What Made You Switch To Linux?

Which version was Feisty Fawn exactly and I assume Ubuntu? xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I had a dual boot, too. At the first time, it was just to test but it was perfect for the kind of work I do, so I keep it.
I think everyone should test it because it's addictive

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I didn't switch to linux, per se. I dual boot it with Windows XP and Windows Vista. I tried it out with linux only but soon missed some things I had to do with windows and soon realized that a solution was dual booting, having had experiance experimenting with that several years ago. So I started dual booting and now I've got the best of both worlds. Anyways, I started using linux because it was more secure, had many development related programs that I wanted to use, and because it was a challenge, and challenges can be fun. I use the distro Fedora Core. I tried ubuntu but must've gone wrong and it went... bad.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

so, that was like 1 year ago . I must admit I didn't held on to linux and I switched back to windows after a few weeks. Maybe I wanted too try and learn too much on a too small time basis. I've been thinking about installing (k/x)ubuntu on my main pc for a long time, but for some reason it doesn't like my computer very much and it runs utterly slow , so I just kept using windows.
That's until 2 weeks ago when I finaly installed linux again, this time I installed openSuse 10.2 (gnome version) and made it dualboot with my existing XP. I stil can't believe how easy linux can be, how much nicer it is to use compared to Slackware. In fact, this is the very first time I realy consider making a linux distribution the main os of my pc (I'll still dual boot it with windows since there are some school programs I can't run in linux) ... that is if I can fix some annoyances. First problem is flash, it works okay in Firefox (far from perfect), but I can't get it working in opera without it crashing everytime I change a website. The second problem I still haven't fixed is that kaboodle can't play mp3s (even kaboodle-helix can't play them). I'm now using mPlayer to play my songs, but it's realy bad at creating playlists and it can't handle heavy cpu load very well . Last problem is the lack of stand-by support, sometimes it can't lock my screen, shutdown, reboot or go into hybernation and I still haven't found a way to connect to bleutooth devices .
Of course, fixing these problems is something I'll do after my exams

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I began working with Linux in college. I had a few removable drives I was working on, and I installed SUSE on it. I was enjoying it. I don't think it was as easy using Windows, but I just didn't have as much time to learned what I wanted. I enjoyed many features like multiple desktops, but I wasn't as involved Programmer as I would have liked, because the kernel was a bit tricky. I like how Vista looks and feels, some seem a little Linux, but I could be wrong. I like how the icons and such were more detailed, and now is the same for Vista.

I dual booted my drive with Linux and XP, and it booted through Linux... I guess it was ok, but I should have disabled the time limit, because if I was not paying attention, then boom there was Linux...

I would like to give it a try again sometime, but maybe try the newest versions. Maybe when I get my new PC, I will have to partition a section for trial.

- skedad -

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Make sure that you have the latest Flash installed, or else it won't work universally through the system. Else, revert back to original installation. openSUSE 10.3 comes with Flash 9 preinstalled, while the older Flash 7 have many incompatibility and inconsistency.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Small detail, but I've installed openSuse 10.3, not 10.2 ... my bad . Anyway, I'm not going to give up on openSuse, I've never done that with windows, so I don't see a reason to do it with linux .
I think the flash player problem is more like an opera problem, rather than an openSuse problem.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

1) Cost is low if you already have people that know how to use linux. Linux trainings can be very expensive.
2) For server use, but on desktop things turn out differently
6) Yeah, but at what cost ? Some programs are very picky on their dependencies
7) There is too much to choose from
8) This used to be different, believe me, installing Red Hat 6 was a real pain in the ass (btw, some distro's are still hard to install).

I just want to straight things out a bit, some people are so fixated on the positive aspects of linux (mac os or windows) that they start to ignore the lesser aspects and even start to think that their favourite os is perfect.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I am a fairly new user. I have a few months practice with Fedora Core 4, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, and Knoppix Live DVD. First, I would like to say that I like the stability, the free aspect of Linux, and the relative immunity from viruses and other nasties. I think Linux will be ready for the desktop of the average home user, when it is easy to do the common tasks in it. Most of those are already very close. I think the hardware support for certain devices needs improvement, as well as some software tasks such as installing new software, updating existing software, and configuring software.
Linux has been time-proven to be a reliable operating system. Although the desktop is not a new place for Linux, most Linux-based systems have been used as servers and embedded systems. High-visibility Web sites such as Google use Linux-based systems, but nowdays you also can find Linux inside the mobile sets also like motoming by motorola.Linux is very reliable and secure and it has not been uncommon for Linux systems to run for months or years without needing a single reboot.Viruses are very less in linux and unix systems. Although it is possible to create a virus to target Linux systems, the design of the system itself makes it very difficult to become infected. A single user could cause local damage to his or her files by running a virus on his or her system; however, this would be an isolated instance rather than something could spread out of control because there is nothing like autoexecute functionality in linux which is there in windows and if we are logged in with a non root account then it is nearly impossible. Also SELinux enhances the security manifolds.
In addition, all Linux distributions are upadted regularly by the supporting communities. The general philosophy of the Linux community has been to address possible security issues before they become a problem rather than hoping the susceptibility will go unnoticed.
Linux was designed and written to be easily portable to different hardware. For the desktop user, this means that Linux has been and likely always will be the first operating system to take advantage of advances in hardware technology such as AMD's 64-bit processor chips.
Linux offers freedom of choice as far as which manufacturer you purchase the software from as well as which application programs you wish to use. Being able to pick the manufacturer means you have a real choice as far as type of support you receive. Being open-source software, new manufacturers can enter the market to address customer needs.
Choice of application programs means that you can select the tools that best address your needs. For example, three popular word processors are available. All three are free and interoperate with Microsoft Word, but each offers unique advantages and disadvantages. The same is true of Web browsers.
Linux itself and many common applications follow open standards. This means an update on one system will not make other systems obsolete.
Each Linux distribution comes with hundreds and possibly thousands of application programs included. This alone can save you thousands of dollars for each desktop system you configure. Although this is a very small subset, consider that the OpenOffice.org office suite is included as well as the GIMP, a program available for photo editing; Scribus, a document layout program similar to Quark Xpress; Evolution, an e-mail system equivalent to Microsoft's Outlook Express, Open office which gives most of the MS Office funtionalities like word processing, presentation and Excel shhets; and hundreds more.
For the more technically inclined, development tools, such as compilers for the C, C++, Ada, Fortran, Pascal and other languages, are included as well as Perl, PHP and Python interpreters. Editors and versioning tools also are included in this category.
Whether you are looking for Instant Messaging clients, backup tools or Web site development packages, they likely are all included within your base Linux distribution.
More and more computers are being connected to networks. No system would be complete if it did not include tools to allow it to interoperate with computers running other operating systems. Once again, Linux is very strong in this area.
Linux includes Samba, software that allows Linux to act as a client on a Microsoft Windows-based network. In fact, Samba includes server facilities such that you could run a Linux system as the server for a group of Linux and Windows-based client systems.
In addition, Linux includes software to network with Apple networks and Novell's Netware. NFS, the networking technology developed on UNIX systems also is included.
Other operating systems are the products of single vendors. Linux, on the other hand, is openly developed, and this technology is shared among vendors. This means you become part of a community rather than a customer of a single manufacturer. Also, the supplier community easily can adjust to the needs of various user communities rather than spouting a "one size fits all" philosophy.
This means you can select a Linux vendor that appears to best address your needs and feel confident that you could switch vendors at a later time without losing your investment--both in terms of costs and learning.
Because of a combination of the internal design of Linux and development contributions from a diverse community, Linux tends to be more frugal in the use of computer resources. This may manifest itself in a single desktop system running faster with Linux than with another operating system, but the advantages go far beyond that. It is possible, for example, to configure a single Linux system to act as a terminal server and then use outdated hardware as what are called thin clients.
This server/thin client configuration makes it possible for older, less powerful hardware to share the resources of a single powerful system thus extending the life of older machines. Linux is a true multi-user operating system. Each user can have his or her own individual configuration all on one computer. This includes the look of the desktop, what icons are displayed, what programs are started automatically when the user logs in and even what language the desktop is in.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I started to use Linux because in the work that I get in was a Linux philosophy and I had to learn even if I liked or not.

The things on Linux were more difficult than make a click and saw what happened. There wasn’t a graphic environment. For set the graphic environment on Linux system was exhausting. There was a Gnome and KDE alternatives but I don’t had idea what they meant. That was discouraging when my fellowships knows command on the simple line command prompt that I wanted to do on a graphic way. How to imagine a table on databases tha was simple to see on Microsoft Access.

But when know it the paid alternatives identify that they was to expensive maybe not as difficult to use but expensive because they have to be paid the software, the training, the support even the hardware and infrastructure.

After a lot of suffer began to like me and now I tried to work with the best of each environment, for Linux for databases, web, email servers, for Windows Office software, image editors and games.

My conclusion must be we have to take the best of each environment for increase the productivity.

--

Yo empecé a usar Linux porque en el trabajo al que ingresé ya tenían implantado sistemas Linux y tuve que aprenderlo por obligación más que por convicción.

Las cosas eran más difíciles que dar clic y ver que pasaba como en Windows, no había tanto ambiente gráfico, el solo configurar un ambiente gráfico en Linux era agotador, no tenía más alternativas que un Gnome o KDE que no sabía que eran, era desalentador que los demás compañeros tenían su línea de comandos y se sabían muchos comandos que controlaban lo que yo quería hacer en un ambiente gráfico, el manejar bases de datos era tan difícil como imaginarte una tabla lo que en Access la veías sin problema.

Sin embargo al conocer las alternativas de paga eran demasiado caras y tal vez no tan difíciles de usar, pero era mucho mayor el costo monetario de que se tenía que gastar en el software, capacitación, soporte y hasta en hardware o infraestructura especiales.

Después de mucho sufrir empezó a agradarme y ahora trato de manejar los ambientes que son mejores para lo que fueron hechos, en Linux para servidores de bases de datos, de servidores de Web, servidores de correo electrónico, mientras que en Windows manejo ambientes de oficina, edición de imágenes, juegos.

Así que mi conclusión sería que hay que aprovechar lo mejor de los ambientes y sistemas operativos para que la productividad sea mejor y más eficiente.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)