10 ways that Linux is outgrowing the stereotype and becoming the best OS

I am a long-term Linux user, and I find myself agreeing with what has to be said here. Its good that the current focus of most distros are looking to attract the "non-geeky". The more users Linux gains means more input for the developer, and in the end, a stronger product and community.

I use a light weight distro (Slackware) with a light weight desktop GUI (Fluxbox) and love to have the choice to run what I want. BTW, I love this blog.

Here is a screenshot of my desktop:
http://apollo29a.deviantart.com/art/Slackware-Mar08-80926838

I agree with you on all points but 5. Who wants 100k updates every time they boot up? That is so Windows.

But linux rocks and has for a few years now. It is only getting easier and easier to use. Not to mention how pretty basic KDE is compared to Windows (but I have to confess, Aqua is pretty nice to look at all day too).

To generalize, Linux is easy to use, but when a non-technical user has to do anything advanced, it's far more complicated than on Windows.

Say, compile a driver for a wifi card which is not yet in mainline kernel.

Nice article. I agree with your remarks. As a relative newbie to Linux (fall, 2006 with Ubuntu 6.04 back then I think Now I use Ubuntu 7.10,) I'm gradually adjusting my attitude and am finding I like the CLI to simply find things out. Example of the command I used recently: 'sudo sane-find-scanner' (It turned out my scanner doesn't have a useful Linux driver of any sort. I can accept that since I have a kind of weird, orphan scanner anyway.) The bottom line for me is that the CLI is a great feature when I just want particular info.

I originally had the incorrect perception that to run a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu, that I would have to occasionally use the CLI to fix fundamental issues. (That line of thinking delayed my use of Linux probably by 6 months.) Not so I found out. Basic things simply just worked just after the install of Ubuntu from a CD-ROM. What a relief. It worked immediately.

Am I scared and continue to have a fundamental respect of the Command Line Interface? You bet because of some very hard lessons I learned when using DOS in the Windows environment. I don't want to delete or change critical stuff--particularly if I don't know how to reverse the process. But outside of operating in root mode, there's not too much chance of that. CLI is so much better in Linux than DOS was in Windows, I'm just thrilled at the many opportunities for doing things better. Every day I learn a new way to get things done.

The CLI is terrific--and I can now use it directly to compile some old C++ source files. (They actually ran properly which made my day. Last time they did run properly was under Windows 98 with a Turbo version of some sort over 4 years ago.) So my fears are dissipating, though my cautious respect of the power of the CLI remains.

I'll never be a true geek using CLI, but for base level practical stuff I'm an eager student--quite a mind shift for a 68-year old.

The only things standing in the way of mass migration from OSX to Linux is software and the wireless hardware support. People who've invested in expensive adobe software and bbedit (for god knows why) are vested. They won't go to-say-ubuntu.

However, given that some of us bought the expensive Macs and ran out of money for software, when the broadcom/airport wireless device drivers for linux are stable, you will see a flood of mac users switching.

ambiguous technical illiterate set of hardcoded definitions...

I entirely agree with this post!
I stumbled upon your blog through the PCLinuxOS forums. (The distro I use.)

I'm relatively new on the linux scene (about 8 months) and i dont regret when I jumped in. It was more-or-less a choice because i was sick of how slow XP was on my 7 year-old box.

Very nice blog! Keep the good info comin' (please!)!

Thanks.

I too am a long term Linux user. In fact, all of the systems at home and in our small business run on Linux.

That's fine if some Linux OSes (mistaken called "distros") cater to the GUI addicted command-line phobic users because Linux is about choice.

My choice is to do my most important work in the shell.

My choice is to use command-line tools such as nmh, VIM, slrn, etc.

My choice is to use neither KDE nor Gnome when I do need a GUI.

My choice is to use LPRNG instead of (the so-called) CUPS.

Expanded accessibility is a noble goal. But not when it involves the loss of the core tools that make a Unix-like OS such as Linux so very powerful.

It is worth noting in point 3 that you also get an integrity check and a signature verification when using package management. I typically check the md5sums and gpg signatures for FOSS applications when installing them on Windows, and it is quite the pain to have to do so manually (obviously without native support; I use GnuPG and UnxUtils).

Absolutely loved the list and agree on all.

>the only danger is you'll install absolutely everything on offer.

I agree with this, Ive installed PCLinuxOS on my dad's desktop and mom's laptop and both are in their 70's. Dad has grasped VMing for his XP only apps and both have found the transition smooth. They used the same freeware like VLC, OO,Firefox, Thunderbird, Gmail, Skype on XP so it wasnt but once they go how to install programs BOTH added EVERY card, board,sudoku,etc games in the repositories ;-)
(who am I kidding? I keep saying that Im gonna learn Blender one day!)

My mother loves Compiz and that the clock on her KDE desktop font can be enlarged easily, she loves to fiddle the look of her different desktops and my dad is amazed what his old Thinkpad T21 can do with Xubuntu.

They have problems understanding the differences between the desktop GUIs like KDE, GNOME, XCFE and distros at first when I gave them the live CDs but like with the majority of people that I know who have made the switch, KDE seems to be favorite by a big margin.
Kubuntu and PCLinuxOS are the installs I do for family and friends and my 'tech support' time has dropped about 90% as a result.

Most importantly, Linux is truly green (your #6). It can offer for old hardware a beautiful fully functional modern OS.
If you want for run Vista, you HAVE to buy new hardware (and even then), period.
And Im not going to even bothering rehashing Apple's hardware/software lock-in.

I have never offered to install Linux on a computer, but I have always accepted to do when asked. People are more aware of Linux thanks to the EEE laptop and low cost lines and the thing that always amazes people after youve talked/showed to them for a while is that there is no single standard "Linux look". People have been told for so long that its a bit disconcerting.
You often hear people say that there are too many distros. I think the more we have the more the fringe ones can be innovators which the rest will eventually benefit from.
A Red Hat or Ubuntu might be less willing to try something totally radical but BillyBobLinux which is a derived from a big name distro might try a whole new concept, hone it and maybe it will be picked up by other distros.
This insures cutting edge techology for the future.

Btw, so agreed about Compiz. I turn it off because Im really not into eye candy but whenever I want the 'wow' factor as you say, it just blows people away.
After listening to my fanboi friends drool over their Mac 'amazing', I always have to bring them back to earth with what the free stuff can do.
After suffering through the years of bad performance, I can proudly put up these effects that I dont care to use, because people react to eye candy. Plain and simple.

Go back 18, 36 months and you wouldnt have dreamt of saying that.

Btw, I re-installed Linux and XP on both my parents computers at the same time and it the XP side was much longer with all the anti-virus, adware, firewall to fine tune.

Its a good time to be a Linux user. There are plenty of great free distrops out there to be proud of and that EVERYONE can use.
It really is for your parents and grandparents now.

"...it's no longer a necessary evil"

I could not do my job without it... the command-line... not because there is no other way to do it, but because it is the best way and lets me automate tasks so I can do what has to be done manually. It lets me do the work of several people without getting bogged down in details.

To me, it's a necessary blessing, and no other OS offers the same degree of automation.

There is not much to say ... all thumbs up ! It is a great article indeed. Just to respond to one of the responses ...

number 5 - " Who wants 100k updates every time they boot up? That is so Windows." I totally disagree! The updates in linux all embracing all the stuff installed onto your computer - and not just the security and stability patches to plaster the poor job. These updates show that every little aspect of your OS and software is getting better and better by every day ;)

Cheers for the fine article.

Very nice article. It's not every day that one reads 10 good things about Linux, mostly it's 10 ways to improving Linux :)
I started using Linux as my main OS since 2005 after being fed up with the countless viruses that I had to fight with on XP and of course MS strong control. It wasn't easy to break free because Windows is like drugs but now I can say thank God I am clean!

Linux has come a long way since I started using it, the improvements and progress are simple mind-boggling when compared to Windows.
If one looks at the direction in which KDE 4 is heading for example then it's clear that their only true rival in the near future (when it comes to aesthetic beauty, functionality and ease of use) will be Mac OS X and not Windows, which they don't have to worry about.
Linux is the future.

I see what you mean in No. 10 -- but it didn't work.

In any sentence, the end is a strong point. In any list of 10, No. 10 is a strong point. If No. 10 is weak, or fizzles . . .

So rewrite No. 10.

Yeah, I'm a CLI type. I'm also an editor; that's how I know what's wrong with No. 10.

If Linux works on your system I agree with you entirely. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Linux's biggest hurdle towards mainstream adoption is compatibility, especially with newer systems. This is not the fault of the Linux developers. Hardware makers provide windows and mac machines with all the necessary drivers to get heir hardware working. However, with a few exceptions, they don't do this for Linux and the Linux community has to create these drivers themselves. This means that often a new piece of hardware doesn't have a suitable Linux driver for quite some after its' release. For example, several months ago I got a new laptop pretty much as soon as it became available that came with a new Intel AGN wireless card. When I first received it none of the Linux distributions I tried recognized my wireless card correctly. Only now, 8 months later, do I think most distributions have it working properly. Often for an issue like this there may be temporary fix released earlier but it requires some more advanced tampering on the user's part.
That all said, Linux's compatibility problems would be completely solved if Linux were more popular. The reason hardware makers don't make drivers for Linux is because Linux has very few users relative to windows or mac. There are many reasons why in coming years Linux will become more popular which will naturally help overcome this obstacle. Just look at how much better the nvidia and ati drivers have gotten recently. I have no doubt that this happened due to an increased demand for it.
The better Linux is obviously the more people will use it and you've already shown how great it is in many different areas and how improvement is accelerating. A recent improvement in the usability of Linux which you failed to mention lies in the ability to run “windows-only” programs within Linux. In the past, if you needed a specific program designed to work only in windows you would be forced to keep windows on a separate partition and boot into it when necessary; a very bothersome process, especially if it's a program you use frequently. Now, you have two alternatives. You can either use a program like WINE or use virtualization software. WINE which stands for “Wine Is Not An Emulator” is an open-source implementation of the windows API which uses Linux equivalents of windows components to run programs. The goal is to be able to click on an executable and have it run seamlessly inside your Linux environment. WINE's compatibility still isn't great and many programs won't work perfectly or at all but WINE is constantly getting better. Alternatively, Virtualization software creates a virtual system for you to install your OS. It allows you to run multiple operating systems concurrently on the same PC. Basically, if you have a windows installation disc you can have your windows installation sitting in a window inside your Linux environment and access it with the click of a button. Any program designed for windows should work inside the virtual installation of it.
Also, you mentioned Linux's improved media support but didn't mention its' improved game support as well. Unfortunately many games aren't designed to run natively in Linux. Luckily, WINE is designed especially with games in mind and works with whole bunch of them.
Another thing that will accelerate Linux's popularity is the increased popularity of open-source software in general. More and more open-source projects are starting and more and more business are using them. Due to this Open-source software is also getting a lot more media attention. If I had thrown around the term open-source to my friends a few years ago I think I would have received many more confused faces then I would today. Both in the business world and in the public eye open-source software is gaining legitimacy.
I agree that it is a very exciting time for Linux and the improvement just keeps accelerating faster than any other OS. In my opinion, the only real downside for the home user is compatibility. Luckily, Linux is free and easy to try. Just download a live CD, pop it in your drive, there's no need to even install it , if it works fine you got yourself a new Linux box, if it doesn't, throw it out and no harm done; you can try downloading a different distribution if you like. The support you get from the community is usually very good and will help you overcome any problems that you might encounter. If you're really paranoid though you can always pay for support and it will still be a lot cheaper then paying for windows or mac. My distribution of choice is pclinuxos. The one thing Linux will always have over it's competitors is choice.

Great article. In time Linux will get the appreciation it deserves.

This article is well written and says what needs to be said. To me, the only reason that Windows is easier to install than Linux is that when you buy a computer someone has already done it! If you have to do both yourself, then many modern distros have the lead over Windows in terms of ease of installation.

I recently installed PCLinuxOS Mini-Me 2008, and I added tons of packages. Using the "mklivecd" script, I created a live DVD. I ran the live DVD on my friends laptop, but we could not get a graphics screen. We tried again, using the Vesa Video Safe Mode, and, while still running live, set up the wireless internet and installed the ATi driver and got the correct resolution using the wonderful Control Centre that is used by PCLOS and Mandriva.

We were spinning compiz-fusion desktops, etc in no time. Needless to say, we installed it alongside WinXP as a dual boot.

Could you imagine that in Windows? Creating your own private distro if you like, passing it you your friend, running it live from a CD whilst you sort out a recalcitrant video system, and once sorted, play with it a while, before installing.

By the way the installation itself took about 15 minutes.

One of the advantages of continuous software updates is that when you add another program (from Synaptic?) the people looking after your distros repositories can ensure that programs are using a consistent and contemporaneous set of library programs, thus maximising stability. Compare this with dll hell in Windows.

I like this guy. :)

Two or three years ago, I'd have disagreed with you, but now I agree. I wrote a piece a few years ago on the area of multimedia, and how it was better than Windows, but now the rest of GNU has caught up. Ubuntu has certainly led the way, and I'm glad for that. The only change I want to see is a move away from reliance in repositories, they're great when they work (ie. Ubuntu, yay!), but shocking for anything slightly old or obscure.

Plus, what if the program I want isn't in the repositories? I get this all the time! For me, Linux is great, because I'm using Ubuntu, and I'd recommend it to anyone, but for those who aren't using Ubuntu and have need for other distros, a shift in thinking to distro neutral packaging would be awesome (ie. Autopackage, Zero Install, etc).

But yes, yay Linux, I think we're pretty much there now. :)

You know... All in all, Linux in it's current state — most users would still stick with Windows/OSX. I won't switch to another OS, just because it's open, or "cool". The open alternatives, for example, to office and graphics editing software are way better on Windows and OSX. I don't care they're open source, since I can't get my work done, so I pay for more convenient tools.

What goes for Compiz Fusion, it has been used as an e-penis since it's release. You won't spot the difference in performance of Aero on most modern machines. And Quartz is simply fast. And, yes, I do see myself pointlessly drawing water circles and sparks on my desktop. Everyday. It's what computers are meant for, isn't it?

Perhaps, someday Linux will become something more than a great server OS. Right now, I must say "no, thanks".

P.S. Yes, I work on Linux. We have the latest Fedora at work, and I run Xubuntu on my legacy station at home.

«so if you've got a graphics card that'll handle it, then you too can have aesthetic delight that Vista can only dream about»

Just for the record, Vista with DreamScene/Deskscapes, DeskSpace, Yod'm 3D/Shock4Way3D, Flip 3D/WinFlip Rocketdock and Switcher is, basically, the same eye candy. Only without the ripples, I guess.

nice, thats exactly how i feel. On linux since 2002 as main desktop and server OS, have not looked back once!

linux brought the fun back to computing for me!!

I use MintLinux and have been using Linux itself pretty much exclusively for over four years now. I always wanted to switch but until some applications matured enough I really couldn't. Then M$ did an update that locked me out of my tech web sites. (Not cool to do that to a tech head) and I said that was enough. The sites were safe but MS didn't like the information they were passing so they blacklisted them.

Yes, I could have fixed the problem in Windows but I didn't like what the decision makers at Redmond were doing. Linux has the best customization allowed. You can create any look or feel you want easily. What makes Linux so much better is that we the end users have choice. Yes you have some limited options in Windows but you can't really change the interface. (Though KDE is working on changing that. However, I'm willing to bet $$$ that MS will find a way to keep it from being really useful.)

All points are valid but Linux has one major weakness. No standards when it comes to user tools. This is a pain in the neck at times and so I have looked at and played with all the major distros trying to find out what worked best for me. Kubuntu was the closest answer for a long time but I found that LinuxMint was even better when they finally released a KDE version. Sometimes reinventing the wheel isn't such a good idea.