RE: Why Linux over Windows?

So basically again, why would you ever choose any version of Linux over Windows if you had the option to get Windows?? That is the question.

TLDR: Many practical reasons, even more ideological and philosophical reasons.

Here are some initial thoughts:

Reasons

If you have a linux server, you can develop on your desktop as if it was the server. The environment is the same
You like flexible, hackable systems. Linux is entirely free to modify to your liking. Don't like the desktop environment - well, change it. If you are the type who pulls things apart and puts them together again, you might enjoy Linux.
It's developer friendly. Just apt install python and python is there. For windows I don't know, but there must be some tutorials out there.
It keeps evolving and maturing, unlike windows, which dumps a new uncompatible version on you every 5 years.
It has many features that Microsoft copies into next versions of Windows.
It has had app-stores for 20 years already. Just apt install anything.
It updates every single piece of software installed with one command or automatically. The OS and the installed applications.
It's incredibly stable and fast. If you have a different experience, it's most likely caused by other reasons I'll come to shortly.
It strives to be compatible with almost everything on earth, even windows. Windows isn't compatible with Linux.
It works really well on older hardware. By installing linux the old laptop feels like new, and you save money on hardware.
Saving money on software. 200€ doesn't sound like much, but saving that makes sense if you think of the compounding effect. 200€ for the OS and 400€ for text processing every 2 years is something. I also try to cut down 10% on everything I buy, in which software is included. Think how much more money you would have at the end of the year if you're expenses were 10% smaller.
If you ever have to reinstall Windows you will appreciate how painless installing Linux is (unless there are problems caused by hardware vendors like NVidia, AMD, Broadcom). You answer 5 questions and let the installer do the rest. If you have an ssd it will take you 15 minutes. Then you install all the software you need from one place. Compare that to windows: It takes 2 hours and you have to be present all the time. After that you uninstall all the crap(if you can. Here you can sense how restricted you are and might appreciate the freedom of Linux), quickly get a antivirus thing, register here and there, open explorer to download firefox, open firefox to get everything else, register again. Install windows updates, reboot, wait, install more things...
The drivers just are there. Plug in a 4G-dongle and in a second it will ask you which carrier you use. No installing 350MB of crap. Plug in a USB-memory and it shows up. No "installing drivers -> your drivers are installed successfully". Have a HP printer? Just apt install hplip and after 10s you're done. On windows you pop in a CD or download the 350MB software package, cook some tea, open up the installer and make your choices, you get the point. Linux is just so painless at it's best.
Everything is open source, which means security. If someone introduces a backdoor or virus, it can be spotted, which in itself is a reason not to do so. It isn't a black box, of which you cannot know what is going on inside.
Plugging in an external monitor or projector usually works much better with Linux than with Windows.
WIFI usually connects much faster on Linux than on Windows. Configuration is also much more user friendly.
You can watch DVD:s from any region on Linux. That might be possible on Windows too, I don't know. I haven't tried BR-movies, because streaming is easier today.
Linux doesn't need much hard-drive space or RAM. 20G and 1G are enough for average use.
You can shut down any service you don't want to see running.
Fixing eventual problems is much easier thanks to unrestricted access to every single file, program and config, and the fact that things are quite plain and not hidden under huge complexity.
Most viruses are made for Windows. On Linux you are fine without any antivirus.
Linux might make you love computers again. It's fun and unrestricted. You can experiment.

Meta-reasons, like ideology

Windows is build with only corporate interests in mind: How to get even more money from customers. If you are aware of that fact, it jumps on your face everywhere. Same with most software built for windows. Linux is built on co-operation by voluntaries for people to enjoy and make use of. It is built with passion.
You just have to admire all the people reverse-engineering tons of drivers for hardware manufacturers who refrain from releasing any documentation that could help the developers make software so the users can use the hardware they have payed for. Some hardware vendors even sue the developers doing the job hardware vendors should have been doing themselves, but refused to do. This is where most of the bugs you are experiencing stem from. Some hardware vendors suck. Also think of the fact that you are a criminal if you watch a DVD (which you own) with a DVD-player (which you own) on Linux. Doesn't that reveal some ugly monopolistic corporate politics to you? Do you really want to pay for such behaviour and support the further development of such monopolies? I don't.
You might want to do your own part in freeing the software world from the stranglehold of monopolies. You might think freedom of choice is important. You don't want to wait for freedom to come to you. Without the Richard Stallman and friends, we would all use Windows XP, there would be no competition and Windows would cost 1000$ per year and the governments would be spending billions more on fighting piracy and enforcing copyrestrictions and Digital Restriction Management.
You might not like corporates spying on you.
You can participate in the bettering of any piece of software on Linux. The development is done in the open, and they listen to your feedback. Have you experienced this in the Windows world? Have you even thought it is is possible to contribute? Probably not.
There are huge communities ready to help you if you are polite. You might get help in under a minute. Try that for any Windows software.
Most programs written for Linux work also on Windows and Apple. They want co-operation and compatibility. They want freedom of choice, and don't restrict you to Linux only. Linux itself is windows-friendly, while windows is not Linux-friendly.
GPL. You might like the idea that not everyone has to invent their own wheels. Things can be shared and re-used.
UNIX-philosophy. Everything is a file. All config files are human readable and editable with a simple text processor.
You might hate the fact that hardware manufacturers are forced to promote and pre-load windows on every piece of hardware they sell. Otherwise they are choked to death. The exact tactics used are hidden (of course), but the effects can be clearly seen. How much choice do you see in computer stores?
You might love the fact that the same piece of software can be stripped down or optimised for phones, TV:s, servers, smart-watches, routers, fridges, coffee-dispensers, media-centers, automobiles, aeroplanes, space-stations, missiles, warships, nuclear-reactors, supercomputers and anything. You don't have to comply to corporate license agreements and NDA's, ask for permission, pay royalties and patents. You can concentrate on innovating. You don't have to forward the restrictions of corporate software to end users. Everything is free.
No government can force Linux to implement back-doors or viruses.
On windows you have to agree to the EULA even before you can read it. You can read it only after installing windows, and it states that if you install Windows you have already agreed with it. (Sorry I can't remember the source of this claim)
If you install Linux, it asks whether you want it to co-exist with Windows. If you install Windows on Linux machine, it offers you no choice but to overwrite it. Which one represents the kind of world you want to live in?
Linux is maybe not at the very forefront of restricting what you can do, but certainly at the forefront of technological development. If you are interested in technology, you will find yourself fascinated by what's going on in the Linux world.
Without Linux the internet would probably look and feel like IE6 and MS frontpage.
Microsoft, Apple and Google are all trying to tie people to their own ecosystems. Linux* strives to create an all-inclusive unrestricted environment with freedom of choice. The only walls in the Linux world are those of the proprietary software vendors, who happen to exist in the same world. So if you have any compatibility issues on Linux, they are not caused by Linux, but by the other parties.

Some corrections

I don't think Linux is unstable at all. The graphical glitches you experienced are not caused by Linux, but probably your GPU, the makers of which are still struggling to learn how to co-operate. Luckily they are getting better.
Most Windows programs have equivalents for Linux. Most of them have more than enought features than most people will ever need, and some even more than Windows programs. Usually Linux programs are much lighter, open up and work faster. Notable exceptions are CAD programs. Check out https://alternativeto.net
Most people who say there are no equvalent software for Linux are just saying they aren't comfortable using something new and different from what they are used to. Personally I have "problems" using Windows and MS Office, because I'm so familiar with Linux and LibreOffice. Sometimes I pull out my hair in frustration with how cumbersome Windows is.
Windows slows down over time, while Linux doesn't. This is a widely shared sentiment.
The need to run windows programs in wine mostly stems from the fact that you have started off in a Windows environment. Your personal stuff might be in Evernote, Outlook and OneNote, which wouldn't have been the fact if you had started off in Linux. Also the need to open filetypes which don't have Linux programs highlights the fact that software by commercial companies is often designed to lock-you-in. You don't notice the trap until you try to get out. That's why most Windows users don't understand Linux users, because they don't feel the rope around their neck, but Linux users see it.

About Ubuntu

Ubuntu is most likely the first experience people have with Linux. It is the most user friendly version to start off with. However it is not the only version (the right term is "distribution" or "distro", but it doesn't necessarily mean anything to a windows user). Ubuntu has had many clashes with the Linux-community, mainly because they have been percieved to have the NIH-syndrome - and created some division among the communities. They have created their own version of windows-management, which makes it hard for GPU vendors to eventually support "Linux", as there are many separate targets. My point is that you might have a better experience with some other distro. Distro-hopping is a special kind of sport, where you try out several distro's. You will see how diverse and colorful the Linux world is, and how much progress and evolution this unrestricted community makes possible.

Sort:

Trending

[-]

finfree (32) 9 years ago (edited)

Everything is open source, which means security. If someone introduces a backdoor or virus, it can be spotted, which in itself is a reason not to do so. It isn't a black box, of which you cannot know what is going on inside.

This argument is arguable. For a small program, open source means security. For a larger system like Linux, open source is meaningless to security. Because no one (except the developer if the code is actively developing) will look into the code and spot the trojan / backdoor / virus. I recall that cryptsy claims (assume they are telling the truth) they are hacked by a coin, Lucky7Coin, and it is open source. I read some post describing on the code of Lucky7Coin. The hacker hides the backdoor in the C macro. No one awares of this backdoor until the hacker took away the money.

In the impression of general public, open source is safer. This is more like a marketing point in my opinion. Because 99.9999% users are not developers,. Even they can write code, they will not look into the open source.

$0.00

1 vote

markopaasila (65) 9 years ago

I agree. I just didn't want to go too much in depth on each point. But I do think that having the source code open is like "come have a look, I have nothing to hide" and as such, is an indication of honesty. If the people who commit code are know real-world people, the likelihood is even higher that they are honest. It is certainly no guarantee, but on the other hand it is more of a guarantee than having a black-box with "there's no backdoors here, trust me".

ihashfury (56) 9 years ago

awesome