Need something a bit easier on the eyes? Click Here
Whilst I do not intend on insulting any other Operating Systems, I am writing this today with the intention of giving a few balanced reasons why I Love Linux and Open Source Software in general. If you do not agree with me, that is entirely your choice.
Freedom
I first fell in love with Linux (and OSS in general) because of its Freedom. I did in actual fact pay for my first Linux Distribution (Mandrake 6.0), so the cost of Linux has never been a particularly motivating factor. What I fell in love with, is the freedom to modify someone elses work, and then to pass it so that others may benefit from it.
When people say that Linux is Free, most people instantly think in Financial terms. This is a reflection of the proprietary way of doing business. Free means that you are free to use it, modify it or even to simply burn it to disc and give all your mates copies. This freedom allows software to develop to your needs, if a functionality isn't there you can easily request it, or add it yourself.
With Linux (and OSS) you don't have Windows Genuine Advantage looking over your shoulder, ready to close your computer down if it suspects something is wrong. Similarly Linux is not DRM encumbered, so you can watch your media without requiring a DRM Chip in your monitor.
Security
Operating System security may be the foundation of a secure computer system, but it is a very difficult subject to broach without giving supporters of other OS's the impression that you are insulting them. However, Unix is historically one of the most secure Operating Systems, Linux was based on the Unix way of handling things. Inevitably it has inherited some of these strengths, security being one of those. Microsoft have recently added a function to Vista whereby a user can become Administrator for a short amount of time, and Admin logins are discouraged. The Unix world has been doing this for a great many years, an obvious point in System Security is that if your users have write access to the systems components then they can mess things up. It is not always deliberate, but if user John has write access to the entire system then should he accidentally download malware from his favourite Porno site, then it can affect the entire system (including other users files).
If on the other hand, John only has write access to his Home Directory (The equivalent of My Documents) then this malware can only affect his files. For John this may be a terrible loss, but the system administrators life will be made easier, as will the lives of all those who also have documents stored on that system.
Another benefit of using a Non-Windows operating system, is that because most malware is aimed at Windows, it will not run on other Operating Systems. This works in a similar way to soldiers running up a hot beach to attack a giant fortress, only to realise that their weapons are made of chocolate and have melted. The attackers weapons are in this case neutralised before they even encounter the layers of security that Linux has to offer.
Many critics claim that Windows is not less secure, but simply that as the most popular Operating System they are atacked far more. This line of thinking suggests that if Linux (Or Mac) was the dominant Operating System, then they would suffer from the same issues as Windows.
This line of thinking only holds water in so far as, if Linux were the dominant OS then yes it would be attacked more often. However given the vast differences in Security between the two OS's, I find it hard to believe that Linux would find itself in quite the same position. There are a great many decisions in the past that have led to MS incurring trouble. The Hiding of filename extensions for example, led to the distribution of a great many email viruses.
Linux also makes a great firewall, and one of my firewalls does in fact run on Slackware.
Choice
Linux has the great advantage of choice in everything, ranging from which Distribution to use up to which window manager to run. If you fidn you do not like SUSE Linux, then you could always try Mandriva or one of the many other Distros. You have a world of choice before you have even started using Linux. Many criticise this as confusing, but the majority would prefer to have the choice.
Once you have chose your Distro, you then have a choice of which software to run, most installation DVDs come with a selection of software for each category. For example for a Word Processor you could choose from OpenOffice, Abiword and a few others. If you have never used OSS software, you would probably have no idea which one of these to choose, however eventually you will decide which you prefer, and will find yourself recommending it to everyone.
On Windows, you get one Window Manager and One Desktop Environment. In fact because of this lack of choice most Windows users have absolutely no idea what these two things are, prefectly understandable really. Basically a window manager does exactly what it's name suggests, whilst the Desktop Environment is what gives you your Start menu, Desktop etc. OSS software has a wide range of these available, the most obvious being KDE and Gnome. There is quite a bitter rivalry between the users of KDE and the users of Gnome, not quite on the scale of the OS wars, but there have been a fair few flamewars.
At first the wide range of choice may overwhelm you a little, however as you learn the benefits of the software, you will find the one that best suits you. With MS Office you have a software suite aimed at pleasing everyone, so it may well be missing a function that you need, or be full of functions that you will never need. The range of choice in OSS means that you are more likely to find a suite that is suited to your needs. If the functionality you require is still not there, then you can easily ask the developers to add it. If you have the skills you could even add the functionality yourself.
Configurability
Anyone that has ever gone through the Windows Registry is likely to have thought "there must be an easier way!" Well, there is. On Linux 99% of your configuration files as text files that you can open and edit with a text editor such as Vi (or emacs). Those that are not text, can easily be modified from within the program that controls them, with the exception of proprietary software, the only configuration files that ever seem to be non-text are that way for security reasons.
Because I can adapt someone else's software to do the task I require, the potential configurability of Linux is never-ending. Not all configuration would be as straight forward as editing a text file, but the system can be made to do more or less anything.
Performance
I run a Distribution of Linux called Gentoo, the entire system is compiled from source upon installation, and (assuming you have configured things correctly) optimised for your system. This has left me with a fully functional Operating System with a minimal memory footprint. It took quite a lot of memory to actually compile the system, but once that stage was done my memory usage dropped. All the applications I run on the system are also compiled from source, so I find even on a system that is a few years old, I do not experience the dreaded 'lag'.
Even Binary Distributions have (in my experience) far better performance that Windows, and to an extent Mac. The boot time can be a little long for Linux, however once you see the Desktop everything is loaded and ready.
Current Needs
Linux fulfils my current needs perfectly, if I was a gamer then I would probably need a Windows system as well. In my Opinion Games are one of Linux's current shortcomings, however this is due to the Game Manufacturers and not Linux itself. I need a system that runs at a useable speed, no matter what I ask it to do (Using Virtual Machines can be quite a performance dampener) and that is reliable and stable. I have no use for a system that freezes part way through an important letter, similarly I have no need or desire to run a system that is packed out with DRM. For me Linux is the perfect system, and although my needs may change in the future, I am not sure Linux will ever cease to be on my hard drive.
Why
I Love Linux
and OSS
There has historically always been something for humans to argue about.
A common argument in todays world is which Operating System is best?
Everyone will give justification for their choice, and many will then
insult other Operating Systems. and OSS
Whilst I do not intend on insulting any other Operating Systems, I am writing this today with the intention of giving a few balanced reasons why I Love Linux and Open Source Software in general. If you do not agree with me, that is entirely your choice.
Freedom
I first fell in love with Linux (and OSS in general) because of its Freedom. I did in actual fact pay for my first Linux Distribution (Mandrake 6.0), so the cost of Linux has never been a particularly motivating factor. What I fell in love with, is the freedom to modify someone elses work, and then to pass it so that others may benefit from it.
When people say that Linux is Free, most people instantly think in Financial terms. This is a reflection of the proprietary way of doing business. Free means that you are free to use it, modify it or even to simply burn it to disc and give all your mates copies. This freedom allows software to develop to your needs, if a functionality isn't there you can easily request it, or add it yourself.
With Linux (and OSS) you don't have Windows Genuine Advantage looking over your shoulder, ready to close your computer down if it suspects something is wrong. Similarly Linux is not DRM encumbered, so you can watch your media without requiring a DRM Chip in your monitor.
Security
Operating System security may be the foundation of a secure computer system, but it is a very difficult subject to broach without giving supporters of other OS's the impression that you are insulting them. However, Unix is historically one of the most secure Operating Systems, Linux was based on the Unix way of handling things. Inevitably it has inherited some of these strengths, security being one of those. Microsoft have recently added a function to Vista whereby a user can become Administrator for a short amount of time, and Admin logins are discouraged. The Unix world has been doing this for a great many years, an obvious point in System Security is that if your users have write access to the systems components then they can mess things up. It is not always deliberate, but if user John has write access to the entire system then should he accidentally download malware from his favourite Porno site, then it can affect the entire system (including other users files).
If on the other hand, John only has write access to his Home Directory (The equivalent of My Documents) then this malware can only affect his files. For John this may be a terrible loss, but the system administrators life will be made easier, as will the lives of all those who also have documents stored on that system.
Another benefit of using a Non-Windows operating system, is that because most malware is aimed at Windows, it will not run on other Operating Systems. This works in a similar way to soldiers running up a hot beach to attack a giant fortress, only to realise that their weapons are made of chocolate and have melted. The attackers weapons are in this case neutralised before they even encounter the layers of security that Linux has to offer.
Many critics claim that Windows is not less secure, but simply that as the most popular Operating System they are atacked far more. This line of thinking suggests that if Linux (Or Mac) was the dominant Operating System, then they would suffer from the same issues as Windows.
This line of thinking only holds water in so far as, if Linux were the dominant OS then yes it would be attacked more often. However given the vast differences in Security between the two OS's, I find it hard to believe that Linux would find itself in quite the same position. There are a great many decisions in the past that have led to MS incurring trouble. The Hiding of filename extensions for example, led to the distribution of a great many email viruses.
Linux also makes a great firewall, and one of my firewalls does in fact run on Slackware.
Choice
Linux has the great advantage of choice in everything, ranging from which Distribution to use up to which window manager to run. If you fidn you do not like SUSE Linux, then you could always try Mandriva or one of the many other Distros. You have a world of choice before you have even started using Linux. Many criticise this as confusing, but the majority would prefer to have the choice.
Once you have chose your Distro, you then have a choice of which software to run, most installation DVDs come with a selection of software for each category. For example for a Word Processor you could choose from OpenOffice, Abiword and a few others. If you have never used OSS software, you would probably have no idea which one of these to choose, however eventually you will decide which you prefer, and will find yourself recommending it to everyone.
On Windows, you get one Window Manager and One Desktop Environment. In fact because of this lack of choice most Windows users have absolutely no idea what these two things are, prefectly understandable really. Basically a window manager does exactly what it's name suggests, whilst the Desktop Environment is what gives you your Start menu, Desktop etc. OSS software has a wide range of these available, the most obvious being KDE and Gnome. There is quite a bitter rivalry between the users of KDE and the users of Gnome, not quite on the scale of the OS wars, but there have been a fair few flamewars.
At first the wide range of choice may overwhelm you a little, however as you learn the benefits of the software, you will find the one that best suits you. With MS Office you have a software suite aimed at pleasing everyone, so it may well be missing a function that you need, or be full of functions that you will never need. The range of choice in OSS means that you are more likely to find a suite that is suited to your needs. If the functionality you require is still not there, then you can easily ask the developers to add it. If you have the skills you could even add the functionality yourself.
Configurability
Anyone that has ever gone through the Windows Registry is likely to have thought "there must be an easier way!" Well, there is. On Linux 99% of your configuration files as text files that you can open and edit with a text editor such as Vi (or emacs). Those that are not text, can easily be modified from within the program that controls them, with the exception of proprietary software, the only configuration files that ever seem to be non-text are that way for security reasons.
Because I can adapt someone else's software to do the task I require, the potential configurability of Linux is never-ending. Not all configuration would be as straight forward as editing a text file, but the system can be made to do more or less anything.
Performance
I run a Distribution of Linux called Gentoo, the entire system is compiled from source upon installation, and (assuming you have configured things correctly) optimised for your system. This has left me with a fully functional Operating System with a minimal memory footprint. It took quite a lot of memory to actually compile the system, but once that stage was done my memory usage dropped. All the applications I run on the system are also compiled from source, so I find even on a system that is a few years old, I do not experience the dreaded 'lag'.
Even Binary Distributions have (in my experience) far better performance that Windows, and to an extent Mac. The boot time can be a little long for Linux, however once you see the Desktop everything is loaded and ready.
Current Needs
Linux fulfils my current needs perfectly, if I was a gamer then I would probably need a Windows system as well. In my Opinion Games are one of Linux's current shortcomings, however this is due to the Game Manufacturers and not Linux itself. I need a system that runs at a useable speed, no matter what I ask it to do (Using Virtual Machines can be quite a performance dampener) and that is reliable and stable. I have no use for a system that freezes part way through an important letter, similarly I have no need or desire to run a system that is packed out with DRM. For me Linux is the perfect system, and although my needs may change in the future, I am not sure Linux will ever cease to be on my hard drive.
