Seven years of conflict between Windows and Linux

Conflict 1: Linux and Windows are completely different.

You will be surprised by the similar complaints from so many people about Linux. They rush to Linux and want to find a free and open-source version of Windows. Generally, this is what the avid Linux users tell them. However, this is a ridiculous expectation.

People try Linux for different reasons, but all the reasons can be attributed to the fact that they want Linux to be better than Windows. This is precisely because of Linux's low cost, wider options, high performance, and high security. Of course, there are many other aspects that are measured in comparison with Windows. This is often the case for every Windows user who tries Linux. This is where the problem lies.

Too many people ignore the fact that, logically speaking, it is impossible to make a thing better than a reference object while keeping it identical. Just as a perfect replica will be no different from its master, but it cannot surpass the original version. So when you try Linux with the idea that the use of Linux is similar to that of Windows, and want it to do better, you will inevitably discover the differences between them, and regard these differences as Linux defects.

For a simple example, let's think about the Driver Upgrade: normally, if we want to upgrade a hardware driver in Windows, we need to go to the hardware manufacturer's website to find and download the latest driver. However, in Linux, we only need to simply upgrade the kernel.

This means that in Linux, only one download and upgrade can provide all the latest applicable drivers. However, in Windows, we have to browse multiple websites and download the upgrade programs separately. This is a different process. Obviously, this is not a bad experience. However, many people complain about this because it is not the way they are used.

Or from another example that is more frequently used, think about Firefox-one of the greatest success stories of open-source software. This is a Web browser sweeping the world. Is it successful by imitating IE, the "most popular browser?

No. It succeeds because it is better than IE. It is better because of its differences. It supports tab browsing, real-time dynamic bookmarks, built-in search entries, PNG (image format) support, adblock extensions (AD blocking plug-ins), and other wonderful things. The "Search" toolbar is displayed in the toolbar at the bottom. It can search for the content you typed and marked in red to indicate that no matching content exists. Internet Explorer does not have tab browsing, and does not have the RSS subscription function. The search results can only be expanded by a third party. In its search dialog box, you must click "OK" to start searching, in addition, you need to click "OK" again to clear the "not found" error message. This undoubtedly proves that an open-source application achieves "better" through "different", and succeeds by "better. If Firefox is just a clone of IE, it will disappear from the shadows of IE. If Linux is a clone of Windows, the same thing will happen on Linux.

Therefore, the key to solving this problem is: Remember the parts that are familiar with your usage habits in Linux, not that Linux is a new version and a new version of Windows. Actively address those differences, because Linux has the opportunity to shine brightly only when it is different.

Conflict 2: Linux and Windows are too different

When people look forward to something special about Linux, another problem arises. Linux and Windows are too different, and some differences are hard to adapt. Perhaps the most typical example is that there are too many things available for Linux users to choose from. For a new Windows user, he already has a classic or Windows XP-style desktop topic, WordPad program, IE browser, and OutlookExpress. However, for a Linux beginner, there are hundreds of releases in front of him for selection, and there are Gnome, KDE or Fluxbox (desktop environment), vi, emacs or kate (Text Editor ), konqueror, Opera, Firefox, Mozilla (Web browser), or a series of other available tools.

Windows users have never been faced with such rich choices for installation and use (operating system. "Is it necessary to provide so many options ?" Such complaints are common.

Is there a big difference between Linux and Windows? They are all operating systems. They all do the same job: operate your computer and let you have something to run the application. Naturally, they all have something in common, right?

Let's look at the problem from this perspective: when we go out, we can see different kinds of vehicles on the road. All vehicles, regardless of their design, have the same purpose: to transport you from A to B on the road. Note that they have different designs.

But you will think, there is a very small difference between cars: they all have steering wheel, foot pedal, transmission lever, hand brake, windows, doors, fuel tanks ...... If you can drive this car, you can drive any car.

Indeed. But have you ever seen people riding motorcycles instead of driving cars?

Switching from one version of Windows to another is like switching from a car to another. Win95 to Win98. To be honest, I can't tell the difference. From Win98 to WinXp, there is a big difference, but there is no major difference.

However, switching from Windows to Linux is like switching from a car to a motorcycle. They are all operating systems (road vehicles ). They may all use the same hardware (road ). They may all provide an environment for running applications (from location a to location B ). However, they use two essentially different methods to achieve their goals.

Windows (CAR) is not safe for viruses (thieves) unless you install anti-virus software (lock the door ). Linux (motorcycle) does not have viruses (doors), so even if you do not install anti-virus software (doors are not locked), it is very safe.

Let's take a look:

Linux (automobile) is basically used by multiple users (passengers ). Windows (motorcycle) is used for a single user (passenger ). Every Windows user (Motorcycle Driver) needs to get used to controlling his computer (vehicle) every moment ). A Linux User (A Car passenger) must log on as the root user (sitting in the driving seat) to control the computer (vehicle ).

There are two different ways to achieve the same goal. They have their own advantages and disadvantages: When carrying a family member and a large package of goods from A to B, A car is obviously wise: because it has ample seats and enough storage space. A motorcycle is a better choice for a person from the ground a to the ground B: because it does not encounter congestion, it consumes less fuel.

Whether you choose a motorcycle or a car, there are still many things that won't change: You need to add the oil to the fuel tank, drive the car on the same road, and you must observe the traffic lights and turn the steering lights before turning, you must also observe the speed limit instructions.

But after all, there are many different situations: drivers do not have to drive with safety helmets, and drivers do not need to fasten their seat belts. Drivers turn the steering wheel to turn, while drivers of motorcycles have to tilt their bodies to change their center of gravity; drivers need to step on the accelerator pedal to speed up, while motorcycles are controlled by hand rotating the handlebars.

A car driver will soon be in a pile of trouble if he tries to shift his focus. Similarly, if a Windows user thinks that his experience can be used directly, the results will be lost for the same reason. As a matter of fact, a Windows "Advanced User" often encounters more troubles in Linux. If experienced Windows users cannot solve the problem, they often feel that "if I have such knowledge, I cannot solve it, so don't worry about it for new users ", therefore, I came up with a strong idea that "Linux is 108,000 miles away from desktop applications. But this is obviously not in line with the facts.

The solution is that a Windows user must realize that he is only an experienced Windows user, not an experienced computer user. A Windows user must realize that he became a new user when he tried Linux.

Conflict 3: Cultural Impact

Sub-question A: it is A culture where Windows users are more or less in the relationship between consumers and suppliers:

They spend money to buy software, get authorization, get support, and so on. They want the software to have accurate availability. So they get used to the right to use software: they spend money to get technical support and the right they want. They also often deal with entities other than individuals: for example, they sign a contract with a company.

Linux users have more consistency. They don't have to spend money to buy software, and they don't have to spend money to get technical support. They download software for free, use online chat tools, and go to the Forum for help. They deal with individuals, not companies.

If a Windows user just brings his point of view to Linux, he will not like Linux, which needs to be adapted slowly.

The biggest cause of the conflict lies in online communication: a beginner Linux cainiao asks for help when encountering a problem. When he doesn't get an acceptable answer, he started complaining and wanted more help. This is because he used to pay for help. The problem is that this is not a paid system to help. It is a system that many enthusiastic people help others solve problems from the heart. A new user has no right to ask for help from these enthusiastic people, just like a donor who wants to get more donations.

Similarly, a Windows user is used to commercial software. The company will not release the software until it is sufficiently reliable, functional, and user-friendly. Therefore, Windows users want the software to start from Version 1.0. The Linux software will be released immediately after being rewritten. Therefore, it starts from version 0.1. In this way, people who really need these features will immediately get it; interested developers will help improve the code, and the Community will know what to do next.

If cainiao encounters a problem when using Linux, he will complain that the software fails to meet my needs and he thinks he has the right to be satisfied. If he gets an ironic answer like this: "If I am you, I want a refund !", His mood will be worse.

To avoid these problems, remember that you did not pay any money to software developers or those online who help you provide technical guidance. They don't owe you anything.

Sub-question B: New VS. Old

Linux was born almost because of hacker hobbies. Its growth also makes it easy to attract more like-minded hackers. Linux remains unknown until it gets an easy-to-use and available installer. For a long time, it was just a Geek in the eyes of the masses. It can be said that Linux "started with geeks and fed back to geeks ". Until today, most old Linux users still think of themselves as geeks.

This is a very good thing: if you have problems with hardware or software, there is a large group of geeks constantly looking for a solution, which is obviously a significant advantage.

However, for a long time, the growth of Linux is still very limited. Although there are some release versions that can be installed by the vast majority of people, or even some versions are based on CD and there is no conflict with the hardware used by users. When Linux started to attract some non-enthusiast users because of its no virus and cheap upgrades, there was no friction between the two user camps, but both sides made it clear that neither of them was malicious, lack of mutual understanding.

First of all, you are facing core geeks who still assume that all Linux users are geeks. This means that they think everyone has a deep understanding of this, which leads to others complaining that some of their actions are arrogant, arrogant, and rude. In fact, sometimes. But most of the time it is not like this: "Everyone should know." This kind of goodwill is said to be "everyone on Earth knows !" -- Very different.

Second, you are faced with new users switching from the commercial operating system in use. These users are used to user-friendly software, and they are also not sure.

This type of problem is caused by the collision of different usage habits: the first type is immersed in constantly restructuring the system as you like, and the second type is indifferent to how the operating system works, as long as it can work.

Similar situations with Lego (Lego) are just to be explained. Imagine the following scenario:

New users (hereinafter referred to as "new"): I want a new toy car. Everyone is fascinated by the fun of lego cars. So I also bought it, but when I got home, I found that my box only contains blocks and gears! Where is my car?

Old users (hereinafter referred to as "old"): You should assemble a car outside the building blocks, which is the true meaning of Lego.

New: What ?? I don't know how to assemble the car. I am not a mechanic. Why should I know how to assemble it?

Old: There is a user manual in the box. The steps for assembling a car are as follows. You don't need to know how it works, just follow the steps.

New: Okay, I found the step. This will take a lot of time! Why can't the manufacturer sell it to me after it has been installed ??

Old: Not everyone is satisfied with making LEGO a toy car. These building blocks can be made up of everything. This is the true meaning of the game.

New: I still don't understand why the manufacturer cannot give us a finished product for people like us who want a car. If those who like it, they can take it apart. In any case, I assemble it, even though some parts fall from time to time. Can I solve this problem? Can I stick them together?

Old: This is Lego. It is used for disassembly. This is the true meaning of the game.

New: But I don't want to always disassemble or assemble. I just want a toy car!

Old: Well, welcome to Earth. Are you buying Lego?

Obviously, Lego is not prepared for those who only want a toy car. The above scene should not happen in your life. The value of Lego is that you can have fun in the building process and you can assemble it into anything you want. If you do not want to assemble it, You can only say that Lego is not suitable for you. This is obvious.

Since Linux users have been paying attention to for a long time, the same problem becomes more and more obvious in Linux: it is an open-source, fully customizable software set. This is the true meaning. If you don't want to modify some components, why bother using them?

Similar to Lego's practice of selling finished toys, a series of recent achievements have improved the Linux comfort for non-hacker users, enabling more users to use Linux. That's why you can still hear conversations similar to the above, to a slightly different degree. New users complain that old users only consider basic features and they have to read the manual to implement some functions. Complaints about too many releases, complaints about too many software configuration options and complaints about Common Errors During running are not as common as complaints about Lego's too many modules. Can they be used to assemble and assemble as you want?

Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, remember that the current Linux environment is far from the past. The biggest and most critical component of the Linux community-hackers and developers-are excited by the fact that Linux can be customized as needed. They also suffer from the loss of programming capabilities.

Conflict 4: designed for designers

In the automotive industry, it is hard to find a person who designs a vehicle engine and a vehicle interior: these are completely different skills. No one wants an engine that looks like it can run very quickly, and no one wants a well-made but small and dirty interior. Based on the same principle, in the software industry, user interfaces (UIS) are often not designed by software programmers.

But in the Linux world, there are many differences: A project is often generated by personal interests. I have done all the work, so the interfaces of these projects often lack the "user friendly" feature: the user knows the software well, so he does not need help files. Vi is a good example. At first, its target users are people who know how it works. Therefore, designers have never thought about how to exit vi in other ways, so new users have to restart the computer to exit.

However, one of the major differences between a Free Open Source Software (FOSS) programmer and a commercial software programmer is that the FOSS programmer's work is what they want to use. Therefore, when the work cannot be "comfortable" for new users, it becomes what the end users need most: because the author is also a final user. Programmers of commercial software are very different. They always write software for others, and these users are not experts.

Although vi has an interface that is daunting for new users, it is still popular today, thanks to its interface: Once you are familiar with it, you will find it incredibly powerful. Firefox is also written by people who frequently browse the Web page. Gimp is also from people who often process graphic files. Not listed.

The Linux interface is somewhat difficult for new users ". Despite the reputation of vi, he still does not consider new users who need to modify files quickly. If you use it early in a software life cycle, the glamorous and friendly user interface will always be on top of the "Plan" list: function first. No one has hired a decoration team before looking for a real estate. Programmers are implementing functions and constantly improving the interface.

So, to avoid this problem: Find software that is easy to use for the purpose of design, or accept software that is sharply different from your usage habits. I complained that vi was not friendly enough to new users, but I had to give it away.

Conflict 5: myth of "user friendly"

In the computer world, "user friendly" is a very broad term. This is even the name of an online joke. However, this word is not real.

The basic implementation method sounds good: the software design should begin with the user's ideas and needs. This method has always been regarded as a single implementation method, but this is not the case.

If you are working on paperwork all your life, the ideal software is a fast and powerful text processing software that allows you to invest the minimum energy to achieve the maximum efficiency. Simple keyboard shortcuts and mouse-free operations are the most basic requirements.

However, if you do little word processing, and you just want to write a common letter, you don't want to learn the keyboard shortcut operations. Ordered menus and clear toolbar icons are your ideal environment.

Obviously, the software you design for a user's needs may not be suitable for other users. In this case, if each of us has different requirements for software, how can these software claim to be "user-friendly?

To put it simply, "user friendly" is not a fact, just to make complex situations look simpler.

So what does "user friendly" mean? Well, from those articles that use the term, "user-friendly" software actually means "it is not that difficult for users who have never used the software before ". This makes software that seems to have similar user interfaces classified as "user-friendly ".

Sub-question A: It is friendly to be familiar.

Therefore, in most text editing and text processing systems that are considered "user-friendly", you can use "Ctrl + X" and "Ctrl + V" to cut and copy texts, this is not intuitive, but everyone is used to these shortcuts, so they regard this as a "friendly" shortcut.

If someone uses vi and finds that "d" is cut and "p" is copy, it will be treated as unfriendly: because this is not the way most people are used.

But is this a better way? Obviously.

If you use the "Ctrl + X" method, how do you cut a word from the file you are currently editing? (Without a mouse !)

You must start with a character and use "Ctrl + Shift + Right" to select a word.

Then press Ctrl + X to cut it down.

In vi? "Dw" means to delete words.

What happens if you want to cut 5 words and use "Ctrl + X?

Start with a word:

"Ctrl + Shift + Right"

"Ctrl + Shift + Right"

"Ctrl + Shift + Right"

"Ctrl + Shift + Right"

"Ctrl + Shift + Right"

"Ctrl + X"

Use 5 Actions

What about the situation in vi?

D5w

The vi method is more functional and intuitive. "X" and "V" are not able to intuitively remember the "Cut" and "Paste" commands, on the contrary, "dw" is more intuitive to "delete" and "p" for "Paste". vi is obviously better than "X" and "V. However, since she is not familiar to everyone, she is considered unfriendly. It is not for other reasons that pure habits make Windows a more friendly system. Therefore, we need to learn Question 1: Linux and Windows are completely different. It is inevitable that Linux is often not "friendly ".

To avoid this problem, you should remember that "friendliness" does not mean that you are used to things. If it is useless, try to think about what a beginner will do, then you will know the simpler method.

Sub-Problem B: low efficiency is friendly.

This is a sad but unavoidable fact. The more you want to improve the functionality of a program, the more friendly it looks.

This is because friendliness is achieved by using simple and visualized "clues" on the user interface-the more the better. After all, if a completely new computer novice is placed before a WYSIWYG word processing software and asked to change some text to bold, it is likely that: he will think that "Ctrl + B" is a common method.

He looks for clues and tries to click the "edit" menu. If it fails, he will try to compare the format from the next series of menus ". The new menu has a "font" option that looks promising. Hi! Here we want the "bold" option. Successful!
Next time you do any text processing, you want to use the menu to complete each task: no shortcut keys or toolbar icons. Menus are everything. When a task suddenly requires a large number of buttons and mouse clicks, you will find that you are slower than crawling.

In this way, the software becomes "user friendly", just like attaching an auxiliary wheel to a bicycle: it enables you to ride immediately without any skills or experience. This is perfect for beginners. But no one will think that all bicycles should be sold with auxiliary wheels. If you get a bicycle like this today, I bet the first thing you need to do is remove this unnecessary obstacle: once you know how to ride a bicycle, the auxiliary wheel will be useless.

By the same principle, a large number of Linux software is designed without "Auxiliary wheels" (Auxiliary Tools)-it is designed for users who already have some basic skills. After all, no one is new forever: Ignorance is short-lived, and knowledge is permanent. Therefore, Linux software is designed on the premise of a large amount of knowledge.

It may sound like an excuse: after all, MS Word (Microsoft's Word) has all the Friendly menus, there are various toolbar buttons, and there are shortcuts ...... It is the best in the world. Really? Friendly and effective.

However, we must look at the problem through the appearance. First, the feasibility of this idea: giving a software a menu, toolbar, shortcuts, and so on means a lot of source code writing, and no one pays for the time that Linux developers spend. Second, this still does not really take into account those high-end users; very few professional text entry users use MS Word. Which programming person have you ever seen use MSWord? In comparison, think about how many people use emacs and vi.

Why? First, this is because some "user-friendly" behavior can cause inefficiency: see the preceding "cut and paste" example. Secondly, this is because most of the Word functions are placed in the menu, so you have to use the menu. Only some of the most common functions can be placed as buttons on the toolbar of the interface. Advanced users have to spend a lot of time finding features that are rarely used, but are still very common for advanced users.

In addition, remember that "Auxiliary wheels" are also available in Linux software. Although they are not so easy to find, they are usually available in Linux.

Take mplayer as an example. You can enter the mplayer video file name command on the terminal to play the video file. You can use the arrow keys, PageUp, and PageDown to perform fast forward and backward operations. these may not be completely "user-friendly", but if you enter the gmplayer video file name on the terminal, you will see the graphic player, which also has a beautiful and friendly interface, familiar buttons.

Take converting from CD to MP3 (or Ogg) as an example: if you use the command line, you need to use the cdparanoia command first. Then you need an encoder ...... This can be a nightmare, even if you fully understand how to use the (imho) package. So download and install Grip. This is an easy-to-use graphics software. It automatically uses the cdparanoia command and Encoder behind the scenes to make your conversion process simple. It even supports CDDB and can automatically name your files.

It also happens on the captured DVD: Selecting the correct encoding is a nightmare. However, using the dvd: rip software, you can complete the coding process on a graphic interface that anyone can operate freely.

To avoid this problem, remember that the "Auxiliary wheel" (auxiliary tool) is only used as an extension of Linux, rather than automatically provided by the main program. In addition, "Auxiliary wheels" are sometimes not part of the design.

Conflict 6: Imitating VS. Confluence

When people find that Linux is not the copy of Windows they want, they often argue that the birth of Linux is the direction of their efforts, moreover, those who do not understand this point mistakenly help to make Linux more like Windows. Due to this, they have a heated debate:

Linux has evolved from the command line era to the graphic interface era, which is an obvious attempt to copy Windows.

Good theory, but wrong: the original X-window regionalization system (see the appendix) was released in 1984, inheriting the W-window system transplanted to Unix in 1983. Windows 1.0 was released in 1985. Windows was not big before the third edition was released in 1990-at that time, the X Window System had evolved into the X11 version we used today for several years. Linux started in 1991, so Linux did not develop a GUI (graphical user interface) to imitate Windows: It only used a GUI that existed before Windows appeared.

The Windows 3 series made Windows 95 a revolutionary change in the graphical interface, and Microsoft has not been able to make any such innovation for many years. Windows 95 brings many innovative features: drag-and-drop, taskbar, and so on. Of course, these are also used by Linux.

Actually ...... This is not the case. All of the above features have appeared before Microsoft's use. In particular, NeXTSTeP (see the appendix) is a very advanced graphical user interface (for the time being). It was earlier than Win95 -- the first version was released in 1989, and the last version was released in 1995.

Good, good, so Microsoft did not come up with what we think is unique in the Windows interface. But it still creates an interface that Linux has tried to imitate since then.

To expose this, we can refer to a frequently-discussed saying: convergence. It is said that two different and independent systems will gradually become similar over time. This phenomenon often occurs in the field of biology. For example, sharks and dolphins all have similar back fin, thoracic fin, and tailfin, and the same streamlined shape.

However, sharks evolved from fish, while dolphins evolved from terrestrial mammals. They have a similar shape because they all live in the same marine environment, and they must evolve in the direction of adapting to the marine environment with maximum efficiency. In fact, there is no such scene: the unevolved dolphins start to think "Wow, look at shark fin, they are very useful. I also want to develop my own fin like this !"

Similarly, if you look at earlier Linux desktops, FVWM and TWM, and many simple guis (graphical user interfaces), and then look at today's Linux desktops, Gnome, and KDE, and their taskbar, menus, and visual effects. Yes, I have to say that Linux is more like Windows than it was earlier.

On the other hand, the same is true for Windows; Windows 3.0 does not have a taskbar. What about the Start menu? What is the Start menu?

Linux does not have any desktop like today's Windows, and Microsoft does not. Now they all have them. What does this mean?

This shows that members of both development camps are looking for ways to improve GUI (graphical user interface) performance, but there are not many options to solve the same problem, they will inevitably use similar methods. It does not mean that one party is imitating the other. Remember this and you will not be troubled by this problem.

Conflict 7: FOSS (free and open source software)

Oh, this leads to a problem. Non-essential: free and open-source software is an excellent and important part of the entire process. But for some people, the difference between understanding FOSS (free and open source software) and private software is a huge change.

I have already reminded people of the fact that they need and love technical support. But the fact is often far away.

Microsoft's Mission Statement is "A computer on every desktop (every computer needs A desktop)"-it goes without saying that every computer should run Windows. Microsoft and Apple both sell operating systems and do their best to ensure that most people use their products: they are enterprises, in order to make money.

And FOSS (free and open-source software) are also there, and even today, it is almost non-commercial.

When you emailed me, Red Hat, Suse, Linspire and all Linux distributions: Yes, I know they are "selling" Linux. I know that they all want Linux to be widely used, especially their own versions. But do not confuse providers and producers. The Linux kernel is not created by a company but maintained for profit. These GNU tools are not created by a company, nor for profit. X11 windows ...... Yes, the most popular implementation scheme is xorg, and ". org" should partially tell you what you need to know (Note:. org is a non-profit organization ). Desktop software: Good. You give an example, such as KDE, because its Qt is commercialized. (Note: currently, Qt is not commercialized ). However, Gnome, Fluxbox, and Enlightenment are non-profits. Some people sell Linux, but there are only a few.

The increase in the number of end users of private software has led to the direct economic benefits of those software companies. This is not the case for FOSS (free and open-source software). The increase in the number of users will not generate direct benefits. It must be: personal pride, the growth of Bug (error) capabilities, more likely to attract new developers, may have a chance to get a good job, and so on.

However, Linus Torvalds (founder of Linux) does not make any money on Linux's right to use Linux. Richard Stallman (GNU founder) did not make a profit from the increasing GNU use right. All services running OpenBSD and OpenSSH are not included in the wallet of the OpenBSD project.

So we can see that this is the biggest problem between Linux and new users: they found what they don't want.

When new users came to Linux, they used an operating system. At that time, the requirements of end users were paramount and "user-friendly" and "user-centered" were considered the first. And they suddenly found that they were going to use the operating system: still dependent on the 'man 'Document, command line, manual editing of the Configuration documentation and Google. And when they complain, they do not get the best care or promise: they often hit the wall.

Of course, I'm exaggerating. Many attempts to convert to Linux fail.

On the other hand, FOSS (free and open source software) is actually a very self-developed method: people only work when they want to work, only work what they want to work. Most people do not see any demand, making Linux more attractive to inexperienced users: it has already worked as they want, why are they concerned about why they are not working for another person?

FOSS (free and open-source software) and the Internet have many similarities: You don't have to pay a web page (software) author to download and read (install) it. For people who already have bandwidth (know how to use software), unlimited bandwidth (user-friendly interface) is not very interested. A blog (software developer) does not need many readers (users) to prove that writing a blog log (encoding ). There are many people who get a lot of money from it, but it is not the old rule most businesses like: "I own this. If you want something, you have to pay "; it provides services such as technical support (e-commerce.

Linux is not interested in market share. Linux has no customers. Linux has no shareholder or is liable for a profit or loss. Linux is not created to make money. Linux has not become the most popular and popular operating system on this planet.

All Linux communities want a really nice, distinctive, and free operating system. It would be wonderful if Linux eventually became a very popular operating system. It would be wonderful if Linux eventually had an intuitive and user-friendly interface. It would be wonderful if Linux eventually became the foundation of a multi-billion dollar industry.

It is great, but it is not the focus. The key point is to make Linux the best operating system that the Community can make. Not for others: for itself. The general threat that "the desktop will never be occupied unless Linux is so" is inappropriate: the Linux community has not attempted to occupy the desktop. They don't care if it is good enough on your desktop, as long as it runs well on their desktop. Those who hate Microsoft, Linux enthusiasts, and FOSS (free and open-source software) providers may be noisy, but they are still a minority.

What the Linux community wants is that an operating system can be installed by anyone who wants it. So if you are thinking about turning to Linux. First, ask yourself what you really want.

If you want an operating system where no car driver is by your side, except to give you the key, put you in the driver's seat, and want you to know what to do: Get Linux. You will have to spend time learning how to use it, but once you learn, you will have an operating system that can stand up and dance.

If you only want Windows with no malware or security problems: read good security practices; install firewalls, malware testers and anti-virus software; replace IE with a safer browser; and keep the latest security updates. Some people (including myself) use Windows from 3.1 to XP and never get infected with viruses or malware: You can do the same. Don't use Linux: Unfortunately, it won't be what you want it to look like.

If you want the security and performance of a Unix-based operating system, a customer-centric feature, and a world-famous interface: buy Apple's Mac OS. Mac OSX is good. But don't use Linux: It won't do what you want it to do. (Note: According to my personal observation, the Linux interface is now approaching or surpassing Mac OS X .)

This is not just about "Why do I want Linux ?" Why does Linux want me ?"