I picked up this opinion piece via a feed, and I'm really not amazed that Linux folks would stoop to the same bizarre propaganda that they accuse Microsoft of. But hey, what's new?
Let's look at each entry individually, and see where things break down. Note that although the article is titled "Reasons not to use Linux", it's actually a pro-Linux article being facetious. But we'll examine each of the five points:Reason number one: Linux is too complicated
The main argument of this point is that people say "Don't use Linux becuase it's too complicated" when really it's no more complicated than Windows, especially regarding the command line. I think the author is moving boundaries, though, when he thinks that you would only need to use a command line in Linux as much as you might need to use a command line in Windows.
Is there really a reliable way in Linux to set permissions on files, start and stop services, and configure network cards (among quite a few other tasks) without resorting to a command line? Maybe there is, but is it common across all Linux variants? Does it work reliably enough and is it well-designed enough for a novice user to operate?
Nevermind that much software that is available for Linux is only available for some distributions in source form, which requires a user to build the software - usually from the command line. Even if you have a package to install, ensuring that your dependencies are correct can be a hassle that a novice user might possibly never accomplish.
Reason number two: Linux is a pain to set up
I must give Linux credit here, since their installers have come a long way since their early days. Most major variants of Linux have very nice installers. However, deciding what Linux to install is a major problem in itself.
Here's an example - What is a Red Hat install? There are official versions: Red Hat Linux 7 and 9, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3. There's the Fedora open-source branch (which we're definitely talking about when we get to reason 5) that comes popularly in versions 2 through 4. And what's this CentOS thing?
As far as downloading patches go, I find it hard to believe that an OS that you found in a box on a shelf is going to be secure without patches. Assuming you wanted to apply all of the patches that your OS requires since it was released, how would you do that? On Windows, you are automatically told that your components need updated. On Linux... apt-get? yum? up2date? Aren't those command-line tools?
Maybe there is a GUI that checks your versions and reminds you to upgrade, but it's probably unique to your distribution of Linux and if it doesn't cost money to maintain, then you have to manuall configure the update location in a somewhat cryptic config file.
Reason number three: Linux doesn't have enough applications
This is silly. If the software is open source, then it's likely to have a version that also runs on Windows.
So what you're saying is that although Windows can also run 90% of the same open-source applications that Linux can, and although Windows software companies have been in the business of selling and supporting their products for years, and although most of those open-source projects are half-cooked derivatives of software that exists on Windows anyway, that Linux is just as good a source of applications as Windows.
Yeah, ok. "Just as good" isn't often the same as the real thing, I'm sorry to say. Anyone who uses Photoshop will say the same thing about Gimp. Such specialized applications that are similarly honed for Windows are simply not available for Linux.
Reason number four: Linux isn't secure
You know what, I'm tired of this debate. I'm convinced that no system, Microsoft or Linux, will ever be secure as long as it is attached to a network.
There is no such thing as "more secure". There is only "insecure" and "secure", also known as "unplugged". Your single vulnerability in Linux is just as vulnerable as any myriad of cracks in Windows.
What I'm saying to you is that all systems are insecure. Thinking that you're safer because you're using software that doesn't have as many security bulletins is tantamount to pulling a blanket over your head and hoping nothing happens while you're not looking.
Reason number five: Linux is more expensive
If you're considering your expense simply the purchase price of the product, then maybe Linux isn't as expensive as Windows.
In the long haul, though, add up the man-hours that you are able to save by not having to findand interpret the "Missing Manual" that goes with your particular variant of Linux, and then you might have something.
With Windows, help is often a phone call away, even if it's not Microsoft, but a friend or Neighbor who knows more than you. With Linux, if something goes wrong, you're often either on your own or in the dark cryptic corridors of user forums, once again looking for what's particular about your setup that nobody else seems to latch onto.
Linux use isn't widely taught in schools, much less Linux administration. If you can find a class to teach you Linux, it's likely a pre-certification course that you will pay dearly for. On the other hand, Windows courses at community colleges are cheap and readily available.
Try to find a free source of information online about your version of Linux that doesn't assume you are a shell wizard.
And So...
It's not my intention to say "Windows is the best!" in response to that post on linux-watch.com. Sure, there are a lot of great things about Linux. Maybe it is about time you tried it to see if it's for you. Don't be spoiled by the half-truths and propaganda flung by both sides.
Take the time to make these comparisons for yourself.
