rahmu wroteUhhhh... where to start?
Technical superiority is too vague, and sounds too much like promoting a business solution rather than a home desktop/laptop system. But when it comes to being faster, safer, stabler and less needy in resources there are no debates whatsoever. Linux won. And it's free.
Yeah? On what hardware? Because the quality of linux kernel code varies a lot depending on the hardware. Running Ubuntu on my macbook, for example, was really bad. CPU usage was very inefficient, and the system froze relatively often.
rahmu wroteUsability: The main difficulty of using a system like Linux Mint or Ubuntu is installing the system. I installed it on my mum's laptop and I know so many people who's done the same. Turns out our moms (less tech people on earth) manage to use them perfectly. After all Firefox is Firefox whether on Windows or Ubuntu. Plus maintaining the system is easier than Windows: No registries whatsoever, no bizarre GUI utilities you have to work on, ... only text conf files (usually heavily commented) you just need to modify.
Lots of PC users do not even grasp the concept of conf files. They think its an application called terminal. They came to associate every window with an application.
But what really bothers me here, is, oh first "no registries whatsoever"... what do you call GConf? And what about MP3 playback? DVD playback? You have to install packages and their dependencies for that.
Of course linux can handle Firefox, but then you might as well strip the whole OS and reduce it to the kernel + firefox.
I wont defend windows. I came to give up any idea of "maintenance" on windows. You dont maintain window. you periodically reinstall it. That's it, full stop (and that is the main reason I stick to OSX)
rahmu wroteFun factor: This is the main reason why people do not shift. I have been using Linux for the past two years and I'm having a blast. But that's me! By switching to a Linux-based the average user will loose his favorites apps (most likely). He'll have to go through a learning curve...
I dont know how anyone could consider dependency-hunting, manpage reading and all that as fun, but I'm glad you understand my perspective.
rahmu wroteBut wait. Isn't it the same with Mac? Apps, learning curve, different, ... And Mac IS a UNIX! Two reasons why more people switch to Macs:
The OSX interface is less buggy, and generally better quality, in my humble opinion.
I think it is easier to install and maintain an OSX system then a linux one. There are exceptions, OSX is less friendly to command line users, but I can live with that.
rahmu wrote- Apple is great at marketing. Everyone knows about their products, and they send the exact image of luxury, taste, etc, that they want. Everyone wants a Mac. Fuck I want a Mac.
Their success is not only based on marketing.
Marketing is just part of the process
rahmu wrote- Mac ... is NOT free. This hurts a lot in Linux's credibility.
It is far from free, but if that's the price to pay, be it.
Its too bad thought that OSX is based on BSD, which is open source. I think its' kinda unfair, that the system would be built upon something that they did not have to develop or pay for, but at least end users get to enjoy a good quality kernel.
It is unfair though....
rahmu wrote"How can a product that is that good be distributed freely? Aww here comes the cute story of volunteers working together over the internet. That's never gonna be as good as Windows 7, a product Microsoft itself has developed using the best engineers in the world!"
Sure that's not true. Linux development is a multi-billion industry in which all the big names have pitched in: IBM, Google, HP, Novell, Red Hat, ... Except none has ownership over it.
To sum it up, Linux is fun for geeks imho. Development, administration, learning, being part of a community, IRC meetings, forums, blogs, ... it's fun. And free.
No major disagreement here
rahmu wroteHowever by next year Linux is hitting the desktop/laptop/netbook/... big time. Google's Chrome OS is a Linux distro, and when a marketing giant sets its mind on something it's gonna happen.
That remains to be seen
rahmu wroteLast couple of thing:
- Gimp is not as good as Photoshop. But Gimp not only demonstrates the power of free software, but also gives a strong image manipulation program for 0 cost. I am pretty confident that no one here in Lebanon has paid the 1000$+ license for Photoshop CS4, and I can guarantee the day piracy will be stopped, no one will be so quick at insulting Gimp.
I'm not insulting GIMP, I'm insulting (kinda) the people who falsely advertise it as being better then Photoshop.
rahmu wrote- @rolf: No offense, but helping Linux simply because it's open source is not understanding what open source is about.
In 1998, people of the Free Software community were tired of rms' speech. They were tired of asking people to change because of the moral values of Free Software, and were convinced that shared development produced better, faster, stronger softwares. They created Open Source. (You can check out the open source initiative for more info).
Anyway, promoting linux because it's morally better is really not what the creators had in mind. They want to promote linux as the best Unix around (in the first place) and as the best OS in the second place.
And what is open source about? Personally, I dont know what it's about, but I think that I am using some if its products (kernel, apache, php among others...) so I might as well support it, since these look like good quality products to me. I do use linux distros too, as boot cds sometimes, when needed, but not as primary OS.