Would you pay 4.99$ for a Linux distro that works?

[silentmelodies]

Most enterprises fear Linux because of lack of support. Okay then.

Would you as an individual pay 4.99$ for a supported Linux distro that is garanteed to work? No bugs, no crashes, nothing. Just works. Something like Red Hat, only cheaper.

Would you?

[EposVox]

Well nothing is "guaranteed" to work. Everything experiences bugs and glitches, so a guarantee like that is only going to get the creator a lot of refunds and basically make it free anyway.

 

But for a truly unique, useful, but still polished Distro? Sure. But I've not seen something like that.

[Sauron]

Hell yes.

[Sauron]

But for a truly unique, useful, but still polished Distro? Sure. But I've not seen something like that.

 

Have you tried SUSE?

[EposVox]

Have you tried SUSE?

Quite literally installing into a VM as we speak. Weird timing... haha. Well, OpenSUSE.

[silentmelodies]

Quite literally installing into a VM as we speak. Weird timing... haha. Well, OpenSUSE.

The net installer is really dodgy. Especially the WiFi Network Installer. Garbage.

My experience at least. 

[DigitalHermit]

No.

I'd pay for specialists to build a well-documented linux distro for my purposes tho... if I was running a business,,,

[EposVox]

The net installer is really dodgy. Especially the WiFi Network Installer. Garbage.

My experience at least. 

Well I downloaded the full ISO

[flibberdipper]

No. Everything I've tried has worked fine.

[ToniBamboni]

What are the advantages of Linux over Windows?

[silentmelodies]

What are the advantages of Linux over Windows?

Can not be compared. Two operating systems targeted to different people.

[Sauron]

No.

I'd pay for specialists to build a well-documented linux distro for my purposes tho... if I was running a business,,,

 

A random specialist can't really support a distro by himself for business purposes. Build it, sure, even I could do that - make sure it works as indended down the road without losing any work time due to os problems, not really. Stuff like archbang tends to break with updates, simply because it has stuff preinstalled that may not work with the bleeding edge software that comes from the arch repositories.

[Jaybird]

id take linux over windows but with the lack of support from 3rd party members i have to stay with windows. 

 

I like unix over what ever windows uses. 

[DigitalHermit]

A random specialist can't really support a distro by himself for business purposes. Build it, sure, even I could do that - make sure it works as indended down the road without losing any work time due to os problems, not really. Stuff like archbang tends to break with updates, simply because it has stuff preinstalled that may not work with the bleeding edge software that comes from the arch repositories.

good point...

still, I'd rather invest in a person rather than a product for this...

I'd love to build my own (with a properly working install of ClamAV) to add to my toolkit but I don't have enough time and expertise...

Edit:

Also linux is mostly Free and Open-source Software (FOSS)... by paying 4.99 for the software it's no longer free...

[Jedi]

Most enterprises fear Linux because of lack of support. Okay then.

 

And you base this on what, exactly?..

 

Would you as an individual pay 4.99$ for a supported Linux distro that is garanteed to work? No bugs, no crashes, nothing. Just works. Something like Red Hat, only cheaper.

There is not a single piece of software that is guaranteed to have no bugs/crashes. Not a one. Secondly, Red Hat is far from a distro that "JUST WORKS".

Would you?

If there was such a thing, absolutely... I would pay much more than that for software that is absolutely guaranteed to work in every single circumstance, however given that not a thing like that exists... I am afraid I will be keeping my $4.99+

[Sauron]

What are the advantages of Linux over Windows?

 

The reasons you may want to use linux are, in no particular order:

 

1) Superior package management. By a long shot, it's not even close - you don't need to hunt on the internet for installers with linux, you can type 2 commands and the os will download and install the program for you including all dependencies. It's not always perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than windows.

 

2) Stability (of the kernel). In a well put together distro, system wide crashes are less frequent than on windows.

 

3) Customizability. You can build whatever desktop environment you want, or install a pre-made one and personalize it to your heart's content.

 

4) Low system requirements - unlike windows, Linux runs well even on outdated or underpowered hardware. The need for an ssd is a lot less marked.

 

5) Maintenance. As you probably know, windows installations slowly degenerate to a point where a clean install gives a lot of extra performance. This is less obvious on ssds, but it happens regardless in the long run. Not so with Linux.

 

6) Far lower risk of getting a virus, simply because Linux isn't very widespread and isn't a worthwile target.

 

7) It will never try to spy on you. What you do with your pc is your business only.

 

8) It's open source, which may or may not matter to you.

 

9) Built-in coding tools that windows can only dream of.

 

10) It's free! (or in this hypothesis, extremely cheap)

 

11) It's a lot more straight forward about what it's doing at any given time, whereas windows will hide how things actually work in favour of a more fool-proof environment. It helps you learn a lot about the way computers and operating systems work.

[manikyath]

you're starting out from a wrong concept tho.

 

windows isnt paid because it works, windows is paid because the dev team is paid.

 

in reality, if linux had the same market share as windurrz has, it'd probably work just as good.

something a lot of companies would pay for, is guaranteed service, just like they get by buying a machine with windows from a microsoft certified IT company, with certified software.

 

in fact, my parent's company is currently in the process of upgrading to a new server (the old one is that old no one really knows how long its been there) and they took the step of moving from the "windows running on bare metal" approach, to the world of virtualization. which, surprisingly, is a very linux dominated world.

 

EDIT: i should add i did some crude research.

- stats show roughly 90% of websites are hosted on some form of linux.

- someone "in the know" told me that roughly 90% of servers for internal company use (usually the windows workgroup stuff, and more advanced) are windows.

- same person guesstimates that the total split (which is a very rough guess) that its about 50/50

 

- 99% of supercomputer space is linux

[Sauron]

good point...

still, I'd rather invest in a person rather than a product for this...

I'd love to build my own (with a properly working install of ClamAV) to add to my toolkit but I don't have enough time and expertise...

Edit:

Also linux is mostly Free and Open-source Software (FOSS)... by paying 4.99 for the software it's no longer free...

 

I think the hypothesis here is that you'd be paying for the support, rather than for the software itself. As I said, a lot of people can set up a sleek distro with existing open software that works fine when first installed - but without active support it's pointless. Linux distros are mostly free, but with the disclaimer that if it kills your cat, you can't really complain.

[silentmelodies]

And you base this on what, exactly?..

LifagMediaGroup

Lets face it. He would rather eat crap than use something FOSS. 

Best example is his shitty wan show setup with XSplit, while OBS is smiling in the distance evilly. 

[Sauron]

which, surprisingly, is a very linux dominated world.

 

Not too surprising when Linux is the only kernel that supports kernel based virtualization properly. The dual gamer single pc build Linus did could never have been based on windows.

[conspiravision]

Most enterprises fear Linux because of lack of support. Okay then.

Would you as an individual pay 4.99$ for a supported Linux distro that is garanteed to work? No bugs, no crashes, nothing. Just works. Something like Red Hat, only cheaper.

Would you?

linux does work and enterprises do use supported linux its called red hat.

[Jedi]

LifagMediaGroup

Lets face it. He would rather eat crap than use something FOSS. 

Best example is his shitty wan show setup with XSplit, while OBS is smiling in the distance evilly. 

So somehow one particular group's refusal to use a product somehow equates to all enterprises not willing to use Linux simply based on it not being "supported"? I am not sure if I follow your logic here. You're making a broad statement based on a particular circumstance...

[EposVox]

A random specialist can't really support a distro by himself for business purposes. Build it, sure, even I could do that - make sure it works as indended down the road without losing any work time due to os problems, not really. 

 

If this is such a big problem, then clearly big teams can't even "support" a distro by themselves to be "guaranteed to work" so I'm not sure why this hypothetical exists.

[Kiyuubi]

I don't understand what you are saying.  Linux works perfectly fine for me.  Are you perhaps talking about more native applications/games/drivers for Linux?  If so, then yes, I would pay $5.

[Blake]

2) Stability (of the kernel). In a well put together distro, system wide crashes are less frequent than on windows.

 

3) Customizability. You can build whatever desktop environment you want, or install a pre-made one and personalize it to your heart's content.

 

4) Low system requirements - unlike windows, Linux runs well even on outdated or underpowered hardware. The need for an ssd is a lot less marked.

 

5) Maintenance. As you probably know, windows installations slowly degenerate to a point where a clean install gives a lot of extra performance. This is less obvious on ssds, but it happens regardless in the long run. Not so with Linux.

 

6) Far lower risk of getting a virus, simply because Linux isn't very widespread and isn't a worthwile target.

 

7) It will never try to spy on you. What you do with your pc is your business only.

 

8) It's open source, which may or may not matter to you.

 

9) Built-in coding tools that windows can only dream of.

 

10) It's free! (or in this hypothesis, extremely cheap)

 

11) It's a lot more straight forward about what it's doing at any given time, whereas windows will hide how things actually work in favour of a more fool-proof environment. It helps you learn a lot about the way computers and operating systems work.

Put down the kool-aid. There is something called requirements (be they business or personal). A lot of your points are just plain stupid or miss-informed/out-dated. Sure there are things that Linux better, but please look at context.

 

1) Sure, keep in mind that Windows PS has a packet manager now also, that is basically the same functionality wise.

2) Not so much. It depends on the user/admin maintaining the server. I will admit that in pre-Vista SP1 the kernal was not stable, now it comes down to the drivers. Windows will recover from a driver crash just like Linux, assuming the driver isn't a steaming pile of shit.

3) True, but the example you have given could also be a negative. Lets say your an book-keeper and you hot-desk between kiosk machine. Today you get to use KDE, tomorrow GNOME and the following? CLI all the way. At least with windows they keep the same look with 'minor' changes. If we go deeper and look at services/etc it is just as changeable, with a few exceptions (i.e. compiling your own kernel).

4) Please don't just grab extremes. Windows Server Core runs on a bag of potato's also, nano (admittedly not released) will run on next to nothing, when you are comparing the 30MB of RAM required for a cut back linux distro, don't compare it to a full blown, all the bells and whistles enabled Windows 7 Install. Compare like for like (oh 30MB for Linux kernel v 50MB for Windows kernel).

5) That's because people turn retarded when it comes to computer. "Oh look I am a doctor... but I can't connect to the internet for the 20th time this week (or insert other vague general issue), watch me cry like a baby till it is fixed" "Do a re-install, I am over fixing your shit for hours a day for you to break it within 20 mins". Lets face it, a newb linux user would do the same things on Linux, unless you locked it down, but then to compare apples to apples, lock down the windows system also. oh look, no issues on either system.

6) Linux still has many vulnerabilities (well to be fair Windows base is only slightly more insecure then a Linux base, both get issues when you add 3rd party applications, I will admit that Windows has a lot of catching up to do, but this short coming can easily be resolved.)

7) I agree, but this issue has been blown way out of proportion.

8) Depends on the Dev, who cares if it is open source if the source has be obfuscated and there isn't a single comment in the source code?

9) Who cares about built-in? buy that reasoning you shouldn't be using apache web servers as they are not built in.

10) Not in enterprise, look up the term technical debt.

11) Somethings, yes it is good, others? not at all. depends.