I've heard for years how everyone is sick of Windows crashing and how Windows is a poorly made system. At the same time, I've heard about how much better a Macintosh is because it doesn't do any of these things. I've even heard that Linux is better than both of them.
But having used a Mac, Linux, and Windows, number three is what I'll stick with. That being said, I'm going to debunk a lot of the stuff the Linux community puts towards its own system in the same manner they do when they talk about Windows and its community.
In effect, I am jumping into the fire.
Linux users champion their own software because they feel they are allowed to customize what is installed on their system with whatever version they use.
I applaud that, really. But let's say I have something else, like a life. Windows beats Linux on that alone. You install the OS and you can go and come back and put the rest of the software in later.
If I try to do the same with Linux, I get the feeling that there's always a piece missing. I don't care for that. I want those pieces, whatever they may be, to be added so that if I have them and don't want them, I can quickly remove them. I don't want to spend hours in another installation setup to put in the same component.
Linux users feel that Windows makes computing less intelligent because there is no need to think with Windows.
I agree that a computer should awaken the senses and make you smarter. The computer, however, is a machine. A machine is only going to do what it's told. That means that if you don't know, don't care to know, or simply can be bothered with learning how, then don't get Linux.
That doesn't mean that you don't have the brains to use a computer. The lack of will for you to learn something that is possibly more complex is a sign that you are deciding what you want to learn. Most people don't want to spend their hours at a computer typing commands. They want to click a button and that's it.
Linux users feel that their operating system cannot be affected by a virus.
This is easy to break down. If someone can break into a $500 dollar iPhone, then someone could easily break into a computer running Linux. It's probably not quite as easy to do it, but the harder you have to crack a program, the more likely that a backdoor is possible to find.
With the failure of Vista and the phasing out of XP, Windows users may find themselves with a welcome alternative in Linux.
It's an alternative, but not really a welcome one. Sure, many brands of Linux are supposedly compatible with Windows-based hardware. But given the caustic nature of the way companies deal with Microsoft over in the Linux community, the drivers created for the system will probably not work as well as they do with Windows.
Well, Bill Gates is evil.
Okay, so Bill is probably Hitler reincarnated when it comes to how he created Windows and ran Microsoft. At least you can point to him to blame someone for the problems with the system. Who exactly can newly converted Windows users blame for the faults in Linux? No one! There's a zillion damn versions and a lot of hands in the pot.
Linux never crashes like Windows.
If it's something made by man, it will crash. If something is made by a community that tells you in a childish voice, "Mine is better than yours," then it likely isn't any better than the alternative.
Okay, I've said my piece. I'm sure I'm flat-out, ignorantly wrong when it comes to Linux. But if Windows users are fed up, where are the numbers? Why aren't there Linux users on the streets like the people who give out free Snapple? If Linux is free, the community should be able to free themselves from their anti-Windows rants and take to the streets.
Now, can someone point me to a good Linux OS?Powered by Sidelines