Free: Linux is an open source project. As they say, it is free as in free beer. All you need to install Linux is an Internet connection to download the iso files and a CD where you can burn the iso. Compare this with Windows which costs a lot!



That is of course true. It doesn't cost anything to download a GNU/Linux distro, besides whatever charges you have for bandwidth. Note also that in the case of Ubuntu you don't even need to burn your own CD. They will send you one for free if you request it. On the other hand, most users are not aware of the cost of Windows, since it comes pre-loaded with their PC and is 'just there'. Consequently, for many this is not really a reason to 'switch'. The cost advantage is only relevant if you are installing a new computer from scratch. Also, the author forgot to mention a very aspect of 'free'. See point 11 below.

Linux distributions are COMPLETE: All the decent Linux distributions are complete: they include almost all the applications like office applications, pdf reader, web servers, compilers, etc. You don’t have to pay anything to download and install these applications. Ubuntu comes with OpenOffice, which is a perfect substitute for MS Office.



Well, they may not all include them right off the bat, but you can usually install easily whatever is missing through the repository of that distro. This easy and efficient means of installing software is really one of the biggest advantages for the end-user when dealing with modern GNU/Linux distributions. While most of the high-profile FOSS software, such as OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Firefox are also available for Windows, you have this huge selection of FOSS software in the repos, with a very easy management and installation interface. I think the incredible ease of use should have been emphasised more.

Virus, Spyware, Adware? None of these can affect a Linux based system. In fact, you don’t even have to install an anti-virus software which bogs down system performance in Windows.



That is an overly optimistic statement. Of course one can write software that takes advantage of vulnerabilities even under Linux, or any other OS, really. But the commenters that complain about this assertion are also missing the point: They talk about how Linux security is based on the fact that there is less of an effort made by the malware authors to exploit Linux, due to its smaller market share. The 'less effort' part might be true, but it is not the complete picture. The Linux OS architecture is more secure and desktops apps are not normally run in admin mode. Exploiting Linux by clickable, executable email attachments is possible, but more complex and requires more steps for the user to go through. If Linux would gain significant market share, we would certainly see an increase in exploit attempts. How effective they would be, however, is another story. For the time being, though, GNU/Linux systems clearly have much less of a risk of being infected by anything than Windows machines.

Low system requirements: I have a tough time running Windows XP on my system and Vista needs 1-2 GB RAM to work properly. On the other hand, Ubuntu boots and runs perfectly fast on this low configuration PC.



Ok, let's not get carried away here. A full blown Gnome or KDE desktop will chew up a pretty astonishing amount of memory. The good thing is, however, that there are smaller, compact desktops (xfce, and others) available, which result in significantly smaller system requirements. Also, it is possible to produce distros with incredibly small footprint for embedded systems or small servers, especially if you forgo the graphical desktop. So, the correct thing to say would be that 'it is possible' to create very small footprint Linux systems. The flexibility to do so is a huge plus for Linux. But we should also admit that modern, full-blown GNU/Linux desktop distros will very happily use up gigabytes of memory as well.

Much Stable: Linux is much more stable when compared with Windows. This is the reason most of the web servers are run using Linux. Forget about the blue screen of death [BSOD]!



GNU/Linux can be very stable, especially in a server environment. I have had lockups in the graphical desktop, though. That desktop is a complex piece of software, apparently, and I find it disturbing that applications can screw it up in such a way that it locks me out. That doesn't happen often, but it has happened. The legendary reputation for stability of GNU/Linux was build in server environments. In general, the core of the OS is very stable. But while the desktop is quite good, it is not perfect. Maybe a bit more comparable to the typical Windows user experience? Your mileage may vary, though. If you don't try experimental 3D features in the desktop, or use a well-supported graphic card, or have your standard set of apps that you use every day, you may experience very good stability from the Linux desktop as well.

Programming tools: If you want to learn programming, Linux is the best for you. Linux distributions come with many compilers and other tools to write and execute code. For example, I use gcc to compile C files which I write using the vi editor. I also have python IDLE installed which I use to learn programming in python.



I can only agree here. The amount of available software development tools and languages, all for no cost at all, makes a Linux system a dream for any student of programming languages and software development. Combine that with a huge number of ready-made server packages, libraries, etc., and you can see how putting together complex, working software systems is quite a joy.

Faster release cycles: Linux distributions are upgraded very fast. New versions of most Linux distributions are released once in every 6 months.



True. It's important to point out that the improvements and updates are incremental and thus aide in the stability of the overall distro. See also what I wrote about that yesterday.

Helpful community: Linux has a large fan-following. There are many forums and blogs which can help you if you have any problem. Millions of people cannot be wrong!



Well, even millions of people can be wrong as history has shown over and over again. However, the point about the helpful community is of course a valid one. While this same community also has a problem with prick-ish elitists and fanboys, there is indeed a very large community of helpful and very nice individuals out there. And with popular distros a solution to a problem is often just a quick search away. It should also be pointed out that for those who want commercial support it is available as well through support contracts with the large Linux vendors (RedHat, Novell, Oracle, Canonical, etc.).

You can run Linux along with Windows: You can run Linux along with Windows on a different partition. You can boot to Windows wherever you want. It is also possible to run Linux in Windows using emulator software like VMWare or MS Virtual PC. Likewise, it is also possible to run Windows applications in Linux using emulators like Wine (This Wine is different!).



That's all true. Even though your mileage may vary when trying to run Windows software under Wine.

A new learning experience: Install Linux on your computer and you will learn many new things. Linux does have a point and click interface, but you can use the command line or “Terminal” as it is called to completely unleash the power of Linux. This way you will learn many cool and new things.



Yes, learning a bit about the command line and looking under the hood is a rewarding experience. GNU/Linux (and BSD and most other *nix OSs) wear their hearts on their sleeves. You can see and experience what's going on. A wonderful way to learn. But one more point: 'Linux' doesn't have a point and click interface, it's the graphical desktops you have in many distros with the point and click interface. Contrary to Windows, the desktop and the underlying OS are well separated. Linux as a server doesn't have a point and click interface. Ok, maybe I'm picky, but I think that is an important strength that shouldn't be left unmentioned: No unnecessary weight if you don't want to.

Linux is truly free, as in freedom: As promised, there is at least one more point. The original article completely forgot to mention this one, which I personally think is the most important one of them all: GNU/Linux is free, as in freedom! The first point alluded to free as in beer (price) only. But I think the freedom aspect is much more important. Computers run our lives, they store our data and our most intimate secrets and communications. How can we give up control over this data to proprietary, closed software that was developed by corporations with the single, overriding motive of increasing their profits? Nothing wrong with making a profit, but the goals of those corporations are often directly opposite to our goals as consumers and users. How can we not demand complete transparency in the software that runs and manages our lives? How can we allow software that puts artificial restrictions on us to have any control over our lives and data? To put it in the words of the Free Software Foundation: Free software is the answer to a world built in code.





People like to publish top-10 lists of all sorts. And "reasons to switch to Linux" is no exception. Many of those have been published, and the latest entry is here . However, I think the author completely forgot a very important point. Also, some of the points he makes should be examined a bit more closely and critically. The comments on the original article reflect some valid and some unfounded criticism. Let me just run through those points (italics are quotes from the original 10-point list, my comments are directly below each point) and provide my own take on those:So, this is my comment on that most recent "10 reasons to switch to Linux" post. A bit too much enthusiasm and the most important point was forgotten. But I think the points provide a good basis at least for a more differentiated discussion.Other related posts: