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

I agree, some are playable, while others are impossible - thats without taking into consideration that those results could be very different depending on the GPU in use, and whether its being run natively or played through an emulator like Wine for example.

Gaming will be non-existant until Linux starts gaining shares in the desktop market - to do that it needs to be capable of gaming. So its a lose lose from the off in my opinion.

I use two OS', as a dual boot on my main PC. W7 Pro x64 covers gaming purposes, and everything else (I use it 90% of the time) is Linux (Debian 6, xfce DE).

Yes both OS' are capable of doing each others jobs, but from my experiences over the years Linux is a damn sight more stable doing them, not to mention faster.

Things are a little more even in my case though as my W7 runs off of a 256GB SSD, and the Linux a 500GB Hitachi mechanical disk (7200rpm), so I tend to find generally speaking performance is about equal in everything except heavy disk activity where the SSD trumps.

That said, Linux is ideal for entry level computers, and for occasional users - combined with a budget netbook, or lower spec PC, Linux gives a fast, stable and flexible solution that comes in more than ideal for web browsing, emailing and typing the occasional letter. The savings make the hardware cheaper as well.

For those without the requirement to game Linux makes serious sense - too often people forget this, and just dismiss Linux out of hand without realising the vast proportion of devices they handle on a daily basis that actually run some form of linux or another.

And that about sums up my point about the fact it can be useful to non-gaming computer users.

The pure and simple truth is occasional computer users couldn't care less whether it had Windows or Linux on it, they just need to know where to point and click to browse the web and collect their emails. Most of the people that come to see me to sort their computers couldn't even tell you what Windows is, most of the time they think its the computer itself, not the operating system - another term they have no understanding of. They understand the same thing when its £50-75 cheaper though, and thats where Linux comes up trumps against Windows.

Possibly, but I would imagine its fairly safe to assume that the desire to expand the knowledge of our planet, and its further solar system has spured on the developement of computer technologies capable of computing that information for us.

Gaming will have spured on specifications for desktop computers, in large part due to the specifications required to run games (first Crysis, took forever to get a GPU that could max it out for example), but it will have had absolutely no bearing on the scientific and research purposes advancing computing technology.

I'm sorry, but thats an arguement flawed at best - you could say the same as a MS certified tech as well. A bad Linux tech is no different to a bad MS tech - they'll both shaft you sideways.

Yes Linux requires specialised skills above and beyond that of Windows technologies, but its not like either could be removed and still have functioning IT infrastructure in anything other than the short term.

Also, to some degree the Cost of Ownership is offset against the salary of the Linux techs your employing. On a small scale (say 100 or less computers) you'd likely suffer, but once you start breaking 1000 plus computers the real life savings of no license fee's for all those computers, even coupled with the annual salaries of dedicated Linux support staff still allows for a profit.

Thats without considering the fact that computers built around the period of Windows 2000/XP would work absolutely fine with Linux utilising light DE's.

91.8% of the top 500 fastest supercomputers use Linux (as of Nov 2010.)

The honest truth of the matter is finding solid, reliable data on exact usage on the worlds servers is very hard to find. Generally only paid for Linux products are included in any results, and therefore it tends to lean around the 10-16% mark. However, the real results could be 4 or 5 times that amount, as most installs are done using free Linux OS builds, with Debian and CentOS being two very popular solutions.

I correctly setup server running Linux is considered to be safer than a correctly setup Windows Server. A server powered by linux is also considered to be more stable, reliable and will almost certainly suffer from less downtime than a Windows based server will over its lifetime.

Linux also runs on lighter servers consuming considerably less resources than its Windows counterparts as well - so in the case of more budget orientated servers it is a sensible solution.

If you want to read more I recommend you search on google - there is plenty of information available. Googling for Windows or Linux server should give you plenty of information alone.

I suggest you re-check what Ubuntu is really for, before making such a wild statment. Ubuntu is the 'buntu release of Linux, favouring Gnome as its DE (well not shortly!), and is available as a server release AND a desktop/netbook release.

Ubuntu is just one of many different distrubtions. Ironically besides being one of the most widely used distros for beginners, its also among the most buggy, being so cutting edge all the time.

Thoroughout this thread Ubuntu has been mentioned on many occasions - in fact I don't think I've read of another distro at all. In my experiences Ubuntu tends to be used by those newer to Linux (which is fine, we all gotta learn somewhere - I was the same!), but eventually most then move onto other distros, like in my case Debian/Fedora.

For a lot of people its hard to understand why some people would use Linux as an every day OS. Sure its not super polished, and it sometimes has issues, but Microsoft could hardly be seen as offering a stable OS either - they also have there fair share of issues.

For some (like me), they'll try Linux and never look back. I now use it 90% of the time as my primary OS. W7 sits as a dual boot purely for gaming and nothing else.

For others, they'll try it, the shoe won't fit and they'll never commit, or use it again. Thats fine, because it can't suit all people, but it can save everyone money given the time.

Ultimately whats important is to give your honest opinions based on your experiences, because peoples bad experiences (and good) can shape how the OS moves over time.. Slagging it off with no experience or understanding is rather fruitless though. To be honest those that know sod all kind of stand out like sore thumbs anyway.

Pretty much every person using a computer for occasional usage, limited to web browsing, collecting and sending emails, viewing pictures, videos and listening to songs, and using office applications to write letters or create spreadsheets can benefit from the right Linux OS.

Its not just because its cheaper, its because the hardware lasts longer, it functions much more reliably, its stable and dependable, and in most instances is considerably better protected from human error mistakes than a traditional Windows OS is.

And lets face it, the vast majority of those sort of people couldn't actually explain to you what Windows really is anyway - Nevermind how to tell it has it, and what version it is. So having Linux instead changes absolutely nothing, except for the huge reduction in price and the real option of keeping a computer for a decade without even replacing it... Factor in cost of ownership over that period and its not hard to see why its much better overall.

If you don't use Linux, open source software and have absolutely no interest in using them you don't need to.

Last time I checked Linux had considerable backing financially and in a supportive role from pretty much every major commerical Linux player and even some that aren't. In reality Linux support is considerably better (and in pretty much all cases free) than most people realise.

Open source software in quite a lot of cases works with Windows as well - You can't tell me that using Gimp for example instead of Adobe's massively expensive equivelent is at least not in some part appealing to those on a budget?

Wrong, and you're frankly an ***** if you'd use a driver to give a 1% performance edge (that you wouldn't even notice btw!) that would greatly increase the chances of destroying your expensive GPU. Thats not being an enthusiast, thats just being plain stupid. Thats all without saying that sometimes the latest drivers aren't actually the most suitable anyway, and thats in Windows.

Wrong again... Last time I checked Linux was better supported online than Microsoft in pretty much every area of its OS. Linux is also very well supported on a commerical level (Check Red Hat and Debian again!), so throws that whole argument to the bottom of the canal.

As for being outdated... Its is very much one of the most upto date OS' currently worked on. Its considerably more updated that Mac OS X who tend to release huge update packs for example. Updates are available usually very quickly after finding the issue in most Linux distros.. It also depends on what distro you use, and whether you want tried and tested stable, or more cutting edge testing, or the most upto date, but bleeding edge distro. As a Linux user you can choose this option, as well as decide what you want on your system.

If you don't like Linux thats fine - but there is a difference between not liking it (for whatever reason) and spreading absolute pointless BS > in case your wondering, your spreading the BS!

In a commerical work environment yes, but what about all these servers powering the internet sites your visiting?

Without servers you wouldn't be able to read the latest news online, check your emails online, or even read this topic on your favourite forum.