I didn't have to go search down any drivers when I installed Ubuntu on my computer - then again my setup is from 2001. If it weren't for a few things that I don't particularly like about Linux (lack of creation date logging being the biggest superficial reason; the biggest core concern being that its video editing/manipulation scene is still very much in its infancy), then I would probably use it more than XP. I've been
very impressed with the speed and resource management as compared to Windows.
Even though I do have both GNOME and KDE installed, I rarely use either of them. I use Fluxbox as my default environment instead - it requires a lot of user input to set up initially, but I like things to be minimalist, within reason (I use Classic mode on Windows, for example, and was put off or simply unimpressed with Luna and Aero, respectively). Even so, the recent speed upgrades that came with Ubuntu 6.10 (particularly with GNOME) were very nice.
I think that the thing someone considering Linux should do is look at it the way they look at the difference between Mac and Windows - you're going to have a different set of things that will work and things that won't, and the systems themselves operate in fundamentally different ways. One shouldn't think of Linux the same way that they think of Windows or OS X, because it's not either of them (although admittedly, OS X is a lot closer to Linux in terms of heritage). Another thing is to not be afraid of using the command-line, but even saying that I don't actually use the Terminal all that much more in Linux than I do in Windows (which isn't
too often).
I think it's beneficial to know how to use each OS, simply because it helps in general with knowing how a computer itself works. And the more you know...[end corny PSA now]. Seriously, though, there are a lot of factors that go into why Linux is better or why Windows would be better - it depends on the task, the user's own personality, eccentricities, and overall adaptability (and willingness to adapt, moreover). For 'basic' computing tasks like Web browsing, email, word processing, or spreadsheet work (I'm not talking full Office suites here - my idea of 'word processing' is using Wordpad or Notepad; I rarely use the Works word processor as it is), Ubuntu and most other Linux distributions are ready to go from the start and require little in the way of diving deep into the system because the common environments put those tasks right in front of you. It's when you start getting more specific with what you do with a program or how you operate that the differences and need for adaptation start rearing their heads. For me, I'm not too demanding - I'm not a 'basic' user by any means but I tend to stick to a program's sole function rather than push it into every nook and cranny that I can (I still use Winamp 2.95 and a normal .m3u playlist as my music player - so in terms of Linux, XMMS fits my needs and wants perfectly; users who want a full-fledged library aren't going to be satisfied with that and would probably like something like amaroK or whatever other ones there are - but they still need to be aware that they have to play by the rules of their respective OS - this would apply to someone switching from Windows to Mac, also).
Basically, others' suggestions are no substitute for personal experience. Go download some Live CD images from some of the big distributions and try them out that way. Be aware, of course, that Live CDs are naturally a lot slower because they run solely off RAM and the CD/DVD drive, but they do give a good impression of the features in the OS, the layout, basic operation, and so forth. The best thing about Live CDs is that they require no commitment - you're not installing anything to your hard drive so the only factor is having some CD-Rs handy.
As a note: I would recommend Ubuntu, simply because it was the first that actually did recognize my hardware and I liked the experience when trying it out. I had tried out Slax and Knoppix Live CDs, but could only use them on my parents' and grandparents' computers, not my own.
twistedsketch said:
I have no idea how many Firefox extensions are available for Linux, but I suspect it is less than what is available for Windows.
I was under the impression that FF extensions were mostly platform-agnostic - the only exceptions would be ones that depend on external programs, like IETab/IEView, the SnagIt toolbar/extension, download managers, etc. Most extensions I've seen are usually self-sufficient.
And how about installation routines? All I have to do in Windows is double-click an exe file. Maybe unzip it first.
This definitely just depends on what you're looking at. Synaptic is a very nice tool, and as long as you can get a .deb or .rpm of the program then it's not hard to install things at all, nor is it very involved (for deb packages, Gdeb is a must - all graphical; rpm's do require alien to convert them to deb's, but then, Gdeb like I already mentioned). The difficulty comes with nominal binaries and source code, neither of which I've had to deal with very often (rarely, in fact).
