"Windows is for people who want to be controlled by their pc.
Linux is for people who want to control their pc."

What the heck does that mean?

You picked a rather strange place to make such a statement. We're on WinCustomize. Which part of Windows can't you change that you think people would want to change? I can make Windows do pretty much whatever I want with it. And I get to do it with more hardware and software support and not have to mess around with unfinished rough edges.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong about chagning the way the OS works.

Try DesktopX for instance, we can customize pretty deeply into the OS.

But it's not just that, Windows, in general, is quite customzieable. It's pretty arrogant for someone to argue that people who choose Windows want their OS to control them. It's more than a bit arrogant to say that on an actual customization site full of people who know better.

The Linux dribble about Windows users beeing a bunch of "n00bs" might work fine on Usenet but you're on a site full of users who are expert level. I don't like Linux because I find it to be inferior as a desktop OS. And I base my opinion on having a decades of experience with computer operating systems of various kinds.

Linux advocates don't help their case when they patronize others for their choices. Particularly when their patronizing is so patently unwarranted.

FrogBoy:
Listen to yourself. You are Comparing the Abilities of Operating Systems on one hand and the lack of abilities of the other.To change
an icon or to change the Theme is NOT Changing the fact that you still
have to use windows the way Gates says you have to.
Have you tried to use software such as StarOffice, Lotus Suites, Heck
even the supposed shared Tech of the QuickTime JUNK. Windows does Less and Less Each Version.Have you Seen the LONGHORN yet? Talk about chicken $#!%.
Force me to use and or keep IE, Windows Media Player, WordPad,NotePad. Can you take these out without causing a major Crash?
NOT!!!
You Can Make Windows Pretty and even a little fun But you cannot Change The Kernel without MAJOR REPERCUTIONS!!! I Love the Stuff on this site. I Use XP Pro. BUTTTTT I still think that it sucks because I
can't Share programs that my Linux, unix, OS/X friends use and vise-Versa.
We ALL Should be fighting to Make All OS's Compatible, Not Just At the Software end But also the Hardware end.
At Least the Other OS's Are trying to get along, and GATES Don't want
to Play. Just Thought you should see what you sound Like.
Have a good one

Star - what actual usages of linux would you use? Let's be real, most linux distributions work hard at being a pale immitation of Windows which in itself as a pale immitation of OS/2 and Mac.

If you think that the programs here can only dress up Windows then I feel sorry for you for not having spent any real time seeing just how fundamentally you can alter the actual way the OS works.

Talking about compiling your kernel (and please let us know what "feature" you would add to the kernel while you were compiling it) that Linux users would add.

The typical Linux user I've dealt with is a classic wannabe. They think they're experts on software and computers but in actuality they're just arrogant newbies who choose Linux because they think it makes them "l33t".

Obviously you can potentially customize linux more so than windows because you have the source code. But as a practical matter, I've yet to see a single Linux uesr who has done anything near the kind of customization that Object Desktop users regularly are able to do themselves to Windows.

I don't use Object Desktop to make Windows look pretty. I was an OS/2 user, I don't realy care that much about look. I care about being able to make the computer work the way I want it to. I realize that Linux can potentially do this too since it's so open. But every kind of real world functional customization I might want to do I can do easier with Windows.

I'm still waiting for a Linux "advocate" to post a specific type of customization that they use that anyone outside a miniscule minority of computer users would be interested in.

After all, it's not Windows users running around making assanine claims like "Windows controls the user." I'd like to see, just once, a Linux user put up or shut up on their claims about Linux.  Frankly, I'm getting rather sick of some wet behind the ears college "n00b" trying to claim that the rest of us who have already spent serious time evaluating Linux at various stages in its development and found it wanting are dumb or afraid of trying anything other than Windows.

I put my money where my mouth was. I spent millions of dollars making OS/2 software. I've done the laternative OS bit.  I'm not using Windows because I'm some sort of lemming. I use Windows because there isn't a viable PC alternative. Hell, Linux is only now getting universal clipboard and they still have nothing like OLE or COM built in that is system wide.

As a server, linux is nice. But as a desktop OS, Linux is a fine 1996 level OS.

Martin and Star, I think most users trying Linux run into the same conundrum that drove me away from it after two months running it exclusively: loss of productivity.

I've not met a casual linux user. They tend to be the types that love to tweak every single aspect of their environment, and Linux is absolutely the perfect thing for that. Unfortunately, it tends to require that you tweak every single aspect of your environment. Even with a nice RedHat install, I still found so many of the included programs in the developers version to be completely non-interactive with each other. Audio server? Tweaking mini-apps to simply get objects inserted into an imitation Word file? Sure, it comes bundled with a tremendous amount of stuff, but I couldn't get half of it to work without investing hours and hours. Lost productivity.

Recompiling your kernel? For Linux, it's a regular occurrence to incorporate new features. It's also an absolute pain for the regular user to accomplish.

I started Linux with every intention of completely converting, but got just plain frustrated. Much to my chagrin, I was forced to admit Windows was truly a much easier to manage, quickly navigated, and productive environment for myself (definitely not for all).

Of course, I'm not a programmer-user (which I completely believe Linuxers to be). I'm just someone trying to get work done, and found Linux not capable of living up to the goods.

Outlook and Office aren't bad, and I think retraining the business world on a new platform is outright infeasible.

Linux has its place, and I admire those that can use it, but every time I touch it, I can't escape the feeling that it's missing things. I'm glad they continue to develop it, and I genuinely hope it continues to compete. Just makes everybody strive for the best!

It's hard for me to say whether Linux will or will not become mainstream, I worked for IBM recently, and we were implementing Linux, and alot of other companies are as well.. there are pros and cons to both OS's... UNIX based OS's ie: Linux are more difficult for the 'standard' user to configure, effectively use command-line editing, and so on... while Windows GUI is very easy for most users.. I think Linux is certainly becoming more prevalent in the Business world because it simply is UNIX, which is very stable and powerful code, more secure, etc... and I see the Home-user side of it sticking with Windows... MAC is an entirely different story.. it's BSD based (I know, not BSD, Darwin..) MAC OS runs on RISC based systems, which we all will agree blow the hell out of intel based systems, just because of the architecture... so to summarize.. I think the business world is going to use more Linux because they already have all the intel based systems, and can incorporate UNIX into their work environment to make it more secure, etc...(without buying new hardware), and I see Home users sticking with the Features and ease of Windows.

~just had to put my two-cents worth in

Having continually used Linux since '93 (slackware and pre 1.0 kernel) and Windows since '90 (Windows 3.0) (and humbly claiming advanced to expert ability with both systems), I will still say that for the average desktop user, there is no compelling reason to switch from Windows to Linux. And that has *nothing* to do with any actual or perceived shortcomings in either platform. The main reason there's no reason for joe average to switch is that Windows is *good enough*.

It comes already installed on the machines that they use, and it does what they want it to do. Even the skinning and enhancement community for Windows (which is substantial, just going by the userbase for WC) is still a very minute fraction of the total number of users. Most computer users are not at all like those of us who frequent a customization site (for any platform). Their perception of a computer is pretty much as if it were a toaster that gets email and lets them browse the web.

There is some good chance for Linux to make inroads in the business environment, however. While Office will be difficult to supplant, there are significant cost savings to a business for using Linux (mostly in terms of licensing). Since most business shops have an IS dept that handles PC setup and uniformity, there's no real difference in the overall user experience. The main difference is that since most people who use computers at home use Windows, and that familiarity translates to the working environment, workers will be *initially* more productive on a Windows environment at work, but it's not that hard to train them if the benefits are there. And one very strong point in favor of Linux in a business environment is that you aren't tied to a single vendor for something that is or might be business critical. That doesn't make Windows a bad choice, but it does limit your options if you find yourself in a situation where that single vendor becomes an issue.

I also would not necessarily rule out the possibility of Microsoft doing something stupid to lose their hold. It's highly unlikely (especially in the short term), but not impossible.

For the most part, I like what I hear about Longhorn, in terms of user features and some of the underlying improvements, but I'm not sanguine about the potential for invasive levels of Digital Restrictions Management (especially any that are defined by *one* single source, whoever that source may be).

I play with Linux on occasion. I use Windows a LOT. And I agree with Frog when he says (extrapolating a bit, but in essence he pretty much said it) that he (and EVERYONE, with the proper know-how) can change any aspect of Windows that he sees fit. And it's true. If Frog decided one day that suddenly HE wanted to do for Linux what he and Stardock did for Windows, then hell nor high water (nor recompiling a kernel -- sorry, had to take the pop shot ) would stop him. And he is NOT saying that Linux is a BAD operating system. He's saying it's not matured yet. A big difference.

I like Linux. I like Windows also. There are things that Windows could (and should) do better. No one has EVER denied that. But I think that Linux has it's pros and cons as well. You can't compare the two side-by-side. Windows has had billions and billions of dollars invested into it's development, from the most talented and "big-time" programmers that money and time can get. Linux has had a hardcore following of ...I dunno...ten, twenty, thirty thousand people working on it either in their spare time or on a small-to-medium corporate setting. (Of course, there are many more users of linux than that, but stay with me...). The point is that windows has had MUCH more development thrown at it. Linux is FINE for what it is --- free, and open to anyone who wants to learn something and contribute to the whole. But it's not ready to take windows on head-to-head. Not in the terms that are being discussed.

COULD Linux ever be ready? I think it COULD be, in ten years (assuming that Windows remains more or less the same -- which it WON'T given that Longhorn is going to blow the doors off of EVERYTHING anyone ever knew or thought about Windows). Linux in ten years MIGHT just be getting to the level WinXP is now. But in the end, Linux will fall by the wayside as a standardized desktop OS. I'm sorry, everyone, but that's the way it WILL be. And I hate saying that, because personally, I think Linux is nice. But it's not Windows XP, and it's definetely NOT Longhorn or OS-10. So I side with Frogboy on this one.

"I'm still waiting for a Linux "advocate" to post a specific type of customization that they use that anyone outside a miniscule minority of computer users would be interested in."

well, there are plenty of them as window skinning, icon themes, fully custom desktops etc. for which a Windows user has to use third party software. that´s what you´re doing with your company, don´t you

here´s just two exclusive things that i think many users here could be interested:

caption button order and placement is a user dependent setting in Metacity. one could argue that you could use Skinstudio for this, but i doubt there is anybody willing to do this for every single skin.

Gnome can use SVG (vector) icons that look good at just any size. it could do this long before MS was talking about what they are planning for Longhorn. no matter wether users will be interested in that they´ll have to use it, if they choose to use Longhorn when it comes out in three years or so.

well i've been using Linux regularly for over a year now and it is SUPERB.
It is not rough round the edges, taped together, inferior or in anyway less than Windows.
If you havent seen a recent Linux desktop i suggest you get over to http://www.kde-look.org and check out some of the screen shots.
Linux is coming, like it or not, to a desktop near you. Once the numbers reach a certain level, market economics will force the software houses like Adobe and Macromedia et al to begin coding for Linux platforms.
I can play both Unreal Tournaments, Quake3, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Soldier of Fortune, Medal of Honour and many more on Linux. Mandrake Linux comes with hundreds of free programmes, office suites, media players, games, web browsers, compilers, programming suites and so on.

Why am I here then you might wonder.
Well,
I keep Xp on for my children to play one or two non linux compliant games on. And I've been skinning windows from this site for two or three years now.
But, really, Linux really does rock most awesomly. It's no harder than windows, it's just different.

Wow...I never knew there was this much passion, for an OS of all things. This type of passion for a product could be what is needed to push it over the edge. But, I must agree with Frogboy...XP works well for what I do everyday. If we were talking about Win95 It would be a different story.

But be careful...when your passion for something turns into aggression...then you have lost me and my Windows friends. I have an open mind and will try anything...as long as it is presented well.

As for my computer controlling me...get a clue. There is nothing I hate more than stuiped comments made about a general group of people that has no basis. Keep that trash to yourself and you'll fare more respect from all of us.