thelinuxlink.net

So this is a serious sincere question I'd like to pose. I'll be honest and say that I find myself spending more time on my xp computer because everything works and I've not had any problems in the 4 years since I installed it. I've begun to question exactly what advantage linux offers me as a DESKTOP computer user.

I'd prefer to stay away from stereotypes, cliches and fud. With all the talk of being ready for the desktop and needing more exposure I ask...what does linux offer for a desktop/laptop user that would make them switch?

It runs faster than Vista, the spyware/malware/trojan issues with Windows are another reason, I can install Linux for free without serial keys, validation WGA issues. I need less RAM and less speed for it to run OK. I can do email and all internet functions like Windows does.

More money in their pocket.

LinuxMint-4 wrote:It runs faster than Vista

This is very subjective. My brother dual booted vista and ubuntu on his new laptop for a time and I didn't notice any speed difference between the two.

, the spyware/malware/trojan issues with Windows are another reason,

Free AVG and spybot search & destroy.

I can install Linux for free without serial keys,

I agree that being able to install on multiple machines for free is nice. But I doubt most desktop users are needing to install windows so I don't see how they would switch because of it.

validation WGA issues.

Again I doubt many people have problems with validation issues on a computer they just bought

I need less RAM and less speed for it to run OK.

Chances are if you just bought a computer it is fast enough to run windows.

I can do email and all internet functions like Windows does.

No you really can't. Ask Pat about his vpn. Try to watch Lost online.


I don't see any of the reasons you posted getting someone to switch. Especially combined with whatever functionality they may have to give up when they switch.

hellonorman wrote: No you really can't. Ask Pat about his vpn. Try to watch Lost online.

My vpn for work works great under Linux. I'm happy as a pig in mud. The VPN admin finally allows non windows clients to connect to it. The last reason to keep windows around evaporated.

hellonorman wrote:

LinuxMint-4 wrote:It runs faster than Vista

This is very subjective. My brother dual booted vista and ubuntu on his new laptop for a time and I didn't notice any speed difference between the two.

It depends a lot on the machine we're talking about. My sister's new laptop runs Vista relatively well, although I know for sure that Linux or BSD would run faster on it, because some things I do on my machine (The technology of which is VERY anno 2002) is faster. But I have also seen machines, that were really fast (Dual-core AMD processor) and it took 5 minutes for the darn thing to boot, and I asked them whether it had always been like this, and sure enough it had.

hellonorman wrote:

, the spyware/malware/trojan issues with Windows are another reason,

Free AVG and spybot search & destroy.

Microsoft's own antispyware program, Windows Defender (Which they offer for both XP and Vista) is actually quite good. When I secure Windows machines I tend to combine a number of antispyware programs that do something different. Windows Defender is nice because it does the sort of online scanning as an antivirus program does.

hellonorman wrote:

I can install Linux for free without serial keys,

I agree that being able to install on multiple machines for free is nice. But I doubt most desktop users are needing to install windows so I don't see how they would switch because of it.

Unless we're talking an OEM version of Windows (Which doesn't really on anything but the computer you got it with), I've seen people install a retail version of Windows on like four computers at home, no issues as far as I could see.

To me it boils down to which OS sucks the least and does the most w/o pissing me off any more than it has to. The freedom aspect is also very nice, in both the Beer and Freedom senses. I wish there were fewer regressions between kernel versions, and I wish fewer packagers made poor choices (see debian's now famous openssl blunder, for instance), but shit happens. Yes, there are a number of things I cannot do on linux that I can elsewhere - I still remember the day I installed flash9-beta, for instance - it was fantastic. I played flash games with kid for hours. Like you mention, several things I need to do (VPN, hardware management, Lotus Fucking Notes) require me to run windows and some things I *want* to do require the same (Streaming Netflix, CBT, some games for my kids) so I run windows in a VM.

I am not pusher, though. I tend to show people what I can do with it, and if they're interested, I give them info the usual suspects for n00b13 distros. I am not going to spend my saturday helping a random noodlehead deal with the fact that they hit BestBuy and grabbed a linksys N card that's really broadcom, and doesn't work properly with ndiswrapper, and that they can't print well or perhaps at all, etc, etc. I have a life. I make it as clear as possible that hardware and linux are not the best of friends yet, and while there are a huge number of devices it does support, that support is often crap, and they had better look for a penguin on the package before they drop $150 on whatever it is they're buying.

Snarkout wrote: Like you mention, several things I need to do (VPN, hardware management, Lotus Fucking Notes) require me to run windows...

Lotus Notes 8.5, beta1 for Linux (you'll need to register to get it):
https://www14.software.ibm.com/webapp/i ... =swg-lnd85

CiscoVPN:
http://www.lamnk.com/blog/vpn/with-kern ... pn-client/
http://pdavila.homelinux.org:8080/gvpnd ... 1_i386.deb - GUI frontend for ciscovpn

PM me if you need anything.

From an economic (not just monetarily) standpoint, by installing Linux you are preventing an initial investment from influencing future decisions. When you purchase Windows and begin to use it, core functionality such as spreadsheets, documents, presentations, graphics, even fonts become an additional cost. Keep in mind, I am talking about a purely proprietary system. Around the time of Windows 98, functionality had a cost. If you needed special features above and beyond what was provided, not only did you have to search and hope that someone else provided the macro, font, etc., you had to purchase it. A lot of times, home users had to budget for features: "I chose to get this font instead of that one" or "I decided to buy this clipart disc because it was cheaper. Will it work with Publisher?" Every decision affected the next one and if you made a wrong choice, you had to correct that decision, often without a refund of your initial investment.

The linux versions of notes, IME, are complete dogshit (and their domino server - UGH!) though I have to admit it's probably been a year since I wanted to spend that much time in that much pain. I *have* helped someone at work set it up under wine, and while it works, it's buggy and commerce accelerator doesn't work, IIRC. I've tried a number of the VPN options out there - unfortunately (fortunately?) we don't use cisco for our VPN - and while several of them do work, they require way too much dicking around with, and frankly, I do not want to be in a CO at 2 AM fucking around with a config file when I need to be getting a piece of our network back online. I'm not saying that there aren't linux "alternatives" to many of my issues, but I am saying they are a lot like the vegan "alternatives" to meat.

Snarkout wrote:The linux versions of notes, IME, are complete dogshit (and their domino server - UGH!) though I have to admit it's probably been a year since I wanted to spend that much time in that much pain.

Honestly the new version (8.5beta1) is pretty much the same as the Windows version. The fonts are slightly different. That's it. I know because my machine at work is running XP.

Cool - I'll take a look. The 7 series was so bad, it literally took about 2 min to bring the client up.

hellonorman wrote:So this is a serious sincere question I'd like to pose. I'll be honest and say that I find myself spending more time on my xp computer because everything works and I've not had any problems in the 4 years since I installed it. I've begun to question exactly what advantage linux offers me as a DESKTOP computer user.

I'd prefer to stay away from stereotypes, cliches and fud. With all the talk of being ready for the desktop and needing more exposure I ask...what does linux offer for a desktop/laptop user that would make them switch?

In all honesty, it offers a faster and more stable OS, fast access to lots of great software, much less expensive - free in most cases, way less prone to viruses and security hassles, and IMHO, more fun.

hellonorman wrote: I'd prefer to stay away from stereotypes, cliches and fud. With all the talk of being ready for the desktop and needing more exposure I ask...what does linux offer for a desktop/laptop user that would make them switch?

What is a desktop user by your definition? I've been thinking about this question with the same goal of spreading linux...and I think the first task is to learn more about different types of computer users.

Some are home users, some are corporate. Some have lots of investment in software and the configuration of their systems, some just use things out of the box. Some like to tinker with things and learn more while some just want it to work. Some go out of their way to live by their principles(RMS) and others are more pragmatic. There are lots of dimensions to using a computer and I think our first task should be to understand those dimensions and see where Linux does provide benefits.

The more detailed you can be about your desktop user(yourself?) the better we can help provide a path to fulltime Linux and free software use.

I don't post much on here, but I will add my two cents worth. Long post and I apologize upfront.

Honestly you seem to have your mind made up which is fine. Windows works for you and thats great. Linux can and does work for many and thats great too. So the below is not an attack on you or why I feel you are wrong (for you Windows is better and thats cool). The below is just my opinions from my personal experience.

I will preface this and say that I run Linux , Mac OS, and Windows.

I have XP in a arcade cabinet I built. I run XP on it because I have integrated Windows games I own with Atari emulators for all the Atari consoles/games I own. I am an old Atari guy and I have tons of Atari games boxed up in my basement (2600, 7800, Lynx, Jaguar, Atari 800, Atari ST, etc).

I also have XP on a Compaq desktop that is used by the kids for the occasional PC game they want to run or play with their friends. It doesn't see much use because we have an Xbox 360 and Wii, but it does get some use.

My laptop came with Vista and I resized the partition and installed Ubuntu on it. I use Ubuntu on that laptop 99.9% of the time. The wife has a MacBook and the oldest daughter an iMac. I also have a PowerMac dual G5 on my desk that I dual boot between OS X Tiger and Ubuntu.

Now with that out of the way on to my opinions.

The spyware/trojan/malware issue is a big one in my opinion. You can say "hey no problem just run spybot, avg, etc". But who wants to deal with all that? To explain to people that they should do full scans of their system every week or two with spybot, adaware, or some other tool is crazy. But it is a fact of life for Windows users. All those programs just eat up system resources and if your running Vista you will want as much free resources as possible for Vista.

Aside from the deeper freedom issues which can lead to heated discussions by some, I think the big reason the free thing is a great issue for me is the following. I find myself all the time talking to family and friends who have a Windows 95, 98, 2000, or even XP system and it is running like a dog which isn't uncommon for a Windows machine after 3+ years of programs being added and the system never cleaned up or tuned. In some cases they have their restore CD's or Windows CD's. In some cases they lost it, never got one because someone built it and just used their Windows CD, or a pirate one. I can install a copy of Xubuntu, Ubuntu, or other distro on their system for them and get it running well and I can do it legally. I won't install an illegal copy of Windows for them. In some cases they might just say "heck a copy of Windows will cost me a couple hundred bucks, I might as well buy a new PC since it comes with Windows". In which case I tell them I can install Linux legally and they can see if it breathes new life into the machine, if it does they save themselves some much needed cash, or if it doesn't "work" for them they can go out and buy that Windows PC. Also many times in this situation you see friends and family taking a newer copy of Windows and Office over to that house and installing it. Which of course is illegal and people think nothing of it. With Linux you don't have that issue.

As for not being able to watch Lost, that is more an issue with ABC not allowing it versus Linux not being able to. I can go to NBC's Hulu.com site and watch shows with Linux no problem. In the grand scheme of things that may be a major issue for you, but hardly a major Linux versus Windows issue.

Is Linux ready for the desktop? I think for a majority of current Windows users the answer is yes. The majority of the people I deal with and meet use Windows to get on the internet, browse websites, instant message, and send emails. They use Office to create documents. For these people Linux is quite capable. The benefit of not having to deal with spyware and viruses is big to the novice.

Mind you that is just the majority. There are still quite a few Windows users who are more power users or have specific needs. They may be heavy into gaming. Maybe they have software requirements for their work that just are fulfilled on Linux. Maybe they have kids and need to run all the Windows kids games,etc. Is Linux the ideal solution for them? Probably not.

Now on the flip side Linux still has a ways to go on some fronts. I still find myself using OS X for some things that I just don't find good equivalents for in Linux.

Some OS X apps that I still find myself using.

1) iTunes. My main reason for this is I like the podcast interface. I like the iTunes stores podcast directory. I also like the way it aggregates each podcast and its episodes. Makes it easy to only see the shows for a specific podcast, download older ones selectively with a single click. I am open to suggestions for a Linux equivalent to this feature wise.

2) iPhoto. For some reason I still prefer iPhoto to Picassa. I haven't found any other Linux photo app that works as well as iPhoto and supports RAW images on my Canon Rebel. I deal with thousands of high rez images, and most of the Linux photo apps I have played with bog down with tons of pictures.

3) iMovie/iDVD don't use these much, but for quick DVD's I have found these easier than Linux counterparts.

4) EyeTV. I use this app for recording OTA shows in HD. It records from an HDHomeRUN in the basement. It records two shows at once and the guide data is free through TitanTV because of a partnership with Elgato (the makers of EyeTV). I could use MythTV, but the EyeTV interface is simple and easy to use and just works. Plus the guide data is free. Has easy tools for editing commercials out and exporting to DVD, divx, etc.

Those are the main things keeping OS X around here.