Switching to Linux? [Open Poll]

[i8myhippo]

It must also be assumed that since NVidia and Valve are already on board, ALONG WITH Windows developers being quite angry at Windows 8, that Linux, although representing only 1% of machines, may end up becoming the industry standard.

So assume all of your favorite programs, business or play, are all available on both OS's.

 

[i8myhippo]

Edited the post to be open.

 

[Brett928S2]

It must also be assumed that since NVidia and Valve are already on board, ALONG WITH Windows developers being quite angry at Windows 8, that Linux, although representing only 1% of machines, may end up becoming the industry standard.

So assume all of your favorite programs, business or play, are all available on both OS's.

Hi

This >>>> So assume all of your favorite programs, business or play, are all available on both OS's <<< WONT HAPPEN FOR MANY YEARS...if ever...

All the best Brett

 

[bystander]

I agree with Brett. They'd have to completely rewrite the graphics engines if almost every game to do this and OpenGL is not as easy to use as DirectX, though OpenGL does have the advantage to being more portable.

It won't happen anytime soon.

There is no vote to be made, as by the time that happens, I have no idea the position the OS's will be in.

 

[Labrynthian]

Linux won't get far.

 

[tr2012]

Switched to Linux years ago, though not for gaming, have consoles for that.

Also why restrict the poll to just Ubuntu?

 

[i8myhippo]

@tr2012 Ubuntu is the only distro that Steam is coming to, to start.

 

[casualcolors]

This whole Linux uproar after that Valve press release is kind of cruel for Linux developers and fans. Valve have no intent of seeing this through, but were making a bold statement as a reactionary way of damaging Windows potentially shutting Valve out of the software market they had just started hoping to break into.

There are so many more factors that would need to be accounted for than simply nVidia and Valve supporting the move, including as mentioned in this thread literally rewriting the graphics engines for almost every major game on the market.

 

[nigelren]

It must also be assumed that since NVidia and Valve are already on board, ALONG WITH Windows developers being quite angry at Windows 8, that Linux, although representing only 1% of machines, may end up becoming the industry standard.

So assume all of your favorite programs, business or play, are all available on both OS's.

I think the problem being that if people are using any form of business software - it's unlikely that this will be ported just because of the increased number of games available on Ubuntu.

I've used Ubuntu for a while - and can usually find software that will do whatever job I want on it. It's not always the best stuff - and you can't expect it to compete with paid for software all of the time.

The main thing is cost - I can have as many real/virtual machines as I want for the grand sum of £0.00 in licence costs! Installing Micro$oft would cost me more than some of the hardware has - so the case for using Windows is mainly financial rather than functionality.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Brett's right - it's a pretty colossal assumption to make that everything will become available on Linux! Plus, have you tried connecting external devices to your Linux box? Phone, iPod, webcam, digital camera, scanner, printer? Some of that stuff will pick up flawlessly, but not all of it. Manufacturers support Windows first, Linux is an afterthought.

I have to say the cost argument is a pretty weak one... not because of the current Windows 8 pricing, but even the £70 for an OEM 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium - this is an OS that has served me well for almost three years now and will probably do so for three more. That's £11 per year. You'd spend double that on a takeaway or a trip to the cinema - for the mast majority of people it's irrelevant.

Stronger arguments for Linux are the ability to browse recklessly without any fear of viruses, having a modern OS performing well on older/cheaper hardware, and having an awesome range of interfaces to choose from (most of which offer massive customisation also). It's not going to beat Windows though. If anything does, OS X is in a MUCH stronger position I'm sorry to say.

EDIT: As nigelren says, for businesses paying that cost many times over, cost is more of a consideration (although of course businesses have more money to play with than your average individual and also need to consider training costs/reduced productivity of employees who panic because Windows disappeared!).

 

[grumbledook]

Sticking with windows 8(desktop) and 7 (laptop), but I will try it out on an older machine. I expect to be mildly frustrated again as I tend to do when I try ubuntu.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Sticking with windows 8(desktop) and 7 (laptop), but I will try it out on an older machine. I expect to be mildly frustrated again as I tend to do when I try ubuntu.

You could always try Xubuntu instead, fast performance on older machines without looking ugly and masses more customisation options that Unity (Ubuntu's current default interface). Alternatively, Bodhi Linux is also excellent, but be aware that some shortcuts you may be used to in Windows (Alt+F4, Ctrl+Left/Right and Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right) may need to be set up manually initially. Some awesomely cool transitions with Enlightenment 17 though (the Bodhi interface) and plenty of eye candy that won't bog down an older machine. Loads of customisation too.

 

[tr2012]

masses more customisation options that Unity

Installing Ubuntu Tweak, Gnome Tweak Tool and Unsettings makes Unity as open to customisation as any other DE. Prefer KDE personally, but each to their own.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Yeah that should have been 'than Unity'. I'm talking about out-of-the-box functionality anyway - if you're gonna stuff your system chock full of extras then you could argue that Windows is highly customisable with third party bloatware, but I wouldn't do it personally.

 

[sam_p_lay]

And I love KDE too, it absolutely blew me away when I first saw it. Grumbledook is talking about installing on an old machine though, that's the only reason I didn't recommend Kubuntu.

 

[mpyusko]

I dual-boot because when a warranty issue arises and I say I'm having this issue in Linux, a lot of places pretty much end my call then and there. I like to prove it's an issue in windows too.

The other point is I'm a HUGE fan of linux as anyone around me would know. I'm not fond of any Ubuntu release as of yet and I prefer Debian Testing or Slackware. Switching to any Linux distro is a vast improvement over windows, but limiting yourself to one distro is a little narrow-minded (no offense). I've used several myself. Knoppix, DSL, Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, and even the purpose built ones like Ultimate Boot CD and System Recovery. Slackware is great for my desktop. I usually need to compile from source or have a more complex installation process for most programs but the stability is worth it. Debain is what I use on my server because of the ease of updating. And I use Debian on my laptop because of it's on-the-fly nature. I can't wait for the day Hardcore Gaming comes to Linux.

Also, Windows comes free when you buy a computer, so why thoroughly toss it out?

I've also taken classes in college where a windows based computer was required because of ActiveX for Math homework assignments. Ugh.

 

[sam_p_lay]

I dual-boot because when a warranty issue arises and I say I'm having this issue in Linux, a lot of places pretty much end my call then and there. I like to prove it's an issue in windows too.

Haha I love this! Smart computing I'm interested to hear what's wrong with Ubuntu and Windows though... I know it's cool in the nerd hipster crowd to be hating Windows and Ubuntu (because it's for n00bs right?) but I'm used to hearing this kind of thing from Mac users who are then unable to give any specific, concrete benefits other than 'oh just everything is soooo much better'. I expect something more intelligent from Linux users. Windows 7 - running for three years now, not a single blue screen or virus infection, still lightning fast. Ubuntu - Unity not my GUI of choice (though I don't hate it) but Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc easily the least glitchy, smoothest-running distributions I've tried (and I've tried quite a few over the years - well over 20 and probably over 30 now). So what's lacking with them? Go!

 

[mpyusko]

First off if you have spent as much time in Linux as you say you have, you should already know there is a Distro for everyone. Ubuntu is great for some, er "a lot", of people but not e eryone. Which is in fact the beauty of Linux. It just feels too Microsofty the way its developed. Granted it has a lot of nice proprietary features, but that doesn't fit me. Red Hat bugs me for the same reason. Ubuntu is a debian "like" distro. It means debian is at it's core but somebody wanted it to be different. I like Slackware. It fits me. It's not too easy to use like some distros, but its far from limiting. I prefer it raw because that's how I learn how Linux works. Red Hat is nice because they are geared toward enterprise and have full-time paid support and development staff. But again they are too proprietary in a lot of their function and features... for me.

I've been using Linux full-time for more than 10 years. I've seen a lot of great evolution. I love how it is more up-to-date than MS and Mac. If you notice, the newest technologies are supported in the kernel level, long before MS even releases a patch. A lot of the "new" features MS "creates" in it's newest incarnations have been present in Linux (usually KDE) for years. How long did it take them to integrate user level access control to improve security from viruses and malware? How long did it take them to include real time estimates and transfer rates in file copying? How long did it take them to support 64 bit platforms? How long did it take them to increase platform stability to even a somewhat barely tolerable level? Ms is always playing catch-up to Linux. Mac has done a better job in a few areas, but it is very hardware limited and has no real model for practical enterprise deployment. Even at the consumer level we see them releasing their always "long anticipated" upgrade, update, device, etc. The problem is the "long anticipated" part. When somebody else comes out with something new Mac always answers "we'll be doing that in our next release". So its sheeple wait.... and wait... then wait some more. By the time they do deliver on their promise, they are 2 years behind the industry. I love Linux. My router, cable modem, phone, laptop, desktop, server, TV, and Bluray player all run Linux. (If only my Jeep ran on Linux.) There is a reason the latest tech toys all run Linux. Ms is dying, Mac will be next FOSS will thrive.

 

[nocturnal7x]

Yes, if I could play the games I wanted, past present and future on linux windows would be removed from my computer and any disks would be burned.

Sadly this will probably never happen.

 

[i8myhippo]

As many of you have pointed out, this isn't likely to happen. I can see the reasons why, and I knew a couple of them when I posted this poll. (although some of your input has been very enlightening).

However, the question remains IF everything was available.

Basically, if there was no "well my favorite programs work only on windows", that the development was mirrored for both OS's, would you pick one or dual-boot?

 

[bystander]

If there were things I could get out of a Linux setup that I couldn't in Windows, and still have most the gaming, I'd start with dual boot until I felt comfortable enough to switch completely. As it is, I don't use Linux and have no reason to.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Yeah I have no reason to use Linux either, and I only do so from time to time because I love the interfaces (KDE, E17 and Xfce especially) and like a change of scenery. It's an interesting question that I've not really given much thought to, primarily because we can't realistically expect it to happen.

But in that hypothetical situation, I suppose Linux would have the interfaces and choice going for it, along with the ability to browse recklessly without stopping to consider whether or not a site is chock full of viruses. Windows on the other hand would be less glitchy and not require fiddling around on the command line to fix things. Would the mirrored development you mention also cover drivers for external devices so that I could connect my phone, scanner etc without issues?

EDIT: Forgot to mention though that in this situation, Linux's market share is likely to grow considerably, especially if pre-installed on a lot of machines. Increased market share is the single most important factor in an increase in malware targeting the platform. Linux may be structured with security in mind, but any system can be compromised. Just look as OSX (Unix-based) becoming the target of malware after all Apple's claims about it being virus-proof. Evidence that the only thing keeping the malware away was the system's formerly tiny market share. Similarly the number of viruses on Android (Linux-based) and iOS vs Windows Phone - it all correlates perfectly with market share, which makes a lot of sense - why target a platform few people use?

 

[casualcolors]

along with the ability to browse recklessly without stopping to consider whether or not a site is chock full of viruses.

You have to know that this would not be the case in any situation where Linux rapidly grows from a mass influx of gamers.

 

[sam_p_lay]

You have to know that this would not be the case in any situation where Linux rapidly grows from a mass influx of gamers.

Finish reading the post The edit part addresses exactly that.

 

[casualcolors]

Finish reading the post The edit part addresses exactly that.

ah fair enough