Linux

So. I tried Linux a few months ago. I was suggested Ubuntu as the most user friendly one. So yeah, I install it.

Bam. Slower than windows fucking Vista. Windows FUCKING VISTA. Sound doesn't work. It takes 2-3 days to find out how to install FireFox. Adobe was a lost cause. File system was confusing(But that was probably with my inexperience using that style of filesystem, I'll admit) the colors were ugly, and the other colors to change the theme to were equally ugly. All guides for Ubuntu were outdated, and all the help forums I tried were empty.

In the end I never did get my sound to work, it made even the simplest tasks over complicated, and while I will admit some were due to my own inexperience with Linux, But some tasks seemed complicated just for the sake of being complicated, and most of all, time consuming. I've heard Linux being touted as a OS for programmers, but that's retarded. You'd spend more effort on it's time consuming tasks than with programming.

Not a troll, just wondering. Why should I use Linux?

>>11

Infact, sir, you are a troll.
See, usually an Operating System and bootloader are seperated.
Look at GRUB (GRand Unified Bootloader), which will boot Linux and chainboot into Windows.
Windows has it's own bootloader, bootman(ager), if one should remove that Windows shall not boot.
I know you are a troll, sir, but I cannot help but point you to the right direction.

Opensource operating systems do work without *any* MicroSoft code, since MicroSoft almost never publishes its code, and if it will one day, it will be under a "for view only" license.

Linux's contributors spent around 16 years building and refining kernel code, added with the work of all those who build opensource unix progams, and combine that, and you have yourself a working operating system, if you distribute it, it will be known as a "Distribution".

In other words: Linux is written without any Microsoft code, it will boot without any Microsoft code and will work without any Microsoft code