Opinion: Five reasons NOT to use Linux
Forum: water cooler
Topic: Opinion: Five reasons NOT to use Linux
started by: Borderpatrol
Posted by Borderpatrol on Aug. 30 2005,20:31I love Linux. I use it on my servers, I use it on my desktops, and I use it on my entertainment center, where it powers my HDTV TiVo and my D-Link DSM-320 media player, which turns my network into a media library with terabytes of storage. Heck, I even run Linux on my Linksys WRT54G Wi-Fi access points, which hook the whole shebang together.
But, Linux isn't for everyone. Seriously. Here are my top five reasons why you shouldn't move to Linux . . .
Reason number one: Linux is too complicated
Even with the KDE and GNOME graphical windowing interfaces, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit a configuration file.
Compare that with Windows where, it's possible -- not likely, but possible -- that you'll need to use a command line now and again, or edit the Windows registry, where, as they like to tell you, one wrong move could destroy your system forever.
Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up
It's true. After all, with modern Linuxes like Xandros Desktop or SimplyMEPIS, you need to put in a CD or DVD, press the enter button, give your computer a name, and enter a password for the administrator account.
Gosh, that's hard.
On the other hand, with Windows, all you have to do is put in a CD or DVD, do all the above, and then immediately download all the available patches. After all, Symantec has found that an unpatched Windows PC connected to the Internet will last only a few hours before being compromised.
Unpatched Linux systems? Oh, they last months, but what's the fun of that?
Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications
Really now. I mean, most Linux systems only come with secure Web browsers, like Firefox; e-mail clients, like Evolution; IM clients, like GAIM; office suites, like OpenOffice.org 2.0; Web page editors, like Nvu; and on, and on, and...
Microsoft, on the other hand, gives you Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, the most popular Web browser and e-mail client around -- even though they do have a few little, teeny-weeny problems. Of course, Windows also has an IM-client, Windows Messenger, which, come to think of it, has also had some problems.
And, Microsoft also has Microsoft Office, which -- oh wait, you don't get that with the operating system, do you? You also don't get a Web page editor either, do you?
Well, still, with Windows you get so many more choices of software, don't you? Like Lotus 1-2... oh really? I didn't know that. Or, WordPerfect... oh, pretty much too.
Still, so long as you want to run Microsoft programs at Microsoft prices, Windows is the operating system for you!
Reason number 4: Linux isn't secure
If Microsoft says so, it has to be true! So what, if you can scarcely go a week without reading about yet another major Windows security problem in our sister publication, eWEEK.com's security section! Who would you rather believe -- Microsoft, or your own eyes?
Reason number 5: Linux is more expensive
Are you calling Microsoft a liar? Those Linux companies, like Red Hat or Novell/SUSE charge you a fee for support. Others, like Linspire sell you the product. How dare they, when you can download free, fully-functional versions of almost all the Linux distributions.
Your computer, on the other hand, almost certainly came with Windows pre-installed! For free!
Oh wait, it's not free? Windows' actually makes up a large percentage of your PC's price?
Hmmm. Well, still, it's already on there, and it has everything you need.
Right? Of course, right!
Except, of course, you might still want to buy an anti-viral program (Norton Anti-Virus: $40), anti-spyware software (McAfee Anti-Spyware: $25); and a full-featured firewall (Zone Alarm Pro: $35). But, hey, who needs those when you have a secure operating system like Windows!
When you really think about it, you can see why there are lots of reasons not to use Linux.
There just aren't any good ones.
--Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
< http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html >
Posted by adssse on Aug. 31 2005,04:08Saw this earlier today on digg.com. Kinda funny, provides a little different way to look at things.
Posted by NotTheMama on Aug. 31 2005,06:39
Why do you need antivirus and a firewall. "Normal" Windows users do not need them, do they?
Only when we as friends/children come around and we see those "secure" systems, those systems need to be more secure and updated with firewall and antivirus software....
But normally we only add free firewalls and antivirus software.. Because we like free software/cardware/donorware.
So this reason is not correct....
Like Windows we do the most installations. So installing linux is again some work for us.....
Another reason gone.. How many to go?
I'm not troubled. I'm just realistic.
Posted by loell on Sep. 01 2005,03:00
its nice to throw some jokes once in while....
Posted by WoofyDugfock on Sep. 08 2005,11:28Nice article.
*AHEM!!* They do need them. But you're right - AVG, Zonealarm and AdAware are all free and they seem to be adequate for me.
Posted by Grim on Sep. 09 2005,11:04Woof, how the hell have you been. Long time no flamewar
Posted by WoofyDugfock on Sep. 09 2005,11:32Ha!! - Hiya there Grim - yeah I've been a bit quiet in the forums lately - gave it a rest, been away + I've been playing with a Debian 3.1 install rebuilding kernels etc --> trying to learn a bit more so I make less of a fool outta myself here in the "dsl university", as Robert calls it.
Posted by andrewphoto on Oct. 05 2005,14:19A reason NOT to use Linux.
If you like to get shafted annually, coughing up for nonsense anti-virus software.
Posted by ajd344 on Oct. 31 2005,21:28
What? Unless you run into problems and dont try to set up some fancy soft/hardware it is really easy. Anyone can burn a cd and put it in their cd rom drive.
Posted by faroutscience on Oct. 31 2005,21:44Linux makes it so frustrating to go back to Windows!!
My new computer at school has WinXP pro installed along with Novell networking software.
My low vision software no longer works. It was designed for pre-XP versions of Windows. The upgrade fee for both packages costs over $800. I can't afford that and the state doesn't pay for maintenance fees.
My USB chip doesn't work on this computer. It works on the neighboring teachers computers. The OS says I need to install a driver. I report the problem to tech since I am restricted from installing anyting on my computer.
The tech has been by twice. He says he can't just install that one driver. (?) He will be back with the Windows disks Wednesday. Hopefully that will resolve the recalcitrant USB
The overall Windows/Novell system is terribly unreliable as a whole.
I'll just go home, relax and use Linux, Debian or DSL, depending upon the box.
Posted by noclobber on Nov. 27 2005,08:20I don't like using Linux 'cuz it doesn't make me reboot after changing any system setting.
Posted by Traveller on Dec. 13 2005,16:33here's another reason for keeping Windows around...
where there's a market for it, SMBD will always have it's place.
ever get the feeling that the sorts who accept jobs adminstering a Microsoft solution are into SMBD? i've wondered that myself.
Posted by 300c_pilot on Jan. 01 2006,08:58My best reason for keeping Windows:
If it wasn't for windows I would not make any money... my techs would not get any money, I would not work on computers, this is a bad though. When is the next windows version coming out, I want a new helicopter.
Posted by Butch C. on Jan. 21 2006,09:33Exactly, Linux causes unemployment for computer technicians, cause its hard to get it freaked up. With Win you can be sure that every end-user has enough reasons to call you.
Apart from that its impossible to convince an average Win user cause they say: "Win is the most-spread OS worldwide. That did not happen if it was worse than Linux".
What do you respond in that case?
Posted by pr0f3550r on Jan. 21 2006,10:43Recently the Yorkshire Police (...?) ditched Linux and went back to Window$ 'cause
they couldn't find the START button...
Posted by muskrat on Feb. 02 2006,18:27Five reasons (for the masses to) NOT use Linux!
#1; If we didn't have windoze who would the script kiddies expolt?
#2; Who would the scum sucking bottom feeders build worms for, and viruses?
#3; Without windoze we wouldn't have any OS to bash, Bashing is fun after all.
#4; I don't want all those cry babies over here begging to dumb down a very intelegent OS!
#5; Without Marcy Soft, who would Hardware sleep with?
Posted by ardyandkari on Mar. 04 2006,03:42you know...as a dos user and windows user, coming to this page is kinda interesting...
i like windows because it is what i grew up on...from win 3.1 to present (exept ME...ugh)...the reason i started using linux is because i wanted a challenge...and i got it...
for me, linux has been kinda frustrating and confusing because it isnt what i grew up on...
so cut windows users some slack, will you??? its probably all they have ever known
Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 04 2006,04:33No need to get defensive. It's nothing against Windows users. I spent 6 or 7 years with Windows myself. If I hadn't discovered that Linux is more appropriate for me i'd still be using Windows.
Now I realize it stinks in comparison to Linux...that doesn't say anything bad about Windows users. I think mint+chocolate is sick, but i have no bad feelings toward people who like it.
Posted by ardyandkari on Mar. 04 2006,05:39not bieng defensive, im just trying to justify the fact that the majority of people use windows...personally i love linux...the price is right and it isnt nearly as difficult as i thought it would be, although i have had my little problems...also there is a good supply of programs out there (something else that i was misled about)
Posted by WDef on Mar. 08 2006,14:08I think there are two general levels to linux-versus-windows discussions.
The first centres around "usability" arguments, which invariably are never qualified as to purpose, the level of skill of the user, and the format silos which lock one in to using, say, MS docs. Usability is a relative thing. For example: once installed and set up, you simply can't beat linux for a general internet desktop - surfing etc. The internet originated on unix, whereas internet functionality was historically an afterthought for M$. Linux doesn't get malware or viruses (much) and granny can use it since a web browser or email works much the same on any platform. But if you're stuck (like most of us) in a corporate environoment where M$ format issues are paramount, it's just (unfortunately) sometimes easier to use Windows. Open Office imports MS docs fine, but exporting back is not always without complications because Oo still doesn't always handle MS metdata quite right. M$ knows all too well that this lock-in is one of the major barriers to the widespread adoption of linux, that's why they won't tell anyone exactly how their formats are put together, and neither will they move to the Open Document standard any time soon.
The second type of argument is about the design and functioning of the operating system. No contest, linux is designed better (eg) better permissions handling, better account securiity etc. and better memory management.
But many here in userspace won't always notice the difference. What they will notice indirectly is that MS has the marketplace muscle to get what they want from hardware and software manufacturers and designers. Drivers. Easy interfaces. Crisp fonts and graphics. Money and marketplace inertia makes these things hang together, while we in linux go in a million different directions (though not always a bad thing). You can usually get these things in linux, but it takes work and knowledge.
And above all - many people now buy laptops as their main machines. All arguments about linux being easy to install fall over badly on laptops, at least for 100% functionality. Laptops are generally built for Windows, like it or not. I've spent weeks and many hours getting eveything to work with FC4 on my new HP laptop (it wouldn't even boot to begin with), and I still am not sure why I have cpu scaling ok but no throttling (I probably should've used Ubuntu or Suse10). I'm glad I did, I've learned a lot. But it's not for granny, and By contrast, installing the evil product from Redmond was (as they say) "just put the cd in and let it install" (ignoring for argument's sake the need to install drivers, antivirus etc). Because the laptop was built for it.
So there is the intrinsic worth of the operating system - versus - the realities of history and market clout.