[Kosh]

http://www.arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070903-linux-marketshare-set-to-surpass-windows-98.html


But also appearently Windows 2000 has a slightly better marketshare than Vista. I guess thats what you get when you try and cripple your products with DRM.

[IceFire]

On the other hand...Vista's uptake has been higher than with Windows XP.

Good to see Linux moving up in the world.  I suspect even OS X will spike a little bit over the coming months...certainly seeing the anti-Microsoft thing start to gain some steam.  I'm sort of stuck in the Windows world...heck I just upgraded to Vista...but I'm glad to see things rolling along with the alternatives.  I really do enjoy the power of the Ubuntu Live CD actually.

[karajorma]

It's nice to see Linux doing well but while it's so complex that even computer literate people like me can't be bothered to learn how to use it then it's pointless for Linux users to delude themselves that it will ever be anything other than a server OS with niche desktop use.

[Turey]

I use it. And Vista.

[Nuke]

im about getting ready to pull my legal copy of vista in favor of a pirated copy of xp64. vista is rediculously crippling my computer's performance and **** if i give that asshole company any more of my money.

ive used linux from time to time but as ive said elsewhere, its only useful for uber-geeks. what would be a menial or automatic task in windows, like installing a usb wifi adapter, tends to be a lesson in futility at the terminal in linux. and the instruction usually are written for uber-geeks, and usually dont tell you what to do if something fails.

[Scuddie]

Nuke...  XP64 blows donkey dick.  Really.  It is a horrible OS for anybody to use.  Vista64 shines in comparison.

My only problem with linux is that there is no standard set of libraries for the system to use.  There are seemingly half a million dev source packages, most of which only apply to one or two programs.  It's things like that which make it so difficult to adopt.  Why should I use an operating system that requires me to spend more time finding the program's prerequisites than the program itself?  And why should I use an OS that requires me to recompile the kernel every time I change hardware settings?

[Nuke]

ive seen enough of vista, i dont like it. all they really did was rename everything, add more anoyances and call it an upgrade. and if xp64 wont do what i want then i see no reason to continue running windows. the only real way out is to become an uber-geek and use linux.

[Fury]

while it's so complex that even computer literate people like me can't be bothered to learn how to use it

ive used linux from time to time but as ive said elsewhere, its only useful for uber-geeks. what would be a menial or automatic task in windows, like installing a usb wifi adapter, tends to be a lesson in futility at the terminal in linux. and the instruction usually are written for uber-geeks, and usually dont tell you what to do if something fails.

Why should I use an operating system that requires me to spend more time finding the program's prerequisites than the program itself?  And why should I use an OS that requires me to recompile the kernel every time I change hardware settings?

Are you guys still living in the 1997 or something?

Firstly, learning linux as they are today is very easy if you already have experience with computers and Windows in general.
Secondly, learning linux is no more difficult than learning Windows would be if you had never used Windows before.
Thirdly, as linux is today you should only have trouble with hardware if your hardware is rare or very new.
Fourthly, you only know how to troubleshoot your problems in Windows because you've used Windows for so long. Or did you magically knew everything about Windows there was to know after one day of use? I don't think so.
Fifthly, you need to select correct linux distro for your needs. This is the only real problem for new users. The top three new-user friendly distributions are Ubuntu, SuSe and Fedora. I heartily recommend trying Ubuntu, it is extremely easy to install, set up and use.

I can back up those claims. One day computer of my parents broke, I set up a "new" one with Ubuntu in it. They have never complained about it and still use the computer as they did before. Same deal with one of my sisters, she didn't have valid Windows XP license (*cough*), so I installed Ubuntu for her. She's using it fine without problems.

Steep learning curve? Bollocks! You complain because you have become Windows uber-geeks after years and years of experience, now you complain because you can't use linux with similar experience on first day.

Get a grip, seriously.

[Flipside]

I would use Linux for the Server if it weren't for the fact that I also use it as a sub-computer when using Virtual Synths or Rendering, I don't mind if an image takes 24 hours to render on the Server, since I'm not using it for anything else.

I suppose that is my main beef with Linux, and it's a catch 22, I can't use it because the software I use isn't compatible, but there's no impetus to write the software for Linux if no-one is using it.

[Nuke]

while it's so complex that even computer literate people like me can't be bothered to learn how to use it

ive used linux from time to time but as ive said elsewhere, its only useful for uber-geeks. what would be a menial or automatic task in windows, like installing a usb wifi adapter, tends to be a lesson in futility at the terminal in linux. and the instruction usually are written for uber-geeks, and usually dont tell you what to do if something fails.

Why should I use an operating system that requires me to spend more time finding the program's prerequisites than the program itself?  And why should I use an OS that requires me to recompile the kernel every time I change hardware settings?

Are you guys still living in the 1997 or something?

Firstly, learning linux as they are today is very easy if you already have experience with computers and Windows in general.
Secondly, learning linux is no more difficult than learning Windows would be if you had never used Windows before.
Thirdly, as linux is today you should only have trouble with hardware if your hardware is rare or very new.
Fourthly, you only know how to troubleshoot your problems in Windows because you've used Windows for so long. Or did you magically knew everything about Windows there was to know after one day of use? I don't think so.
Fifthly, you need to select correct linux distro for your needs. This is the only real problem for new users. The top three new-user friendly distributions are Ubuntu, SuSe and Fedora. I heartily recommend trying Ubuntu, it is extremely easy to install, set up and use.

I can back up those claims. One day computer of my parents broke, I set up a "new" one with Ubuntu in it. They have never complained about it and still use the computer as they did before. Same deal with one of my sisters, she didn't have valid Windows XP license (*cough*), so I installed Ubuntu for her. She's using it fine without problems.

Steep learning curve? Bollocks! You complain because you have become Windows uber-geeks after years and years of experience, now you complain because you can't use linux with similar experience on first day.

Get a grip, seriously.

heh, mind you im on a dual boot with an install of fedora 7 (ubunto gave me some problems with my lcd display and my wifi). the reason i dont become a linux super-geek is because i can fumble around in linux, or i can do real work in windows. i have not problem working the command line as ive been doing that in dos for years.  you can say im about half way there, but dont accuse me of loosing my grip, i lost that a long time ago before i even started using linux

i seem to have problems with thirdly, i like to upgrade my hardware every 2 years, like clockwork. i like to have top of the line video cards. i like usb devices (all 8 of my usb ports are used up, 3 controllers, wifi adapter, bluetooth dongle, track ir, webcam, printer), most of those work in linux, save maybe the track ir though i havent tested my webcam or printer.

i had my mom on fedora 4 for awhile, but the memory failed on it and that took out the file system, and it couldnt autofix because the memory error would just screw it up again. the machine was in its death throes and is currently a dead box in my room. so i just let her use my old computer that i built a couple years ago. i just installed xp and called it a day. that said i think linux is perfect for office or for general non-gaming use. though theres no reason why i should have any problem running games with linux  versions.

when i get wine figured out so that i can run photoshop and max under a linux kernal i might give it some more time. but like i said if i want to actually get anything done, im stuck in windows.

[jr2]

I've used both Mandriva 10.2 and Debian (3.1a? 3.4a?  the two-DVD version)... I gave up... they worked good, it's just that I like to play with the options on my computers to see what they do.  And, since the Linux command prompt is so inscrutable when compared with my years of learning the hard way in DOS, I can't undo what I did to crash it.  I don't know where the config files are kept, and they are all in weird places.  (You thought Windows had bad naming conventions... try /etc/conf/stpdname...  FOR FREAKING GOODNESS SAKE, 8.3 WAS BROKEN A LONG TIME AGO, WINDOWS AND LINUX (AND MAC?) FREAKING STOP USING 8-CHARACTER SYSTEM FILE PATHS AND NAMES AND USE SENSIBLE TITLES!!!!... Oh, that's right, I forgot... we are M$, we really don't want the user to know what we're up to.  (Or, in the case of Linux, we want to make sure only those worthy of power have the knowledge to configure their systems.. or, in the case of Mac, only those authorized by Apple.)

[karajorma]

Secondly, learning linux is no more difficult than learning Windows would be if you had never used Windows before.

And that's the issue. If I moved to MacOS I'd pick up how stuff works in a few hours. Days at most.

With Linux I'd be expected to learn pretty much everything from scratch. I simply don't have the time.

Now if you're seriously telling me that an average computer literate person can set up and have a working Linux install in a day, despite having no knowledge of the OS then I might be tempted to try it.

[Fury]

Secondly, learning linux is no more difficult than learning Windows would be if you had never used Windows before.

And that's the issue. If I moved to MacOS I'd pick up how stuff works in a few hours. Days at most.

With Linux I'd be expected to learn pretty much everything from scratch. I simply don't have the time.

Now if you're seriously telling me that an average computer literate person can set up and have a working Linux install in a day, despite having no knowledge of the OS then I might be tempted to try it.

I'm telling you that current up-to-date linux distros require no more knowledge to install, set-up and use than OS X or Windows would.

Get Ubuntu and be done with it. If you need help, just use http://wiki.ubuntu.com or http://ubuntuforums.org/. Better than googling for random websites for Windows help. There is only one wiki-page most people use, and that is https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats

[Mars]

I just wish AMD/ATI would give us all some decent drivers... but other than that I've had very few problems with Linux... it took me a few months to get used to it, but not that much longer than going from Windows 98 to XP really.. DOS vs. Linux shell was a little confusing at first, but there are some good web pages on that.

[castor]

I gave up... they worked good, it's just that I like to play with the options on my computers to see what they do.  And, since the Linux command prompt is so inscrutable when compared with my years of learning the hard way in DOS, I can't undo what I did to crash it.  I don't know where the config files are kept, and they are all in weird places.

Now, if you really want to get to the bottom of things, all you need to do is give a simple ps -A on a terminal window to get a list of everything running on you comp, then start to man stuff on that list. The man pages normally list all the related important conf files too (and their locations). And in many cases you get more info by manning with a conf file name..

Also, in most problem cases, after taking a look at .xsession-errors and stuff in /var/log/ you already have a good idea about what is going wrong. 

[castor]

Why should I use an operating system that requires me to spend more time finding the program's prerequisites than the program itself?

This is what package management systems are made for

And why should I use an OS that requires me to recompile the kernel every time I change hardware settings?

We rarely need to do that anymore (unless you want to, like I do ). HW autodetection/automatic kernel module loading should take care of this. Granted, sometimes, with some hardware, there will be problems, then we need to tinker a bit more..

[SadisticSid]

while it's so complex that even computer literate people like me can't be bothered to learn how to use it

ive used linux from time to time but as ive said elsewhere, its only useful for uber-geeks. what would be a menial or automatic task in windows, like installing a usb wifi adapter, tends to be a lesson in futility at the terminal in linux. and the instruction usually are written for uber-geeks, and usually dont tell you what to do if something fails.

Why should I use an operating system that requires me to spend more time finding the program's prerequisites than the program itself?  And why should I use an OS that requires me to recompile the kernel every time I change hardware settings?

Are you guys still living in the 1997 or something?

Firstly, learning linux as they are today is very easy if you already have experience with computers and Windows in general.
Secondly, learning linux is no more difficult than learning Windows would be if you had never used Windows before.
Thirdly, as linux is today you should only have trouble with hardware if your hardware is rare or very new.
Fourthly, you only know how to troubleshoot your problems in Windows because you've used Windows for so long. Or did you magically knew everything about Windows there was to know after one day of use? I don't think so.
Fifthly, you need to select correct linux distro for your needs. This is the only real problem for new users. The top three new-user friendly distributions are Ubuntu, SuSe and Fedora. I heartily recommend trying Ubuntu, it is extremely easy to install, set up and use.

I can back up those claims. One day computer of my parents broke, I set up a "new" one with Ubuntu in it. They have never complained about it and still use the computer as they did before. Same deal with one of my sisters, she didn't have valid Windows XP license (*cough*), so I installed Ubuntu for her. She's using it fine without problems.

Steep learning curve? Bollocks! You complain because you have become Windows uber-geeks after years and years of experience, now you complain because you can't use linux with similar experience on first day.

Get a grip, seriously.

I think when normal users are no longer instructed to 'use the terminal to perform steps 2-16', and the word 'compile' disappears from the majority installation instructions, you'll be right. One can be very literate in Windows without ever having to see a command line or C file. In Linux, if the particular piece of software you want to run doesn't happen to be nicely packaged in an RPM or on Synaptic's list, or the binaries that are available don't work with your distribution, or rely on some obscure features in the kernel, or have a dozen dependencies for OTHER things you have to compile and install... well, it doesn't take much deep thought to realise that most people would rather use something without those extra steps.

[Scuddie]

Package management systems do not apply unless the package in question is provided by the distributor.  For things such as PCSX2, FS2Open, and every other non-major application, you're on your own.  Yum/Portage/Aptget are nice, but this still doesn't excuse the problem behind common libraries.  For Windows you need DCOM, Visual Studio/.NET runtime, GTK2+,  and DirectX.  There is nothing more than that which is needed for almost every program out there, unless they are crappy linux ports.  I see no equivalent to this kind of system in any linux distro I've ever used, and I have Ubuntu 7.04 and OpenSuSE 10.2 installed on my system right now.

Also, what's with the lack of API layers in Linux?  When I want to install a program from the internet, I want to install it and be done with it.  However, with linux, I install it, fix incorrect settings, screw around with permissions, and then clean the nasty mess it left behind.  Ick.  Why can't there be a commonly adopted universal binary system?  InstallShield, msi, and Wise installer are all very decent ways to setup applications, why is none of this on linux?  I don't want to download a package, ./configure and hope it works, make install and hope that works, and finally hope the installed product works.  It's a lot of crap I dont want to deal with.

EDIT:  And I don't mean proprietary things like RPM either.  That system sucks just as bad.

[Nuke]

Now, if you really want to get to the bottom of things, all you need to do is give a simple ps -A on a terminal window to get a list of everything running on you comp, then start to man stuff on that list.

those man pages are obviously written by people who like to hear themselves type, or who like to show off their uber-geeky perfect grammar and massive vocabulary full of large words. they should at least take a crash course in efficient technical document writing. the man system is pretty good though, its just a matter of the long winded content

[Tolwyn]

Honestly, get Wubi and install one of the Ubuntu distributions. The only drawback of a Linux install up till now was the need to modify the partitions. Wubi allows you to install and uninstall Ubuntu as any other application. It creates a virtual disc on your hard drive and it does not require you to use a different bootloader. Currently it supports Ubuntu, Ubuntu Studio, Xubuntu, Kubuntu and Edubuntu I believe.