First of all, Linux distros aren't Linux "clones," they are indivdual interfaces for the same kernel. Anything that will run on one will run on all. Secondly, plug and play devices work fine, even quicker, with generic drivers for most things. I will concede that there is a lack of drivers in the Linux kernel though, and that many wireless cards, etc. don't work. I would like to point out, though, that this is not linux's fault. The manufacturers have chosen to produce windows drivers, and have chosen not to produce linux drivers. All of the drivers int the Linux kernel are contributed by linux programmers, and they simply do not have the number of people and amount of resources to write a driver for every single hardware device. And even if they do, if every driver is included in the kernel, it will be so bloated it is almost as slow as windows.

"...Linux, but my god it's so primitive..." I'm sorry, WHAT!? Linux is not primitive, and if you took the time to learn the commands and spent 5 minutes reading documentation, you would be able to use the command line to accomplish any task you could ever need. The problem you have is that it's not the same as DOS/Windows, and you are used to DOS/Windows. But of course it's not the same, if it was the same it couldn't be better. And, it's not hard to learn. If you need help with anything with it, there's also documentation and support which is more than I can say for windows. In windows if something malfunctions, you have /? and help _ to help you, in linux you have man _, a full manual for every single command telling in detail how to do everything that you can do with a program, and a way to get in touch with the author of the program if something malfunctions.

Lastly, " I fear that as an open source environment Linux will always be catching up..." is totally inaccurate. Linux has never been catching up. It has always been at the forefront of innovation. Windows still hasn't caught up to half the things the original UNIX could do. Is there a software repository or good, stable update system in Windows? No. Are there virtual workspaces in Windows? No. In Windows, is there even something as simple as listing the type of hardware detected like lshw is in Linux? No. Windows is a horrible OS, with nothing on Linux but publicity.

I have nothing against your position, if you have legitimate reasons and research. But I do ask for an objective comparision if you are trying to convince me of a word you say. I look forward to hearing your response.

Please forgive me for my nomenclatorial and taxonomic gaffe in referring to "distros" as "clones". "Distros" I presume is a contraction of "distribution" while a clone is defined as: "...one that appears to be a copy of an original form : DUPLICATE." I also refer to people serving coffee at Starbucks as "bartenders" rather than the pretentious Italian word "barista," because I am a simple man not given to proprietary pretensions on behalf of coffee vendors shilling $5 cups of coffee.

Linux or the Ubuntu distro (cool, a new bit of jargon) is primitive in that it lacks Windows sophistication and nearly universal compatibility with available hardware. In this regard Linux is primitive, as it is in the areas of support and uniformity. I read an instruction on the Ubuntu site on how to install ndiswrapper all the way through to the point where it mentioned that the steps were obsolete for the version I was using! No reference to how it works in version 8.04. I downloaded instructions from several sites as rcommended by Ubuntu's own support page and none of the instructions were either relative or effective. Truth is that with Windows I can download updated drivers for any available networking chipset (any device actually) and have success within two minutes - from anywhere in the world. In some cases Windows will search for an updated driver and install it for me. I can even choose to run an older program in a earlier compatibility mode, say Windows 95.

I did mention that my problem is unfamiliarity with Linux commands and syntax, and further that I plan to continue learing and experimenting with Ubuntu. Yet the lack of a concise source of current and relative information is detrimental to learning the OS, as is conflicting instructions.

IMHO, Linux is limited by the Tower of Babble phenomen, where too many cooks are spoiling the broth. It suffers from lack of an integrated single source development team, where conventions are adhered to and focused on operability and ease of use.

The legend of Windows instability and lack of support is vastly overstated. For example: I installed a Symantec product, GoBack, that was not compatible with SATA drives especially in a striping mode, although such incompatibility was not mentioned. It mangled my drive's FAT so that the drive was unreadable preventing system boot. I could not repair it, as the SATA chipset driver was not in BIOS and had to be present for the drive to be read, and the repair console does not allow insertion of a driver when booting in safe mode, or from a bootable utility disk. The only quick solution was a data recovery service - cost $500 - $1,000. So, instead I typed "disk recovery" into search on another Windows computer, and had four programs downloaded in two hours. Raid Reconstructor recovered my files after transferring the drives to a working computer, and an hour of fiddling arround with the intuitive program at a cost of around $150. With Windows one can type any problem or error message into any search engine and have several solutions available, including patches, registry tweaks, utilities, driver updates and complete discussions.

All the Linux functions you mention are available with add-ons and shareware. One doesnt need "lshw" to install WIndows (although the System control panel does the same thing and allows driver updates and harware control once installed) because Windows automatically detects and installs drivers or asks for drivers at installation. Microsoft provides an update service that automatically updates the OS and maintains security patches, and a searchable knowledge base that is extensive. I can and have solved any Windows problem within minutes, all from my desktop (I do have four computers to run searches and download files with). Windows does not need a software repository simply because certified software is universally available online, in every computer store, wholesale outlet, office supply store, department store, and even some grocery stores. Freeware and shareware is available, as are commercial products.

Finally, Linux is innovative in everything but marketability, operability and compatibility. Linux will not gain on Windows until it becomes a true load and play OS that has Windows ease of use. My entire point is that I would like to see that happen - I am not against Linux no matter the flavor of the distro - I want to see it succeed.

I think that the issues you have are because you cannot do evertything in the same way that you do in Windows from within Linux. However, that functionality still exists. To get a driver in Windows you have to do a search, download it and install it. In Linux, you have to do a search, download, and install it. The only difference is that installing it takes typing "make" instead of double-clicking.

Linux expects you to not be an idiot. It expects you to do a little research to figure out how to do the more advanced functions. In Windows, those functions don't even exist.

I have never had an issue with using different packages for different distros, all you have to do is compile it from source, and it runs fine on any of them.

You are correct that GNU and Linux have been around for quite a while. But losing market share is depending on the niche in the market that you look at. Desktops have used Windows, and a lot of that was the hardware manufacturer's decision to support it. The server market share is about 70% UNIX/Linux. (Source: IDC). And that is primarily because of its functionality, stability, and security.

I suppose that to some exent it's personal preference what to use, but Windows has never held a candle to Linux as far as I'm concerned.

I respect your decision to use Windows, despite it's many flaws, but after using Linux for a couple of years, and learning how to use it properly, I can never imagine going back. (And I had used Windows since Windows 95 came out, prior to switching for Linux during the XP years).

--Dan Mazzei, Linux user since 2005

I have been using the new Ubuntu 8,04 now for a few months, first as a dual-boot, now as main operating system.

After the initial learning period, and despite the occasional glitches, it is a super operating system, and I am thrilled. Most things just work, even my windows did not crash like before when it ran under linux (don't know why). I would also like to point out that I am neither young nor a computer geek. I also noticed ongoing updates and improvements occurring at a very fast pace. There is far less maintenance to be performed and the system appears very stable (no crashes). I also like the concept of cross-platform operability, all operating systems should have these options. There is also more and more driver software coming along. Currently my built-in webcam does not yet work (needs driver?), but I am also enjoying a system that "just works".

Overall I am very pleased, despite some minor shortcomings, and I can fully recommend this OS.

Sabine