6 Reasons Why I’ve Switched to Ubuntu Linux

Inkscape is a cross-platform Open Source vector graphics editor distributed under a free software licence and can be run on Linux, Windows & Mac OSX. Inkscape has capabilities similar to Adobe Illustrator and uses the W3C standard Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) file format. Inkscape has a deceptively simple and streamlined interface while supporting many advanced features making it very easy to edit nodes, perform complex path operations, trace bitmaps and much more.
http://www.ukghdhair.com/

Hey all.I have been using debian since 2004 and ubuntu since 2006.First things first. I bet a gentoo installation Zotok is a troll.

Let's work up some facts.
1.There IS malware in linux/unix/bsd.There are very rare and they can't do much damage especially if you have a separate home partition.

2.XP along with every Legacy OS that has File and Printer sharing protocol enabled by default is a liability.

3.Installation of *buntu and XP is not equal in difficulty.*buntu installs faster than MS-DOS 6.22.

4.Open Source drivers are enabled for most of the devices that exist.Proprietary are supported.

5.@matt: No you dont.There are some nasty rootkit apps that can do the trick by themselves.

6.@Scott:You can do the opposite too.

7.I don't hate Microsoft.Legacy OSs are pretty good.You can play solitaire,do some office work,not having to worry about privileges etc.I just like *nix better.

8.Newbies don't fear the terminal.It's easier than UI.

Hi All. To Zotok - What division of Microsft do you work for? Just wondering. Windows is a good product but everything said here is true.

To Eddie - Have you tried Audacity? Pretty amazing program. They have windows and linux versions. All free.

"The day they start making virsus for Mac and Linux, lets see how they hold up."

I can't say for sure about Macs, but with Linux, at least I know that, when a critical hole is discovered, it will be fixed in hours to, at worst, a day or two, instead of having to wait until the first of the month to get a critical patch. XP is in no way, shape or form a highly secure OS, and even if Windows were as secure as Linux, the fact that MS tends to wait until the first Tuesday (I think it's Tuesday) of each month to release patches, compared to Linux OS's fixing in hours or days, makes Windows less secure anyway.

So even if XP were equal to the security of Linux, the fact that you have to wait so long for patches, and depend on third-party patches, makes Windows less secure.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, you linux fanboys are retarded.

As a note for those of you who think that there are no viruses for Mac and Linux, you are dead wrong. The difference is in the fact that you need to manually install a virus on either operating system from root level access. A virus can't gain control withouy you typing the system root user password. If you do that with a program of which you don't know what it is, your an idiot and deserve the virus.

-Matt

Agreed with most of what you wrote.

I wonder about Zotok's comments. He seems to think installing XP is a one-time event, which isn't even close to true. Windows, for whatever reason, becomes increasingly corrupted or sluggish and ultimately needs to be reinstalled. I haven't yet been able to go a year without having to reinstall Windows from scratch, because of this tendency. I'm told this has something to do with the registry, and that there are tools that can help. Maybe so - but unless you're willing to find the right tools, you'll need to reinstall.

Installing Windows is *not* simple. It is awkward, requires you to enter the activation code, requires you to connect, and it stops during the process to ask for responses from you. You can't just let it run and forget about it - you have to babysit.

Then, before you dare connect to the internet, you need to somehow protect your computer from the various viruses and worms out there.

When I finished installing Windows, I had little more than a text processing program, a browser, and an e-mail client.

In order to make the computer useful, you need to install more software - maybe Open Office, or maybe Word. Either you have to track down the various programs on the Internet, download them, and install them - or else, you have to use Microsoft's products, pay for them, and repeatedly enter the activation code as you work your way through the suite of programs. That needs to figure in to the installation time, but is often overlooked.

With Ubuntu, I had to enter a few bits of information about my location and my video info (on a laptop - it didn't understand that this was an LCD screen). Then, after less than an hour, I was up and running. No validation process, no activation codes, no hassles.

When I was done, I already had the Open Office suite (word processor, spreadsheet, database program, presentation manager, and something else I don't recall right now), several browsers, e-mail programs, all manner of goodies. When I wanted to install other programs, then I just needed to use the installation option. In Ubuntu, "add and remove programs" actually lets you *add*, as well as remove, programs. Try that in Windows.

Many people claim that Linux has fewer viruses and malware because it has a much smaller number of users. This is only a minor consideration, and does not explain the lack of malware. The reason for so little malware is simply that Linux doesn't permit a rogue program to do much of anything. Unless a person is running as root, the malware is limited to whatever damage it can do to the user's file system, not the system's. Losing all your data files is still a huge problem, but nowhere near as bad as getting your system files corrupted and possibly losing control of your computer.

Everything worked just fine with Ubuntu, with the exception of movie DVD's. Big deal. For a few bucks - far less than what a legal copy of Windows would cost - I can buy a nice DVD player that will allow me to watch movies while keeping my computer free for important things like games and porn (or even actual work, if you're into that sort of thing).

As for IE7 - I need to use it at work. It is *constantly* crashing. I don't know why. Our computers are managed by a professional, so it's not some configuration problem I created. Whatever the problem, it is rapidly working to convince the bosses to consider something else - Opera or Firefox, probably. IE7 is its own worst advertising.

Come to think of it, Microsoft is doing itself far more harm than good, with its fascist approach to controlling your own computer. Forget it. I don't steal programs, and I don't steal music. I will not cede control of my computer to some company whose main concern is that someone, somewhere, might make an illegal copy of something. Sure it happens, and it should not. But sine I don't do this, I shouldn't be punished or penalized for it, nor should my system run slower because some people misuse computers. That is not acceptable.

ubuntu råks

simple as that. ;D

even my mom loves it... and she's 52 and so anti-tech you can ever imagine. she used to come screaming downstairs because her windows told her something she didn't understand ("your computer in danger", "you performed an illegal action" e.g.) ... ever since i installed ubuntu though... i'd never heard her complain.
she even managed to plug her printer in and get working herself.

...sry. i was lying to you there... she doesn't 'love' ubuntu.
she can 'live' with it.
she's still skeptic about the 'radioactive emitted waves' and danger of a 'meltdown'.
yes... i tried to explain, without luck

Just as a note on the general security (and to some extent also stability) of GNU/Linux compared to Windows systems (not making this a comparison of desktop systems vs server systems but a more general system vs system comparison) there has to be something to conclude from somewhere around 50% of the web servers on the Internet being GNU/Linux systems running Apache. How is that for a bullseye target? Put in that perspective, on one market, Windows dominates, on another GNU/Linux dominates, and should thus provide equally tempting targets. This then begs the question, if the only reason for Windows being more insecure is that everyone else is too small a target to attack, and ~50% of the Internet web servers are GNU/Linux, why don't we see more hacked servers/sites?

I gave up XP for Ubuntu over a year ago, and have had only good experiences overall. No OS is perfect, but I can count on not having to reboot several times a week. And that constantly drifting Windows registry nightmare ended. I like to used StumbleUpon, and my machine gets many times the use of the average user. Windows just doesn't hold up to that kind of power surfing.

howdy folks ...

right off the bat, i want to mention when i use the term "Linux", i am referring all most all Linux distros ... "Linux", in the purest sense, is ONLY the kernel itself. GNU/Linux is the kernel and the bundled GNU Utilities. the next level up is a distribution, such as Ubuntu or SUSE or Red Hat, and so on.

these distro vendors take GNU/Linux and add *applications* and other utilities to make the distro a useable and productive digital workplace. personally, SUSE is my distro of choice and has been for many many years. i've been using Linux since the first release of the first distro, Slackware.

first off, i'd like to say that most of the "6 reasons ..." are what i will refer to as "lightweight" reasons for using Linux over WIndows, most especially when conveying how "Linux" is better than Windows.

i will agree with the "Licensing" and "spy/ad/ware/virus" reasons. much of the virus/etal problems relate to the fact that Windows is so pervasive, i.e. - it is a natural target, since so many machines will be infected.

and as pointed out previously, if Linux was as pervasive on the desktop as Windows, we'd see as many attacks on Linux.

i realize it was previously stated (i think it's important to state it again) - Linux (or all Unices) is much more secure than Windows. an attack on a Windows system results in [possibly] global destruction of the system. with Linux, the destruction is localized to some user account.

unless of course, the user always runs as the root user. if that is the case, then yes, Linux will not be more secure than Windows.

i disagree with the Firefox reason - i'm not sure why that's important. you can easily download the Windows version of the Firefox installer and have it installed on your Windows system without issue.

IE wont run on a Linux system (well, you can, but i wont get into that), so FIrefox is usually the default browser and is bundled with all the popular Linux distros.

the "simple installation process" can be argued. let's see you [easily] install Slackware or Gentoo :)

i'll mostly agree with the "everything you need" and "it works" reasons, although i do have a bit of an issue with "everything you need".

for example, i'm a photographer and require top-notch software for post processing of images. for that, i use Lighroom, HyperUtility V3, and a couple of other products. unfortunately, these arent available for Linux. i use a MacBook Pro 17 for image processing, since all the photo oriented software houses also build versions for OSX.

(BTW, the core of OSx is BSD, a Unix variant, so dont razz me about using a Mac :) all my desktops and servers are Linux).

concerning my servers and desktops: i have been Windows free for years. i do use VMWare with eXPensive as a client app running under Linux (a slave to Linux :), since i do cross-platform testing for web development.

i have over 15 Linux distros installed on my main desktop box. i have that many installed mostly for testing and review. i will say i have never had any of the issues i've experienced with Windows.

at the top of my list is software installation. why do i have to reboot when i install user software on Windows? i can not fathom why M$ hasnt fixed this. with Linux or the Mac, i simply download the package, install it, then run it.

the ONLY TIME I HAVE TO REBOOT a Linux machine or Mac is when a new kernel is installed. and even if i install a hardware driver, i dont have to reboot the Linux system - i can dynamically load and unload hardware drivers.

stability and security hold the same place for me. my main Linux desktop has been running now for 3 months without a restart. i had to reboot 3 months ago since i upgraded the kernel. in the many years i've been running Linux, i've never had lost productivity because of a virus/spyware/etc.

there are so many other reasons i could list why Windows in inferior to Linux, but i wont bother - this list is easily found via a Google search.

as a consultant, i have hundreds++ of Linux installs, mostly corporate installs. these clients have had ZERO downtime. granted, there is a learning curve, but the productive state is quickly achieved.

and that's my number one reason: productivity using Linux soars higher than can be achieved using a Windows system. Linux (or Unix in general) is highly pervasive, on the server side, in the corporate world. desktop Linux is also gaining ground in the corporate world.

and in time, we will probably the Linux desktop/Windows desktop use ratio balance out.

regards, michael .... author, "Inside Linux"

Wonderful; finally a thread whose comments I've decided to read through. I've been waiting for such a moment!

I should perhaps point out that Firefox isn't the most valid of browsers, nor is it the most secure; but I do use it, mainly for the extensions, the community support and the fact that it's open source. Simple. So for the same reasons as Joe states.

If you want better standards-compatibility, you use Opera or any KHTML-enabled browser (Safari, Konqueror).

Denis,

I wholeheartedly agree Firefox is not the most secure browser. In all technicality, nothing is. As long as there is a user behind the technology, it's vulnerable.

That said, Firefox is generally the most reliable, functional, and frequently updated browser on the market today. Opera is an excellent browser, and by no means do I intend to discredit it; however, I would recommend Firefox over Opera due to the better compliance that Web sites have for it and the variety of extensions that are available for it.

So either why you slice the pizza on this; Firefox or Opera are undoubtedly the best choices for Linux, instead of more archaic ones like Lynx or Konquerer. Thanks for sharing your comment, I look forward to more insightful comments from you on my blog. :)

~J

Better yet, you can install Linux from Windows. HAH how cool is that?

Firefox isnt the safest browser!!!!! OPERA is!

Zotok:
“Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006.”

...because they never patch it :)

Man, clearly I touched some nerves. i should have shown more maturity in my comments. Well here are my facts.

I was talking about this article posted on The Inquirer http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article..., in which Symantec claims "Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006." And thus calling it the most secure OS. C'mon guys this makes sense , MS has over 40,000 engineers working full time spread all over the world making Windows better.

You can't bring Firefox, VLC, Openoffice into picture..because they are available on windows too, they don't make compelling arguments for switching to Linux. Btw i hate IE6 & 7 too, but I don't like Firefox either. It went downhill from 1.5 (c'mon callin close button on each tab a feature is a joke). I prefer Opera 9, but I will not bring that into picture as its available on Linux too.

I bought my laptop almost 2 years agao, and honest to god I didn't have to format and install XP anytime..why ? I keepoff p2p, and other filth.


Look guys, I am no Windows fan here, but I like windows better than Linux. Ubuntu may be simple and intuitive to you computer geeks, but for regular Joes like me its hard. My next computer will be a Mac not windows and not in hell a Linux.

linux sucks for recording

Keep your eyes open for Ubuntu Studio http://ubuntustudio.org/

also "remote registry" turned on by default in xp

> hey zotok! answer back… Mr. “XP IS THE MOST SECURE OS”.

Without anti-spyware, anti-virus and firewall, xp get infected ultra fast.

And, internal xp firewall is a joke. A malicious site can turn it off.

"regarding the software aspect, I don’t ever remember a time when Wordpad was classified as a “useful application.”

I agree.
And, openoffice is a free as in beer and free as in speech alternativa to ms-office.

hey zotok! answer back... Mr. "XP IS THE MOST SECURE OS".

These are all excellent issues that everyone cited. Thanks for comments and the Diggs. :-)


Zotok -- While it may be easy to buy into the thought that "I'm lazy," it most certainly isn't the case. My approach in trying all three systems out to see which ones met my needs is the initiative a lot of internet users need to make an adequately informed decision.

True, that Windows doesn't create viruses and they are primarily targeted due to their conglomerate size. If a vulnerability is found within Windows, we have to wait all the way until Patch Tuesday to obtain the updates. The advantage of the Linux community, is their proactive, and rapid response to addressing security issues.

While we may disagree on whether Linux is the right option for YOU, we should be able to calmly address the reasons why one chooses Windows vs. Linux or vice-versa.

I mentioned the added benefit of having Firefox built right in because it makes sense and is the right thing to do for the general public. Just imagine if everyone traded their Vista DVDs for an Ubuntu disc and installed, how many more Firefox users we'd all have. Yes, I've used IE7 and that is one of the reasons why I continue to stick with Firefox.

Regarding the software aspect, I don't ever remember a time when Wordpad was classified as a "useful application." If Microsoft genuinely cared for their customers they would bundle an office suite. It's because of their for-profit attitude they don't. The point is, that people shouldn't be forced to "find" software applications that probably have advertisements included. With the Synaptic installer, all someone needs to do is either browse for what they want or search for it. When the software is free and accessible everyone wins. When the software comes from one source, everyone is forced to use that one source and any inherent difficulties that arise from it.

Ed -- I agree. Having the best network utilities around, such as Netcat, Nessus, nmap, ping, traceroute, mtr, wget, nslookup and more make the Linux environment ideal for someone who needs to perform any networking diagnostics.

Thanks for the comment, I look forward to more. :-)

Dave Riley:

"What they don’t tell you is how different the desktop is for Windows and how challenging it is to comprehend so many protocols such as packages,the “terminal” and the like."

Linux is not Windows:
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Nice set of reasons. What about the network tools and freedom that you get also? Vital tools are available that makes it a much stronger OS than windows. Just little things like bash/sh/perl that are all available on almost every single distro, make actually doing things that much easier.

Things like wget just make life so much easier!

Dave Riley said:

"4] Easy installing- Even XP and Vista have simple installtions. Its something you only do ones. It shouldn’t matter"

It's something you only do ones, every six months!
:-)

Something to add for number 1 and 2:

DRM is nonexistant in linux and DRM in my opinion is worse than any type of malware in existance as it is a Microsoft funded trojan designed to spy on those users who have paid for windows and are using legal copies (as no one using windows legally deals with any of the DRM garbage). And those users using windows legally can't bypass the DRM as that is considered illegal as you would be violating your TOS.

4. Installing of Ubuntu without partitioning involves what 6 clicks? and in that process you enter 4 things (your name, username, pass, and computer name) and while it is installing you can use your OS to its fullest extent as it uses a live cd unlike Windows where you sit their for 45minute to an hour watching it install and having to confirm an action every few minutes.

5. For Ubuntu Installation of 99% of your software is easier than windows, as you load up synaptic search for your program and install it. And guess what Ubuntu will check for updates of all of that software automatically and install it for you (all you need to do is click on button and enter your root password to allow it to make system changes).

Their is also the awesome Add/Remove program which literally has all of the popular software available for download (over 1000 programs and games) categorized by type (Games, Multimedia, Office, etc..) and you check the check box for the software you want and it installs it for you with one click.

I can't believe you folks didn't mention a thing about maintenance!

A Linux box is FAR easier to maintain in the long run than Windows. In fact a typical Linux admin can handle MORE boxes than a Windows admin.

Linux distros handle apps in a more convenient manner. That is, you can update ALL components that is installed by the package manager. A single command can upgrade your whole system.

In Windows, you have to masterbate your way through all these third party apps! There is no automation for that!

AND

What about flexibility?

You can't modify Windows to meet your needs exactly, unless you get MS's permission (which may involve signing some NDA, etc)...In Linux, make it how YOU want it.



Zotok says: "Windows XP is still the most secure OS"

I'm sorry, that's just utter nonsense from someone who has NEVER used Linux for more than a month.

The real reason Windows is attacked more, is because MS's security implementations are a JOKE! Its nothing to do with popularity. That's just a trivial reason created by MS's marketing Dept! (It seems everyone just blindly accepts this as fact!)

If XP is secure, what's the point of Vista's new security band-aids? Hmmm? What about the need to install third-party anti-malware applications? Huh?

Even then, Vista's security mechanisms can't do crap, as clearly demonstrated by the recent ANI vulnerability...Hello infinite crash loop of Explorer!!! (The point of OS's security mechanisms is to prevent and contain...Something Vista's mechanisms can't even do!)

Topping this off, MS's stance seems to consider software crashing as an acceptable behaviour. (See their recent comments about Word 2007).

Zotok, go back to your Windows playground, dude. Remain ignorant and clueless. Please continue buying Windows. Because someone has to pay for a new chair every time Ballmer throws one out the window! :D

To answer to some of your points, Zotok

[2] First it's spelled "virus" and not "virsus". Second, you may be right saying that XP is THE target for viruses. Well, even so, I don't want to waste resources (RAM, CPU) into antiviruses, etc. But you are wrong. UNIX (OSX and LInux are derivation of it), are inherently more secure. A virus would only affect the userspace (eventually delete your documents), but everything else (including the usespace of the other users) would be unaffected. The crap you collect with XP just by surfing the internet, is a simple demonstration that XP is just not secure. It's stable, but not secure. UAC in Vista is a joke. So please if yo usay that XP is the safest, prove it. Otherwise it's hot air.

[3] Internet Explorer has been proven to be 1. worst in any part than FIrefox. 2. Vastly more insecure. Why should I use it? Than to the installation process. Why do I need to spend my precious time to go on a site, download and exe and install it, when I can have it all by default. I guess you have lots of time to waste... well, I don't.

4] No. You typically reinstall windows once a year. Don't deny it. Second: It takes at least two reboots just to get your new installation going. Third. Good luck going through your installation of all applications. See number [3] for "wasting precious time"

5] This is the best. Notepad is a clear joke. There is nothing useful you can do with it. Wordpad is the Word for suckers. mediaplayer is the iTunes catch up, which is known not to be able to play several formats (as noted above) and be prone to crash. So is that it? Are those the breakthrough apps that should keep me on Windows. I can have FAR superior software installed by default, for free with Linux. There is no Windows application that comes standard with it that is superior to anything on the Linux world.

6] Drivers. Have you ever installed windows with only te drivers provided with the CD (i.e. not third party). Good, you will notice that you will not have networking or sound working, a resolution of 640x480. Sure you can get third party drivers. But with Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) everything works out of the box if you have pretty recent hardware. You should check again (if you ever did) some LInux distros, and you will agree with me.

You said one thing right: Overall, what you said here is incorrect and nothing new.

I installed Ubuntu two weeks ago and am negotiating the learning curve. I like it and would love it more if some of the software I use would work on it -- eg: from Sony : Sonic Stage.

What they don't tell you is how different the desktop is for Windows and how challenging it is to comprehend so many protocols such as packages,the "terminal" and the like.

It isn't a self evident system and I've yet to find an absolutely easy DIY to negotiating what you need to do when. This is the problem wit open source -- there are so many stake holders all talking at once, it's difficult to sift through the traffic jams.

So there's a sharp learning curve if you aren't geeky and if you aren't best to get someone else to install and customize for you. But really given that the software is free -- why not? And once you are up and running, the support community is very considerate of your ignorance even though another language is often used. And I find that the most difficult challenge: Ubuntu/Linux is another computer culture with its own language and pre-occupations such that I have no idea most of the time what people are talking about. That's relevant because while Ubuntu is supposed to be "Linux for human beings" -- it is still very demanding of your computer aptitude to install, and set up. Running it as a USER is fine -- it's probably much better than WINDOWS in that regard -- but someone has to be the system Admin, and if that's you, you have to do your homework.

hehe, some interesting arguments zotok, but there are a couple of things here:

2. viruses. I dont know who told you that xp is the most secure os, but they lied. while, granted, not nearly as many people code viruses for linux, it just doesnt have near the number of holes that xp does.
3. firefox is a feature, even built right in. the reason for that is that a lot of the general computing public is not aware of it, even though it is a better browser. I dont really get pop-ups with firefox, where i still will even with 3rd party pop up blocker software from microsoft. oh yeah, and add-ons that a 3 year old can install and manage.
4. installs, not really a big deal. although, as for installing it only once, i just dont think that is true. im newer to linux, so i dont know if this holds true for them, but if you have not had a fresh install of xp for a year or more, do it and see what happens. its like getting a new machine. ive had to do it at least 5 times because of spyware/malware even with internet security suites.
5. you cant beat free. yeah, notepad is free, but so is openoffice. not exactly the same comparison. windows media player does LOOK better, but it way sucks compared to vlc player, or even winamp on windows.
6. it works - ill give you this one. although i have had no trouble with drivers (all components are working on a fresh ubuntu linux install without dl'ing anything) it has been a nightmare trying to get beryl installed. granted, beryl is still in beta, but still.

no, i am not a lnux fanboy. i have now had it installed for about 3 days. I just know the shit that i had to deal with on windows. im keeping both for app support (im a musician, and linux sucks for recording) but other than that, ill probably transition to linux.

5] windows media player sucks! it can't even play AAC, FLAC, xVid, DivX files i get from internet. It still needs 3rd-party codecs.

6] Now a days, Linux really has drivers for all hardwares in my PC. And it's well-known fact Vista sucked big for Geforce8 series drivers. huh!

another micro$oft sucker!

What a lazy guy !

Those are your reasons for switching to Ubuntu !

1] Licensing - agree
2] virsus and stuff - agree, but Microsoft didn't create these virsus. The day they start making virsus for Mac and Linux, lets see how they hold up. Windows XP is still the most secure OS.
3] Firefox buli right in - This is one of your reasons !! how lazy are you that you can't go to firefox website to download the setup file. Btw have you heard to Internet Explorer.
4] Easy installing- Even XP and Vista have simple installtions. Its something you only do ones. It shouldn't matter
5] Everything you need included for free - Granted, but even XP and vista come with useful apps..notepad, wordpad, IE, mediaplayer (10 times better then Linux's media players) etc. If your stil not staisfied sites like download.com offer plenty of freeware
6] It works - Good like finding all the drivers for your devices !!

Overall, what you said here is incorrect and nothing new.