Finding the Right OS for a PhD Student: Making the Best Choice

[EE4life]

Hi all,

I am currently a electrical engineering PhD student, and I spend a huge amount of my time on a computer and I plan to do so in the future as well. So, I thought it is wise to look around for another OS to use besides Windows 8, which is tolerable and works but I can't help but think there is something better.

I do some computer coding, I use mathematical software (matlab, labview, python). I think all the programs I use can be used in windows, mac, and linux.

I tried ubuntu, but I gave up after I spent hours and hours trying to install Java correctly. I am a not a computer enthusiast, rather I just want a good system. Do you think it is worth the time to learn how to use a Linux system? Or will Windows suffice just as it always has? I am not necessarily a open source enthusiast, so I will not buy into linux just because it is free. What do think I should use for my operating system? I am not afraid to try a linux distro again or even mac, but I want to be sure that my learning investment is well spent.

I humbly ask for some advice.

 

[Simon Bridge]

You want to start a "My OS is the best" war?!

When I was postgrad I used Windows NT at college and Windows XP at home ... which was pretty much as you described: it works OK but, also like you, I'd really like to do better than just OK.

Computer science used a lot of macs ... which were also kinda OK - quite good as long as you stayed inside the apple world.

A friend put me on to linux and I have not looked back.
I currently use Ubuntu - mostly due to lazyness. I usually suggest one of the Debian flavors.

You don't want to have a steep learning curve, probably try Linux Mint.
The main thing is to check your hardware compatability - linux has very good HW support but not all vendors play ball.
But it is definitely worth learning.

http://www.linuxmint.com/

Installing java is a common task so there are walkthroughs.
i.e. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Java

Linux favors Free and Open Source software, though you may purchase a license to run propriety software if the vendor will sell you one. If it ain't FOSS, you must use vendor support.

You probably found out that the FOSS implementation of JAVA is OpenJDK - which is the linux default.
It will probably feel different to use than the propriety JAVA you are likely to be used to. This is mostly superficial, like the Apple implementation of Java may feel different to some people.

It is usually worth the effort of getting used to the new one. It won't make it harder to switch back to using Oracle Java or someone elses ... the whole point is that the JRE is platform independent so everything should play nice.

The biggest advantage of choosing some linux for you is the learning support and information.
Generally try not to duplicate your windows experience and functionality one-to-one ... the windows experience is what you want to get away from right?

The second biggest advantage to you, initially, is the freedom - but that won't become apparent right away so you can ignore that for now. It can become very important at higher academic levels, but depends on what you do. It's the kind of thing that grows on you.

Like you I did not get into it from the freedom etc etc political stuff, so I know to chill when people don't want to hear it. The big advantage for me was the low entry price - and in my day you had to compile your own kernel! The next big advantage was the toolset - I became massively more productive after the change and only missed some of my windows games.

These days I find it quite painful to use windows or osx.

I'd also suggest looking for a linux user group near you - ask them when the next "software freedom day" or "installfest" is ... chances are some of them will be willing to guide you through the early acclimatization stage.
Now there is going to be some arguing.

 

[rcgldr]

Assuming you're working on a project(s) for a professor, you'd probably want to use the same OS that the professor, fellow students, and what's in your lab, are using for the project(s). Most of your time is going to be spent generating programs or documents for projects, or working with lab equipment, and not much will be spent dealing with the operating system itself, so I'm not sure that the OS really matters as much as the tool sets you'll be using and I assume most tool sets would be available for most OS.

 

[DrDu]

Although I don't own one myself, I think a Mac is the most decent solution. You can use Microsoft office if you have to, but you also have a unixoid operating system which permits you to do serious work.
In comparison with different kinds of linux, there is better support for drivers and the like.

I am using linux myself, but as you realized, it can take hours to get some standard software working, and, despite libreoffice and the like, you will always have trouble if you have to cooperate with Microsoft office users.

Microsoft Windows is not a system very useful for scientific work. Working with larger files, scripting, programming or running command line programs is always a pain in the neck or requires expensive additional software.
What personally drives me nuts with windows is (missing) internationalization. I permanently have to switch system settings in windows because one file or program assumes a colon as decimal separator while another one uses a period.

 

[EE4life]

Thank you so far for the informative posts. As you can imagine, I read a lot online about linux vs. windows. Although I hate the apple logo, that should not cause me to be so arrogant to dismiss it, but we are all human after all and something in my heart makes me hate mac.

So I hear 2 votes to change and 1 vote to keep with windows. Currently, I am collaborating with others in such a way that I feel the OS will make NOT be a barrier. For the most part I work alone so this will not affect others much. Actually, I can even install linux on the older pc's in my lab.

Do you feel that this is a thing that I need to explore by myself? I do not really want to waste weeks/months of time and then come to the conclusion that Windows is the best for me if I know there is a big deterrent. The big thing for me is organization and ease and efficiency of use.

How about we get some votes and a short description why I should change or not.

 

[jtbell]

Computer science used a lot of macs ... which were also kinda OK - quite good as long as you stayed inside the apple world.

Under Mac OS, you can work in a Linux/Unix type environment at the command line in the Terminal application, and you can run X windows via X11 as a download from Apple. (It's been a few years since I used X11 so I don't know if that's still available, though.)

Many open source packages have options to compile and install under Mac OS (OS X). Ones that don't can sometimes be a bit tricky to install because Apple likes to put some things in different locations than is usual in Linux or common flavors of Unix.

And if you use Parallels Desktop (virtualization software), you can install any Unix distribution you like in a separate "virtual machine" and run it alongside Mac OS. You can install Windows, too. Make sure you have plenty of memory, though!

 

[DrDu]

It also depends a bit on your work. If you are using your computer as an interface for measurement devices, these come often with drivers for windows only.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

One thing that is really great about Linux, that comes from its "free"-ness, is this:

Your hard drive will eventually die. Life expectancy is 3-5 years, but earlier if you are unlucky. It's usually pretty easy to install a new hard drive in your machine (as long as your machine isn't one of those ultra-compact laptops). But then you will have to reinstall the OS, from scratch.

Did you remember to make a recovery USB stick for your Windows 8? Do you know where it is? Because if not, you're out of luck. Might have to buy Windows 8 again.

But with Linux, you can get it anywhere, install it fairly painlessly, and be on your way.

MacOS Mavericks is also free, but harder to get a hold of, especially if your only Mac just died. It's also a royal pain in the *** to install from scratch, because Apple assumes you'll never have to do that.

 

[Apis]

I pretty much agree with what Simon Bridge wrote. I switched from Windows to Linux several years ago and do not regret it. You should be aware that there's a rather steep learning curve and that most system tools are command line only but these days it's quite easy to get help and find information online.

The main problem is that not all hardware manufacturers support Linux, that has been my biggest source of frustration in the past so be careful when buying new hardware. The only software I'm missing are a couple of games.

I would also recommend a Debian based distro, Linux Mint seems great (although I haven't tried it myself yet). I'm currently using Ubuntu but I'm a bit concerned with recent controversies and privacy issues. A new version of Ubuntu, 14.04 "Trusty Tahr", should be released within the next few weeks (17 april).

 

[EE4life]

I think a really good thing about linux systems is that it forces you to learn how to use the computer at a lower level. In the beginning it may be difficult, but in the long run it will give you new possibilities that you would normally ignore on a windows or mac.

Thanks to all of you for your help. I decided to install Linux mint on a spare laptop of mine to get used to the interface and to install my programs for testing. I will probably install Linux mint on my main laptop after the semester ends.

I really appreciate your comments. If it were not for this forum I would have a lot of trouble getting your valuable opinions.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Cool.
5 months to software freedom day.
http://www.cute-calendar.com/event/software-freedom-day/15554.html

 

[ebos]

which Os?

Personally I use a dual boot with Windows and Ubuntu. Since the learning curve on Linux can be time-consuming I'll boot into Windows when I need to do something quickly and boot into Ubuntu when I have some extra "learning" time. Although the plan is to eventually become proficient in Linux since the power and the freedom (already mentioned) is great and gives me a much better understanding of what I'm doing, I wiill most likely always maintain my Windows partition. There's just some things I can't do in Linux plus I have some 'laziness' issues. Finally, it's much better if you get a new computer and then pre-order all the hardware components which you have by then (hopefully) already researched as working well in Linux.
Just sayiin'...

 

[Simon Bridge]

For *nix support and help:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/
... LinuxQuestions.org is to linux what PF is to science.

To check HW support - try a live boot first.
The ubiquitous "which distro to choose" question is answered here:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
... by Zegenie studios.

It's not definitive - your first choice will not be the last one you try.

 

[strangerep]

I used various versions of Ubuntu for many years, then totally hated it when they changed the philosophy drastically.

I thought about other Debian-derivatives, but none of them sounded like what I wanted.

I then tried Sabayon Linux, but got BADLY burned by their "rolling updates". Totally lost everything on my disk when I tried to install an update, and had to recover by re-installing from scratch and then backups.

Then I considered the Fedora-Redhat-CentOS trinity, and decided to try Fedora (KDE variant). It was fantastic. Noticeably quicker than the others, which was a surprise. The upgrade mechanisms seem a lot easier than I was used to with Ubuntu. Never had a problem getting software to do what I wanted.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Oh yes, and then there is this thing:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040111

 

[enorbet]

Greetz
While OSX is certainly a viable alternative one of the great values of OpenSource as in BSD and Linux is that even the most fundamental part of the system, the kernel, is open. Because of this there are complete Operating Systems available as "Live". This means a CD/DVD/ or USB installed system can boot almost any PC and provide a complete system. Some are even capable of "persistence" - maintaining settings beyond copying to a local hard drive. These can be used as a repair/recovery device, an eminently portable system, or simply for a "Road Test". The only equivalent in Windows, like Bart's PE, employs the Pre-install Environment which is extremely limited. I don't know if Mac has an equivalent.

Here's a list of some you can try out at your leisure. They do nothing to your existing system so as long as you don't get rambunctious with "Delete" you'll be fine. Here you go - http://www.livecdlist.com/

BTW there are also some great live compilations in LiveCDs for specific purposes, so be sure to look at that column. Many come with superb Windows fix tools as well. Hirens is a favorite of mine... a real Swiss Army Knife.

 

[EE4life]

Hi guys,
After trying linux for a awhile I realized its not worth it. Sure its opensource, and you can boot from it. Actually, doing things in linux is a waste of time for the regular computer user who does not need to interact with the OS.

My advice to all:
1. Don't go linux unless you have a need to
2. I know you used windows for your whole life and you think mac users are stuck up and foollish for buying over priced computers. But, they work well and you can pretty much guarantee you won't have problems
3. I am currently still using windows 8.1. I don't really like it, but it get the job done without much hassle, so why switch to linux where the learning curve is not worth it for people like me who do not interact with the OS

Thanks,

 

[Simon Bridge]

Hi guys,
After trying linux for a awhile I realized its not worth it. Sure its opensource, and you can boot from it. Actually, doing things in linux is a waste of time for the regular computer user who does not need to interact with the OS.

That must have been quite a while ago ... these days, one of the features of linux is that the OS just gets out of the way.
The only time I've see the OS in years is update notifications.

The "learning curve" for most distributions is now roughly like going from XP to W7.
(But it's dangerous to make generalizations: you realize that Android is Linux right?)

Aside: OS ≠ GUI ... some people mix them up.

I don't like [win 8.1] but it get the job done without much hassle, ...

I hear you. This was my position for many years. That and having spent so much money on windows software, and I had got used to the windows workflow etc. etc. So I totally sympathize with this position.

One of the things windows is very good at is being just good enough that you are reluctant to trash it. You sound like you are familiar with the feeling. Considering the price and the contract terms, are you really willing to settle for merely "does the job"? Is that really good advise to give others?
Still, it is good for OP to see a range of opinions.

Compare: Apple is very good at looking cool ... to the point of making previously uncool things look cool.

Sure its opensource, [but]

A gnu/linux distro is not just "open source" it is Free Software. That is much better that merely open source because it is designed to benefit to more than just software developers.

The number 1 selling point for gnu/linux is the freedom part - http://www.scribd.com/doc/83148866/Freedom-is-Hard-to-Sell. There are plenty of other selling points and lots of choice from simple starters to advanced uber-customizable versions. Most people can find a good fit, and there is http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php?lang=en .

One of the main negative points about Linux is the way "Software Freedom" sounds preachy and "holier than thou" much of the time... but you get those people in each OS camp.

The trouble with this sort of discussion is that it can turn into a "my favorite OS is the best" argument and the evangelists come to dominate. I think we can accept that everyone has a favorite, and everyone will recommend it to their friends, while keeping the discussion factually accurate.

How would someone go about neutrally suggesting an OS to another?
It's a bit like discussing a contentious political issue neutrally isn't it?

The trick is to avoid venturing a personal opinion, but, instead, empower the listener to frm their own opinion. (It's hard because we want them to agree with us - the scientific approach is to be suspicious of strongly held beliefs, especially those held by ourselves.)

We can't really say "do this" or "do that" because that risks disempowering the OP - instead we have to work out the needs, and suggest ways to balance them that work well on general principles.

In the end, most people pick "what happens to be handy when I'm are in a good mood" unless there is some oversight - in which case they pick whatever the boss likes. Ah... now my cynicism is showing :(

 

[enorbet]

Greetings
It is all too easy to fall into the trap of simply adopting old cliches and joining the "My Ford Rocks! Your Chevy Sucks!" syndrome, when the solution is so simple and even simpler with operating systems since the advent of Linux.

Let me explain. Aside from the extremely limited Windows Pre-Install Environment hack which was most notably found, researched for legality, and utilized by Bart's PE (which allows for a portable drive to boot a limited windows environment on virtually any machine) the only full OpSys that can be booted from any manner of drive; hard, optical, magnetic, etc., is Linux. This makes it easy to try it and even use it (especially for mobile and highly secure work) because the user doesn't have to commit to anything nor change anything existing on whatever machine he chooses.

Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of Live CDs (boot anywhere, as above) and many hundreds of hard installed distributions, many of which have worked very hard and put huge sums of money (IBM has spent many billions - yup BILLIONS) into making Linux adaptable to all levels of users. Now, much like Fords and Chevys it is possible to "drive one" without knowing anything of what is "under the hood". However should you decide to learn how to "change a tire" or "improve your gas mileage" all the way up to the deepest and most fundamental workings are all available, free, and above all, unhidden.

In summary, Linux (which is just the kernel) has distributions/versions that are all but without effort to learn and use, and any investment in time is paid back by not having to mess with (or pay for) maintenance software such as anti virus and malware at the very least. It/They offer a great deal and anyone can try as many as they like, free of charge.

Macs have a reputation for high prices because originally the OpSys was tied to a very lean kernel (only supporting an extremely small list of top notch hardware such as SCSI hard drives) so it was in essence micromanaged and pared down as well as of extreme high quality. Many people also assumed that once clones of the iPod appeared, many were half the price that this just reflected that "gouging" ... but have you ever used an iPod? The sound quality is superb... better than anything cheaper and you can get to a specific song in under 5 clicks even if you have 10,000 songs on it. How much is your time (and annoyance/convenience) and listening pleasure worth?

So let's lay it to rest.

1) Macs are no longer way overpriced compared to PCs. They are slightly higher because they are extremely well designed and still prefer higher quality hardware, just not as exclusive as it once was, largely thanks to OSX which is based on BSD, another Unix-like OpSys.

2) Linux is no longer just for hackers and software geeks. It's easy compared to the years any windows user has already invested in learning it and it won't turn you into a cash cow.

3) That said, Windows also has it's niche and viability. It is rather amazing how successful they have been at creating a "one size fits all" system with the only cost being ever increasing hardware requirements to keep up with all the bloat, and of course the ever slowing user experience if you don't upgrade regularly including reinstalling.

These are "flavors" each with it's own distinct pros and cons, but none of them are so exclusive as to be head and shoulders above the others in all categories and the difference grows slighter (excluding cost in money and freedom) over time.

 

[EE4life]

I agree with you. It is a very opinionated issue, with no clear right or wrong answer. I'd rather spend my life doing stuff than trying stuff (another opinion), so I will hold off on linux until I make a friend who uses linux to show me the ropes. I earnestly tried ubuntu and linux mint and I think linux is "cool", but, as my incomplete experience shows...I really don't know.

Let's talk about life philosophy. More choices make you more miserable than more happy. Google the book: the paradox of choice.

 

[enorbet]

Let's talk about life philosophy. More choices make you more miserable than more happy. Google the book: the paradox of choice.

I actually disagree with that philosophy both personally and in an objective view. It doesn't depress me in the least that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of which I think I may have tried 8 or 10. Somebody(s) are buying the other 21 since Baskin-Robbins is the largest ice cream chain in the world and also one of the oldest, having been founded in 1945. I'm mildly joyful that should I "get a wild hair" it is there as well as that many people can also satisfy their tastes and whims for a nice treat.

Decision making is an important skill and I try to embrace it. That said, there are some areas that aren't perfectly pleasurable for me. It is a bittersweet experience to walk into a bookstore since, all at the same time, I am "pumped up" in eyes-wide wonder at all the beautiful books but the knowledge that even if I was put on life-support and read 24/7 for the rest of a very long life, I could not even read all the ones I would dearly enjoy.

All I can do is try to make my choices count.

 

[jtbell]

Let's stick to computer operating systems in this thread, please. General discussion of life-philosophy belongs better in... um... General Discussion. (subject to Evo's philosophy for that forum, of course. )

 

[Evo]

And I don't allow philosophy.

 

[enorbet]

Hi guys,
After trying linux for a awhile I realized its not worth it. Sure its opensource, and you can boot from it. Actually, doing things in linux is a waste of time for the regular computer user who does not need to interact with the OS.

My advice to all:
<snip>
3. I am currently still using windows 8.1. I don't really like it, but it get the job done without much hassle, so why switch to linux where the learning curve is not worth it for people like me who do not interact with the OS

Thanks,

So how much time do you waste learning New and Improved when it gets ever harder to return to Classic Desktop? How much with Anti Virus and Anti Malware? How much with "free" software that nags you to "upgrade to Pro today and save $20!" How much with Registry cleaners? Oh? You don't clean? Then, how much "fresh installing" to remove accumulated bloat?

So you estimate that it is better, not only for you but "all" to use a system they "don't really like" and ignore the hassles and time-wasters that do exist but for which you've grown resigned, and continue to be forced to upgrade hardware to handle the latest bloat or suffer poor performance, rather than to try out an alternative that requires no commitment but a little time?

FYI, you DO interact with your OS. You just allow Redmond to decide what's best for you and manage it for you.

Since Redmond doesn't like spending time and money on tech calls/repair work, they simply make it very hard to do anything really destructive, but not being able to do anything really constructive is the cost.

I'm truly sorry your experience with Linux was a negative one, but you and anyone else can solve that and see how Linux is evolving through the LiveCDs I mentioned. KDE desktop is remarkably easy for Windows users to work and get used to and offers some amazing features Windows still doesn't have yet.

The only issue that makes this remotely difficult is Secure Boot in some Bios/UEFI versions... one more step in Redmond owning "your" computer.

This is just as valid as driving cars when you haven't a clue how to change the oil or a tire, but many people don't like being at the mercy of mechanics (especially ones who can barely take their eyes off your wallet) and decide a little learning curve might just be worth it.

 

[harborsparrow]

My advice is, use them all. Try them all. I have, and every single one becomes arcane from time to time. But each has distinct advantages. I have my favorites, never mind which, but the important thing is, use the right tool for the right job. Each OS is a tool.

 

[DataGG]

I used windows until I learned about NSA backdooring it. I've been using Ubuntu (xubuntu, kubuntu, unity, etc) ever since.

I know people in PF don't care much about that, but to me it's a big deal.

TO OP:

I think you should definitely take the time to learn linux. Ubuntu is a good distro, there are tons and tons of helpfull information on the internet. As far as I know, in science, Linux is the "de-facto" OS.

To install java, just install the ubuntu-restricted-extras. It's in the repos.

 

[mal4mac]

I thought it is wise to look around for another OS to use besides Windows 8, which is tolerable and works...

If it's not broke, don't fix it. Tolerable and works is, usually, the best we can expect from IT.

I tried ubuntu, but I gave up after I spent hours and hours trying to install Java correctly. I am a not a computer enthusiast... Do you think it is worth the time to learn how to use a Linux system?

You found the answer to that! If you aren't a computer enthusiast avoid Linux, unless you have a Lunix geek at your beck and call.

I will not buy into linux just because it is free. What do think I should use for my operating system?

Use whatever you are given at work, then the support staff will support you. If you decide you must use a Mac or Linux, when everybody else is using Windows, then they get stroppy and then you have *real* problems.

At home? Exactly the same as at work is probably easiest! Alternatively, use Chrome OS on a Chrome Box - no virus problems, no back up problems, and so small that minimal support & learning is needed. Of course you will not be able to do anything outside web based applications, but if you can save "the hard stuff" for work then it might be a solution.

 

[ebos]

Took the words right out of my mouth... thanks for that.

 

[ebos]

whoops

I meant that as a reply to the Linux supporters.

 

[vociferous]

My experience with the three operating systems:

Windows: Designed to be easy for IT departments to be able to manage. Windows is the easiest to use for both the unsophisticated user and the power user as a result of their corporate focus. It also has the most software support. It is very popular in the corporate world.

OSX: Designed to be easy to use by unsophisticated users for basic tasks. Can be quite complicated to accomplish many power user tasks. It has some commercial software support (nothing like Windows) and can, in theory, run any Unix program that Linux can, though the reality of installing open-source Unix software on the Mac can be almost as difficult as getting it to run on Windows. It is very popular in academia and especially astronomy and computer science. The biggest disadvantage, at least in my opinion, is limited hardware support and being "legally" stuck with overly expensive proprietary hardware.

Linux: The big advantages here are that it is completely free and completely customizable, plus it has the best support for ease of installing open source, free software. Many open source software titles can be installed by a simple command on the terminal. You can scale it down to run on 16 mb of ram or scale it up to run on a supercomputer. You can install a slick desktop OS similar to Windows or Mac OS or not install any GUI at all.

Unfortunately, basic tasks can be very difficult to configure, it has little tech support available, there is a minimal amount of commercial software available and it can be difficult to install. It generally has not made much inroads as a desktop OS because, while it is adequate, it is hardly up to snuff with OSX or Windows as a desktop workstation.

The bottom line though is that all three operating systems will work fine for most OS tasks. The questions are, how much do you want to learn, how much are you willing to pay, how much admin time are you committed to, and do you need to run certain software packages. Obviously, if you want a UNIX environment, Windows is not an option, and if you want to run the full version of a program like Office, OSX and Linux are not options.

 

[enorbet]

Thank you for your anecdotal experience. I'd like to point out that while Windows and Mac are, by design, rather slow to make deep changes, Unix based systems, especially Linux is changing and growing very rapidly, so much so that many new people find the number of options alarming and/or confusing. That doesn't change the fact that any anecdotal information about the state of Linux requires a sort of "timestamp" because what was true last year is often very changed this year.

To be clear, I am not trying to say anyone is better than another, but I think it important to properly document current states. S0...

My experience with the three operating systems:

Windows: Designed to be easy for IT departments to be able to manage. Windows is the easiest to use for both the unsophisticated user and the power user as a result of their corporate focus. It also has the most software support. It is very popular in the corporate world.

I'm afraid this is opinion and not factual. While it is true that Windows is the de facto standard on many more workstations than other systems, this came from the ground up, desktop deployment, NOT from the top down.

(See Graph quoted below in the attached pdf from Wikipedia Market Share by Category - incidentally converted from rich txt to pdf and uploaded from my Linux box)

OSX: Designed to be easy to use by unsophisticated users for basic tasks. Can be quite complicated to accomplish many power user tasks. It has some commercial software support (nothing like Windows) and can, in theory, run any Unix program that Linux can, though the reality of installing open-source Unix software on the Mac can be almost as difficult as getting it to run on Windows. It is very popular in academia and especially astronomy and computer science. The biggest disadvantage, at least in my opinion, is limited hardware support and being "legally" stuck with overly expensive proprietary hardware.

This is both no longer true (and for quite some time) and overstated. It came from pre-OSX times, well over 10 years ago, when Apple systems were essentially embedded with extremely limited hardware support and of only enterprise quality hardware, like SCSI hard drives. While the public perception at large, considerably boosted by Microsoft propaganda, was this equated to "overpriced" the fact remains that at that time IDE hard drives commonly had 1 year warranties and SCSIs outperformed them in every way possible (even simultaneous access to multiple drives) and had 5 year guarantees. The "juice" was/is well worth the "squeeze" unless you are one that is satisfied with "just barely good enough, but cheap".

In addition to the fields you mentioned you surprisingly left out Multimedia Production and Editing. Pro Tools is THE standard Digital Audio Workstation software application. Star Wars and countless other major movies, the most in fact, are produced and edited on Macs than any other device even today, though Linux is making a dent these days. Newspapers, Magazines, others way too many to mention rely more on Mac than any other.

Adobe has never been alone in commercial professional software development and they are presently losing ground to both Mac and Linux in every category.

Linux: The big advantages here are that it is completely free and completely customizable, plus it has the best support for ease of installing open source, free software. Many open source software titles can be installed by a simple command on the terminal. You can scale it down to run on 16 mb of ram or scale it up to run on a supercomputer. You can install a slick desktop OS similar to Windows or Mac OS or not install any GUI at all.

Unfortunately, basic tasks can be very difficult to configure, it has little tech support available, there is a minimal amount of commercial software available and it can be difficult to install. It generally has not made much inroads as a desktop OS because, while it is adequate, it is hardly up to snuff with OSX or Windows as a desktop workstation.

The above information, while correct in part, is either dated or shallow, or both. While I prefer commandline, the vast majority of Linux distributions have Software Centers, where 10's of 1000's of applications, upgrades, drivers... you name it, are available with a single mouseclick.

One can install many different desktops and choose on-the-fly which to use, or one desktop like KDE which has features like Activities where a user can setup an interface specific to any type of work or , well... activity, and switch between them with a single click. You can access your home desktop, run applications on it, install software on it or from it, with your smartphone.

There is much, much more but this should be enough to demonstrate that a desktop "similar to Windows or Mac" is ill-informed and condescending at best. There is literally NOTHING a windows desktop environment can do that a Linux DE cannot do and much that Linux desktops can do that are impossible on Windows. Your assessment of "hardly up to snuff" is dated and "quaint" at best.

In addition the support through documentation, forums, chats, is, if anything superior to both Mac and Windows if only because it's users know more about how the system works. The amount of misinformation on windows forums is less than useless it is often destructive. There exists a thread right here on this forum in which a member was apparently told by someone supposedly "in the business" to delete his Registry! 0_0

Much of how Windows and Mac systems work is hidden by design to keep people from making destructive mistakes. This has the side effect of preventing, or at least impeding, instructive help.

The bottom line though is that all three operating systems will work fine for most OS tasks. The questions are, how much do you want to learn, how much are you willing to pay, how much admin time are you committed to, and do you need to run certain software packages. Obviously, if you want a UNIX environment, Windows is not an option, and if you want to run the full version of a program like Office, OSX and Linux are not options.

Now we are to the only remaining "crux of the biscuit". While the quality and compatibility of such as LibreOffice is so good that many even prefer it's more intuitive default interface, Microsoft still chooses to break compatibility with some types of Excel and Word formats to thwart that compatibility. Unfortunately for Microsoft and it's users this commonly means that documents you save in some former formats will no longer be readable by your "new and improved" Office.

So it is true that this can be a deal breaker for some people making even trying Linux marginally futile if they are that dependent on certain Office formats, though not all. Unfortunately for information, this too is a changing landscape and AFAIK there is no way to be certain exactly which formats are problematic without just jumping in and giving it a go. This is now easier than ever, partly from what I mentioned before about LiveCDs, but also because Linux/Unix supports more different kinds of hardware than any other OpSys that has ever existed, including Windows. There is more software choice than for any other though some see this as a fault.

The deal is, you're really not going to know unless you try some.

 

[KL7AJ]

Hi all,

I am currently a electrical engineering PhD student, and I spend a huge amount of my time on a computer and I plan to do so in the future as well. So, I thought it is wise to look around for another OS to use besides Windows 8, which is tolerable and works but I can't help but think there is something better.

I do some computer coding, I use mathematical software (matlab, labview, python). I think all the programs I use can be used in windows, mac, and linux.

I tried ubuntu, but I gave up after I spent hours and hours trying to install Java correctly. I am a not a computer enthusiast, rather I just want a good system. Do you think it is worth the time to learn how to use a Linux system? Or will Windows suffice just as it always has? I am not necessarily a open source enthusiast, so I will not buy into linux just because it is free. What do think I should use for my operating system? I am not afraid to try a linux distro again or even mac, but I want to be sure that my learning investment is well spent.

I humbly ask for some advice.

I use Linux. You can get a freeware equivalent to Matlab called Octave for Linux. (Takes some serious compiling, but worth it!). Once you have linux, you have a free compiler, which allows you to write C++ programs. And just about every other language has a linux compiler. The only thing I can't do with linux is run Labview...it's about the only reason I still have Windows at all. :)

Eric

 

[vociferous]

I stand by my statements and the empirical evidence backs it up. If Linux Windows managers were as easy to deploy and use as the Mac OS and Windows, they would be dominating the market right now because they are free. Even if a corporate license for Windows Enterprise were only $50 per workstation, switching to Linux in a 10,000 employee company could save a business about a quarter of a million dollars every few years. The fact that they have not done so is very telling, as is the fact that Linux has not been able to penetrate the consumer market.

Also, there are many things that Linux cannot do that Windows and the Mac OS can. Linux cannot legally play DVD's, MP3's, or bluray movies in the United States and many other countries. As far as I know, there is no legal software available for Linux that plays blurays or DVD's. Those require royalty licenses and the only software capable of playing them is violative of both civil law (failure to pay royalties per software license) and criminal law (distributing tools designed to break encryption).

As a result, Linux is distributed without these abilities and the only way to enable them are by often esoteric and legally murky means. That is not very friendly to the end user.

Ten years ago, many Linux evangelists were claiming that Linux is an easy to use desktop OS competitive with windows and OSX and it was only a matter of time before they dominated the competition. In that time, actual adoption of Linux has remained pretty much flat fluctuating around about 1% of all web traffic while the only real changes were small but steady increases for OSX. Most of them are pretty quiet now. Despite many advances in Linux, it still cannot be given away to most users.

The empirical evidence speaks quite clearly. Linux desktop is a niche operating system that is well suited for specific tasks and users, but in general, is not competitive with OSX or Windows on the desktop. This is hard data, not anecdote.

There was a time when I thought that Linux had a real chance as a desktop or laptop OS, but the empirical evidence shows that it does not. It simply cannot compete with the resources that large companies like Apple and Microsoft command. It still has its uses, especially on custom or embedded systems and among technical and scientific computing users, although even those seem to be mostly preferring OSX to Linux these days.

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

 

[KL7AJ]

I stand by my statements and the empirical evidence backs it up. If Linux Windows managers were as easy to deploy and use as the Mac OS and Windows, they would be dominating the market right now because they are free. Even if a corporate license for Windows Enterprise were only $50 per workstation, switching to Linux in a 10,000 employee company could save a business about a quarter of a million dollars every few years. The fact that they have not done so is very telling, as is the fact that Linux has not been able to penetrate the consumer market.

Also, there are many things that Linux cannot do that Windows and the Mac OS can. Linux cannot legally play DVD's, MP3's, or bluray movies in the United States and many other countries. As far as I know, there is no legal software available for Linux that plays blurays or DVD's. Those require royalty licenses and the only software capable of playing them is violative of both civil law (failure to pay royalties per software license) and criminal law (distributing tools designed to break encryption).

As a result, Linux is distributed without these abilities and the only way to enable them are by often esoteric and legally murky means. That is not very friendly to the end user.

Ten years ago, many Linux evangelists were claiming that Linux is an easy to use desktop OS competitive with windows and OSX and it was only a matter of time before they dominated the competition. In that time, actual adoption of Linux has remained pretty much flat fluctuating around about 1% of all web traffic while the only real changes were small but steady increases for OSX. Most of them are pretty quiet now. Despite many advances in Linux, it still cannot be given away to most users.

The empirical evidence speaks quite clearly. Linux desktop is a niche operating system that is well suited for specific tasks and users, but in general, is not competitive with OSX or Windows on the desktop. This is hard data, not anecdote.

There was a time when I thought that Linux had a real chance as a desktop or laptop OS, but the empirical evidence shows that it does not. It simply cannot compete with the resources that large companies like Apple and Microsoft command. It still has its uses, especially on custom or embedded systems and among technical and scientific computing users, although even those seem to be mostly preferring OSX to Linux these days.

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

Hi Vociferous:

I think you also need to remember the market. For business applications where everyone is allergic to change, Windows has a clear advantage. For scientific types who are as likely to be writing their own software as not, the OS is actually pretty irrelevant. Someone who's used to command line entry isn't going to be too thrown by a different GUI!

Eric

 

[vociferous]

Hi Vociferous:

I think you also need to remember the market. For business applications where everyone is allergic to change, Windows has a clear advantage. For scientific types who are as likely to be writing their own software as not, the OS is actually pretty irrelevant. Someone who's used to command line entry isn't going to be too thrown by a different GUI!

Eric

It's not just that people are "allergic to change". Microsoft has made a point of ensuring backwards compatibility. On the 32 bit version of Windows 8, you can still run many DOS programs written back in the 1980's.

Linux is fragmented, so even across a single kernel, one binary might run perfectly while another is useless. There is no central installation package, so while one install might go smoothly, another might fail for extremely incomprehensible reasons, and every new version of Linux has a strong potential to break old programs.

If you're willing to put in the time to maintain your installation and work around its inconsistencies, then any OS will work fine for you. In theory, you can compile open-source programs to run on any OS you choose, even if a binary is not available, and certainly major distributions of Linux have the easiest time installing GNU software. But, you have to consider the other tasks you do.

If you just have a workstation in the lab preconfigured with all the software you need, then you're probably okay whatever your OS. If you use the device for more varied uses, especially laptops you use to travel with, you'll probably find that OSX and Windows "just work" for a variety of consumer tasks.

 

[nsaspook]

World Domination takes time.
The servers first then the mobile market then ...

I'd like to say that I knew this would happen, that it's all part of the plan for world domination.
Linus - 1999

 

[vociferous]

World Domination takes time.
The servers first then the mobile market then ...

The mobile market is an interesting one, because Google can throw as much money at Android as Microsoft and Apple can throw at their OS's.

If a company the size of Google made a similar effort at creating a Linux-based OS (heck, it wouldn't even have to be open source, it could just be something that ran on top of the Linux kernel similar to how the Mac OS runs on top of their own closed-source port of F-BSD) I could see it being extremely competitive.

I just do not see a company doing that in the foreseeable future. Google's dabbled in it with their Chrome OS, but the cost of entry for serious competition to Windows or Mac on the desktop seems to be a bad business strategy.

Vista cost Microsoft billions of dollars to develop, probably something similar to the cost of the Manhattan project or an Apollo mission.

It's hard for volunteer software developers to compete with that kind of budget. It's not impossible, and what Linux has been able to accomplish is very impressive, but right now it's like a volunteer symphony competing with a highly paid professional one.

 

[nsaspook]

The mobile influence in computing is driving Windows into a direction that is causing it to change it's development strategy. Windows 8 is a good example. It's a tablet OS (that some of the latest updates have made keyboard usable) that many traditional desktop mouse/keyboard users find strange and unwieldy for structured use in a productivity tasked commercial/industrial setting where computers are not hand-held, hands are gloved or screens are protected. They are very late in this side of the business (releasing products for free to gain share) and are playing a game of catchup by making the desktop look like a mobile device instead of a traditional computer. Where Windows has a advantage on the desktop today is in the management of thousands of locked-down Microsoft Office desktops controlled by a centralized IS core that can watch every keystroke if needed. I don't see them losing much share in that but the XP style desktop is dead and the new 'apps' devices world is the future for casual users where 7/24 networking converts all devices to variations on a theme where the Windows OS is the same as the Linux OS for most users.

 

[enorbet]

<snip>

Most places you will see Linux server rooms and embedded devices these days is in poor countries that cannot afford slicker products or in computer labs at universities in the science and engineering departments, but even there, with so few faculty using Linux on their own workstations and laptops, you have to wonder if it is more of a cost-cutting measure to avoid equipping labs with expensive, proprietary OSX machines.

In light of this over-the-top statement it appears you didn't look at the pdf, so here, attached, is a .jpg so you and others can see a current distribution of system deployment.


Please bear in mind that at least 3 big players are now involved, RedHat, Google and IBM. Last year IBM invested over $1,000,000,000 in Linux ( http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/41926.wss ) and has all but abandoned their products like AIX. This and the takeover hosted by RedHat and Google through the use of containers and cgroups is not making "Linux Evangelists" very happy but it is succeeding rapidly. Google CoreOS for just the beginning.

I fully respect your right to your opinion but I strongly suspect your experience is dated and not at all current (perhaps not even post Ubuntu's launch 10 years ago) and I find your faith in the marketplace as a measure of quality, naive. Just because Linux is yet a niche system, it does not logically follow that this is because it is harder or in anyway less good.

As for your correct concerns about legality issues in some countries regarding DVDs, I think it is safe to assume that Google, RedHat, and IBM will have no problems brushing that aside, now that they are invested.

 

[harborsparrow]

...the XP style desktop is dead and the new 'apps' devices world is the future for casual users...

I for one (and many others, I assure you) are using Windows 8 identically to how we used Windows 7, merely by adding the StartIsBack utility (cost $3.00 for 2 machines) which restores all the same user interface from Windows 7. Except now, Windows boots under one minute and handles memory much better.

If you are frustrated by Windows 8, add StartIsBack and you'll be pleased.

 

[thankz]

my pick would be windows 7 running VMware running some flavor of debian.

 

[nsaspook]

I for one (and many others, I assure you) are using Windows 8 identically to how we used Windows 7, merely by adding the StartIsBack utility (cost $3.00 for 2 machines) which restores all the same user interface from Windows 7. Except now, Windows boots under one minute and handles memory much better.

If you are frustrated by Windows 8, add StartIsBack and you'll be pleased.

I use classic shell instead on the few machines with 8. It seems completely crazy to have to do this if they spent billions making the OS better (redecorated). I think this happened because someone forgot that usability is a function of simple patterns and repetition with minimal energy expended. It's better to have a few very good way of doing something rather than many poorly implemented less efficient ways of the same thing that look pretty on a small screen focus but wallow like a whale on a large display surface where the UI seems to force you to dart your concentration across the screen several times to confirm the wanted action has happened.

The current Windows reminds me of this: http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/pi14dat.pdf

 

[robphy]

Personally, I do like Windows--in spite of some of its annoyances.
I might have switched to a Mac if they had something like a TabletPC, but they don't.

I do like unix for some things... but not enough to switch over.
One can do some unix-like and X11-type things using http://www.cygwin.com/.

I can open a bash shell and can run bash, perl, and python scripts that I've written to help me do things in Windows (where .bat files aren't good enough).
I can run them from a command shell or invoke it with a shortcut (or filetype menu entry via a registry hack) or even a mouse/stylus gesture using http://www.tcbmi.com/strokeit/ or http://www.strokesplus.com/ .

These can be helpful when I spend a lot of my time using the stylus on the TabletPC [while lecturing], with the keyboard out of the way.

Another nice scripting-like tool for Windows is http://www.autohotkey.com/ .
This one can work with the GUI.

So, some shortcomings of Windows can be handled with such tools.
(Are there equivalents in OSX or linux?)

 

[vociferous]

In light of this over-the-top statement it appears you didn't look at the pdf, so here, attached, is a .jpg so you and others can see a current distribution of system deployment.


Please bear in mind that at least 3 big players are now involved, RedHat, Google and IBM. Last year IBM invested over $1,000,000,000 in Linux ( http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/41926.wss ) and has all but abandoned their products like AIX. This and the takeover hosted by RedHat and Google through the use of containers and cgroups is not making "Linux Evangelists" very happy but it is succeeding rapidly. Google CoreOS for just the beginning.

I fully respect your right to your opinion but I strongly suspect your experience is dated and not at all current (perhaps not even post Ubuntu's launch 10 years ago) and I find your faith in the marketplace as a measure of quality, naive. Just because Linux is yet a niche system, it does not logically follow that this is because it is harder or in anyway less good.

As for your correct concerns about legality issues in some countries regarding DVDs, I think it is safe to assume that Google, RedHat, and IBM will have no problems brushing that aside, now that they are invested.

Redhat and IBM are primarily in the business of making Servers, not desktops, so that is where they are putting their money. Google also invests in servers, and to a lesser degree, it's android operating system. None of them are investing heavily in the desktop market.

Look at your own links. IBM is investing in power systems, something that sits in a server room, not the x86 systems most consumers use. Your chart still shows Linux with about 1% of the desktop market.

I have been using Linux since I was a teen (that's over a decade ago, how time flies). At home I have an Ubuntu server running on top of my Windows 2012 server so that I can ssh to it to run certain programs. However, I don't pretend that I am the average computer user. They stick with the slicker, more user friendly OS's for a reason.

 

[Transistor]

You better use mac os

 

[enorbet]

@robphy - Re: Tablet support in Mac and Linux
Linux has excellent support for Tablets including screen rotation and gestures. Some distributions come with it enabled by default. A few require some minor tweaking to get your specific tablet working just the way you want.

I don't know much in the way of specifics about Mac so I don't know how easy it is to enable support but technically since OS-X is a *nix kernel with loadable modules/drivers I doubt it is difficult. However this may change very soon because of this - http://www.modbook.com/

 

[enorbet]

@vociferous - If you are using any current Linux desktop how can you say "slicker, more friendly" with Linux having multiple switchable desktops (1 click away) , snap, smartphone accessibility and concurrent users, KDE Activities, 3D desktop a la Compiz, Kwin etc. let alone complete control over styles, fonts, sizes, mouse activity, and so much more that is literally 1-2 clicks away?

Regarding IBM, RedHat, and Google - Granted their sights are set on servers, in fact very large servers where it is now possible to deploy 10s of 1000s of workstation clones or updates with a single command because of the advances made in containers. These same containers are just as useful in desktop systems. One example is that even though most distributions have regular release cycles, containers make it possible to have exact releases and forever banish incremental upgrades. While it has become quite rare for upgrades and added software to break any part of modern *nixes, containers can fine tune and prevent this altogether.

Personally I am old school and don't welcome the deep changes coming to Linux since it seems the first steps in locking it down. My personal opinion doesn't prevent me from seeing that this is "big doings" and is bound to have a powerful impact on ALL computing, including the Desktop.

It is my opinion that at some time in the future Operating Systems will be so ubiquitous, free and flexible that nobody will care about them. It will all be about what's on top, and there, at least some modicum of choice will rule, not the near iron fist control that MS exerts.

I am curious as to whether you have ever read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" since it was written in 1996 and has yet to be falsified, only strengthened as to the variety, quality, and speed of improvement of Open Source software vs/ Proprietary and this despite the stranglehold the MS Monoploy has which although it borrows from Linux, actively thwarts Linux, with Steve Ballmer referring to it as "that virus".

Once other "Big Boys" are in the mix, much of that will either cease or be inconsequential.

 

[vociferous]

@robphy - Re: Tablet support in Mac and Linux
Linux has excellent support for Tablets including screen rotation and gestures. Some distributions come with it enabled by default. A few require some minor tweaking to get your specific tablet working just the way you want.

I don't know much in the way of specifics about Mac so I don't know how easy it is to enable support but technically since OS-X is a *nix kernel with loadable modules/drivers I doubt it is difficult. However this may change very soon because of this - http://www.modbook.com/

From my experience (at least with Ubuntu) tablet support was terrible.

Once you install the proper drivers, any Windows PC since XP Tablet edition just works, not additional steps needed (other than to be sure the tablet features are enabled in the programs menue). The handwriting recognition on Windows reads my chicken scratch quite well while Ubuntu did not even install it by default and what handwriting recognition software I could find for Linux was pretty unusable. Even worse, while Windows set up my Wacom digitizer correctly, Ubuntu treated it just like a mouse, so even doing basic functions like using the eraser were impossible. The bottom line, my experience with modern Ubuntu on a tablet PC was even worse than Microsoft's 14 year old XP support for tablet, and MS has made a lot of strides in the past decade and a half.

OS X has no support for tablets. Getting it to function correctly on a tablet (which is not Apple-supported hardware) would be very difficult.

The empirical evidence is overwhelming. The Linux desktop experience just is not competitive with Windows and OSX. Linux desktop penetration has stayed around 1% for that reason. The experience is so inferior for the average user that they cannot even give it away for free. Linux's greatest strength is that it is customization and flexible, but it is also its greatest weakness. Linux is fragmented. It lacks basic features like a centralized installer. Each major distro uses its own installation routines, which forces most commercial software to write their own installer, often which must be run from a terminal (not particularly user friendly). While OSX and Windows installs are usually pretty straightforward across all systems, an install that works perfectly on one version will often balk on another.

The only way I see Linux succeeding on the desktop is:

1) A major backer like Google willing to invest at least a billion a year in development.

2) Probably a proprietary windows manager built on top of an open operating system (instead of X and KDE/Gnome/et cetera), similar to how the OSX gui was built on top of F-BSD without relying on the often unstable and buggy X-windows server and their associated managers.

The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop. It's what Linux evangalists and hackers love about the OS though, but it's just not going to succeed in the mainstream marketplace as it is. You need some real money and some real unity and quality control.

 

[nsaspook]

The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop. It's what Linux evangalists and hackers love about the OS though, but it's just not going to succeed in the mainstream marketplace as it is. You need some real money and some real unity and quality control.

I agree with most of that, so I guess the server, mobile and embedded markets will have to do for now. The Linux desktop is evolving so fast and in so many ways it's impossible to keep a scorecard. I've been using Debian with IceWM on servers or KDE on desktops for ages as I see most of what's new as just eye-candy for what I do.

 

[enorbet]

<snip> Linux is fragmented. It lacks basic features like a centralized installer. Each major distro uses its own installation routines, which forces most commercial software to write their own installer, often which must be run from a terminal (not particularly user friendly). While OSX and Windows installs are usually pretty straightforward across all systems, an install that works perfectly on one version will often balk on another.
<snip>
The fragmented approach to different windows managers, different libraries, different distros, et cetera just is not conducive to large market share for Linux on the desktop.

Not only do I still suspect your experience is with an older linux desktop (care to reveal what your latest version is? and perhaps how much time on it?) but I also suspect your experience is quite limited. Either that or for some reason you choose to appear unbiased but actually spread FUD.

The most glaring error/untruth is "centralized application installer". Just where is Windows' single application to manage app installs? Surely you don't mean *.exe's? They just mean anyone can package anything, including massive amounts of malware, in a binary that will run on Windows.

Exe's aren't required to put information in The Registry (though MS would prefer they do despite the monstrosity it is that causes degradation of performance often to the point of having to fresh install to remove all the cruft) and they aren't even required to install to "C:\Program Files". So where is this centralization?

Since you claim to use Ubuntu, let's talk about it. Are you aware of Ubuntu Software Center? No terminal work is required. 1 click and 10's of 1000's of applications are available in an organized fashion requiring 1 click to install. Version 3, by the way, includes commercial software. Windows, not any version, has anything even remotely close.

As for fragmentation, this certainly doesn't apply to application installation for several reasons. There are 2 main package managers, employing *.deb and *.rpm (Debian-based and RedHat-based respectively) and the relatively non-managed *.src. Almost all distributions can convert from one to the other with built-in applications. The difference between them has become so slight as to barely matter anymore, partly thanks to the aforementioned containers. It is neither time-consuming nor costly for people or companies to provide the three, and proof of that is they really don't have to since any distribution can create any package format from *.src. They choose to, if they do, for convenience.

Different libraries? What are you talking about? The only different libraries are essentially the same as Windows according to version such as 32bit vs/ 64 bit, which for most people means both are installed.

Other than that, there is only GTK(Gnome) vs/ QT(KDE), mere desktop choices, both of which can easily handle the other, although GTK has been losing ground of late. This isn't fragmentation this is choice. You can choose to install (lets use Ubuntu again) the more GTK based Ubuntu or the QT/KDE based Kubuntu, and/or you can have both in one, and simply choose which to run upon login, all the while enjoying both GTK and QT apps running in either whether you do or not. These are part of a whole, not at all separate as "fragments" as you would have us believe.

Finally, I have demonstrated with links that Linux is approaching a deeper unity as a result of systemd and containers. So while this evolution is along the lines of your "concerns" it is already here and growing rapidly. You think it is necessary. I don't. Regardless of what either of us thinks, it is all over but the shouting. It's here, fait accompli.

Incidentally there are numerous videos on YouTube and elsewhere of the "man on the street" variety where the crowd is told "This is the upcoming version of Windows. Would you like to try it and give us your considered opinion?" It is in truth Linux and as long as people are told it is not Windows, most like it and say they applaud the upgrade. How's that for empirical?

Just for the record. I'm not saying Linux is going to supplant Windows anytime soon. I don't even want it to. I prefer Linux as a more hobbyist, amateur system. I deplore the "Free Windows" concept. All I'm trying to say is that Windows is not superior in performance, flexibility, cost of operation and most any area you care to discuss with the single exception of desktop market share and most of the negativity spread about Linux is just dated and ill-informed, mush of it fomented by MS itself as it did in the past with the then superior Apple and the then superior OS/2.