I like to explore different Operating Systems as well, but I always seem to encounter issues installing linux on my older machines (to be fair I also have issues with most versions of windows on them too; I just am not very good with Linux, at least not quite enough to know all the ins and outs of the various commands.
Back in the DOS days when CLI was the main interface and the real debate was really between Command.com and the various Linux shells, one thing that was hotly debated by the geeks on both sides was nearly a exercise in triviality; the way that wildcards were expanded.
Most linux shells expanded, for example, * to be all files in a directory <before> it passed it to a program; so the program would never actually see any wildcards at all. This had a benefit in that the program only had to handle lists of filenames, and not actually parse wildcards.
However, the problem with this is that the program cannot really know when a wildcard was used; when you use, for example, del *.* on DOS, you get a warning (well, actually, that wasn't until DOS 5, IIRC) but with most linux shells, rm * gave no warning and deleted everything.
Now, of course, this isn't really a bad thing in and of itself; just be sure of what your doing. the problem is that many seemingly minor typos in commands can cause an errant * to get into a destructive command, and POOF! the files are gone.
Either way, it was extremely trivial and certainly not debated by the masses, just the hardcore nerds, and it was really not something that could be won for one side; they both had their strengths; Linux is mostly for the programmer, so making the creation of C programs easier is a pretty easy choice.
Ubuntu and it's various desktop variants (Ubuntu itself uses GNOME; Kubuntu uses KDE, and there are a few others) are excellent operating Systems and would be even if they were near the price point of windows itself; the fact that it's free is just a great bonus. But when speaking of Linux, one cannot forget that Ubuntu isn't the only one; there are a lot of distros, and honestly I think this is the greatest weakness. It's hard to really know exactly what a distro is without a good explanation; heck, even I'm not 100% on the differences, like wether they are really different operating systems or wether they can run a number of different programs, etc. Seems like it's more or less a choice of what kernel, desktop environment, and what programs are included, rather then anything that would be seriously different amongst them; once you get past that, it really just boils down to ease of install; most distro's have a super-easy installer wizard.
All good points. I certainly don't want to return the (dis)favor and bash Linux - I can certainly respect anyone with the determination to master a complex OS just as being an OS operator has taught me to respect the intelligence and higher education of computer engineers, and being a successful home mechanic has taught me to respect the same in automotive engineers.
Yes, this hits upon an important point; while lots of Linux evangelists, open source zealots and so forth seem to think that the open source route is best for everyone, that really is painting everybody with the same brush; not everybody finds editing config files with vi to get their display driver working as an effective use of their time; It certainly can be rewarding, but when all you want to do is get something done it's in the way. Basically; not every enjoys the whole configuration venture; many people just want to use their computer to write their reports for their job. And honestly, the Linux devs are catching onto this, and I think they are certainly trying (well, some of them, there are still those that go "wouldn't it be cool if" and then go on to describe an essentially useless feature). Many distros are certainly hitting the "no need to be a expert" level of usability. they still have a way to go, though. Not that windows is perfect in this regard.
It's really a function of complexity; sure, MS-DOS isn't really user friendly, but it had pretty easy to understand syntax, rules, and so forth. Windows at first was just an additional level of complexity on top of that, and things kind of snowballed from there; Sure it's pretty easy to use; which is the point. but the learning curve from being a run of the mill user to being "in control" and knowing what's going on is far steeper in windows then DOS.
