Why switch to Linux

From LinuxReviews
Jump to navigationJump to search

Sir, i have looked into your site in searching for a very basic question about Linux, Why switch to Linux?

I am coming from the standpoint of a Windows user with a Microsoft MCDBA certification, who uses high-end databases for processing. Example; if I use MySQL database, it still costs, why not use Microsoft SQL then? Most business need economics to make the switch to Linux and with SUSE and RedHat charging, its harder to see cost savings.

I am not a proMicrosoft anything, I have a real hard time "selling" Linux when there does not seem to be economic savings in using Linux versus Microsoft server. I truly mean no disrespect but have this question that I have not been able to have properly answered.

To use Linux you seem to need a braincell, which most dba's don't have but I have worked on Unix for 4 years and feel comfortable with the Linux mountings, etc. Can I gain back processing overhead with Linux? I am really not sure of this answer, because it can depend on what I am running.

In terms of the home user, it seems like Linux may be a good fix with the distributions but now the Security Enhanced Linux is coming out and it really looks like Microsoft server with policies.

Sorry, I'm very confused and don't have the sales savvy to sell Linux but any inroads into Linux versus Microsoft costs evaluation is greatly appreciated.

Michael J. Murphy - Reporting Manager North American Medical Management

Reply by a somewhat objective linux/Microsoft user:

Dear Sir: I used to be an all out gung ho windows user. At the time, the competition was my fathers Commodore 64. He felt no need even to upgrade to the 128, so you can see, Windows looked like the face of god in comparison at the time. I am not a proficient linux user, and actually you probably know more about getting a box with linux to do what you want better than I. But simply put, I am moving to linux because you only pay for linux the first time, and only if you are misled by big linux companies like redhat, etc. like I was. You NEVER stop paying for windows, about $200 every 3 years or so, nor do you ever stop paying for windows office/work compatible software, that will not be compatible with the new version of windows - and the bill for both is due at about the same time. Ive paid about $250 for non windows software since Ive had windows-and tha is just my antivirus/security. Windows will always need it - you know that. And if your software is at all commercial you will have to pay for that too, again and again. Ive never had to buy Word, or Excel, or Powerpoint. OpenOffice has all this and it even comes for windows, free. Dont need antivirus or firewall for linux, but if I did I can get it easily enough, and security has always been better in linux. Ive paid only once for linux- Mandrake - and I was not satisfied with it. Since then, with each download of a newer version of linux I am more and more satisfied and productive. More programs are added or improved. I neither have to pay for them nor worry about them going obsolete. They are usually better because they is no coding added for appearances to bog down performance. Case in point Nero Cd burning vs k3b. It works. Consistently. I could say that with all the crashes and problems has had, Ive lost months of work, even with backups that fail due to Microsofts inherent bugginess - propagation of errors. And I see no reason to lose more. I only wish more programs were released in linux- even commercial ones not just free. Buy a computer that you know is 100% linux compatible. Download for free a copy of debian and get a friend who knows linux to hold your hand. Unless you want tech support, and for the most part, tech support is for people who are too lazy(95%) or busy to learn on their own or take time to ask a friend. And in the end, if like you say, "they are both the same", then why PAY, for an inferior product? The irony is, for my current install, Ive paid nothing, and got a decent product out of it. Can that be said of Windows?

This requires a long, in-depth article.