Having developed Wine for a while, I'd like to think I earned the right to nit-pick the name a bit.

Giving his post a new title seems a bit superfluous if you're going to reply with the old one. ;)

That aside, I was actually considering locking the thread earlier on in the day. I foresee more flame wars than actual, factual discussion on the merits of which operating system is better and why.

Then again, as we both know, that discussion is entirely futile, as it all really depends on the needs of the user, and that user is always going to think their needs are everyone's needs. So unless you're out to prove a point and stop him from ignorantly arguing untrue facts, this discussion will probably die sooner rather than later. But in an effort to prevent that and actually make something of it, I present the following:

It is my unprofessional opinion (as I can't really tread water next to your qualifications, Mr university student graduate =D), that Linux itself isn't exactly very computer newbie friendly. I know my way around it well enough now that I can install things and configure them, but I find it difficult to even check a file size without resorting to the manual (please note, I am talking about using a server version through SSH access, so I have no actual GUI to speak of).

Outside of that, my experience with Ubuntu 6 was that of disappointment, as my 1.4GHz Intel laptop with 1.5GB of RAM failed to run the GUI without issue (yes it was installed, not running from the CD). The interface was slow to respond and the computer seemed to spend more time thinking than anything else. Whether or not that computer just wasn't up to par is beyond me, but it seemed to run Vista (not a new laptop by any means, I bought it in 2005, and it was far from top of the line) with far less problems than it did Ubuntu 6.

My desktop which is a 3GHz Duel Core (at the time it only had 512MB DDR Ram however) also suffered from the same issues. Which leads me to believe either my computers (at the time, Ubuntu 6 was the latest version at the time) are incredibly terrible or the OS just doesn't like them. Either way, I'm still a Windows man.

I'll concede that I like the fact that Linux is far more easy to control in a sense that I could, for instance, write a BASH script to do something. Or hell, I could even write a PHP/Perl/Python/Ruby script to do what I want (I can do this with Windows, but it's trickier), when I want and how I want it done.

To give respect where respect is due, I can honestly say I wouldn't know PHP (or the time I invested in Python for that matter) as well as I do now without the Linux server I'm running (bare in mind: I don't know Python anymore. I only messed around with wxPython, and not enough to actually completely memorise the language syntax).

(On a side note, I will admit that BackTracker 3(?) was quite the experience. It proved to be handy in gaining access to some free internet when I was travelling the country.¹ And it showed none of the issues Ubuntu 6 did while running off the CD.)

1: No, I never got a chance to actually hack a WEP encrypted wireless network without the permission of the owner. See, at a particular caravan park, the owner had some random loser setup the WiFi with a WEP encryption and said loser had written down the wrong password. The guy had been receiving complaints, but because his computer was automatically set to accept it, he ignored them. After I made my complaint and was rejected, I told him I could get him the correct password, and did so.

Stephen001 wrote:

Having developed Wine for a while, I'd like to think I earned the right to nit-pick the name a bit.

I think I got everyone in that bad habit, sorry.

I feel Linux (with GNOME or KDE attached) is very user friendly.
Just because it "doesn't work like Windows" doesn't mean it's user friendly.

It takes a while to learn something new, saying something isn't user friendly because it doesn't work like "X" seems a bit illogical to me.

I like having all of my packages in one central location, makes reinstall a breeze, plus it keeps the programs up-to-date.

Wine does not make things free anymore than Windows makes things free. It doesn't magically crack your copy of Office 2003 when you install it. You still have to aquire your software in the same way as on Windows when using Wine.

On top of that, Wine is a horrible example of free because Wine is funded by, among other donations, by a for pay version that streamlines the whole system. The maintainers for Wine, CodeWeavers, make a nice dime on CrossOver. Linux users pay for things that they find valuable.

VMWare is another great example of "for pay" software on Linux. They are even closed source. But they make plenty enough off Linux users to afford to continue development of their software on the Linux platform, despite great free competition with VirtualBox.

I think you misunderstand the concept of free behind Linux. Free for Linux means free as in speech, not free as in beer. Often times programs and OSs are both types of free, but it isn't uncommon for them to be either type of free.

I run Linux on my desktop, my TV PC, and my netbook. That is to say, every machine I own. Even my phone is wrote on a Linux base. I do, however, own two licenses to XP, have a legal copy of the Win7 RC and will likely buy an upgrade when the RC hits EOL. I have a library of legally purchased PC games that would impress almost anyone. Heck, I just bought Borderlands last night. I am not the exception. Most Linux users understand the value of time spent programming. They understand that everything can't be free as in beer. What most Linux users want is for as much as possible to be free as in speech.

I like to actually run programs as well, which is why I prefer Linux.

Jeff8500 wrote:

Are you accusing Steve Jobs of being a pirate?

You're really going in the wrong way here. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak used to sell blue boxes before getting into the pc business. Yes, Steve Jobs is a thief.