Why Linux??

I know I'll probably start a flame war here, but I just wanted to ask anyways.

I'm a newbie when it comes to Linux, and am currently in the process on installing RH 8 on a computer, but I want to know:

What advantages, besides not being a pawn to M$, does Linux have over Windoze?


If I was as sexy as I was smart.....I'd still be ugly..DAMN :mad:
**Finally made Newbie...HAPPY DANCE..HAPPY DANCE..**
37 answers Last reply
More about linux
  1. I would have to say that the biggest advantage is the flexibility of linux. You can have a full 2.5 gig linux install with all the bells and whistles: 4 or 5 different desktop environments, GUI eye-candy, free web and ftp serving programs, etc, or you can slim it right down to just a command line running a router.

    If you have a computer that you know is going to be dedicated for one purpose, you can completely customize all of the software installed on that system for that purpose. I remember two guys did a custom install of a linux distro that allowed the computer to route packets and serve files via apache that was a whopping 13 MB install for the OS.

    Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
  2. Flexibility is a a big win. So is the security model. Cost is an advantage, particularly for servers.

    No offence, but I would strongly suggest not putting RH8 on, but use a current distro such as RH9, Mandrake 9.1 or SuSE 8.2. There's a surprisingly large usability different between them.

    <i>Knock Knock, Neo</i>
  3. There are many advantages, but the one that does it for me is control. 0=God, or to put it another way:
    Root. God. What's the difference?
    I work on W2K Advanced Servers, Solaris servers, Linux servers and Netware servers. I hate when some service in windows crashes and I am not allowed to kill it (RPC server anyone?).
    For home use it is more fun if you think computers are fun. You can learn a lot about computers just by playing around in Linux unlike windows (which will take away your powers and opportunities to explore).
    I remember that someone around here had a sig that read:
    "Why Linux? It's the best OS. Why Windows? It's the best Nintendo" and to me that pretty much sums it up (although you can exchange Linux with any *nix in that one).

    The most important thing is that it should be fun!!! Though, it might take a few tries before you 'get it' you will soon love the opportunities offered by a real OS.

    Dev

    ---
    My Sig:
    ))
    (( ___________________
    |||_____________|_____|
  4. Linux is like a book with all you can open and read anywhere.
    Windows is like the last chapter where the story ends.
    A windows user doesn't have to know how things work that is done for you by Microsoft. They also want to think for you and charge you money for it. :-)

    The loving are the daring!
  5. I think on this thusly, Linux gives me the power to control my system in any way I choose. I want two soundcards for 10.2 speaker pwnage, sure! Three video cards for surround-view Quake, no problem. Making a supercomputer in your basement using a stack of old P4's you rescued from the local landfill so you can see your name on top of some protein folding chart, crunch away my friend! Your own DVR without paying licensing fees to TiVO, step right on up! That is the key, Linux is yours! The computer is yours! The power and responsibility is in your hands, noone elses.
  6. Egads, click randomly and get necro-thread
  7. Great post downix :) You're right, you can do just about anything with Linux and you don't have to be dependent on big mother or big brother.

    The necro-thread problem is well known, the forum always digs up old threads from 4-10 years ago. :(
  8. And I send them falling back down the list of threads, hopefully never to be seen again. ;)

    Starting new threads is better than resurrecting old ones from the grave, although I know this was accidental.
  9. As i see it the Linux and open source communities are on a good path. Quality of Linux distributions is improving and other operating systems like FreeBSD are improving as well with exciting new technologies. However, each good option also has negative impacts. If you want to sum them up i would give this comparison:

    * Positive things about GNU/Linux

    1. It's free, not only in terms of money but also the fact that there's no commercial motive behind the project; in this case commercial interests can't collide with the interests of the consumer; you.

    2. It's customizable to your preferences, and comes in alot of flavors. Some concentrate on beginning computer users, some target advanced computer users instead.

    3. You're much less susceptable to being infected by a virus or spyware, simply by the fact Linux virusses are rare (though exist). Thanks to the unix security model, Linux is should be much more secure than most Windows installations are. On Linux you install software from a single trusted source; your package manager. It will have checksums to verify it hasn't been altered in any way and installs in a conform and tidy manner; unlike the wild jungle of Windows where applications can basically do anything and can mess things up. That's why you need to re-install sometimes.

    4. Linux is fast and has access to advanced technologies not available in Windows. You could run advanced filesystems and use various software that is not available to Windows.

    5. Linux is regularly updated, with both security updates and updates to software and the operating system itself. This means the user gets access to new technology more quickly.

    * Downsides to Linux, however, might be:

    1. Less familiarity; most people are used to Windows; they were brought up with it, use it at work, everyone is grown accustomed to thinking the "microsoft-way". This makes switching to Linux a threshold, simply because some things are different. Also the many linux distributions make it unclear to what linux really is; it doesn't have a single face. This has problems for marketing and general awareness to the general public.

    2. Linux doesn't run all Windows applications, and doesn't have alternatives to all kinds of Windows-applications. While the list of alternatives and applications supported by the Wine windows API emulation layer is growing, you might still miss some applications you were accustomed to using on Windows. Running a true Windows installation inside Virtualbox (free vmware-like solution) might fix this however.

    3. Less support for Linux, from Hardware vendors, from Software companies and the general public. If you have problems you need to rely on forums to find a solution, or pay for support which is not what many consumers will do. However, the Linux community has proven to be supportive to beginning computer users, and their forums have helped many people with their problems and questions. After all, the support you get from Microsoft when you're into problems is hardly on the same level. But some exotic hardware may not have Linux support, which is something becoming more rare also. Generally the hardware support of Linux is quite good.

    4. GNU/Linux is a product by computer experts, but not necessarily usability or human interface experts. Meaning that in some cases the programmer makes poor choices because while it may be logical to him, generic computer users may have struggles with understanding his logic. Usability experts are there to improve the user interface of applications used by alot of people, to make them work for all kinds of people. I would like to add that Windows also has usability problems, for advanced users.

    5. Not fully polished. GNU/Linux is still in heavy construction. Many projects have to communicate with eachother to make things working for the end-user. This communication has sometimes proven to be difficult, and it can happen that two projects argue on who or how to fix the problem, while there is no solution to the end-user. The lack of responsibility as in commercial companies is also hampering completion of features for the end-user. That said, development is going very quickly and it won't take long before its a full-fledged replacement of Windows for many people.
  10. Even with all the bells & whistles (including Compiz) I find it much faster and more reliable than Windows XP let alone Vista. Basically I love it, it alsmost feels like it was built around me.

    The only two things that are really lacking in my experience are:
    A. Easy to use development IDEs (not just for experts).
    B. Lack of games.
  11. Yes but I should have said it slightly differently, most of the modern commercial games are not available for Linux.
  12. If it's using the doom/quake engine then it runs :)

    Granted most game developers intentionally do not support Linux, however this is not for technical reasons.
  13. Only financial ;)
  14. Its a superior OS. Plain and simple.
  15. I love this OS too, but claims like you made really ought to be backed up. Otherwise, we are no better than the apple zombies or the windows fanboys (or fanboys of any flavor, for that matter).
  16. Devastator_uk said:
    Yes but I should have said it slightly differently, most of the modern commercial games are not available for Linux.

    The manufacturers may not provide Linux-support, but nothing prevents you from trying with Wine. Wine can run many DirectX games now, checkout the AppDB on WineHQ to see if your game is listed:
    http://appdb.winehq.org/
  17. For myself, using Windows or Linux is a matter of taste. To say which one is the better depends on how you intend to use your system, what you're interested in.

    I actually think that Linux is a bad choice for some, for me it's the best choice. With Linux you can also enjoy some of your Windows games, so there's no reason on using Windows just because of this, unless you're going heavy gaming and find Linux too difficult to handle.

    Personally I enjoy stability and that is the main reasons for me why I choose Linux. I never have any problems with system crashes at all, none! OS: Debian Lenny (stable release).
  18. khelben1979 said:
    For myself, using Windows or Linux is a matter of taste. To say which one is the better depends on how you intend to use your system, what you're interested in.

    I actually think that Linux is a bad choice for some, for me it's the best choice. With Linux you can also enjoy some of your Windows games, so there's no reason on using Windows just because of this, unless you're going heavy gaming and find Linux too difficult to handle.

    Personally I enjoy stability and that is the main reasons for me why I choose Linux. I never have any problems with system crashes at all, none! OS: Debian Lenny (stable release).



    That is one of the best comments on Linux in a while, it all depends on the intended usage. It's pure Windows at work and I have to say that stability (XP SP3) is just not an issue, I've not had a single system crash in 8 months (all the despite running some nasty tools and applications at times. My home Vista64 box has never had a serious crash, yes applications have hung but they were all low grade tools rather than big titles.
  19. Why do I prefer Linux? There are several reasons:

    1. You can legally get it for free. I like to build my own machines and thus everything has no OS on it to begin with. Buying Windows licenses is expensive and I don't want to deal with the legal and usability hassles of using a "warez" copy of Windows.

    2. You can run a new, fully-supported Linux distribution on very obsolete hardware, such as most of the stuff I am running. My X2 4200+ desktop with 4 GB RAM would do fine with Vista, although my XP 3200+ HTPC with 1 GB RAM would struggle mightily with Vista and my 1 GHz PIII file server with 256 MB RAM wouldn't even load the installer.

    3. Personal taste. I am much more keyboard-centric than mouse-centric and actually like CLIs. I like the amount of control I have over a Linux machine and that almost everything can have its function modified just by changing a few lines in a text file. Editing hex keys in the Windows Registry is much harder in my opinion. Also, the overall design of Linux is much more suited to make it easy for somebody who knows what they are doing to administer the OS.

    4. There are no registration keys or digital restrictions management schemes in any Linux distribution I've ever used.

    5. Unless you're running Gentoo or LFS, installation is a cinch and you usually get a fully-working OS with all drivers and applications you'd want right off the bat and it takes maybe 30 minutes to do. Windows installs are long and painful as you need to hunt down a dozen driver and program CDs and reboot a bunch of times. I think I can get a Stage III Gentoo install and all of my applications compiled on this old desktop about as fast as I can reinstall Windows and applications on somebody's computer.

    6. Updating and installing new programs is much easier in Linux than in Windows.

    That's about it. Notice I didn't say anything about security or reliability as in my experience, a Windows user with a decent AV program they keep updated, keep their computer patched, and have a router will have no more problems than a Linux user as long as they don't browse shady Web sites. (If they start downloading shady porn, all bets are off as that is a user problem rather than an OS one.) Windows Vista is pretty stable now that it has two service packs under its belt.
  20. Ultimate system control and security. What more could you ask for? And for those who like windows because of their cosmetic appeals just use Beryl with Linux. That way you get the best of both worlds. With linux say bye to all those irritating trojan and virus infestations so common in Windows. Besides once you begin using the bash shell to do all your tasks you'll end up preferring that to using the GUI.
  21. sparky853 said:
    I know I'll probably start a flame war here, but I just wanted to ask anyways.

    I'm a newbie when it comes to Linux, and am currently in the process on installing RH 8 on a computer, but I want to know:

    What advantages, besides not being a pawn to M$, does Linux have over Windoze?


    If I was as sexy as I was smart.....I'd still be ugly..DAMN :mad:
    **Finally made Newbie...HAPPY DANCE..HAPPY DANCE..**


    -Well about a month and half ago, I just installed linux on a laptop of mine, (I must give credit to linux_0 for a great deal of help he gave me), and I have been using it and all I can say is that it has many pro's and few con's to it. Lets begin that its completley free and all or most software for it is completley free and can be distributed at descression.
    -It is the most customizable platform currently available, you can change it, program it, mess with it, tweak it all you want.
    -Learning linux is a huge benefit to young people like myself since the corporate envirnment in modern day is starting to use linux more and more which is a big plus in job qualification as if you already know it, you will need less training for it, it will make you more valuable and you will excel at it.
    -Many busnisses also use Unix OS which is a pricy version of linux but thier concept and basics of the two OS are very similar so if you know linux well, then Unix will come to you much easier.
    -The future of the corporate envirnment as far as we see today is linux/unix :)
    -The OS requires much less resources then Windows. For me personally, my linux takes up 1/4 of the ram that windows does and much less processing power.
    -Its much more secure then windows, unlike windows there are no viruses, security holes, and other stuff like that.
    -The file system it uses is smarter. Windows uses NTFS which fragments very quickly as it never puts files back where it found it, but just leaves it which requires lots defragmentation to keep it working at good speed. I had to purchase an expensive program for my windows that defragments windows realtime so my file system doesn't get slow and screw itself up which can cause system instability. Linux file system which is ext3 or 4 (forgot which one) on the other hand does not fragment, and even if it does, its unnoticable.
    -You can get almost all application for it including office suites, games,utitlities, and etc
    -Its way more stable and never crashes

    -The only con I can possibly think of is that its gooey interface isn't as developed as windows is and requires the use of much more command lines to operate it but once you learn it its easier then it looks.

    -Is there anything else i am missing :)))
  22. You pretty much nailed that one blackhawk1928. The only thing I'm gonna correct you on is the following:

    Quote:
    -Its much more secure then windows, unlike windows there are no viruses, security holes, and other stuff like that.


    There ARE viruses and security holes, it's just that there is a VERY small number of viruses, as Linux is not mainstream, so it's usually not worth the programmer's time to make them (although anybody that makes viruses obviously has too much time on their hands and some serious social issues as well!), and security holes are patched very quickly, if there are any :)
  23. I think the reason ext3/4 "doesn't fragment" is because it performs defragmentation with each write. Unless I'm thinking of a different filesystem, but I know I read something about this on another forum.

    With regards to security, being open source means bugs and exploits can be found by the (non-hacker) community faster than a bunch of M$ programmers can find bugs in their 20 billion lines of code. Any zero-day exploits that do get abused in Linux can be patched very quickly, whereas with Windows you normally have to wait for the monthly round of updates unless the exploit is marked as mission critical.

    Having to use the command line is not a con. It is just another way of doing things, and arguably more efficient once you get the hang of it. There is Linux and there is Windows. There is a GUI and there is a CLI. Different tools for doing different things in different ways.
  24. Re the defrag. In the old days you just CPIO'd your disk to tape and back again.
  25. audiovoodoo said:
    Re the defrag. In the old days you just CPIO'd your disk to tape and back again.
    In the OLD days you just restrung all those little ferrite beads.
  26. Ijack said:
    In the OLD OLD days you just restrung all those little ferritewooden beads.


    ;)
  27. You win!
  28. Quote:
    ijack wrote :

    In the OLD OLD days you just restrung all those little ferritewooden beads.


    ;)


    Who needs beads when you can use knots? ;) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu )
  29. ubuntuideas said:


    -He doesn't necessarily need to get ubuntu, give him a link that gives info about all distros so he can pick the one that he thinks will suit him best ;)
  30. Too many people think Linux = Ubuntu.
  31. That might not be such a bad thing in some ways. We at last get enough of a user base that companies start to see it as an alternative to Mac and start to see it as a target platform. With all the different flavours out there it was hard for companies to know what they were aiming for, Ubuntu has given it a focus.

    I do agree that people should know the alternatives, I'm just saying that there are some benefits to a more common platform.
  32. Ubuntu happens to be a very simple distro to use, it's a moderately small install, and there is great compatibility with many drivers available. To somebody new to Linux, Ubuntu seems like (and generally is) a very easy transition from Windows. I just convinced my friend to switch from XP to Ubuntu earlier today ;)
  33. The one I've done to a couple of people is just change the window manager.. to them its a different OS.
  34. audiovoodoo said:
    That might not be such a bad thing in some ways. We at last get enough of a user base that companies start to see it as an alternative to Mac and start to see it as a target platform. With all the different flavours out there it was hard for companies to know what they were aiming for, Ubuntu has given it a focus.

    I do agree that people should know the alternatives, I'm just saying that there are some benefits to a more common platform.


    Also, Ubuntu is based on Debian, is relatively modern, and follows the LSB stuff reasonably closely. So if a company thinks that Linux == Ubuntu and makes binary blobs for Ubuntu, they'll most likely work on other distros unless they're precompiled kernel modules. Personally I like a generic tarball-and-make-script, but that's just me.
  35. Whilst Linux has been an enthusiast OS the compile route has worked well. As it moves into more mainstream usage there will be areas where we will need to compromise in order to make the system accessible to new users and migratory windows users. To my eye so long as the source is still made available so that more advanced users like yourself have the option to compile / examine I don't think it's that big a deal.
Ask a new question

Read More

Computers Linux