Switching From Windows To Linux - Comments

Have you actually used Linux? Funny, my Windows XP *never* crashes. I have used it on about 4-5 different machines over the course of last six years and it has never once crashed. My current machine has been running for 63 days on a stretch.

Is Linux truly so far that it can run on old computers? Yep, but without the graphical X interface. Please show some education when you write your articles. The graphical interface version with either KDE or Gnome runs MUCH SLOWER than Windows XP or a Mac OSX. That's where Linux begins to show its limitations. Neither KDE nor Gnome have the sophistication of either Windows or Mac OSX and yet consumer significantly more memory, look pathetic, and convoluted for the lay person, or even for the semi-geek.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I've written several published books on Linux, so YES, I've used it. I suppose the likability of the GUI is based on your personal tastes. But I can't see anyone making the argument that Linux requires more RAM or CPU power to run well on a given machine. As for your experience with Windows never crashing or freezing, you are definitely in a tiny minority.

Thanks Bob. You don't mention the different interface choices you have with Linux. For example, if you like Windows style, KDE would probably be your choice. Typically Linux can run 4 desktops concurrently, allowing you to easily switch sets of windows - and desktop looks - in a moment. There are also some desktop tools that have been way ahead of the Mac and Windows interfaces.
Decent Linux distros often come with hundreds of programs- the only issue is learning which ones you want, theres so many. They run all categories, like image processing, web design, cataloging, and so much more.

I recently downloaded Ubuntu and, yes, it installed easily and processed its 163 updates very efficiently. Looks great! However, some operations are far from intuitive and, despite some experimentation with menus and putting in some time to track through Help entries and user forums, I still cannot work out how to install my network printer or Adobe Acrobat, which I downloaded, or do a defrag. The same installation issues will apply to the major media players and other applications when I get there. Bob, can you suggest any shortcuts to learning in this regard?

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are some great online forums where Linux users hang out. Google will get you there!

Why does not anybody mention MINT linux?I find it much more user friendly and closer to windows than Ubuntu.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are hundreds of Linux distros... that's why I suggest you try a few and see which one you like best.

For those concerned with intellectual freedom, there are just 3 letters symbolizing the Linux advantage: DRM! I've been a solid supporter/sufferer of MICROSOFT OS for decades, but the DRM implementation in VISTA is impossible to swallow, so I expect, over the next two years, to shift all of my computing over to Linux, and run whatever WINDOWS legacy applications I have in an XP virtualization.

Since I don't play games, I can not play them just as well on Linux as on WINDOWS, so the disadvantage of the former in that department is not much concern for me.

I used windows in one version or another for years (1996). Windows was easy to use, but not crash proof. I quit windows because I found some things were not user friendly. Trying to figure out the sequence of security updates on reloads and end of support. If you wanted to up date the OS it probably was not compatible with some of your old software or hardware. I switched to Suse about 8 moths ago and will never go back. If you have cutting edge hardware its probably not for you. Although my son bought a new HP laptop and loaded Suse 10.2 with no problems. For the average user with slightly old hardware linux is great.

What makes Linux more secure? Is it the operating system or that it is not a good target because of far fewer users than Windows? Does open source not make it more vulnerable if worked on? Help me understand.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Open source means that thousands of people can view the source code and examine it for potential security flaws. At Microsoft or Apple, there are probably only a few people who fully understand any given component of the code.

Also don't forget if there are windows apps that you can't live without, there's Wine, the Windows emulator, and Vmware (Though Vmware requires a significant amount of computing power to run reasonably).

I'd been working on Debian machines for more than 4 years (and Solaris before that) and last month was my first look at Ubuntu's desktop. Other than a few minor annoyances, it was completely painless. And Linux does run significantly faster, and more stable than Windows XP on virtually any hardware. Even if you're running Beryl and KDE (Which has way more capability than XP for graphics) its faster on an average machine.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Agreed, for further info, see http://www.askbobrankin.com/running_windows_on_linux.html

Bob, One of your better articles trying to expand OS options. I have only dabbled with Linux, but wonder why the world has not switched to a free and flexible OS from an expensive and proprietary MS.

Bob, your articles on Linux are getting better every time. One thing I would add is that there are inexpensive (and even free!) sources for getting physical CDs of Linux distributions.

Three versions of the Ubuntu distro are available for free thru http://shipit.ubuntu.com, http://shipit.kubuntu.org and http://shipit.edubuntu.org (watch those .com's and .org's). Set up a Launchpad account at one, and then you can go to each of the other sites with the same account and add the others. Takes a month or two, but if one's on dialup, it could make the difference between getting 'em or not. There are also commercial vendors like http://www.cheapbytes.org that sell pre-burned CDs for a little bit of nothing.

I have some constructive responses to others' posts, but I'll make that separate. But I'll add an AMEN! to John Howard Oxley's post here--a major reason to use Linux is FREEDOM. That distinguishes Free Software from freeware. Open source, open standards, freedom to modify the code (or have it modified), no Microsoft trickery (like WGA, activation, DRM and whatever else they have hidden in their CLOSED source code). http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html explains the philosophy of free software. I'd encourage you to include this link in a future article. Keep up the good work! And thanks!