I've spent quite alot of time to read all the definitions gave by one or another. I'm both a linux & windows user and in the same time admin. I'm so much afraid i'll start to do devil's advocacy here for linux, but from my point of view i'm pretty much entitled to.
I'm in charge for about 400 workstations and something like 170 servers. Both types (wks & srv) runs either linux or windows. Do you folks have any ideea which is the % of the wks's suffering from sudden death like about 2 or 3 months of intensive work on them? Take a wild guess!. So, as i'm sure you already guessed what i'm talking about, i come and say: "Why in the name of God i would waste my time and my nerves on reinstalling friggin MS stuff like every 2 - 3 months", when i could just simply just check them once in a while and have them running for 1 year +. Of course it's not my call. Just as some of you like MS and some of you Linux, my users have their preferences too, therefore i got Norton Ghost to work for those bloody Windows wks's. But then again, happy people coming to work are those working on linux workstation. Debian or Gentoo powered (dont remind me of RedHat/Fedora/CentOS as they are Windows's cousins lately), my workstations are rocking from simple text files editing (OpenOffice rules by the way) to Multimedia rich applications (if you dont know there is SDL - Simple DirectMedia Layer linux alternative of DirectX as well as TransGaming's new DirectX 8 API's support in linux for latest Remedy Enterprise's Max Payne with 3D acceleration). However .. going to the server side of my story all my servers are running Linux or various flavours of BSD. I used to have some NT and 2000 or 2003 servers that i got rid off due to their instability and inconsistency plus extremely bad memory management. Benchmarking the systems it came up that on two hardware identical servers, one with linux and the other with windows 2000 advanced server, each of them with two processors and 4 GB DDR2 memory, under a stress test with 300 simultaneous clients each of them sending 1000 (one thousand) simultaneous queries to their respective localhost databases (mysql for linux and msql for windows) the windows machine bent over kneeling in front of linux. I'm sorry to dissapoint you Windows fans but Linux is better, or you would prefere to say GNU/Linux since it's widely accepted as a name for this awsome OS. And Yes, it's an OS even if at origins Linux was the name of a MINIX based free OS with a monolithic kernel, created by Linus Torvalds. Do you even know that the name "Linux" was a mistake?. By the time Linus Torvalds finished his first version of what we know today as Linux he named it Freax, but when he asked his friend Ari Lemmke (at that time the FTP admin at funet.fi) to put the new OS online for public access, his friend gave him a directory on ftp with the name Linux. And for you ignorants i repeat: Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system. It's not the name of the kernel. And also i saw many of you stating Linux is an OS accepted by geeks and nerds. Righty .. then IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Novell are all some cheap-azz companies ran by nerds and geeks. If you say so ...
Also news for you cool guys from geeks like us .. Sony Playstation 3 will be running Linux too as confirmed by Sony's CEO Ken Kutaragi. So judging by this news Linux still not being a proper gaming environment right?.. Duh!. Take care with what you wish as the OS for your computer.

Over & Out
Andy
...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly).
by tespio August 17, 2006
A non-operating system that still hasn't lived up to its excessive hype, because the geeks in the community are;
(a) too busy arguing with each other over which distro is the best,
(b) blaming Microsoft even for ridiculous things such as huricanes, tsunamis, and last year's boom of aphids, and
(c) producing variants of Linux that are completely incompatible with each other.
While distros of Linux such as Mepis and Ubuntu are showing some promise, it would be logic-defying if the Linux community FINALLY produces something that actually is worth using on the desktop without any program installation hassles by 2010.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the REAL cost of running Linux on the desktop:

Linux distro: $0.00 to $99.99 if you have high-speed internet access, $9.99-$179.99 if you don't.
Linux manual: $19.99 to $79.99
New Modem (because "winmodems" don't run under Linux): $29.99 to $59.99
New Soundcard (because the soundcard you have is not supported): $19.99 to $89.99
New Internet Service Provider (because no popular ISP supports Linux) $7.99 to $39.99
(Note: The non-popular ISPs often don't have free minutes and will charge you like they would a regular phone call).
New graphics-card (because your integrated video card is not supported) $29.99 to $199.99
New printer (because your printer is not supported) $39.99 to $159.99
New scanner (very few are Linux-compatible) $49.99 to $199.99
The sheer frustration of finding out that, despite buying the new hardware and spending weeks of relaxation time tinkering with the command-line code, Linux STILL refuses to perform on the same level as OS-X or Windows XP: Priceless
Windows XP: $99.99 to $199.99
Cost of new hardware (all the hardware you bought for Linux is Windows-compatible) $0.00

And this, my friends is the true cost of running Linux on the desktop.
by former penguin May 14, 2005
A half-finished piece of shit for an operating system that's a pain in the ass to install, a pain in the ass to use, and a pain in the ass to remove from the hard drive.

On the bright side, Linux makes an excellent disk partitioning tool.

If Linux was designed primarily for network servers, then it doesn't make any sense to market it as a desktop replacement, especially if the applications suck, and hardware detection is nonexistent.
I wasted half of a 14 CDs of a 25-CD spindle on 9 variants of Linux. 6 of them didn't work because the computer shut down when the installation detected my video card. 2 variants wouldn't detect my soundcard, modem, USB scanner, and USB drive. Driver installation didn't do jack shit to solve the problem. The ninth variant detected my modem and USB drive, but kept playing this wierd, chaotic, repeating tune through my soundcard. Unfortunately, there were no sound drivers to resolve the issue.

Windows 98 beta detected all my hardware, and driver installation was a cakewalk.

Thank GOD I bought my CDs cheap from Big Lots. But still that was a waste of CDs that I could have filled with the best freeware available for Windows.

May the Linux programmers burn in Hell.
by boris March 02, 2005
An operating system which people use when they want to pretend they know what they are on about. 95% of all games and worth while software doesnt work on Linux.
Only useful as a server side OS as web hosting isn't the most demanding task for an OS.
I r0x0r coz 1 j00z 1inu><
by PlayaX August 22, 2004
A OS alternative to Windows used by Adults or kids tryin to look like they know a lot aboout computers when they wouldnt rather make life easier and click away...
Marky-Randolf III recieved Linux as a 3rd grade graduation gift so he can hack,spam,break laws,and have a preset sense of intelligence before anyone else. April Fools?
by Anti-gates also December 14, 2003
an operating system used by people who think they are cool. it usualy does not work properly or uses a great amount of skill
linux blows like macs but windows acually works
by Dr Dressup January 26, 2005
A method of torturing a person who is just trying to learn more about computers. The folks who program this system assume that you know everything about computers, and will hurl insults at you is you even dare to ask them a question relating to running the OS.
Linux is NOT an efficient, user-friendly operating system. It is a nightmare disguised as a blessing.
by frustrated newbie March 31, 2003

Free Daily Email

Type your email address below to get our free Urban Word of the Day every morning!

Emails are sent from daily@urbandictionary.com. We'll never spam you.

×