Topic
Top 10 Reasons On Why We Should Switch to Linux
|
Edited by Jonluc on 12/01/12 16:09 (UTC)
Basically there are many reasons on why we should switch to linux, I have selected my top 10 reasons on why we should all switch to linux.
1. It Doesn't Crash Linux has been time-proven to be a reliable operating system. Although the desktop is not a new place for Linux, most Linux-based systems have been used as servers and embedded systems. High-visibility Web sites such as Google use Linux-based systems, but you also can find Linux inside the TiVo set-top box in many livingrooms. Linux has proved to be so reliable and secure that it is commonly found in dedicated firewall and router systems used by high-profile companies to secure their networks. For more than ten years, it has not been uncommon for Linux systems to run for months or years without needing a single reboot. 2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between Although it is possible to create a virus to target Linux systems, the design of the system itself makes it very difficult to become infected. A single user could cause local damage to his or her files by running a virus on his or her system; however, this would be an isolated instance rather than something could spread out of control. In addition, virtually all Linux vendors offer free on-line security updates. The general philosophy of the Linux community has been to address possible security issues before they become a problem rather than hoping the susceptibility will go unnoticed. 3. Virtually Hardware-Independent Linux was designed and written to be easily portable to different hardware. For the desktop user, this means that Linux has been and likely always will be the first operating system to take advantage of advances in hardware technology such as AMD's 64-bit processor chips. 4. Freedom of Choice Linux offers freedom of choice as far as which manufacturer you purchase the software from as well as which application programs you wish to use. Being able to pick the manufacturer means you have a real choice as far as type of support you receive. Being open-source software, new manufacturers can enter the market to address customer needs. Choice of application programs means that you can select the tools that best address your needs. For example, three popular word processors are available. All three are free and interoperate with Microsoft Word, but each offers unique advantages and disadvantages. The same is true of Web browsers. 5. Standards Linux itself and many common applications follow open standards. This means an update on one system will not make other systems obsolete. 6. Applications, Applications, Applications Each Linux distribution comes with hundreds and possibly thousands of application programs included. This alone can save you thousands of dollars for each desktop system you configure. Although this is a very small subset, consider that the OpenOffice.org office suite is included as well as the GIMP, a program similar to (and many people say more capable than Adobe Photoshop); Scribus, a document layout program similar to Quark Xpress; Evolution, an e-mail system equivalent to Microsoft's Outlook Express; and hundreds more. For the more technically inclined, development tools, such as compilers for the C, C++, Ada, Fortran, Pascal and other languages, are included as well as Perl, PHP and Python interpreters. Editors and versioning tools also are included in this category. Whether you are looking for Instant Messaging clients, backup tools or Web site development packages, they likely are all included within your base Linux distribution. 7. Interoperability More and more computers are being connected to networks. No system would be complete if it did not include tools to allow it to interoperate with computers running other operating systems. Once again, Linux is very strong in this area. Linux includes Samba, software that allows Linux to act as a client on a Microsoft Windows-based network. In fact, Samba includes server facilities such that you could run a Linux system as the server for a group of Linux and Windows-based client systems. In addition, Linux includes software to network with Apple networks and Novell's Netware. NFS, the networking technology developed on UNIX systems also is included. |
|
8. It's a Community Relationship, Not a Customer Relationship
Other operating systems are the products of single vendors. Linux, on the other hand, is openly developed, and this technology is shared among vendors. This means you become part of a community rather than a customer of a single manufacturer. Also, the supplier community easily can adjust to the needs of various user communities rather than spouting a "one size fits all" philosophy. This means you can select a Linux vendor that appears to best address your needs and feel confident that you could switch vendors at a later time without losing your investment--both in terms of costs and learning. 9. It's Not How Big Your Processor Is... Because of a combination of the internal design of Linux and development contributions from a diverse community, Linux tends to be more frugal in the use of computer resources. This may manifest itself in a single desktop system running faster with Linux than with another operating system, but the advantages go far beyond that. It is possible, for example, to configure a single Linux system to act as a terminal server and then use outdated hardware as what are called thin clients. This server/thin client configuration makes it possible for older, less powerful hardware to share the resources of a single powerful system thus extending the life of older machines. 10. Linux Is Configurable Linux is a true multi-user operating system. Each user can have his or her own individual configuration all on one computer. This includes the look of the desktop, what icons are displayed, what programs are started automatically when the user logs in and even what language the desktop is in. |
|
Edited by Cairya on 12/01/12 16:11 (UTC)
Why are you advertising Linux in the World of Warcarft General Gameplay forum?
Edit: Nevermind. It seems you are on a crusade getting Blizzard to support Linux, and are trying to achieve that by spamming the forums about Linux... |
|
In future, please post threads like this on the Tech and Science forum:
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/2252143/ It should probably be redirected, however. |
|
Edited by Jonluc on 12/01/12 16:12 (UTC)
In future, please post threads like this on the Tech and Science forum: Oh sorry. This is mainly a supplement to all people woh want a linux client, like I do, showing reasons why linux is more viable option over Windows and Mac
NI'd like a linux client, but 95% of people don't even know what linux is... someone has to tell them some how |
Training as a salesman? Firstly, no I'm not training to be a salesman, I'm just making the community aware of what Linux can do. |
|
Edited by Panamat on 12/01/12 16:24 (UTC)
One reason not to: Linux is not a widely used home computer operating system that serves the mass market.
There are multiple and various distributions of Linux for each of which either a port or at least an installation would need to be created - which adds cost - and a certain level of user support cost would be incurred for each distribution that the game is ported to. The point of a mass market computer game is to reach as many people as possible and make the maximum profit with the least effort. Apple and Microsoft operating systems are the mass market, Linux is a tiny, fragmented niche. Would I like it? Of course. I've worked with many operating systems on everything from old-fashioned mainframes through the minicomputers of the seventies and eighties to modern Unix, Linux and Windows systems. But I am not the mass market and doing it would put WoW out of business. |
|
Edited by Moonfield on 12/01/12 18:43 (UTC)
Adding Linux support would put wow out of business? Exactly and so adding Linux support is profitable. Many people love and use Linux. Just go and search on the net, see how many sites and forums are dedicated to this OS. Edit: there is no need to cover all Linux distributions, a smart move would be giving support to the most stable and mature, thus the more used. |
|
When compared to the number of people using windows or mac systems though Linux is tiny. And I have to pick this one apart cause mac users say the same thing. 2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between Although it is possible to create a virus to target Linux systems, the design of the system itself makes it very difficult to become infected. A single user could cause local damage to his or her files by running a virus on his or her system; however, this would be an isolated instance rather than something could spread out of control. This is because there is no point. So few people use it compared to windows that virus writers don't bother. If everyone switched to linux or mac there would be an equal surge in the viruses for those systems. |
2. Viruses Are Few and Far Between But viruses are easy to patch out in linux.... besides if you use official software repos in linux you have no chance of getting viruses anyway |
|
Edited by Lylise on 12/01/12 21:26 (UTC)
It's fully possible to get infected through computer usage rather than installation. Some applications, especially plugins that tend to break userspace (Like Flash or Java) can be used to infect your system. UNIX (And by extension it's lookalikes like Linux) is by design more secure against viruses - And there's not a lot of them to start with: But even when sticking to 'official' repositories, you should by no means feel 100% safe. Anywho, on to the actual points. For the record: I used Linux for years as my only operating system, currently use it on my server - Switched to OSX for desktop. 1. Is debatable. A properly setup Linux system is fine, but a lot of hardware support is relatively iffy, especially on desktops that tend to be designed for windows. (And rarely follow the accepted specifications)) - Crashing can happen depending on hardware configuration, although it's rarely as fatal as on Windows. Please don't compare server hardware with consumer hardware. 2. As said above, Linux tends to be better in some ways, especially when it comes to unregulated code execution. As long as you don't pretend Linux is completely virus free, it's okay. 3. Very debatable. Linux tends to be pretty nice on experimental stuff (Now runs on some odd processor type that nobody actually uses!) - But when it comes to actually using 'normal' hardware: Drivers for Linux are generally a lot worse, especially when it comes to GPU's. 4. True to a degree. There's choice in what you run. Do note that no OS is really bound when it comes to what you install. There's nothing stopping you from replacing explorer.exe with a separate shell. There's nothing that stops you from using LibreOffice instead of Office on Windows. 5. See 1. The problem with Hardware is that, while Linux tends to follow specs: Hardware makers tend not to. 6. So did OSX when I bought it. I can install it all on Windows if I want to anyways. I spent most of the time on a new Linux system getting rid of useless packages anyways. If you want good starting software: Buy a Mac. 7. OSX can do the same. Windows can generally do the same as well if properly setup. 8. Can be easily turned around: OSX/Windows is made for the users, Linux is made for the programmer. This is hardly an argument. 9. Same can be done on other systems. Linux tends to consume less resources, this is true. 10. Same on OSX and Windows (Since NT proper). Don't get me wrong: Linux is a great OS. It's absolutely wonderful at doing certain stuff. But please stop pretending Linux is a good choice for most people. It isn't. It might work for you as a desktop OS, it might not for somebody else. The arguments in this thread aren't really all that great. Some of them are pretty moot (I don't care what Google's servers run, I need to run it on a laptop) - Some of them are just bad (Multi-user is by no means Linux exclusive), some of them are extremely debatable ('just works'...) If Linux is a good choice for you, good for you. Go use it. It's not a good choice for a lot of people. ~Vaeil |
|
|
Edited by Danellos on 12/01/12 23:44 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced of this statement. Having been an advocate of Linux for quite a number of years, the issue has been and still is that new hardware more often than not fails to work as intended or to its best capabilities on a Linux system. This, however, is not the fault of Linux but the hardware manufacturers themselves. Not all of them are like Nvidia who at least put some effort into the quality of their drivers, because not all of them feel that there is a viable market for this family of operating systems. Regarding processor types, this is a different matter entirely. Linux has always been well with the times when taking advantage of new processor types and/or architectures.
Different Linux distributions do tend to follow their own set of standards though, which may at times force software developers to only target specific platforms. In other cases, this scares software firms (or even gaming companies if you will) from actually even thinking of providing support for such a platform. Regarding point 7, Vaeil has already said what I was thinking myself:
I don't see how this separates Linux from any modern consumer operating system out there. Oh, this is all coming from someone that dual-boots Windows 7 and Ubuntu, and runs a Debian server. ;) As was said above, Linux is not for everyone. Just because I happened to be booting to Ubuntu from time to time does not mean that I am disregarding Windows 7. I need Windows 7 more than any other operating system out there because of my games and because I have my critical programs running on it. I have watched one of the Ubuntu developer summits on YouTube, and the one of the conclusions that were drawn in the last one is that one of the primary factors preventing people from using Ubuntu is the lack of proprietary application and hardware support on it. That is certainly the reason why I spend more time on Windows 7 than anywhere else. |
Oh, this is all coming from someone that dual-boots Windows 7 and Ubuntu, and runs a Debian server. ;) As was said above, Linux is not for everyone. Just because I happened to be booting to Ubuntu from time to time does not mean that I am disregarding Windows 7. I need Windows 7 more than any other operating system out there because of my games and because I have my critical programs running on it. Well thats why I spend more time on Windows 7. Linux is tuck in a paradox. Nobosy uses because there isn't any proriertary software like Office, Adobe CS4/5, Games and so worth.. AND... the companies who mkae these programs don't mkae Linux versions because nobody uses Linux... You see the loop people? |
|
|
Edited by Danellos on 13/01/12 16:14 (UTC)
It is a terrible loop indeed, but that doesn't really mean I have an issue with Microsoft products. ;p |
|
Edited by Lylise on 13/01/12 17:03 (UTC)
It is a terrible loop indeed, but that doesn't really mean I have an issue with Microsoft products. Now that's just foolishness. There's just very little reason to stick to Vista now that 7 is available. Yeah, main reason I switched to OSX is because it actually runs what I need it to run. People who say "But you can replace that with Gimp/Avidemux/FreeCAD on Linux" usually don't actually use that software to get a job done. Linux is great for some things, and there's a reason the home server I have runs Debian - But for a lot of things: Linux just isn't a good choice. I can't work without AutoCAD and Revit, so I can't use Linux as my desktop system. Yes, it's a vicious cycle. No Linux users = No Linux software = No Linux users, repeat. We can make a big point about that, but fact is: A lot of things don't run on Linux. Well, that, and I never had to rebuild my X config from scratch on OSX yet... :P ~Vaeil |
|
Edited by Jonluc on 13/01/12 17:09 (UTC)
As for me on Linux. Unless your a dumb person you won't break you Linux install |
|
I broke my Linux install quite a few times, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a dumb person.
It's a matter of hardware, and how much you tinker with it. In my case, it had something to do with trying to get a Wacom to work with Linux, which has to be done in Xorg.conf for some reason. Needless to say, X didn't like it, X decided that having graphics was for idiots, and then it decided that something as nice as BASH was luxury, and Busybox is all I got. Yay. Please don't call people dumb, especially not when it doesn't even make sense. ~Vaeil |
I broke my Linux install quite a few times, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a dumb person. Doesn't Wacom auto configure X |
