Here is a Linux disadvantage to you: in order to use Linux you have to be Linux (or computer in general) enthusiast. Because if you have other hobbies then learning how to install new OS and how to get it working is not on your priority list.

So I will debate on your pros and cons from point of view of a user. Somebody who uses PC just like any other appliance or a tool.

1. Cost. If I were rude, I’d say get off your butt get yourself a better job and stop crying about it. Things cost money. But I say this. I expect my appliance/tool/gadget be configured and working when I bring it home from “Best Buy”. Since Linux is not sold there I’d have to pay somebody to install and configure it for me. OS install @ “Best Buy” is $129 ($249 if they do it in your home). Well, this is price for windows install, but let’s assume they charge similar amount for Linux install. I can install Open Source and Freeware on my windows PC to keep my usage costs down.

Also, I checked out Dell (since they sell Open Source PC). Similar model with Win XP was only $30 more expensive than the Open Source one. And
keep in mind their Open Source PC has FreeDOS packaged in but not installed. So you still need to install the OS yourself (XP would be already installed for you).

So there is no real cost advantage for Linux to speak of. You might throw in higher hardware specs for Vista. Cannot comment there, since I did not try Vista (and probably will not any time soon), but on my both dual boot PCs I cannot say that Linux runs any faster comparing to XP (or win 2k).

2. Security. Credit goes to Linux. Default Win install does not do a good job. You can keep your Windows relatively secure, but it requires additional work. It is possible to have Windows box properly secured and there are free anti-virus software available. But on the other side you have to say that Linux is not iron-clad either, it is possible to penetrate it and I am sure that when it reaches its prime (desktop install base comparable with Win or Mac) and competes with Windows directly (sold to a customer Joe through the same channels as win) there will be Linux viruses.

3.Choices (Freedom). To me this is just a bogus propaganda and nothing more. Remember, PC is an appliance/tool, it does not need to look pretty, it must be functional. Of the variety of desktop environments in Linux there is really only one fully functional and reach in features:KDE. You can choose others for performance reasons, but you would give up features (which I will not give up at any price). So there are not many choices for me. KDE is the one. But it is better than Windows desktop manager. So half of point to Linux. Windows desktop is functional and easy to use too.

4. Software. I do not even know why you went there. The are gazzilion more software titles available for Windows than for Linux (both casual home user and enterprise one). And there are many open source and free-ware programs available for windows as well.

So you have 5 or more different text editors? Common, I need only one (functional, easy to use and full of bells and whistles). I do not need 10 programs to do the same thing. I need 10 programs to do 10 different things.

“software on Linux tends to be packed with more features and greater usability than software on Windows” - that’s such a big and obvious over-statement that it does not need a reply.

Well, HUGE advantage goes to Windows for software availability even if you have to pay for it.

Another thing is software quality. Is is not a secret that some distros are getting released with obvious bugs and very visible bugs. When you report a bug, you’re performing a job that a professional QA should do. So if you think about it, you did not really get it for free, you’re their test lab rat, and they did not have to hire an expensive QA pro.

5. Hardware. Using decade old 386/486 PCs ?! You got to be a really cash poor dude if you cannot buy a modern PC. It does not cost an arm and leg to buy a PC these days. Why would I even want to run a stripped down OS on that? No,no,no I need features, PC is an universal multi functional tool/appliance. I need my KDE, I need the bells and the whistles. All that requires decent hardware in both Linux and Windows. So this is a mute point.

Your disadvantages.

1. Understanding/Strong learning curve. It is not a disadvantage - It is a COMPLETE TURN OFF. As I said before, unless computers/OS/programming are your hobbies (or profession) there is no reason to waste your time on it. Period.

Testing Linux out should be as easy as walking into “Best Buy” (or your other favorite store) and seeing a PC with Linux installed. Playing with it as you with Windows PC and deciding. Hmmm, it is better.

2. Compatibility.
“Sometimes behind the curve” ?! Pinch yourself, wake up and stop dreaming. How many electronic accessories and gadgets you can purchase in a store that say on the box that it is Linux compatible and provides Linux driver in the box??? You can get lucky if there is open source driver somewhere on the internet (or even in your Linux distro). So far neither my local phone company nor cable provider support Linux install to get high speed internet access. I had to use Windows to activate my account. Customer rep in the phone company did not even know what a Linux is !!!

Add: web sites that work just fine on Firefox+Plugins/Windows and fail on Firefox+Plugins/Linux; complex MS Office documents are not completely handled by Open Office.

3. Alternative Programs.
Interesting. You put “Software” into Linux advantage, but “programs” into disadvantage. Pick a side, will you?

Here is my summary.

Windows: easy to use, well featured, and fully supported OS with security issues. By “fully supported” I mean wide range hardware/software vendors as well as service providers (including ISPs).

Linux: decent desktop alternative if you’re willing to compromise a bit (learn it, has some bugs, some software might be lacking). More flexible setup options available. Open source, you can learn coding and command line (if that’s your thing) from existing examples of working applications. Community support not always reliable. Not ready for the prime-time, still does not compete directly against windows desktop as MacOS does (mass TV/media ads, available in major retail stores to try before you buy). You can try Linux before you commit to it (live CD), but it is a bit more effort than walking up to a Linux PC and just start playing with it. It might be an interesting idea if somebody burnt 100 (or more) CDs with MEPIS, PClinuxOS or other Live CD Distro and gave it away in a major retail store to people who never heard of Linux before. You think it’s worth of a try ???

My apologies for a longish post. Sorry, but it is not a small subject.

Nice article, although sometimes there are too many choices for Linux. It is a problem for a newbie to select the right Dist. What comes to general comparison of what is better – Linux or Windows.. you have to consider all aspects such as GUI, stability, security, etc. If a user needs from his computer only a text application and internet browser – no matter what he will have Linux, Windows, BSD, MacOS – he will be happy with it.

What comes to Linux – indeed it needs more advertisement and many hardware vendors should preinstall it on their products (laptops, computers), that would probably destroy the myth that Linux is for geeks.

Yes, James, thank you. You’ve posted two long-winded posts here and we get the idea - you don’t like Liunx. Settle down, have some warm milk and a nap, and stop proselytizing.

James, you do make some good points about the cost of Linux. However, I found your reasoning flawed.

Case in point, how much would you have spent (in time and money please) if you decided to try 10 different versions of Windows on your PC? Let’s see there’s Win3.1, Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT 3.5, WinNT 4.0, Win2k, WinME, XP Home, and XP Pro…

The day of Linux isn’t quite here yet. But when PCs start shipping with 4 gigs of RAM (the maximum amount that a 32-bit OS can access) I think we’ll start to see the tide turn towards Linux. Windows won’t be able to turn the corner from 32-bit to 64-bit computing. Yes, they did release XP-64 but it was junk and not a consumer-level product. Vista is 32-bit. Windows won’t have the 64-bit driver support needed to handle the transition.

The cost of windows upgrade. I am not a big fan of using a decade old PC. Why? Because, I believe that (as any home appliance) PCs progress with the time. New PC would produce less heat, noise, and vibration. Difficult to put price on this… But the less noise the less headache medicine to take, you could price it that way Then, newer PCs should be more energy efficient. Let’s say it is only 25 cents a day more efficient and you use your PC 200 days/year: thats gives you $50/year saved (which easily covers your MS tax). These numbers are pulled out of air, but my point is that you need to look well beyond straight up purchase price. I think there is a big chance that modern PC gives you better value in terms of computing power per money spent. And if your PC is only a couple of years old, no need to pull a plug, it’s still going to be good for another 3-4 years.

I think now is the perfect time to have dual boot. Hard drives are big enough and you can still use windows when you need it and use Linux for its more secure internet experience.

Wow, I love coming to these blogs about the advantages of linux over windows because the people who tend to write things are very similiar to politicians who are to set in their ways to even think that there may be good in 2 sides of any issue. Linux is a fun system to use, I consider it more of a toy then a real tool though. The software created is done open source most of the time because we know that people who won’t pay for an OS probably won’t pay for the software on it either. I think that open source software is great in that it is a collection of developers who are all sharing their knowledge, but organized software where people get paid, tends to produce better software on average which is one of the reasons that Windows has and will have more software then Linux. I like that linux is more secure then windows right after the install, but that doesn’t mean that someone who isn’t lazy with windows can’t make windows run in whatever security they want. you don’t have to run as administrator, security at the file system level is more fine grained then linux is in that you aren’t limited to one owner, one group and then the world but can add any number of users or groups to any file or directory. To set this up though does take time and someone who really knows what they are doing. You are also limited in that most of the programs that were originally written on windows by default want to run as administrator. I really do like the fact that with linux I can install web servers easily on older machines and have a few running at home. I guess my biggest complaint is that linux users seem to feel they deserve some recognition and seem to have this entitlement thinking that people have to see them as being superiour computer users because they can copy a line in vi.

“Windows can be a great tool for the lazy and incompetent, but it takes a true scholar and one who wants to learn to run a robust operating system like Linux.” Is by far the dumbest line that I have ever heard in my entire life. Developers are by far the most experienced computer users in the world and Microsoft developers have come up with some of the greatest tools, such as C# which is such a great tool, especially when compared to the same old gcc used on linux. If you are going to make any of these stupid comments make them to your other geek buddies at your World of Warcraft parties.