3 Reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux

After doing some research on Linux finally i have concluded on 3 reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux.

1) Companies running on donations
The companies which are making Linux Distributions are running on donation.For Example if all the peoples started using Linux Will this increase the income of companies which are making Linux? off course not because their income depends on donations instead of sale of their OS.But If more and more Peoples use windows then off course the income of Microsoft will increase and they will hire more experienced engineers and will make windows more easier.

2) Too many distributions, will they survive?
This is a very important question.As i have already mentioned that all the companies which are making Linux are running on donations.If they receive limited donation it will be very difficult for the companies to keep status of these distributions alive.
So why to have a risk that will you receive updates or not for your OS’s in future.Try a paid OS today and omit this tension from your mind.

3) Difficult to understand
If you compare Linux with any other OS like Windows or Mac OS you will find that Linux is too much difficult than other OS’s.For Example If you want to install a software in Windows or Mac OS you can do this by running a simple installer but if you want to install a software in Linux you will have to install it from a source.

Share and Enjoy:

99 Comments

  1. anonymous says:

    ‘All your base are belong to us’. I want my minute of life back.

  2. Alan says:

    The funniest thing is, it’s tagged with “Apple” and “Mac OS”. Must be that “linux” os that Macs use. ;-)

  3. David F. Skoll says:

    “Install from a source”. That’s rich.

    “Donations.” Tell that to Red Hat.

    “Too many distributions.” Choice BAD, choice BAD!!!

  4. choti says:

    if this article is serious with that iq u should stay away from linux , a computer or a hammer

  5. Ventrix says:

    a) Linux companies running on support.
    b) Different people, different needs, different distros :)
    c) “aptitude install firefox” is indeed more difficult from double clicking a setup icon and pressing “next” “next” if you are retarded.

    I’d have to agree with choti:
    Do not use Linux.
    Ever.
    Seriously.

  6. Enrique says:

    What are talking about? Choosing a program from the manager and clicking – too hard??

    Or copy and paste a command, again too hard?

    Or downloading and clicking, too hard?

  7. Dragon says:

    1. Companies don’t run on donations, ever. Those doing things related to Linux make money providing some serious support on real software (nothing like your beloved “Windows”).

    2. Will they survive? No, and they all shouldn’t. “Survival of the fittest” is what we expect.

    3. “I don’t have time to listen to this trash.”

  8. dhysk says:

    while those reasons are not unimportant here is are a few reasons why those may be a little off base.

    for #1. Linux has alot of support from little companies like IBM and Intel. Not to mention distros like Red Hat and Suse that have corporat backing

    for #2. Ya, this is a problem I think however stick with the ‘main’ ones and you should be fine

    for #3. I am not great with computers and have only been using linux for about 2 years. Other than 2 very special application specific programs that nobody else really uses; I have never installed a package from source. Not once, and I have alot of programs and tweeks installed to make it work the way I want to. This is distro specific however i use Ubuntu so it hasn’t been a problem.

    That said I do think these are the top 3 problems with linux.

  9. Cyril says:

    Wow, is it 2002 already? Same tired arguments over & over again.

    1) Companies run on support contracts, individuals use donations. And last I checked – patches are released faster for most distros than they are for Windows.

    2) Needs and choice. For example: I want something stable and with a small footprint. Sadly I can’t find a version of Windows which does that for me.

    3) Modern distros have package managers that don’t require you to compile from source (unless you decide that’s what you want – see 2). It’s far easier to use the package manager than go hunting the web, find the program you want and a place to download it (or order it and get it shipped to you), then run the installer.

  10. shadus says:

    1.)
    “The companies which are making Linux Distributions are running on donation.”

    There are many profitable companies that develop and support open source software.

    “For Example if all the peoples started using Linux Will this increase the income of companies which are making Linux?”

    Yes.

    “off course not because their income depends on donations instead of sale of their OS.”

    Wrong.

    “But If more and more Peoples use windows then off course the income of Microsoft will increase”

    This is the only thing I agree with.

    “and they will hire more experienced
    engineers”

    Why should they? If everyone already uses the product all they have to do is change it enough so people have to buy the upgrade every couple years.

    “and will make windows more easier.”

    And if I hired 20 chefs to work at my restaurant the food would be the best in the world? Very doubtful.

    2.)
    “Too many distributions, will they survive?”

    Yes.

    “This is a very important question.As i have already mentioned that all the companies which are making Linux are running on donations.”

    Which is a completely false statement.

    “If they receive limited donation it will be very difficult for the companies to keep status of these distributions alive.
    So why to have a risk that will you receive updates or not for your OS’s in future.Try a paid OS today and omit this tension from your mind.”

    Considering there are far far far more developers working on open source projects, I would say timely software updates are more likely for open source software.

    3)
    “Difficult to understand”

    For toddlers, maybe.

    “If you compare Linux with any other OS like Windows or Mac OS you will find that Linux is too much difficult than other OS’s.”

    It’s not more difficult. It’s just different.

    “For Example If you want to install a software in Windows or Mac OS you can do this by running a simple installer but if you want to install a software in Linux you will have to install it from a source.”

    You do not need to install software from source. You certainly can if you’d like to (that is one of the wonderful freedoms of open source software), but every major distribution has a repository of pre-compiled software and a simple command to download and install it.

  11. McIvor says:

    1) Linux isn’t profitable
    I think Red Hat would have something to say about that. It is now in the top 500 on the stock market.
    2) Linux has too much choice.
    People shouldn’t buy cars, there are too many manufacturers. Please, find an intelligent argument. I use Ubuntu, but if Canoncial does something ‘evil’, I can switch to Fedora or Debian, who have different focuses and maintainers.
    3) Linux is difficult.
    You haven’t ‘needed’ to compile source code for years now, unless you really want to. Everyone loves the App Store concept from the iPhone; that’s how most people do software on Linux these days. APT, yum, or urpmi are way easier than finding an .exe file on the internet from an unknown source and installing it, hoping for the best.

  12. Jim Bob says:

    Your thorough research, excellent writing, and well-thought out persuasive points have compelled me to give up my perfectly working Linux system and to go buy Windows, Office, and replacements for all the other software I have. I’m down $500 and have viruses, trojans, worms, file fragmentation, and nothing works anymore. Thanks a lot.

  13. Scott says:

    Even a cursory examination of your statements by someone who does not use Linux would quickly reveal that you are completely off base.

    The entire ecosystem of Free Software works by exchanging code, documentation or support for improved versions of the software, and in the extended community, by selling services and support. Not donations. This is in contrast to selling licenses for zero-cost copies of shrink-wrapped operating systems as if they are widgets and then charging for support in addition to this.

    For the end user, whether they be an individual or a larger organization, it is better if there are more sources for their software than just one, because having more than one is insurance against orphaned software owned by one company. Switching distributions is not nearly as difficult as switching operating systems. Choice reduces the possibility of vendor lock-in.

    There is nothing inherently easy about either Windows or OS X, marketing drivel not withstanding. Your example of installing applications from source code is completely bogus. It is simply not required. And the software repositories used by Linux distributions make installing software dead simple.

    I was a transit bus driver when I switched to Linux in 2001. And I did it with no help from anyone. Switching has only gotten easier–much easier–since then. Not harder.A bus driver can install and use Linux with no problem, but you can’t?

  14. Curtis says:

    Is true that Linux is difficult, look at penguin logo. Do I understand penguin? If penguins make noise at me I do not know what they mean. I don’t know motivations of Penguins. Contrast with Windows. Is inanimate object, no motivations to understand. I look though it or open or close it. Easy! Contrast with Apple. It looks nice. I enjoy it sitting in fruitbowl. If hungry, I eat it. Simple. Linux will never win in market until it too is simple like Mac and Windows.
    Also Linux logo is too cutesy, not professional like garishly colored window and apple( old logo only – new one color apple is easy to miss). This must be why Windows rules the marketplace. If only Apple still used the rainbow colored apple they might have a chance to compete.

  15. x1101 says:

    This article is full of lies and misinformation.

    1) tell that to Red Hat, one of the only tech companies to be showing Increasing sales in the economic downturn

    2) What, do you hate choice

    3) yes, because apt-get install Thunderbird is SO MUCH HARDER than: going to a website, praying its legit, downloading an app, running the installer, rebooting, and hoping MS will let you run it

  16. edd says:

    I think, lately, Linux is more user friendly. And doesn’t require to restart the computer after installation like Windows do.

    We have a lot of option with Linux rather than Windows, and Mac base on unix too if you don’t know yet. Linux and Mac have the same great great grandfather. Windows born from the tube.

    Using XP for server..it’s so risky but any distro of Linux can do as a server and more secure.

    So..do you have change your paradigm of Linux?

    Choose any distro out there and try it before you write a cons.

  17. noslooma says:

    the only permanent thing is change.

  18. Jan Hooks says:

    I know several grade-school kids who use Linux at home and love it.

  19. Amit Agarwal says:

    Ah.. just probably one more point to add to all the comments, you probably would spend on the OS and then all the OS for windows. But who wants things which are free as they can never be good. Even though so many people including me having been using the free and OPEN source applications without worrying about Virus and other problems associated with non-free OS.

  20. Dean M says:

    Why is there still no word from the author? … not one reply … I for one, would like to know where his/her so called research stemmed from and how they came those conclusions. You can’t just publish blantant lies without some kind of justification.

  21. LA says:

    Heres a few other good reasons not to use Linux.
    1. Its communist
    2. Its un American
    3. Its anti profit
    4. It is chaos on a stick
    5. Its too hard to pronounce
    6. It was started by a foreigner
    7. Being open means it is insecure
    8. It doesnt meet the needs of its users
    9. I dont make any money from it
    10. It is for geeks only
    11. The command line will shorten your life expectancy
    12. It is not environmentally friendly like Windows

  22. Sean Murtagh says:

    Someone that probably works for Microsoft!

  23. Vivek Kapoor says:

    This techbirdy guy uses Open Source, Free, running on Donations – WordPress application for his blog!

  24. segsgdsg says:

    1)

    “Will this increase the income of companies which are making Linux? off course not because their income depends on donations instead of sale of their OS.But If more and more Peoples use windows then off course the income of Microsoft will increase and they will hire more experienced
    engineers and will make windows more easier.”

    if more people use it and can make donations then there will be more donations compared to a smaller group of people.

    The companies earning money with linux sell support services and other stuff around their platform, not with it.

    Microsoft only changes things when the protocolls are opened by hacking. Microsoft tries to, but thankfully doesn’t succeed to, do nothing but changing the artwork.
    There are changes under the hook but those changes are more a necessity for the platform then Microsofts wil to make a better product that’s worth the upgrade.

    2) the different windows versions have a lifecycle and an end of life!
    If a distribution dies, tough for that one, I just use another. The support for WinXP is planned to DIE in 2014 somewhere.

    3) In linux there is such thing called package management. You can browser and search through thouzands of software packages that do NOT need to be compiled! Just choose and install with a few clicks. In the future, Linux is going to have good package formats. (Some websites already serve .deb and .rpm files.)

    The title seems to suggest this was quickly written (admin stands for administrator, it’s teh accountname for a fresh installation of an OS).

  25. rich3800 says:

    Wrong title, Should not be “3 reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux”, but be named “3 reasons why YOU shouldn’t use Linux. Not using Linux is YOUR personal choice. Me, I like to keep life simple and stop worrying, so I use Linux.

  26. KimTjik says:

    After a single sentence reply doubting that the article is seriously intended, I now check back and wonders once more whether this is a stunt.

    Look at how many replies previous articles have generated. Zero, zero, zero, two, three, zero, zero and zero replies. With this article responses boomed to an amazingly high number.

    There isn’t anything called bad publicity… read the author and grabbed his keyboard.

  27. LinuxUser says:

    3 Reasons you should not use Linux, . .

    1) You are too ****** to learn anything on your own, so therefore, . .

    2) You feel its better to spend money on buggy software than something that is continually updated without charge from a reliable source. Because, . .

    3) You think its normal to have programs crash, slow down, not work, or just not be worth what you paid for them.

  28. [...] a Comment // We must learn to research further when someone writes something like 3 reasons why we should not use Linux. Many people already responded to the post and have told the blogger the things that debunk his/her [...]

  29. As pointed by many commenters above me, these are not reasons to not use Linux. They are actually good from the point of flexibility which is unavailable under Windows. I don’t agree with you.

  30. [...] Linux September 20, 2009 by LinerdFiled under: humor, lame, opinion  Last week I read a half-witted blog post citing “3 Reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux”. I’ve got one tip for [...]

  31. LOL. I will only say one thing and your 3 arguments will become invalid.

    There are Linux distros that are “for-pay”.

  32. Mike says:

    That’s funny coming from a guy hosting an open source blog (WordPress) on a Linux server, besides the fact that it’s been pointed out many times in the comments above this that you are full of misinformation.

  33. you’re kidding right??

    Those reason are not reasons, they’re just some words put together to explain why you prefer windows.

  34. watcher007 says:

    @TechBirdy admin:
    If you are on some kind of drugs, there’s always free help available to guide you through the recovery process.
    Oh, wait… I forgot… you don’t like “free”. ;-(
    Seriously, have you ever used a *nix OS or have you ever taken time to read anything about Linux?
    This will start you up:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

  35. vincentvega says:

    First of all, before you start telling people why they shouldnt use linux, perhaps you should do a little more research. If you type “linux” into the google search engine, http://www.redhat.com is the 7th entry in the results. Perhaps you should go a little deeper than reading a few lines from the wikipedia page…

    #1 — I guess Cannonical, Novell, RedHat, Xandros and Linspire (recently bought by Xandros) do not count? Last time i checked, the price tags the linux products belonging to those companies were NOT optional.

    #2 — yes, certain distros will fail…however others flourish. that is called survival of the fittest. Take a look at the list of the top 10 supercomputers…how many of them run some variant of linux? Do you really think the owners of these VERY EXPENSIVE machines would choose an operating system that is not going to be supported?

    Thanks to Amit Agarwal in a previous reply…your webhost is running on linux…

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=techbirdy.com

    you must be worried sick–since your website and all of its misinformation is at risk of being unsupported…

    #3 — the only reason you may find linux “difficult to understand” is because you have been spoon fed microsoft products all your life. Maybe if you had actually tried using a linux distribution you could have given a better argument.

  36. wouter says:

    1. vista
    2 there is decent security in linux
    3 the interface can easily be changed to fit different use cases (for instance; pc for grandma)
    4 patches get pushed out much faster
    5 software that runs on one distro will run on another distro as well so there is less lock-in on the OS level
    6 Interoperability
    7 less hassle about licensing (this is about FLOS in general)
    8 better code review

  37. [...] months ago, i wrote article “3 Reasons why we shouldn’t use Linux“, after a lot of comments on the article in the favor of Linux, I thought i should also try [...]

  38. Zack Smith says:

    Wow. Your knowledge of IT is virtually non-existent. You are clearly an ****.

    [Comment Edited]

  39. revlater says:

    How much were you paid to write this blog post?

  40. clutch says:

    Also, “more easier”.

    *** man.

    [Comment Edited]

  41. hector says:

    You REEEEEEEALY don’t know what are you talking about, pal.
    you may look at this:

    http://cityblogger.com/archives/2007/01/24/101-reasons-why-linux-is-better-than-windows

    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=406

    And the most important: Linux is Not Windows:

    http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

  42. hector says:

    Something else: Did you know how much the linux kernel development cost?

    A LOT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to_redevelop
    http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.pdf
    http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/155214/The-Billion-Dollar-Kernel

    The KDE desktop environment looks as good and even better than Windows 7 or mac osx and it’s free. How much was the development?

    The KDE desktop environment cost: “US$175,364,716. This estimation doesn’t include Qt, KOffice, Amarok, Digikam, and other applications that are not part of KDE core.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE#Development

  43. Anonymous says:

    “Example If you want to install a software in Windows or Mac OS you can do this by running a simple installer but if you want to install a software in Linux you will have to install it from a source.”
    What the **** are you talking about?

    [Comment Edited]

  44. Anonymous says:

    Virtually every distribution existence does not require installing from source, and installing from source usually consists of unpacking the source code, entering the directory and running:
    ./configure
    make
    make install

    1. Use a distribution with a good selection of packages in their repositories.
    2. If typing ./configure, make, make install is too difficult for you how are you using even Windows?

  45. Anonymous says:

    “So why to have a risk that will you receive updates or not for your OS’s in future.Try a paid OS today and omit this tension from your mind.”
    For what OS’s how far into the future? Support and updates are dropped from commercial operating systems eventually, fella.

  46. bspencer says:

    Oh my god! You are ******. You should consider doing some actual research before posting you opinion again. The really sad thing is that GNU/Linux and other free and open source software packages are most likely running the infrastructure hosting your hopelessly ******* point of view. *****************.

    [Comment Edited]

  47. Farhan Aftab says:

    Linux is better then windows, and now ubuntu linux is on highest position in desktop OSs, and the best server operating system is the red hat’s linux enterprise, this article is nothing.

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.