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

[Albatross]

Well, since people pay for buggy ridden software (Windows) I suppose some would pay for the ability to have a bug free perfect OS...

 

Me, I'd rather pay for the support, if anything but with that said, Linux works great for me so no.

[Sauron]

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. 

 

1) it's still nowhere near ready, and the repositories aren't anywhere near complete.

2) Hasn't been my experience

3) My point was not to show off "the undebatable superiority of linux" but rather give reasosn why he may want to switch. These don't need to be pure advantages for everyone.

4) Windows always comes with a graphical user interface unless I'm missing something. Linux, not necessarily. Plus, server core is not something a normal user would be satisfied with, whereas given the same functionality, a linux install is most definitely lighter.

5) Not what I meant at all. Windows simply doesn't handle clutter properly. That's why all the "optimization tools" exist, and even they can't avoid a performance downgrade in the long run.

6) Of course, but not as many that a normal user will run into. Viruses are a lot less common because of the lower adoption and you don't need to fetch stuff on the internet, risking an infection every time if you're not careful.

7) I don't care too much either, but some people do and some have very good reasons.

8) As I said, it may or may not matter to him.

9) Built in, as in they get proper support from all parts of the system and don't require you to install 50 system extensions to even get running. The man pages are also something that windows simply doesn't have.

10) It's free for him

11) can't think of many situations where I wanted to know what it was doing, and it refused to give me the info.

[Burusutazu]

I know Zorin has a premium version of their OS that comes with online support, pre-installed programs, and extra desktop options.... Companies that sell Ubuntu laptops like System76 will also give you full Ubuntu support ect.

[Ryaou]

$5 isn't expensive so most likely, it really depends on the "features" and what it's targeted use for is and such

[Brian_Wee]

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.

You should try wine then.

However, I feel that it is as most windows games do not have a linux equivalent that makes linux more secure