Linux Foundation: bashing Microsoft now is "like kicking a puppy"

Yes,.. .that may be true in some senses but none the less linux is becoming a multi-billion dollar industry ( maybe not in selling of there software) but in people setting up the reliable server systems and network managers that know how to maintain it. yes it is a free product, but if you are a small business that needs a solution thats affordable im sure you could hire a linux techi or whatnot to come in and set up an entire company on linux for less than it would cost you to buy all new Microsoft licences. none the less opensource is got a smaller financial footprint than the big label but IMHO is doing more for the economy without trying to make a monopoly of its self.

Yes but that Linux technician will make his position completely irreplaceable in a way that Microsoft technician couldn't. Linux technicians have a tendency to bury themselves into the code so if you sack them, you wouldn't stand a chance of getting anything fixed without a massive amount of unpicking and rewriting. Plus in my experience they can suggest alternatives to other softwares that require less maintenance just to ensure they have more and more to maintain, thus making themselves even more "indispensable".

Hehe, these comments sections here are so full of FUD .

It was _clearly_ stated on the news that linux is better than Windows in everything _else_ than the desktop. And really, saying that you can do everything with Windows that you can with Linux is obviously wrong. It's just that most people don't care about compiling their own kernels or modifying the boot scripts, etc. so for that matter for the regular PC user it makes no difference in that respect.

And yeah, it may be that games are all that matters for many desktop PC users (I really laughed at that sentence) but again, this news was not about Linux being the gaming/multimedia/whatever-is-windows-or-mac-only platform. It was about linux being everything else.

Also, these statements about linux having "no software or drivers at all" and being "just as virus-prone as Windows" is simply inaccurate. Some people never cease to amaze me with their level of insufficient information. Obviously, nobody would use it over any other OS, if this was true. I don't even understand where you get these statements from. It all sounds very silly - especially when put in the "oh-i-know-about-technology" form.

It's like these people got no knowledge whatsoever about linux. What's the point in even commenting here then? Are you trying to prove something to yourself rather than others?

Seriously, what is this fuzz about? Has any linux user ever come to you and say "you *****, why do you use that crappy OS?" or "haha, with Wine my OS is just as good as yours" or _anything_ like that? Most of them don't even ask any money for their efforts with linux, the distributions or the software they offer you - they do it for free on their spare time (with the expection of those that work in companies). And then you have something negative to comment on even _there_ that "oh, cuz they no get no money, they will never suxxeed" and so forth.

I mean I (or anybody) am not asking you to use Linux or _even_ test it for once and then decide if you really don't like it. I'm just asking that you cut this crap talk out. If you don't like linux (for _whatever_ reason) and don't want to even try it, fine, I'm good with that. But if you have to phrase that in the form of FUD in some chrisforsaking comment section of some news site's article, then it is best that you _don't_ use it. Frankly, you wouldn't even be worthy of it.

Linux has many more advantages over windows than being free. For one, Linux is much faster. For example Ubuntu starts up about twice faster on my 8 year old Dell desktop than Windows 7 starts up on my new quad core i7 laptop. Once started both systems are about equal in terms of application launching and web surfing speed.

In terms of games I would defiantly agree that Windows is superior although many people don't realize that Linux isn't that bad for playing games. Although not all games will run on Linux many will run with a compatibility layer.

Finally as for lack of software, that is a complete lie. There are thousands of open source programs available for Linux and some of which i would even consider superior to their payed counterparts.

I think the reason why they said they were superior to Windows on all platforms except for the desktop was because most PC gamers use a desktop, thus referring to their weakness in respect to gaming. Besides that argument Linux dominates in all other aspects such as speed, productivity, and customization. For non PC gamers which is a large percentage of PC users I see no advantage in using windows.

Hey Linux.. would you like a cookie??

*fixed.

You know, you are both wrong. Why would anybody use linux if the only advantage was to not have viruses - or if it didn't have even that.

Seriously, if you can't understand how linux works, why are you expecting others to understand _you_.

I suppose you haven't tried Ubuntu... it runs on EVERYTHING. If you had a toaster with a CPU in it, it'd run on it.

What Linux forgot to say is that they failed (like Apple) to hear the call of IBM to establish the "standard" for computers, dont get me wrong, i luff my Ubuntu and my beloved 4nd love of my life, SUSE <3. But to be realistic not a lot of users can handle Linux and/or can afford to lose a lot of apps and games when moving to Linux, and thats why we have Virtual PC's softwares

incorrect ubuntu doesn't run on everything you need at least a P6 x86 processor to run in eg Pentium Pro, So you can't run ubuntu on a Pentium MMX or older.

And since you said "everything" it also can't run on Alpha, MIPs, PowerPC (officially it can't), IA64 (offically it can't), SPARC.
I could go on but I think you get the point hopefully

Linux is still too complicated for the average user. You're 100% correct about it being faster and more customizable, but the average non gamer does not want more customizable, they want simple and ***** proof, two things which Linux does not have a reputation for.

This is PR bullshit, the Linux community had a chance in the 1990s and early 2000s to come up with something, and they didn't. So now they're in a bed of their own making. What's wrong with just saying, "we run the world's infrastructure, and that speaks for itself" rather than this crap about kicking a puppy and all this other BS, then making the "except for desktop" caveat.

I would love to see research data on this impregnable Linux. Finding data to your contrary is simple. So far you have only said you disagree with people, but haven't shown any reasons to why we should listen to you.

I have used Windows for 10 years and have been virus free without ever using an antivirus program (doing checks every month or so to be sure).

LOL spot on mate

I was sooo tempted to put up a 50-point list on why Linux is a better OS than Mac. or Windows. However, I'm to busy writing open-source code right now, so I'll let this list do the talking.

Just don't mind point 34, it's rather stupid I think...

Some useful and some 'not so logical' comments in this thread makes an interesting reading. Anyway, my contribution to this BS (as gwail has rightfully said) about linux being 'superior' in anyway is, Linux (and other Nix) based OS are more susceptible/vulnerable than Windows (which is interesting in itself), but it has been a fact for some years now. Not to mention the TCO of any Nix based system. Even when I was in IT, I did ran a Server on Linux but just for the sake of running it on Linux (as someone else has said ); but that machine never did anything useful (as it was almost EOL server anyway). I have tried to find older Secunia reports about detailed vulnerabilities of each plateform but I am unable to find, but interestingly this and this link at least give you some ideas.

I am firm believer no matter which OS you use, they are all vulnerable and will remain as such, only defense a user can have is 'making the right choices while configuring your machine' and careful how you use it/what you put on it etc.

ref: Linux is just as virus prone as Windows and Mac OS

Sorry that is just wrong. And I will explain why:
Windows uses a black list system. The anti-virus software on Windows is allways checking the digital signatures of files in your windows box and looking for files that are known to be malware. There is a delay between the release of malware and it's identification as malware by the virus checkers. And even then some will never be identified. So in theory, and this is born out in practice also, a blacklist system is allways going to allow some virus's through.
Linux uses a white list system. It is designed so that all your software is downloaded from a secure software repository, and that all the software is known to be free of malware. So you allready have a good guarantee of being malware free. In addition, because all the software is coming from a known location, it is trivial to update software, in fact all the software on the linux box is under the control of the operating system and can be updated should a bug or vulnerability be discovered.
The process of installing software from a repository rather than the windows more promiscous haphazard approach makes it harder for virus's and malware to take hold. Thus there are no known linux virus's in the wild.

As other posters have noted however, one of the areas where windows is excells is with the rich game ecosystem as well as certain specialist software packages.

But as far as malware is concerned Linux is better by design.

Most of the negative comments here about linux obviously come from people who either understood and chose to ignore, or did not understand the facts of the post. The post says "all except desktop computing". Linux is on TVs DVb receivers media players, phones, servers, etc. These are equipment that get things done. Computing is increasingly cloud based. In the near future you will not be running applications from your desktop, but from your browser. Tell me then who will buy an OS if all you need is a browser? And its wrong to say that linux is not good for games. There is justt no incentives to create linux compartible games. Serious Games are expensive to create and most people do it for the money. Again you can find serious games for Mac. Mac is unix based just like linux, so why cant linux play games? technically no reason! For those of you who want to play games on PC, please continue using windows, for those of us who get things done, we will continue using linux. Because we need to run databases for your accounts and the money you give us for games securely, we must use linux, because we know you will need somewhere to gloat about your games, we provide you with techspot webservers, running on linux!

No we get it. The whole argument was stupid, that's what we're commenting about. Its like saying that the Clippers are the best NBA team in Los Angeles, if you don't count the Lakers.

If you're going to make ANY kind of statement about market dominance, or competition, you have to look at the whole picture, not just the selected areas where you happen to lead.

Its PR bullshit, designed to get this guy headlines. And frankly, as stupid as it sounds, Linux is jumping on its own bandwagon, only after a bunch of large corporations, Google, HP, took Linux and released an OS based on it that has become successful, and so the Linux Foundation pipes up and triumphantly says "see!"

The whole problem all along has been that Linux has been fragmented and has not had the support of any major company behind it. People have been saying for decades that if Linux is supported by major companies it will take off. And so it has come to pass. Had it not been for Google, Linux would remain a behind the scenes OS, running our world, but hardly used by anyone.

And frankly, I always thought that Linux users were above this fanboy BS. I guess they don't want to feel left out, so they have to jump into this already crowded ring.

Linux is a great OS for techies, and we're all grateful that its the backbone of the internet. So be happy with that.

You are missing the point. I never said everybody would automatically get viruses if they used Windows (because I haven't either). I don't expect you to listen to me either. That's your choice.

And if I start explaining as to why exactly is linux so much more "impgregnable" it would take me like two comment pages to explain it all (since your knowledge about linux seems to be nonexistant).

Basically it all boils down to the fact that "linux" (the kernel, the core of the operating system) is actively developed by more than 5000 people every day. Since it's open source _anybody_ can send patches to the kernel maintainers and fix bugs/security holes. Just because of this not many people even have enough strength to even _try_ to find a security hole from it. And even if one was to be found (sure, it happens) it will be fixed in a matter of hours. The same form (in its own scale) is used with every single software available for linux. That is why linux is so safe and you don't normally need an antivirus or firewall (the latter can be useful, though).

I don't know then if you even believe me on this or whether this is enough for you to believe but this is just a fact. If linux was as widely used as Windows is now, then sure, there would indeed be more security risks to be found with it but there would still be _a lot_ less than with Windows - and they would also be fixed much faster.

Naturally, no operating system is completely "impregnable". If the user decides to run a script as admin/root that deletes all his files then that's of course his problem and there's not a single thing _any_ OS can do about it. Simple as that.

I mainly use linux because it's faster and there's so much customizability. Frankly, I would not want to use "noob distros" such as Ubuntu and Suse because they are way too simple and bloated for me. This is obviously where our oppinions about OSes cross so arguing about it would be a complete waste of time (but you don't really seem to be that stupid, for that matter). And I guess I still don't expect you to believe me anyway.

But if you got any more questions (like clarifications or whatever), I'll be more than glad to respond. You seem like a nice guy .

Well that's not entirely accurate. Many "nerds" such as me would be using it nontheless. But I frankly believe that no matter how big companies there were to adopt linux (such as Google, IBM or HP) it would still take a _very_ long time for linux to become as widely used as Windows.

The nature of the OS is that it's supposed to be free. This is also bad for a lot of reasons because not a lot of companies want to hand out their product for _free_. And even if they did create a commercial linux distribution they would still have to release its source code for the public - for free - because of the GPL license.

So, I'd say linux kinda works "around" the market while mainly Windows works _within_ it.

Hey, don't generalize . Some people just don't have any other good ways of doing some argumentating. And they get frustrated by people saying how linux "sucks".