linux can do anything the hardware can do, where Windows can only do what its currently programmed for."
You can only do what the available tools let you do.
You might be able to write your own tools, but most people can't.

I wanted to strip some corrupt jpg headers off of some pictures.
I had the same options in Linux and Windows (i.e. download a tool to do it).

"Unless you can buy a program to increase its abilities, thats all there is with Windows, and programs are only produced if it's worth it financially. There is a lot of open source software for Windows, yes, but it still can only do what Windows can do, and that is not negotiable like it is with Linux."
What commercial programs offer the features that Process Explorer and Process Monitor offer and why would I buy them?

IMO, the extra features that Photoshop offers over GIMP, doesn't justify the $1000 price.

"I love Linux, because my work is highly experimental and Windows just wont let me poke around in my computer's guts to make things work better. Linux lets me, its that simple."
That's why my friend swapped to Linux (~12 years ago).
Most people have no interest in doing that.

How do you permanently attach a HDD using the GUI?
I had to do it the hard way:
- issue blkid
- create a directory to mount it
- edit fstab
- change the group and owner

In Windows, you just plug the HDD in and format it.

What Linux are you using then, that you cant just plug in a hard disk?

Unless you are using one of the unfriendly ones (and they do exist, I sometimes use Arch, and thats awkward) you just plug it in and boot up.

Just plug it in if its a Sata, no need to reboot even.

Linux has had a plug-and-play aware mechanism for a few years now, its part of the Debian repository and everything based on it - like Ubuntu, probably the most popular distro out there.

'Most people have no interest in doing that'

Yes they do. Have you heard of a little computer called a Raspberry Pi?
Unless you buy a working SD card off the foundation you'll be rolling your own distro out of Debian or Arch repositories from a terminal. Using tools like DD and PartEd to build the system.

Yes. Teenagers are learning to roll distros, and once you've done it a couple of times you can do it in your sleep. Cambridge Uni are offering a free course in writing an OS from scratch, in Assembly. They wouldnt do that if there wasnt an uptake for it, so I beg to differ with you.

"What Linux are you using then, that you cant just plug in a hard disk?"
I'm using Ubuntu 10.04 and I have multiple HDDs (each has multiple partitions).

"Unless you are using one of the unfriendly ones (and they do exist, I sometimes use Arch, and thats awkward) you just plug it in and boot up."
My friend swears by Arch.
He embeds Linux in devices (and writes the drivers for them) as part of his job.
You should hear him curse when I need help with Ubuntu (he absolutely hates Ubuntu).

On my PC, Ubuntu does not auto-mount ext4 partitions (and definitely not NTFS ones).
You can manually mount them (or use Nautilus).
I want certain partitions loaded during boot up (some NTFS and an ext4).

Once mounted, the partitions were RO until I chown-ed them.

"Yes they do. Have you heard of a little computer called a Raspberry Pi?"
I have heard of the Rasberry Pi.
Until 900M+ users are using them (like Windows), I stand by the statement that most people aren't interested in tinkering with their OS.
Apple sells millions of iPads and IIRC, you aren't allowed to tinker with iOS.

Most Linux users might be interested in tinkering though.

"Unless you buy a working SD card off the foundation you'll be rolling your own distro out of Debian or Arch repositories from a terminal. Using tools like DD and PartEd to build the system."
What a horrible thought, building an OS using the Terminal.
It's horrible enough having to install software if it isn't in a GUI repository.
I can't imagine the average office worker or iPad user doing that.

"Cambridge Uni are offering a free course in writing an OS from scratch, in Assembly."
I sure there are places that offer courses in writing operating systems (people must learn how to do it somewhere).
Given that the Linux kernel has millions of lines of code in it (IIRC, Windows has even more) I can't imagine there is a massive demand for a course about writing desktop operating systems in Assembly.

It's fortunate that there are people willing "to suffer the torments of the damned" so that everyone else has software to use.

Linux GUIs are easy enough to use if you are only interested in clicking on the available icons (e.g. FF and OO or LO).
If you want to do anything slightly more complex, you have to master the Terminal.

However its only become that way because of Microsoft.

There was a time when you did have to learn some particularly dense symbolism just to make your computer go 'beep', and in reality nothing much has changed. Cutting edge problems in computing still require mathematics out of the reach of the average person - its actually got little to do with a desire to fiddle.

Microsoft somehow managed to redefine computing to mean checking email and similar domestic tasks and provide the desktop experience for it so there isnt a demand any more.

An entire generation grew up geeking out on those old systems just like I did though, and used the experience to build what we have today, so I'm a little sad that you're so dismissive of anyone actually learning how to use a computer and not just Windows or at least a GUI.

'Windows GUI is easy enough to use if you are only interested in clicking on the available icons (e.g. IE and MO or MW).
If you want to do anything slightly more complex, you have to master the Linux Terminal.'

Sorry, but I couldnt resist that...

Reasonable, given that a lot of Windows users don't even know how to do that properly (although they'll click on everything once they open an Internet browser ).

That said, I almost never have to edit the Registry to fix problems.
I don't have to "jump through hoops" to add a new HDD.

I'm not suggesting that Windows is perfect.

Word is glitchy as hell (and the GUI is just awful).

MS seem incapable of making a version of Windows Explorer that:
- Will allow you to "Safely Remove" USB drives 100% of the time.
- Doesn't have weird bugs (like auto-scrolling in W7).
- Doesn't crash for no apparent reason.

In fact I reinstalled W7 last month to fix some weird glitches:
- Broken network tool (couldn't set a static IP address).
- Broken calculator (display was broken).

Since then, Windows Explorer has crashed more times (in the last couple of weeks) than the previous 3 years!

"An entire generation grew up geeking out on those old systems just like I did though, and used the experience to build what we have today, so I'm a little sad that you're so dismissive of anyone actually learning how to use a computer and not just Windows or at least a GUI."
That wasn't what I meant.

I used PCs back in the DOS days (80's) and I could get most tasks accomplished.
I have programmed using BASIC, APL, C, Assembler and I've written batch files, VB and BASH scripts.

There was an article (last month?) by a Linux "traitor" that summed it up.
He basically said that he just wanted to do tasks without having to tweak things first.
I'm in the same situation, I don't want to have to battle with glitches in Linux or Windows (have you noticed how they always occur when you don't have any time to fix them?).

IMO, it's the same situation with cars (oh no a car analogy ).
Some people love tinkering with cars (I used to) but most people don't.
They just want to get in the car, start it up and drive away.

Reasonable...

Interestingly enough, my experience has been almost opposite!
All my windows systems performed flawlessly and rarely crashed doing things they were made for - everything from playing card games, writing docs and drawing. I did manage to crash it pretty regularly by the time I was using XP, because by then I was trying to get at system devices that it would rather hog for itself.
Things like sampling an 11khz audio stream should be possible in VB without having to make a disk file. Its fast enough on a decent machine to directly poll the audio, but you cant do DMA or access it another way unless you go to C++ and bare-metal it. Windows utterly hates code that runs outside of its control, which is why it tends to be unstable doing anything I'd consider powerful. I dont hate it, it doesnt have its own routines for what I need and wont let me make my own without the Microsoft Waltz.

Oh yes, the car analogy. Well it does ring true with computers too. However, have you looked under the um, hood is it? of a car lately?
I used to lovingly restore the old Morris Travellers at a classics garage as a young man. I specialised in the woodwork, but got to strip everything off them anyway. I can still get my head around the wiring, and even the workings of its old A series engine, but my mum's Hyundai appears to have alien technology in it. I couldnt repair it if I tried - cant buy the tools or parts, and its also illegal now here in the UK to work on a vehicle at the roadside unless its a repair to move it from where it fell. Call the AA, in other words.

Windows has become very similar in that respect.

There was a big push many years ago to stop software directly accessing the hardware.
It is supposed to make machines more stable (eliminate/reduce access conflicts).

I had a problem with an update in August and I think it broke the network tool.
The calculator broke last year when I changed the screen settings to 125%.

I might just use FreeCommander for all of my file management (instead of Windows Explorer).
It has more features anyway (the mass renaming tool is excellent).

I used to use AVG and I decided to try Avast, so the Windows Explorer crashes may be related to that.
I notice Avast tries to scan everything that starts or stops.

>You can only do what the available tools let you do.
>You might be able to write your own tools, but most people can't.

You don't have to. So long as anyone, anywhere in the world, has the same need as you do and the ability to make the change, you're set. With Windows and OS X that's not an option.

>I wanted to strip some corrupt jpg headers off of some pictures.
>I had the same options in Linux and Windows (i.e. download a tool to do
>it).

That's not really what we're talking about. I wanted to install Windows 7 to a second drive and use my motherboard's boot menu to boot it. The Windows 7 install disk decided that that was not permissable and it was going to put a boot partition on my primary hard drive without telling me or, in my case, just refuse to install because there wasn't enough room for the boot partition. I tried to do the same thing with an OpenSUSE Linux install disk and it told me it didn't think what I wanted to do would work (it obviously couldn't know about my motherboard's boot menu) but then asked me if I wanted to go ahead and do it anyway. THAT'S what we're talking about. There's no artificial limitations imposed on the user or "we know better than you do what you want to do".
Someone proposed adding something called DKMS to my distro which has to do with automatically recompiling binary drivers after a kernel update. My distro declined to do so because they thought newbies would be concerned at the extra boot time that would take place when DKMS needed to do its thing on system restart. Since they don't control my system, however, someone packaged up DKMS and I was able to add it to my own system quite nicely. If it was Cupertino, Jobs would have just forbidden it be installable because it would conflict with his vision on boot times.
Similarly, my distro upgraded to a virtually rewritten version of the PIM suite I was using even though it really wasn't stable enough in my opinion for day-to-day use. Again, one person packaged the old version and I had no problem telling the installer not to install the new version and then installed the old version myself. If it were Windows, I'd never have been given the option to customize my install in the first place and the new software would probably have been forced on me like Metro will be on Windows 8 users. THAT'S what we're talking about.

>What commercial programs offer the features that Process Explorer and
>Process Monitor offer and why would I buy them?

Here's a more apt example. Right now (for security reasons?) Microsoft is only letting the Visual C++ (and .Net?) runtimes access certain parts of the new WinRT library. The problem? That means other compilers can't create Metro apps since they obviously don't use Microsoft's compiler library! The Delphi Pascal and C++ compilers are for the moment locked out of being able to generate Metro apps, which are supposed to be the future of Windows 8. Embarcadero, the compilers' developer, have made Metro-like controls for Metro look and feel, but since it doesn't use WinRT they can't be sold through Microsoft's new app store. End result: unless you use Microsoft's own Visual Studio IDE and compilers, you're somewhat screwed when it comes to Windows 8 software development. Microsoft is similarly locking out other browsers on their ARM-based tablets and only allowing their own software to use the desktop interface on them. THAT'S the kind of crap we're talking about.

>That's why my friend swapped to Linux (~12 years ago).
>Most people have no interest in doing that.

Maybe more people would have an interest in that if they knew it were even possible? When a system holds your hand too much you don't grow in your abilities or worse, never even learn there's more you can do than what you're being offered.

>How do you permanently attach a HDD using the GUI?

I have to second the request about what distro you're using! If you're using OpenSUSE and its YaST management tool you can specify where you want a new drive/partition to be mounted without ever touching the fstab file.

"You don't have to. So long as anyone, anywhere in the world, has the same need as you do and the ability to make the change, you're set. With Windows and OS X that's not an option."
I don't see the difference.
If you can find someone who knows how to do it and they are willing to tell you (or provide the file/script/tool) you can do it in Linux, Windows and OSX.
Believe it or not, you can even replace Explorer with KDE.
The solution is the same in each case, scour the Internet.

As I implied (in the very 1st post in this thread) the problem is finding a good help site.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen:
Q - "How do I do X?"
A - "Don't do that, do Y."
After a couple of pages, the OP's question hasn't been answered and the original problem hasn't been solved.

A classic example involved Net Manager; a person wanted to reset it.
"Expert" after "Expert" wanted to know why and suggested that he do something else.
After two pages of "solutions" that didn't work for the OP, the "Experts" all disappeared.
Not one of them told the OP to delete the config file.

"The Windows 7 install disk decided that that was not permissable and it was going to put a boot partition on my primary hard drive without telling me or, in my case, just refuse to install because there wasn't enough room for the boot partition."
You should have been able to do that.
Always pre-partition and format the drive (using GParted) to avoid the worthless boot partition.
Make sure the HDD you're installing to, is the only one connected during the install procedure.

That said, I agree that there are things that Windows just refuses to do.
When I encounter those, I use a Live Linux CD to bypass the restriction.

"Maybe more people would have an interest in that if they knew it were even possible? When a system holds your hand too much you don't grow in your abilities or worse, never even learn there's more you can do than what you're being offered."
Apple sells millions of iPads and IIRC, you aren't allowed to tinker with iOS.
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395191-3705351

"I have to second the request about what distro you're using! If you're using OpenSUSE and its YaST management tool you can specify where you want a new drive/partition to be mounted without ever touching the fstab file."
Drives/partitions listed in fstab are mounted during boot up.
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395191-3705351

"THAT'S what we're talking about."
No that is what you are talking about.
How many people want to build their own update packages?
Assuming that every Linux user does that (and they don't), that only comes to 10M-20M users out of 1000M desktop users.

BTW, Metro and WinRT are awful.

Amen! When I posted on here about my earlier experience requesting help getting WiFi working with SUSE 10 Pro, I was told 'Don't use SUSE 10 Pro', even after I had delineated explicitly why I needed to use SUSE 10. Which is the same thing that happened 2 or 3 years ago when I first tried. Just as you say, I said, "I need to do X", only to be told, "Don't do X, do Y".

I thought it might be a good idea to explain a few things.
I can only speak for my world, and it may not be one you've thought about much.

I'm a carer for a disabled adult, so I dont work for a wage. I do however voluntarily help the disabled sector in return for the benefits I'm on instead because I hate being thought of as a scrounger.

I build hardware and write software to help the community I'm in, and this ranges from sanitary aids to communications robotics and AI. The community is vast, and isnt served very well by the industry, which mass-produces one-fits-all solutions that do very well for the average able bodied and able minded person.
They do not do very well for the disabled sector, and need modification to work for them. Windows used to be brilliant - I went through 3.1, 95, 98 and XP and was able to provide speech recognition and synthesis and control systems usually by writing around Windows, certainly in the later versions. When Vista came out, I was suddenly locked out of all the subsystems I was used to coding for, and had to negotiate with Windows for resources instead. It was a nightmare until I learned Linux's subsystems well enough and dumped Microsoft completely.

Since the iPad came out, there have been a range of things springing up, like communications tablets that speak, translating languages like PECS and Makton into English, and lately control systems that interact with things that a disabled person has trouble with, but Windows remains resistant.

There is a large, and growing sector of the public that needs something that Windows doesnt do, and that is invisibly adapt to a wide range of applications - this is why Linux is in your TV, in your router, your phone and your home control systems.

...and my actual job title is Linux Engineer...so it's not like I'm a Window's guy. Datacenter needs and typical desktop needs are two different things. Why there's some sort of effort to create converts is completely beyond me. Just use what the heck you want to use, and let everyone else do the same.

I gotta tell you, I suspect we're entering an era where OS wars over PC's is going to become even more pointless than it's always been....and that's pretty pointless.

Joe User doesn't care about switching. He's not ever going to care. He's comfortable with what he does, and any attempt to make him change is going to result in resistance.

Its like trying to make a chav wear something that doesnt have L*nsdale on it.

Some people use Windows because their mates use it and no other reason. You shouldnt try to change them because you arent giving them what they need unless its got that badge on it.

I'm assuming these are cultural references I haven't been exposed to.

for a sector of our culture noted for wearing brands such as L*nsdale.
One is British, old chap.

I starred the name because I figured the spam filter would probably have a fit, it wouldnt be the first time I've had posts rejected because they contain words like h a n d b a g and s u n g l a s s e s...

What are the cultural messages being sent by wearing that branded gear? I haven't heard of it on this side of the Puddle. Heck, I couldn't tell you the social implications of the brands that are popular over here.

There was a problem with the spam filter here once. It would block posts with the word 'suggestion' because of the 'U G G' in the middle (a popular brand of shoes).

Unless its simply a herd or pack mentality, which is what I was actually alluding to when mentioning them.

I wouldnt wear overpriced clothes for their company logo unless they were paying ME to advertise. Newspapers and magazines do very well on this principle, selling space to manufacturers to tout their crap.

Why some wave it like a flag is completely beyond me, and that goes for computers too.

Have a good weekend...

I've used Linux a lot for about 7 years now, I bought a cheap dual core kit from Tiger a couple of years ago and run Mint on it, and I'm running Puppy on an old Dell C610 laptop - the laptop is MUCH faster on Puppy that it ever was on Windows 2000 or XP.. I have had a few issues but a little sleuthing on the net usually turns up a solution. I've used the forums and there is always somebody ready to help.

You may have to use the terminal for somethings but once you get used to it it's not bad. the modern distro's are really very good. I have a couple of coworkers that use it and between us we can usually find a solution to most problems.

The best thing is your not funneling money into Redmond, they have enough already!

I'm turning 70 tomorrow. I love Linux and also have Windows 8 preview on my laptop. Haven't seen the full version of Win 8 but rest assured, it will not be easier (tho it is not difficult) than Linux. I expect the people who struggle with either have always struggled with whatever OS they were using.... and eventually learned enough to work comfortably.

I am always amazed/perplexed by comments that say: 'I can't get Linux to work on my system.'
I have been using Linux (without Windows) since 2006. I have installed it on four personal laptops, from Dell, Lenovo, Averatec and LinuxCertified. I installed, or assisted installing Linux on many other laptops (and desktops, too). I can vouch for the successful installation with the distros of the Debian strain, Mint (my distro of choice for the past 4+years), Ubuntu, Bodhi, Kubuntu, etc. These have all installed and identified and used all hardware, keyboard extra inputs and accessories.
I know there are hardware manufacturers who do not support Linux. This is not Linux's problem, specifically, but it seems to be when it is YOUR hardware! So please try Mint, Bodhi, a new up-and-comer, Zorin for a better chance at your hardware problems.

I'm always amazed when people don't realize there's a 'Reply' button directly beneath each comment, one that will append their reply directly to the same 'branch' as the one they're responding to, and far away at the bottom of the page.

Yes, when I made that comment, there were only 5 comments here. Assumed (oh boy) that it would stick there!

We've had discussions with as many as several hundreds of posts. A couple of classics went into the low thousands.

nt

... it's a mindset issue. For the most part, computers and software are a specialised area that *require* study to understand thoroughly. Those that say: "I can't get Linux to work on my system" are trying to leverage their "knowledge" - where they've been handheld through a few choices - to sort out how to boot to iso on a stick, how to change boot-priority, how to first check whether drivers exist for your hardware, what hardware you have, exactly, etc.
In the case of the bloke who couldn't get his scanner and printer drivers to work: I'd say he was using the proprietary software that forms an interface in Windows that he expected to see showing up in GNULinux as well. Probably installed everything and then met with disappointment when it didn't behave as expected.

Manufacturers won't create GNULinux solutions for specialised software and hardware unless you're Pixar and have serious money to throw at them. But for the casual user, GNULinux has a faster, easier solution. We have a networked HP colour laser printer on our home network. Ubuntu and Mint finds it, installs the drivers from repositories and I'm done.
For, say, Windows XP I have to first find the printer: no mean task, since Win XP doesn't know what to do with a network address - it wants the official name. Then you have to go to the website and download the drivers. Then install the drivers.
Mean time to install a printer on a GNU box: @ 12 seconds
Mean time to install a printer on a Windows box (any flavour: @ 15-20 minutes

I have installed Linux on many systems (I only did dual boot once) and was only defeated by the D600. Fairly recently I installed Ubuntu on my homebrew desktop, with many legacy parts that were more than ten years old, and it just worked. It even found a fireware update for the really old wifi card which gave it the latest security standards, something which W2k (the previous OS) never did.

I remember the days when after installing the OS, I would have to search for drivers that would work with some bit of hardware. The newer distros are great because they come with almost, and I mean almost, every driver you could ever need. But they don't come with every single one - that would not be possible. There are too many obscure bits of hardware, and too many new ones appearing every day. And the place where I have had the most difficulty is with laptops.

I am disappointed that revdjenk assumed that I had not made some effort towards getting the laptop working. I am not a computer newbie whom assumes that everything is either a one-click success or broken. Although programming is my "thing", I have plenty of scars from the sharp edges you find on the insides of a pc case (its the blood that gives it life!) both from repairing and new builds, and I can use a search engine.

Talking of search engines, all I found at that time were messages from lots of others who had the same problem with the same model.

I am glad to hear that others are having more success. It is a year since I gave up on the laptop, and the combined number of releases of the various varieties of Linux that I keep track of is more than twenty, so I might give it another go. But a search conducted between writing this shows many recent complaints about installing to laptops, and lack of support for many laptop flavours, so maybe I will wait for the New Year.

The various operating systems all have their place, their proponents and their detractors. Having used variants of LInux for about a decade and a half, variants of MSDOS before and after they came with GUIs attached, and even CP/M and OS/2 in their heyday, I guess I'm used to the bickering.
We use Linux-based web servers for cost, stability and for their best compatibility with the CMS packages, based on the CMS's own recommendations. I use a Linux workstation as the "sacrificial lamb" in our local office for open staff access for web searches and access - no-one has managed to infect it yet, unlike its fire-walled and virus-protection-loaded Windows predecessors. I follow the same practice with the kids at home, for the same reason and with equal success. They are growing up in a "racially-integrated" environment and have been comfortable moving between one OS and another since well before attaining double-digit ages..
However, that does not stop us from using predominantly Windows machines in the enterprise, and SQL Server rather than open-source database, largely due to the availability of software that we need.
Personally, my favorite machine is my iMAC, capable of running Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12/04 VMs under Parallels to get the best of all worlds.
Play with them, learn their strengths and weaknesses. The writer is merely pointing out just how far the Linux GUI has come in becoming a user-friendly appliance, rather than an enthusiast's playground (rather like the early days of MS-DOS and Windows, compared to the Mac).

I've used both Windows and some version or other of Linux since 2001, and I can get by with either -- until I need an application that is present in a Windows version, but for which there is no good substitute made for the Linux platform. I've never seen it the other way around, however. Other than this, it's all a matter of which platform one is used to using.

Linux has one great advantage, and that is that it makes less demand on the hardware. A box that can't run a modern version of Windows still can do Linux just fine.

I think the best way for Windows users to learn to use Linux (not talking about power users, just the typical clueless Windows user) is to get a Puppy live CD/DVD and play with it. It's the easiest OS to learn, with helpful wizards to walk you through most tasks, very rare to need to use command line.

Even if you decide to stick with Windows, this is a very useful thing to have on hand as a back-up OS. If Windows won't boot, you can use it to fix Windows, or as a substitute. Since the entire OS loads into RAM, you can use it even if your HD has failed completely. It has the option to put its save files on the boot disc, so all your bookmarks
and other data can be available in that situation.

Loaded completely into RAM, it's blazing fast, too - after using it, you may find Windows seems slow and tired. It's fun, too, and safe to experiment with - if you mess it up, just don't save the session and it never happened.

My first Linux experience was with early Red Hat, before it went commercial. It was a lot like MS-DOS and a few other CLI OSes of the time, although they were dying out. Red Hat was a fun toy, but I couldn't do any work in it - and I had a job to perform.

Tried several distros since then, and yes, Linux is getting better. But I've still had to spend about a third of my time with CLI as superuser. I don't mind a command line interface, per se, but it is irritating when /d means seven (7) different things for six (6) different commands. And I have to login *again* for each of those commands. Or, relearn what /xxx means on a different distro.

What Bill Gates (MS) brought to the party was standardization. Everything written for the platform had to follow certain constraints, but all could count on certain [support] elements being present. That's not true of Linux distros. Too many variant dependencies, depending upon which desktop you choose for whichever distro. If you need a new application, all dependencies must be present or must be installed. In a corporate environment, that likely means a call to IT staff. And in that environment, IT is prolly gonna be overworked .

Linux is simply too splintered to be effective competition to Windows on the desktop. If everyone in an office/business/industry is using the same version of the same distro, stuff works. But let a few upgrade to a newer version of that same distro, and communication suffers, things break (just like Windows). And let someone in that same group go to a different distro - communication could be truncated. This is not theory. I've seen it happen.

Bottom line, for me, is that Linux is a fun toy, but when I have to get work done, I must revert to Windows. Performance and collaboration issues require it, as do certain applications (e.g., MS Publisher).

>But I've still had to spend about a third of my time with CLI as superuser.

What the heck are you doing and what distros are you using? I've been using OpenSUSE now for two years of 8+hours a day business and home use and I've had to edit precisely one config file during that time. You can't possibly be spending that much time on the CLI as superuser if you're using the system for desktop purposes, which is what we're talking about. Not even if you're running Gentoo or Arch... well maybe Slackware.

At the least, you might want to think about changing the permission levels on your login account.

>Too many variant dependencies, depending upon which desktop you choose
>for whichever distro.

There's three major desktops, KDE, Gnome and Unity, and two or three minor ones. They're either based on Qt or GTK+ libraries, and a desktop based on one can run the software developed for the other. There's no complication with users running different desktops, even on the same machine.

>If you need a new application, all dependencies must be present or must be
>installed. In a corporate environment, that likely means a call to IT staff.

And THIS is where your understanding of Linux has to be called into account. You seem to suggest that installing programs is a complicated process requiring IT experts. You either don't understand modern Linux or you have even darker motives (or again you're a poor unfortunate soul running Slackware). Barring Slackware, every other Linux distribution offers package management out of the box. A user simply clicks a checkbox to pick the software they wish to install and the package manager automatically determines whatever other dependencies are required and selects them for install also. If there's a conflict, the package manager will be able to explain it and offer possible solutions. Modern package managers like OpenSUSE's zypper employ a mathematical technique called a "SAT Solver" which mathematically guarantees being able to find a solution to package/dependency installation if one exists (which in practice is rather awesome). No one needs to "call IT staff" to install software on Linux. In fact, Linux software is much, much simpler to install than Windows software, including quiet installs. One can simply select all the software desired and then walk away while the package manager handles everything. The file system can even change (or delete!) files that are still in use by queueing up the change for once the file is closed, making reboots almost totally unnecessary.

To tell readers who don't know better that software installation is so complicated on Linux that one needs IT staff to do it is absurd and hard not to call a blatant lie unless you're simply completely ignorant about modern Linux and haven't used it since "before Red Hat went commercial", which was in 1999.

>And in that environment, IT is prolly gonna be overworked .

Meanwhile, the city of Munich, Germany is completing the transition of about 12,000 desktops to their own distribution of Linux which they've dubbed LiMux. "The maximum number of [IT] complaints was 70 per month before the beginning of the switch to LiMux. After the number of LiMux workplaces increased from 1,500 to 9,500, the maximum number of complaints per month dropped to 46. This leaves Ude to conclude that the decline in complaints was due to the migration to LiMux." They've not only saved money, but their IT support staff is now LESS busy with user problems than when they ran Windows.

>Linux is simply too splintered to be effective competition to Windows on the
>desktop.

More FUD. Linux is Linux; they all run the Linux kernel; Linux software runs on any Linux distribution. Windows boxes have all sorts of different software installed on them, but they're all still Windows, aren't they? It's no different than with Linux. Also, Windows is a monopoly. Nothing can compete with a monopoly; even the Apple marketing juggernaut and its billions only gives it about a 5%-6% market share vs. Linux's 1%. Until vendor lock-in ends (and the "post PC" era in which cross platform, Java, virtualization, the cloud and web apps is making that happen) nothing can compete with Windows on the desktop. That's the elephant in the room no one talks about when discussing desktop figures.

>If everyone in an office/business/industry is using the same version of the
>same distro, stuff works. But let a few upgrade to a newer version of that same
>distro, and communication suffers, things break (just like Windows).

1. If we're talking about a business, how can a few machines magically upgrade on their own? OS upgrades are carefully planned (and tested) in businesses, which makes your scenario silly.
2. "Communication" doesn't break when a Linux distro upgrades, or anything else for that matter. Again - it's all still Linux and everything's still compatible. I really don't follow what you're even saying, but it sure sounds ominous.

> And let someone in that same group go to a different distro - communication
>could be truncated. This is not theory. I've seen it happen.

No, you haven't seen it happen, because you haven't used Linux in this century. What is this "communication" that gets "truncated"??? The words you're using don't even mean anything in the context you're using them. Are you talking about networking? And "truncated" means to cut short - something that makes no sense at all in that sentence. The reality is every Linux distribution is Linux and distros can and do play nicely with each other, as do other desktops. You're making vague claims that are so meaningless that no one can refute them because they don't actually mean anything (like a health food huxter claiming their product "promotes well-being" or something).

>Bottom line, for me, is that Linux is a fun toy, but when I have to get work
>done, I must revert to Windows. Performance and collaboration issues require
>it, as do certain applications (e.g., MS Publisher).

Linux performs as well as, or better than, Windows. Tom's Hardware benchmarked Ubuntu vs. Windows 7 and found the ext4 file system could copy large files around the hard drive 20% faster than NTFS, for instance. Valve is porting Left 4 Dead 2 to Linux and found that after only a few weeks of tweaking they already have a Linux test system pumping out a few more frames per second than Windows. That's not even taking into account the slowdown that occurs from running a real-time virus scanner under Windows. As Tom's concluded, on the benchmarks that really matter a Linux OS matches or beats a Windows system.

Collaboration issues? Linux supports open standards so you can collaborate better than Windows. Heck, out of the box my Linux desktop supports reading and writing to both NTFS and OS X's HFS+, while Windows can't read anyone else's file systems by default. Heck, Windows' partition manager will report Linux partitions as "unknown", even though every partition has a two byte code associated with it that identifies the file system. Like Voldemort, Microsoft considers Linux it which must not be named.

As to MS Publisher - a Windows program requires Windows... I'm shocked. But the problem is that you've chosen to use an entry-level desktop publishing program that only runs on Windows - in other words, vendor lock-in. In fact, it gets even worse, as Wikipedia outlines....

"Publisher's position as an entry-level application aggravates many issues (particularly in older versions) such as fonts unavailable and embedded objects not available on service providers' machines. Instead, Publisher comes with tools to pack related files into a self-expanding application.
Compatibility
Publisher's proprietary file format (.pub) is unsupported by almost all other applications, including other Microsoft products, although Corel Draw X4 features 'open only' support, and there is an ongoing work on converter for LibreOffice with support for 972013 versions of the PUB file format. As such, Publisher is generally recognised to be of limited functionality where multiple-user electronic editing or dissemination is concerned. Adobe's PageMaker software saves files with a .pub extension but the two files are incompatible and unrelated. Publisher supports numerous other file formats, including the Enhanced Metafile (EMF) format which is supported on Windows platforms. The Microsoft Publisher trial version can be used to view .pub files beyond the trial period."

Your "performance" issues have led you to choose an entry-level program, and your interest in "collaboration" has led you to choose a Windows-only program whose default file format is proprietary and unreadable by most other software. Essentially you've locked yourself into a prison and then in the name of "collaboration" require everyone else to lock themselves into the same cell to collaborate with you! It's not a shortcoming of Linux, but rather an unbelievably shortsighted software strategy that mandates you use Windows. Your collaboration problems are all self-caused because you choose single-platform software and proprietary file formats. A check of Wikipedia's comparison of DTP software shows that you've chosen one of only about 3 major programs out of the 18 listed that are Windows only and one with one of the shortest lists of import and export capabilities, including no support for PDF, postscript, Latex or SVG, which are open and universal formats. Meanwhile, you could have chosen Scribus, saved yourself $140, gained cross-platform compatibility and basically the largest set of supported export formats of them all. You only need to "revert to Windows" because you've attached a chain between it and yourself. The rest of us have no problem embracing real performance and collaboration.

"One can simply select all the software desired and then walk away while the package manager handles everything."
That is only true if the program you want is in the Repository.
If it isn't then it's "off to do battle" with the Terminal.

That copy and paste this is definitely advanced technology. Let's say I want to have the latest version of Blender (I do 3D modelling and rendering) on my system at all times.
-- I google "Blender ppa". Top of the heap is "https://launchpad.net/~irie/+archive/blender"
-- Scroll down to the section that says "Adding this PPA to your system"
-- Open Terminal (graphically, from a menu... LOL)
-- The instructions are all right there in that 'Read about installing' section. Really complicated, too... copy and past this line into terminal:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:gwibber-daily/ppa
Terminal prompts you *ONCE* for your password (since you're doing something admin level, not all the bloody time, whenever it feels like it, even if you're still on the same task, like Windows does)
-- Now issue a "sudo apt-get update" (you won't get the password prompt this time: GNULinux knows you're still working at the same task here)... you can copy and paste *this* from the ppa instructions. I'm lazy. I do.
-- Now do your software update from the GUI as usual. Voila, you have the absolute latest greatest clean build of your favourite software! AND - something Windows can never claim - whenever the system prompts you... just a wee icon change that politely lets you know that new stuff is out there to update your system with, won't rudely interrupt what you're doing BY DEFAULT (unless you change the Windows update behaviour). After the update, you have not only OS updates but *software* updates!

Oh, yeah. This is how an OS *should* behave.

OpenSUSE has a few features that make this scenario even easier. The first is "one click install". If I want to distribute an OpenSUSE package on my website, for instance, I can just include a "one-click" button image. This downloads and launches a small file that provides the repository information and launches the package manager, which will then ask if you want to keep the repository (for future updates). Either way the package manager then proceeds to download and install the required files and possible dependencies. No copying, pasting or command line involved.
OpenSUSE also created what was originally the OpenSUSE Build Service which later became the Open Build Service and open to other distros (including Ubuntu, but sadly most Ubuntu packagers don't make use of it). This provides an automated solution for building and distributing packages. Anyone interested in creating a package for OpenSUSE (like the latest version of Blender, per your example) can use it to do so. Users can search the OBS and find the package easily (OpenSUSE even makes a Firefox search plugin, and OBS can detect your running OS and highlight the appropriate version). With OBS users can not only download the package and/or add the repository, but OBS also generates "one-click install" links for packages as well, so generally a user just needs to search for the package name and then click the one-click install button to download, install and optionally permanently add the repository. OBS automatically rebuilds packages when dependencies are changed as well.
Because of this, compiling or installing outside the package manager is rarely necessary. And if it is, the first person to have to do so can just add the requisite files and set up a package on OBS and then no one else will have to do so again, which again makes needing to manually install software quite rare. There also semi-official repositories that always contain the latest kernel, latest desktop, latest Mozilla or LibreOffice software, etc. This makes it easy to keep the system as stable or cutting edge as one desires, again without needing the command line.

Ubuntu 10 vs OpenSUSE 12 (on my PC)

In Ubuntu 10 you:
- Click on the notification
- Click on Install
- Enter your password

In OpenSUSE 12 you:
- Click on the notification
- Click on Install
A new window appears saying you have to install these other items(!?)
- Accept the extra items
- Enter your password

It does that every time on my PC (just like Fedora 14 & 15 did).

The Open Build Service sounds like a useful tool.

...letting you know about extra dependencies because you may want to change your mind and not install once you know about them. OpenSUSE doesn't hide anything from the user or ever do anything without the user's informed consent first. However, I believe you can check a box and turn off the dependency notifications.

I thought that it was for that reason.
I don't know enough about kernel objects, libraries, etc. for it to be much help to me.

I don't like using those "kill this message box" options (in any software).
Once you've killed them how do you get them back?

"Murphy's Law" also suggests that once you've killed the message box, you'll miss an important message.

IMO, operating systems should have an option that determines the size of error messages:
- Detailed: Multiple paragraphs
- Standard: One or two paragraphs
- Brief: One or two lines
- Alert: "I did this" message
- None: Terminal-style (for experts who hate messages)

It's interesting how the same software behaves differently on different PCs.

"Terminal prompts you *ONCE* for your password (since you're doing something admin level, not all the bloody time, whenever it feels like it, even if you're still on the same task, like Windows does)"

I've never had that happen on W7 (GUI or Command Prompt).
At least in Windows GUIs you can pre-provoke "Rights Elevation".

OTOH, I played with 2 Vista laptops.
One behaved just like the Apple ad (the UAC went off constantly).
The other behaved just like W7.

Talking about random password demands, it's fair enough that I have to enter my password to install updates, but why do I have to enter my password to check for updates (in Ubuntu 10)?

What you describe isn't any easier than:
- Locate the program
- Download it
- Start the installer
- Give permission
- Follow the prompts

It is easier to update everything in Linux than Windows though.

BTW, I do use copy and paste for Terminal instructions (once I've located them).

DIFFERENT to learn? Yes. Then again so are DOS, VMS, JCL, AOS, OS X, versions of WIndows, etc. The subtle (or not) differences between various various distros are similar to the dialect differences that exist in human languages.

...for instance. That's not going to come with a completely flat learning curve, by all accounts.

Metro is awful.

Perhaps these folks are too MS, Apple, centric?

I use Linux servers on a daily basis. I tried having a Linux desktop (Mint) at one point, but I gave up on it. I wanted it to work, but there were just too many annoyances.

I use Photoshop Elements for adjusting photographs. Gimp is ok, but I found I had to jump through many more hoops to get things done. It also didn't have nearly as many smart tools as PS.

I like playing games. Not much else needs to be said here. Lots of games are available for Windows. Most of them are not available for Linux.

I ran some Windows apps with Wine, but PS and most games do not work well.

My printer worked, but as someone else mentioned, there were far fewer print options available as compared to the same printer in Windows.

After living with it for a few months, I finally gave up and went back to Windows.

An argument can be made that Unity is easier for a Windows XP or 7 user to learn than Windows 8. Pro and anti screamers on both sides will drown out any reasonable discussion, so I'll stay away from it. And just as many Linux distributions now come with easy-to-learn GUI controls, with PowerShell and Server Core Microsoft is providing command line controls. On Linux or Windows you can use GUI or command line controls as you see fit.

The deal breaker for my clients is one or more of QuickBooks, Photoshop, the rest of Adobe CS, and AutoCAD. There are respectable open source and web-based products that do those kinds of work, but those products have no serious competition that runs on Linux.

I can competently navigate in the KDE interface - I can run and use Linux apps. But my last real experience with Linux was as follows:

Have a spare laptop - Pentium III with 512 MB RAM (IIRC, maybe 1 GB). Had a copy of SUSE 10 Pro a friend had given me (commercial package, manuals, and all). Should work fine on the hardware (Toshiba Portege 7200). Slapped in a PCMCIA WiFi card and installed everything. Everything works great EXCEPT WiFi, which I realistically need to make the machine usable.

So, after working with it for a while without success, I go online to a Linux forum to ask advice. The advice I get back is:
Use newer version of SUSE (probably not going to work on the older hardware)
Get newer laptop AND newer version of SUSE (not going to happen for money reasons)
The one that floored me: You don't have enough RAM to run a GUI. Say WHAT?!! I'd already provided a LOT of detail, including what I saw in KDE (which is, last time I checked, a GUI), so WTH?!
It's hard to ask advice and then dis the free advice you get, but if the community wants to grow Linux, there has to be more than that. After that last 'you can't run a GUI' response, I saw no more responses to my queries, leading me to believe that the frankly stupid and superficial advice made everyone think, 'Well, that guy's question has been answered.' Yeah, with a stupid and irrelevant response, but how much help you gonna get if you complain about the poor quality of the again, FREE, advice?
That pretty much made me give up. I'd been fooling with Linux off and on for about 7 years or so, but that experience finally pushed me off the cliff with Linux. Maybe someday I'll try again, but I can't help feeling like my experience was PROBABLY not that unique.

would have us believe. Aside from the usual collection of muppets, (they give you bad answers about windows with equal aplomb), it's a part of the windows is not linux difficulty, there's a huge range of assumptions made, and like many uber geeks they have great difficulty explaining the "obvious".
That's a geek fault not a nix one though, see it everywhere.

No issue with your comment, I'm just commenting on all of them in general and I closed with yours.

Just reading some of the comments of people who gave it a go and decided against it, many of them made the right decision. Please don't take that the wrong way. All I'm saying is if my career weren't tied up in using unix toolsets, and I hadn't been doing it for longer than I want to admit, I wouldn't just up and say, "Hey, I'm going to wipe my machine and put another OS on it."

Jack, and others who think the world should convert their desktops, are acting pretty darn irrational about what amounts to bits and bytes.

Linux is not marginalized. I make a good living as a Linux Engineer working on key nix systems in a very secure environment. It's out there in datacenters and it's not going anywhere and it and other nix flavors have super toolsets.

But it is NOT going to be the primary OS on most desktops, including my own work desktop.

To me the differences between say a well set Ubuntu and windows box, aside from the availability of familiar applications to stick on the desktop are irrelevant. In fact they are quite frankly boring.

If you are an appliance use pick your flavour, go do the things that float your boat.

I'm not always an appliance user, neither windows nor Ubuntu meet my needs at that point. I want to try, to learn, to investigate, to experiment, to float my boat.

All Jack can see is Ubuntu's popularity helping him finally "win" the Windows versus Linux debate. He's completely lost sight of the fact that while Ubuntu is Linux, Linux is not Ubuntu. So now I treat his advice and opinions with same amount of respect I would a Window's fanboys.

None.

Although Jack's demeanor in print is reasonable, he doesn't approach these things from a logical perspective. He has decided to back the Linux/Ubuntu horse no matter what, and will find justifications to support his pre-determined point of view - completely independent of logic or sound judgment.

Just like most people do, unfortunately.

If you squint a bit linux is out of scope, Windows is a non linux distro.

Back when I was putzing around with Linux, I received decent support with a minimum of attitude at Linuxquestions.org. This place is pretty good, too!

Hey, Charlie,

Been a while, and it was multiple forums, so I don't remember for sure. I'm about 85% sure LinuxQuestions was one of them, and I'm about 80% sure that it was where I got the idiotic 'can't run a GUI response'. Used to run KDE on a Pentium MMX with 96 MB of RAM, so I knew that was dead wrong from the get-go. I actually spent a fair amount of time futzing around with that WiFi card in the Portege, never did get it to work. Still have that Portege, still got SUSE installed on it, might try again some day.

On the somewhat humorous flip side, I currently work at a Help Desk. We have a separate Unix/Linux Help Desk, and I try to get as much helpful info as possible before passing tickets over to their side. Far and away most of the time, when I ask a user what Linux distribution they're using, they don't even understand that question. D'oh!

...is definitely good advice. With Linux the drivers are in the kernel, and if the kernel you're using predates the release of your wifi chipset, that's going to be a problem. On top of that, I don't know how long your copy was eligible to receive updates/support.

You would probably have had the best luck going to opensuse.org for your help.

When I tried to install then current versions of a couple of different distros, they wouldn't work because they apparently didn't have drivers for the older hardware anymore. The WiFi card was also an older one pretty much contemporary with the laptop, that should not have demanded a newer distro.

I'm sure you mean well, and that's appreciated, but you're basically giving me the same advice that did not help to resolve the issue before. It shouldn't be a Sisyphean ordeal to simply get basic WiFi going on a laptop.

I did try opensuse.org and got no help there.

My larger point remains - I was trying to accomplish something that should be simple to do, put substantial effort in to solving the problem on my own without success, then got no real help from the Linux community. Am I complaining about the quality of free advice I got? No, not really. My point is that not being able to get the problem resolved mostly removed me from the community. The Linux community will not grow under those conditions, and I can guarantee most people would not have plugged away at the problem as much as I did. That's a large part of why the OS remains marginalized.

When I refer to Linux as marginalized, I mean specifically as a desktop OS. I know it's got a strong foothold in multiple other areas.

It's a shame that it can't be a better desktop OS than it is - from my perspective (which I'm confident is far from unique), it's tantalizingly close, and could be there, but just isn't quite. As long as it's support structure is as erratic as I've found it to be, it's not a real contender. I like Linux as a concept, and it's made great strides from what it used to be in terms of usability, but I've worked in corporate IT for 17 years, and I can tell you, most corporate IT can't switch until it matures a bit more on the desktop side.

look around and find which version has the look and feel you prefer, kind of like finding out which car has the seating you like best - shop around.

For those who love the Windows look Zorin OS offers a range of GUIs that include Win 2000, Win XP, Win Vista, and Win 7 so you immediately feel at home with the GUI as it's like your current system.

I used unix in various flavors for 15 years. Being able to command rsync to synchronize a file, folder, or application across the world was done with a single intuitive command at the command line. Same with global substitution, data search, file compression, etc. Regular expressions are a must know for any IT pro and adding perl is invaluable - especially in any high-tech design shop.
Besides that built-in mastery of the network and command line simplicity, all flavors of unix have color schemes which are much less problematic than any version of windoze. For example, in SQLserver 2012 they finally have a 'dark' color scheme. But all the numbers default to white, making them hard to read when pasted into outlook - even using the black outlook color scheme. Similar problems have always occurred with every version of Windows 'dark' color schemes.
I have never seen anything close to that on unix. switching from the black on white of windows, to the default green on black in unix is refreshing (and probably healthier). Now that we can run free VMs, loading a windoze OS to boot (for the wife/Outlook), and an ubuntu vm for me keeps everybody happy with little or no performance hit.

I submit NOTHING at the command line (or any other interface) is 'intuitive'.

Correct me please - I must be wrong... to configure network settings you still have to start terminal or similar to set things like domain etc. In Windows you do this in a GUI - there are other similar examples but when ever I set up a friends Linux to work in their home network I have to look up how to get this done using a text based system (some distros use a different text application to add to confusion) - if security is the reason - then perhaps online banking should re evaluate their virtual keyboard inputs!

If you want to use some form of linux my advice is to revive an old desktop, download and install Debian Squeeze from the install iso. This is simple and quick. Forget about networking for the moment and install the gcc compuler suite. That should enable you to write, compile and execute your own programs. There is always the assembler (nasm) just an apt-get away for the geeks, gfortran for numerical work and hundreds of other packages in synaptic. From there the world is your oyster. Remember! Command Line rules, you don't need the GUI.

...who cares? Those who use and love GNULinux are too many to count. And we will keep it not just *alive* but dynamic and growing and cutting-edge that other OSes will copy and steal from but will never ever match because freedom of thought and expression and creativity will *always* be richer and more profound than some dude in an office punching a clock and trying to develop new ideas for an OS.

Which is evidenced quite vividly by the completely banal Win8. Sure, it might have something smoking under that bonnet, but bottom-line, it *looks* pov. Whatever. Not something that is an issue to me. Not here to slam Windows or Microsoft. They have their place, certainly. And most KNOW that place. Most actually only know OF that place. Which is fine, too.

I have some nursing students who are disenchanted with all the frailties of Windows but who don't have the king's ransom to pay that other mob. I do have a solution, but it comes with a few caveats.

BTW, VirtualBox is pretty awesome. So, one can have ones cake and eat it too!

Well., I understand it costs money in developing applications but why do the opensource developing community demand, I repeat DEMAND money for what is called opensource. Instead they can request for donations where the users/organisations will be glad to do so. Am not naming so-called opensource software but they should learn if they read this.

Thankss

.

not free as in beer.

You aren't complaining about them wanting to be rewarded for their efforts, you are whining because you couldn't get something for nothing.

-1 for being a hypocrite

I've been using Linux for about 6 years now. I see a lot of commentary about how it's too hard for the "average user", there's no good place to get started or to find help, etc. I work in tech support full time and I work with techs every day, so it stands to reason that I'm more tech-centric that most of the people I meet on the street. I think, as tech people, we tend to overlook the fact that the "average user" never wants or has to worry about installing Windows, or installing very much in the way of software, or resolving printer issues, etc. They just want to use their computer. They buy Windows machines pre-loaded, take 'em home and plug 'em in, step through the very few, very basic initial setup wizard, and just proceed to use the machine. Let's face it, this is an option that doesn't really exist in the Linux world. I know there are a few vendors selling and supporting pre-loaded Linux systems, but unless you know where to look, you'll never find them. I have yet to see a Linux system for sale at Wal-Mart or Best Buy. And oddly enough, even though Dell does preload Ubuntu, you have to pay a $200 premium to buy a system pre-loaded with a free OS! I haven't quite figured that one out yet...
Truth is, if you take an already loaded and tweaked Linux box and put it in the hand of a non-techie and spend about 30 minutes going over the basics with them, they will be able to do almost everything your average user needs to do. Case in point, I have a real good friend who is extremely non-technical, and who has two teenage children who like to do the kinds of things with computers that almost guarantee malware infections on a Windows box. I take care of his computers for him, and a while back he brought me his desktop, which was suffering from a crippling infection for the third time in as many months. I didn't have available time to work on it as the moment, as a complete wipe and reload was the only cure, so I took him a Fedora box that I'd been using (I have several around the house), plugged it in to his network, set up a user account and printer for him, and showed him how to navigate Gnome 2 well enough that the could get around on the box. It took about a month and a half before I could find the free time to reload his system, during that time he called twice with simple questions that I could easily answer over the phone. When I finally called him to tell him that I had his system ready, he kinda hesitated for a minute, then asked me what I had put back on it. When I told him I had reloaded Windows on it, he hesitated again and then asked, "Can you put this stuff on it? The kids and I have done anything we wanted to do on it since you brought it over, and we haven't had a minute's trouble out of it." I loaded Fedora on his desktop and took it home, and the only time it's been worked on since then was to add a new printer he bought. It's been running trouble free for over two years, where before I was having to disinfect his system at least every 3 months regardless of whatever antivirus and antimalware software he was running.
I think that's why Linux is catching on much faster in the enterprise world than on the home desktop. The enterprise has IT staff to handle the difficult stuff and a phone number to call when things go wrong, and all the user has to do is use the machine. If some of the larger vendors would get serious about supporting the Linux desktop, instead of the few that sell Linux preloaded systems acting like they're embarassed to do so, the percentage numbers on the Linux user base would skyrocket.

I just want my desktop to work with as little of my time and effort as possible. Time spent learning how to edit the xconfig file to get my tv-out to work is time that I could spend working or learning something else. And as the OS changes, whatever I've learned becomes obsolete.

Of course windows has it's idiosyncrasies as well. Although, it seems to me the solutions are usually simpler and implemented faster. But the main reason I'm going to stay with windows is I have to work on windows and I'm not interested in investing time in both.

you have to learn them for Windows. Many versions like Ubuntu and Zorin you just install and use - easier too if you have a friend who can install it for you.

Recently set up a system for a friend's daughter with Zorin OS 6 and the Win 7 interface for her. She says it's easier to use than the Win 7 laptop she has. That's from the daughter who has a learning difficulty and is hard pressed to remember to connect on the Fire Fox logo to get the Internet.

I rember the first time I opened office with it's new ribbon thingy, spent the next ten minutes trying to figure out where Print went.
It's not that you don't want to learn Linux, it's that you don't want to learn KDE or Gnome.
You are an appliance user, fair enough, but the only myth I see is the idea that the rest of us are, as well.

It's not just the interface. It would be if the GUI always did everything for me but I still need to install software, connect to network shares and get new hardware to work.

I'm not saying you are wrong to stick with windows because you know it.

I'm not saying there's something wrong with you because you don't want to make the effort to move away from it.

What I am saying is Linux is not windows. It's the expectation that "you won't notice the difference" that gets most first (or even 2nd and 3rd) attempters.