Question may be reversed , why would I run Linux instead of Windows , I can't find anything wrong with Windows. Linux will be always behind Windows , it might be good for running web servers and such , but for desktop usage, it's just way way behind.
Security (although Windows can be sufficiently secured, but it's the main target of malware writers so in Linux you have the "Security through Obscurity" advantage) and to probably a lesser extent, cost? FTR, I have Mint (Ubuntu variation) installed dual-boot with Win7. When the mood suits, I'll run Mint, mainly because I have a casual and occasional interest in learning something new, but I don't want to spend too much time on it.
But, if everyone moves to Linux due to that, won't that become the new Firefox Security through Obscurity? Back then, when IE was known to be what it was... a plague... according to an article I read sometime ago by F-Secure, ~40% of IE users moved to Firefox. What did this mean? IE became ~40% safer, and Firefox with ~40% of targeting attacks. It truly doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux/other, IMO. If the user wants to install, either voluntarily or made to believe xyz application is needed, the O.S plays no role here. Nothing will protect the user. They just love click-able buttons. The true solution is to people to be educated on how to be protected. Linux would only be a temporarily solution, until it would become the new Firefox. From time to time, I come across some people claiming that ever since they moved to Linux, they no longer became infected. Silently I always asked my self: Right. I wonder what the heck made you infect Windows, in the first place? These people would still become infected in Linux, if Linux was the main O.S.
Everyone moving to Linux whatever flavor will never happen, just as not everyone is using one browser or media player, email client...etc. I'm also thinking that even if, for example, 40% (highly doubtful in the foreseeable future) were to move to Linux, Windows users would still be the primary target for malware writers, because Linux users tend to be more technical and security savvy. At least the numbers of potential victims would be reduced, however, if the O/S landscape were more varied than it is today, so some progress would be made if Linux were to become even 1/3 as popular as Windows.
People like Windows. People don't like Linux. People don't "have time to learn a new OS". People are gamers. People are workers. People are lazy. People are afraid of change. People can't throw away all that time spent learning Windows, all its problems, and how to fix them. People are afraid of being noobs again (Level 40 Warrior > Level 1 Wizard). People are sheeple. Missed a ton here. No matter, to each their own. Windows 7 is still my default OS. I'm surviving. Somehow. My reason wasn't listed so I didn't vote, but I doubt I'll be going with Ubuntu again anyway.
I fail to understand that statement. I mean, Windows users, that when using this O.S always were victims on infections, because they lacked the education to secure their systems, they would all of a sudden known how to secure one other operating system? How would these users be more technical and security savvy using Linux, while they failed achieving such with Windows? This is what I'm trying to understand. I do know people that kept seeing their Windows being infected, and moved to Linux. They no longer are. Did they become more technical and security savvy? No... as you said, they achieve this by "Security through Obscurity". So, if, and that's all it is, an if, these Windows user who keep seeing their Windows being infected, because they're not technical nor security savvy, move towards Linux or even OSX, for example, how will all of a sudden be technical and security savvy? They won't. They failed such with Windows. They'll fail with Linux, OSX, etc. In this if scenario, they would still install all the crap they think they need, etc. The problem is not the operating system. Sure, bigger market share = more targeted operating system. But, the problem is people's lack of security education. So, for these people, if they moved towards Linux, their security wouldn't be true*, because they lack the thing that most matters: knowledge. * It would exist, but wouldn't be a real security, IMO. They would be doomed, if we think of the if scenario.
One thing that drives me nuts about Windows is how long it takes to shutdown. I have a Windows XP laptop and sometimes this thing never shuts down. It will say shutting down literally for 15 minutes. I'll come back in the room after doing something else for a while and have to hold down the power button to get it to turn off. Ubuntu shuts down in literally 5 seconds or less. This always makes me smile.
That's often a case of optimization. My 4-year-old PC (not anywhere near the newest hardware) shuts down in about 15 seconds, and some new Win7 computers I've built for my friends shut down in about 4 seconds.
m00nbl00d, for an explanation of why even uneducated people are safer using Linux, see here: http://www.beakkon.com/geek/linux-or-windows-security for some evidence (from comparing servers) that Desktop Linux would still be more secure than Desktop Windows even if it was as popular as Windows, see here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1
Could you give me some ideas about how I can "optimize" my XP laptop to fix the shutdown time? I'd really appreciate it. (Please feel free to PM me, thanks).
My Win7x64 on my circa 2006 hardware shuts down in literally <5 seconds. It's the bootup that is slow for me - little > 40 seconds to login screen.
Yes, they're overall, with a few exceptions, a different breed. Very sarcastic and responding as though the solution should be obvious. However, I like most of those in the Wilders "All things Unix" forum; some really good people there
That's because you've got some issue or something hanging it up at shutdown. You'll have to troubleshoot that somehow. Win and Linux shut down about the same for me, regardless of distro or Win version...
That is my experience as well. Thank goodness I found PCLinuxOS. The people are wonderful. Even the developer himself answers queries in the forum.
Looking at the essential tasks I have to do, Windows just pips the post and I have to admit, not due to having a windows only app, but the Windows version of the same app being less buggy ! For the other stuff its 50/50, some things are better on Windows, some faster on Ubuntu, some of the integration of the Windows platform is a usability time saver compared to Ubuntu, some of the open standard supported compability of Ubuntu provides me with superior information exchange between numerous different sources. I have an idealogical/technical preference for Ubuntu no doubt. But there are a number of apps I use that I am more productive with on Windows to their Ubuntu equivalent, question is when I factor in licencing costs VS productivity over a year which is better ?
i'e had teh comp for several years and have trouble shooted it a lot. I don't know what else to try. I'd sure appreciate any suggestions or ideas or links on places that might discuss such issues. Thanks.
I would say i like Windows better overall. (Specially for GAMING ) Although Linux/Ubuntu is usually faster, lighter than Windows, you STILL NEED to learn how to use it, and even that i'm tech saavy, i have almost NONE experience in programming etc. For me it's all because it still takes quite a steep learning curve to be able to use Linux/Ubuntu properly, while in Windows everything is easier.
And Linux lacks adequate support especially for newbies and new Linux users. In one Linux specialized forum (not here) I was asking for help and the answer was simple : Your questions are too stupid , use the search engine to find them and the thread was closed. I couldn't find my answer anywhere. Running Windows is easy for everybody (both experts and newbies) and getting support is easy , too.
