NOTE: I'm going to use the term "LINUX" because that's what Microsoft likes to use. When I say Linux, I mean Linux/Debian/BSD.
What started off as a post on a
forum, has spread to
tech news outlets.
Some of the bogus claims include "true/false" slides that the Best Buy employees were supposed to select:
This one is straightforward. I mean, it's not entirely untrue. Though
Direct X, Windows Live Bloatware and
IE8 are free. There isn't really much more that is free.
Wait I lied...
.NET Framework and various other not-directly-value-added downloads. I mean, free is free right?
Not sure what distro of Linux Microsoft has been using, but most major ones are pre-setup with repositories stocked with 10,000s of apps. Free ones. Games, productivity suites, tools, and other dingus.
Since when could you get an all-in-one CD/DVD ripper, builder, menu creator, burner, video re-encoder for free (
K3B).
AcetoneISO2 is a full and better replacement for Alcohol 120%. You don't even need DaemonTools, et al. to mount an ISO.
There are primo apps in Linux that don't even have Windows equivalents; or the equivalents are few, non-free and unstable.
SSHFS vs.
SFTPDrive (now Expandrive - NOT free) for example.
Next Slide
This is where it starts getting interesting. "Ubuntu may have hundreds of updates a month". This is correct. That's primarily because Ubuntu, and every other major Linux distribution allows you to update EVERY application installed on your system across the board, all at once.
If you use Windows, and all you have installed is Internet Explorer, Office and Windows Live, everything gets updated at once through Windows Update.
On Linux however, EVERY application installed, from the Kernel, to the office suites, to the games you installed through the repositories, to google applications, etc. etc. As long as they have been installed through a repository (which is about 99% of the time). They are upgraded together, in one shot, and they are updated fast.
Installing an application is as easy as searching a visual interface for an application from a list of 10,000s of possibilties. Selecting everything you want, in one shot, and clicking "Apply". Everything gets downloaded, installed and updated from one location unless you specifically seek out other apps from 3rd party sources. Even then, most Linux applications that aren't included in the core repositories of your distribution, usually have their own repositories that you can add to your list. That SEAMLESSLY integrates their applications and updates with your system.
Updates for 100 apps simultaneously takes about 5 minutes on Ubuntu (since they used that as an example in their slides). Sometimes, that also includes the download time. It all happens at once and you don't even have to be paying attention.
Imagine, you have OpenOffice.org installed, a selection of games from various publishers, 3 different IM clients. When updates are available for all of them and also a bunch of system applications, you click the "update manager". Click "update all" and it's done.
As the Rotisserie infomercial says "Set it and forget it!"
On Windows, you have to hunt down updates for every single app you installed. Download then one by one into a "downloads folder". double-click on each one and let the installer start, run, then restart your computer in some cases. You have to attend to each update because you can't run multiple installers concurrently.
How many times have you downloaded an application for Windows and have had to download something else for it to work? e.g. .NET framework or other drivers available at other sources?
When you
choose to install an application on pretty much every Linux distribution through the repositories, any prerequisites are automatically selected and downloaded/installed with it.
Which brings me to the "
choose" part of this seciton. Microsoft Updater FORCES you to install some updates before you can install others. For example, as everyone saw in XP, you were forced to download and install Service Pack 2 and 3 before you could do security updates. It takes about as much time (and sometimes longer) to install a single Service Pack update as it does to catch up on 6 months worth of "across-the-board" updates on all your applications on most major Linux distributions.
Service Pack updates have always broken some subset of applications or system functionality. Not having a choice to install them isn't the best option.
It can be unclear to users whether or not software updates need to be applied immediately or are optional
The new update manager for KDE and Gnome (as of a year ago or more) breaks down the categories of updates into critical, optional, software, etc.
Next Slide
This is an outright lie. When a bug or security issue is found in Windows, you have to wait until the next "patch Tuesday" or sometimes "weeks or months" to get a fix for it. By that time, a many sites or bot nets have already started exploiting it. In some cases, some issues and insecurities haven't been patched, in months or
even years.
Internet Explorer is a leaking sieve of vulnerabilities and there has yet to be an update that stops spyware or other malware from easily installing itself on your computer.
The Win32 API is irrevocably broken (see
Shatter Attack). Windows 7 is way to new to even determine how secure it is.
And yes, there IS a guarantee that security issues will be fixed in Linux... and FAST. There is also the ability to set parental restrictions through free applications you can install. Sadly, Windows "Parental Restrictions" are garbage and 3rd party paid apps do a better. So fork over more cash if you want real security on that end.
Though Linux viruses theoretically do/can exist as a proof of concept, Linux's long history of proper User Access Control prevents them from spreading. Most Linux users don't have anti-virus apps installed and don't have infections.
Microsoft likes to say this is because Linux isn't popular enough, but that's all hype. User Access Control in Linux is solid and unless you specifically install a bad application (manually) by entering your password to grant it access, you're pretty much safe.
Windows Vista UAC has always been a pain in the ass, asking you every step of the way if you want to do something. Regardless of that fact, Windows Vista is still highly susceptible to infection that bypasses the UAC altogether.
Furthermore, frequent nuisance questions from the access control interface tend to put people in a "push okay for everything" mode. Most Windows users don't even know what they are being asked to allow.
Next Slide
If anything, there are TOO MANY step-by-step tutorials and every application installed has its own man pages or help documentation.
As for the "different flavors of Linux" comment. Different flavors of Linux still install the same desktop managers which is where the end-user usability lies. Between different "flavors", most of the functionality will remain the same.
Next Slide
Linux works out of the box on MOST systems. No need to download drivers. And the restricted driver manager usually handles the rest.
I can't count how many computers I've installed XP and Vista on (and soon enough Windows 7 as well) where something as simple as the network card doesn't work. This makes it a real bitch to get more drivers and requires the use of a second computer to make it work.
Just as the "Pay so we can support your hardware" (Windows Certified Drivers) scam failed on smaller manufacturers in XP and Vista, Windows 7 hasn't added any new incentives.
Furthermore, Linux works one 99% of hardware running a Live CD without having to install the system.
Now It's My Turn
Now that we have heard what Microsoft likes to teach Best Buy's "button clicking" sales idiots. Here's what I have to say:
Choice of desktop manager
With Windows7 you are stuck with a crappy clone of KDE4 as a desktop manager. In Vista a rip-off of OS X Leopard. With XP, well.. bland crap. Any updates to the desktop manager usually comes with an overhead. In any case, changing the desktop manager in Windows requires you to seek out a replacement that breaks some system functionality or costs money.
With Linux, you have a choice of 5 major desktop managers and a bunch of others. You can install any of the desktop managers from the repositories and easily pick, when you log in, which one you want to use. Now that's choice that Windows users can't even fathom.
Vista's Aero was a bloated joke that was YEARS behind
Compiz. Windows 7 didn't really make any improvements in the "cool" aspect. Even KDE4's built-in desktop effects are insanely more advanced than Windows 7's "3D" environment.
And it also comes with a main difference.
Works on older machines with 3D desktop
I installed KDE4+Compiz on a 2002 DELL desktop (64MB NVIDIA onboard) . And guess what... it was smooth! It worked very well! And it ran better with Compiz than it did without.
I have installed the latest versions of Linux on old P3s and brought them back to life. Upgrading to Vista and Windows 7 requires a definite hardware upgrade. Furthermore, using the "Aero" interface requires even more expensive hardware than the cheap pre-built towers you can buy at mom-and-pop computer stores.
Usable system out of the box
A Linux install is usable out of the box and getting more apps for it is as easy as running an installer application and selecting multiple apps to install at once.
If there is a Windows application that you need specifically or your don't like the options available for free. You DO have the option to install a very large variety of Windows applications on Linux under WINE. Linux is not as "anti-Windows" as the die hards make it out to be. It's all about CHOICE. Something you don't have with Windows.
You can install MSOffice, Adobe CS products, Games, etc under WINE, Crossover Office and Cedega.
Live CD
You have always had a CHOICE in all aspects of using Linux and live CDs are a definite cornerstone. The ability to run most distributions off a CD without touching your hard driver and affecting your data gives you the chance to try them out risk-free. If you like it, use it. If you don't, pick another one.
Live CDs even give you the change to FURTHER install apps from repositories to add functionality. All without touching your hard drive and existing OS install. These installed applications are volatile and disappear on next reboot.
The only real way to diagnose booting issues and other critical problems on Windows installs for me has been to boot a Linux live CD.
The Windows "Recovery Interface" off the install CD is desperately lacking any functionality. You can't even edit text files with it.
Linux live CDs give you a full operating system interface, they mount most file systems, including NTFS and if there isn't an app you need to do something, just install it. Easy as pie....
Power Users
Windows is not an OS for power users. Linux gives you the choice to use the OS at a topical level or with as much detail as you need.
You have options. You can modify and recompile the kernel if you want to. It's up to you.
Fear of Google's ChromeOS
All this fake propaganda is driven by Microsoft's serious fear of Linux, especially with the hype that Google Chrome OS has been receiving. As it stands right now, 2009 was a breaking point for Linux where over half of all computerized appliances are now using the *NIX kernel as their OS. Thanks to Apple's bastardized adoption of BSD on iPhones and Macs, Google Android, the majority of web/mail servers that run it and, of course, bing.com Linux is the most popular OS on all devices.
Though an argument CAN be made that Linux isn't ready for mass consumption (not my opinion). It already does have a big market.
Bing.com
Microsoft can't really hate Linux that much if their much-advertised
Bing search engine relies on it. (F5 BigIP are Linux appliances. Notice how the Windows 2003 Servers are running Apache?)
FREE (as in beer and democracy)!
Linux is FREE! And gives you the freedom of choice
! Sure there are maybe a few shortcomings in Linux, but never for long. Windows has found itself chasing/implementing Linux features instead of the other way around.
And in some situations (e.g. Compiz) Linux is so far ahead that Windows isn't bothering to compete. You think Aero will ever run on a 2002 Dell desktop?
