Linux-based OSs

What are your guys' thoughts on Linux-based OSs? Their advantages over Windows, Mac OS X, and other commercial OSs, and their downside.

Also, what do you think is the best distribution of Linux?

PC-BSD

>>2

That's not a Linux distribution.

Opera

Give Stallman his dues.  Freaking Linus...

how would you feel if millions of people refer to your cock but leave out your cock's name. It basically detracts your whole decades.

I get it already, guys. I understand the whole name argument over whether it's GNU/Linux or just Linux. And, I know the correct term should be GNU/Linux, but I figured that most people would recognize Linux in the topic title than GNU/Linux.

Now, can we get back (or, more appropriately, start) the discussion?

Linux advantages
- price
- speed, stability, security, customizability (but most of this does not matter for casual use)
- lots of choices in almost every aspect of the os
- lots of quality legally free software

Linux disadvantages
- vi (it's good, but for newbies it'll make you want to gouge your eyes out)
- games
- xterm/bash will become your friend whether you like it or not
- inconsistent interface designs and interoperability of programs and system components requires low-level tweaking sometimes
- new hardware not always supported

Windows advantages
- games
- lots of quality software if you are a pirate
- hardware support

Windows disadvantages
- price (and your low IQ if you actually buy it)
- lots of specific stupid and unchangeable design flaws like wga, registry, drive letters, explorer.exe, iexplore.exe, security center, upnp, active desktop, windows media player can't make mp3's above 56kmpbs without you paying for it, driver cache taking up to 1gb on windows installation, artificial tcp/ip half-open connection limit (or some kind of connection limit), wma format, wmv format, etc.
- historical security weaknesses and Microsoft's historical inability to deal with them quickly/effectively
- resource consumption of programs is typically larger
- Win32 API
- having more programs installed makes system slower due to unecessary integration of system components
- tends to do things behind your back (autostarting programs, calling home, etc.)

Linux isn't really as bad for gaming as it seems, the Cedega project allows a lot of Windows games to run on Linux, and it's updated frequently to include more and more games. Right now they have over 258 Windows games to work on Linux.

Although, Cedega IS a pay to use program (only $5 a month, though), and it doesn't work for all games (there are 99 games that just don't work, and 77 that only partially work) it still allows for a lot of Windows games to be played on a GNU/Linux based oS.

Ubuntu is easy. You don't need to know bash, just stick it into the cd drive and follow the visual installer.

Once read on a blog that mr. Ballmer spent 2 days fixing a malware riddled machine, then gave up and sent machine to Microsoft's HQ. Techis there spent 2 weeks with microsoft's internal tools to get machine clean again. In the end they gave up and installed clean windows.

>>8 lots of quality legally free software

I think not.  Free yes, but quality, no.

Linux disadvantages
Too many goddamn distros
Fonts look terrible
Besides Ubuntu forums, asking for help will get you RTFM
Fanboys who actually think it's easier to use than Mac OS X

The biggest problem with linux on the desktop is that you have two choices, and no middle ground:

a) Fast, yet a PITA to install and debug.
b) Sloooooow, but a breeze to get running.

The problem with a) is that it'll probably take a few days to work every kink out of the system, unless you'd damn lucky. The problem with b) is that it makes XP look like a speed-smoking bat out of hell.

Of course, that's just the beginning. It's biggest strength is still a headless box.

>>13

You don't have to use them all.
YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
Maybe you should RTFM before you ask questions it already answers?
It's easier to use than OS X if you're not an idiot.

>>8
Um, vi isn't a required part of any Linux system. One of the oldest flame wars in computing is over whether emacs or vi is better, and you probably won't even need or want to use either unless you're a programmer or sysadmin.

>>13
What the hell fonts are you using? My GNOME desktop looks great, and there are a ton of Free fonts available.

>>13
In my experience, Gentoo has a more supportive community than Ubuntu... but then again I usually just throw my questions through Google.

...And usually the results are found on the Gentoo Forums or Gentoo Wiki...

As for Fonts... either they look too big or two small if you don't know how to edit your xserver's configuration (xorg.conf, anyone?)

>>15 It's easier to use than OS X if you're not an idiot.

LOL Nice lie you have there.  I'm sure doing a real life test with new users will result in a different answer.

I think what >>13 is talking about is a bug that occasionally shows up in some distrobutions where fonts are unaliased. That problem is somewhat rare though.

>>16
"The Single UNIX Specification specifies vi, so any system conforming to the Single UNIX Specification will have vi." --wikipedia

>>12
Give example.  I've never had bad experiences with mature versions of free open-source software, with the exception of crappy documentation for a few programs. 

>>16
You can't survive in linux long without a text editor.  I'm betting every linux user will at least be exposed to it sooner or later.  And 90% of newbies will fucking HATE it.

>>20

There *are* other editors out there, you know. Chances are that a newbie will never have to use a non-GUI editor, and even if they *do*, there's always nano.

>>19
The Single UNIX Specification can suck my cock, then. I hate vi, and my Linux system is free of it.