The Future of Linux ( How A Windows Zealot changed)

[Dr_Deadmeat]

Personally I switched because my windows system broke down cause of a virus and a friend of mine recommended Ubuntu... I'd got the 5.10 cd's from shipit, and from that moment of I have been using linux (except now I am dual booting for a time... Movie making, and I have to use Sony Vegas and Camtasia Studio for that movie (video screen capture of a native Windows game)

[tribaal]

I converted a few fellow students today by showing them.... 3ddesk!
So I understand what you mean when you say your first convert liked gdesklets

Keep up, we're fighting bug #1, one user at a time

- trib'

[TeeAhr1]

Heh, yeah, 3ddesk knocked my roommate's socks clean off too. Made me giggle

[iblastoff]

as someone who is currently dual-booting ubuntu, i find a lot of these responses to the 'why linux is better' front seem far exaggerated. now, i am hardly a microsoft lover and i fully support what the linux/open source community is trying to accomplish. but a lot of users seem to be on this high horse about the whole thing.

someone threw in the fact that their friends xp comp took 5 whole minutes to boot into windows with all the anti-spyware etc programs loading up? come on now. even my mom's old pIII with xp and the regular slew of startup programs didnt take that long.

and i dont really understand the whole 'cute sounds' and gdesklet arguments that you 'can't do' on windows. there are a billion different programs you can use in the XP environment to accomplish the same thing. windows blinds? the whole stardock lineup? the many different shells (litestep etc etc) you can use instead of explorer.exe? if you know what you're doing on an xp box, then you know your options are endless.

the only real ways to get viruses on XP is if you're surfing through various porn/warez/questionable sites, or you're silly enough to open up random email attachments. i have never even gotten a virus on my XP box in my life! i honestly have no idea how other people manage to do so. just on this fact alone its clearly the users fault and not the operating system. of course i also use firefox.

and lets face it, a newbie linux user has FAR more of a chance in messing up their computer than a newbie XP user. the whole point of windows wasnt to just let users do whatever the hell they wanted to their system. it simply wasnt meant to be toyed around with like linux. boundaries and rules have to be set in order to guide users along. but really, there was not one thing i couldn't customize in windows if i really wanted to. and most of it was a hell of a lot easier than trying to get my wireless card working in ubuntu.

honestly though, why are you really booting into linux? personally like a few others, i just got 'bored' of windows and decided to try something new. but in the end, the only reason its even on my computer is because it just looks different. not because its any better than windows. i still go back into xp to actually get some real work done (i use photoshop/illustrator/macromedia suite. none of which even remotely have an equivalent on linux. and yes i've tried gimp, nvu, etc).

i still cant figure out why the hell the flash plugin for firefox decides to play through my onboard sound instead of my sound card.

[aysiu]

as someone who is currently dual-booting ubuntu, i find a lot of these responses to the 'why linux is better' front seem far exaggerated. now, i am hardly a microsoft lover and i fully support what the linux/open source community is trying to accomplish. but a lot of users seem to be on this high horse about the whole thing.

Which only serves to turn away new users from Ubuntu, unfortunately. I'm all for telling it like it is, not exaggerating the faults of Windows or the merits of Ubuntu. I think at least some of the exaggeration comes as a counterpoint to some people exaggerating the faults of Ubuntu and/or Linux, though.

someone threw in the fact that their friends xp comp took 5 whole minutes to boot into windows with all the anti-spyware etc programs loading up? come on now. even my mom's old pIII with xp and the regular slew of startup programs didnt take that long.

What probably you and that "someone" are missing out on is the variety of experiences out there. Windows XP may be Windows XP, but it doesn't run the same on everyone's computers, and not everyone has the same computers.

I know this because XP flies like a demon on my eMachines at home, but I also use XP at work, and it's slow as molasses on my Dell computer at work. It doesn't mean Dell is slower, but the two machines are not configured in the same way, and they don't have the same processors, even though they have the same amount of RAM.

This is the biggest problem with anecdotal experience. One user assumes because she has a slow boot on XP and a fast boot on Ubuntu that Ubuntu is just faster. Another user assumes because she has a fast boot on XP and a slow boot on Ubuntu that XP is faster.

The only way to see things properly is through aggregate experience.

and i dont really understand the whole 'cute sounds' and gdesklet arguments that you 'can't do' on windows.

Did someone say you can't do those on Windows? I thought it was quite the opposite--that people were just sharing what got others interested in Ubuntu. It may have been falsely on the perception that those things could not be done in Windows, but those were just the triggers that got them interested in Ubuntu. I don't think anyone said, "Yeah, those cute sounds--there's no way to do that in Windows, absolutely no way."

there are a billion different programs you can use in the XP environment to accomplish the same thing. windows blinds? the whole stardock lineup? the many different shells (litestep etc etc) you can use instead of explorer.exe? if you know what you're doing on an xp box, then you know your options are endless.

Yes and no. There are certain hacks that will allow your Windows XP box to look pretty smooth, but I've used Windowblinds and Stardock, and... they looked like crap--the themes were not well integrated. They were actually what ultimately pushed me to Linux because, like you, I got bored with Windows.

And some people, like me, are cheapskates and don't want to pay Windowblinds money or put up with their "Do you want to upgrade to premium?" nagware.

Ubuntu allows you to theme easily and cost-free.

the only real ways to get viruses on XP is if you're surfing through various porn/warez/questionable sites, or you're silly enough to open up random email attachments. i have never even gotten a virus on my XP box in my life! i honestly have no idea how other people manage to do so. just on this fact alone its clearly the users fault and not the operating system. of course i also use firefox.

Um, a lot of users do open random email attachments, click random links, and use Internet Explorer and go to porn/warez/questionable sites. Do you really think those users are the minority?

and lets face it, a newbie linux user has FAR more of a chance in messing up their computer than a newbie XP user. the whole point of windows wasnt to just let users do whatever the hell they wanted to their system. it simply wasnt meant to be toyed around with like linux. boundaries and rules have to be set in order to guide users along. but really, there was not one thing i couldn't customize in windows if i really wanted to. and most of it was a hell of a lot easier than trying to get my wireless card working in ubuntu.

Buy that new user a System 76 computer and give her a Windows XP installer CD and see how easy a time they have of installing XP and setting up the wireless card and everything else.

i still go back into xp to actually get some real work done (i use photoshop/illustrator/macromedia suite. none of which even remotely have an equivalent on linux. and yes i've tried gimp, nvu, etc).

If you depend on Adobe and Macromedia stuff to get your work done, then, yes, you're better off with Windows, but not everyone uses their home computer to get work done. The kind of "work" I do at home is typing up essays, designing and administering websites, checking email, organizing photos, and listening to music. Ubuntu is just fine for all that.

[TeeAhr1]

Good post, aysiu! I did refer to gdesklets and 3ddesk, but mostly in a sardonic way (yes, I know you can...sort of, half-assedly...do some of those things in Windows (I've never tried, myself, but I've heard of windowblinds, etc.), and wasn't trying to say you couldn't. I was more chuckling at the irony of it; people who don't know or care about open source or free software/standards being bowled over by 3ddesk and saying "I have to have it!"

Anyway, I agree with you. I don't think anyone on this thread was trying to oversell Linux or undersell Windows; I certainly was not.

[G Morgan]

I think the biggest thing between Windows and Linux is how there is little real benefit to using either other than the loss of the MS tax if your careful about where you get your machine from. Also third party support does not justify the dominance of an OS whatever people use will get third party support.

[bruce89]

someone threw in the fact that their friends xp comp took 5 whole minutes to boot into windows with all the anti-spyware etc programs loading up? come on now. even my mom's old pIII with xp and the regular slew of startup programs didnt take that long.

Mine does, and it's a AMD Athlon 64 3200+. It doesn't take long to get to the login menu, but after that, it takes ages. It might need defragmenting though, another thing to not worry about in Linux.

[iblastoff]

Which only serves to turn away new users from Ubuntu, unfortunately. I'm all for telling it like it is, not exaggerating the faults of Windows or the merits of Ubuntu. I think at least some of the exaggeration comes as a counterpoint to some people exaggerating the faults of Ubuntu and/or Linux, though.

i think this is exactly what is going on. at least in this particular thread. besides a few initial configuration issues with ubuntu, its been working fine for me.

What probably you and that "someone" are missing out on is the variety of experiences out there. Windows XP may be Windows XP, but it doesn't run the same on everyone's computers, and not everyone has the same computers.

I know this because XP flies like a demon on my eMachines at home, but I also use XP at work, and it's slow as molasses on my Dell computer at work. It doesn't mean Dell is slower, but the two machines are not configured in the same way, and they don't have the same processors, even though they have the same amount of RAM.

This is the biggest problem with anecdotal experience. One user assumes because she has a slow boot on XP and a fast boot on Ubuntu that Ubuntu is just faster. Another user assumes because she has a fast boot on XP and a slow boot on Ubuntu that XP is faster.

The only way to see things properly is through aggregate experience.

of course this is all subjective opinion! this is all anyone really has to offer on these forums. the only factor is the amount of significant experience you can effectively bolster it with. but speaking from a hardware/software point of view, the only reason XP should be taking over 5 minutes to boot is if you have ridiculous amount of startup programs, XP configured to run specifically for a faster computer than the one its hosted on, very slow hard drive rpm, defragging issues, lack of adequate ram, etc etc. this isnt the particular 'computers' fault at all. it still comes down to the user not knowing enough to properly set up their system. but yes i do agree with another post here, i like linux's ability to stay un/defragmented.

Did someone say you can't do those on Windows? I thought it was quite the opposite--that people were just sharing what got others interested in Ubuntu. It may have been falsely on the perception that those things could not be done in Windows, but those were just the triggers that got them interested in Ubuntu. I don't think anyone said, "Yeah, those cute sounds--there's no way to do that in Windows, absolutely no way." Yes and no. There are certain hacks that will allow your Windows XP box to look pretty smooth, but I've used Windowblinds and Stardock, and... they looked like crap--the themes were not well integrated. They were actually what ultimately pushed me to Linux because, like you, I got bored with Windows.

And some people, like me, are cheapskates and don't want to pay Windowblinds money or put up with their "Do you want to upgrade to premium?" nagware.

Ubuntu allows you to theme easily and cost-free.

well the main impression i got from several posts in this thread was that people were touting linux's ability to have docklets and desklets. of course no one literally said you couldnt do that in windows but you can obviously tell they had no idea windows COULD. this isnt a judgement call on their computer knowledge or anything, but actively pursuing to run linux purely because they saw some floating docklets on the desktop means they clearly have not looked into windows full abilities at all. and yes i think it was my mistake in naming some desktop-enhancing programs that cost money. but for every program that does, there are 10 alternate freeware versions as well. eg litestep

Um, a lot of users do open random email attachments, click random links, and use Internet Explorer and go to porn/warez/questionable sites. Do you really think those users are the minority?

of course not. just as a lot of new linux users wind up having to reinstall their linux distro multiple times cause they messed something up, the majority of virus/spyware infection is at the fault of the users themselves, and not the particular OS. i think this point is hardly arguable.

Buy that new user a System 76 computer and give her a Windows XP installer CD and see how easy a time they have of installing XP and setting up the wireless card and everything else.

i dont see how this would be too difficult at all? it would be pretty much the same process as a brand new linux installation, except most likely a little easier due to XP's better hardware support.

If you depend on Adobe and Macromedia stuff to get your work done, then, yes, you're better off with Windows, but not everyone uses their home computer to get work done. The kind of "work" I do at home is typing up essays, designing and administering websites, checking email, organizing photos, and listening to music. Ubuntu is just fine for all that.

this is just a geniune inquiry..if you mostly just type up essays, do websites (which XP is GENERALLY much stronger environment to do so in. if you prefer gimp/nvu/random text editor for some strange reason than thats fine), check email, organize photos and listen to music, then what exactly prompted you to use linux in the first place? boredom is a reason (and also why im using ubuntu right now), but for the majority of computer users who dont do much more than general email/surfing/homework/music/media, i honestly dont see much of a benefit in switching.

[ihavenoname]

This is the biggest problem with anecdotal experience. One user assumes because she has a slow boot on XP and a fast boot on Ubuntu that Ubuntu is just faster. Another user assumes because she has a fast boot on XP and a slow boot on Ubuntu that XP is faster.

OK totally off-topic here but aysiu, I know your an english teacher, so I know there is a reason for why you write something which is the reason I ask this question (in other words I'm not trying to ridicule you in any way), you say "because she" in this post and you say "she" in other posts when you are describing a generic/hypotheitcal ( is that what you would call it?) sitituation, you also use the word "she" why is that? Is there a rule for when you use she and when you use he? I'm just wondering, I am very bad at grammer and I am trying to get better which is why I am asking. Thanx for you help! (also if you see any glaring grammatical errors in any of my posts ( not like "lol" the unintentional erros such as " Me and my friend" and your in the mood to correct me then feel fear, I will take no offense given your background in english and grammer, in fact I will be flattered.)


Also, someone asked me wheather it was really the fake transparentcy in the terminal that got me to use linux, the answer is yes and no. The fake transparency was one of the main "eye-candy" things that got my attention, part of it was the "I can't do that in Windows" effect, but also (and more importantly) it serves as proof that Linux is not infact some obscure OS that uses out dated technology. Besides that I was intrested in trying something other then Windows, I had heard about Linux but I had never gotten a chance to experiance it. I had very litte problems on Windows, unless I was messing with something, which is true with Linux as well (those of us that tried XOrg 7 and Xgl before their time know what I am talking about ) In short there were alot of reasons. I opted not to mention all of them just because I did not see them as offering any thing to the post.

Also, about the general tendency to become "overly excited" about Linux IMHO is not really that bad. It's this excitment that pushes some people to learn more about Linux, to get involved with various Linux and FOSS projects which help improve linux. In a way it's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy in that because they see Linux as being better (than Windows) they strive to make it better and in the end to those people it is better. The way I see things, if someone is excited about something (and that thing is generally not harmful to that person) I see no reason to attempt to "burst their bubble" or give them a reality check. Just my opinon on the matter.