I prefer to use both 7 and Ubuntu (until my mom made me take it off my family’s computer) for their own respective jobs. 7 has more and better Adobe and Flash support whilst Ubuntu specializes in being:
1.) Open-source/free
2.) Supportive of the concept of FREE apps
3.) Almost virus-free
4.) Easily modified and adapted for personalized use

Having said that, I hope I supported your point, DS234.

I:
- use Ubuntu → have for the past year,
- have WinXP and Ubuntu dualboot,
- used DOS and Windows since I was a kid,

I
am no programmer, so the transition was slow and painful but as I
slowly learned my way around Ubuntu I saw that, in terms of being an OS:
- Linux was much more customizable (from DE to setting key specific functions and installing or compiling software)
- Linux is far more stable (I once “over-cleaned” my system and I repaired it with a single command line)
-
Linux is greatly flexible in adapting to other platforms (you can
export in “alien” formats or install and run MS programs on Linux)
- Linux is more efficient (see below)
- Linux will survive if an irregularity occurs during update (ex: black out)

Safety of the OS:
- say what you want, but the majority of viruses don’t work on Linux yet and that *is* an enormous plus as the reason I switched to Linux was because a virus bypassed my 2 AV
- most Linux distros don’t come with a 15 year old back door “error” (which still persists) that randomly turns your computer on in the middle of the night and yes, I saw that happen.

In terms of simplicity and user friendliness:
-
it is less aggresive(it will not force you to do anything (Like MSN 7.5
forced users to update to Live or they could not use the service and
for no real reason. likewise, when Vista came out the number of BSOD in XP went up by 30% after the next update)
- the community is a “bit” harsh to newcomers as my first impression was that “just compile your own code man” was the most I will ever get from them.

Updates and upgrades are
- found automatically by the OS
- frequent (every week or more often)
- selectable (you can choose which packages to install and which to ignore)
- small

About efficiency:
- Programs are smaller:
((MS)Office2007 = 2 GB while OOO3.3 = 100-200 MB)

((MS)Maya 3D (2005) = 2.5 GB or (MS)3DStudioMax10 = 700 MB while Blender
2.5 = 23 MB) – go and check the numbers if you don’t believe me
-
stable program versions are stored in central repositories on the net
from which you can de/install packages at any time as long as the
distribution is supported (18 months min)

- if a program lacks a package it will identify which exactly and prompt you to download it

- Linux uses less computer resources and (consequentially) power to run (even with special effects)

- computer hardware can be managed(CPU per core, memory and heat functions can be monitored and controlled seperately)

Having
used both types of OS in the past and therefore at least basically
knowing what I am talking about Blondel’s comment in his post somewhat
offends me. What the Linux community “proves” or aims to prove is that
you can achieve the same end result you would with an MS OS and (in my
experience) with far less complications(upgrades/installs/repairs),
expense(software) and risk(piracy).

I will say, however that there *are* times when I would like to push
Linux out the door. The latest problem features an inability to enter
BIOS, Though it usually has to do with the computer deciding the
settings in the OS should be reset or changed. Still, I realize that
that is because my computer was built specifically for Windows OS and MS
have a tendency to release “universal” code and architecture that
surprisingly only works on their systems (.docx).

As for the comparison between Windows 7 and Ubuntu… let me quote two strangers:

“My Win7 shuts down in 13 seconds!”

“Congratulations, my Ubuntu has shut down in 7 since forever.”

~Oblivion.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.

1. It is completely possible to get viruses on Linux, it’s just not as common because a) There’s no .NET framework to make coding a virus that can affect a lot of people easy b) There isn’t as big of a moronic (although it is growing, clearly shown by the fact you’re using it) user base that is dumb enough to get a virus in the first place c) Linux is more secure, however not completely secure.

2. Not all Linux distros are or have to be open source.

3. That isn’t necessarily apart of the Linux process.

4. LOLWUT! Where the hell did you pull that from? That isn’t even remotely correct and i don’t see why anyone would ever assume that.

5. Already stated how this is a contradiction.

6. So does Windows. Windows is probably better too because more people use it.

7. That’s Compiz not Linux, although you do have a point. It would have been better to say that you can choose your desktop environment, window manager, and window decorator (along with your command line interface) in Linux, unlike in Windows.

8. Windows also helps you manage updates.

9. In either one you have to either get a separate application not natively installed on the OS, unless you happened to find a distro that came with lots of tools, ubuntu doesnt by the way. If you don’t do that you do some deep stuff on both.

10. That is a valid point.

Yes, you are an embarrassment to the Linux community.