There's a lot of empty rhetoric here and I think it is worth criticizing some of your talking points. My purpose here is to get you (and others) doing some critical thinking, because it sounds like you don't really understand *why* the things you've said are true.
IvanAwfulitch said:
As a matter of fact, their anti-virus/anti-spyware that comes with the OS is superior to all of the other ones out there. Nobody seems to have been able to hack into a Linux machine. Given, there might not be much use in it.
I strongly disagree. The only AVs that can *come* with Linux have to be license-free and are often open-source. That leaves ClamAV, which is actually a pretty bad virus scanner. For the longest time, it has had NO real-time protection and poor detection rates even against 'second rate' virus scanners (see
AV comparatives for the details). I respect ClamWin though, but I'm just sayng it isn't even close to being 'better' than popular Windows alternatives.
I won't hold this against Linux though, because viruses aren't really its own problem -- ClamWin only exists because of Linux-based email servers serving Windows clients anyway. ;-) I just wanted to correct you on this, because your statement seems very untrue to me.
Linux is based off of Unix, and Unix was the OS of choice for IBM for a while.
Just like movies 'based on a true story' have nothing to do with the actual events that occurred, being 'based on Unix' means absolutely nothing. Just about the only thing they have in common is POSIX. Since Unix has been pretty much defunct for over 15 years, Since that time, Linux has been effectively, completely rewritten from end-to-end many times over. There's pretty much nothing from Unix left, as evidenced by SCO's losses in court against the Linux community.
It can develop bad sectors on the hard drive
That isn't Linux's problem, I think you're aware of that though.
it doesn't dual-boot well
Linux's defacto boot loader (GRUB) is quite possible THE most capable and flexible boot loader that has ever existed. "Well" is obviously subjective, but show me where Windows' boot loader is superior.
It's not meant for gaming. Period. The only way gaming can happen is through Wine, or creating an non-Linux environment to play in like an XP environment. That's an awful lot of trouble just to play a few game
Ridiculously false. You make it sound like a technical limitation, but that's not true at all. Linux has support for many cutting edge 3D cards and complete support for OpenGL. There are a number of commercial 3D games that can run on Linux, but most of them are older like Unreal Tounrament 2004, Return to Castle Wolfenstein or World of Warcraft (with the help of Wine).
The problem here is developers don't want to bother writing a huge, expensive game for a tiny, miniscule market share. 3D games these days take years to develop and its costs money. It just isn't worth it, but there's no reason it couldn't happen.
It still carries MANY of the business oriented features that were a big part of Unix. (Including high security).
Huh? What are these 'business features' you are talking about? If anything, Windows is a more business-oriented OS than Linux, in most respects.
Mac OSX and Windows 7 are useful because they pander to the masses. They're intuitive, easy to use, and low maintenance.
I'm able to make a living because Windows 7 isn't "low maintainence", but Windows definitely is easier to administer (not necessarily maintain, though).
Steam just won't make a Linux client. Not until it gains massive popularity. Which it won't because people like what they're used to. And what they're are used to is Windows and Mac. And that's the end of the discussion
Honestly, that should have been your entire reply -- This is the truth! Mostly everything else was hog wash.