The [Main] What Distro should YOU use?

What a wonderful little post! I'm thinking of diving back into the Linux world after a pretty long break, and may need some advice this time:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ions

What apps do you use most?

---

Firefox, Firebird, Sunbird, Peachtree Accounting, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, NVU, eBay TurboLister, PayPal postage printing (printing to an HP laser), Azureus, video playback, and on rare ocassion I'll boot up a game like Neverwinter Nights.

Quote:

---

Do you have a broadband connection?

---

Yes - SBC/Yahoo DSL

Quote:

---

How familiar are you with computers?

---

Very - worked as IT support for several years. Don't keep up with it as well as I did back then though.

Quote:

---

How familiar are you with Linux?

---

Not very, any longer. I was at one time fairly fluent, but that was about six year ago and I haven't touched it since. Will probably be lucky if I can remember how to create a new directory at this point.

Quote:

---

How much time are you willing to invest into learning Linux?

---

Not much. I no longer have the time to sit around for hours/days/weeks tinkering with something trying to get it to work.

Quote:

---

How powerful is your computer?

---

I don't have it memorized, but I believe it's a 1.3Ghz, 512MB, 80G HD, video card I think is probably a bit on the crappy side but I can't remember how much memory it has.

Anyway, the reason for my post is that my Win2K is getting very tired, I was holding off on upgrading because I didn't want to buy XP right when Vista was about to come out -
And then Vista was released, and I was just about floored when I read the requirements (not to mention I'm never happy with Windows prices and licensing/registration agreements).

This made me think about Linux again - I tried it out back around the turn of the century (back when RedHat & Mandrake were both fully open source & free) and although I though it was OK, I found certain aspects to be so frustrating that I decided to jump back to Windows.

What I'm hoping for now is to be pointed in the right direction (even if it's unfortunately back towards Windows) -
My techie days have pretty much passed, and I'm running a small business in my "spare" time now, so I don't want to waste a bunch of time in the meat of the OS - I want to be able to just log into the computer and have stuff work.
That means not having to jump through 50 hoops to get my accounting package to work, and if some file needs updating I need to be able to just hit a couple of buttons and have the software take care of it - I still have horrible nightmares of trying to keep up with system file dependancies when trying to update even the most basic programs.

Don't know if it matters much but at the time I had a preference to Gnome for the GUI, and taking another look it looks like it's still one of the nicer ones out there.

SO - right now after doing a little looking around, Gentoo looks like it might be a possibility, or maybe maybe Mandrake if that's gone through improvements (and it's called something else now I think?) but I figured you guys would have the best suggestions - watcha think!?

Shadoglare, if you don't want to spend too much time tinkering or tweaking, as your post says, then I'd recommend you stay away from Gentoo. On the other hand, getting back into the full swing of Linux might 'infect' you. And you will find youself spending "...hours/days/weeks tinkering with something trying to get it to work".

I'd like to recommend Debian or a Debian based distro. Much has transpired in the six or so years you'be been away. It will blow you away.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loopback48

I'd like to recommend Debian or a Debian based distro. Much has transpired in the six or so years you'be been away. It will blow you away.

---

Would probably be worth a look, although I wasn't a big fan back in the day. I see their website is still pretty lacking as far as "hook 'em in" information - features, screenshots, etc.
And is it seriously up to 15 CDs in size!!?

Since you have broadband, I'd just download the single netinstall cd. Then you can just install your required packages from the net. Haven't played with it but I hear the new installer is very nice.

Have Fun!

debian is a good distro. i use it as my testbox i also run a slackware box and a gentoo box which is my desktop graphic machine. don't download all 15 debian cds its a waste of time. i would get the packages you need by using apt-get command.


azurues/ktorrent (if running KDE) = bittorrents
amarok = media player much like itunes
k3b = cd/dvd burner
gimp = graphic program
firefox = web browsing

what Window manager are you thinking about kde/gnome/fluxbox ? you should relrean some basic gnu linux commands.... you will need to use them on a regular basis. As well as understand file permissions.

i would go with debian . its a good distro. ubuntu is also a debian based distro and you might want to check it out. I havn't used it .

Quote:

---

Would probably be worth a look, although I wasn't a big fan back in the day. I see their website is still pretty lacking as far as "hook 'em in" information - features, screenshots, etc.

---

the main reason i love debian is beacuse of the all the binary packages avaible by apt-get. it makes it very easy to update . well as using other distros you spend alot of time upgrading if they arnt usuing a similair package manager. with modern times thou this is becoming way eaiser with Yum , apt-get, slapt-get, and emerge as was as ports on freeBSD

Yah I'll have to chime in here, Download the Debian netinstall cd, its about 200mb and go for it. Installing packages is as easy as apt-get install firefox from a terminal as root, or if you you want a gui front end use the Synaptic Package manager. Oh and welcome back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crow2icedearth

what Window manager are you thinking about kde/gnome/fluxbox ? you should relrean some basic gnu linux commands.... you will need to use them on a regular basis. As well as understand file permissions. i would go with debian . its a good distro. ubuntu is also a debian based distro and you might want to check it out. I havn't used it .

---

It looks like I'm probably still going to have a leaning towards Gnome - hoping Debian will give me an option of which I want when I do the install.

Out of curiosity has Debian developed a "dependancy sensing" system when you have to update system files?
Nothing drove me nuts more than downloading a program, and having it tell me "your <blah> file needs to be updated."
Then I'd update it, and it would then tell me "OK.. but now your <blah> file needs updating."
...update.... "OK.. but now your <blah> needs to be updated."

I remember there were times I spend all %@$#$@% night updating little 200k files just to get some stupid program to work that I downloaded. You'd think it would just figure out the tree by itself and just update everything that needs to be updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadoglare

It looks like I'm probably still going to have a leaning towards Gnome - hoping Debian will give me an option of which I want when I do the install.

Out of curiosity has Debian developed a "dependancy sensing" system when you have to update system files?
Nothing drove me nuts more than downloading a program, and having it tell me "your <blah> file needs to be updated."
Then I'd update it, and it would then tell me "OK.. but now your <blah> file needs updating."
...update.... "OK.. but now your <blah> needs to be updated."

I remember there were times I spend all %@$#$@% night updating little 200k files just to get some stupid program to work that I downloaded. You'd think it would just figure out the tree by itself and just update everything that needs to be updated.

---

Dependency hell has been resolved in many distributions. Apt is very good at resolving the dependencies of packages in the repositories.

If you try compiling your own applications, and veering away from the given repositories, your mileage may vary.

Not able to choose between Slackware & Debian I ended up with Arch.
I use it a few months now and I am very happy :)

Weelllll... considering Partition Magic just magically borked my XP install, this might be as good a time as any to reinstall & repartition so I can dual-boot :P
My first quick attempt at the Debian net-install showed that it's going to have trouble seeing my network connection to do the full install over the 'net - haven't had a chance to try a manual config yet tho.

OK... repartitioned, reinstalled windows, installed the Debian net-install...
Seems to find the network adapter OK, but it says it can't find a DHCP connection (which I thought the DSL modem was), and even if I set it up with static addresses it still can't see the modem :( Probably time to do some searching and/or move to a new thread through (so much for those plug-and-play hopes!)

sometimes you need to restart the modem for it to assign an IP to a new computer...

Ok, the computer I want to use has a 10G hard drive and 256k RAM. Not sure on the speed, but I imagine it's around 500k or so. So I want a distribution of Linux for it that includes everything I need to compile. I tried BeaFanatix before discovering that I was going to have to figure out how to install tons of other crap just to compile and rather than do that I'd rather find a distro more suited to me needs. The ONLY thing I want to do with this computer is tinker around with a MUD, not even putting it online, so I need about zero resources.

Xarin, I expect you will use a different computer to download, but if your intended host computer has a DVD-ROM, I think the easiest to use would be openSuse 32 bit with the DVD version as it would have all the apps you need on one disk. The CD version has them but you might need to do some more tedious swapping and searching with a slower host computer... but I am not a real Linux person and you seem to be more conversant in Linux. I did install this on a P4 32 Bit and A64 64 bit with no problems for me as far as installing the OS was concerned.

it has been so long since I voted I now have a new point of view, and prefered flavor/:mad:

Hello,

I have decided that I wanted to build a separate storage server, and my timeline for building it has just received a large nudge by me spontaneously upgrading my current computer completely...

So anyway, I want to build a storage server for my network from the following

DFI lan party NF4 SLI DR motherboard
amd 64 x2 3800+
GeForce 6800GT
4x Seagate 400 Gb SATA drives

My goals are to:
1) Make a 1.2 TB(approx of course) RAID5 array in software using the appropriate version of linux. Possibly adding a spare drive later, and maybe expanding the array as needed.
2)Put the server on the network so that it is accessible to all my windows machines quickly. (I.E. faster then windows file sharing normally is)
3)Bond the 2 gigabit network ports on the motherboard and connect them to a gigabit switch (which needs to support bonding too, correct?)
4)Automatic defragmenting and 'optimization' of the array, virus scanning too.
5)This one is kind of optional, but I would like the computer to email my Gmail account in the even of a drive failure.

Time that I can dedicate to learning linux? well give that good raid cards are $500+, I would say I have plenty of time to save that much :p

I do have broadband so downloading the discs is fine with me.

Which forum should I use for further questions about this little project of mine?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConKbot of Doom

Which forum should I use for further questions about this little project of mine?

---

You are perfectly fine in here as long as you wondering what distro to use. Once you picked one and have questions concerning its installation, proceed to the installation subforum. If your installation has succeeded and you have questions concerning what software to use in Linux for task XYZ, go to the software forum. For hardware related problems, go to the hardware subforum.

I have never built a server with the specifications you require, but I just recently rebuilt my own little server and have to say I liked Debian the best. Ubuntu Server Edition and Gentoo Hardened where the other two candidates. Debian won for stability and easy upgrading. Ubuntu is tricky to upgrade between releases and Gentoo hardened hasn't any good documentation anymore, but if you succeed with it you'd have a rock solid server.

Hie. I'm currently using win XP. (from the day Bill Gates was born) Now, I intend to switch to linux as it's said to be virus/spyware free. Is that true?

I'm worried about compatibility problems, as I would depend on my USB, printers, mp3players, mobile phones alot. I'll get a Twinhead laptop soon and will be using it for emails, word doc, Command and Conquer, messenger, bittorrent (and all other downloads), music, dvds, surf the net etc.

I seriously need recommendations on which mepis/ubuntu that suits me. Oh and which one is with the 3d cube thingy? That's so cool.
:o

Linux is spyware and virus free.
The cube thing is called beryl.
I'm not sure if you'll have trouble using your printer/scanner (i dont have either), but everything else is easy to mount to a usable directory. (in ther terminal, su to root and "mount /dev/devicename /some/other/dir") the device name would be the one that wasn't in the /dev directoyry before you pluggered the device in, and /some/other/dir is any empty folder you want.
For messenger, you have programs called gaim or kopete, they let you connect to yahoo, msn, irc etc etc all at once. bittorent and firefox are available for linux, but im not sure about command and conquer.
For music and dvds, download xmms and as many codecs asyou can find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toshiokenzo

USB, printers, mp3players, mobile phones...emails, word doc, Command and Conquer, messenger, bittorrent...music, dvds, surf the net etc.

---

Since you're a long-time windows user you'll need to make a few adjustments. No longer will you download programs and drivers off the net. All the programs you need are available through a "package manager". On ubuntu I believe it's called synaptic. Also, ubuntu appears to be geared towards people who are used to the "windows way" so I think that's where you should start.
Read this and things will be a lot easier for you: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~djm/ubuntu/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ions

This is the ONLY 'What distro is best for you?' thread on the board now. Well if you're not sure tell us what you do and a little about your computer and we'll help you figure out which is best for you and why.

Some things to think about when posting:

• What apps do you use most?.

---

• For me, far and away I use teh Web Browser most, followed by the Email client next, and the text editor third most often. Actually, Email is probably the most consistent activity I do with a computer, but at home, I use both Email clients and Web based Email, which drives up my Web usage. I do a lot of other Web activity, such as here, to research and post in forums, so that also drives up Web usage.
  
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by ions

  Do you have a broadband connection? .

  ---

  Yes, and that certainly has an impact on my interest in Debian. Prior to broadband access, I purchased either books or boxed sets to get my systems, and I did not use Debian, I used Slackware, Mandrake, and Red Hat in those days. Still all good distros, but Debian, with broadband access, is more flexible.
  
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by ions

  How familiar are you with computers? .

  ---

  As a software user, very familiar. For hardware, I am familiar enough to accomplish whatever I need to do.
  
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by ions

  How familiar are you with Linux? .

  ---

  Extremely. I've used many different varieties and have studied them extensively since 1995.
  
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by ions

  How much time are you willing to invest into learning Linux? .

  ---

  I am sure it has been in the thousands or tens of thousands of hours - and about twelve years of elapsed time.
  
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by ions

  How powerful is your computer? .

  ---

  I have a 400 MHz system that is now pretty much dormant, a 1 Ghz desktop that is aging but still quite functional, and has been my primary system for several years. I am migrating to a 2.7 GHz system that I got for the price of the postage from someone who was moving up in models. I got a newer DVD/RW drive and a larger capacity hard drive. Now I hope to get three to five years out of that system as the 1 GHz system gradually becomes a test system and the 2.7 GHz system becomes more of the every day system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ions

This is a popular topic and in the interest of providing info as clearly as possible on the topic we think one cetral thread is a good idea. So, all new threads that should have been posted in this thread will be locked from now on.

---

SimplyMEPIS has been my every day Debian desktop system for the past couple of years. Prior to that I was a firm Libranet user for several years, though my Libranet system became more like a Sid system than the system it originated from.

Recently, I have raised my opinion of Kubuntu. The installation and applications that are available have really made this a very solid and usable system, too. I personally think that SimplyMEPIS is set up, immediately upon installation, more ready to be used. However, Kubuntu installs just as easily, has as many or more packages included, and where it does take an extra step, there is Easy Ubuntu available to make use of multimedia applications a snap with either of them.

Freespire gets honorable mention. The only reason I don't raise them higher is that the first version (and the commercial Linspire system upon which it was based) is really getting behind the other vendors in coming out with current software. As soon as Linspire and Freespire stabilize their move over to a Ubuntu code base, this should improve. Meanwhile, the older versions of Freespire and Linspire are very easy, just getting old in Internet age. The new versions, however, are not stable enough for every day use yet, but should be very soon.

This is my first post here, so please bear with me.

I currently am a Windows XP power user willing to switch to Linux. Some friend of mine tried to convert me to Ubuntu, but he failed. My main reason to refuse Ubuntu was because all the stuff was in the repositories, and all kinds of things happened when I tried to install "outside" software. I consider such a centralized way of packaging as very bad. I want an OS that is just that, an OS, lets me install whatever I want from various sources and doesn't treat me like a baby (the "we know what's good for you so trust us" approach).

Unfortunately, I heard that in the SUSE, Fedora, and of course, Debian camps things are identical. Time-based releases are preferred to feature-based releases and users are locked in the repositories assigned to their OS version (notice that not being able / not wanting to compile things is still "locking in" to me).

So, is there any distribution designed from the ground up with such a philosophy in mind*? Or should I stay with Windows and/or buy a Mac?

Hardware resources are not a problem, just as a hi-speed internet connection is not.

*PC-BSD is trying the good thing, however, it's only something superficial and unstable.

zugu,
Man, you _are_ a windows power user. What are these "various sources" of which you speak?
Do you really want to compile and install major packages by hand?
The distro maintainers have done lots of work centralizing their package collections...why do you think that's a bad thing?
Anyway, it sounds to me like you're wanting Slackware.

Actually, I despise compiling and editing config files. As far as I know, Slackware's package manager does not solve dependencies, I am supposed to solve them every time I install something. So no, Slackware is not for me.

I want something with the ease of use and polish of Ubuntu and the elegance of Debian that does not force me to use certain versions of the packages in the repositories. Basically, I want to be able to install whatever software I want, whenever I want, without being forced to upgrade to the next release of the OS just to get newer versions of even basic tools like Firefox, Gaim or OO.org.

Centralized package management is bad, because I, as a user, depend on what the developers cared to port/package/backport. Where is the famous *NIX flexibility?

apt-get might be cool, but it stops being so when the packages I want are not in the repos or I need newer versions. Installing things from sources others than the repositories has the potential to b0rk the whole apt ecosystem, either instantly or at dist-upgrade. Same for rpm based distros. I don't want to be locked in the repositories. I want to be able to install Firefox 2 and when the time comes, to upgrade to FF3 without upgrading the distro. I used Dapper for a year, until I noticed I was frozen inside whatever the repositories looked like at the moment of the release. The dapper-backports repositories are almost empty and developers are reluctant to backporting most of the required apps because "it might break the system". And it's not just Dapper, it's every other release of Ubuntu and Debian and Fedora and OpenSUSE and so on.

Windows XP, OTOH, lets me install everything released in the last 7 years or even more. Mac OS X has the most comfortable way of installing things: the application is self-contained, with everything it needs to run, regardless of what's installed on the OS or not. That's what I call real flexibility. Is there any distro out there that does this?

I hope I stated my point better this time.

So you want a distro in which most packages are statically linked...hmm... I don't know of any distro that does that, as it's a huge waste of resources.
You're informed enough to make your own choices, and it sounds like you should probably stay with windows/mac.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

It might be a waste of resources, but it would make installing and deploying applications much more easier. Developers would have an easier life, not concerning themselves with what's installed or not in the operating system. HDD capacities are not a problem nowadays, so redundancy should not be an issue.

Well, I guess I'll stick with Windows for now, Linux is not yet for me (and there are chances it will never be). I find this centralized design philosophy to be fundamentally flawed and there's no chance someone will change it. PC-BSD people are trying something, as I said in my previous posts, but it's just superficial, the underlying system is still FreeBSD.

So here ends my not quite pleasant Linux experience. I'll be sure to check some distros in VMWare from time to time, just to keep up with what's happening.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zugu

HDD capacities are not a problem nowadays, so redundancy should not be an issue.

---

It's not really the HD space, but the RAM wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zugu

Well, I guess I'll stick with Windows for now, Linux is not yet for me (and there are chances it will never be)
Cheers.

---

I doubt any free software developer will ever implement what you're wanting....but then again who knows? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zugu

So here ends my not quite pleasant Linux experience. I'll be sure to check some distros in VMWare from time to time, just to keep up with what's happening.Cheers.

---

I beg to disagree.

I have one box running 3 Dos, 5 MS Windows (including Vista), 100+ Linux, few BSD (including PCBSD and FreeBSD) and a couple of Solaris. I also run VMware with a M$ system as host and Linux as guests.

I would say Linux is the easiest and the most pleasant to use. This is because we are allowed to control/configure the operating system and not being told to stick with rules laid down by the M$.

Even if a M$ Windows doesn't Linux he/she will eventually find out Linux is a super utility that can be used to migrate the M$ systems from hard disk to hard disk or to salvage his/her work when the M$ fails or dies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saikee

I beg to disagree.

---

It's not a matter of taste, so I can't see how you can disagree with me. It's about something I need from an operating system that Linux can't offer me (or so it seems from je_fro's replies).

Linux offers you the opportunity to create your own distro, any way you want it.
It would be a lot easier for you if the features you wanted were technically desirable. Unfortunately, they aren't, so nobody is going to implement them, except MS (and possibly you, if you want it bad enough).
:)

I disagree because my experience with Linux has been very pleasant. You will find I even claimed enjoying a honeymoon with Linux well over 1.5 year into it. In fact up to now I am still amazed by the things I could do in Linux. Yet three years ago I never wondered outside the M$ systems.

I take a different position.

If one has paid for a commercial license of a M$ system then one keeps it.

If one finds a free distro that gives out a bit of nice features, then installs it because it is free.

If one likes to use a software not shipped with a distro but available in a repository then downloads it, "yum" it or "apt-get" it.

One can always use any system for whatever it ticks one's imagination. One doesn't have to stick with one system for ever and expecting it to do all the bits and pieces others put together.

Therefore there is no need to be unpleasant about anything. An expert user can get a lot more out of the same system than I could so my unpleasant experience may be just due my own lack of knowledge in the subject.

I came to JustLinux with an open mind as a student the mods here taught me to booted 100+ systems in 1.5 years. By any standard this is a very happy and exciting experience for a PC user.

If you can boot any system or run any guest system inside a virtual machine host then you can have any taste you want, because your need can be served by as many as systems as you care to install.

So you're saying there's no Linux distribution that can be installed and be kept for at least two years, during which the user is allowed to install whatever new software is released, just like Windows/Mac OS X. How Linux is a viable product, or for that matter "ready for the desktop"?

I think you can keep your distro for two years, install for example debian, apt-get install all programs you want and apt-get update once in a while. If there is a program where the chosen (stable?) version isn't the one you want I believe you can install one from an other repository (testing?) or compile it yourself, but that will be more work then just one command.
Since I have been happy with the offered programs in the stable repositorys I haven't tried this so I could be wrong.

zugu

If you don't like Linux don't use it, stay with M$ or go to Mac, shoot make your own OS and put it on the market. (do I smell a mole? maybe not, but it just kinda smells that way.) I say that because you come to this forum to complain about linux and push how good you think M$ is. If you gave Linux a try and didn't like it, then move on.

If you don't want updates just turn the automatic update off. That is what you would do in Windows, right?

The words "ready for desktop" implies Linux isn't ready. I still run one of the oldest distro, a Debian Woody with a 2.2.x kernel (current one is 2.6.2x) with a switchable Gnome or KDE.

If you load the current versions of the leading distros like Mandriva, Knoppix, Slax, Debian, Ubuntu, Sabayon, Suse.... you will not get a terminal only system at start-up. The most die hard terminal-mode distro is probably Slackware but it still allows you to fire up a GUI immediate after an installation by command "startx". That was the way even when I started Linux.

The current varieties and features available in modern Linux are truly mind boggling if you care to investigate.

Even I think Linux has much more to offer with the desktop personally I think the terminal mode is where most users will find happiness because that is where you are transformed into a master controlling all the hardware like telling a hard disk to slow down, getting every bit of information that you never aware of available at your disposal, moving information between different operating systems etc.

I don't know why people have a hang up with the terminal mode. Why not use it in additional to the desktop? Every command you use at a terminal is a knowledge for life because very few get changed. At my present level of knowledge I would say there is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the tasks one can only carry out by a terminal or a console. Would a user ever be happy not knowing to use the rest one-third or one-half of an operating system?

It is not an advertisement but a little knowledge in terminal mode can enable a user to go through various task like a hot wire cutting through butter. It is where the true computing speed and power lie because you are using the very tools with which the desktop was created. Whatever a deskop cannot deliver you have the opportunity to make it happen with a terminal.

I suppose at the end of the day there are people who are only interested to use a PC. On a like to like basis I think Linux is a viable alternative.

Linux is open source. The knowledge is in the public domain so everthing can be learned. In that Linux will appeal to users who, in additional to just using the PC, are interested to know a computer does things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrrangerman43

zugu

If you don't like Linux don't use it, stay with M$ or go to Mac, shoot make your own OS and put it on the market. (do I smell a mole? maybe not, but it just kinda smells that way.) I say that because you come to this forum to complain about linux and push how good you think M$ is. If you gave Linux a try and didn't like it, then move on.

---

I gave Linux a try, by using ONE release of ONE distro. I came here to ask about other distros that could suit my taste. What's wrong with that?

I also outlined what I think Microsoft did right, in hope that I could find a Linux distribution with a similar behavior in package management. If you think Microsoft can't do anything right, it's your problem, not mine.

Also, writing "M$" instead of "MS" doesn't make you smarter.

There is no need to loose temper here.

The M$ is pretty standard equivalent to MS and widely used in many forums.

It is good that Zugu qualified himself by stating his opinion was based on a limited exposure to Linux with only one distro. I am sure more exposure to various distros will yield a fairer view with Linux.

Linux has two boot loaders Lilo and Grub which can multi-boot different PC systems regardless of their types. Therefore Linux is an ideal vehicle for investigating other operating systems because its boot loaders can easily boot them all.

As others have tried to tell you, Linux is all about choice. There are literally hundreds of distros out there. If you don't like one try another. Windows is windows if you don't like the way they do something there is nothing you can do about it. Do you have unlimited funds that allow you to purchase all the Windows software from the last seven years? I have installed hundreds of Linux apps over the years and not spent a dime.