Switching from Ubuntu

[Don]

I have not seen anyone switch with zero pain - especially anyone who really was entrenched in Windows - so I can only assume your wife is very open and flexible about learning new things.

In my experience it is zero pain when someone knowledgeable installs
it and takes care of the minor initial problems that plague any fresh
Linux install.

Someone knowledgeable like Grandma and Uncle Joe? I think you lost the context somewhere along the line.

Of course I am talking Gnome 2 here. The story for Unity and Gnome 3
is quite different. Everyone I know wanted to get rid of those as quickly as possible.

Also you are saying that once they get all the pain behind them and figure it all out, there is no pain. You won't get an argument from me, far less pain in Linux than Windows.

I have directed a number of people over to Linux, users I think you would consider quite knowledgeable and they either quit in frustration or else I have to continuously support and encourage them until they get over the hump. At some point they wonder what they ever saw in Windows but that takes some time for them and a significant amount of pain.

Of course if all they are doing is checking their email and browsing the web it's not so bad. There is no need to use Linux if that is all you need a computer for.

[jdart]

I just ssh to a terminal to do most of my Linux work so the desktop doesn't matter at all. But Ubuntu Unity was so awful I had to replace it even though I used it infrequently. (I'd be happy enough with Debian I expect since Ubuntu is basically a Debian spinoff).

--Jon

[Don]

I just ssh to a terminal to do most of my Linux work so the desktop doesn't matter at all. But Ubuntu Unity was so awful I had to replace it even though I used it infrequently. (I'd be happy enough with Debian I expect since Ubuntu is basically a Debian spinoff).

--Jon

Same with me. My desktop is usually my lowest powered machine and my workhorse is setting in the basement - I ssh to it and work from upstairs.

Many times I have borrowed computes from different states or even countries and it's the same as if it's in my basement or on the desktop.

Windows has these horrible kludgy solutions based on installing some sort of funky software that let's them share someone else's desktop. To do the most basic things you must be burdened with a heavy duty GUI transmitted over the Internet.

[bob]

I have not seen anyone switch with zero pain - especially anyone who really was entrenched in Windows - so I can only assume your wife is very open and flexible about learning new things.

In my experience it is zero pain when someone knowledgeable installs
it and takes care of the minor initial problems that plague any fresh
Linux install.

Of course I am talking Gnome 2 here. The story for Unity and Gnome 3
is quite different. Everyone I know wanted to get rid of those as quickly as possible.

I just had to do a fresh windows 7 install, and the Fedora installation was no more difficult. And, of course, after installing fedora one does not have to spend more money to install anti-virus software and such windows nonsense...

Once installed, I don't see it as being any different from windows at all in terms of usability, if you ignore the virus safety and such that is a moot point with Unix. So at worst, it is just as easily usable, and in reality is actually easier as once installed, it is ready to use, no more stuff to buy.

Gnome 3 simply sucks with 2 (or more) straws, IMHO.

[xsadar]

Of course if all they are doing is checking their email and browsing the web it's not so bad. There is no need to use Linux if that is all you need a computer for.

I think a better statement would be: "There is no need to use Windows if that is all you need a computer for."
Those who spend all their computer time browsing the web also seem to be the ones who download viruses and other malware, so I would argue that security is an excellent reason for them to use Linux. And personally I only see two reasons why anyone would want to use Windows: 1) it's what they're used to; and 2) some Windows software doesn't have a Linux equivalent and is difficult or impossible to get working under wine. Of course, if Unity and Gnome3 point the direction Linux is going, that would add one more reason. Yuck!

[Don]

I have not seen anyone switch with zero pain - especially anyone who really was entrenched in Windows - so I can only assume your wife is very open and flexible about learning new things.

In my experience it is zero pain when someone knowledgeable installs
it and takes care of the minor initial problems that plague any fresh
Linux install.

Of course I am talking Gnome 2 here. The story for Unity and Gnome 3
is quite different. Everyone I know wanted to get rid of those as quickly as possible.

I just had to do a fresh windows 7 install, and the Fedora installation was no more difficult. And, of course, after installing fedora one does not have to spend more money to install anti-virus software and such windows nonsense...

Once installed, I don't see it as being any different from windows at all in terms of usability, if you ignore the virus safety and such that is a moot point with Unix. So at worst, it is just as easily usable, and in reality is actually easier as once installed, it is ready to use, no more stuff to buy.

Gnome 3 simply sucks with 2 (or more) straws, IMHO.

Yes. I remember the first time I thought, "this might be interesting" and as soon as it was installed I was bitterly disappointed. But I thought, "let's give it a chance" and I did try to use it for a few days. But it would pretty obvious after the first hour that it was no good to a power user.

[sje]

Some minor problems with plain old Debian 6.0.5, possibly related to free/restricted statuses:

1) On one old notebook, I'm having some difficulty with finding the right WiFi driver.

2) Unlike Ubuntu, Crafty is not available on the standard package list used by the Synaptic package manager.

---

On the other hand, the main GUI runs faster and without visible glitches. The display is flawless on a quad core 64 bit Acer using Nvidia vampire video system which neither Ubuntu 11 nor Ubuntu 12 could handle.

[rreagan]

.
Windows has these horrible kludgy solutions based on installing some sort of funky software that let's them share someone else's desktop. To do the most basic things you must be burdened with a heavy duty GUI transmitted over the Internet.

That was true, in 1999.

Out of curiosity, what are examples of the downside of Windows? Please refrain from empty words like "horrible", that doesn't tell us anything. Also please spare us any of the "it's not Linux" reasons like the one above. Windows has quite a nice remote access approach. Very lightweight and very useable over slow connections. And it's built in, client and server. So in your statement above I really only see, "I haven't used windows in ages and it's horrible because it's not what I'm familiar with".

Obviously cost, but for the overwhelming majority the cost is trivial compared to time lost on the learning curve of a free alternative. Even for most of you, I wonder how much you would have in your pocket for all the hours you spent towards tweaking Linux, even at minimum wage for all of those hours. Maybe it's not so obvious.

Then there's malware. This is definitely a drawback, for now. Virtual desktops will put an end to this before long. Besides, anyone who can install and be productive on Linux will have no problem avoiding malware infections, even without any antivirus software.

Yes I'm poking fun at some if you Linux fans, but in all seriousness, I am curious what the drawbacks are, with examples

I'll start. I have no doubt in my mind that if I had a Linux box with no GUI, I would be many times more productive in life. As it is there are too many distractions between surfing the Internet and playing games. Have you seen how many cat videos are on the Internet?? How could anyone with a GUI possibly be productive?

[abulmo]

Out of curiosity, what are examples of the downside of Windows?

To me, the major flaw is the lack of a good C/C++ compiler.
Visual C/C++ does not respect standard (no C99 for example, and bad C++ support).
Mingw/cygwin are a pain to install and use.
clang is still experimental and only works partially. As it needs mingw, it is also a pain to install.
pellet C; lcc, digital/mars produce very slow executables.
Borland C/C++ is outdated.
Other commercial solutions are too expensive for me to try them, but the few I look for produce slow executable, even with all optimisation flags turned on.

Under linux (Fedora 17), I use gcc, clang and icc (the intel c compiler). The two firsts come with the distribution, the third one is harder to install (it looks like a windows install in text mode), but is available at no cost, for non commercial usage. Moreover It is quite easy to cross-compile for windows, OS/X or Android.
For reasons that are still mysterious to me, my program compiled with gcc and the same optimisation flags runs faster under linux than under windows, 15% faster, not 1 or 2%.
(See the OS comparison here http://abulmo.perso.neuf.fr/edax/4.0/performance.htm).

[Rein Halbersma]

Out of curiosity, what are examples of the downside of Windows?

Mingw/cygwin are a pain to install and use.

http://nuwen.net/mingw.html

works like a charm (under Eclipse e.g.)