APLawrence.com -  Resources for Unix and Linux Systems, Bloggers and the self-employed

Linux sucks, Windows is better than Linux

© December 2004 Tony Lawrence

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.

People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:

Why am I using Linux?

Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.

Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.

And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.

But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.

However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.

Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.

Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.

And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.

Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.

But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.

In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.

If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.

Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.

That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.

Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html

Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.

Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.

It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)

Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.

Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..

And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, shitty or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.

And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.

If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.

Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!

And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical boobs. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.

Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

See also Why I use Linux.

Got something to add? Send me email.

(OLDER)    <- More Stuff -> (NEWER)    (NEWEST)   

Printer Friendly Version

-> linux sucks, windows is better than linux


Inexpensive and informative Apple related e-books:

Take Control of Automating Your Mac

Are Your Bits Flipped?

Take Control of IOS 11

Take Control of Preview

Take Control of OS X Server

More Articles by © Tony Lawrence

I don't think you have used Visual Basic on Windows. It has amazing resources to script windows machines.

I have programmed in perl, python, Java, .Net, C++, C#, Visual Basic, etc. I am currently typing this from a Linux machine.

Visual Basic is an interpreted language in the class of Python and Perl. Coupled with the RAD(Rapid Application Development) tools, it can be used to piece together GUI utilities in a snap that do exactly what you decribe, and I argue, in about the same amout of time.

I personally prefer Visual Basic to perl because of my familiarity with it's RAD tools and the IDE(Integrated Development Environment)

Please do not flame Windows when one doesn't even know the preferred development language that people use. It may be a crufty system, but it is not a complete piece of junk.


Okay, I won't flame Windows, even though it richly deserves the criticism it routinely receives by many computer professionals.

However, calling Visual Basic a "development language" is, in essence, like referring to a sledge hammer as a precision assembly tool. VB is a crude mess whose sole purpose is to allow non-programmers to write "programs" that will run under Windows. I personally don't know anyone who writes software for a living who would admit to using VB. Come to think of it, I've yet to find a good reason to write anything that runs on Windows. If I'm forced to employ pictures to communicate with the user then he's probably too damned dumb to properly use a computer.


---January 11, 2005

Well, I do know people who program for a living and use VB :-)

But I still stand by my opinions: If you are happy with your tricycle, be so.


"Well, I do know people who program for a living and use VB."

Gotcha! This court finds you guilty of failure to fully absorb what was written and sentences you to 60 days of editing batch files. &lt;Big Grin&gt;

If you carefully reread what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that I don't know anyone who uses VB. &lt;Another Big Grin&gt;


Fri Aug 5 22:43:15 2005: 933   anonymous

Ok..First Things First..How you said that people that have claimed to tryed linux havent tryed hard enough..Well I myself, I have had linux for 2 years after my Windows crashed. I was all about the whole supporting on the linux subject, it was grate for the first 2 month till i ran into lots of problems, Like my Virity of programs, Gaming programs, Wine<----Never got it to work, Some Music Worked but not all of it, All i have to say is that if you want a basic computer that you want to get formiler with really really quick get Windows, But if your into programing and hacking and would take time to researsh all of the stuff to get it running , Get linux then. I will post more if you have any Q's , i will glady answare them,

Sincerly, Anonymous--Skittles Aka

Sun Jul 16 17:05:13 2006: 2263   anonymous

get a suzuki , harley sucks

Mon Jul 17 03:44:08 2006: 2264   BigDumbDinosaur

I think the above respondent missed the entire point of the article.

Aside from that, I can't vouch for Suzuki motorcycles, as I haven't ridden one of those contraptions. Best thing I can say about Japanese bikes is that they are easier than a Harley to pick up after they fall over -- assuming the rider survives the trip.

Sat Sep 6 05:08:05 2008: 4528   anonymous

Harleys are overweight, underpowered, underbraked, overpriced and handle for*\***. Perfect to describe all the bad parts of both operating systems.

Sun May 17 04:26:57 2009: 6372   anonymous

6 days now and i still can't install a software on linux. this os is a fools toy and if i Know how to get linux off the face of the earth i think i would happly do so. people who use linux like's the book better than the movie. i want my time and money back.

Sun May 17 11:56:16 2009: 6373   TonyLawrence

You obviously didn't take advantage of readily available resources. Please see

Wed Nov 25 06:56:31 2009: 7614   Venkat

I wonder you the MS Windows users dont read enought on the net or book. All they like is "click click click and click, its done". weather its simple watching the move or shutting down the system or any complex things from searching/sorting information on the system. Linux provides all the possible options to the users. Windows just provides only one option. I dont deny that windows is lot better now. Previously it provided the option of reboot as solution. Linux now have good UIs and tools. In 1996, when I used Windows 3.1, it was difficult for me to understand how the stuff worked. MS DOS was a big comfort then. Later learned to use it. It took sometime to make it work my way. Many of you used the MS Windows for quite sometime. Even if you sit in front of latest Mac OS with has a legacy for User friendliness, it will be quite wierd to use it for the first time and will take sometime to understand it. If you agree on this, then its the same with Linux. Windows users have narrow vision and got used to the crap. Even if someone creates the best OS in universe, hard core Windows users want another crap only from Microsoft. Check on the issues that are practically faced by Windows users in Microsoft forum. Give it a try.

Thu Aug 29 23:36:29 2013: 12298   Antonymous


Linux is definitely more difficult to learn how to use than Windows. But my biggest qualm with Linux(I'm running Ubuntu 12.10) is that is is sooooooooooo full of bugs it's not even funny. Part of the problem might be that I have a dual boot system with Linux/Windows8 and have had to reinstall Linux twice.

What I don't get is why Linux is written in native C instead of C++. If you're going to write a program as complex as an operating system, using objects(which have functions too)instead of structs(with only data members and pointers to functions)makes things far more manageable because the trouble with procedural languages is the domino effect: When something goes wrong in one part of the program it triggers problems in other areas and the whole thing comes crashing down. Object oriented program allows you to have separate modules that work together and isolate problems without the whole thing failing.Somebody should come up with "Linux++" that's basically Linux with classes.

Thu Aug 29 23:48:19 2013: 12299   TonyLawrence


Linux is not any more difficult if you are starting with no knowledge of either.

As to OOP in kernel code, you'd never get the performance. Maybe someday..

Tue Oct 8 19:59:43 2013: 12343   anonymous


I have three computers. Two running Linux and one running Windows. When I want to work on my computer I'll use Linux. Conversely, when I want to work on my computer I'll use Windows. Get it?

If I don't want to think about the computer and just be productive I'll choose Windows. If I'm in the mood to tinker I'll fire up the Linux box. I love 'em both.

Sun Jul 20 05:21:45 2014: 12510   anonymous


Why do you Linux guys just assume that an average human being can operate a computer without visual cues and reminders? (By the way, when you start to mention the command-line, I'm already looking for a weapon, with some very dark fantasies focused on your head.) Why do I get upset, you ask? That's easy. You and your Linux OS set me up to fail on otherwise easy, common, mainstream tasks, and I don't like to fail. And I don't like people who set me up to fail. You brainiacs are always preaching how good Linux is, never acknowledging the eidetic memory required to use it.

Using your car analogy, in a standard model, the steering wheel looks like something I'd turn to control direction. While I might confuse the accelerator and the brake pedal, I know from the position of the seat that I operate them with my feet. I also might mistake the transmission for the radio, but a little experimentation clears that up. In other words, even if I haven't driven a car in 50 years, a few rough starts and I'm back on the highway within the hour. Your Linux car, by comparison, has one ambiguous control, right smack in the middle of the dash, with no labels, and 1,700 positions. That's cruel. Now you're probably going to remind me how smart Linux users are over the rest of the gen-pop and how memorizing those 1,700 positions (completely different for each model of vehicle, no less) is such child's play. (heh heh heh) That's insulting. It's one thing to write the OS to accentuate your strengths. It's quite another to write it to expose another's weakness.

Look, there's only so much that most of us want to do with a computer. Web-browsing, email, word-processing (speak the phrase "text-processing" and I'll reach through that screen and choke the life out of you), spreadsheets, photos, movies, a little light art - enough to make an Xmas card, anyway, but that's it. Outside of our gaming, eBaying, bill paying, stock trading, Face Booking, news reading, coupon-clipping, Netflixing, YouTubing, Pandoring, Skyping, photo fixing, and writing up the weekly church newsletter, we don't do a lot. Why? Because that IS alot. That's the bounty of 30 years of PC development from the evil empire and its acquisitions. It's great and it's generally enough.

Bottom line: Unless you're a geek with a 125+ IQ and lots of lonely Friday and Saturday nights to struggle with a text editor or memorize the 50+ command switches required to search for the file that you created less than 10 minutes ago, Linux sucks. It's a brick wall, a monster, a tease, and a sadistic high school gym teacher all rolled up into one. It's a horror, a mess, a Cretian labyrinth, an unholy cult, and a reminder of an expose I once read on "Cosmetic Surgeries Gone Way Wrong". If you don't want a hate reaction from gen-pop users, enforce a standard (god forbid!) that copies Windows' look-and-feel. That means ONE GUI, ONE set of operating concepts, and lots of help files. Approve and certify a standard set of applications for the gen-pop user and package them as a standard Linux workstation. Make it friendly. Forget multi-tasking - one step at a time. Keep it clean. And NEVER require the user to touch the command line for a common task. A user can always access what's "under the hood" when they're ready.

As I recall, about 10 years ago, give or take, the folks at Red Hat (or someone closely affiliated) made an effort to produce a Linux workstation for the everyman. I believe the distribution was called Mandrake and it was a noble effort. Clearly a version 0.99, Mandrake had plenty of rough edges. Yet the promise and hope were there. Know what? Every Linux geek in existence panned it to death. It was labelled a "My First Unix", and called names that varied all the way from "Clam-bake" to "Sham-fake". Clearly, you Linux nobles like your OS fiefdom and didn't enjoy the visiting peasants. (So sorry to have trespassed. We won't do it again.) So, why is Linux too hard for most of us? Well obviously because you want it that way ... and we know it.

Mon Jul 21 15:35:33 2014: https://bcstechnology.net12511   BigDumbDinosaur


Why do you Linux guys just assume that an average human being can operate a computer without visual cues and reminders?

Because the average human being can. How do you think computers were used prior to the advent of mice and cute little pictures? Anyone who used a PC during the 1980s knows exactly what I mean. Going back even farther, CP/M was 100 percent command line oriented (MS-DOS is a soft-of descendent of CP/M), and many people managed just fine with CP/M machines, such as the Kaypros and some of the Tandy boxes.

I can't help it if you suffer from ADD and CRS, and hence need little cartoons to operate a computer.

Fri Aug 22 18:48:30 2014: 12517   anonymous


I've replied to you several times now but the posts were apparently too violent to pass the moderator. My words will be softer but my sentiments hold.

"Because the average human being can. How do you think computers were used prior to the advent of mice and cute little pictures?"

Got news for you: average human beings didn't operate computers back in the 1980s. Nerds did. That means guys with above average IQs, no social lives, no love lives, and an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Sounds a lot like you, in fact.

"I can't help it if you suffer from ADD and CRS, and hence need little cartoons to operate a computer."

Why do you think Apple and Microsoft spent so much cash to make those little cartoons? Because they help, damn it! Those cute little pictures delivered computing to the masses (and thereby took away some of your mystique). I found your reference to ADD and CRS so typical of Linux .... people (written with rising blood-pressure and gritted teeth). Fact: the average person can relate 3 - 7 object concepts. That's all. Fact: the average person does not multitask. He works each task serially, starting at the beginning and working to the end in INTUITIVE, not logical, fashion. Fact: the average person does not have an eidetic memory. Fact: the average IQ of the race is between 98 and 103. I believe your love of the CLI, the cryptic commands, the endless switches, the piped outputs, and a keystroke-driven text editor is driven more by your vanity in using these overcomplicated messes than by any so-called increased productivity. Never mind the process I'd like to use to develop your personal appreciation of the average users' needs. It suffices to say that so long as Linux deliberately continues to ignore them, Windows will remain the preferred OS.

Fri Aug 22 19:01:29 2014: 12518   TonyLawrence


I am the moderator, by the way. I didn't null your comments because they were violent, I nulled them because they were unintelligent. I let this one pass because it wasn't.

You are both right. Those of you who need pictures aren't as smart as we are (with regard to computers; I make no claims on anything else) and we both know it. But there are a hell of a lot of you and that's why Windows exists. It's also why Linux looks more like Windows every day.

But if you actually READ what I said in the original post, you'd find that I agree with you while at the same time lamenting that you aren't bright enough (at computer use) to realize what you are missing.

Fri Aug 29 12:50:27 2014: 12519   anonymous


I hate linux not because i think it is a bad operating system, but because it is like trying to learn German
only Germans know how to speak it and you can't get a common scene approach to using it.
It is not the time it takes to learn it, is the lack of informative information about using it that stops me even wanting to wast my time with it.
As far as the intelligence is concerned i am a HND certified electronic test engineer and have put together many operating systems, so intelligence does not come into it.
Linux is very badly put forward in it's entirety, not only that I haven't got another lifetime to want to bother working it out.
I wrote this with no disrespects to Linux users or any users of any preferences of operating systems.

Fri Aug 29 14:49:44 2014: 12520   1b9)


The problem was two things: Linux doesn't support installations on RAID systems as part of its automatic installation system (unlike other modern OS), and Wubi Ubuntu's installer seems to have some serious issues. We were finally able to get two other versions of Ubuntu to install as all the instructions had indicated they could be, but we also had to do it on a non-Raided drive because the university could not be bothered with some custom, manual install that could not be easily repeated by someone else. So we finally did get it all to work though not all the expensive hardware we'd intended. The only reason we were even bothering with Linux is because the only multi-threaded version of Bertini is for that operating system. So as soon as such a version exists for Windows, Linux will probably be of little use to the PhD mechanical engineers in the department I was assisting.

Fri Nov 21 13:57:42 2014: 12557   OmkarHRamachandran


Well, Linux is actually getting a lot better with the GUI. My mother, for instance does not know how to use the command line and still manages fine on her ubuntu 14.04. For 'simple' tasks like email and word-processing, the recent versions of linux are just as good as windows. On the other hand, Linux is fantastic if you already know some programming. I started HTML and C when I was 10 years old and I can't start my day without firing up emacs or vi or just writing a few bash scripts. Its true that linux 5 years ago wasn't quite as user friendly as it is today.
From the viewpoint of package installation, ubuntu comes with its 'software center' (or 'apt-get install' in the command line) which actually makes it easier to organize the packages you have installed.
Overall, there's nothing fundamentally 'wrong' about windows. I mean, I'm all for linux because that's what I've been using since I was a kid. So, if you're used to windows, there's nothing wrong with it at all. But, if you want to do more with your computer than email or computer games, then linux is far more flexible than windows.

Fri Dec 12 03:03:43 2014: 12585   troy


I don't think it's a question of intelligence so much as priorities (for the majority).I seriously want to learn this stuff (downloaded kali), but can't even seem to get to a basic HD install.If you have problems installing it (on multiple systems) it takes the allure down considerably.Is there one decent linux/debian starters guide the common dullard could understand? At this point I'd pay money for a paperback well written guide.

Fri Dec 12 10:25:38 2014: 12586   TonyLawrence


While I have never read it, I'm sure Linux For Dummies would fit the bill. The others of that series certainly have been decent.

Wed Jan 21 00:27:33 2015: 12603   fschu


You want to know why people hate Linux. Because all you effing linux dweebs assume loads of knowledge with every answer you post. I've been dealing with PCs and their various OSes since DOS 1.0, NetWare 4.61e, and been in the NetWare Developers, and Microsoft developers since the early 90's. what most amazes me is how even the "advanced", and I mean the quotes, linux distro's come with the most pathetic tools, christ edlin was easier to use than vi.
Trying for at least the 5th or 6th time to gen up a working linux server over the past 5 years, this time to test nginx instead of apache with wordpress, and I give up it is not doable. There are no docs that can get you to a running web server that is usable.
I hate Windows web server, but I can spin it up drunk and it works -- slowly, insecurely, but functional.

Wed Jan 21 01:28:06 2015: 12604   c361)


I'm always told how great Linux is but the only thing they ever show me is basic browse the web etc. Big deal , to even get it to do things windows does out of the box is a pain.
I've tried it on and off over the past 15 + years and got nothing from it other than a headache. The so called community is full of snobs that aren't helpful at all they are are down right derogatory. The documentation might as well be written in gibberish since 99% of it makes absolutely no sense. Nothing is explained. Don't bother to ask for help you will be told "you shouldn't have that problem" and then made fun of. So there is no support and it has limited hardware driver support. Everything on it is a cheap copy or ripoff. You can't get any "real" programs for it everything has some misspelled and or unpronounceable name that usually doesn't work well or stops working when the real program author/company makes a change. I don't find that fun. at all. Why go through all that effort and end up with nothing to show for it.

Wed Jan 21 01:39:08 2015: 12605   JohnH


First, I like Linux, and prefer it to Windows (I have 2 installations Mint 17.1 - 1 Cinnamon and 1 KDE, as well as Win 7 and XP, in a multiboot config.). I believe that Linux is better even for those who just want to browse, do e-mail and basic stuff. It accomplishes all that better than Windows and the transition from Windows to something like Mint 17.1 with the Cinnamon desktop is easy. The reward is a faster and more reliable system, which also happens to be free. There are still a few hardware compatibility issues (Kodak in particular), but you could probably replace the incompatible hardware and still come out ahead on cost.

Tue Apr 14 11:34:20 2015: 12657   anonymous


you forgot to mention, most Linux distros and programs, have dribbled out some basement dwellers arse.
99.9% of everything Linux is a TOTAL WASTE of SPACE.

The comparison is easy. Windows disk into pc, answer questions, DONE.
Linux iso, 3rd party sw to burn disk/pendrive, dosent work, try another, then another, finally boots, idiotic nonsensical questions, still doesn't work, hours researching talking to pedos and pervs, still doesn't work...

Tue Apr 14 11:37:07 2015: 12658   TonyLawrence


Says a moron who has plainly never installed Windows OR Linux :)

Mon Apr 20 23:11:49 2015: 12669   Andy


I guess, yes, if you want to have another job on top of your day-job, trying to figure out how to connect your printer to Linux, or why it works one day and not the next, then use it.

I guess, in a way, Linux does sort the men from the boys, but, then I like to have a life, and a wife, kids, and hobbies and interests other than sitting in front of the computer trying to do things which Windows does easily.

It's not like learning to drive a car, it's like driving an old car, which breaks down and leaves you stranded, and takes 6 hours to fix just when you need it the most.

And it's a car which was never much good anyway, because no-one supports it, so the drivers never utilise your expensive hardware properly.

Tue Apr 21 08:39:55 2015: 12670   TonyLawrence


Yes, Andy, but Windows isn't a good car. A Mac is a very good car..


Printer Friendly Version

Have you tried Searching this site?

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more.

Contact us

Printer Friendly Version

Java is the most distressing thing to hit computing since MS-DOS. (Alan Kay)

Linux posts

Troubleshooting posts

This post tagged:



Unix/Linux Consultants

Skills Tests

Unix/Linux Book Reviews

My Unix/Linux Troubleshooting Book

This site runs on Linode