Good Linux Users Don’t Talk About Microsoft
For this article I’d like to take a different direction concerning Linux. Is it all too typical on the internet to hear a Linux user go full-on zealot style and say, "YEAH! I use Linux! F**k Microsoft! You people are sheeple! Down with the status quo!" Blah, blah, blah, frickin’ blah. Nobody cares. It’s as if a Linux user can’t possibly say anything about the operating system he or she uses without mentioning Microsoft and/or what most people use for their personal computing and how it’s "wrong/bad/evil", etc. To those zealots, I say unto thee: Shaddup. You’re not helping.
Truly happy Linux people couldn’t care less about Microsoft whatsoever. Instead, they just get down to business and make things work. Whether it’s for desktop, laptop, media center use or what-have-you, instead of bickering about Microsoft they’re getting things done, which of course is what matters the most.
The good Linux users I know don’t even talk about Microsoft. Never will you see a "windoze", "winblows", "M$" or "Micro$oft" in anything they blog about. To note, those that do write those childish things are morons because as said above, nobody cares. You don’t see me calling Linux users tux turds, penguin poopers or GUI-challenged, do you?
Good Linux users tell good stories about the things they’re doing now, such as:
"On my 32-bit system I can now access all 4GB of my RAM. Now I don’t have to buy a new computer!"
"I’ve been able to keep my computer running for two solid weeks straight without a single reboot."
"I really like the Evolution mail client. I really like the iCalShare connectivity too!"
"I love the games I’m playing. Great stuff!"
These are the types of stories I like to hear. And yes, they’re out there on the internet. Sometimes it takes a little time to seek them out but they do exist. You can find happy Linux users that say nothing of Microsoft because it simply doesn’t matter.
At no time from these folks will you see, "Well I was using Outlook.. what a PIECE OF CRAP THAT WAS.. I HATE MICRO$OFT! Evolution rulez!!11!1 KDE! GNOME! (penguins.. tux.. uh.. no mouse.. yeah!)"
No, no, no.. stop. Just stop.
I suggest a new line of thinking for fervent Linux users: Cut the anti-Microsoft crap. Cut it completely out of your conversation. Cut it out of your spoken word, your blogs, your videos and so on. Why are you giving Microsoft free advertising? People don’t care about your anti-Microsoft opinions because they’ve already heard them a million times by at least a million other people, so you are not adding anything new or helpful to the conversation.
Tell us what you do with Linux. Tell us the apps you use. Tell us why you prefer specific Linux apps over others. Give us useful information.
Computer use as far as operating systems is concerned is to the point where people will use what they use because that’s what they’re used to. Windows people will continue to use Windows. Mac people will continue to use OS X. Linux folks their distro o’ choice. Yes, very obvious, but that’s the way it is.
Those who are interested in Linux want to hear about (duh) Linux, and not your anti-Microsoft point of view. So please, try and be helpful, because after all, all computers are sh*t.
And to Linux zealots, fsck you.
How Long Does Backup Media Last?
Read Next
30 thoughts on “Good Linux Users Don’t Talk About Microsoft”
cheers,
Ray
Please, EXPLAIN why, if the majority of the the Internet is on a LAMP stack (The L stands for Linux, in case you didn’t know.) that WINDOWS servers are still attacked?
The most popular web server in the world is Apache, and yet IIS is the one constantly attacked.
No. I don’t think popularity is actually the deciding factor. Otherwise LAMP stacks would be attacked a lot more being more commonly used than any Windows stacks on the ‘net.
Opinions are opinions. I will stick to what I said, that most drivers are still stuck on Windows, especially on Notebooks and Laptops. I need Photoshop, I need games and other software without having to bother with emulation or running APIs to make them work. Even on the internet, software for Windows are everywhere, that’s a fact.
The reason why i said “Everyone’s out to get them” is that because if you’re a hacker, you would like to damage the majority. It just so happens that Windows is “easier”, but as I said, If Linux was the majority, no matter how secure it is, IT WILL BE ATTACKED.
All of this isn’t bashing on Linux. As I’ve said, I know it’s just a matter of support, as you also said, the fear of supporting binary drivers. I’d like that time to come when every software would say :
“Supported Operating Systems : PC/MAC/LINUX”
Anyway, it seems that this debate will never end and I’d only get quoted and waste my time. So, I’ll just leave the figures out there that Windows is still the majority for its ease-of-use, despite the alternatives available which is most of the time, can do less that its Windows counterparts. I really find it immature to bash on it.
That myth has been dispelled simply by citing Apache vs. IIS. Apache is by far the most popular… yet IIS is the most targeted. Popularity may be a factor, but insecurity is insecurity no matter how popular an OS is. Windows is targeted because it is EASY, not just because its popular. Otherwise you’d see a lot of non-Windows systems targeted outside of the desktop market, which as of right now, that is not the case.
“I can imagine if it was Linux that was the dominant OS, it would have as much security holes as Windows has now because everyone’s out to get the “Big Fish”.”
It may seem logical, except the fact that Linux is actually designed to be secutre. And the reason Linux is hard to compromise was actually well-described by Eric S. Raymond, who said that the fact the source code is out there in the hands of thoousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, security flaws do *not* last long. I seem to recall one common exploit found in all OS’s at one point. I forget what it was, but Linux had it fixed within a DAY of the discovery of the flaw, Windows took nine months.
It is NOT exclusively because of popularity.
“But don’t get me wrong, I love Linux too, but drivers are always a problem. An average user wouldn’t want to go through all the trouble to DO MORE WORK TO MAKE IT WORK. Majority of software are still exclusively for Windows, which is the main reason people cannot switch entirely. I pray for the time that vendors finally support Linux and write software and drivers for it. When that time comes, only then the playing will be equal.”
I take exeption to that, Linux has way more hardware working out of the box than Windows in my experience, and it has been proven, time and time again that Linux has the larger driver library of the two. Linux hardware support for Linux is better. Note that you likely never experience the crippled nature of a fresh Windows install if all you use is OEM releases and system recovery disks, wherein the OEM already did the dirty work of making the hardware work properly. Try installing the same version of Windows, only retail, on the same box, and it’ll make more sense.
As for software, you have GOT to be kidding. Except for games, Linux can do everything Windows can do and way, way more. Being a POSIX system, Linux has source compatibility with software from dozens, if not HUNDREDS of operating systems, thus getting hundreds of thousands more apps than Windows just be actually being standards compliant. Unless you need to play games, you have no reason to actually stay with Windows.
“I guess we could hate Microsoft for their business practices, but people would still get them for the painless setups and support it has for both software and hardware. PC gaming is an example, while you’re hoping that that new video card would have linux support and if the game could run on Linux. Emulation still is slow at this time unless you have a really bad-ass machine.”
Again, see my note on actual out-of-box hardware support. Linux is way ahead of Windows in this arena. Every time I install Linux, everything is working out of the box. With Windows I usually have to have my drivers downloaded ahead of time, since Windows doesn’t even support most ethernet or wlan out of the box. The only driver I have to download for Linux is my nVidia driver, and that’s largely because so many distros are scared of supporting binary drivers ot of the box. And I don’t even have to hunt on the web to get it, thanks to software repositories, yet another thing Windows utterly lacks.
“While it’s true that Linux has gone a long way and has matured into a better OS, it is, in my opinion is still for hardcore-tech people. It requires a bit more tech skills, curiousity and a lot of research.”
Ubuntu and its derivatives are so freaking easy, even my sister can use Linux with no problems. I hate to say it, but I think you’re in the minority if you were having hardware problems with Linux these days.
I can imagine if it was Linux that was the dominant OS, it would have as much security holes as Windows has now because everyone’s out to get the “Big Fish”.
But don’t get me wrong, I love Linux too, but drivers are always a problem. An average user wouldn’t want to go through all the trouble to DO MORE WORK TO MAKE IT WORK. Majority of software are still exclusively for Windows, which is the main reason people cannot switch entirely. I pray for the time that vendors finally support Linux and write software and drivers for it. When that time comes, only then the playing will be equal.
I guess we could hate Microsoft for their business practices, but people would still get them for the painless setups and support it has for both software and hardware. PC gaming is an example, while you’re hoping that that new video card would have linux support and if the game could run on Linux. Emulation still is slow at this time unless you have a really bad-ass machine.
While it’s true that Linux has gone a long way and has matured into a better OS, it is, in my opinion is still for hardcore-tech people. It requires a bit more tech skills, curiousity and a lot of research.
To be clear, in the absence of these articles I hardly ever think of Microsoft. Please stop.
existence. I deplore Microsoft’s business practices, agree that they threaten
free software, and will gladly defend the latter as required, but I much
prefer to discuss the virtues of Linux and other free operating systems than
to criticize Microsoft’s software.
Apart from the mild annoyance of having to convert the MS-Word files that come
my way, and having to deploy filters to reduce the spam propagated by
compromised machines running Microsoft Windows, it’s quite easy just to get
work done without paying attention to what is happening in the Windows world.
What do you think Microsoft’s “get the facts” campaign is about, perchance: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
I am an avid Linux user, and I am constantly reminded why, when I use my software and have an altogether less frustrating and more productive experience. Why shouldn’t I criticize Windows for all its flaws. Why on earth not?
I’ve never met any sort of business willing to give up Microsoft for Linux, simply because they’ve never agreed to abandon what they’re used to for the sake of zero price tag of Linux.
From what I see, FOSS developer seek to make their products better technically and more usable. Microsoft only seeks to hook the public on technology it controls, no matter how inferior, serve them with expensive, hard-to-manage solutions, and maximize its profit agenda. It is this attitude, the moral inferiority and outright lies of Microsoft that drives the behavior this article describes. That a large majority of the computing public has fallen prey to Microsoft’s rapaciousness has got to be understandably galling.
Windows was the first OS to bring computers to the masses. To most people, PCs are Windows, period. And the computer market today tends to reinforce that concept.
To many, installing an OS is a mystical operation, and some even think is something done in the factory. It’ll take years for humanity to change these concepts, but I think it will happen eventually.
And MS Windows isn’t that bad. Its only problem is it’s a Microsoft product. ;-) If it were for them, we would all have computers with coin slots: to access each function or update on your computer you need to put a quarter in it. So far, that has been basically their philosophy. If that hasn’t happened yet, we have to thank companies like IBM, Nvidia and Sun, and the Open Source Community.
That said, I think this thread should no longer be on this site, for it has become a passionate political discussion (which I love, don’t get me wrong), rather than a collection of technical insights. This is an IT enthusiasts website, not a political forum.
I have used Mandriva (Mandrake) Linux since about 1998 (shortly after they started business). I migrated to using Mandriva as my day to day production OS by about the year 2000 or 2001 (this was a gradual process for me). Now, when I attempt to work on a Windows computer, it feels awkward. When I attempt to help a friend re-configure their Windows computer, I am reminded just how much power I really have by using Linux. There are just so many parts of Windows that the user can not configure. For example, when Windows starts, you have no choice of what graphic is displayed during the boot process. In Windows XP it is the Windows XP graphic. In Windows Vista, it is the Windows Vista graphic. In Mandriva Linux, I can choose what I see from the moment the BIOS passes control to the system kernel till the moment the system shuts down. Even more importantly, I have complete control over what software is installed on my computer (right down to individual packages if I so desire). I can choose one of four or five predefined security levels, or create a custom security configuration of my own design. I can customize my Mandriva installation as much or as little as I choose. The bottom line is that with Linux I have access to all aspects of the OS, so I can make my system look, feel, and work the way I want it to.
The following are my reasons for preferring Open Source Software over Proprietary Software:
The Linux Operating System is Open Source Software. Open Source Software is all about freedom and sharing ideas. With Open Source Software, millions of people look at the source code every day so security and functional weaknesses are found and fixed in a time frame usually measured in days or weeks. Users have the ability to communicate directly with software developers, so they can make feature requests or suggestions.
The Windows Operating System is Proprietary Software. Proprietary Software is Closed Source, and is all about keeping ideas secret (hidden). With Proprietary Software a limited number of people see the source code, so when security or functional weaknesses are found, they are fixed in a time frame usually measured in weeks or months. Users have no access to the software developers. Instead, they communicate with a Technical Support Agent (Telephone Operator) who usually knows less about the Operating System than the user so any feature requests or suggestion gets lost in the shuffle.
As stated above, a user will use the OS with which (s)he is most comfortable (or to one that comes installed on the computer), and that may never change, but if you use Windows and you reach a point where you are fed up with WGA and that Security agent constantly asking you to confirm that you really want to do what you are trying to do, give Linux a test run. You can get a Live! CD image for most Linux distributions. Burn the image to a disk, then boot your computer from the CD (no installation required). If you like what you see, take the next step and install it to a Virtual Machine where you can use it until you become familiar enough with your distribution of choice to make an informed decision. If the decision you make is to switch to Linux, install it to your hard drive (replacing Windows). Chances are that you will never regret it.
my2cents
http://www.penguinpetes.com/Doomed_to_Obscurity/index.php?strip=0000036.jpg
I’ve actually had that conversation with computer-store clerks in real life!
Where I work, I’m one of three Linux developers who’ve been conscripted from doing Linux platform support to “assist” another group in adding Linux support to their Windows-centric product. The three of us are constantly battling the all-PCs-are-Windows mindset and quite frankly, it inspires quite a bit of anti-Microsoft snark from us.
None of us would be doing it if the Windows zealots weren’t constantly in our faces. Does it make us bad Linux users? No, it makes us human.
Really, I’m not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.– Linus Torvalds, 2003-09-28
If it’s not an alternative, what do you have to say about the Halloween Documents where Microsoft so much as admits that Linux is a valid and looming threat to their Windows empire?
It always pisses me off when someone says Linux isn’t a competitor when even Microsoft admits they’re a competitor in leaked internal memos?!
When you consider how Microsoft has been (and is still) trying to push down alternative developments and how aggressive it tries to keep its position in the worldwide IT market – for example on the desktop sector – I can clearly understand that people who use and like Linux/Unix go out and tell the world what they think of Microsoft products or why Linux/Unix is better for certain tasks in their opinion, respectively.
What one should rather criticise is the way they do it: I agree with you that it often sounds quite profane and childish.
Nevertheless it is not wrong IMHO to advertise Linux products as a distinctive and in many cases totally competitive alternative to Microsoft products. And by doing so one automatically runs into the Linux VS M$ dilemma ;)
I respectfully disagree, and I’ll tell you why.
Except for gaming (Which is frankly a minor and stupid reason to dismiss something.) Linux can do everything Windows can do and much, much more. Enlighten me as to how it’d be wrong to push Linux as a viable alternative when Linux has… well… actually been a viable alternative since 2004-2006 for *non* technical users and since forever for technical users?
Hardware? I’ve seen Linux support way more hardware than Windows except for fringe hardware, which wouldn’t be well supported on ANY OS. What’s worse for the Windows vs. Linux debate for those on the Windows side is that Linux easily trumps Windows in the three categories out-of-box hardware support and sheer volume of drivers available in total for Linux and sheer amount of platforms Linux runs on, supporting that much more hardware as well (Windows runs on 5 architectures at the very most This is counting mobile versions. Linux runs on well over 200!)
Market? Quantity != Quality. But if I really must argue market, we must look outside the desktop/laptop market and into netbooks, servers, supercomputers, embedded, clustering, and system administration needs. Oops, looks like Windows hardly penetrates half those markets, and is getting slaughtered by Linux and other *nix operating systems in all those, with Linux being the dominant player in all of them. Sure, inside the limited desktop and laptop markets, Linux isn’t even close to a “present” alternative, even though the < 1% estimation is, IMHO, a gross underestimation of how many people actually use Linux on the desktop, since there’s no real way to determine just how wide an install base it has because 1. Linux is freely redistributable and 2. Linux doesn’t even request registration like shareware or commercialware. One can take a survey, but statistical sampling is still pretty unreliable, and frankly I think most statistics are BS used in propaganda anyway and can’t be relied upon to prove anything without actual evidence to back it up.
Quality? Linux definitely kills Windows here. Uptime, stability, lack of bloat, considerably superior design, and we have a better mascot to boot, not to mention a much, much higher uptime. Just because it can highly modular (With all sorts of drop-in replacements for just about every part of the average Linux distribution available.) Some call the sheer amount of choice a downside, but I respectfully disagree. Just like in Windows, Linux offers alternatives to its own software. No one is forcing the n00b users to use the alternatives or choose between them. Meanwhile the normal to experienced users can choose what works best for them. Linux, unlike Windows, doesn’t sacrifice everyone else’s choice for the lowest common denominator.
Support? Have you ever called Microsoft technical support and actually *tried* to get actual help with something? They’ve gotten notorious in the past decade for having less-than-helpful non-commercial support for the layman and its commercial support is is almost totally aimed at the enterprise tiers, and an almost absent community support system. Linux? So many vendors offer commercial support for everyone alongside non-commercial support, and there’s so many forums, IRC channels offered by both the distributors and the community. Linux Questions and the Arch forums have probably the best community support for Linux I’ve ever seen. (I’ve found Ubuntu to have semi-lousy community support compared to Arch or LQ. Oftentimes I’d have started a thread asking for help that wouldn’t even get a reply for weeks, and on #ubuntu, if the idiots don’t know how to fix your problem they don’t even acknowledge your existence.)
User friendly? That’s a myth. Were you ever actually born with the knowledge of how to use Windows? Mac OS X? EVERY OS no matter how “easy” it is has a learning curve. Revers the situation: If you grew up with Linux and then switched to Windows, people would be trolling WINDOWS as hard to use. Don’t tout having to learn something as the reason not to do it. Time is another factor altogether. If you dom’t have time to learn something, then that’s one thing, but learning it itself is not a bad thing and Linux often brings you skills you can take to the bank, I guarantee it, if you even decide to take the time to master it instead of just learning how to be an average desktop user. Command line? Don’t give me that crap. No one used to care if they had to use the command line until Mac OS and Windows 95 taught them the dirty lie that they should fear it and that using it is a Bad Thing. I’ll tell you righ tnow there are so manny things a CLI can do a GUI cannot do that GUI apologists always overlook, including full-out automated tasks. Once one learns the CLI, he can do things much faster than a GUI user.
Please, enlighten me as to how Linux is not a competitive alternative to Windows when it is in fact a competitive alternative to Windows?