Linux is NOT a replacement.

Have you ever gone through a forum or been reading through news/blog sites and counted the number of references to " If you want to convert windows users...", or " you can replace windows with...".

Give it a shot sometime, you'll lose count. The popular but misguided concept that Linux is a replacement for Windows is out of control. There is nothing to be gained from "competing" against Windows but stress and frustration.

Linux, as described by the man who made the Linux kernel, had nothing to do with windows at all. It had more to do with creativity, a personal challenge and not having enough money to buy a shiny new OS for a computer.

Linux shouldn't try to replace Windows, because inevitably, that which seeks to replace, becomes.

Which is duplicitous at best. Why have two OS's that are the same? You can have an OS that does the same thing, work on the computer, but do it in a way that goes about it on it's own, without trying to imitate, duplicate or replicate another.

Due to the nature of an Operating System, the outcome is going to be the same anyway. Your computer will be able to be used and perform with hardware and provide output in a variety of ways.

That's it. That's what an OS does. not much more to it.

Where many many people get lost is in the fact that there are many programs and applications that come with an OS to make life for the user a bit easier in using the computer right away instead of having to hunt down or buy applications before they can use it.

In the strictest sense of the word, Operating system, Linux is incredible, it's durable, stable, consistent, it just flat out performs. end of story. It's a success.

Let's discuss applications for a bit now. Because that's where the problem is. because so many apps are delivered already installed on an OS, Both on Linux and Windows, it's a marketing strategy, people have blurred the line between OS and apps.

Microsoft is a multifaceted company. They have a dept that just makes the OS. They have another that makes applications. See where this is going yet? It's in their best interest to install apps, their apps, at least trial versions or free versions, on the OS they ship because it offers sales leads for the apps side and offers out of the box usability for the OS side.

Many users of Linux see the plethora of apps that come pre-installed in many distros and assume something similar. In actuality, it is a collection of apps written by amateurs, pros that work for other companies and companies that make software on their own, with no distinct connection to any OS.

Big difference here. One makes apps with the OS, the other simply makes the OS. nothing else. A huge community of folks provide the apps.

So, the argument that "I don't want to switch to Linux because I don't want to learn new apps" is correct, but, it bears on the apps, not the OS. To suggest that Linux, the OS is deficient in some way because the apps don't look or work the way you like them too is the wrong way to look at it.

Linux was not originally a replacement OS. It was a project that became something great. It was meant to stand on it's own and not be measured against anything but what an OS should do, not what the other OS does.

It should stay that way. Linux doesn't need Windows to be successful. It only needs to be the best it can be and it would be great if apps makers would use some creativity and imagination writing apps to run on it. It's not all that hard, there are a lot of very good apps out there already result of some of that creativity.

Linux is Linux, Windows is Windows, Two totally different OS's that do the job of running a computer in their own way and trying to make them the same is the wrong way to go. Enjoy the difference.

Big Bear