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

This article answers many questions and surgestions that most linux newbies will ask or surgest at one time or anouther, and does so really well.

I urge everyone who has taken an anti-linux stand in the Windows vs Linux topic to read this.

It has some interesting comparasons between operating systems and cars.

foe example, a car driver sits in a traffic jam, and sees a motorbike cruising past between lanes, from this the car drivers think that the motorbike may be better than a car, and attempt to ride one.

They then decide to *improve* the bike by adding 4 wheel's to brake quicker, stop the rider from falling off, and stop the rider from having to lean on corners. Move the accelerator and breaks to the feet, move the grar stick to be operated by hand. Add a windscreen, add a roof for when it rains, add a comfortable chair.... oops, its now a motorbike anymore, and can no-longer zip through the traffic

Although I'm not a linux user, i believe more and more people use linux because of its simplicity and the fact that most viruses do not target the Linux. Like you said, most linux newbies will go hey this looks like Windows 98!

The motorcycle to car evolution forms an idea in all of our heads thinking yeah hey why do we compare linux to windows? Why do we not compare it to Mac too? What a change it will be then if everyone starts thinking with the bitten Apple. Each OS has its own pros and cons and always will be no matter how much its producer tries to make it better. ( E.g Windows will always have the problem of security forever much to my belief)

Truely, why is everyone so biased against other great OS like Linux and Macs? Windows works well because its very general. Linux is easy to use because its traditional. and Mac is simple to use because it handles many types of programs well. So we get the idea now that Windows is not the god OS and should not be used as a center of focus in comparison.

I loved this article so much that I printed it and bookmarked it. It does show many points what newbs say bout Linux.


xboxrulz

i won't argue that i say those things about Linux sometimes, and i AM also a newbie to it. but for the motorcycle<>car scenario, i guess it depends on what car you have, how you take care of it, and what parts you can mod. maybe linux is different because it doesn't break down, or it needs less attention, but i still think that if you properly hack your windows, it can be faster and more of an attraction than an average bike. Plus which would you rather be in if there was a high-speed crash?

Maybe a more accurate comparason of Linux / Windows to cars, would say that Linux is a Kit Car, or a mancufactured car that comes with full documentation, and perfectly follows industry standards. The car can be modified, tuned for any specific needs. parts can be removed / changed.

Windows is like a fully enclosed car, the bonnet is welded shut, any attempts to open the bonnet is an attempt to steal the intelectual property contained within / copyright theft.

Although the car compny may be nice enough to tell you that its a petrol car, with 4 4-stroke cylinders, the specific details are secret. It is illegal to modify, hack, change the car.

The second example, the windows car is absolutly fine for most of the population.
Most of the population dont care how it works, dont desire to modify it, wouldnt know how to modify it, and wouldnt know what to do if it broke down anyways. The car is designed to be an all round car... it does everything OK, but is not the *BEST* car for a specific task ( fuel efficiancy / max acceleration / safety ) A car cannot be the most fuel efficiant car, AND the fastest.

But, for the mechanics (the nerds) who have the knolege and desire to customise there machine, the second car is just not acceptable.

Take the lastest Linux Operating system, for example slackware.
Slackware can be set to be windows-like... using high resolution graphical desktop with all the shiney pretty animated desktop things that look nice, but are ultimatly useless.

The latest version is usually more efficiant and secure.
Slackware could easily be configured to run on a very very old i386 (predating the pentium1 machines) on 8Mb of ram, to run a network firewall / router.
or a file / print / mail server

this change takes only seconds to configure.

Hands up anyone who thinks they could get MS most secure Operating system (winXP sp2 / longhorn) to run on an i386 with 8megs of ram.

If you just want to take the kids to school then go to work, use the second car.
If you want to compete in Formula1 or rally driving, you NEED access to the engine, you need the first car.
If you want to drive your car accross the surface of the moon, your gonna need to make some very drastic changes, an electric engine for one (or an air tank for your carb) you need the first car.

Quite a good article...very true..although...I have heard otherwise about the Linux replacing Windows part...Well...I know that not what it's designed for, but I do recall hearing something about Linus Torvalds creating quite a ruckus somewhere, not far from the presence of Bill Gates. And as Microsoft continues to shoot itself in the foot...i say give it 5-7 years before the percentage of Windows users in the world is less than half.

But back to the topic..

i really agree with the "If you can't drive, that's your problem" part...

When I was new to Linux, I never spent my time saying "wahhh, that's not how it works in windows", but rather, hitting up IRC linux channels and how I do the things I wanted to do. I wasn't afraid to learn. However, I see this as a large block for the more average Windows user...and this leads to problems. Windows users just don't know what's up, that's all there is to it. Even many of the "techs" I run into don't know what's up. Some people honestly think that once they find the Control Panel, that they know how everything works in a computer, when rather, it's the complete opposite. When I was employed at a publishing company, there was this "professional" we hired to fix the problems on our computers. The problem was with the printers. They'd stretch the text in some odd way, or smash it all into the middle square centimeter of the page, or sometimes not even print at all. Now this guy kept "fixing" this problem over and over again (which is an indicator that the problem was never fixed to begin with). I observed what he was doing, and he must have either actually been as stupid as I thought he was, or he must have thought I wouldn't know what he was doing. The only thing he did, was run Norton Antivirus' LiveUpdate repeatedly. When I suggested that maybe it was something other than a virus, I lost my job because I questioned "the professional". Also, he complained to my boss that something had gone "seriously wrong" with my computer, and he insisted it needed a reformat to get rid of the "constant error screen on the display". That "constant error screen" happened to only be my wallpaper, which looked like this:



If this guy is such a "computer professional" (because after all, he WAS certified by Microsoft, so he MUST know everything...hah!) I'd hate to think of how many people are pouring money into this guy to fix absolutely nothing and mandate that if your wallpaper looks like a Commodore BASIC screen, that computer MUST be reformatted because it's such a serious problem....

I hate Windows users..

lol, that's the funniest thing I've read in this category. I can't stop thinkin bout it. Here's another thing, when I brought my laptop to school and my screensaver popped up, everybody was saying "Hey, your computer just crashed" or "your computer is acting up", I simply laugh and showed them it was merely a screensaver. Little did they know, Linux has that installed when you have xscreensaver installed and they think they're computer literate.

I guess wrong.

xboxrulz

I really enjoyed reading this article. Not though because I agree with it. It has a very nice way of saying that Linux is better than Windows because it is a completely different thing. Agreed... as long as they both still belong into the category of "operating systems".

As has been posted here already, it mainly depends for what you use your PC. Me, for one, uses his PC for absolute 100% middle-of-the-road standard applications, slightly favouring VoIP calls (SIP, not this Skype thingie), instant messaging with video, watching divx movies, listening to music, etc. Nothing special, right? Been using a PC since 1993 and online since 1994.

Due to my recent involvment with citizens networking and mesh routing protocols used in these networks I gave Linux another try. Had to, more or less, pressure from the CoP [Community of Purpose] I am involved with. They of course are all Linux Geeks.

Tried ubuntu 5.04 - didin't like the hardware it was supposed to run on.
Tried Suse 9.3 - worked, but I didn't like the GUI, even under GNOME.
Tried ubuntu 5.10 - works well. Time to look around and lear, learn, learn.

Some appz have a lousy GUI; For a Windows user, sometimes it takes a while to find out how to do standard things, but is manageable, even fun sometimes. Video Chat? No have. SIP-based VoIP? Sipgate Lite and practically nothing else. Gaim can't do it although it says it can. Install a new video driver for a standard video card? A nightmare. Dual Monitor support? No have. These are just the things that bother me most after 10 days of running it. But those problems are not going to go away soon. Where's the appz? Give me Eyebeam Pro on Linux and I'll change my mind. And give me a couple of hundred hours to find out how this all worx.

Just my 2 posting points

curare

The Easyest Operating system to use, is ALWAYS the one you already know how to use !
You have to be sufficiantly motivated to learn somthing new.

ANYWAY, the reason i use linux is not beause program X is better than Program Y.

Its the freedom.

The freedom to have complete controll, to re-program, recompile, re-configure the kernel.
Have everything working exactly the way i want it.

Even if someone managed to proove beyong all doubt that windows was the best OS,
I would still use GNU/Linux, or somthing similar (FreeBSD?) because of the open and free(not cost) nature of it all.

i like to customise, fiddle, re-compile, tweak all the inner workings.

Very well, qwijibow!

You might have gotten the impression that I am out to bash on Linux. I am not - I just reported the things that annoyed me most after a short time of usage.

There are a lot of things I really enjoy when working with my newly set up ubuntu 5.10:

1) The look and feel is fantastic. No unnecessary clutter (I'm not so sure though if I would say the same thing had I set up KDE), clean, clear, effective, minimalistic interface. There is a German word, "Anmutung"; the translation into English is "impression", but "Anmutung" is more that that, a combination of look & feel and impression. This is great in GNOME.

2) No stupid questions asked. "Do you really want to" do this or that? I saw this question really only appear in critical actions, and an explanation of the action's consequences came with it. Well done.

3) As a Windows user of 12 years I am habitually trained and therefore addicted to clicking. But apt-get is probably the best command I ever encountered at any command prompt. No searching some confusing websites, making sure it's the most recent version you are downloading, again no stupid questions, no agreeing to EULA's written by some insidious lawyers, nothing, just doing what you told the system to do: Get the app and install it. Fantastic, nothing less.

It'll take a long time, even if I study ferociously until I'll have reached your level of aptitude to "have complete controll, to re-program, recompile, re-configure the kernel. Have everything working exactly the way i want it." Have mercy with me, Linux-Geeks! One gotta start somewhere. Still, IMHO, the first step (actually starting to get into it) is a very important one, maybe even the most important one.

Hopefully this time 3 posting points ,

curare