One (big) reason Kubuntu (or the "Linux Desktop") remains unpopular

[oshunluvr]

Wow, Dutchman. +1x100

Thank you for expressing my exact thoughts and opinions on this subject.

I was avoiding posting to this topic because I'm too tired of the endless debate with people who have no capacity for listening. I could never understand why Microslop and Appletard fanbois don't just leave the Linux folks alone. I don't join winBlows forums and bash their useless junk OS. You'd think they'd be too busy updating and running virus checkers to bother posting here.

I think the most salient point you make is regarding the lack of manufacturer support for linux hardware drivers and yet - Miraculously - 95% or more of hardware works or will work with a little tinkering.

People in the Windows culture expect an install to take hours and hours or even days of updating and expect to have to run virus checkers and have endless things going on in the background that they have no knowledge of or control over. To them, this is stable. Upgrading your entire computer to support the newest version of the OS is normal - even when it's well known the the new version sucks beyond belief.

This attitude comes with many of them when they try linux. There must be someone to blame if the $19 webcam I bought doesn't work the instant I plug it in. Nevermind the hours and $100s of dollars I've saved by not renting the latest microsoft dreck.

The simple truth is: Windows is as stable as the user thinks it is and Linux is as stable as the user allows it to be.

Use Linux: Invest the time to get things working correctly and research hardware before you buy. Then find a distro that suits your needs, tune it up, and use as long as you like.

Use Windows: Invest money in whatever new computer is on the shelf with windows pre-installed, use it until it is so slow and over-loaded you can't stand it. Donate it to a Linux user. Buy another one.

[Dutchman]

Use Windows: Invest money in whatever new computer is on the shelf with windows pre-installed, use it until it is so slow and over-loaded you can't stand it. Donate it to a Linux user. Buy another one.

I love it! That's exactly how I get almost all the computers I own or have ever owned, even the one I'm using now. Someone I know was running Windows on it, said "It's getting too old and slow anymore, I bought another one." thinking the problem is their computer, and give it to me. I put Linux on it and use it for years; it never slows down for me. Hell, with the last half-dozen or so versions of KDE, it just keeps getting faster! Now, in both situations the only thing changing is the OS, hardware stays the same. So, where's the bottleneck? Hmm...?

I too normally don't get involved in the fanboy trolling. There's an old saying that goes "It's hard to have a battle of wits with an un-armed person." That's how I view most trolling, it's generally done by people who have nothing better to do and mostly don't know what they're talking about. They read propaganda and take it for gospel. It's sad really, but that's the way it is. It seems it's more fashionable to conform to some perceived wisdom than to actually think for oneself.

When I clicked the "New Posts" and saw this one this morning I was surprised the origin of the thread was over 2 years old. I was just going to ignore it when I noticed the latest post was from Steve, which peaked my interest. After reading it well, I reckon I had to throw my two-cents worth in. I guess what irks me a lot is there's so many who complain about driver support in a free operating system, yet will pay for a closed one, and don't realize or just choose to ignore the difference. Windows doesn't have great driver support because it's a superior operating system, it has it because Microsoft has enough money to ensure it. If Bill Gates has any claim to fame it's not his skill as a programmer, it's his luck and savvy as a salesman. He got into the game early enough, saw a real opportunity with IBM, and went for it. And as they say, the rest is history.

The simple truth is: Windows is as stable as the user thinks it is and Linux is as stable as the user allows it to be.

You're right there oshunluvr, except I might change one thing. Instead of "thinks it is" I'd probably say "has been told to think it is". Thinking requires some basis to found perceptions on, some knowledge or at least a theory based on known facts. As Steve so aptly pointed out, most people are totally oblivious to what's included in or going on with their Windows system.

Rob