Linux FAQs and Myths, Ending that Linux Hate!

I was making a point, here.

you were? oh okay, the HILARIOUS copypasta must have distracted me.

The point I was making is that the "stereotypical" argument for every operating system sucks. None of them are good. Because of this, the good arguments are ignored or found to be similar or exactly the same to these "stereotypical" arguments. This is a stereotypical argument.

Basically saying:

Windows - It works, and it works well. It has a lot of features, so why should I care?
Mac - It's simple and works. I don't want to bother with knowing how the computer works.
Linux - It's EASY it's BETTER windows is SLOW mac SUCKS so WHY do you CARE

how are any of those the stereotype

if they exist they're the rarity; I haven't seen anything close to them argued once

I know you were, I was being sarcastic. that stupid copypasta annoys the hell out of me, so I have to bash it every chance I get.

whoops

I meant:
Windows - Linux is damned hard to use and never works. Mac is too simple and doesn't do anything.
Mac - Windows never works for me! It always breaks. Linux is too complex; I want something simple.
Linux - Windows is far too slow for what it is! Mac is too simple.

Why is it that most people that use a Linux-based OS seem to have their heads so far up their asses they can't pull it back out?

We get it you know about computers now quiet down.

I'm trying to correct some Myths and lies, not show how much I know about computers. :\

The point is that Linux users are constantly reminding others about it. Hence this thread.

Note how I am not doing this, nor is Lightning or MikeL or anyone else on MFGG I can't think of who uses Linux-based operating systems.

90% of the time it is not worth the time used to install it and set everything up for what you get out of it.

also mtc made the best post in the thread.

does linux have any benefits compared to using windows other than a different interface

Where is my myths and lies about windows thread?

It's free.

It's open-source(viruses become harder to make for it because of this, and you can prove how secure it is).

Not to say Linux-based OSes are bad or anything, but open-source does not make it more difficult to give it viruses.

The kernel itself requires a root password for access to any system files or configurations that modify critical settings. This prevents viruses from happening, unless you're stupid and randomly enter your password in someplace for no apparent reason.

With Linux, you can Be your own synamatec!

This post has been edited by Bip on Sep 24 2009, 08:13 PM

Open-Source allows people to add fixes for a virus immediately once they have found how the virus works.

Fact: Open-source gives people the ability to look at the code and fix security errors and send them to the maintainer. It does not on its own, however, stop viruses.

Once enough security fixes have been made, I don't think it'll be very easy to write a virus. You'd probably have to spend months analyzing all of the source code, and by the time you find something, they may have already released a fix for any security errors you have found.

The reason Windows viruses work is not because Microsoft fails at writing security fixes. They choose not to make them (except in system-critical cases) so that people are forced to buy anti-virus software if they want real protection.