5 Reasons Why Microsoft is Afraid of Linux

Apple (Mac OS X) has a relatively larger number of desktop computer users compared to Linux, and Windows virtually dominated the overall market share. But have you ever wondered why people at Microsoft and even Bill Gates himself are bothered by Linux more than anything else? I think here are the main reasons why:

1. Portability

There's no doubt that Linux is a highly flexible operating system that can be easily modified to run on just about any electronic device. Meanwhile, Apple's Mac OS X is tightly locked on its own hardware so I don't see its growth as long-term. I believe there will come a time that a Linux-powered computer or gadget becomes immensely popular, and Microsoft's dominance will be endangered.

2. Cost

I know it's hard to promote a product that costs nothing. But in these difficult times people have learned to value their money more than ever by spending it wisely. Linux sure is free but its capability is valuable.

3. Security

Windows is still the most insecure OS and it is possible that another devastating virus will strike and harm computers running with it. With Linux getting better like becoming user-friendlier and more secure than ever, people have a savior.

4. Firefox

Since Firefox has been rapidly eating Internet Explorer's web browser market share, the free and open source software community is more positive than ever that Linux can be as successful on the desktop. Microsofties are aware of this and are doing everything they can to stop the growth of Firefox and in effect Linux.

5. Applications, applications, applications

The number of great FOSS applications that support Linux are increasing. In terms of quality, they can rival any proprietary software made for Windows. Nowadays, it’s like if you can do it on Windows, you can do it on Linux too.

The year of the Linux desktop is unknown, but the future is bright. Indeed the good people at Microsoft have reasons to be afraid, or shall I say be very afraid of Linux :-)


  1. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    1. Portability - your argument is confusing, are you comparing to Apple or MS here?

    2. Cost - 0 cost is fair enough for pretty unusable product. Tell me did linux already penetrated the desktop market? As long as the current state of the desktop linux remains the same there's nothing MS needs to be afraid of.

    3. Security - this argument is valid only for windows xp sp2 era. Funny thing about security is pretty much every OS in the planet have security issues, in short everything is insecure even your dearest linux my friend.

    4. Firefox - the last time i check, firefox also runs on windows, so what's the advantage of linux here?

    5. Applications - let me give you a nice rebuttal for choosing windows. GAMES GAMES and more GAMES!

  2. Ah yes, the standard Windows FUD from the anonymous troll.

    1. ARM - Windows running on that yet?

    2. Cost/useability - I am an elementary school teacher, wife a social worker. Only computer class I ever had was back in 1982. Our operating systems on our three computers which are a 9 year old emachines, a 3 year old Dell laptop and an Aspire One: Antix and Fedora. Operating system use at my church's computer lab for neighborhood kids, Ubuntu.

    3. Security: Cornficker infects Vista too.

    4. See above, the advantage is no Windows.

    5. Applications: Not much use if your computer is a virus and worm infected spambot.

  3. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    Windows FUD? If a windows guy is stating facts it's FUD if it's coming from Linux a**holes it's not.

    1. ARM - - go on read it, i'll wait. oh and notice the url it's ARM, let me guess you will windowsce is not windows because of CE.

    2. No wonder, have you visited some big companies in your area, like banks, for instance, is your rural bank using Linux? I doubt it. A lot of universities here and abroad are still using Windows, it's a fact. Try visiting a universities like here in cebu, I don't know how many have installed linux. but i bet you will see a lot of windows machine.

    3. Security. Given the number of windows computers used in big compaines, have you heard anyone going out of business because of your cornficker worm? nope, because there's a damn fix for that one.

    4. unless if they stop making firefox for windows you will see it as an advantage. Even google given there sheer number of brilliant engineers recognize it as a dominant platform. Like they release chrome for windows first before your linux. Because ordinary users don't give a damn if your Linux is cool because you can compile your programs yourselves.

    5. Now this is FUD, you can suck my windows ASS. Sour graping loser.

  4. //Ah yes, the standard Windows FUD from the anonymous troll.
    Remember - FUD works both ways, and this time you were the one to start FUDwar.
    1. Mu buddy got linux running on some low-standard mp4 (not an iPod, not a Creative). I bet noone can do that with windows nor MacOS.
    2. Linux is free from charge and there are many progs ready for use with most of distros. You don't even need best gear to run most of needed tools nd games built for linux. On the other hand: students at college or university can get Microsoft Operating systems and some office programs for free and are legitimate to use it as long as they study.
    3. I run linux for like an month, and yet no security breach occured. During this time peroid, my dad's XP got some spyware/trojan (that I yet didn't managed to clean) rendering it totally useless. What's the point of having many office apps if due to some viruss you can't even use them?
    4. Leaving IE is sometimes the first step people do to leave Windows OS. Altough, Firefox is not the best example. I'd rather mention Iceweasel, Konqueror and other linux-natixe browsers that are unusable at Windows. Plus, I myself like Opera - which works even on Windows 98SE, and is a bit faster (my CPU is slow enough to make the difference noticeable).
    5. a) Applications: Not much use if your computer is a virus and worm infected spambot. I have an examle of this at home.
    b) Sure, many games aren't aviable for linux. But, usage of WINE or CEDEGA shortens this list. Furthermore, games that run on both windows and native linux tend to work faster at linux than on Windows.
    c) show me some custom window managers for Windows, as I know none. Are they as configureable as Linux ones? Are they supported by operating system? Are they safe? Window manager like Openbox makes you work lighting fast as soon as you get used to configuration you choose. I never got up to this speed with *ANY* of Windows OS. And I used every Windows since 3.11 (except server editions).

  5. U can also game on linux. Most games will run on wine with some tweaking, even Crysis(only on high graphics or above). Also I'd rather get actual work done on my pc without getting bsod or my system slowing down. Try running a windows and a linux system for a year with out any maintenence software. the windows pc will be shit slow. also most users can't maintain their systems anyway so a user friendly linux alternative is actually a viable sollution in the future.

  6. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    lol i so saw that troll post coming.

    1. linux is portable. windows is sort of portable.

    2.linux is free and works great :p. you havent tried linux or are just bashing it because you dont like it. no tux bashing. no no no no.

    3. windows is still plagued by dangerous viruses for example ransomware. and yes no system is entirely secure but windows does not even come close to being secure ;).

    4. dont have to use firefox can use anything. opera, lynx, w3c, dillo, the list goes on.

    5. lack of games is the fault of the publisher not linux.

  7. The only thing that I think that isn't all to on the ball with the linux thing is firefox. Even though firefox does run on linux it also runs on windows. As microsoft has 80% of the desktop market, I think you tell where I am going with this one. Other than that the rest of your statements are spot on.

    Here is the little motto I like to follow.

    You want to work use Linux.
    You want to play use Windows.

  8. Jacques MerdeJuly 08, 2009


    If I want a game console, I'll buy a PS3.

  9. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    "...pretty much every OS in the planet have (sic) security issues..." Huh? Which planet did you come from. I have been running Ubuntu and Debian distributions for over 4 years now WITHOUT ANTIVIRAL SOFTWARE nor a firewall, and the number of virus, spyware, etc., attacks that I have suffered total ZERO!!!! That's 0!! Zilch!! NONE!!

  10. *SIGH* Nothing but a rehash of tired arguments. Linux on the desktop is not what scares Microsoft. Cloud computing, which makes OS's (and a lot of software in general) irrelevant, is what MS is worried about.

  11. My apologies in advance for feeding the trolls, however:

    1. Portability.....what are you looking to port? If it's C or C++ difficult is it really? I've heard tell of C & C++ apps running in linux with some recompiling (not sure how true that is).

    Personally, I'm a firm believer of creating software that will run on any platform, independent of the OS.

    2. Cost - I'm a windows user....sure...but only through VirtualBox now. While I AM a MS SW engineer, I prefer to use fedora 11 x86_64 (gnome) as my DESKTOP. I can now run 3 VM's simultaneously...while listening to music on the free Rhythmbox...with still plenty of memory & disk space left over. The same CANNOT be said running Vista Business x64, or even Windows 7 X64 (even removed the extras) for that matter.

    3. Security - Timdor is completely correct. While there is the UAC built into Vista, unfortunately, I've still seen virii come through, and have even tested the conficker worm myself. Sorry Vista, but the short fact remains...most viruses built are built to target the MS Windows OS, whether that be xp, vista, or 7.

    4. DOES run on both OS's. Why should that be a hindrance? I would thing that it would put the company in a better position, as it doesn't require a specific OS, and therefore is not dependent on the specific OS, which in turn offers additional security flaws and vulnerabilities. While I DO enjoy the performance gains of IE8, I don't appreciate the forcible nature that Microsoft integrates some of the IE8 features and addons.

    5. Applications. are fine I'm sure.....if you're a teenager hell bent on fragging people in high def FPS realism. I should also mention, that many windows games can be played through Wine, if that really is your thing. Personally, I play wow through wine, with no performance loss. In fact...I listen to music while I there's another performance benefit.
    Personally, I think that if the only reason you're buying MS Windows is for the games, you really ought to just get yourself a gaming console.

  12. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    I would add that Linux is what the user wants and Microsoft is what the big businesses want.

  13. @Anonymous of first post:
    Is "GAMES GAMES GAMES" the best you can come up with? What about "WORK WORK WORK"? Work cannot be done at all on a WindhoZe machine. Its no wonder that because of Games on WindhoZe machine no serious development is being done.

  14. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    All good and fine, but when will the day arise, where we won't waste our time wondering what's happening in the minds of the markting divisions of closed-source outfits ?!

  15. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    To the twats arguing that WindowsCE on ARM = Windows portability.

    Get your ARM, Get Windows CE. Now, two things -
    1. How many hardware drivers do you have for your new platform? Can you plug in all your desktop peripherals and use them? NO. You need to wait for all the hardware vendors to port and release their drivers.
    2. How many applications do you have for your new platform? Can you run all your old desktop apps? NO. You need to wait for all the hardware vendors to port and release their apps too.

    Yes, for any OS, the drivers and apps need to be recompiled along with the OS kernel and others subsystems. Linux already has support for most hardware architectures. Ubuntu were able to turn around and port the complete stack of their offering inside a few months (weeks?). Try moving the whole windows ecosystem like that.

    Yes, any 3rd party commercial vendor needs to go through the same pain in porting their proprietary app on either platform, its just that until vendors move their wares, Windows on ARM or any other hardware platform (without drivers or apps) is patently useless. Linux can very quickly move the whole stack, kernel, drivers and OSS apps; and be useful relatively quickly.

    MS does have a strnglinbg grip on the desktop PC market. Problem is, in this brave new world of alternate devices, as soon as a new hardware platform emerges, Linux will be far better able to fill the niche quickly than the lumbering beast of Redmond. 30 years after the nimble Microsoft outmanouvered the lumbering big blue, the tables have turned, and Microsoft are now the elephant in the living room.

  16. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    "Huh? Which planet did you come from. I have been running Ubuntu and Debian distributions for over 4 years now WITHOUT ANTIVIRAL SOFTWARE nor a firewall, and the number of virus, spyware, etc., attacks that I have suffered total ZERO!!!! That's 0!! Zilch!! NONE!!"

    Because your so stupid to know that you are being hacked. The only machine that is safe from hacking and trojan are those machine that are turned off. Even one of the safest OS (openbsd) in the planet have vulnerabilities. Are Linux bigots so stupid to understand this? NO DAMN OS IN THE PLANET IS HACKER PROOF ANYTHING CAN BE HACKED.

    And to the retard that says "To the twats arguing that WindowsCE on ARM = Windows portability", I did not say it means portability, I just corrected Mr. Timdor when he erroneously bragged that windows don't support ARM.

    Let me end this with this statement. If your grandparents (you can training them now) have started using Linux then you are right, that MS needs to be very afraid of Linux, if that's not happening yet then shut your mouth and get a life.

    $mv all_idiots_in_here /dev/null

  17. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    btw, to the guy who wrote this "*SIGH* Nothing but a rehash of tired arguments. Linux on the desktop is not what scares Microsoft. Cloud computing, which makes OS's (and a lot of software in general) irrelevant, is what MS is worried about."

    Spot on! This is MS number one main concern, not the one listed by the author of this site and being defended by morons here.

  18. "$mv all_idiots_in_here /dev/null"

    #dd if=/home/idiots of=/dev/null

    Sorry, I'm a grammar/command line correctness Nazi. Oh, and by the way, I doubt that guy is being hacked. (I agree with you on the no OS is completely secure) If the OpenBSD team fixed those two existing security holes, then OpenBSD would kick ***.

  19. Microsoft isn't afraid of either Apple or Linux because Apple can't support the enterprise and remain Apple, and Linux went Ubuntu blind and you don't ever hear anything pertaining to Linux except the desktop.

    Microsoft was terrified of Linux to point of a FUD website, threatening to sue businesses for IP infringement and investing in Linux companies.

    During the Vista fiasco Microsoft had record revenue because their server product line was exhibiting double digit growth, while the client services, Windows desktop, showed a -8% shrink.

    It's puzzling all the buzz from the Linux community centered on fighting for scrapes with Apple while Microsoft was filling in holes with products like SharePoint and Dynamics.

    Microsoft isn't going to like losing the OEM license money from Mac sales but virtually every computer sold without OSX has a Microsoft license. It took Microsoft about 10 minutes to blow past Linux as the majority OS on Netbooks.

    While Penguinistas are wasting time and effort with paranoid conspiracy theories and ignoring the simple fact consumers stick with what they know. Retailers would be fine selling machines with Linux pre-installed but if customers even know what it is, they think it it's for geeks or have been seeing a couple of years of rabid Linux advocates leaving strange comments in forums and threads that are virulent anti-Redmond and have almost nothing to do with with the subject. The person helping them is likely the same.

    If Apple can triple it's marketshare during Vista with a $1,000+ entry fee while Linux barely moved the needle, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusion the current strategy won't work.

    People won't use what they never see. This fiscal environment should have CEOs and CIOs and CFOs slapping in Linux Servers like crazy. People should be using Linux as a corporate desktop which has little in the way of issues a consumer desktop poses. It would smooth the way for consumer acceptance.

    Windows 7 is going to slam shut whatever slim chance this current strategy window had for success. Don't sneer at GUI server management and belittle those MCSEs who use it because they have never used anything else.

    Stop all the stupid Microsoft slamming. The guy who sees 50 machines in his section, is checking out DVDs, giving info at the dentist and basically seeing almost every transaction done on a Windows PC isn't buying it. You only become a marginalized and your message ignored.

    It's time for the Linux community to growup. Trying to change behavior of the user community like it's a child you want to stay in bed by a boogy man Microsoft under the bed is a failure.

    Written on a laptop running Debian used as a primary OS for over four years.

  20. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    Just a suggestion to the owner of this site instead of posting MS related stuffs that only attracts trolls like me, why not start with something constructive like, a better payroll software for linux or a quickbooks alternative for linux, something that will attract small businesses and big companies too, instead of MS FUD and misinformation.

  21. AnonymousJuly 08, 2009

    Just to be clear about one thing. WindowsCE is not proof of Windows portability to ARM. WindowsCE is not the same operating system as the Windows NT series. It's a completely different operating system that happens to be made by the same company and gets called by a similar name. The code is not the same; the APIs are not the same. Linux is closer to being the same operating system as MacOS than WindowsCE is to being the same operating system as Windows 7 (or any other member of the NT series).

  22. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    # dd if=/home/idiots of=/dev/null

    That does copy, not move. Not very useful.

  23. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    I like the simple fact that there is nothing new in these posts from posts 8 years ago. Linux has undoubtably moved on and so has windows. Windows biggest comeptitor is windows, thats what keeps them awake at night in redmond. Did you know SQL runs on RH, not that it will ever see the light of day. I know i used to work there. Vista was a huge blow for MS, a lot hangs on win7 and Linux will play its part but its XP that win7 has to eat.

  24. Man, some of these comment's...

    The old security canard "no OS is completely safe, so therefore Windows security doesn't suck"

    That's like saying since no building can stop every thief your shitty apartment with a $15 deadbolt is as secure as Fort Knox.

    Yeah, I think somebody actually managed to break into Fort Knox once, just once. I can still get in your shitty apartment with a hammer, good luck trying that with Fort Knox.

    Next up, "MS isn't afraid of Linux teh own the software world, Apple has more market share than Linux".

    Linux's primary distribution method is not through retail channels, it's count is under reported. The last five people I switched to Ubuntu are counted as Windows users because that is what came on their machines at purchase.

    The truth is MS *is* afraid of Linux/FOSS, according to their own quotes. Quotes by Gates, quotes by other members of the MS executive team, quotes stretching back almost a decade.

    Linux server shipments have been growing at a faster rate than Windows for several years now. Linux's share of the total server market is growing faster than Windows, both at the expense of Unix.

    You see what MS is afraid of is they need people to buy Win7 and Office whatever-the-latest version-is. These two items account for about 60% of their annual revenue. To run Win7 pretty much requires a new(ish) computer and they mean to end-of-life XP to force you to move (so they can get paid). If your choice is new machine and Win7 or switch to a Mac (and replace all your apps with a Mac version), well the new machine/Win7 upgrade is _both_ cheaper and more familiar. But with Linux in the equation switching to Linux on your current hardware is the cheapest of all, it only takes time.

    MS got to be where they are by being the cheapest, their whole company was built on it. They know how devastating an advantage price is. Their software was rarely the best but always cheaper than the competition.

    The only firewall they have against Linux is awareness/familiarity. Sure some folks might know of all three choices, Windows, Mac and Linux and still choose Windows for some reason (maybe Games or CAD work or business accounting) but the majority of the windows computers/users don't fall in those categories. The majority of users had Windows chosen for them by virtue of MS's (now failing) strangle hold on OEMs and their conscious choice to *not* by a Mac, generally based on price.

    MS knows they cant beat Linux/FOSS on price or quality, they can't buy out the underlying software that OSS companies are based on. They are facing a slow bleed to a awareness tipping point then their monopoly is lost. What happens when MS pushes for the next round of upgrade cash and the average consumer has become aware of an alternative that is as easy to use as OSX and the cheapest of all, free. Their monopoly starts bleeding from every socket, just like IE is doing to Firefox.

    Ubuntu is rapidly approaching OSX's ease of use and they are desperately trying to halt the growing awareness of Linux/FOSS.

  25. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    "ubuntu is rapidly approaching OSX's ease of use"


  26. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    Err, I meant to say that, "Linux is closer to being the same operating system as OS X (not the old MacOS) than WindowsCE is to being the same operating system as Windows 7 (or any other member of the NT series)."

    Sorry for the mistake. I plead tiredness.

  27. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    6. Openness

    Knowledge is power, and a only Microsoft knows what's inside Windows, meaning only Microsoft knows what windows can and can't do. Linux is open, so its capabilities are known and new features can be added, old ones removed. You don't have that option with a proprietary OS, only the manufacturer does...

  28. There are a few misconceptions in TFA. GNU/Linux passed MacOS in popularity around 2003/4. You can check Apple's unit production in their SEC filings. M$'s own numbers show GNU/Linux at abut twice the rate of MacOS. That is scary for M$. In their own figures unlicensed copies of their own software are still a large concern. That loyal customers prefer their 8 year old product over current production is the biggest concern IMHO. M$ is a dinosaur whose brain has not gotten the message that they are in the tar pit. They have nowhere to go but down.

  29. Even though I am wasting my time I will respond once again to anonymous.

    1. As has already been stated by others Windows CE is completely different from Windows XP or Windows 7. Linux is portable and scalable. That means Linux can run on anything from a dedicated appliance to a supercomputer. That you would mention Windows CE as proof of Windows portability proves that you know even less about computers than I do.

    2. I live in Chicago. I have no idea why you bring up rural banks. That someone like me, with no training in IT other than one class 27 years ago can install and run Linux, that non professionals like my wife can use linux, that kids from my neighborhood, which is far from a wealthy neighborhood can use Linux more than proves that Linux is quite useable. Regarding penetration of desktop market, only one of the 3 computers we own were purchased with Linux on it. None of them currently run Windows, yet based on how statistics regarding OS use seem to be gathered, 2 out of 3 computers in my household are Windows computers. Based on my own experience and what I have read elsewhere, Linux use on the desktop is underreported.

    3. Your original point seemed to be that malware is not a problem on more recent versions of Windows. I cited cornficker to demonstrate that even the most recent version of Windows has security problems which Linux users do not have to deal with. I'm glad there are fixes for corficker. I'm even happier that as a Linux user, I don't have to worry about finding solutions to such problems. Why? Linux is more secure than even the most recent versions of Windows.

    4. I won't repeat my previous post. However in response to your statement about compiling programs -- I am an elementary school teacher. Why should I waste time compiling programs when the programs I want to use are available for free from secure repositories? I open up my package manager, search for what I want in the search box, click on it, click on apply, and wait for the program to install itself.

    5. In response to "Now this is FUD, you can suck my windows ASS. Sour graping loser."
    I am currently writing this after dismissing my 5th grade students from summer school. Congratulations on displaying less maturity than these 11 year olds. The only reason I can see for you giving such an immature response is because you realize that any Windows machine can easily become a virus and worm infected spambot unless up to date antivirus and antimalware programs are constantly running in the background. I have been using Linux for 4 years now. Never have I had to worry about malware while running this OS.

  30. Some more observations on why Microsoft should be scared. Sorry in advance for the length of this post.

    I use Linux for a variety of reasons such as it's security, cost, and stability. More importantly, I use it because the philosophy underlying Linux is very similar to my philosophy as an educator. Linux was started in a university setting. In a university, as well as at an elementary school, knowledge is something to be shared, not horded.

    As an elementary school teacher, my job is help my students become as autonomous as possible and to cooperate with each other, to be problem solvers and active learners, and to move beyound passive dependency. Linux gets developed by a community of people who are willing solve problems and share not just their solutions, but how their solutions work. That means I as a computer user have the opportunity to not just use these software solutions, but to learn how these solutions work. On my Linux run computer, I can dig into any file of any program and learn how that program works. I can even make any changes I want. What this means is that as a computer user, I can put into practice what I try to teach my students to do in the classroom. As a teacher, I help my students to become more free as individuals. Linux helps me to become more free as a computer user.

    Microsoft's practices are the antithesis of this philosophy of freedom. With them, knowledge is to be horded not shared. Information is locked into closed proprietary formats. Solutions are sold, not shared. Those with knowledge have to sign nondisclosure agreements. Software is not shared, not even sold, but licensed. Software can be installed on the user's computer without the user's knowledge. The list can go on and on. Microsoft's business model is founded upon the notion that those using its products are to be nothing more than passive consumers of its products. Microsoft has every reason to be scared of Linux. Linux undermines the very foundations of its business model.

  31. AnonymousJuly 09, 2009

    The biggest problem with this observation is that it's based on an individuals experience on a particular OS popularity or OS usability. It might be that Linux is popular on some areas while in some other parts of the world it's not. Even if it's popular a lot of people have different preferences on what they conceive easy and difficult to use. People learn things differently. In short we have our own biases. Some people will like Linux and some people will always prefer using Windows or Mac (believe it or not I did see a company that are still using windows 98).

    Part of the reason why MS will still survive even with the growing popularity of Linux is that a lot of big companies uses windows for internal and external operations, the rise of .NET related jobs is certainly a good indicator of this trend. If big companies are looking for these professionals, universities will have no choice but to offer curriculums that are MS technology related, this will again ensure the future of the windows platform. If this will not change then i think MS have no reason to be scared at all.

  32. You can not analyse anything you cant afford your little brain to do that.That why you are doing thing personal website rather than business
    see this linux cant beat 10 year old abandoned os
    all the linux fans are poors who save money to buy clothes and food. anything comes free finds taker stole breads, vegetables anything linux is that

  33. I think this is delicious, the picture in this article is from a slide being presented by Ballmer at a shareholder meeting. The graph showing OS market share percentages has the same size wedge for Linux as there is for OSX, same size wedge = same size market share.

    I had been reading about MS thinking Linus's share was on par with OSX, nice to finally find an example.

  34. Great article! I look forward to seeing more like it to come. The truth is that Linux is slowly becoming more known, which is putting a dent in Microsoft's profits. Microsoft has become accustomed to having little to no competition the past decade, now they are getting a little. This is good. I just hope more people realize the MANY benefits of open source software, compared to closed source. I've seen so many closed source applications that are garbage, and cost way more than what they should. Open source isn't available for everything, but what is out there is great stuff. Just the fact that there is no licensing tracking involved in open source alone is huge.

  35. Linux! (Ubuntu/Debian)
    Defrag, nope!
    Antivirus nope!
    Registry cleaner, what is a registry? nope!
    Spyware remover nope!
    Resource hog, nope!
    Without issues, nope!(but getting better)
    Hard to learn, nope!
    Unstable nope!
    Boring, nope!
    Unsecured, nope!(compared to Windows)
    The future, maybe!(hopefully)

    peace out!

  36. I've been using Ubuntu Linux since 2005 with Breezy Badger. My response to the Windows/Linux flamewar is always the same:

    No one really *uses* Windows or Linux. What we use is software these two platforms provide.

    As a Linux user should I now discourage the use of Windows? Hmm. If an interested party asks whether s/he should switch, I always ask: "Why are you interested? Do you have a lot of Windows software?" The results are various.

    If the answer is: "Word, Excel, browsing, e-mail, photos, torrenting, movies, instant messaging, etc." then I see the perfect candidate to begin explaining why Linux would be a superior platform.

    However, rather than tossing them into the Linux swimming pool, I let them wade in by replacing their corrent PROPRIETARY software with FOSS variants. They learn to live with things like: No more pimping of their Instant Messenger clients, etc. Once they settle into FOSS products, switching the O/S behind these products is the next step.

    If the owner says they use CorelDRAW, PhotoShop: software they paid good money for, then I suggest an alternative: boot to Win to work these, but keep Win off the net, boot to Lin to surf, etc. Then create a FAT32 partition to share files between both systems.

    I'm sure some trolls will say: "I *use* my O/S" to counter argue me. My point remains the same: the *average* user, that notorious "Joe Sixpack" gets frustrated when his PC slows to a crawl. That's the best time to compare his glorious Windows box with my set up: faster boot time, similar software choices, better menu organization, etc.

    Cuz, in the end... it's not whether Windows or Linux wins or who fears who, but it's about which system provides the best possible service to the user. Crossing your arms, turning up your nose and demanding that the O/S *you* use is the best is often a sure sign of hidden insecurity. I am quite comfortable with whatever choice my customers make. And there's nothing quite so influential as a PC technician who's Linux savvy: far more effective that a Penguinista or a Windows Troll.