OS is not always a choice dictated by the user's attitude or philosophical views about operating systems.
Sometimes it's dictated by NEEDS - things the user just needs to be able to do with the minimum hassle. I mean, why choose extra hassle and have
worse quality output, if you can get better quality output with less hassle? It's like buying a fast car, and then choosing things that hinder and
slow it down a lot, and which can't be controlled intuitively and easily, but require all kinds of manipulation of text files and when you want to
install an ashtray or a music player, you have to know cryptic commands and their attributes, instead of just putting it in place and turning it on,
like a normal human being would expect to do.
Linux may be nice, stable and efficient in many ways, but usually linux-freaks are either wilfully blind/ignorant about it's problems and limitations,
and boast it's omnipotential even when it's clear that it simply cannot do all the things Windows XP easily does, for example. If Linux is optimal for
YOUR needs, that's fine and good, no arguments from me.
But if a Linux-freak with small needs starts preaching the superiority of Linux to people with much more complicated, specific, and/or larger needs,
they are soon blinded by their own ignorance. While foaming at the mouth, soon these people and their preachings start sounding more and more
ludicrous. I never understood diehard Linux-freaks - I can admit the good points about Linux, but I also see the bad points (and I also speak from
experience, for I am interested in using many kinds of operating systems, because there really isn't a good one on this planet anymore - AmigaOS was
as close as it ever got to 'the optimal' or 'the ultimate' operating system that had the strengths (like customization, speed, freedom and intuitivity
(if there is such a word)) of a good OS, while still not completely giving in to the Linux-like over-complexity and tediousness of it's configuration
files) of it.
I also see the good points of Windows, as much as the Linux-freaks love to forget them or play them down.
When you have very specific needs, chances are that Linux just can't do your bidding. I mean, 'specialized' needs that utilize some program that
exists only for Windows. Maybe in some rare cases you can use Wine or something like it to make it work, but in others, it would never work that
I have many such 'needs' (well, if we are really accurate, no one NEEDS to even have or use a computer - we don't immediately drop dead if our net
connection breaks down or our computer breaks down - (most) human beings on physical level need food, shelter, defacation/urination opportunities,
sleep, and some sort of protective garments - but discussion would sometimes be almost impossible if we always stopped to take into account every
little thing (as much as I would actually like that), so I plan to continue using the word 'need' in this context, just to make a point) that no other
OS could fulfill.
Also, I know that this is not supposed to be said - but in ATS there are a lot of things like that, so why should this be any different. The Linux
versions of some - or even many - things are simply inferior and harder to configure, customize to your liking, to use, to install, and so on. With
Linux, you -always- have to know way more than a user should have to, every step of the way. From installation scripts that might not work properly
with your particular distro or whatever, to configuring the software using a text editor instead of intuitive menus and buttons.
Even when you get something working, and configured as much to your liking as possible with the Linux version(s) and by utilizing the text editor
method of configuring things - it's possible that the Linux version STILL doesn't perform as well or give you all the options the Windows version
With Windows, downloading, installing and configuring software is usually like: 1) Download 2) Double click to extract - choose destination with mouse
3) Double click to launch the setup executable or the program itself 4) Click Next a couple of times, and "Browse" once to determine where you want it
installed 5) Double click on the exe to launch the program.
With Linux... even with Ubuntu, it's not usually that easy. Why would anyone willingly want to complicate this handy and easy procedure? Just to be
able to claim they use the 'cool' OS? Just because of irrational fear of Windows?
I know Windows is still sub-par, and always has been. But the thing is, everything else is even worse, at least for someone with very specialized /
specific / large needs that Linux simply can't fulfill, and even when it can, it can do it poorly, with a lot more hassle, without all the options and
support of it's Windows counterpart, and only when you have acquired a huge amount of otherwise useless knowledge.
I don't even want to mention MacOS.. is has bad sides from both worlds. Without freedom.
edit on 1-3-2013 by Shoujikina because: (no reason