Does anyone like to use Linux over the Microsoft XP or System 7/8.
Everyone that I know who has ever tried to use Linux for any substantial amount of time (usually compelled to do so because of job, or just out of curiosity) and who is the least bit competent with computers (e.g. not mortally scared of a terminal window), they have all expressed strong preferrence for Linux (and I've never heard of someone familiar with Linux who preferred Windows). I'm no exception. One of the reasons for me is just the sheer difference I feel when I boot into Windows after having spent some time using Linux, I feel the weight of the Windows system crushing me:
- it takes forever to boot up, and everything I do seems to take forever.
- it constantly nags you for updates which are always tedious to install (next, next, I agree, next, next,... restart now!) (as opposed to almost always automatic and most of time reboot-free, under Linux).
- the lack of integration (and inter-operability) of software packages makes it so that every time you have a little task to do, like converting video formats or reading a particular type of file, you have to either dig in dark corners of the internet for freeware tools for that particular job, or pull out your wallet for some big professional software that you don't really need. Either way, you end up with a system that is bloated with a huge amount of stupid little unreliable, and possibly virus-laced, programs.
- it has the messiest possible system file structure with tons of annoying redirections and linked folders. This makes it really hard and annoying to customize your system well.
- it lacks a proper, native, feature-rich command line interface. Tasks that are so simple and quick to do in Linux (e.g.
$ find . | grep keyword) are much more complicated and time-consuming in Windows, unless you install cygwin with a massive package set. - and as a programmer, of course, Windows is a horrible development environment from a point of view of getting, using, linking to, and distributing any external libraries.
The above list is somewhat biased towards the kinds of tasks that I tend to do, e.g., programming, dealing with data files and logs, customizing systems, and scripting, and so on. And you might also guess that I'm not terribly competent at dealing with a Windows system for these tasks, as I'm sure it is not as bad as it is for me when you know better ways to do such "advanced" tasks with a Windows system.
Many studies say that the costs of running and maintaining a corporate or academic network of user computers (e.g. all the computers for your employees, or all the computers for a university department) under a Linux-only environment (Linux for servers and users) is significantly lower than doing the same with a Windows-only environment. We're talking half the cost or lower, and sometimes much lower. Many studies on this subject are very biased (either by Microsoft or Linux service providers like IBM or Novell), so you have to be careful about the credibility of what you read. I spent some time in Helsinki, which is, to some extent, the Mecca of Linux, and the university there had more Linux computers in the student computer labs than Windows computers, and clearly, people (technically-savvy or not) preferred the Linux computers.
Ask any system administrator, it is very likely that they will tell you they much prefer working with Linux / Unix / Solaris computers or servers. I mean, if they are familiar with such systems (some only work in Windows, of course). When you setup a Windows computer to incorporate it into a corporate or academic environment, there is a long shopping-list of things to do to setup virus-protection, network securities, server accesses (VPNs and such), special firewalls, etc. etc. With a Linux node, its much simpler and safer. Truth be told, one sys-admin can manage a much larger amount of Linux nodes in a network than he can manage Windows nodes, just due to how easier and quicker it is to deal with.
From a daily-user's point-of-view, for simple stuff like surfing the web, chatting, writing on forums, watching videos and listening to music, Linux does all of this better than Windows does, period. I often use the example of KDE (Plasma Desktop) which is so customizable that you can literally make an exact replica of a Windows desktop (any version), or if you prefer, you can also make an exact replica of almost any version of Mac OSes. The point is, Linux subsumes both Windows and Mac, you don't have to choose between the "serious" Windows and the "artsy-fartsy" Mac (like in those famous ads), you can just pick a Linux distro and customize it to your needs and to your liking. And after all, you don't have to be an expert user to appreciate the light-weightness of Linux, the superior software integration, and the ease of installation and massive availability of good and mostly reliable open-source software.
As a final note (after this crazy long rant!), most of my computers are dual-boot Windows / Kubuntu. I have two reasons to keep Windows on them: I'm an engineer, so there are specialized, commercial software that just aren't available on Linux (but many of them are beginning to offer Linux versions), like CAD, FEA/FEM, simulators, and some control software; and I like to keep my code compilable under Windows systems so I sometimes have to boot into Windows just to check that it is still so (it usually is, beyond a few trivial issues).
In point of fact, Linux and Unix (including OS-X) are both more secure than Windows because of how they are designed. That isn't to say that they have no vulnerabilities, but in point of fact it is MUCH more difficult for an attacker to get root access to Linux/Unix than Windows systems. This is a design and implementation issue, not one of popularity per se.
I agree with rubberman. I'm no expert on security or hacking of any kind, but you can clearly feel the inherent security in Linux (not without flaws, I'm sure) just from the way access rights are so deeply embedded in the system design. Windows can't compare, Windows is basically a massive patch-work with many layers each with their own vulnerabilities (I mean, my knowledge of Windows is minimal, but I could probably muster up some pretty nasty malware in a snap, not that it would last very long against virus-protection software, but I'm just saying, in Windows you find security flaws without even having to look for them, that's just how obvious they tend to be).