Why all the hate on Windows (7)?

[BustinJustin]

I have noticed that people who use some sort of Linux distro as their main OS really don't like Windows.  I cannot understand this at all.  Sure, Microsoft charges over 100 bucks if you want more than Home Premium but look how easy it is to use. And (unless you have no idea how the internet works) it's secure.

 

But I see people calling it "Windoze" and acting like it's the worst thing ever for computers.

 

Now, I'm not just saying this without any experience with Linux.  I have used Linux extensively (enough) and I am not impressed enough to switch.  Even installing software is a pain in the neck with Linux.  Wanna watch YouTube videos? Better open up that terminal and know what the heck you're doing. Wanna play games? TF2 is your best choice. 

 

So, my question:

 

Why do you like Linux better than Windows?  I'll put up a poll, but just the fact that it's open source doesn't cut it for me.

[unidentical]

I hate M$ with a passion but for the moment it's the only OS that will do for me.

 

The day Linux gets full mainstream support though, I will be an instant convert.

[Owen]

Yeah, I agree. Linux is great as a second OS or for an extra laptop, but I wouldn't use it for a primary OS, especially for my gaming pc.

 

Oh, and also, you don't need terminal to watch youtube silly :P

[KBGaming]

It's like saying why people prefer AMD over Intel. Or AMD over nVidia.

People have their preferences. Some like Linux because of the terminal usage, some like Mac OS 'cause it's simple, and some like Windows because, well, it's a mix of the two.

I personally prefer Windows 7.

I've tried Windows 8, I didn't feel like it was for non-touch devices.

[WhatARoaster]

I use both, im used to both, im indifferent to MS, but they both work (MS most of the time). 

[GoodBytes]

Many factors:

-> Fanaticism. I think it's a human thing to cheer for a group of people we believe in. (Console war, Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD, Sports team, etc.)

-> Linux is free and open source, and to some they think that this is better than an OS that you have to pay for, and because it's from a big corporation, they see it as not caring about the user, and focus on profits.

-> Personal preference on power features. People hate MacOS because you can't do anything, everything is locked in. However, many love it, because it's like this. People love Linux because it can make you pancake and bacon in the morning, however others hates it, because you always need to use the Terminal, and the simplest things is always complicated, especially if you don't use highly modified Linux distros such as Ubuntu (BTW, Ubuntu is hated by the Linux community because of this). Some people live being submerged with options, even if they are useless. Others, can't stand them, and find it clutters everything.

Both OS have many advantages and disadvantages. You can't have 1 OS make everyone happy. There is always one that will complain about something.

Sadly, you have people with extreme biases, close minded to what they think is best, and think they are cleaver with "M$" and "Windoze", even thought Linux has also it's super duper long list of issues, like MacOS and Windows OS. Denying them, is being idiotic.

 

However if you want a list why I like Linux/Windows and dislike, I can make a short list

 

Like Linux:

•     Runs on anything.
•     Separated in components, which allows you to install what you want, and what you need, and give you choice for even components.
•     Because of the above point, it can be made thin and light, so that it can run on slow computers like BeagleBone, Raspberry Pi, and such computer.
•     Open Source, allows the OS to be free and continuously improve over time, and things can be made that supass the capabilities of the OS initially, like Real Time version of Linux can be made, or adapted it for cellphones (Android), and so on.
•     Powerful and flexible. You want to do something, there is most likely a way to do it.
•     Package manager
   

Hate Linux:

•     Important end-user features are ignored.
•     GUI design of panels is made by developers who really hates GUI, and you can see it, and no GUI guideline. Font rendering is abysmal.
•     Very complicated and time consuming to do the most simplest things, in many cases. Many applications submerges you with options after options where most of them are simply not needed. Many devs. don't have focus in the direction they make their app. They are trying to please everything to ensure maximum usage, but at the end, it's a unneeded mess.
•     Too many distros, and each distro (except Arch Linux) modifies or highly modifies Linux, making it very hard to find support, especially if the distro you picked is not widely used.
•     Arrogant and very Snobbish community, unwelcoming to new users, except if you go to something like Ubuntu, or paid support from distro's.
•     Linux OS and it's software, moves at snail paste
•     Cluster f*k of folder structure, where no one knows the real purposes of the folders, and software dumps anything on anything. Might as well have 1 folder called "stuff", and dump programs, OS, and everything else, with no sub-folders.

 

Like Windows:

•     Isn't afraid of chance, and has tendency to innovate or create something above current times (Windows 1, Windows 95, Windows Vista, Windows 8). People freak out, but end up being the right decision and the way forward. This is quiet impressive for large corporation. This should be encouraged. Sadly, people, especially computer enthusiasts, freak out for a color change of the background. No wonder Microsoft ignores feedback.
•     Well balance between power/flexibility and ease of use (for the average user, and power users)
•     Great support.
•     User is always thought about when designing anything. Might not be perfect, but usually is over time, and at least they try.
•     Folder structure is simple and makes sense. Full documentation on how to use it and their purpose exists with a complete guideline.
•     GUI guideline
•     Most things, even system tweaks are easy and quick to do.

Hate Windows:

•     Software teams don't communicate between each other, and help each other. This results that the teams need to re-invent the wheel for something that already exists. For example, Microsoft has a free web development software called Web Matrix, it's fairly new. Web Matrix does not use the ribbon code of Office, or Windows, but rather makes it's own. Web Matrix uses it's own text editor, instead of using the engine of Visual Studio. Also, WebMatrix could be an add-on for Visual Studio at the end of the day... but it's not the Visual Studio team, so that can't be done. Zune not integrated with Windows Media Player. XBox Music not inside Windows Media Player, etc.
   
•     Too many change of direction. For example, .NET with C++, Microsoft made. Great, amazing! Oh wait the plug is pulled on that. XNA.. great! amazing!  people love it! plug pulled, etc
•     Old things are ignored
•     Things are sometime rushed, and it shows.

That is all I can think about for now. But, if I think about it, my list is long for every up/downs of each OS.

[zoltan]

I don't hate Windoze, I use it because I have to, but it's like driving a car from the 70's to me, I don't think it's contemporary anymore, it lacks too much features and is too unsafe for modern usage in my opinion, and in comparison to a good GNU/Linux distro (not a half-baked one like Ubuntu or derivatives, but a real major distro), Windoze is a terrible productivity killer and nerve-wrecker because it has so much problems all of the time and so many things you have to take into account to be safe or be able to continue to work.

 

Now I do realize that even occasional GNU/Linux-users that are not PC enthusiasts or productivity- and security-oriented enterprise users, don't even realize the amount of valuable time that Windoze actually steals. The organizations that have migrated completely to modern GNU/Linux based operating systems and have left the old rebranded phased out 80's OS/2 Warp that Windoze is behind, have saved a lot of money, even if they actually paid more for the software because they've made their own custom linux distros and applications (e.g. city of Munich saved over 11 million USD migrating to their own custom linux distro), because of reduction in problem solving and productivity loss with Windoze. Others have tried to keep Windoze but migrate from Office to OpenOffice to save money, but failed, because the problem is not with Office, the problem is with Windoze.

 

In my company, everyone wants GNU/Linux, because everyone is an IT professional, and problemsolving on their own production machine is not on company time. Those that wanted to use Windoze in the beginning had to stay for hours extra sometimes because of problems with updates failing, drivers not working, malware issues, incompatibility with enterprise-grade storage solutions or network security solutions, incompatibility with common file formats, slow working computers, overheating hardware, and lack of application software for productivity, and some problems could just never be solved. Everyone runs his own favorite GNU/Linux distro with his own favorite desktop environment, everything is fast, there are never problems, everything is compatible and just works out of the box on most major distros (in windoze you have to spend a lot of time trying to make most games run as they should, in linux those things never happen, if you have a major distro, everything just works, you don't have to do anything or know anything).

 

On top of that, you actually know what linux and the GNU/Linux distro you use and all the FOSS you use does/do, because it's open source, you don't have to take Microstufft's word for it that it doesn't do anything bad, you can see for yourself.

 

Plus the choice and options are unseen in any other operating systems, everyone can run GNU/Linux, but have completely different looking and feeling systems, because there is just so much software available that is not available in Windows and it's easy to get in seconds with the package manager, and everything just works immediately, and you can opt to install beta or alpha versions and share your experience so that the end product will be better.

 

GNU/Linux distros and the Linux kernel are not made by hobbyists, these are mainly made by big corporations like RedHat, Intel, AMD, Novell, IBM, the Linux Foundation, etc..., but everything is checked by the community and the users before it becomes a released product, so the quality control is much more important.

Also, Windoze or any other closed source commercial operating system can never be as good as GNU/Linux, for the simple reason that Microstufft or Crapple could never afford the man hours of R&D that went into the development of the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux operating systems. Imagine tens of thousands of specialists in companies like IBM, Intel, Novell, RedHat, etc..., but also tens of thousands of specialists and enthusiasts in other companies or at home, working together online to produce a product. That is what linux and GNU/Linux is, that is the added value, it's just the most expensive kernel and operating system in terms of R&D costs ever by the old standards, but that has levitated the quality and features to such a high leveln that comparing it with commercial closed source operating systems is not even sensible.

 

Windoze and GNU/Linux cannot be compared, Windoze is a rebranded version of a long phased out system developed in the 80's by IBM, and sold to Microshaft when IBM moved on to linux and GNU/Linux development in the mid nineties. It's a sales platform, that serves to offload commercial applications to customers and that is revamped every couple of years, whereby mostly features are removed (from Vista to 7 to 8, the only thing Microstufft did was remove features to make it faster, and it's still not fast in comparison to modern operating systems). I want to play games and use Adobe Lightroom, which are commercial closed source applications that are made to run on Windoze (like many games are made to run on console, not that that's the highest quality in the world, but it's a good sales platform), so I use Windoze, but I stay far away from it for any serious stuff or for productivity. Try GNU/Linux, most people I know that have migrated to GNU/Linux have only one comment that says it all after some time: "I now have free time to do the stuff I want to do, Windoze stole my entire free time". Well, for the hard core gamers, that's still true, because now they're using GNU/Linux they have more time to game, but they have to game on Windoze lol.

[BustinJustin]

What's wrong with Ubuntu?

[AvoK95]

The main reason is, why blow off hundreds of dollars on an OS when you can have a smoother one that is free and open source?

[Profquast]

As long as there is no driver for the Xonar DSX, the AMD driver won't install correctly and for some reason everything looks a little bit unsharp, linux is unuseable for me.

[GoodBytes]

What's wrong with Ubuntu?

 

It's a highly modified Linux, it's basically Linux... "Windows edition", if you will. You have dialog box pop-up for administrative task. You have an easy to use network manager like in Windows (no need to write special scripts), and long configuration, and require the terminal for reconnection in the case it drops, you have the concept of Drives, which is a Windows thing (normally in Linux, everything is folders... including your device... your webcam is recognized as a folder, for example (this is also some of my complaints on Linux)), you have easy access panel for many settings, which normally is scripts edits of Linux.

You have things that requires administrative privileges but doesn't under Ubuntu as it's been modified. For example, you can adjust the system time and have it stored/saved permanently, and so on.

A lot of these modifications is see as making Linux "less secure" (even thaught I found that it's a bit preposterous, but that's just me), or just simply just not Linux... it's Windows... but Linux... So that bugs Linux supporters/enthusiast.

 

Also, because of the modification that Ubuntu does, you have commands and command arguments that changes, and that makes support more difficult, and you get stuff like:

"If you use Ubuntu, do this", "If you use Debian, use this", "if you use red hat do this", and "if you others distributions, use this", so it complicated support.

[GoodBytes]

snip

 

As much as I appriciate reading people other views, you really don't know anything about Windows, I am afraid. A lot of your knowledge on Windows is wrong, I am afraid.

You should get yourself updated on information about Windows.

 

Also, argumentation tip: If you want your post, especially your which is quiet long and detailed (I like that! Keep it up!), when you say stuff like "Windoze", "M$", and "Microshaft", and the rest. You are not viewed seriously, and you prevent people from continuing to read your post. So instead of providing an argumentation which promotes critical thinking among the topic of conversation, you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and people stop reading after the first 2 sentences. And basically, it makes you post, which could raise very important points, be missed.

 

It's like if you have a person that comes in front of you,can't formulate a single, somewhat understandable sentence, because he or she is not thinking on how to formulate what he is trying to say. He or She, might have the most brilliant idea ever, but because that person is expressing himself or herself poorly, you brush him or her off, as if he or she doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

As much as you hate saying "Windows" and "Microsoft", being respectful, calm and professional, even if you are talking about your wost enemy, makes you look a lot smarter, and wiser. Basically, you being the better man. :D

[IdeaStormer]

All OS's have strengths and weaknesses if you concentrate on the weaknesses yea that OS blows but if you use the best tool for the job it is what the real answer is.

 

There are times when you need a Windows OS to get a particular job/task done well.

Then there are times when you need a Unix/Linux OS to get another particular job done well.

 

Being able to use both and know when to use them is part of being tech savvy and not just a whiner/complainer/hater.

[Night]

I dislike windows for its mainstream-ness. I would jump ship to linux if video games were primarily developed for Linux. Thats the main reason I use Windows and I would swap in a heart beat if all my games suddenly ran on Linux.

Windows 7 itself is my favorite version of Windows and what I will run indefinatley if im able to. Untill Linux has full gaming support ill stick to Win7.

[BustinJustin]

I dislike windows for its mainstream-ness. I would jump ship to linux if video games were primarily developed for Linux. Thats the main reason I use Windows and I would swap in a heart beat if all my games suddenly ran on Linux.

Windows 7 itself is my favorite version of Windows and what I will run indefinatley if im able to. Untill Linux has full gaming support ill stick to Win7.

Hipster much?  Yeah, it's mainstream. But it's mainstream for a reason. If Windows truly was bad, it wouldn't be as popular.

[Night]

Hipster much?  Yeah, it's mainstream. But it's mainstream for a reason. If Windows truly was bad, it wouldn't be as popular.

Very good point. I think I just dont like the fact I have to pay for it when there are free alternatives. But then im going back to my gaming rant.

[zoltan]

As much as I appriciate reading people other views, you really don't know anything about Windows, I am afraid. A lot of your knowledge on Windows is wrong, I am afraid.

You should get yourself updated on information about Windows.

 

Also, argumentation tip: If you want your post, especially your which is quiet long and detailed (I like that! Keep it up!), when you say stuff like "Windoze", "M$", and "Microshaft", and the rest. You are not viewed seriously, and you prevent people from continuing to read your post. So instead of providing an argumentation which promotes critical thinking among the topic of conversation, you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and people stop reading after the first 2 sentences. And basically, it makes you post, which could raise very important points, be missed.

 

It's like if you have a person that comes in front of you,can't formulate a single, somewhat understandable sentence, because he or she is not thinking on how to formulate what he is trying to say. He or She, might have the most brilliant idea ever, but because that person is expressing himself or herself poorly, you brush him or her off, as if he or she doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

As much as you hate saying "Windows" and "Microsoft", being respectful, calm and professional, even if you are talking about your wost enemy, makes you look a lot smarter, and wiser. Basically, you being the better man. :D

 

With all respect, but I don't quite understand your post here: so you say that I don't know anything about Windoze (enjoying freedom of speech here, not being disrespectful towards Microstufft) because I don't know how to convey my opinion properly and I'm not a good man. Very sorry, does not compute: instead of specifying what part of my post is wrong by giving the correct facts about Windoze, you formulate an argumentum ad hominem against me personally, although the subject is Windoze versus GNU/Linux? Obviously you know more about arguements and conveying them than me and are the better man, because I just don't understand it: do you mean Windoze is better than GNU/Linux because I can't speak or you don't like the way I talk about WIndoze or Microshaft or Crapple? No harm done, don't worry about it, it's an internet forum, it's not important or anything, and I'm not offended by the ad hominem arguement, but please elaborate on Windoze and what in my post is so wrong and what got you all worked up about it, I would like to read a real to the point arguement.

[madcow]

It is simple why I prefer Linux to Windows.. It is overall easier to use and more capable for the things I enjoy doing on the computer.

 

Much of it comes down to the portability aspect of the OS. You can really take apart Linux, add/remove components, mix it up, reassemble it and it will still boot. Replication, backup and migration are often as easy as copying files over.

[Godlygamer23]

I don't think Linux is better than Windows. They both have their own advantages and disadvantages, and that's just the way it is.

[BustinJustin]

One thing I like about Windows is one thing I hate about Apple.  Windows is Windows. There is one version of it (one XP, one Win7, one Win8 [boo!].  With Linux, you have a metric sh*t ton of distros and each does a different thing better than another.  To get help, you gotta find the right person on the right forum and they may be running a different release than you and their help may or may not actually be help.  That being said, that is one thing I love about Android phones.  The choice; you can pay what you want, but you get what you pay for.

[Godlygamer23]

One thing I like about Windows is one thing I hate about Apple.  Windows is Windows. There is one version of it (one XP, one Win7, one Win8 [boo!].  With Linux, you have a metric sh*t ton of distros and each does a different thing better than another.  To get help, you gotta find the right person on the right forum and they may be running a different release than you and their help may or may not actually be help.  That being said, that is one thing I love about Android phones.  The choice; you can pay what you want, but you get what you pay for.

What are you talking about? There's not one version of Windows. With W7, there's like 3-4 different versions of it. So I disagree with that. Linux has lots of distros because people make lots of them. And it's good, because you can get the look that you want. Besides, you can change Ubuntu around relatively easily using Ubuntu Software Center(I use it)

[zoltan]

It's a highly modified Linux, it's basically Linux... "Windows edition", if you will. You have dialog box pop-up for administrative task. You have an easy to use network manager like in Windows (no need to write special scripts), and long configuration, and require the terminal for reconnection in the case it drops, you have the concept of Drives, which is a Windows thing (normally in Linux, everything is folders... including your device... your webcam is recognized as a folder, for example (this is also some of my complaints on Linux)), you have easy access panel for many settings, which normally is scripts edits of Linux.

You have things that requires administrative privileges but doesn't under Ubuntu as it's been modified. For example, you can adjust the system time and have it stored/saved permanently, and so on.

A lot of these modifications is see as making Linux "less secure" (even thaught I found that it's a bit preposterous, but that's just me), or just simply just not Linux... it's Windows... but Linux... So that bugs Linux supporters/enthusiast.

 

Also, because of the modification that Ubuntu does, you have commands and command arguments that changes, and that makes support more difficult, and you get stuff like:

"If you use Ubuntu, do this", "If you use Debian, use this", "if you use red hat do this", and "if you others distributions, use this", so it complicated support.

Ubuntu is the same linux as all the other distros that use that linux lernel, it changes practically nothing to linux. Source: http://jwboyer.livejournal.com/47022.html?nojs=1

It certainly has nothing to do with Windoze. Ubuntu doesn't even try to look like Windoze. In general there is no comparison between the user interfaces of GNU/Linux distros and Windoze, as even the lowest resource GNU/Linux desktop environments have user experience enhancing application launch and search features that Windoze has never had and never will have.

 

Linux is just a kernel, a reversed - and re-engineered UNIX kernel, originally developed by Linus Thorvalds, published as open source for the entire community to develop it further to what it is now and what it will be in the future. Linux is not an operating system.

 

GNU/Linux are operating systems based upon the linux kernel. Ubuntu is based upon the Debian core, and was originally also very well community supported, until the owner of Ubuntu, the English company Canonical, started blowing up bridges with the community to implement it's own commercially oriented packages. The result is an operating system that makes a lot of compromises in comparison to the major GNU/Linux distros. Ubuntu has done a lot of marketing, which has resulted in a relatively large user base on consumer PC's, but it's not very popular in professional or enthusiast computer circles. The user experience with Ubuntu is arguably not as smooth and streamlined as with other major GNU/Linux distros, as Canonical doesn't have the same developer base large GNU/Linux projects have, Ubuntu is not supported by big companies like RedHat or Novell or Intel or AMD or IBM like Fedora or OpenSuSE is, and has only a very limited community support in comparison to Debian, Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, or even Mageia, Slackware or Gentoo, and the major desktop environment projects like KDE or Gnome Shell or XFCE or Cinnamon or OpenBox or LXDE, etc... Ubuntu has bitten off more than they can chew basically, they don't have the assets to realize their goals to the same quality level as major community and industry supported GNU/Linux projects.

 

There are 7 major GNU/Linux distros, all of them are made by a community, some of them are sponsored by a large company. The ones sponsored by a large company are Fedora/CentOS (sponsored by RedHat, that makes RHEL, which is the industry standard professional GNU/Linux distro), and OpenSuSE (sponsored by Novell, which also markets SuSE, another industry standard professional GNU/Linux distro). The unsponsored major community GNU/Linux distros are Debian (very large community that can pride itself on building one of the most stable and compatible distros out there, definitely also an industry standard professional GNU/Linux distro), Arch Linux (very large and very professional community of enthusiasts that can pride itself on building a very modern enthusiast class allround GNU/Linux distro with a very high level of performance and features), Slackware (a very respected community of very knowledgeable enthusiasts that create a more hermetic GNU/Linux distro that uses extremely low resources and redefines performance, especially on older or less powerful systems), Mageia/ROSA (the continuation of Mandrake, another professional grade RPM-based GNU/Linux distro with some very nice system management features, the community consists mainly of ex-Mandrake developers), and Gentoo (very large community of highly motivated enthusiasts that make an extremely fast and stable allround GNU/Linux distro made for IT enthusiasts). There are other GNU/Linux distros that have developed their own core, but those do not have the same large community. The major GNU/Linux distros exchange technology all the time, for instance, technologies like SELinux or Systemd or Python3, might pop up first in one major distro, but then be adopted by other major distros, which makes for a situation whereby every major GNU/Linux distro has it's own focus, but technology-wise they are all pretty close and modern.

 

Besides the major distros, there are two kinds of derivatives of major distros: remixes and true derivatives. Remixes are major distro cores preloaded with a selection of software packages to serve a particular purpose. Examples are Manjaro Linux (based on the Arch core), Kororaa (based on Fedora), Fedora Spins (based on Fedora), SuSE-Studio (online free custom distro builder from Novell: you can log in, select whatever you want in your own custom distro, the Novell server will build the custom GNU/Linux distro for you and you can download it for free and even put your brand on it and make it available for other users), etc... Then there are true derivatives, which are based on a major distro, but a lot of changes have been done to it, so that it is still compatible with the basic structure and package manager of the major distro it is based on, but there are also a lot of non-compatible features added or taken away. Examples are Ubuntu/Mint and most other non-major GNU/Linux distros for the x86 platform, and a whole lot of dedicated or special purpose GNU/Linux distros, like phone operating systems, router firmware, firmware for media centers, firmware for bottle recycling machines in supermarkets, etc...

 

Some operating systems use the free and open source linux kernel, but are proprietary nonetheless, like Android, which is based on the linux kernel, but adds to that a HAL (hardware abstraction layer), and on top of that a proprietary graphical operating system, i.e. Google Android. These are not considered GNU/Linux distros, because they aren't published under the GNU licence, even though they are often free as in free beer. If they are not published under the GNU License, they are however not free as in freedom, so they are considered "tainted" because there is a security/privacy risk involved with software not being completely open source and customisable by the community: as soon as software cannot be freely adapted/improved by anyone, and as soon as software cannot be completely checked for what it does and how it works, a user has to trust the source of the software instead of seeing for himself how safe it is, which is always a risk.

Even though Ubuntu is not yet formally proprietary, it is as good as proprietary technology-wise, therefore it can arguably be considered "tainted" already to a certain extent and by some people, but for most GNU/Linux-users, the user experience (lot of bugs, incompatibilities, latencies, annoying things that are very uncommon in major GNU/Linux distros and therefore shocking to GNU/Linux users) is the determining factor to dismay Ubuntu, most GNU/Linux users are tech savvy enthusiasts or professional efficiency- and productivity-oriented users, they don't really engage in philosophy or semantics that much, it's all about the user experience.

[GoodBytes]

Hmm no. You should re read my post, and also you are wrong. Ubuntu is a highly modified Linux.

[zoltan]

Hmm no. You should re read my post, and also you are wrong. Ubuntu is a highly modified Linux.

 

Please read the source link I've posted and read up on what linux is.

 

I'm looking forward to reading your motivated comments with links to sources.

 

As I respect this forum by posting links to sources for the statements I make, I expect the same respect from anyone that doesn't agree. You seem pretty determined that I am wrong, so please, it shoudn't be hard to post a source link.

[LargeGeek]

Can't we all just get along?!

 

But seriously....

As a daily driver (and being a gamer) I couldn't imagine anything other than Windows. But I REALLY appreciate Linux and have lived with it on my different laptops on and off (dual booted Ubuntu ages ago). Linux has saved my bacon more times and helped solve more problems than I care to remember. I use a Puppy ISO on a Y.U.M.I. multiboot flash drive (along with a plethora of other utilities and ISOs). Used LinuxMint on my netbook that I used as my 'go' machine for a while. It has proven to be infinitely useful as a 'tool' but is just not right for my main machine.

 

Sadly as far as Linux has come I find there are still too many instances where I end up hacking away in the terminal to solve really small problems. It is more an issue of interface and automated troubleshooting. Network troubleshooting is a big one that keeps me from recommending Linux to less technically inclined persons. 

 

Also with that said...I am finding it hard to justify a full blown computer to many people nowadays. I have ended up giving the OK to a lot of people to rely on an iPad or Android tablet to satisfy their computing needs. Usually they still have a desktop and printer (aged they may be) that will fill in the gaps, but the tablet is plenty for their casual web and app use. <Insert reference that Android == Linux>