ahah! The oldest chestnut in town. Well I couldn’t skip this thread now could I?
The original post says “Linux- it’s not really an alternative is it?”. I would have to say yes, but in a qualified way.
Is Linux an alternative for Joe Average out of the box to replace Windows? No it isn’t. It isn’t designed to be. In many ways the design tenets of Linux mean it will never be. Linux is an open, configurable, operating system which is supplied in various flavours for different tasks, some techy/professional, some enthusiast, some niche, some just wierd. In car terms Windows Vista is the new saloon car but this year’s model comes with sat-nav, bluetooth and metallic paint thrown in as part of the purchase price. Linux is a kit car which can be built for speed, economy, space, but not all three. How many car rental firms and company car pools use kit cars? None. They all use new saloon cars, easy to drive, no knowledge required, all the same, reliable.
If your rental car breaks down then you call someone out who takes it to a dealer who plugs it into diagnostics which tell them what to do. If it’s a jkit car you built yourself you reach for the spanners in the boot and fix it.
If you want a van buying a saloon car and modifying it is an option, but it is expensive, difficult, not worth the effort. You can build you Linux car kit as a van if you want. Or a 4x4. Or a track racer. You decide.
Now there’s a whole lot of new saloon cars on the road. There’s also plenty of kit cars, older cars, vehicles that can’t do all the things a new saloon car can do. So someone likes them. The saloon car owners look at the kit car owners and scratch their heads - who wants all the fuss of building the car, fixing it, tweaking it? The kit car owners do the same to the saloon car owners - who wants an anonymous saloon car, riddled with compromises, jack of all trades and master of none? They’ll never agree.
To finish? I’m not going to launch into a big anti-Microsoft tirade here, but I will explain why I run Linux and will not be buying Windows licences again. Because a lot of the reasons are subjective so I can only tell you why from my standpoint really.
Cost
I recently bought four OEM Microsoft licences for Vista (or XP with upgrade rights). That cost me about £400, and will be of the order of £450 once the upgrade costs are factored in. I have another dozen or so machines here, I am not spending another £1500! The other machines do all I want on the desktop, or are just crunchers, or a text console servers. I don’t need 3D support, DirectX, Netmeeting, experience scores. Linux does these jobs very well and so why spend the extra cash?
Upgradeability and software also affect cost. I run open applications on these machines including Office apps which would cost me dear on a Windows platform. I feel no pressing need to upgrade them, I have only just upgraded a server running Red Hat 6 and Samba - it has coped with all the variants of Windows even Vista and only got wiped and upgraded because it needed bigger disks.
My network is 100% legal, I have licences for all my machines. FAST can visit any time they like. That makes me happy. One less thing to worry about (we are a business not a private residence don’t forget).
Easy Install
Apart from a couple of machines which tend to have all sorts of distributions loaded on for test or whatever I run Fedora. I can install any machine with a network card from the network itself via NFS - no disks, no codes, no ringing up for (re)activation. To me that is important, I realise for others it makes no difference. But I did say this was subjective.
Hardware recognition, driver support, having to “go under the hood” to make devices work. Yeah Windows is good at that - NOT! Vista? The latest and greatest? Doesn’t recognise £5 PCI modems, Intellitype keyboards, Intellipoint mice, older printers, NVidia SLI cards… Under Linux you have the chance that someone, somewhere, has written a driver. Fat chance under Windows. We have all played the driver game with Windows, all had dll hell under earlier versions, all had bad drivers crashing the system. I would suggest this particular area is a draw.
Useability
I think a Linux desktop is easily as useable as a Windows one. I think software is there to do the tasks most folks want to do. How many people have fitted soundcards, video cards etc. to others machines because they didn’t have a clue? If it had been a Linux machine they would have been no worse off, they still would not have a clue.
My Linux desktops have the same capabilities as my Windows ones, they have on what I need. Playing video, music, networking, office, mail, DC - all these things are available, and work.
The only weakness they have is games. But for games I use Windows. Horses for courses.
For the average person using their PC for internet, a bit of WP, e-mail then Linux is easily good enough. It’s good enough for me, and I’m known to be “demanding” 