You need Linux so shut up.

CallumJ writes:
I hear so many people saying that Linux is worst operating system and that it should never be used.

Where on earth do you hear that? The only people I've heard say that are OS X fanboys (and even then, it's rare), and people who've never tried it. I think we can safely discount both of these opinions - rather than write an article slagging them off, perhaps one emphasising the good features of Linux is in order?

Y'know, I think I might just do that.

Fair point Ooble.

These "so many people saying that Linux is [the] worst operating system", are not people I know - and if I did know them, then I'd most likely think they shouldn't make such ignorant statements while lacking the knowledge that they clearly are.

You could uh, write this with a little more aim towards people who don't know CLI and LAMP are. The article just doesn't make that much sense for anyone but linux buffs.

Linux is useless as a desktop operating system. But its perfectly viable for a vast assortment of other uses.

Y'know, I'm in the middle of writing an article on how Linux is fantastic as a desktop OS, so I'm not going to argue your point - just be sure to look out for it. :-)

I'm running Linux as my desktop OS right now - Ubuntu 5.10 with Gnome.

Out of the box, everything works and it's all easy to understand. With the "Add Programs" tool linked to Synaptic it's actually easier for the average user to pick out and install software that they need on Linux than it is on Windows. Plus pretty much everything is free, there are no security concerns for the average user, and (with the latest Gnome and some theme tweaking) it can easily rival anything else on looks and intuitive interfaces.

The main problem is that MS crank up the price-per-license of Windows to vendors offering other operating systems pre-installed. Dodgy business practices win out again, unfortunately.

I have much to thank for Windows as well, I just don't feel the need to crow about it from the rooftops.

The rest of your article does such a job of not explaining what the actual benefit is that
Linux brings to each item that you list.

And the "You need X, so shut up about it" subject implies the most immature form of argument,
the type that cannot come up with a valid position of debate, and so resorts to attemtpting to
stifle further discussion by shouting down dissenters.

I hear so many people saying that Linux is worst operating system and that it should never be used

Ignore those people, they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

I have friends/coworkers who SysAdmin or Develop primarily on Windows, who would never say
that an OS (Linux for example) or application is "the worst". First because they would make more
specific statements about what they don't like on Linux, or what they hope could be improved.
Second, because they are far to busy trying to make the most of the OS and apps they do chose
to use to make time to bash something they haven't bothered to learn about.

Most of them would actually agree that Linux has value, and can be useful in many varied situations.
But that doesn't stop them from also choosing Windows, Mac OS, BSD, Solaris, or even OS/2 when
it suits the needs of the system they are working with.

Yea, Ubuntu. All my relatives run it after their microsoft machines got ate by internet nasties. Since they no longer include a system disk with most "big box" computers it was easy to get them to try Ubuntu. Plus no fee to Norton.

cquinn writes:

I have much to thank for Windows as well, I just don't feel the need to crow about it from the rooftops.

I do too. Just a friendly tip: if you do decide to yell from the rooftops, all those crazy Apple/Linux fanboys will scream at you - best keep it to yourself. ;-)

The problem with a desktop OS that is released for free, no licenses for multimedia formats. You can't play 90% of the media files on the Internet, does the average user want to install multimedia libraries every time they reinstall their system? I don't think so. A desktop OS is all about a stress-free user experience and multimedia, both of which Linux is known not to have.

Linux can make a great desktop OS (I like Xandros and Kubuntu), it just depends on which distro you use. Some are more suited to other applications. I don't play games, so that doesn't bug me at all (except Frozen Bubble, I love Frozen Bubble (game made for linux)
Windows is great for the average user or somone who plays alot of games. To each his own.

OK, for anyone interested, here's my take on what you might call "the Linux desktop experience":

http://ooble.newsvine.com/_news/2006/02/26/110705-why-i-love-linux

Cheesy title, I know. ;-)

You argued somewhat successfully that Linux is a capable file server or cache server.

You totally failed to demonstrate that Linux is viable desktop operating system.

Reported as lame.

You're pissed of at the immature arguments bashing Linux/Unix/BSD and yet you resort to use a "shut up" argument to fight it back? I'm sorry, bur I don't know if I should take your opinion any more seriously than the "linux sux" one. Something for you to think about...

In the meantime, you may want to scan through: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/22/1310250

Maybe Unix/Linux won't be a defacto server OS in 10 years...

I want to like linux on the desktop I really do, but everytime I have tried it has brought me nothing but heartache. Installing apps can be nothing short of a disaster, playing media files frustrating, and finding my way around the file system frustrating. Windows may not be perfect, but it is a standard, something people are used to using and feel comfortable with. It is a great stable and secure server OS, but I don't think it will ever become a common desktop OS.

hay guyz i uze linux and so should u lol.

This read like a "what linux means to me" fourth grade homework assignment.

this post is absolutely ridiculous! this is NEWSvine, not OPINIONvine, you cant argue this and this should not be a most commented on post. maybe if there was an editorial but this post is worthless to many and i am pretty sure nothing will be resolved over this.

Meh. I use Ubuntu 5.10 as a desktop. Video, audio, iPod, p2p, and office apps all work fine. As has been beaten to death already, the only thing it lacks is games. The only thing that is slightly buggy is Flash, which has a slight audio delay for some reason.

Ubuntu and Automatix meet my needs perfectly. The biggest problem people have is thinking that they're a computer expert, so should be able to pick up Linux and use it perfectly. No, you're a Windows expert, and you would have the same problems going from Linux to Windows.

This article leaves a lot to be desired. The title is obviously flamebait (hence the number of comments) and the writing is horrid. And even the opinion itself is flawed. It only argues that Linux is used in some cases (servers), so people should stop bagging it.

Well, I have never heard people bagging Linux. Except to point out it's shortcomings as a desktop OS - and even "fanboys" have to admit that.

Linux may never make it as a desktop OS but it will now always exist for the use of web hosting on servers with apache its primary use. Genreally half of the linux destributions are not ready for public use always the most simple ones are SUSE and Ubuntu but even they lack important things like MP3 support out the box because of their lienceing issues.

From my experiences with Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Mandrake (Mandrake was a few years ago) - even the 'friendly' linux are no where near ready for the casual users desktop yet. Far too much techy talk in the interface which the majority of users just wont understand and will find confusing. That said, the Novell Linux Desktop 10 looked quite quite promising, but from the screen grabs, it still has too many legacy technical terms imo.

Bear in mind that Im a long time Mac users, and have minimal experience of linux. Ive just installed a few distros to see what theyre like and had KDE and Gnome running in X11 on my powerbook for a while.

Att Ilya Grigorik

You are aware that the /. thread is about Windows servers outselling Unix year 2005, right. That probably still means they are no where near Linux shares. (And hopefully never will be!)

I would have to somewhat agree with the OP comments. I have heard a lot of people say bad things about Linux, but it is because it is not what they are familiar with. No, they are not OS X fanboys (count me in on that one), but a mix, mostly consisted of Windows users. The complaints are not that linux sucks at everything. I hear complaints that Linux sucks to install, the GUI blows, it's too difficult, it's not ready for the mainstream, etc. These are all valid arguements in their own right.

I am an OS X person, but I have Debian running on an old powerbook at home, Debian running on an old Powermac 9500 at home, I dual boot my Dell at work with Ubuntu; yet I can appreciate some of the arguements people have against Linux.

As for the article. Flamebait? Yeah. Let's have some more informed articles that tell something. Ooble, I am about to go check yours out, and yes, I have probably affected the popularity of this poorly written article just by commenting. Sorry.