Wow good post Dj.

I've been using Ubuntu for a few months, and I love it.

With every other release, there's a lot of development happening and it's really good to see Ubuntu evolving!

I too love the desktop effects and I think they're really better, and customizable than that on Vista.

Yes...indeed! agreed bro!

Well done Dj Flush, nice post and it's not all about nice, all words written here are true.
By the way I think that Ubuntu have 1 good thing more, and that is Ubuntu Brainstorm where you can give your idea about what should be change or added in Ubuntu, and also vote for ideas which been added from some Ubuntu users.

I totally agree with all of this, but you haven't even touched on the fact that you can see and modify any source code! I suppose it's only useful for developers, but it is truly awesome. Also, noticed that everyone seems to call it Linux Ubuntu. Linux is obviously the noun, while the distro should be an adjective, so it would either be Ubuntu or Ubuntu Linux. There is no Ubuntu BSD or Ubuntu Windows so that would make the most sense.

alifaan, you gave me an inspiration.

Yes, brainstorm is a great idea and I strongly suspect it will help Ubuntu change for the better. But brainstorm is just one example of why Linux and Open Source is different from proprietary software from Microsoft and others. Open Source is totally accessible to the end user. We are involved in its development. Its only reason to change and evolve is to make it better for us, not to raise the stock price or grab more market share.

don't say windows is bad! most of us use that and we can't ignore that.

Linux can be better only when it can streamline the user interface. Someone should try giving linux a windows look and see how it works out. If everything goes GUI in linux most of the common people will be able to workout on it.

@Pranjal...you're kidding right? It's that kind of attitude that keeps so many people in the dark. You obviously have either "a" never tried linux, or "b" haven't tried it in the past 4 years. Linux, and ubuntu especially has made leaps and bounds in the field of OS's and user-friendliness. I'm installing ubuntu on my grandma's first computer today because I am convinced that it is easier and more intuitive then windows. And there are tons of themes that make ubuntu or any other distro really look like windows, and yet it still operates better. There is a reason people say windows is bad, and that still holds true whether or not you are using it or not. It's a faulty OS, a corrupt company, and a buggy environment. Go to ubuntu.com, download a live cd, and give it a try, I promise you'll find it easy to use!

I am so tired of seeing people say that there are no viruses for Linux. This is a total misnomer, as there are viruses and exploits for Linux, but not on the scale that affect Windows or Mac (yes, even Mac is vulnerable).

And to say that win32 executable viruses don't impact Linux is another misnomer. As an experiment, I loaded Wine on my Linux box, and then executed a file that I knew to have a virus in it. Yes, my Linux became infected, but not like a Windows box. While the virus only affected Win32 executables, and not Linux files, the box was infected none the less.

By making such a statement, you are giving people a false sense of security. Ask yourself this, if Linux is impervious to viruses, why are their anti-virus products for Linux?

@Emory
Well, Linux might be good by its certainly not better than windows. If you say that its better than windows then you probably:
a. Hate Windows and Mr Gates :P
b. You are a die hard Linux fan

And well jus think about the software compatability dude. Without Windows we are almost handicaps! Linux ain't bad but it needs a little more time to getter better.

If it weren't for my EVDO wireless internet card that I use always, I'd have been on Ubuntu full time. I need only a browser and mail client, after all.

I don't mean to be so inflammatory but don't be such an idiot. You're writing about stuff that you're clearly not qualified to.

My proof for that statement?

No Viruses - Thats true! as Linux does not recognize Win32 Executables so the possibility of having a virus on-board is absolutely 0%

It's just another programmable platform - of course it can (and does) have viruses written for it. Exploits too.

Some of the other points are a little flakey too. If you want a full critique, be prepared to feel special because I decided to blog it.

thats the basic problem with Linux! not ever hardware manufacturer make drivers for it.

Great post buddy! And welcome to the Ubuntu World :D

@Pranjal @Emory @Joel
Well, i think no OS is good or bad. You cannot say that you cannot live without windows.. you can..just try it..being that you have all the sources and you know what you are doing with your linux installation. There are thousands and thousands of softwares available free of cost for ubuntu. All the servers and VPSs run on linux distros. Games are the only thing where linux presently lacks... and that that too will be going all well in the future.
If you say that you love windows and would not even touch ubuntu... i will be glad that i at least told you about the opportunities but you may have to repent later.
What I think is that you should try every OS, look at the advantages and disadvantages, enjoy the advantages and at least try to improve upon the disadvantages and not just fight over My OS is good and your's is bad :D
And by the way who says that everything is not GUI-fied in Ubuntu? :|

Almost forgot - dugg.

DJ, I just found this post as one of the duplicates while submitting this post on Digg:
http://underheavenz.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-rea...

It contains same content, though the image isn't present. Its a scraper, and that post was submitted before yours. I'm reporting the post to Digg as duplicate - you should do it too.

Regarding Joel's and Pranjal's comments, as well as a few things in the original article:

I see a lot of this kind of objection to Linux, and it boils down to Linux Is Not Windows. Which, of course, is true. But people expect to be able to jump from Windows to Linux without a learning curve or any technical barriers, and that's just unrealistic. How long did it take you to learn the ins and outs of Windows? It took some time, right? Well, Linux also requires some time and learning commitment, so it's unfair to condemn Linux because your existing Windows skill set doesn't make you an instant Linux expert.

When I first started playing with Linux I just wanted to learn; I never thought I would be switching away from Windows. And the first couple of months were a challenge. Where is Control Panel? Where is the Program Files directory? Where is the registry? Where is the D drive? At first it seemed like Linux was needlessly complicated to learn. But I worked to keep in mind that just because it was unfamiliar doesn't mean it is wrong. And gradually I got accustomed to the differences and began to see the reasons for them. By the time Vista came out, I was a complete Linux convert.

This part is specifically for Joel: once you get really familiar with Linux, the issues that seem to be impediments turn out not to be, and that can make you a die hard Linux fan - not just for no reason, but because you really see WHY it's better. And that in turn can turn you against Microsoft, because once you're no longer tied to that platform it's frustrating to see a technically inferior product still pretty much own the market. It's not that people like Linux because they hate MS; it's that Linux people grow to scorn MS because they've experienced better.

I also don't know why people get so down on Linux because you can't run every piece of Windows software on it. I don't see people ragging Windows because you can't run Mac software on it. I don't see people ragging Mac OS because you can't run Linux software on it. Why is Linux singled out for special criticism for not being able to run software designed for a different platform - especially since Linux's Wine project has made greater steps in that direction than any of the competing OSes have? I run DVDFab HD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, IrfanView, and QuickBooks regularly on my Linux boxes, and I have seen WoW, MS-Office, and even Internet Explorer successfully installed on Linux, just to name a few. Can Windows run that much Linux software? Of course not, so why is this considered a failing? And in terms of interoperability, again the Linux open source applications have the edge. OpenOffice can read and write MS-Office proprietary file formats; MS-Office can't do the same for OpenOffice's formats, even though they are free and open standards. And yet people somehow conclude that this makes MS-Office superior. Why? I can't imagine.

Anyway. Linux Is Not Windows. And that's a good thing, because if it were, there'd be no advantage to it. But it isn't, and there is, and if you'd give it the same chance you gave Windows, it would be more apparent.

@Sumesh

Thanks for the heads up. Looks like the guy has been copying all of my posts lol. I have reported him through Google Adsense as a case of copyright infringement.

Great points buddy.Even though Linux is good, we just cant remove Windows from our daily work. Anyways, i will be trying Linux when my college ends and you will help me set up.

Security is the main reason I will only use Ubuntu livecd to surf the internet. I disconnect the hard drive, install firestarter (firewall) and my computer is now practically impenetrable. If I have to download something, I just use my 4 GB flash card.

Great post, I feel the same with your points. I have been using Linux Ubuntu for 2 years as my daily working system. No viruses is the biggest advantage especially for the computer technicians as they have to deal with so many virus cases. If I am using Windows OS as my work station and use it to troubleshoot my customers' PCs, then I will probably need to format and reinstall my Windows every week. It is true that hardware compatibility is a problem in Linux, but as a computer consultant, I get to advice and pick the hardware for my clients so I can just pick the those that will run on Linux.

I've been living without Windows for one and one-half years.

Windows is dead to me and as a web developer I have found everything I would need provided by Ubuntu.

While Windows is not going anywhere for the moment, I agree with a lot of comments here about open source and the way it will play a bigger part in our futures. I have been using Ubuntu since its early days as my main distro and all I can say is that it keeps getting better. As for Brainstorm, well that is one example of how open source works, if you have an idea you just submit it, can you imagine MS with this kind of input...


Na, me neither, lol.

If you have a programming bent, then you can download the source code, modify or add bits and then submit it back (under the rules of the GPL (I think)). Again, can you imagine if you were allowed to modify or improve Windows...


Sorry, hurt my self laughing too much with that one ;)

I for one can't even comprehend why the average user wouldn't want to use a Linux distribution instead of Windows at this point, for the simple fact that it, along with all the open source applications are provided to the end user free of cost. An equivalent Windows setup to my Ubuntu setup would cost me over a thousand U.S. dollars. The Ubuntu community provided it to me free of cost. This is on top of all the other wonderful benefits the Linux community offers. Windows fanboys should really get a clue.

I have been a dedicated Ubuntu user for two years and have never even felt like going back to windows. Mostly for the reasons you cite in your article. I do agree that the security issue is not black and white. Yes there are vulnerabilities in any OS, but Linux is genuinely more secure than Windows XP and at least as good as Vista. I find the "Linux way" - the way things work and the general approach to software design - to be way more user-friendly than the MS (or OSX way). It would be a great pity, IMO, if the core of Linux made too many concessions to Windows users. There are plenty of distros, Ubuntu included, that give users a lot of hand-holding and simple gui tools. People should try Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS if they feel that Ubuntu doesn't suit.

Nice article.

very very true, linux is always better than windows the best of linux over windows is that its FREE :D

thank's that for information.
I think Ubuntu is very good and has a good diplaying.
Especially in that compiz, and by using Ubuntu we can find virus from our flash disk or from our hard disk and we can delete it.

But in windows, we can't do it...

I stopped reading at #1 because that's possibly the dumbest statement I've read on the net this month.

What's the minimum requirements for running Ubuntu?

@Ahmed

I don't know the exact PC requirements to run Ubuntu but lets just say that if your PC can smoothly run XP then its definitely going to rock Ubuntu.

IMO, the best part of Ubuntu is that they have been successful in creating a Linux distro that is newbie-friendly. Nice set of points man.

check out this Why Linux is Better

Linux vs Windows

What i can say is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. What suits you better is what you will use. Windows has its flaws, so does Linux. I am still new to Ubuntu & i must say i am impressed. It needs a little bit of improvement, but so does windows. Let the companies compete, why don't we chose which one meets our needs. But then again criticism is motivation in disguise.

I must add something about viruses: indeed there is a number of Linux viruses, but they need root access to do their spread out, which in most cases do not have, and even more, in Ubuntu the root account is disabled - no one has root privileges, not even the system administrator (and can be enabled, if you really need it).

And why there are antivirus programs for Linux? Mainly, such programs are not installed and used on Linux workstations, but on Linux servers, for (guess what) Windows systems that are connected to the Linux servers. And sorry for the unwanted typo mistakes that I made, as I am not from an English-speaking country.

Welcome to the convenient and safe life. I use ubuntu myself and can't imagine returning to the expensive, unsafe and slow experience I have left behind. Unfortunately, having spent money on softwares like Dreamweaver (for example) which have no real alternative, I have ended up keeping the Windows as well as a rarely used optional boot.

All good points.

There are viri that can affect Linux, but they're few and far between. A virus has a tough time with Linux mainly because:

1). The user doesn't generally run as administrator.
2). Most Linux distributions are different enough that it's difficult to write one virus that will infect them all.

Rootkits are more of a threat to Linux boxes, but bugs that allow exploits are generally closed up sooner and more efficiently with Linux than Windows, especially in distributions that use a package manager such as apt, where core and add on vulnerabilities are fixed during the same update procedure.

I think the main difference between Windows and Linux or Mac has very little to do with software.

Microsoft is a behemoth, an absolute financial giant. Microsoft is not in the business of creating a quality product. Microsoft is in the business of making money.

Open source projects such as most Linux distros are in the business of making a quality product, not for making money. People tend to equate money to a superior product, but it's really time and dedication.

Ubuntu, Linux and open source will always be better than proprietary, financially driven products because of the end goal of each side, the final product or money.

As a side note, one of the many reasons the open source model is better is becoming clear to many who don't know or don't care. Microsoft has announced they will be pulling Windows XP from retailers and hardware distributors, causing somewhat of an uproar. Many users feel as if XP is great and do not want to switch.

If Windows XP was open source, it could be community developed and supported for as long as there was a demand. Because it's not, the users are at the mercy of Microsoft.

For those of you upset that he said no viruses, get over it! I have been running ubuntu for about a year and a half while dual-booting XP. In that time, I have never once seen my system crash, slow down, or have any sign of viruses whatsoever. As for spyware, Firefox with adblock and noscript and safe internet practices followed by frequent cache and cookie cleanings, and a good firewall should keep 99.9% of the spyware off your ubuntu partition, which is about 50 times better than what I can say for windows.

Yeah, you could run an infected exe in wine and mess up wine's libraries, but why would you do that? Also, by nature, unix systems are harder to infect since the libraries are randomized and only root has full access to system files. I have installed everything I need to using the add/remove programs feature, and while some more specialized peices of software might force someone to use terminal there is really little need to leave the gui.

The gui really isn't THAT much different from windows, and in my honest opinion the differences that do exist far surpass what windows has to offer. People who claim linux gui needs major improvement probably have not tried it for themselves.

Seriously, unless you are a corporation that has windows specific business software you have already spent a fortune on or you are a super high-end pc gamer, ubuntu is fine for anyone. The filesystem itself is more stable, no lengthy disk-defragmenting required, and overall it utilizes disk space much more efficiently.

I been using ubuntu since it first came out. I just upgraded to the latest version of ubuntu 8.4 and it rocks! I will never ever go back to windows, because of their poor security.

I wrote my own compilation of 5 Reasons I Like Linux (And 5 Why I Dislike It) here:
http://tech.shantanugoel.com/2008/04/20/5-reaso...

@ Bill - How is it? Linux has no viruses in the wild. Every OS has its vulnerabilities and weak points, but due to the design of Linux and the wonderful permissions system, a virus is the least effective way to exploit these, as they can't spread (or even touch system files) without root priviledges.

Linux having no viruses is not realated to not recognising w32 executables.

---
The reason that we have not seen a real Linux virus epidemic in the wild is simply that none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment that Linux provides. The Linux viruses that exist today are nothing more than technical curiosities; the reality is that there is no viable Linux virus.

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

etc

There is a difference between a typical virus and malware.

Linux is not immune to exploits etc

I think everyone should also read Oli's post on his blog. It's a good start to avoid misperception.

Yes, you are right. linux is not infected with viruses(.exe or .dll) since it cannot be executed. Even if u try to execute .exe files using wine the nature of virus is to get the root access which is not possible in linux without your knowledge. So DJ flush and dak. don't be still kids. Come to this world.learn new things. try to differentiate between what is worth and money saving. You thing buying a windows xp from a store is worth than using this linux for free. You people never change? Linux and its flavours are only for developers like us who try to ponder upon the new technologies. If you are a new user or a windows admirer please don't post. Just read our suggestions or tips.

The truth

1. That Ubuntu is not plagued with malware is of course true.
2. This is also true. Most Windows users do not care, though, about open source. The average guy just wants the applications to work and would not know anyway how to modify the source code.
3. I have not seen a program in Windows that does not have a GUI. In other words there is no need of a terminal in Windows. This is one of the great advantages with Windows.
4. Obviously you can not always find a better application in Ubuntu than in Windows. Some programs are better in Windows and are also easier to use and are more complete. Some applications in Ubuntu does not even have a GUI. That some programs are better in Windows than in Ubuntu is also the reason why the author of above article still keeps Windows in his PC. Most applications, also, in Windows you can find for free (that does not cost any money).
5. It is probably true that Ubuntu is the most user friendly operating system that Linux can offer. It is also true that it is user friendly but it is not more user friendly than XP or Vista. I would say that all of them are in this regard about the same.
6. Most applications in Windows are supported by the companies which provide them.
7. The XP and Vista GUI is nicer and more sophisticated than the Ubuntu layout.
8. The package manager is a good thing. The problem is that you will not always find a good alternative to Windows programs (read above).
9. I do not know anything about this.
10. Ubuntu live CDs are a good thing. No need of "Windows live CDs", though, as Windows are usually installed anyway. Quite often Ubuntu live CDs are not compatible with the PC machine. There is frequently something importantly missing.

I have run Windows machines for years and they have not crashed. With antivirus software, Firefox, McAfee Site Advisor and java script forbidden, your Windows machine does not need to crash because of malware. Malware is something you can to a great extent control.

Yes Ubuntu is very nice. So is Fedora, as are so many different distro's. There is so much more to free and open source than Ubuntu. There is far more than meets the eye. I switched to Linux back in the 90's and it's been a real pleasure to watch it grow into what it has become. I used to sit around with a table of ham radio enthusiasts and station engineers listening to them tell me it was only a flash in the bucket and it would not last. In the ensuing time period up to the current, I have witnessed Linux move from the cmd line, to x windows, to CDE, KDE, Gnome, and now onto Compiz and the variants. Conversely windows has become a morass of technological suffering. While windows has done well to keep up with technology, the commitment to the very user who keep them in their fine lifestyle, has failed. The computing community has so much to offer, but nobody at Microsoft is listening. With that said, I hope Ubuntu keeps the good work and their fine contribution to all of us.

a nice brief and satisfactory post, and for sure linux is better than anything.

I'm seeing a lot of interesting discussion here, but the main point I haven't seen addressed is stability: all Microsoft OS are inherently unstable. Many people do not know this. They think that frequent crashes, hangs, and reboots are just par for the course with "computers." Nothing could be further from the truth, but MS has buffaloed so many people into using their horrible software that these sort of expectations pervade our culture. I have run many MS systems, both as user and sysadmin, and they have all been nightmares compared to any linux distro I have tried. For example, when I ran NT4, purported to be the most stable OS from MS, I had to contend with daily crashes and network lock-ups. Contrarywise, I have been running Ubuntu for over two years without a single glitch.

Only reason Linux has no viruses because people who creates virus wants to damage as many computers as possible, The day people will start making viruses for linux it will go through the same.

Linux is not easy to use its tough for ordinary person where Windows so easy to use that's why it has some flaws.

Its free yes but still 90% people in the world prefer to spend $100 on Windows which is quite remarkable.

Linux does not support as many softwares and games like windows. The day you put as much load on linux as we put on Windows everyday Linux won't even start.

Linux can not help in PC sales growth. WHere Windows set the platform for it.

All in all there are thousands reasons why Windows better than Linux.

I've been on Ubuntu for less than 24hrs and I'm loving every second of it. I have it installed via Wubi, so it's actually running on my WinXP machine without having to make a partition! It's just a simple executable that allows you to choose between Windows or Ubuntu (or Kubuntu or Xubuntu) at startup.

To get back to your windows OS, simply restart your PC and choose to boot Windows from the log in screen.

It's great, because if it allocates a portion of your disc without partitioning and that was very important to me.

I can still access my Windows files through Ubuntu, too. I have full access to my images, mp3s and videos still.

You can get Wubi @ http://wubi-installer.org/. It only takes about 30 minutes to install, so go grab a cup of coffee, read a blog post and check back in a bit.

Also, since it's only an executable that is installed through Windows, you can easily uninstall Ubuntu if it's not something you want on your computer. To do that, you just need to double click on the uninstall file that comes with Wubi.

It's all very simple. If I can do it, you can do it. Trust me.

Open source FTW!

Regards,
CHVNX

@Mayank

Enjoy paying $100 dollar Windows...lol I hear Windows 7 should be coming out soon to replace the failed Vista. Good Luck with that!! lol

I'll stick with Ubuntu...

Ubuntu = Free and Fast

Windows = Slow and Costly

I switched to Ubuntu for nearly a year. I eventually went back to Windows. Why? Not because I like Windows better, but simply because Linux is NOT a do-all. Still no software that supports my digital camera (which happens to be my livelihood), still no ability to print to 99% of printers... Though software exists as an alternative to MOST Windows-based software, there are still too many holes that need filled before Linux becomes a viable option.

And the fact that you said that there are 0 viruses for Linux is just laughable-at-best. There are thousands. Literally thousands. The difference is, since Linux is not in vast distribution, those viruses just are not in the wild as are Win32 viruses. If you switch everybody on Earth to Linux, guess what... all of a sudden, you will see all of these viruses in the wild. Why? Because people will attack whatever the popular platform happens to be. It's the nature of the beast.

Nice ideas you posted, but all wrong and obviously not researched very well.

Linux is great, but Windows still has a stranglehold on us. Perhaps soon, we will be able to print through Linux, but until that day, it is all but useless.

By the way, those of you who's argument is to just buy a printer that is Linux compatible... you may wish to get a clue. Hardware shouldn't adapt to Linux... Linux should adapt to the hardware that already exists.

I really hope Linux gets there. I would love to go back and ditch Micro$oft for good. But until Linux can run my hardware, I'm stuck with it.

@Mayank
I must say I was a average Joe Windows user (as in getting the damn PC to work) three months ago, and I thought Windows was really easy to install.

After I tried installing Wubi, I got through the installation process with no problems and 15 minutes later I could instantly e-mail, check webpages, edit a Word file, listen music and getting aMSN from the repostitories, which, by the way, are even easier then .exe files, without doing anything nerdy ;-)

The reason why people choose Windows over Linux is because they are mostly (more or less) vendor-locked. Programs like Microsoft Office, MSN, Photoshop, Internet Explorer, and Itunes are mostly causing this.

They only see what is in the stores, what their friends are using (Word files)/find hip (iTunes) *that* is the problem. You see, if you are using programs long enough, you only want to use those programs. Which makes sense, but not if you think that Microsoft Office can be replaced by OpenOffice, MSN by Pidgin/aMSN, Photoshop by Gimp/Inkscape, Internet Explorer by Firefox, all for free.

Though the examples I used can be debated forth and back, these are mostly the main uses for the Average Joe. These programs can be installed all for free. The main problem is that these products aren't for sale, so people will never hear about them because they are used to run to the store and buy software.

Most software and games running on Windows are proprietary. Wich is forbidden to change and redistribute. Most software have decent/better replacements though. But then again, it takes much time and work by many volunteers wich makes 99% of the programs possible under Linux.

Linux Ubuntu definitely holds up against my use of an operating system, whereas Windows does this very slowly (this also depends on how many programs you are running under Windows and that explorer.exe and his friends are always eating my CPU power, even when I had just started the PC).

On the coincide, you heard more about XP than about Vista if people could choose. Mostly not because everything shipped with Vista. Yay. The funniest thing was you didn't have an option to choose XP and if you did put XP on the PC/Laptop, good luck finding drivers that work with XP.

This really is a blessing, specially when you read about the positive comments about Vista.

In fact, I wasn't so happy about being forced to use Vista, everything took twice as much time to do (XP did it twice as fast). I haven't got a positive thing to say, even XP wasn't so bad, in fact I think it was their best operating system ever.
My point is, I would like to choose what I want to use. Microsoft is denying that opportunity to me and instead shoves Vista down my throat. I sure didn't recall asking for Vista.

Linux is different in that way, you have variety in the broadest sense, and you can choose which operating system (distro) you want to install, that's what I'm loving about Linux: it's free to try/use and you can choose and test as many flavors as you like. If not, you are (sarcasm here) to use Windows as you like :)



@Dan Harvell
Linux can adapt to the hardware that already exists. You can print using "cups" under Linux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Unix_Printi...

That Linux won't run with some hardware is more due to the fact that most of the hardware is controlled by proprietary drivers and their respective proprietary companies. Some of these companies even create proprietary Linux drivers.

Sure, you think, if proprietary drivers work, it's fine, right? Well, if they stop the line of hardware you're using and you still want to get it to work but the last driver gives errors or is removed just as the entire website, you are bound to get new hardware if you like it or not (wich I don't like, because hardware can rather be expensive).

Proprietary meaning closed-source. Meaning that the Linux community can't (offer) help or rewrite faulty drivers for the hardware.
This can change if the proprietary hardware drivers are open source, the Linux community then can provide drivers, fix errors and help (frustrated) users having problems. This also goes for software.

The most recent happings (Atheros going open source) show that drivers can be open source, even by the big companies like Atheros.

Then again, Linux Ubuntu is really on the way of becoming a really good alternative for Windows although both have their flaws, and mind you that Linux Ubuntu exists four years until now (even Windows wasn't that far in four years) and gets updated every six months with a central theme like 8.10 had internet and 9.04 gets faster and better startups for the operating system.

I think it's doing a great thing for me, to each their own :)

Cheers.

Wow. Thousands huh? You seem to state many things with no proof. Right now the market share of Ubuntu isn't big enough to have thousands of viruses. Maybe hundreds at most but I don't have any facts to back up my claim, so I'm stuck in my opinion just like the douche bag who claimed thousands before.

Also the thing is, everyone who doesn't know shit thinks that making viruses for Ubuntu is essentially the same as Windows. Guess what? It's not ;). Ubuntu is basically the Linux kernel with Gnu software on top. If you would go on to make a virus for Ubuntu then they easily go on and change some different settings and boom. Done. Virus can't find the necessary parts to do any harm. Also Linux distros are much safer by Windows by nature. Truly, where do you see noobs posting "Omg! I got a virus" in Ubuntu? Nope. Anyways a message to all the Windows idiots, keep paying for an OS that's shit compared to Ubuntu and jump off a bridge :D

Ubuntu Rocks truly, I've ditched windows and using only Linux OSes its really much better

Ubuntu is not better than XP in many cases, you just try to select screen savers one by one your system hangs.Also some programs crashes.DVdisaster is no substitute for ISO buster.Thunderbird is good alternative to OE. OO spread sheet is not better than Excel

Oh really? XP is better because of excel and ISO buster? So George, tell me when Microsoft started bundling a full, non-trial copy of the latest Microsoft Office Software with XP for free? I'd really like to know because the university I work at would love to stop wasting thousands of dollars for software they could be getting from M$ for free!

Sounds like you need to learn how to use your video card if your screen savers keep messing up!

there are plenty of other better programs for free than DVdisaster.

Also, to the people saying Linux is worse because some of the command line programs that it has still do not us GUI, and that there are no XP programs that do not use a GUI, tell me where has Microsoft been hiding the GUI for ipconfig, tracert, ping, whois, fdisk, netstat, netsh, telnet, etc... for all of these years?

Spot the difference in the following sentences:

Most applications in Windows are supported by the companies which provide them.

All open-source applications in Linux are supported by the coders which distribute them.

by the way, the OP of the first sentence was wrong, instead of provide, it should be steal/sell.

Ubuntu is not good if you want to make some call using InterVoIP or doing Skype with videos

Even me not a fan of Microsoft but as I am a user of Microsoft Windows and in my day to day life I use it on my desktop and Laptop, Windows is the bread earner for me. So for the same reason I do not want to say anything against Microsoft and Windows.

Saad, if you check the stats of your visitors...how many do you see actually using Linux? So even if Linux is better then Windows, why people are still not shifting outwardly to Linux and stop using Windows even though it is free. And I am sure whoever have posted comments above must be using Windows too...

Actually Linux is meant for the cult mass and in terms of security, it still beats the hell out of all Windows versions including Windows 7.

Overall usage on an individual basis is not a measure of whether or not an OS is better than the other one. It all depends on the core architecture and facilities provided by the OS. There might be a 100 more reasons in which Windows is termed to be better than Linux but when it comes to the 10 points that I have mentioned above, Linux takes the lead.

Talk is cheap!

1. Naturally, Microsoft could change the “architecture” of its OS but why does it not do that? Because millions of applications already made would not work. Obviously has this been taken into account and conclusions have been made that the costs for users would be greater than the profits they would gain if such a change would be made.

2. I do believe that there are more free software available for Windows than Ubuntu (free defined here as no cost for users). For Window users there is a great supply of free propitiatory software (freeware) and open source.

3. A lot of Windows software are better than the counterparts in Linux. In many cases there are no software available in Ubuntu/Linux at all.

If the OS cannot satisfy your needs, it is no good yelling about how many viruses your PC could get if it is run with Windows. It is like telling people that they should stop crossing the streets as there is a risk that they would be run over by a car.

Talk is cheap!

1. Naturally, Microsoft could change the “architecture” of its OS but why does it not do that? Because millions of applications already made would not work. Obviously has this been taken into account and conclusions have been made that the costs for users would be greater than the profits they would gain if such a change would be made.

2. I do believe that there are more free software available for Windows than Ubuntu (free defined here as no cost for users). For Window users there is a great supply of free proprietary software (freeware) and open source.

3. A lot of Windows software are better than the counterparts in Linux. In many cases there are no software available in Ubuntu/Linux at all.
If the OS cannot satisfy your needs, it is no good yelling about how many viruses your PC could get if it is run with Windows. It is like telling people that they should stop crossing the streets as there is a risk that they would be run over by a car.

I installed Ubuntu a few days ago just to try it out and I haven't booted into windows since then.

Ubuntu is faster, doesn't crash, no need to re-start whenever you install something, the visual effects are so freaking awesome it's unbelievable (windows would crap itself), all my hardware just works without me having to do anything, it's way easier to install stuff (you just tick whatever you want from a huge list), etc...

I still need windows for music production but for everything else I'm gonna stick with Ubuntu.

I am doing a survey ubuntu 9.04 vs. windows xp