The Benefits of Linux

[Nexus]

Aside from the price difference, can someone explain to me the practical benefits of using Linux? I've used Windows my entire life, and I'll probably continue to use it in one way or another for years to come, but I'm not entirely sure what makes Linux different other than it's open source.

[floramacivor]

Less risk of viruses, hackers, things like that.

Since people designed it for free use by the public, there are lots of people always improving it and available on message boards to offer support - I mean, the whole Linux world seems to have a spirit of goodwill and helpfulness.

There are more choices. I installed Xubuntu [sort of a "Linux Lite"] on an older PC and was able to make it work much faster. My current PC is brand new and came with Ubuntu pre-installed - Linux has come a long way, and installing things and tweaking it is no more difficult than working with Windows.

The only reason I can think of for someone to pay to use Windows is because they're required to run a Windows program for their job or school, and that program doesn't have a Linux counterpart.

[Sesshoumaru]

Yeah...I use Ubuntu on my OLD laptop because windows runs waaay too slow...but I've had problems with it.

For example, I broke the headphone jack and bought a USB Sound Card...Took a while to get it working (The solution was simple, but took a while to figure out what to do =/)

[ChristopherL]

Aside from the price difference, can someone explain to me the practical benefits of using Linux? I've used Windows my entire life, and I'll probably continue to use it in one way or another for years to come, but I'm not entirely sure what makes Linux different other than it's open source.

Some of the network tools are more robust out of the box.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[gedreosan]

Besides the price, Linux uses a lot less resources and so can extend the life of an older pc. It's extremely customizable, unlike Windows, not every desktop looks the same, even among the same distributions. You can find distros that are tailored to specific uses, such as Nubuntu for a network testing version of Ubuntu or Ubuntu Studio which is geared toward music, digital art and movie making.

Oh, two words, Live CD. Most linux distros have a Live CD version that will allow you to boot into the OS and use it without installing it on your hard drive. A great way to determine if the OS is for you or not.

Take a look at this for more detailed answers:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[sybiam]

I'd say that while i'm a "linux" developper... One of the more important reason why I moved to linux is because for some reason after 8 month...My wifi card driver acted weird and i would get random bluescreen...apps would randomly crash or hang... (not that it never happen on linux). It's just that when something crash...you don't have to reboot...It's less messy...

If something break you can easily find help...on windows if you're computer has some weird shit...It might be easier to just reinstall windows (which is a pain in the ass)

Sometimes the user interface is just better than in windows...more coherent. If you're a programmer, linux has all you need. All the tools are there to make things much more easier than on windows....you can install a local webserver in no time...

there are few games (free and non-free)

Penumbra episodes
and
Penny Arcade episodes

If you want to use your computer in a different language...You can switch the language of your session to anything you like...Most software are translated so it's very nice...(mine is translated in russian)

i'm getting a bit too excited here...but there is more..
like being able to crack wifi network..
rip every cd/dvd you want because linux bypass cd/dvd protection...
everything you need is free...and you still can pay an extra for things that arent free (special codec or games)
compiz looks damn good

[HackerX]

I'd give you this piece of advice.

There's a reason there will be so many "ubuntu" responses. These people are the same sheep that flock to Mac's and the same sheep that continue to blindly love Windows. Flavour of the month people who couldn't make a value choice to save themselves.

If you have plenty of reasons to keep using Windows, then keep doing it. We (People) need to get back into the mindset that an operation system is just a tool that lets you run the applications you need to run. It's not the be all and the end all.

If you do want to try out linux, pick a half decent distro that's been around a long while. Experiment. Find out what it has for you. If you find it doesn't actually have anything for you, then leave it. If you do find it has lots for you, or you enjoy playing with it, then you've learnt something (what really is important to you).

Don't install the default applications, configure everything. Fuck Gnome, go KDE. LiveCD's are for half arsed pussies. Be willing to spend lots of time breaking it and reinstalling the whole thing. It's not particularly easy to do these days, but if you haven't broken it, you probably haven't learnt what it's capable of. Multiple partitions are your friend.

[foobar]

Windows is getting too big a software project for a single company to develop on its own. I think that's quite obvious in the trainwreck that is Vista, and I expect Windows 7 to suffer from the same problems, but with an additional layer of polish on top to hide some of the problems. Linux on the other hand is developed by volunteers over the internet, who are (to the surprise of everyone, and to the horror of Microsoft) doing an awesome job.

Possibly the most important design difference between Windows and Linux is that Linux has a "super user". The super user is a special mode the operating system can run in that has more privileges than ordinary users. For example, only the super user can install new programs, change system files, mess with configurations etc. Of course, ordinary users can change to super user mode at any time by just entering their password, but that is a conscious choice, unlike in Windows. What this means is, if you browse the internet and read your emails as an ordinary user, you can't catch viruses because those viruses (which are themselves programs) will not be able to change your system files without your permission.

Being virus-proof without additional support programs is a huge advantage, and that's why a lot of servers are using Linux as their operating system. For instance, a typical Windows PC needs an antivirus and an antispyware filter running all the time to fend off security threats (which are often not enough). Those programs can take a huge toll on resource usage, as they need to monitor everything all the time -- I remember there was a ~25% speed difference on my WinXP box when AVG was on.

While I am talking about speed, I think I should also mention that I find some of the libraries a lot of programs use to be very poorly implemented in Windows compared to their Linux equivalents, and this causes those programs to run very slowly. If the same program/game is compiled natively for Windows and Linux and tested on the same machine under the two operating systems, Linux would be noticeably faster (even if no antivirus is installed on Windows). Linux itself is also very lightweight, so it can easily run on very old hardware -- its spec is about 1/5 of Vista's.

It's not that you'll need to forget all about your favourite Windows programs when you move over to Linux, of course. The Wine ("Windows Emulator") project offers a compatibility layer for Linux that lets you run most Windows programs at near-native speeds, including a lot of DirectX games (I've personally tested Ghost Recon and Morrowind, and I was very impressed with the results). Wine is not perfect yet, but it's definitely enough for the average user.

Slightly philosophising on what HackerX said, operating systems are just tools and thus we need to evaluate them objectively as to their abilities (as in, they may be faster, less resource-hungry, cheaper etc) as well as subjectively from the individual's point of view (this runs on my computer and it does what I need it to do. e.g. play my games or run my applications).

I do need to disagree with HackerX on her disapproval of LiveCDs, Gnome and packaged releases like Ubuntu, however. If one wants to have a quick peek at an operating system to see what it looks like and what it can do, those are definitely the way to go -- customising will come later when the user is in terms with the new environment (and in fact, this may be taken to be one of Linux's greatest strengths).

Microsoft is very aggressive with their marketing strategies (to the point of being lying, Wikipedia-editing manipulative) and bad-mouthing Linux as a mess is their main argument. I think fancy Ubuntu-like releases with a fancy GUI that resembles Explorer (that's what Gnome is) are Linux's way to prove them wrong and draw in more people.

With this strategy, when enough users are around, professional software developers will need to accept Linux and develop for it. Apple is doing the exact same thing, and it feels they'll be getting there faster. Given that they're using FreeBSD under the hood, this is almost an alliance.

[citationneeded]

Don't install the default applications, configure everything. Fuck Gnome, go KDE. LiveCD's are for half arsed pussies. Be willing to spend lots of time breaking it and reinstalling the whole thing. It's not particularly easy to do these days, but if you haven't broken it, you probably haven't learnt what it's capable of. Multiple partitions are your friend.

Especially a separate /home partition.

[WayBehind]

It's free, not as resource intensive, you don't have to run anti-virus software or a 3rd-party firewall. Except for gaming, you can do pretty much anything you'd do on a Windows machine.

I ended up switching because my wireless card would die in Windows after about 30 minutes and I'd have to reboot to get it working again. It's funny how I'm now using those same Windows drivers in Linux (with ndiswrapper) and the wireless card works flawlessly.

I tried Ubuntu about a year and a half ago and wasn't impressed. Software crashed all the time (especially Firefox) and I had to run through some command-line hoops to get the wireless working. Now I'm using PCLinuxOS. Everything worked "out of the box" and there's rarely an occasion where I have to open a terminal window (i.e. a Windows user would feel right at home). I have friends that use Mepis and Linux Mint so there are definitely a lot of good options out there. If you want more info on the different distributions, check out To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ChristopherL]

I'd give you this piece of advice.

There's a reason there will be so many "ubuntu" responses. These people are the same sheep that flock to Mac's and the same sheep that continue to blindly love Windows. Flavour of the month people who couldn't make a value choice to save themselves.

If you have plenty of reasons to keep using Windows, then keep doing it. We (People) need to get back into the mindset that an operation system is just a tool that lets you run the applications you need to run. It's not the be all and the end all.

If you do want to try out linux, pick a half decent distro that's been around a long while. Experiment. Find out what it has for you. If you find it doesn't actually have anything for you, then leave it. If you do find it has lots for you, or you enjoy playing with it, then you've learnt something (what really is important to you).

Don't install the default applications, configure everything. Fuck Gnome, go KDE. LiveCD's are for half arsed pussies. Be willing to spend lots of time breaking it and reinstalling the whole thing. It's not particularly easy to do these days, but if you haven't broken it, you probably haven't learnt what it's capable of. Multiple partitions are your friend.

What's that saying?
Linux is only free if your time is worthless?
Who actually wants to compile their own apps or edit conf files?
I sure as fuck don't. For most people an OS is just a tool not something to dick around with endlessly.

Nubuntu looks cool, I'm going to install it on a pc and if it doesnt work immediately I will toss it the fuck out and reload windows.

[foobar]

If you're afraid to install because you might break your current installation and find a LiveCD is too much hassle, consider downloading VMware Player (free from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and a pre-built image to test with.

This is a virtualisation platform which "emulates" a PC and can boot real operating systems (I have WinXP running in a window under Linux, for example): it won't tell you whether the OS would work on your real hardware configuration, but should let you get a feel of what it is like.

[sombragris]

What's that saying?
Linux is only free if your time is worthless?
Who actually wants to compile their own apps or edit conf files?
I sure as fuck don't. For most people an OS is just a tool not something to dick around with endlessly.


Huh? I actually spend more time configuring Windows systems than Linux ones. My slackware comes with everything working out of the box; I just had to edit some config files (less than 10 minutes) and I'm set.

Btw.. I use Slackware (12.2 now) and KDE.

[foobar]

sombragris, not all Linux distros are made equal, and most users coming from Windows won't know what to make of xorg.conf et al.

I think ChristopherL meant not everyone has time to get a computer science degree just to use their word processor.

[Nexus]

How well does Linux run with hardware drivers? Also, when you say the Windows emulator runs "most" Windows applications, can you give me some examples of ones it doesn't run? My computers are usually used for gaming either primarily or as a side, so it being able to run newly released software is important.

[ChristopherL]

How well does Linux run with hardware drivers? Also, when you say the Windows emulator runs "most" Windows applications, can you give me some examples of ones it doesn't run? My computers are usually used for gaming either primarily or as a side, so it being able to run newly released software is important.

Depends on the hardware.
Some vendors don't make their drivers or hardware specifications readily available.
A perfect example is ATI does not make drivers (this may have changed) for their cards available so they had to be reverse engineered.
They work for the most port but are horribly in others.

Nvidia on the other hand produces Linux drivers. So they work out of the box.

At one point softmodems didn't work at all, this may have changed at this point, but who gives a shit nowadays.

Printers is another crapshoot.

Most distros have a HCL so you can just assess it against what you own.
This may not help you for some hardware you may not be aware you have.

My usb keyboard for example has a built in 3 port hub that it connects to directly. Linux can't find the driver for the hub (neither can Vista, xp is fine) and thus the keyboard does not work.

The best way to determine if linux will work is through a livecd.

vmware and other virtual software is very limited in the hardware in emulate.

No 3d games for you!





ChristopherL added to this post, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later...

sombragris, not all Linux distros are made equal, and most users coming from Windows won't know what to make of xorg.conf et al.

I think ChristopherL meant not everyone has time to get a computer science degree just to use their word processor.
DING DING DING!

[foobar]

Nexus, if by "emulator" you mean Wine then refer to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Many many apps are supported, including a lot of brand new 3d games.

ATI drivers (fglrx) work perfectly for me. All in all, graphics card drivers exist and are maintained.

[tp6626]

I've run Ubuntu, Kubuntu, their netbook remixes, Fedora, OpenSuse, before settling on Mandriva 2009 about 4-5 weeks ago.

I'm very impressed with Mandriva, as it has simplified 'Control Panel' type tools allowing you to configure it without manually altering config files (I don't have the time nowadays for that). In a lot of the options though, what it does do is show you what change it is going to make to whichever config file, when you tick or untick a control, say. So I am picking it up slowly.

The main benefits I have seen:
* It's free, so I don't need to worry about ripping off Microsoft via pirated software anymore
* It's fast and resource efficient
* It is highly customisable and looks cool
* It is very easy to add software on the fly, as and when you need it, via the in-built software managers
* It is evolving all the time, and new releases are frequent, and significantly better
* Compiz Fusion is absolutely beautiful, highly customisable, actually useful, and surprisingly resource efficient.

I'm running Mandriva on my Aspire One Netbook:
* 1.6GHz Intel Atom Hyperthreading CPU
* 1.5Gb RAM
* Integrated Intel Graphics
* 30 Gb HDD

I would say it runs more smoothly than my XP desktop:
* Athlon 64 2400+
* 2Gb RAM
* 256Mb Radeon 9200 Graphics Card
* 120Gb HDD

Which surprised me... I think Microsoft should be very worried!

[ChristopherL]

Nexus, if by "emulator" you mean Wine then refer to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Many many apps are supported, including a lot of brand new 3d games.

ATI drivers (fglrx) work perfectly for me. All in all, graphics card drivers exist and are maintained.

This is bullshit, yes it works for you, but it's a crapshoot and you know it.
Go to any linux distro support site and search fglrx and marvel at the number of experience linux users who run into issues.

Linux is cool if you have some definite reason for using it.
Otherwise it is generally still just a timesink for people who have nothing better to do.

[floramacivor]

There's a reason there will be so many "ubuntu" responses. These people are the same sheep that flock to Mac's and the same sheep that continue to blindly love Windows. Flavour of the month people who couldn't make a value choice to save themselves.


How can the same sheep that "continue to blindly love Windows" be the "same sheep that flock to Mac's"? Most people I know won't leave Windows because it's all they know - so they won't be using Mac or Ubuntu.


Don't install the default applications, configure everything. LiveCD's are for half arsed pussies. Be willing to spend lots of time breaking it and reinstalling the whole thing. It's not particularly easy to do these days, but if you haven't broken it, you probably haven't learnt what it's capable of. Multiple partitions are your friend.

The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't have to spend a lot of time configuring everything, breaking it in, reinstalling the whole thing. It's an efficient, workable solution for someone who wants an alternative to Windows but doesn't have hours and hours to learn what amounts to programming and writing code themselves.

LiveCD's are great to see how you like an OS. We tried three different ones before we settled on Ubuntu. Partitioning, though, was very tricky - I'm glad we didn't expect Linux to leave the WinXP partition untouched because it erased everything when we installed it. We have one of the PC's partitioned with WinXP on one partition, but we never use it. The hassle of partitioning wasn't worth the frustration.

[Webweasel]

I think the arguments are actually simpler than this when coming between windows and linux.

(Before I start I would like to say that I use both systems day to day and have a mix of linux/windows/netBSD running at home)

The real key is that most linux users are more than capable of setting up their system so that it is secure. Asking your average computer user to set up most linux distro's is not realistic. Your home user should not need to know what a partition is. My Granny wants to be able to send email and play poker, she could not care less about the technical details of the computer much like she does about her car, linux advocates seem to forget this. Ubuntu is making great strides in this area but it isn't there yet... Neither is vista considering the installer just reports a 0X00000XXX error code if you try to install it on an unpartioned drive rather than just saying no formated partition would you like me to create one? The average home user expects to take their machine to a PC world (Best buy? for you I think) to get it fixed if they go wrong. Like the car and the washing machine.

Just like linux if you want to make windows secure you have to know what you are doing and just like linux there will always be a way in no matter how hard you try, don't forget that the best hacks are always social engineering rather than computer exploits. The biggest weakness in security is always yourself. The myth that linux is unhackable or dosent get virus's is exactly that, a myth. Apache running on linux has been the most attacked system running on the internet over the past few years, mostly down to insecure configuration due to inexperienced linux users. It dosent matter how well written the OS is or how secure your network is if you leave a SQL injection query in your web application.

Every operating system their is has arguments both for and against them, linux is a great system if you know how to use it. Unix is better but I wouldnt recommend it for a home user. Windows has its advantages too. Like games? Bit stuck then really. EVERY operating system has virus's AND every operating system has unpatched vulnerabilities that can be exploited if a system is not behind a firewall. Firewalls have exploits too.
This is a fact no matter how confident the linux fanboys are.

I don't mean to flame. More be aware what you are getting into, the key to security is understanding how and operating system works, not what OS it is.

[HackerX]

How can the same sheep that "continue to blindly love Windows" be the "same sheep that flock to Mac's"? Most people I know won't leave Windows because it's all they know - so they won't be using Mac or Ubuntu.

The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't have to spend a lot of time configuring everything, breaking it in, reinstalling the whole thing. It's an efficient, workable solution for someone who wants an alternative to Windows but doesn't have hours and hours to learn what amounts to programming and writing code themselves.


Oh, any solid distro will do that these days. Except that'll tend to actually be solid, unlike ubuntu.

My point in particular is if you can't break an operating system, and by break, I don't really mean stop working, I mean make it do something you don't want it to do, then you probably don't really have any clue as to what you really want in an operation system to begin with. In which case you fall under the same category as "I use Windows because I don't know better" or "Macs are pretty". Sheep.


LiveCD's are great to see how you like an OS. We tried three different ones before we settled on Ubuntu. Partitioning, though, was very tricky - I'm glad we didn't expect Linux to leave the WinXP partition untouched because it erased everything when we installed it. We have one of the PC's partitioned with WinXP on one partition, but we never use it. The hassle of partitioning wasn't worth the frustration.

Partitions are fantastic. How anybody could live without partitioning is beyond me. It's like throwing all your important documents in the same filing cabinet and begging somebody to chuck a match in.

[WaeV]

I like linux for its stability and customization.

Arch Linux is extremely fast and incredibly customizable, plus you leran a lot about how your computer works by installing it.

Ubuntu is very easy to use and set up, has a large and helpful community, and has a large and easy to use selection of applications.


Wine works well for some things. A good rule of thumb is that if it uses directx 9+ and isn't in the AppDB, it won't work.

World of Warcraft, however, works extremely well with some setup. On my old box WoW had twice the framerate when running under wine in linux.

[gedreosan]

My point in particular is if you can't break an operating system, and by break, I don't really mean stop working, I mean make it do something you don't want it to do, then you probably don't really have any clue as to what you really want in an operation system to begin with. In which case you fall under the same category as "I use Windows because I don't know better" or "Macs are pretty". Sheep.

I want to make sure I've got this straight. If my OS works exactly the way I want it to and nothing I don't want to happen occurs, then I don't know what I want from an OS? Well, then, Windows is the perfect OS because all kinds of unintended crap happens and I should go back to using it.

[sombragris]

sombragris, not all Linux distros are made equal, and most users coming from Windows won't know what to make of xorg.conf et al.

Yes, I understand. However, most users would be unable to install their own copy of windows, or they will mess that up horribly.

My point is, users do not install operating systems. Installation of Windows systems (if needed) is done by the resident nerd. Installation of Linux should be the same way and in this case, generating a working xorg.conf from the xorgconfig wizard won't be any problem at all.

I think ChristopherL meant not everyone has time to get a computer science degree just to use their word processor.

To imply that a regular user is so stupid that is unable to properly configure his system even with appropriate documentation unless he has a comp. sci. degree is insulting. I know that this is meant to be that most people don't want to be bothered with editing config files and such arcana... but a better hyperbole would serve you better.

I am a law student and a theologian and got no comp. sci. degree and yet, I can use Linux everyday for all my tasks.

[Synapse]

The thing about Linux is it's high customization ability. It is quite inaccessible to most, but if you are adept at modifying it, you can make it work for you. That's one of the most obvious benefits I see for Linux.

[ChristopherL]

To imply that a regular user is so stupid that is unable to properly configure his system even with appropriate documentation unless he has a comp. sci. degree is insulting.

You call the joke that is man pages documentation?
And I don't have to imply anything, I worked in tech support for 10 years.
I can say uncategorically and without hesitation that most people don't have enough a clue to dick around with linux, does that mean they are stupid?
perhaps, but more importantly should they have to? no.
If I buy a VCR and it doesnt work out of the box I take it back to whoever sold it to me and I get something that works.


I know that this is meant to be that most people don't want to be bothered with editing config files and such arcana... but a better hyperbole would serve you better.

Oh and theres much more to it than Arcana, do you think anyone wants to have to know the difference between ext2, ext3, and reiserfs?
no they don't. They just want to send emails and send their wedding pictures.
Of course one of these doesn't journal properly and will corrupt if shut down improperly oops! guess they should have spent and hour reading beforehand huh?

I am a law student and a theologian and got no comp. sci. degree and yet, I can use Linux everyday for all my tasks.
That's good, I'm happy for you, but you are not the world.
What you can or cannot do is not a reflection of the general populace.

Linux is by geeks for geeks.
That's that.

[sombragris]

You call the joke that is man pages documentation?

First, I never talked about man pages. What I said is that a regular person is able to properly setup a Linux system.

Always use a distro with proper documentation.


And I don't have to imply anything, I worked in tech support for 10 years.
I can say uncategorically and without hesitation that most people don't have enough a clue to dick around with linux, does that mean they are stupid?
perhaps, but more importantly should they have to? no.

I beg to differ. People should have a minimum of knowledge on how to use their tools.


If I buy a VCR and it doesnt work out of the box I take it back to whoever sold it to me and I get something that works.

But this is not the problem here. My linux does work.


Oh and theres much more to it than Arcana, do you think anyone wants to have to know the difference between ext2, ext3, and reiserfs?
no they don't.

They don't want to know the difference between FAT16, FAT32 and NTFS, either. This is not related to usage of Linux. This is something related to computers in general, and the fact that sometimes you must take the role of system administrator for the system you own, no matter the level of knowledge you have.

Of course one of these doesn't journal properly and will corrupt if shut down improperly oops! guess they should have spent and hour reading beforehand huh?

As they should have when given the choice between FAT and NTFS (one of those don't journal, either). Wrong analogy.


Linux is by geeks for geeks.
That's that.

No. Geeks are also people.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh with you. Have my apologies. The problem with me is that I am an old coot; after using CP/M and the like back in the olden days, implying that Linux is difficult (at least, Slackware, a Linux that is specifically designed for people who are lazy) is difficult to accept, and the reasons for it seem to me as laughable.

[dogwoodlover]

There's a reason there will be so many "ubuntu" responses. These people are the same sheep that flock to Mac's and the same sheep that continue to blindly love Windows. Flavour of the month people who couldn't make a value choice to save themselves.

That's a rather broad generalization. I use Ubuntu, and granted it often feels Windows-ish, but it gets the job done, and does it a lot faster.

I started out on Slackware when I was about fifteen, and since then I've tried various distributions. It seems that hardware compatibility goes smoothest for me under Ubuntu. I've trashed more *nix installations than I care to count, and while its always been good fun and a great learning experience, it isn't always "timely," especially since I'm a college student with papers to write and research to do.

My Marvell Libertas card (yes, I know, its a shitty wireless card) seems to work best on Ubuntu--I reinstalled FreeBSD countless times trying to get the card to work, only to end up with various kernel crashes and fucked boot processes. Other distros like OpenSUSE, Debian, Solaris 10, etc. refused to cooperate with the Windows drivers and sometimes didn't even have ndiswrapper on the installation disk or supported. OpenBSD had a native driver, but was a little too spartan for me. ArchLinux worked well for a time, but when shit went wrong I wanted to blow my head off.

While a lot of "sheep" may use Ubuntu and worship it like a god, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to use it aside from incompetence or bandwagon jumping. At this point in my life I just care about whether my system "works" in terms of what I want it to do, and at what cost in terms of time and money--the ability to tinker under the hood is not of priority right now.

[kedelfor]

I would like to weigh in. Everytime I try linux I end up switching back to windows. There is always one or two applciations that do not work well under Wine, or the configuration of wine is a pain in the butt. Linux has it advantages, but like everything has tradeoffs.

Saying that linux is more secure is only until there is a reason for users to start targeting linux. Most insecurities in Windows are caused by the stupid people that use it. When you have someone that has no clue what they are doing it will cause just as many problems in Max OSX or Linux once there are viruses created. A solution to this would not to change OSes, but to learn about security principles. I do not use AV software on my windows machine for a while now and I have not have a virus on it. AV software is just a big money sink and people thinking that you need AV is just marketing by the AV manufacturers. AV software is there to not protect your data, it is to try and protect people who know what they are doing from stupid people that open the doors to viruses.

Linux is not better at resource management. The only time I see it really shine is if you use the console only and have some clue of what you are doing. Boot up GNOME, or KDE it is just as much of a resource hog. Also Open Office is a good piece of software, but I feel it is one of the largest resource hogs of them all. I also have not found software I enjoy using for news groups.

I also have had problems when trying to play certain media files. Mostly WMVs, but my point being that I didn't want to bother looking into the problem I just wanted to watch my damn movie. Most people would feel the same. Drive support is also pretty bad. In order to support new hardware you most likely need to recompile or update your kernel. I could go on for a while. Linux does not play games which was another major factor in me keeping Windows. My other major reason is I am a .NET programmer by trade. I really enjoy programming in .NET it makes sense to me. I have not found a single IDE that is better than Visual Studio. Even Eclipse does not have a lot of the functionality that VS does. I feel Eclipse is a knock off of VS, and I really dislike JAVA and SUN in general.

What I do like about Linux is the command line. It is superior to windows, and I am a minimalist at heart. When I run a distro I usually go bare bones. I really like Ubuntu, but I use a fork of Ubuntu,Xubuntu. It uses XFCE where I do feel I have a performance boost over Windows. Powershell in windows is looking like a good way to catch up though. Grep, Awk, shell scripts, and a lot of other utilities are great to use. I like being able to handle simple tasks at a command line instead of having to open up a gui to get things done. VI is great as well. The ease to start and stop services, plus when something goes down it is easier to recover if you know what you are doing. Normal people that are not into computers wouldn't know where to start and probably call me to take care of it. I could probably go on but in stead of turning this into a rant I would just say give it a shot. You may really like it. I would say atleast try 4 or 5 distros. To simplify your selection I would look for mainstream and base it on package management. This is now the main difference between distros. Distros I like are Xubuntu, Slackware, and if you are feeling adventurous try FreeBSD. BSD is not Linux, it is a Unix clone.

[dVdT]

I have a solution that works well for me & my family.

We have a triple-boot system on the main ("house") pc. Ubuntu, WinXP, and win7 beta. I like to mess about with ubuntu, because I like to mess with things (yeah, that means breaking and fixing, of course). my husband is a 'use it out of the box or I don't want it' person- it's a tool to him, like a screwdriver- he doesn't want to have to set it up to use it. That's fine- everyone has their preferences for how they use tools. My kids use XP, I play with win7 (cuz it's new & shiny), I play with ubuntu.

THat said, I've tried slackware, I've tried Suse, and Ubuntu is contintually the best-supported by its community and the easiest to use & get drivers, etc to work.

(I used HPUX for years at work, so I'm no *nix newbie.)

[WaeV]

Saying that linux is more secure is only until there is a reason for users to start targeting linux. Most insecurities in Windows are caused by the stupid people that use it. When you have someone that has no clue what they are doing it will cause just as many problems in Max OSX or Linux once there are viruses created. A solution to this would not to change OSes, but to learn about security principles. I do not use AV software on my windows machine for a while now and I have not have a virus on it. AV software is just a big money sink and people thinking that you need AV is just marketing by the AV manufacturers. AV software is there to not protect your data, it is to try and protect people who know what they are doing from stupid people that open the doors to viruses.

I run Windows with no anti-virus, anti-spyware, or even a firewall. Of the four times I got a virus, three were my own fault (mario.exe anyone?) and the last exploited a game's auto map downloading feature. That being said, linux has much better security principles. The biggest is perhaps that users can't write outside of their home folders without a password, which prevents malware from damaging the system.

[JohnDoe]

First, I never talked about man pages. What I said is that a regular person is able to properly setup a Linux system.

Always use a distro with proper documentation.



Even when say ubuntu breaks, its a trip to command lines and configure files to fix it. If your unlucky enough to have a system where it doesn't work right in the first place, have fun manually configuring stuff at the command line. Windows problems are often alot easier to fix then linux problems. Good luck if you have issues with wireless networks on linux!

[WaeV]

With 8.10 wireless networks are automatically connected to, but man were they a pain before then.

[Synapse]

You can customize the system much more to fit your tastes. Source code is readily available, you can download programs you need and you start with a blank slate. Most importantly, Linux is based around a command prompt more than a GUI, so you can readily enter the root of the OS and modify it more than a GUI-based OS like Windows.

EDIT: Whoops, seemed to have double-posted. Sorry.

[dogwoodlover]

In my opinion, someone who browses the web, writes Word documents and checks their email has no real incentive to use Linux over Windows. Windows accomplishes all these tasks just fine, albeit with a higher level of risk (usually) and at a higher cost ($).

If you are a programmer, techie, network administrator, etc. and like playing around, Linux/UNIX is much more suited to the needs of that sort of audience.

[WaeV]

I would say that if you are someone who browses the web, writes Word documents and checks their email you have plenty of incentive to use linux, or at least for one of your disgruntled techie-relatives to install it for you. People in the middle range of tech knowledge have a lot to learn from linux, but will probably be better off with windows.

[JohnDoe]

You can customize the system much more to fit your tastes. Source code is readily available, you can download programs you need and you start with a blank slate. Most importantly, Linux is based around a command prompt more than a GUI, so you can readily enter the root of the OS and modify it more than a GUI-based OS like Windows.

EDIT: Whoops, seemed to have double-posted. Sorry.

A command prompt is not a benefit. Doing stuff at the command prompt is a pita. I want something that "JUST WORKS". Windows has "JUST WORKS" down pretty well. How many times have you actually modified the source code to a program in your distro?

[RezPhreak]

While a lot of "sheep" may use Ubuntu and worship it like a god, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to use it aside from incompetence or bandwagon jumping. At this point in my life I just care about whether my system "works" in terms of what I want it to do, and at what cost in terms of time and money--the ability to tinker under the hood is not of priority right now.

I have to agree with this. Since I started using computers in 1978 and have used every version of Windows and many distros of Linux since then, I just want it to work and to do what I need (and want) to do. Ubuntu works fine for me, never has given me any major problems, and has a solid Debian base to it.

[JohnDoe]

I have to agree with this. Since I started using computers in 1978 and have used every version of Windows and many distros of Linux since then, I just want it to work and to do what I need (and want) to do. Ubuntu works fine for me, never has given me any major problems, and has a solid Debian base to it.

My ubuntu install blew up this week after updating kde. :(

[dogwoodlover]

BSD is not Linux, it is a Unix clone.

I hate to be a snob, but Linux is a UNIX clone. BSD is a UNIX derivative.

[iuvat]

A command prompt is not a benefit. Doing stuff at the command prompt is a pita. I want something that "JUST WORKS". Windows has "JUST WORKS" down pretty well. How many times have you actually modified the source code to a program in your distro?

I haven't modified my source code, but have you ever had the joy of installing the right driver for something that should "Just work"? Windows just works, and then it just doesn't. Granted, I have linux crash once in a blue moon, but at least it was my fault :)

Plus, if someone were trying to help you with a problem, wouldn't it be easier to get "paste these three commands into the terminal and they fix the problem", or "give me the output of this command" rather than instructions to navigate through several layers of menus and settings as you must do in windows sometimes? One thing I really don't miss is the registry...

They both have those problems, but until i find a better solution...

[kedelfor]

In that same respect OSX could also be considered a UNIX Derivitive since it has the BSD kernel. Well at least parts of it. I was more referring to it is not vendor blocked or from source of SCO, AIX, or any of the other UNIX brand. On a side note from my understanding Windows actually had or maybe still has parts of BSD in the kernel mainly for the TCP stack. My point was to basically say that BSD is not Linux and not associated with it. Not sure why it is such a big deal, except to point out a minor detail. So this is me firing back.







kedelfor added to this post, 5 minutes and 50 seconds later...

After further consideration I don't think this is the place to have a who's better match. I apologize for my retort. It was uncalled for.

[WaeV]

Linux Is Not UniX = LINUX
Mac OSX is officially certified as Unix.

Windows "just works", and then it just doesn't.
Haha awesome.

[JohnDoe]

I haven't modified my source code, but have you ever had the joy of installing the right driver for something that should "Just work"? Windows just works, and then it just doesn't. Granted, I have linux crash once in a blue moon, but at least it was my fault :)

As long as linux has the drivers in the first place. Try all in one printers, scanners, various usb gadgets, some webcams, etc. Linux gets much more sketchy driver support as soon as you move outside of core drivers.

[WaeV]

A few months ago I replaced my CD Drive.

Windows: "Your hardware has radically changed an-" *bluescreen*

Linux: Just worked, I didn't even get a pop-up, lol.

[mikebob]

I've found no benefit at all in using Linux. I've never had a single distro that worked properly with all the hardware on my machine. I've tried it several times and every attempt has been disappointing. Windows isn't perfect of course, but at the end of the day it provides me with the highest degree of functionality with the widest range of hardware options in exchange for less drama than Linux requires. When hardware manufacturers offer wider support for Linux I'll think about switching, but at this point I'm with JohnDoe. Windows just works and if it blows up it's faster to reinstall it than it is to slog through command lines.

[Monouk]

nix vs win comes down to personal usage. I use both every day - Ill admit 64 bit win though.

Linux probably will take over a large section of the market in the coming years, slowly though. The money that goes into ms products just gets better Q&A then nerds, but as the community grows so do features, and thats true for any distro or os.

[from0tohero]

i was use ubuntu on my notebook, but i don`t know how to use the program in it. its cool coz the desktop ini ubuntu version likes cube, u can rotate it. now i don`t use it anymore, i was use it just only for fun, now i use xp. hehehe...

[spoxjox]

Let's play "Let's Pretend"! We'll use a hypothetical construct named "Me" and referred to using the pronoun "I".

Let's pretend:
1. I'm a former computer programmer, so I basically know about how computers work.
2. Despite the above, I'm not really a hardware/networking guy, and my actual programming skilzorz are rusty and unused in a long time.
3. I'm a former MS employee and have used MS OSes exclusively since defecting from Macs in 1991.
4. I have an actual life, so I'm not willing to spend 2000 hours (or 200, or probably even 20) to get competent in getting around a new OS.
5. I want to give Linux a try, with the above caveats.

In such a case, how would I go about doing this? Does anyone have any suggestions for Me?

[uncon]

Let's play "Let's Pretend"! We'll use a hypothetical construct named "Me" and referred to using the pronoun "I".

Let's pretend:
1. I'm a former computer programmer, so I basically know about how computers work.
2. Despite the above, I'm not really a hardware/networking guy, and my actual programming skilzorz are rusty and unused in a long time.
3. I'm a former MS employee and have used MS OSes exclusively since defecting from Macs in 1991.
4. I have an actual life, so I'm not willing to spend 2000 hours (or 200, or probably even 20) to get competent in getting around a new OS.
5. I want to give Linux a try, with the above caveats.

In such a case, how would I go about doing this? Does anyone have any suggestions for Me?

I would install VirtualPC (or vmware) and install linux virtually (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and then you can run it without all of the hardware headaches (you can even run it full screen). There are vm images you can download also that have linux already installed - you just load them in vpc.

VPC is useful for lots of things but trying out OS's is particularly fun. You can open up suspicious binaries and such b/c the virtual environment is contained and also have a testbed XP installation where you test out programs or just setup an environment for certain tasks.

VPC is a no brainer setup wise and the networking (use NAT) works pretty well for all of the test OS's of Linux I've tried. Getting the sound card to work is difficult but that's just linux - but the networking part using NAT is a cinch.

[Xackery]

(I love HackerX's replies. I'm a slackware fan personally, but I enjoy gentoo too. No bloated window manager for me like KDE/Gnome though... Even though Compiz is great for eye candy.)

First, I'm going to take some assumptions about you. I am assuming you are talking about desktop, only. For desktop solutions Linux is progressing quite substantially towards being a very usable solution, however it still has limitations when you expect everything to run on your operating system (which is a luxury most people are used to coming from a Windows environment) Depending on WHAT you use your computer for, Linux MAY be able to provide an operating system for you.

Linux's support of hardware drivers is always an amusing commentary, you see, Windows has an advantage of all hardware manufacturers wanting their product to run as Windows compatible, so, Windows more or less sets out the rules and all the hardware manufacturers will comply to their wishes. In Linux's case, most hardware companies tend to not see the market as very large in linux desktop situations, so unless the hardware manufacturer feels their product utilizing Linux is substantial enough, they will ignore it and leave it to the Linux developers to design drivers themselves. This is where open source comes to an advantage. Linux is growing, once again, and the hardware issue is becoming less and less, but it still exists at least in some cases.

WINE is a compatibility tool that assists in running Windows executables inside Linux. The word emulator is a bit distracting, and misleading (Go google winehq faq and look for the result talking about this). In some cases, WINE offers nearly complete translation of Windows software to a Linux environment. But, this isn't always the case, and the winehq appdb allows you to see the current support wine runs your specified software (including games).

So..
Gaming on a Linux machine has always left me to disappointment. Yes, they are getting a LOT better at it via WINE, but unless you are playing trendy popular games the support inside WINE dwindles and becomes hit or miss.

Go to WINE HQ APPDB and look for the games you must run, and see what the bugzilla tracker tells about what works/what doesn't, so you know what's going to happen before even bothering installing the operating system and finding a dissapointment.

Find out how well your hardware is supported. This can be done by research by you, but more likely find a nearby LUG (Linux User's Group) in your area to assist you, or maybe a Linux advocate who is nice, to ensure your junk works like e.g. that webcam you are absolutely in love with using. :P

Now for the other topic starters, let's see.
Linux is just another operating system. It is a derivative of the Unix operating system, and most of the security benefits of it can be found in BSD and Unix-like operating systems, which also includes OSx (Darwin is BSD-based) and Windows is starting to get a little better with security with Vista/7 releases due to UAC and such. (Of course about 80% of all users I know who use Vista turn off UAC which removes that security feature).

Your operating system is only as secure as you set it up to be. Just because you're running Linux, doesn't always mean you're more secure. Your knowledge of security, how to set up security, and how to keep patches updated so your software can't flaw your security, is important to keep your system out of harm's way.

In my opinion, the most secure operating systems are those with next to no software installed on it. Each piece of software installed is you giving trust to the programmer that they will not infringe security of your operating system by creating bugs for users to manipulate. The more hands in the pot, the more likely something is going to go wrong.

Anyways, I'm not sure I can insult more people's opinions in this topic, so I'll end with Linux is not all that great of hype. Learn good security practices and pay attention to how many problems occur with your operating system, and use that type of evidence to figure out what operating system you want to run.


A command prompt is not a benefit. Doing stuff at the command prompt is a pita. I want something that "JUST WORKS". Windows has "JUST WORKS" down pretty well. How many times have you actually modified the source code to a program in your distro?

You may like OSx, too. It uses that mentality to an even greater extreme, with propietary hardware and typically better programming practices than Windows-based machines. (The OS9 to OSx change was long enough ago that you don't suffer the same conflicts as the XP->Vista issues are currently going through).

But OSx (Also known as Macs or Apple) is usually overpriced hardware wise, and does have limitations to what it runs. If you just want your computer "to work", though, it's a nice solution.

Granted, Ubuntu is trying to deliver this sort of package, too, and it MAY just work. If it does, that is a free solution you can use on your current Windows machine. That's usually why people move to it.

My biggest recommendation is to stay away from things trendy, though, since no matter how secure your operating system is, the likelihood of getting "heat" or found exploits increases depends on popularity of the product being used. If you can find a small niche for your software, while they retain high security standards, that's usually the ideal spot to be.

The current usage of OSx or *Nix based operating systems on desktop environments are so minimum no wonder they are seemingly so much more secure. Malicious users don't really waste time writing problems for it, why bother when you can hit so much more with a Windows problem?

Oh and I'm not really a Windows advocate. I don't like Windows. I never have. They have sustained practices over the years and have been so slow to change their standards that they are a festering ground for problems. They are great marketers, however, and will do all they can to fight the media with words of being "Just as good" if not better as anything else out there. But I mainly work on Windows machines as my job, because frankly, it keeps me in a job! Haha.

If you are thinking about a server, I personally recommend a *nix-like operating system. This is an area they are deisgned for, and they have this area nailed down really well, with support for virtually every aspect you may want (minus Active Directory which has a lot of proprietary conflicts with Windows, and custom-written software by Windows programmers). But never the less the practices you use once again factor in the security of your system.

[Synchronicity]

Well, we're three pages in so I'm a little late to the discussion, but I want to throw in my opinion all the same, because I too am a lifetime Windows user who has recently become addicted to Linux. In fact, only yesterday I finally got around to installing the 9.04 beta on my desktop. I've been using 8.10 on my laptop for a while now, but it hasn't given me many opportunities to experiment.

The thing I like most about Linux besides the obvious (it's free) is that it gives me pretty much uninhibited control over my computer. No restrictions, no limitations other than my own knowledge. It's taken me a while to learn Linux's ins and outs and there is still a lot I don't understand, but every challenge I encounter is a new opportunity for learning, and so far everything I've learned is that Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) is superior to Windows.

However, it is not for the faint of heart. Ubuntu is a great way to break yourself in to Linux thanks to all the great community support and design choices, but to really take advantage of it you need to understand how it works. I don't think I would recommend Linux to anyone who didn't love tinkering with computers. Since it was originally designed "by programmers, for programmers" as one of my CS professors says, there are some very powerful tools with which you can seriously fuck up your computer. I have, on more than one occasion, done serious damage to my data through careless typos or newbie mistakes.

The main reason I've decided to migrate over to Linux is because I need a 64-bit OS and I refuse to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7. XP was satisfactory to me, but it's not going to last forever, and I need the addressing space of a 64-bit environment if I'm going to upgrade my computer in the future. Ubuntu is going to be a challenge to learn and there will no doubt be many Windows games that will be difficult or impossible to get working even with the aid of Wine, but I think it's worth it. The feeling of liberation from Windows is exhilarating.

[thod]

It gives you nerd bragging rights. Nothing like compiling your own kernel for out-nerding the other geek. Beware with using this line on dates with women though, linux is about as popular a conversation topic as sodomy.

[bmallerd]

Just a quick thing to point out that the operating system should be correctly referred to as GNU/Linux.

Linux strictly refers to the kernel whereas everything else is part of the GNU software project. It may seem like a trivial matter but is actually key to recognizing the free software portion of the operating system.

So I've recently gotten a new laptop and my thinkpad came preinstalled with vista. I've been using GNU/Linux for a few years now and have not touched Vista except on occasion when borrowing my friend's computer to check email and whatnot. After 2 days I got really sick of Vista and was forced to install the latest version of Ubuntu.

Reasons why windows bugged me:
1) Did not come with anything preinstalled except IE, which I hate. It takes a full day to just put on all the needed software to use windows. In most distros of GNU/Linux you can hit hte ground running.
2) Continuous popups for updates, notifications, unblocking of applications. Flow while surfing the internet is important, flow while working is imperative. In Windows, you are subject to constant distraction and feel like you are wrestling the OS and constantly telling it you are sure you want to do something.
3) Windows is first and foremost a commercial operating system. I don't know what half the junk in my start menu does because they are links to manufacturer websites and product registration.
4) Everything must be paid for! Practically all powerful software in Windows is commercial. Either you stay a docile websurfing granny or you feel like a pirate. Personally I don't like feeling like a criminal when I want to make a spreadsheet and don't feel like paying for the office suite.

Now take the opposites of 1-4 and you get GNU/Linux =]

[Xackery]

Why not install SUSE on your Thinkpad, instead of Ubuntu?
Ah well. I guess the trendy prevails. XD

[flix]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Briggy]

It gives you nerd bragging rights. Nothing like compiling your own kernel for out-nerding the other geek. Beware with using this line on dates with women though, linux is about as popular a conversation topic as sodomy.

ROTFL! I know from personal experience that some guys get just a tad freaked out by a linux-wielding INTJ female. When I finally met one that could take my extreme nerdiness in stride, I married him.

[IfThenElse]

You can do rm -rf / and it still keeps running

(sort of, at least until the machine start bragging about missing unloaded libraries)

But my point is Windows use system based locked files, which is unknown in Linux.

[WaeV]

The power of line commands over GUI programs. Whilst trying to convert an AVI file to DVD format, I tried three windows programs (freeware and not-so-freeware), three linux programs (two didn't convert the way I needed, and the third didn't work) before I looked up the line commands for the conversion and did it myself. Plus I could manually change parameters to get say widescreen over fullscreen, or 5.1 sound over stereo.

[HackerX]

You can do rm -rf / and it still keeps running

(sort of, at least until the machine start bragging about missing unloaded libraries)

But my point is Windows use system based locked files, which is unknown in Linux.

How is that an advantage? And why are you running as root? (because if your reply is,"i'm not", then rm -rf / is going to do SFA)

[void]

The power of line commands over GUI programs. Whilst trying to convert an AVI file to DVD format, I tried three windows programs (freeware and not-so-freeware), three linux programs (two didn't convert the way I needed, and the third didn't work) before I looked up the line commands for the conversion and did it myself. Plus I could manually change parameters to get say widescreen over fullscreen, or 5.1 sound over stereo.

Superior in theory, inferior in practice. A person completely unfamiliar with the invocation flags would have to spend at least a couple of minutes going through the docs. Add even more time if the programmer was stupid enough to use their own nonstandard calling convention (e.g. flags are not preceded by a single hyphen or long-options are preceded by a single hyphen).

Contrast this with a GUI, where documentation is often not required for user to find what their looking for within seconds. From and To conversion formats are easily represented by two drop-down lists, while parameters would have respective text fields under the "Video" tab.

The shell's ultimate advantage over the GUI is its scriptability. One can effortlessly combine specialized programs through $FAVOURITE_SHELL, which is impossible in GUI-land (no, AppleScript and Automator are very limited in their scope).

[aranae]

yes, lets talk about Linux. I don't like it. I prefer windows, and here's why:

I work as a digital imaging specialist for a small web design company. My boss is an ENFP and a programmer. He loves linux, and I'm sure it works fine for programming. He HATES microsoft with a passion, and will take every opportunity to bash it. He dreams of an ideal world where everyone uses Linux and Bill Gates will die. seriously.

reality check: I went to school for imaging/design. The industry standards for imaging and illustration are Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator. He also hates Adobe.
He put Linux on my computer and I tried the Linux version of photoshop and Illustrator. They were ***terrible.*** I got windows back of my computer and the real photoshop and illustrator, but it took months of complaining. but I won!! heehee.

The other bad thing about Linux is that when you want to download a program, you can't just download it easy like in Windows, you have to run all these commands and stuff, not simple or efficient.

[void]

He HATES microsoft with a passion, and will take every opportunity to bash it. He dreams of an ideal world where everyone uses Linux and Bill Gates will die. seriously.

Zealots of all kinds are repulsive, but there are legitimate gripes with Microsoft. Anticompetitive business practices, attempts to subvert industry standards, and their ability to peddle garbage software (and APIs) year after year are a few common ones.

He put Linux on my computer and I tried the Linux version of photoshop and Illustrator. They were ***terrible.*** I got windows back of my computer and the real photoshop and illustrator, but it took months of complaining. but I won!! heehee.

Photoshop and Illustrator are not made for Linux. You probably used the most popular open-source competitor, GIMP. Its user interface takes some getting used to and it's not nearly as feature-rich as its commercial counterparts.

The other bad thing about Linux is that when you want to download a program, you can't just download it easy like in Windows, you have to run all these commands and stuff, not simple or efficient.

This is rare in modern times. Software installation on most Linux distributions is easier than it is on Windows if one uses repositories. Most 3rd party software that aren't available through repositories have graphical installers.

[WaeV]

This is rare in modern times. Software installation on most Linux distributions is easier than it is on Windows if one uses repositories. Most 3rd party software that aren't available through repositories have graphical installers.

This is what I was going to say. Nowadays you don't need the terminal, but it is very handy.

[floramacivor]

I've been happy overall with Ubuntu - but, if you have a Palm device, you should think twice about giving up Windows. I've been to forums and know that there are plenty of people out there who have never solved the problem of getting their Palm to sync with Ubuntu, and there's no guarantee that you'll be one of the lucky ones. (Then again, Vista also has problems with Palm devices; they can be synced, but no new programs can be installed to the Palm.)

There are Ubuntu users out there with unresolved sound and video card issues, too. It can be a gamble.

[Inky]

spoxjox - LiveCD's sound perfect for you. Most distro's have them now, check out distrowatch.org and try anything that catches your interest. No permanent changes and you're back to Windows with a reboot.

[crux]

I've been happy overall with Ubuntu - but, if you have a Palm device, you should think twice about giving up Windows. I've been to forums and know that there are plenty of people out there who have never solved the problem of getting their Palm to sync with Ubuntu, and there's no guarantee that you'll be one of the lucky ones. (Then again, Vista also has problems with Palm devices; they can be synced, but no new programs can be installed to the Palm.)

There are Ubuntu users out there with unresolved sound and video card issues, too. It can be a gamble.

Syncing with Palm devices on open source operating systems has always been a tricky thing though; and I don't blame the developers either. Its pretty down-right tricky to reverse engineer software to work 100% right on the first try :)

The video issues are mostly due to the major changes going on in the Linux kernel in the past few months. Hence, the video end of things has not exactly been as fast or as stable as it has been in the past - however, the new rendering framework aims to make the use of video cards more streamlined, efficient, and featureful. So really, its only a matter of time before that should no longer be a caveat issue.

[floramacivor]

Syncing with Palm devices on open source operating systems has always been a tricky thing though; and I don't blame the developers either. Its pretty down-right tricky to reverse engineer software to work 100% right on the first try :)

Unfortunately, Palms seem to be on the way out - so I don't think it's an issue that's even being actively worked on anymore. Even Windows doesn't seem to care that Palms don't sync quite right on Vista.