Making a Choice Between OSes
The simple answer: Most people find Windows easier to install.
The explanation: Most people do not install Windows themselves, rather they
ask someone to do it. So basically, an installation for them is as simple as
buying a computer, phoning a friend, or bringing their computer to a
computer shop. You may argue that one can just as easily phone a Linux-user
and have the OS installed. True, but these people don’t even know Linux.
Hence, when challenged to do a Linux install, of course they’ll say Linux
installation is harder.
On the other side of the spectrum are people experienced in installing
Windows by themselves. If you have no idea what /, /root, /home, etc. means
and you have another partition you want to preserve, there is a high chance
of messing things up in Linux, even with the newest graphical installers.
Also, you will need to set at least 2 partitions in Linux, root and swap
(technically, you can do without swap. Technically). On the other hand with
Windows, you have a few simple choices: create and delete partitions, choose
one of those partitions to format to only 2 filesystem choices: NTFS or
FAT32. However, if you use Windows, be aware that regardless if you have
another Linux partition on your system, Windows will happily install itself
as the ONLY OS on your system’s Master Boot Record; you surely won’t mess
things up, because Windows will gladly do it for you.
The simple answer: Driver Hell in Linux is a myth; it’s in Windows as well.
Let’s be honest here, you’re still keeping all your driver CDs because you
KNOW you’ll be needing them. Driver CDs for Linux are non-existent, both
because hardware manufacturers seldom provide Linux drivers on their discs
and those that do provide crappy software, and also because most drivers
you’ll ever need are already built-in into the latest Linux kernels. On my
particular laptop, my video card, sound card, PCMCIA WiFi adapter, USB
controllers, touchpad, webcam, PCMCIA USB 2.0 hub, and just about everything
works without me ever touching any driver files. Unfortunately, since my
laptop isn’t blessed with an NVidia, ATI, or even an Intel graphics card,
OpenGL is out of the question.
Some may argue that most everything can be automatically detected using XP
with service pack so and so. Why do they need service packs anyway? To fix a
Windows release that’s broken or limited? Anyway, on the same particular
laptop, while default XP drivers will display something, it won’t even
display the maximum resolution of my card. And I don’t know anyone who would
want to stick with the default XP drivers, whether it displays the correct
resolutions or not. Windows XP can’t make sound work and neither WiFi, among others (these devices came with driver discs to make them work. Say what? You misplaced them?).
Think Vista made this problem any better? It’s actually gotten worse.
Virus Issues and Other Bad Stuff
The simple answer: There are no viruses in Linux
At least not yet anyway. Let me explain two things first: why Windows gets
so much viruses and how viruses and vulnerabilities are resolved.
Windows gets so much viruses first because there are so many holes. With
each iteration of Windows, they always say “improved security”, but even in
Vista, I doubt much vulnerabilities have been resolved (see 10-year .ANI vulnerability). Most likely, they’ve
created more secuirty holes. Aside from being an easy target, another reason
Windows gets so much viruses is it’s the bigger target, and not just because
of ill-feelings towards MS. Virus makers will target the operating system
with the most users to infect.
Now on curing viruses and preventing hacks, first people must detect them.
People, not antivirus software. Before any anti-virus software catches a
virus, the virus type must first infect an unfortunate somebody who would
report it. And then a mix of paid virus-pharmacists, anti-virus companies,
and MS security guys alike develop protection for these viruses and hacks.
And then they release an update, either for your antivirus software, or an
update for Windows, which a lot of people seem to ignore until it’s too
There’s a similarity between virus-makers/hackers and Linux; they’re both
large communities.While antivirus companies and Microsoft have quite a huge
number of security developers on their payroll, there are much more in the
Linux community watching for vulnerabilities. To be secure, the ratio of
good guys (those that fix holes) and bad guys must be at least balanced.
Even for Microsoft, matching that number of guys is a huge feat. Linux was
built from the ground up with security in mind. Security is not a FEATURE.
It is one of the core values of Linux. While technically there are viruses,
it’s time “in the wild” is much, much more short-lived to be of any effect.
Spyware, adware, and other malware just can’t be installed in Linux due to
this rock-solid security; by default, practically anything that can do harm
that tries to install itself on your computer needs root/your permissions.
You would have to deliberately make your Linux unsecure.
Many people argue that you just have to have common sense and protection,
and you’ll have as virus-free experience in Windows as in Linux. I’ve been
using antivirus software since the age of DOS, 386s, 5 1/4 floppies and
Vir-X, and yet I still got infected. I once tried reinstalling my computer
in my university lab and it gets trojans faster than you can say, “hello
world!”, and long, long, long before you’re able to download service packs,
security patches, and antivirus updates. When I was still learning Linux, I
would try cleaning my Windows partition from Linux using ClamScan, because
Windows got infected from the heavily-firewalled-and-virus-protected office
network and also through my personal anti-virus software. And that was the
last straw for me. Goodbye, anti-virus software. You’ve been my childhood
friends, but it’s time for me to move on.
The simple answer: There is no simple answer
For many people, the applications you can use in Linux is more than enough
for both work and play. For general office needs, there’s OpenOffice, though
for some people this can be a problem since they need to work on proprietary
MS office files. Although OpenOffice does quite a good job in converting
Office files, some things don’t translate properly. Photographers have all
the photo tools in Linux, like Hugin, Gimp, F-Spot, Krita, and RAW image converters,
then again, some photographers prefer to stick to Photoshop. 3D artists can
use Blender, although Maya is essential for a lot of professionals (although it’s possible to install Maya on Linux). Gamers
with the right video card can play most of the popular Windows games through
Wine, but some gamers prefer to play in “pure” Windows. Even developers have enough tools in Linux to develop even .NET software. Web
developers won’t miss much with site development IDEs and Adobe Toolkits,
but they will find that they’ll miss Flash IDE (no equivalent, but Flash 8
works in Wine), Swift, etc. At the end of the day, it really depends on what
programs you’ll need; there are plenty of equivalents in Linux, and then
there are those that do not.
For those applications which have no equivalent, there is the option of
running it inside a virtual machine running Windows. For those who are more
experienced with Linux, Wine is a great option for running many Windows
applications in Linux, but recently, playing with Wine has gotten easier by
Ease of use
The simple answer: Windows is harder than Mac and Linux
And yet, why do so many people claim that it’s hard to use Linux? Firstly,
you must put yourself in the right mindset. You’ve had your whole computing
lives before you to get you to this point of Windows familiarity. You can
never know more about something new than what you know about something
you’ve used for years. So first you have to think about it detached from
your whole Windows experience. For most Windows users, they don’t question
the Windows design anymore. They believe that “Shut Down” being inside the
“Start” menu makes perfect sense. They believe that having all your programs
inside “Programs”, inside “Start” is more orderly than “havin’ that ol’
Linux automatically categorize them into ‘Office’, ‘Internet’, and what-not!”.
What is forced obsolescence? For the uninitiated, it pertains to perfectly good hardware being told it’s too slow/too old by software, in this case, the OS. When using 3D-modelling programs and other high-performance applications, it is certainly a viable reason. However, when an OS tells you that you need a new computer to browse the web, which you could do perfectly before on your old OS and computer, and then the OS maker pulls the plug on support for your current OS such that it eventually gets less secure with every security update that they’re NOT providing you anymore, thus creating a need for you to dump that perfectly good computer and operating system, and buy a new computer and OS, that’s forced obsolescence.
I have gone through four upgrades of my Ubuntu operating system, and I hadn’t had a need to upgrade my hardware yet. I upgraded my memory, true, but not because the OS required it, but because I wanted it. There is obsolescence in Linux, just not forced.
You may say, “ever since I was young, upgrading has always been a fact of life. You need newer computers to run new programs.” When we were young, software continually pushed computer improvements and research, and the trend of computer growth can be described by Moore’s Law. In recent trends, however, many well-written software can no longer catch-up to the speed of computers; there is simply is so much power in our computers today that upgrading isn’t necessary as often as before. While games and other 3D applications still manage to push the envelope, most day-to-day applications such as browsers, office suites, etc. have little to gain by offering a few more bells and whistles just to take advantage of that new power. Having a 4-year old laptop means nothing to me anymore, since I know that Linux can manage the power I have better than Vista can manage the power of a newer, faster computer.
Perhaps one of the most important things you will find out when learning
Linux is not its technological breakthroughs, not the difference between
Windows’ and Linux’s filesystems, not their differences in efficiencies, but
the concept of software freedom and choice.
In a world where practically everyone is raised in Windows, a lot of people
are unaware that their exists a choice. They think that computer = Windows.
When these kind of people by a legal copy of Windows, they are immediately
under the control of a large corporation. “I need to upgrade, because my
computer says so.” Since when did the computer become a master of man?
But their is a choice: a choice to choose something different. Perhaps
better in some respects and worse in others. Freedom from being coerced,
which is just a lovely word for “being forced” and “blackmail”. “You cannot
have this and that feature unless you give us money…er, upgrade your software
to have them.”
In the end, I am not saying that you switch to Linux. I’m saying that a computer is not equal to Windows, and it would do you good to check out the competition like Mac and Linux or even something else. Either choice is better in my opinion, but that’s me.