Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: 25 Reasons to Convert to Linux

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
__/ [Aragorn] on Sunday 15 January 2006 01:55 \__

On Sunday 15 January 2006 02:51, Technomage Hawke stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

DFS wrote:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [Roy Culley] on Friday 13 January 2006 01:16 \__


There seems to be a lot of repetition and overlap across points.
Nonetheless it's a good collection of Linux benefits.

It also contains the lies and immaturity that are the hallmark of Linux "advocates".

you make so much of this that I begin to wonder where your loyalties lie....

I don't understand.

His loyalties lie with Microsoft, as everyone on this newsgroup already

Having seen some pathetic habits of his, I wouldn't bother with him. I am
more inclined to verbally challenge Windows 'power users'

What is it you think makes someone a Windows power user?

(very few of them exist),

Many millions exist.

whose knowledge of Linux extends beyond a 5-minute spin with Red Hat
9. Notice that the challenger here did not confute anything in the article,
but targetted personality instead.

If you insist:

(1) Linux is free of cost.


(2) Source code is available and can be modified.

True. But so few people can or want to futz with the source that it's not at all a reason to switch to Linux.

(3) High quality support for Linux is free

As it is for Windows.

(4) There is little possibility that support for Linux will be discontinued at some future date.

This is bullshit. Suse dropped official support for 8.0 after only 2 years. On the other hand, MS is still officially supporting Win98 nearly eight years after its release.

For many Linux apps, death of the developer would mean death of the app. There's little to no guarantee support for a given OSS app will be around tomorrow, let alone a year from now.

(5) No major obsolescence, planned or otherwise, with Linux.

This is laughable, really. Not only does Linux have planned obsolescense in those distros on a fixed-release cycle, the amateurish nature of Linux/OSS development means apps are constantly being updated and previous versions are dropped from support.

(6) There are no forced upgrades for Linux users.

Nor are there any for Windows.

(7) Linux upgrades are free.

But there's no guarantee that an upgrade will be forthcoming. So it's meaningless.

(8) Don't have to keep track of Linux licensing.

This is a silly non-issue. It's no more difficult to keep track of Windows licenses than it is Linux discs.

(9) Linux features superior security.


(10) Linux is highly resistant to system crashes and rarely needs rebooting.

I haven't used it enough to confirm this, but I do know Linux apps crash very frequently. Even in my limited use of Linux, I see sigseg faults very often. I had Kubuntu 5.0.4 running on my P3-800, 512 system, and Konqueror sigseg faulted at least every half hour when I was using it heavily.

A program called Quantas would raise a sigseg fault each time I tried to close it.

My WinServer2003 system is very solid. It has only ever crashed due to an issue with Half Life 2 and the onboard video.

(11) ...users often find that all the applications that they want are freely available on the Internet and that it is no longer necessary to purchase any commercial software.

Probably true for some home users. Users with high multimedia requirements and gaming are going to be left out in the cold with Linux. And every large business has desktop computing requirements for accounting and business data analysis that Linux apps cannot satisfy.

(12) Linux has hundreds of distros.

True.  Linux nuts call it choice and diversity.

(13) Linux features a high degree of flexibility and customization.

True. This is a very attractive feature of Linux/OSS.

Also, it's not difficult to configure WinServer2003 as a file server, print server, app server, mail server, terminal server, VPN server, domain controller, DNS server, DHCP server, streaming media server, etc.

(14) Linux and other free software uses open file formats.

The world has gotten along fine with closed formats for 35 years, which shows it's a non-issue.

(15) Linux is generally faster for a given set of hardware specifications. This is due to greater optimization of the source code, including far less code bloat.

While Linux code sizes are smaller than Windows, the apps do NOT run faster on the same hardware. They're usually significantly slower.

(16) Linux features a high degree of compatibility with other operating systems.


(17) Linux/OSS vendors and developers have very high ethical standards.

As long as 'ethical standards' don't include the shameless copying (blatant ripoff really) of features and designs of MS and other closed-source products, including other operating systems (like BeOS), I would tend to agree.

(18) Linux has lower hardware requirements.

Depends on the distro.

(19) Linux runs on lots of hardware platforms.

Another non-issue. People that are going to convert from Windows are going to be running x86 systems. And before you start wailing about Sparcs and IBM zSeries, the article is about converting from Windows.

(20) Linux is a superior choice for use in academic institutions

For teaching OS design and C programming, anyway.

(21) For governmental agencies, Linux and other free software allows for transparency of data because it stores the data in formats consistent with industry-wide standards.

Same as #14

(22) With Linux and other free software there is little reason to fear the existence of backdoors, in large part because all of the source code is available for inspection.

I wrote a cola post in 2004, entitled

GNU\Linux\OSS might as well be closed source...

"... for all you cola bozos know about it.

Linux morons always brag about having the source code to your kernel and apps - as if you've ever examined it and know it's 100% safe. Sure.

How do you know the binaries included with your distro are built with the source files that come with it? You don't.

How do you know the code doesn't have back doors and trojans in it? You don't.

You just blindly trust your OSS vendor. Now I know it's not OK to trust Microsoft, but blindly installing anything from Mandrake or Suse or Red Hat is fine. This is typical Linux hypocrisy.

Even if you're a C\C++ master and Gentoo user, and compile every app. from source and specifically for your machine, you haven't read the hundreds of
thousands of lines of kernel code and code for every app on your machine.

So, for all you nutcases know about the GNU\Linux\OSS software running on your systems right now, it might as well be closed source code, and may be vulnerable to an "NSA back door" right now.


(23) Using and advocating Linux helps foster a healthy diversity and increased competition throughout the software industry.

True, and this is, to my mind, the most important reason to use and support Linux and other MS alternatives. But using and advocating isn't enough; you need to be spending and purchasing and donating. The economic world generally doesn't share OSS ideals; it's all about money. And marketing Linux costs money.

(24) Linux and other free software have not only caught up with, or some cases surpassed, their proprietary counterparts, but they are also developing at a faster pace.

I think Apple is eating MS' and Linux' lunch in terms of creativity and innovation.

(25) Linux and other free software provide the opportunity for users to contribute to the advance of software technology because the source code is freely available to study, improve, extend and redistribute.

Same as #2

(26) Linux systems don't need disk defragmenting.

Another non-issue.

He also refuses to face facts, to accept any criticism regarding
Microsoft or Windows, and he's a self-acclaimed white supremacist - and
that is the main reason why he's in my /killfile./

I never saw evidence of that, but I take your word (also reflected in the NG stats). I only ever read what Wintrolls have to say if they reply to me.

I did reply to you.

I particularly like the following
short article which is titled "Five reasons NOT to use Linux" (sarcastic).


If you haven't read it, I assure you it's a fun read.

It is sarcastic. And bogus. And silly. Just more of the immature ranting we've all come to expect from Linux users.

I rest my case.

You never had a case to rest.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index