permalink for this thread :
Buddy Posted on 20/4 9:27
Linux v Windows?

As someone who knows their way around Windows reasonably well and doesn't have any major problems with it, can anyone tell me why Linux (or other "open source"?) would be any better for me?

speckyget Posted on 20/4 9:30
re: Linux v Windows?

Free Simpsons tie with every copy?

Buddy Posted on 20/4 9:35
re: Linux v Windows?

Got way too many of them already. Next?

BoroMutt Posted on 20/4 9:37
re: Linux v Windows?

Advantages of Linux

1. Secure - programmers interested in Linux tend to add to it rather than try to destroy (I have to say though that Vista has impressed me - Microsoft have "adopted" some of the methods common in Linux distros)

2. Free software

3. Less resource hungry than windows, Linux will run happily on old Pentium2 PCs.

4. Open Office - you will struggle to find a feature of MS Office that ISN'T in OO.

5. GiMP - a photo editor that is probably as good as Photoshop and FREE


7. No viruses worth worrying about


1. It's not windows

2. Games - there are some produced for Linux but not many.

3. Connectivity with obscure peripherals can be problematic

UndercoverElephant Posted on 20/4 9:46
re: Linux v Windows?


1) Free
2) Free Software
3) The GIMP - a free photo editor which is nowhere near as good as Photoshop really, but is still quite good as long as you've never used photoshop.
4) Secure


1) All applications are not user-friendly.
2) Linux was built by people who like to tinker with computers for people who like to tinker with computers.
3) You will develop an aversion to bright light.
4) You probably have better things to do with your life.

If you're still tempted, there's something you can download called Knoppix, which burns onto a CD or DVD. Pop it into your machine, and reboot. Then you can try Linux without goosing everything.

Buddy Posted on 20/4 9:58
re: Linux v Windows?

Mutt - aren't 1 and 7 simply because so few people have got it that nobody's been arsed to hack/infect it?

And re 2 and 6 - wouldn't I still have to pay in the hundreds of punds for the hardware to put it on, by which time I might as well get a bundled Windows anyway?

trodbitch Posted on 20/4 10:03
re: Linux v Windows?


It doesn't 'rust' like windows can over time. Installers for applications on windows often overwrite files with older versions causing general oddness. With linux, people who work for the distributions (ubuntu, fedora etc) package up each application out there to ensure they all work properly with each other. An installation (of linux) will not need re-installing after a few years to speed it up. In fact, there aren't these huge milestone releases where all the software you need just stops working until people rewrite it (as with vista), things incrementally update over time.

Installing software can be incredibly easy. Need an office package? Open the software package manager, put a check on the box next to open-office and it downloads and installs without any needed intervention.


You may have to get hands-on with some rather cryptic commands as opposed to clicking through cryptic dialog boxes in windows.

I recommend ubuntu which downloads as a cd you can burn and boot up to try out. If you are happy, click install and you can install it alongside windows in a dual boot system until you are happy to fully take the plunge.

Fearless_Fish Posted on 20/4 10:04
re: Linux v Windows?

Linux IS more secure generally than Windows. However, Windows can be made secure enough so that any risk is negligible anyway.

Your point about number 7 is mainly correct.

trodbitch Posted on 20/4 10:06
re: Linux v Windows?

Buddy, there are viruses on linux but I've never seen one. It's not just because there aren't many installations of linux, it's just that when you run applications (and I'm including a virus as an application) they run as your normal user account which at a fundamental operating system level cannot change key protected files that could cause problems.

BoroMutt Posted on 20/4 10:10
re: Linux v Windows?

The security is partly due to the user base which doesn't attract the saddos who create viruses, it's also a far more secure way of building an OS due to it's structure. Which is why if you look at Vista, the first thing that struck me was that MS have adopted some of methods of Linux and Unix to secure the OS. The result is pretty much the same. More secure.

I've used both Photoshop and GiMP semi seriously and I was amazed to find that 98.652% (made up figure) of the functionality of Photoshop was in GiMP

As for cost - one of the advantages is that you can use a lower spec of PC than you would need for Vista or XP. Ebuyer used to do a Linux PC for about 200. Try getting a bundled XP/Vista box for that!