Convince me

[plonq]

At risk of starting a flame war in my user comments I have shut off all screening.

In the past year or so I have had more than one person try and convince me that I would be better off running Linux as my primary operating system.

For the sake of argument, assume the following:

I am running a very stable Windows XP system which is completely current in all security patches and updates.  I am behind a hardware router/firewall, and am also running a current software firewall/anti-virus program.

I sometimes work from home and I need full compatibility with our MS Office suite (including complex spreadsheets and databases).  I also need full compatibility with our Exchange 2003 servers, and our other web-based applications.  My primary browser is Firefox (which I forgo in favour of IE when I need to access our Exchange servers because Firefox chokes on some of the features).

When I am not working, and not downloading porn stuff, I spend my time playing online games like Neverwinter Nights, and various Half-Life mods.

Your task - should you choose to accept it - is to convince me that I would be better off running Linux, or some variant thereof.  What would be my net benefit?

Assume that I am pragmatic enough that, if convinced that I would benefit from the switch, I would seriously consider doing so (maybe the latest SUSE) on my next hard drive upgrade -- which, given that I am running near capacity on my current one - should be comparatively soon.

Also note that "with a modest amount of work you can do everything you do now" is not a compelling argument because that's just change for the sake of change with no net benefit.

The floor is now yours.

Comments

Mwuh ha hah ...

[farlo.livejournal.com]

Your task - should you choose to accept it - is to convince me that I would be better off running Linux, or some variant thereof. What would be my net benefit?

• You need more excitement in your life, and a new OS will provide it


• You will make a great test case


• .NET doesn't run on linux (AFAIK)

I would not switch, either. I have HAD a dual boot linux system in the past, and tell you what, it was not impressive. At all.

Recently I bought a "Windows XP killer tips" book, and now appreciate my WinXP box even more. Windows is "what's for dinner".

That is all. =)

Re: Mwuh ha hah ...

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I have played with Linux in the past (Red Hat and Mandrake), and was running a dual-boot system for awhile. The only reason I dumped it at the time was because one of my hard drives melted down and I needed the space. Even if I don't make the switch for my primary OS, I will probably create another dual-boot system sometime in the future so that I can play around with it some more. I really didn't get much chance to wet my feet the first time around.

[leopanthera.livejournal.com]

Buy a Mac.

;)

[elfasi.livejournal.com]

I keep trying to tell people this, I really don't see Linux as a viable desktop OS for the vast majority of people. It's a great OS, don't get me wrong, but it works at its best when on a nice server in a cupboard with power, network cables running into it, and nothing else. This is my ideal Linux configuration, it's there if I want it, I've only to telnet or ssh into it or even use Xwindows if I really want its GUI. But for my desktop, XP works fine, it's fairly mature as Windows versions go, I've found it more stable and usable than anything that's come before.

Kept up to date with Windows Update and a sensible hardware firewall in the way, there's not too much risk of getting caught out with the various nasties on the Internet, so that isnt a concern. If you've got a spare PC kicking around, I would definately recommend you put Linux on, it's certainly good experience learning how to set it up and use it. But replace your desktop OS with it? Nah.

[feren.livejournal.com]

Some people see the $110 USD cost to upgrade from one rev of Windows to another as reason enough to make the switch. I personally call that the cost of doing business, but I'm a freak like that, so if you can't stand the idea of shelling any money at all out to Microsoft then there's all the reason for running Linux/BeOS/FreeBSD/Solaris/whatever that you could ask for. Of course what a lot of people don't take into account is that the money that you save by not buying that new copy of Windows will be traded off in a fiscal or lost-time fashion with the hours of downtime and painstaking reconfiguration you have to spend on your PC when something goes awry under the *NX operating system, buying specific hardware that's supported by the Linux drivers, etc. It all comes out as a wash in the end, really, so I generally make the following assertion: As a desktop OS there is no compelling reason to run any flavor of UNIX on your PC unless you have a hard-and-fast requirement for an application that only runs under UNIX. Otherwise, no, there's nothing there.

Naturally people will say that I'm a Microsoft booster/Linux hater/heretic, but I say all of the above as a man who has numerous Sun certifications, has spent 6+ years working on UNIX systems for a living and continues to rely heavily on them at home and for his personal business. Each OS has its niche, the desktop/home niche is completely dominated by Microsoft -- and for now there's every reason for them to be doing so.

Re: Mwuh ha hah ...

[feren.livejournal.com]

[.NET doesn't run on linux (AFAIK)]

It sure does, and it's called Mono. Yes, like the kissing disease.

[furahi.livejournal.com]

Hey
I gave up trying to convince people to switch.
Quite frankly, now I just tell them "If Windows works for you, if you're happy, stick with it", for that reason, and since you sound happy, I wasn't going to relply to this at all, however, most of the answers sound like of someone that tried Linux 2 - 4 years ago o.o
More recent Linux, and especially certain distros (like SuSE, yes) are not hard to configure at all. The whole time you have a VGA GUI, where you point and click to options as simple to pick as Windows setup programs. It detects about all your hardware automagically (unless you have something crazy, like my Bluetooth mouse).
It works Pnp with Windows networks (as a client, as a server you still need to configure things like the computer name, which are configurable with GUIs too), OpenOffice does a MUCH better job at opening MS Office documents, and if you still don't like it you can run MS Office under Linux using Wine, it's one of the most tested programs, so it runs about as well as it does in Windows, or so I've heard..
I'm not giving any 'advantages' to using Linux, of course, you have all this in Windows. I've been using Linux as a Desktop OS for years and with every new release (though I don't usually upgrade by 'releases' but instead programs manually), but the main thing is.. I updated because I /wasn't/ happy with Windows. I didn't just update to make a point, in fact I don't consider myself a "Linux person". Unlike most here, I prefer FreeBSD or OpenBSD on the server (or even Slowaris), depending on the requirements. But I want, like everybody, to use the right tool for the right job, and my desktop computing needs are fullfilled some 90% with Linux, and about.. I don't know 80% with Windows (so really I can use either)

Just use what makes you happy :D

Re: Mwuh ha hah ...

[farlo.livejournal.com]

ROCK ON!

That means when I learn C#, it will port straight to Linux ...

[feren.livejournal.com]

[(or even Slowaris)]

Whenever I see that phrase, "M$" or some other equally little snide, tongue-in-cheek "nametweak" I always find it difficult to take the message seriously. That sort of behavior seems to me like the very example of the behavior of a youth who lives in his parents' basement.