Where it can be more difficult to install software in Linux is when the software you want isn't available in your repositories, or you need a more recent version. Sometimes the writers of the program have made a package available for your distribution, in which case installation is still pretty easy. Sometimes you have to compile the program from the source code, though, which can be tricky.
There are very few games for Linux - Truth. Compared to Windows, there aren't many commercial games available. Games such as World of Warcraft can be run under Wine, a program that allows Linux to run some Windows programs, but if you are a hard core gamer you'll either have to dual-boot with Windows or use a game console to get your fix.
That's not to say there are no good games available. PlaneShift, Alteria, America's Army, Sauerbraten, Battle for Wesnoth, and Frozen Bubble are just a few of the great games you can get for free.
I need an anti-virus program for Linux - Myth. One of the most common questions from Linux newcomers is which anti-virus program to use. They simply can't believe that one isn't needed. That's not to say viruses don't exist for Linux, there must be dozens and dozens of them. Very few exist in the wild, and those that do fizzle out very quickly.
One of the common arguments against this is that Linux has such a small share of the desktop that not many are written for it; if there were more Linux desktops there would more Linux viruses. This argument ignores the fact that Linux is fundamentally structured so that you have to work very hard to allow a virus to thrive. If you're interested, this guy goes into a lot of detail as to why that is.
The one time you may want to run an anti-virus is if you're running a Linux server that has Windows clients, for example an email server. This is not to protect the server, but rather to protect the Windows boxes from email borne viruses.
The people you find recommending Linux anti-virus software are usually working for the anti-virus software companies. I'm sure they have your best interests at heart, and aren't only interested in selling more product.
Linux is hacker proof - Myth. Just like any piece of complicated software, vulnerabilities appear and need to be fixed. You must keep your operating system updated, and if you're running servers you must understand how to configure them securely.
Having said that, when vulnerabilities are reported they tend to get fixed very quickly. And keeping your system updated is actually very easy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - robert
Getting hardware to run on Linux is difficult - Half-truth. Linux actually supports more hardware than Windows does. There can be problems with some newer hardware when the manufacturer hasn't released Linux drivers, but often times there are Linux gurus working hard to get it working. You may have to wait.
I don't know where you get this from. There is much less hardware support for most free linux distros. My experience is the add/remove and other similiar programs cause system problems.
Robert using ubuntu.
2 - bali
Getting hardware to work in linux is neither 'less' nor 'impossible'. It just depends on what level of lunacy you are willing to go through to get it.
A humble gentoo user.
3 - Mepis fan
I've installed Mepis on 7 laptops and 2 desktop pcs so far and have not found any hardware that it did not just automatically run on. I use it exclusively at home and there is nothing that I can't do with it. VNC, VPNC, Wyse60 emulator, telnet and ssh, all of which I use to access my work network from home.
I share printers and data with my wife's XP PC using Samba which was also all set up and running at install.
4 - Simon Barrett
I run a variety of computers at home, I have Windows, and I have Linux (Fedora and Debian, oh there may even be a touch of Unduntu on a laptop or two, oh and a couple of Apples.
Linux has moved forward a great deal in the last couple of years. It is easy to install, and it does not need the 27 reboots to perform the install.
On the downside, it is still more complicated when it comes to installing programs, in the Windows world you click on 'Install', in the linux world you have to deal with many other issues, Do you need an RPM or a source module?
It is my guess tho, that the linux world will fix this very soon.
I am a fan, but I must admit that I am writing this comment on a Windows box, I am not quite ready to make the big change. My web server is linux, my TV is an Apple, but this computer is WinTel!
5 - brian jones
I took the Linux leap just a year and a half ago. I really have not looked back. It took some learning and there was some challenges....the kind with rewards of course. After the drastic change from Windows98 to XP I had to toss out most of my old hardware (a lot of it expensive) and fork out the dough for some new stuff. Unfortunately XP was not quite ready for USB2 unless I allowed service pack 2 to be installed. This is where my romance with my new expensive PC ended. After the install of SP2 my operating system did not exist and I was left with that lovely shade of blue that we all have heard about. New PC, new hardware, no recovery discs? Did I not buy XP with my new PC? At this point I was not aware of Linux..so my only option was to spend another $150 on XP, go back to Windows 98 and loose my new hardware, or bootleg XP. I chose the lesser evil and had a friend download XP on his 56k File sharing program. I tolerated not being able to use the USB2 on my new PC but my operating system continually collapsed under the weight of virus attacks which because of lack of crucial OS updates I was prone to. I had spy ware programs constantly running in the background, my PC sending all in my address book the same virus. Why did i have to put up with this? I needed a new OS. I knew OSX was out of the question...I had a new PC and new hardware and couldn't afford that direction. This is when I discovered Linux. I started with Kanotix Live CD ,at first as a rescue disc to save my crucial files and clean up some bad stuff. Soon enough I decided to install to my hard drive and dual boot. I loved it. Yes it was a different world to learn about, but I preferred to spend my time and energy to educate myself with this free OS rather than waste it fighting viruses and using an OS that I might have paid for but would never own. I only dual booted for 1 month then allowed XP to slip into its blue purgatory. I have used PCLinuxOS for a year now. I fell in love with it after it automatically connected & installed my HP printer and wlan. That is something my XP could not even do with 700mb of additional HP software. I now have a circle of close friends that have eliminated XP off of their laptops and replaced it with Linux with absolutely no problems. Some continued to use their Adobe Photo Shop under WINE simply because they had paid for it but they also rave about GIMP's abilities. I give them 3 months.
6 - Thy
Another positive comment to add towards Linux: Certain live CDs, such as SystemRescueCd can actually be used to recover data from damaged Windows partitions, or to create a complete image of both Windows and Linux partitions. Not sure if Microsoft has the courtesy to provide similar tools.
As for the difficulty of installing programs under Linux, as far as Debian is concerned I can simply say: "apt-get..." :)
Finally, if you must have Windows installed for specific reasons, VirtualBox is an excellent alternative to a dual-boot.
7 - segphault
I've had some bad experiences with Linux hardware support. Any hardware that isn't entirely mainstream is going to create problems. Wireless support is very bad and there are a lot of problems with graphics hardware. I have three monitors, so I have to use xinerama, which breaks about a dozen different things.
I also disagree with your assertion that linux users are a bunch of hippies and communists. There are definitely a lot of hippies and communists, but I'm definitely not one of them, and I very few of my linux-using colleagues fit into that category either.
8 - Steve Wild
Robert - What I meant (and didn't make clear) was that Linux supports more hardware out of the box. This means not having to install additional drivers from CDs or download from the net, but simply have the hardware work. Also, Linux has far more support for older hardware than Windows does. If you're running newer hardware, you're more likely to have problems.
Mepis Fan - My personal experience has been close to yours. Running Ubuntu on my desktop, and remotely running a Fedora server, and I have had great success with getting things working the way I need to.
Simon Barrett - I'm surprised that you're having problems installing programs with Debian. apt-get or Synaptic is about as easy as it gets. Debian has a huge amount of software in repositories. Even yum with Fedora is comparable.
The only time it can get tricky is when there is something not in the repositories, which may be what you mean. There are a couple of projects to make a "universal packager" (Linspire's CNR is one that comes to mind). We'll see how they pan out.
segphault - Lighten up! It was just a joke!
9 - J.D.
I really liked this article. It reads close to how I would have put it myself.
I found the pros and cons to be honestly told.
A note about the hardware section of this article:
I have read in various linux related articles and books that the number of supported hardware devices are indeed more than what windows has/does support.I'm just vouching for the author in respect to that being a common view.
I was going to write more in this comment but I don't think I need to.
I agree with what you're saying.
I assume the commie/hippie thing to be a joke for the most part. I found humor in it anyway..
Take it easy.
-J.D.
10 - Stu
I started running Linux in 2003, and now I've reached the point where I don't even bother with windows anymore. When my windows using friends come to me with their problems, I just hand them a copy of a live distro, tell them how to salvage their data, and let *them* decide what OS they want to use.
Curiously, the people who seem to get the most out of Linux and tend to stay with it are the typical non-computer savvy "Joe Sixpack" types. When they run into a Linux problem, they've generally been able to figure it out for themselves. It's always been the ones who brag about their High-Zoot Overclocked XP computers and the IT "gurus" who run into problems and decide Linux is too difficult to use. When I told one of our IT people that I have a "Windows Only" laser printer working under Linux, and he was shocked! He seemed to think it was impossible to do. Sure, I had to Google for the driver, download the source code, and compile it myself (which took me all of five minutes), but it really wasn't that difficult.
I have to admit it scares me a bit that the Windows Experts can't get a live Distro to run properly, while a Blue Collar like myself can Net-install Debian Etch on an obsolete Laptop, and get it working without any major issues.
The only real MYTH I see about Linux is that millions of competent, intelligent potential Linux users believe they are too stupid to make it work, and thats a shame. People should give themselves more credit, because Micro$oft for sure won't.
11 - Josef
That "Truth" about hippies and commies was probably meant as a joke :-)
I use both Linux (at home) and Windows XP at work and find Linux more and more mature and ready for mainstream. As for the difficulty with app installation - it depends. If you try the Windows way (searching the Internet and looking for installers) you end up disappointed. If you check your distro repository you might be pleasantly surprised, though.
Not that I do not compile from time to time from source (you know - all that sweet stuff at kde-apps) but I do it only if I can actually create the .deb with checkinstall.
And the hardware support - well - if you don't buy the latest and/or cheapest you should be safe.
On a side note - ever tried to change a failed motherboard on a Windows PC? If the new one has a different chipset - bad luck, you will have to do the "Repair Windows Installation" magic.
12 - Richard
I've been using Linux for years and it has gotten SO much better at the ease of install, hardware detection, etc. I think the myths come from people who tried Linux a long time ago and then held on to their experiences. I'd like to sit those people down and show them a new openSUSE or Ubuntu install. It's a whole new world from Red Hat 5 (good times!). Hardware detection in Windows only appears better because vendors usually install everything for you. When I tried to install Windows Vista on my brother's computer recently I couldn't even start the installation program because it said the DVD-ROM driver (Pioneer DVR-111D) was missing! I couldn't believe what was on the screen. I'm sticking with Linux. Great post.
13 - Max
I Pais $89. for Suse Pro V 9.2. All it gave me was 10 hours of total nightmare. Never getting past go .Loss of all data and a necessary restore to OEM to salvage the situation. To suggest "read the manual of over 700 pages is rediculous
14 - kuriharu
*SIGH* Installing software on Linux is considerably more difficult than Windows.
needs library file but it is not going to be installed". Huh? I thought Debian/Ubuntu's package managers fixed this! And it's not limited to Debian/Ubuntu. I'm not going to mention what installing from source is like.
With Windows, you download an .exe, double-click on it, and click "Next" a few times. That's it. What's more, it will ALWAYS show up under your "All Programs" menu.
With Linux, you can search for items in your repository and most of the time they'll install. In my experience about 10% of the time I get "Package
Even programs that DO install from your repository don't always show up on your desktop or in a menu. FOr the ones that DO actually show up somewhere, they often end up in the weirdest places (TuxPaint under education?)
Linux has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go. I wouldn't want my parents, aunt or grandmother to have to go through this. It's nutz.
15 - slonkak
Wrong-o. Despite the lack of virii in the while for Linux, virus proctection MUST be taken into consideration. While I do agree with what you said, you give the false impression that you don't need to worry about it, and that's not true. Not true at all.
16 - Duki
The fact is simple: Linix is harder to use, there is no replacement for a A LOT of software (give me a decent and often updated RAW converter, where i don't need to issue commands to rotate an image), or give me simple one click DVD->Divx conversion apps, or DVD mastering software, etc.
2) Linux is still not ready for prime time due to it's retarded dependencies system and application installation headaches. For some odd reason they still don't want to immiate the best install system - that of Apple Macs!
17 - angaino
I'm not sure how you tend to install XP, but I've never had it take hours and hours and hours like you suggested. It takes maybe an hour to do a base install, then install the patches from an Autopatcher CD, and you have all of the critical updates. Another 30-45 minutes of letting XP download and install updates, while you are able to use your computer for other things, and you are up to date.
Also, if you know good places to find free software, like sourceforge.net, or any of the thousands of free software lists out there, you can find good, free, reliable, easy to use software for windows.
I'm NOT dumping on Linux, since Linux has much of this, but I suspect that some Linux users are unaware of some easy tricks that make Windows a lot easier to use. Also, as long as you have a few basic precautions in place, viruses and trojans are virtually a non-issue.
18 - racekarl
slonkak is right about anti-virus software.
Even if a virus can't infect your computer, a linux computer could become a vector for transmitting it. For example, you forward an email containing a virus to your friend running windows who then becomes infected. AV on Linux isn't so much about protecting yourself, but being a good neighbor and preventing your system from spreading virii to others.
19 - Scott555
I use Linux - deb, ubu, FC, etc. work and home. [Edited]
20 - Apache
As far as the hardware issue goes, Linux only really supports more hardware in the sense of older, obscure, and non x86 h/w.
I've had a hell of a time installing Linux on a laptop, and finding the required graphics chipset drivers, and following the directions.
21 - Ubu
Linux doesn't work well with wireless networking: Mostly-truth. I remember my very first experience with Intersil Prism 2.5 hardware in 2003, and it was an incredible ordeal getting it working properly. Fast-forward almost _4 years_ and it's still every bit the chore, every bit lacking built-in tools, every bit NDISWrapper'd drivers silently failing on top of already-installed-but-lacking-firmware kernel native drivers.
What a freaking nightmare. For many people wireless networking is the only public network access they have. Is there any excuse for returning us to the classic chicken-and-egg problem Linux used to have, wherein most wired NICs wouldn't work out of the box? Is there any excuse that during the span of 4 years so little progress has been made?
22 - Tim
I've tried several flavors of Linux, including those ones you don't install, you just run from CD. In all my attempts and all my hours of work, I have never once gotten any Linux version to successfully boot.
I do some computer consulting for Windows and Mac and am not a novice. I'm sorry, it's no myth that Linux is hard to install or even run off a CD.
23 - Matt
Windows has support for more hardware. It's just economics. No hardware manufacturer will ever release anything without Windows drivers, and this has been the case for many years. Linux support is optional for them, and in many cases you wind up with base functionality for the chipset the device uses. Third party and community written drivers are often available, but depend on the willingness of the manufacturer to allow access to some pretty low level proprietary stuff - that's why it took years for there to be Linux drivers for Intel network cards, for example. Windows supports everything. Old stuff gets rolled up into monolithic drivers, but the devices still work fine.
You need antivirus. The fact that so many Linux users claim they don't is the number one sign that Linux is becoming mainstream (along with all those OS X users thinking they are using a Linux based operating system). The argument of course is that Linux viruses struggle to survive in the wild because Linux is naturally more secure. Consider this: If you were a real live hacker, not a script kiddie but someone who can actually code, and you wrote a virus that could take control of machines remotely, or gather information that might be quite valuable from them, why would you tell anybody? And wouldn't you target operating systems that people brag about leaving unprotected? There are guys out there who have written viruses that could gain control of any *nix system, and breed and go undetected while doing it. So it is likely that there are not only viruses out there that are living and breeding on your Linux machines, but that they are actually more dangerous than most Windows viruses because they are well written. And they go undetected because there is no market for Linux AV software.
So far, I've stuck with Windows because every time I try a new flavor of Linux it is either too much of a pain in the ass to deal with (is Slackware still around?) or it has become Windows in a different box (RedHat). I use BSD for my servers, and will probably switch to OS X on my desktop if Apple ever stops screwing it up.
24 - bj
Agreed. I knwo of only three things that would turn people away from linux. Intel i810 / i915, and JMICRON PATA cnotroller. JMICRON is fixed in later version of the kernel, but i810 and i915 support still blown chunks. You ALWAYS have to manually reconfigure xorg (with xorg.conf) in order to make it work. Given you only need to add a couple of lines. Then if you have a widescreen monitor, you need to use a kernel hack. And finally Wireless.
Aside from those (and video card drivers) i have never had to install drivers. Hardware support is amazing in linux. ease of use and logical placement of everything is MUCH better than windows. It amazes me all the time why people still use windows.
Too bad opengl doesnt compare to Directx10 :(. Hopefully it gets a huge update that is comparable. I am really going to miss linux when good directx10 games start coming out.
25 - justin
the only real hardware problem i've encountered so far with ubuntu was trying to get my dual-monitor setup working right (halfway there, they both work, but can't rotate yet). other than that, it's been very good.