20 New User Misconceptions about Linux

[zridling]

[attach]

[Renegade]

Wow. I don't think I've ever read a media article about Linux that didn't piss me off or drive me half insane with rage about absurd assertions about 1,000 km over the borders of madness, but this guy is BANG ON!

Windows, on the other hand, has a "here it is" approach that works well enough for its intended audience.

2) Windows software looks better than Linux software. So you think that Windows software has the marketplace cornered on what's pretty? Take a look at some of the horrid looking applications running under the shareware/freeware license sometime.

And while you're at it, be prepared to be turned off cold with some very unattractive software. The fact of the matter is that all platforms have software that can look great as well as some that are horribly ugly.

Well, he goes from brilliant to irking me a tad with that statement, to brilliant again. I've seen commercial software that will make you gouge your eyes out with your fingernails all the while screaming, "It can't be~! Make it stop~!" Shareware/freeware has very little to do with how ugly software can be.

Throughout the article, be nails it time and time again.

18) Linux has no malware.

One of my favorite misconceptions is the belief that Linux is completely free of malware. Not only is this nonsense, but it's dangerous to believe as Linux adoption continues to grow.

While it's true that malware for Linux is nothing compared to the Windows platform, you put yourself in danger every time you install software without installing it from a trusted source. This is true of all platforms, not just Windows. Less of a threat doesn't mean that the threat is non-existent.

Oh God! Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!

HONESTY~! WOW~! Man... This guy has my respect.

That was a sheer joy to read. It was refreshing and really makes me look forward to the day that I can truly move to Linux as my primary platform.

[40hz]

I'm just wondering how many more times somebody's going feel the need to rewrite this same old article.

Because this is about the 20th Linux exposé I've seen.

Some use ten headings. Some use more. But they all essentially say the exact same thing.

[johnk]

I finally got around to doing my annual Linux trial. Been playing for a week or so.

But actually it's almost two years since I've used it, and some things have certainly improved. Initial install was flawless. Printer support is much improved. Yes, I could do my everyday tasks of browsing and email quickly and without any difficulties.

And then I started wandering off the beaten track. One detailed example -- I wanted to install Swisscenter (my media server of choice). Experience of installing Swisscenter on Windows: download install file, double-click. Experience of installing on Linux: install Apache, PHP and MySQL (using XAMPP), install Swisscenter separately (all via command line, no other option). Spend serious amounts of time tweaking config files of these programs to get them to behave nicely together.

And yes it all worked in the end. But despite many positive experiences in the last week, my opinion remains the same. For undemanding users who just want an email/browser machine, Linux is absolutely fine (as has been for years). For those happy on the command line (and sometimes I edge into that camp myself), Linux is excellent. But for the large group in between, Windows remains a more pleasing and seamless experience.

[housetier]

And since my anecdotal evidence seems to support the opposite, no point was proven.

[johnk]

And since my anecdotal evidence seems to support the opposite, no point was proven.

I'm certainly not trying to prove a point, just offering an opinion.

[Renegade]

Some use ten headings. Some use more. But they all essentially say the exact same thing.

The tone and manner in this one seemed much better. It wasn't preaching or condescending like most are.

[timns]

Which would win the race if setting up a new machine, from scratch, to provide (say) were performed by 'experts' at installing each OS.

Say barebones of: working network connection to the interweb, browser, email, Word processor, Spreadsheet, etc. - basically everything the average schmoe would want.

Windows 7? Linux? OS/X?

VMS?  

[Paul Keith]

ehh... IMO ED still has the best Linux article for newbies out of all these types of articles. Link NSFW obviously

Few to no Linux for newbie articles contain such classic truths as:

Pedobuntu, one of the most popular Lunix distros.

Linus Torvalds picked out a penguin to be the mascot, because:

• Tux, Linus Torvalds and several pieces by Erik Satie all are pear-shaped.
  Did I mention he smells like a yak (and his wife can kick your ass)?

Type of Linux Users:

Penguinista: A penguinista is a Lunix user who hides the fact that he dual boots into Windows to play Doom. During his free time, he tries to write a program that will make Windows programs run natively in Lunix. This will never happen. Some people have come close, but by the time they have 16 bit Windows emulated everyone else has moved on to 64 bit Windows. Oh yeah... they also use GIMP to collect welfare.

Much like Civic fag-boys will often times claim that they've witnessed Honda Civics beating Lamborghinis and rocket ships in drag races, Lunix fans will often times claim that Lunix can out-perform the corporate flagships of the OS world (ie. Windows, Solaris, etc.), when in reality, most people couldn't even be paid to use Lunix.

Many of the Interwebs' greatest retards are in fact Windows users. Mainly due to the fact that introducing home-user lunix machines onto the internet would be like infecting a cancer patient with AIDS, Lunix limits the numbers of them automagically by offering horribly written, utterly unusable wifi card drivers (which are still distributed as if they actually were functional. By the way, does someone truly believe that open source software written by idle teens who can't get even a computing related summer-job is somehow bound to be of good quality?).

If the subject of distros comes up, reply, "Yes, but what can [insert distro name] do that Ubuntu can't do?

Ask "But can it run BSD?"

If the subject of CLI comes up, reply, "But you could do that with DOS twenty years ago!"

Tell everyone that Lunix isn't ready for grandma

Reply: "Don't want grandma finding your porn...

Make it known that $699 (the fee you legally owe SCO Novell if you use Lunix) is $300 more than the price Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, which has more features, greater stability, and has been shown time and time again to have a higher ROI.

"Yes, it´s very dificult to install programs,that´s why there is so much people that use windows, instead of lunix, if the lunix developers make it easy like the .exe on windows,everybody will switch to lunix."

Lunix can be a great tool for haxoring your school's computer lab. Not only do most distributions take up minimal hard drive space, many can also be booted quickly from a LiveCD. LiveCDs can be configured via their ISO image then burned to disk to create your bootable LiveCD. Once you are booted into Lunix it's possible for some distributions to install themselves onto small memory devices such as USB drives or memory cards. You can then take the newly created USB - which can be as small as around 256MB depending on the distribution you're using - and plug it into almost any PC. Once the device is plugged in use the following steps to boot into your Lunix distribution:

Shut off the PC.
Turn on the PC.
Wait for the manufacturer's logo (ie: Dell).
Hit F12 repeatedly until the logo goes away.
Select your Lunix device as the boot device.
Hit enter.
The computer will then boot into Lunix instead of Windows effectively bypassing any security measures that Windows would usually put in place during bootup - this includes most file restrictions. Please keep in mind that internet filters are usually not handled in Windows but on the organization's Server. If you're at work or in school, chances are you will still be blocked from certain websites. Finally you can mount and access the C Drive.

Make you rich because there are three rich guys who used Lunix

Make you attractive to women because Bill Gates' wife is hot (note: Bill Gates uses Windows) (2nd note: make $50 billion, and she won't give a flying fuck what operating system you use)

Make you smarter

Make you lose weight (note: Lunix, Mountain Dew, Nasal Spray and Pop Tarts are not proper diet and lifting one of your many massive Lunix user-guide type books does not count as exercise)

Make you superior to the human race. Superiority is not defined by the number of gutted computer carcasses in your home, or the depth of your basement, or by how many operating systems you can fit on your hard drive

Reformat and install another distribution. (People have been known to do this continuously for weeks. Hint: they all suck. Stop wasting your time.)

Read countless manuals to do the simplest of tasks. And still fail

Say you use Lunix (which will get your ass kicked, even by other Lunix users.)

Run a virtual instance of Windows so you can play games, while at the same time saying how much you hate Microsoft.

Argue that KDE is better than GNOME.
Argue that GNOME is better than KDE.
Argue that both GNOME and KDE are inferior to your chosen environment.

Depend on easy to use programs like vi.

Installing Lunix on your Computer

Lunix can be installed on any desktop, laptop, cellphone, iphone, gaming system, wristwatch, or large dildo in just a few simple steps:

Download your chosen "flavor" of Lunix using windows because if you're downloading it from an existing Lunix install you won't be able to burn cd's or make bootable usb drives.

Boot into the distro and expect one of the following to happen:

• Won't boot
• Graphics are fucked
• Network isnt working
• Keyboard/mouse not working
• Random lockups

Guess at the problem / Manually type the errors into google that you have open on a working Windows machine. Do this for at least three days.

Start a thread on the distro's forum asking for help with excruciating detail of your system layout and troubleshooting case results.

Resolve the problem with the help of dumb luck.

Return to the thread and let them know you fixed it. DO NOT share how you fixed it.

Bragging rights are yours! Let your buddies know you're a full fledged hacker!

Cut yourself to relieve the tension.

Congratulations you are now a Lunix guru!

Becoming a master of lunix/unix requires a lifetime of dedication. You've heard of monks of various religious that take vows of chastity to show that they have risen above lust. Monks that grow long beards to prove they have risen above vanity. Monks that abstain from the impurities of the world and sit in near total darkness starring at a small light like a candle flame or an electronic equivalent. Often these people are religious hermits.

It is this spiritual dedication that makes one a master of lunix/unix.

When you use Lunix, you will become so frustrated that you will constantly fight with windows, mac, and even other lunix users.

Lunix doesn't get viruses because they are pre-installed and dynamically create themselves.

Modern desktop distributions include a wide variety of software packages, pre-compiled for the major processor architectures, so no compiling for the average person. These don't include Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, or Adobe Photoshop, but they do include Wine, which lets you whine about how Lunix can't run your favorite applications.

Hardware drivers are a bit difficult to get if not included already, but most are already there -- But if you've got an ATI or Nvidia card and install the proprietary drivers that actually work, fundie Lunix users will start bawwing at you for violating the GPL and deliberately introduce changes into the next kernel to break those drivers.

Lunix gamers do install windows and dual boot, but pretty much just to game -- And find out why the latest round of updates broke their X server.

As of 2010 or so, most of the kernel is written by paid developers from the hardware industry -- Except most of their users are running servers hosting furry porn in their mother's basements.

Discussion page:

It's not called Lunix. It's called Linux. Josh1492 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Josh1492

Linux is a typo. --  DerSquirrel  02:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Linux isn't UNIX. I hate Linux regardless.

Quotes are written in tongue-in-cheek form sure but the reality is most of these other articles are so outdated and over-stated that you could make a "20 New Geek Misconceptions about Facebook" and the contents would probably be far more original,insightful (and most importantly CORRECT for the year 2011) which just shows how sad the situation is.

The Internet: Where we've gone from sharing knowledge to giving AIDs to everyone who wants knowledge.

[40hz]

Some use ten headings. Some use more. But they all essentially say the exact same thing.

The tone and manner in this one seemed much better. It wasn't preaching or condescending like most are.

Very true. The tone was much better. And many of the points made do merit an occasional repeating.

Credit where credit is due.

[zridling]

@Paul: Thanks for the laugh. That made me spew my chocolate milk. 

[40hz]

@PK: +1 with Z!

Finally got a chance to read all the way through it. Absolutely priceless in places. The rest is just plain funny.

Gonna have to drop this one however:

Quote
Make it known that $699 (the fee you legally owe SCO Novell if you use Lunix) is $300 more than the price Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, which has more features, greater stability, and has been shown time and time again to have a higher ROI.

On the plus side they can always add this press release from SCO (emphasis added):

LINDON, Utah, Sept. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- The SCO Group, Inc., (Pink Sheets: SCOXQ), www.sco.com, a leading provider of UNIX® software technology, today announced that it is  pursuing a sale of substantially all of the assets of its UNIX® business, including certain UNIX system V software products and related services.  The asset sale will be free and clear of liens and encumbrances pursuant to Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Interested parties must submit a bid by close of business, October 5, 2010.  For information on the company or the sale, please contact Ocean Park Advisors, LLC, 6033 West Century Blvd., Suite 1290, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Attn: Bruce Comer, Managing Director, (310) 670-2721; Mark Fisler, Managing Director, (310) 670-2704.

"This asset sale is an important step forward in ensuring business continuity for our customers around the world," said Ken Nielsen, chief financial officer, The SCO Group.  "Our goal is to ensure continued viability for SCO, its customers, employees and the UNIX technology," said Nielsen.

The purchase price for the UNIX software assets will be determined in connection with the auction sale.  Any party wishing to submit an offer for the Software Business Assets must submit a non-contingent offer, marked Asset Purchase Agreement to show any revisions, and evidence of financial wherewithal to close on the transaction on or before October 5, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) to: (i) The SCO Group, Inc., 333 South 520 West, Suite. 170, Lindon, Utah 84042, Attn: Ryan Tibbitts; (ii) Blank Rome LLP, 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attn: Bonnie Glantz Fatell, Esq.; (iii) Ocean Park Advisors, LLC, 6033 West Century Blvd. Suite 1290, Los Angeles, CA 90045, Attn: Bruce Comer.

In case you haven't followed the whole SCO debacle, the courts had already rendered a final decision which determined SCO did not own the rights to any of the Unix System V software it was looking to sell.

Thank all that's holy the SCO legal team's dog & pony show is finally set to be shut down once and for all.

[mahesh2k]

(2nd note: make $50 billion, and she won't give a flying fuck what operating system you use)

 

[f0dder]

Decent article, but I've got a few comments

9) Linux supports less hardware than Windows.

A couple of minor beefs with this one. WiFi and GPU drivers can be troublesome, but let's skip that for now - that's a dead horse that's been beaten to pulp already. I've had trouble with linux even when drivers have been available - sometimes it's been relatively minor things like packets dropped every now and then for no apparent reason, other times it's been really weird stuff that seem to have been fundamental flaws in the PCI bus handling code. The occurences have been rare, but it hasn't been very faith-inspiring to see that class of errors on fairly standard hardware.

11) Linux has terrible printer/scanner support.

Obviously the driver/scanner manufacturers are the ones to blame, but it doesn't make the point less true. I'm sure we're much better off these days than the few years since I printed from linux last, but ugh - CUPS was no joy, and it only gave me the most basic of printing options. Caveat Emptor!

17) Linux represents a specific political viewpoint.

Mostly agree with this one, but you can't deny that there is quite a lot of attitude in a lot of linux users, and it can be a pretty hostile place if you don't subscribe to their ideas, just like the Mac camp. Yes, you can obviously run into dsckheads everywhere, it just tends to happen more often when dealing with "niches" (whatever that be software, religion, politics or whatever). Fortunately this situation will grow better as more normal/sane/rational/pragmatic people adopt linux

[Paul Keith]

fodder your comments made me think:

Donationware - Where Douchebags Can't Be Part of the Niche

[40hz]

17) Linux represents a specific political viewpoint.

Mostly agree with this one, but you can't deny that there is quite a lot of attitude in a lot of linux users, and it can be a pretty hostile place if you don't subscribe to their ideas, just like the Mac camp. Yes, you can obviously run into dsckheads everywhere, it just tends to happen more often when dealing with "niches" (whatever that be software, religion, politics or whatever). Fortunately this situation will grow better as more normal/sane/rational/pragmatic people adopt linux

Boy did you ever hit the nail on the head with that one.

But it is true. As more and more regular users begin getting involved with Linux for their day to day computing needs, the pockets representing the "silo & bunker mentality" will, of necessity, go away. I'm already seeing it happen where I am.

The big challenge will be how not to become the new dickhead once the old dickhead gets dragged out from under his rock and shot. The trick is to discard the things from the past that are no longer working or have proven impractical, and retain the things that do work or show promise of working.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is for everything (i.e. the core beliefs and unwritten social contracts) that led up to GNU/Linux first coming into existence just be discarded - and for Linux to embark on a purely technical driven course of action. Because if it does, it will ultimately fractionate and fail.

In order to have a reason to exist, Linux needs to be something just a bit more than a piece of software. Because if it's just a piece of software, we already have plenty of perfectly usable commercial operating systems and apps - so why bother?

Should Linux finally fail, all that will be left to remember it by is the hard work of thousands of selfless and talented people, now sitting around just waiting to be exploited by purely commercial interests. And that will likely be the bitterest pill of all to swallow.

Shuttleworth's already in danger of starting Ubuntu down that road. Let's hope his impatience with consensus building - and his personal need (shades of Steve Jobs!) to feel he has a major development role - despite not being a coder -  doesn't pull Ubuntu out of the mainstream community.

Fingers crossed on that.

[Paul Keith]

Shuttleworth? How about Google's OS 

Linux will never go away though. You can't Ubuntu Arch or Gentoo. Only make them more user friendlier.

Same thing with GPL and Creative Commons. Someone will use those selfishly to protect their work if they are bound to lose a product like what happened with Netscape.

They won't do it for selfless reasons but you don't kill the hand that will save you.

[40hz]

You can't Ubuntu Arch or Gentoo.

Should think not. They're designed and intended for completely different audiences and purposes than Ubuntu.

Same thing with GPL and Creative Commons. Someone will use those selfishly to protect their work if they are bound to lose a product like what happened with Netscape.

Umm...'fraid you lost me on that one. How is it possible for GPL or Creative Commons to protect a work selfishly? Once it's GPLed or CCed, it's out where anybody can get at it. About the only protection they provide is preventing somebody else from subsequently claiming the work as their own and putting it under a proprietary license or standard copyright.

Not that some people haven't tried.

GPL and CC are sort of like putting something into the public domain - but with a string attached that says: "Don't be a pig about this. Play nice."

[Paul Keith]

How is it possible for GPL or Creative Commons to protect a work selfishly? Once it's GPLed or CCed, it's out where anybody can get at it. About the only protection they provide is preventing somebody else from subsequently claiming the work as their own and putting it under a proprietary license or standard copyright.

Exactly.

It's out where anybody can get it which means kind of like yellow journalism, if you are a big enough company who needs marketshare more than money especially if your software is starting to trail off, you open source or creative commons it.

This doesn't work for smaller brands but like Ubuntu, Firefox and Chrome can set a precedence for how new users might think via adopting the model.

Ubuntu is more explainable in that it was necessary but Firefox for example created this whole it must be open source or we're not going to use it which, as instrumental as it was already to cause less popular OS browsers to be ignored, lead to the opening Google needed to establish Chrome which is basically open source the egg as long as it will allow you to turn the customer into the product and buy your frying pan.

Note that I'm not saying this was definitely the intention, just that this was the result. Kind of like the mass production of the clock leading to less time to pray to God despite it's original intention being to have more time via being able to schedule more prayer time.

[40hz]

It's out where anybody can get it which means kind of like yellow journalism, if you are a big enough company who needs marketshare more than money especially if your software is starting to trail off, you open source or creative commons it

Um...no...

Once you GPL something, you relinquish all control of your source and what people do with it. It's a one way thing. You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do. You could create proprietary add-ons I suppose. Some places do that. Or try. But that still doesn't hand control of your originally GPLed program back to you.

If you're saying a company could GPL something and make it free in order to deep-six a small competitor who didn't have deep enough pockets to compete against a free product...well, why would they want to GPL the freebie? Why not just give it away, keep the proprietary license, and then start charging for it once the competitor goes out of business? You don't need to get involved with GPL to do that. Microsoft used a similar strategy to price Novell out of the market after Microsoft released NT Server. They just made the original release dirt cheap compared to Novell and used the opening they created (and what money they did get) to drastically improve NT until it was as good, and later, better than Novell.

-----

FSF keeps saying this, but I guess it bears repeating one more time: The free (as in libre not gratis) software concept as embodied by GPL is a software development model. It's not a marketing strategy. And it's most definitely not a business model.

Once you stop trying to turn GPL into something it's not - or apply it to something it's not designed for - it all starts to make perfect sense.

People who can't see that GPL, by itself, has nothing to do with running a software business keep looking for the trick, or the 'catch', or a loophole.

There isn't any. What you see is what it is.

GPL something and it's code is no longer yours. You've given it away to the entire World. Forever.

[mwb1100]

You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do.

This is only half correct.  Once you GPL something and distribute it, you can't remove the GPL rights that you've essentially already passed on to someone else for what they have.

However, GPL doen't remove  *your* ownership of the code (or whatever) - you can rerelease the code under whatever other terms you like (even simultaneously).  As the owner - *you* are not obligated to the GPL terms for subsequent releases (modified or not).

Several companies release products under GPL and simultaneously under a non-GPL license for paying customers who don't want to be under the terms of the GPL.  For example:

  - Nokia releases Qt under an LGPL license, or you can pay for the software under different terms that won't subject you to LGPL terms
  - Quantum Leaps licenses their embedded RTOS products under the GPL as well as a commercial license

From the FSF's GPL FAQ:

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

    Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.

    However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

[Paul Keith]

Once you GPL something, you relinquish all control of your source and what people do with it. It's a one way thing. You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do. You could create proprietary add-ons I suppose. Some places do that. Or try. But that still doesn't hand control of your originally GPLed program back to you.

Once someone GPLs something, they don't really need to un-GPL it. In fact, that would be marketing suicide even IF it was possible to do that.

You could create proprietary add-ons I suppose. Some places do that. Or try. But that still doesn't hand control of your originally GPLed program back to you.

...or proprietary Operating Systems hence the frying pan analogy.

If you're saying a company could GPL something and make it free in order to deep-six a small competitor who didn't have deep enough pockets to compete against a free product...well, why would they want to GPL the freebie? Why not just give it away, keep the proprietary license, and then start charging for it once the competitor goes out of business? You don't need to get involved with GPL to do that. Microsoft used a similar strategy to price Novell out of the market after Microsoft released NT Server. They just made the original release dirt cheap compared to Novell and used the opening they created (and what money they did get) to drastically improve NT until it was as good, and later, better than Novell.

Because then you're missing a huge chunk of the Open Source cult. Microsoft is the most exposed competitor defending their turf.

Tons of these other applications like Chrome and Firefox weren't going to just usurp IE or hell even convince Netscape users to just move to them.

They needed some symbol of goodness. An invisible enemy to rally the righteous. Something like WMDs to start the descent of war.

After that, they need to be faster and more rapid at building the community. It doesn't matter if they can't Un-GPL something. It's not like you can't create and sell commercial GPL software. What you really want is people believing you not only won't do no evil but you want slave add-on makers developing improvements for your frying pan all while the brand is mostly going towards the pan.

FSF keeps saying this

They also said alot of other things, sometimes it feels like they create a strawman where they expect the person talking to not have known what they are talking about so they can re-direct it into canned responses when GPL is far from needing a FAQ but a distinct separation between bandwagons and core philosophers understanding the difference between each of their actions and reactions towards the GPL.

GPL something and it's code is no longer yours. You've given it away to the entire World. Forever.

Again, same thing happened with the clock. Same thing happened with the Bible. I don't really know why this is such a hard thing for FSF sometimes to understand.

They set the GPL to prevent this issue, not to beat this issue like a dead horse.

Even back then, pre-GPL, you could give something away to the World forever. What Stallman originally understood was that it wasn't enough. There was a potential flaw. GPL wasn't bringing something new. It was defending against something old. The fact that today it's been sort of reversed just mostly due to the convenience of many open source software compared to the original days, doesn't mean open source suddenly becomes the liberator rather  than the templar.

It's a lot like some hardcore Linux users. They are so closed to converting users into Linux. Just a little bit more attitude towards gratis than closed club house preacher and RTFM could have easily been WWWTM (What's wrong with this manual?) ...and Linux users would have an easier time converting people just a tiny bit and making up for all the shortcomings of Linux but only a few do that and we get this circular argument where valid arguments become cliche arguments just because the source of the concept becomes hijacked by the wrong fundamentalists on a cult level.

Finally...+1 to what mwb1100 said.

Edit: Woops. Sorry for the rant about FSF.

[rxantos]

My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer. A license is never about freedom. Public domain is about freedom.

Public Domain : Do whatever you want.

BSD : Do whatever you want as long as you do not hold me liable for anything. And, if you distribute the source, you give me credit by keeping this license somewhere in the source.

LGPL: I allow you to use this library as long as you give me credit. Do not hold me liable for anything. And make sure that ANY change you made to it you put it back into LGPL or GPL. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

GPL : I allow you to use this code. You cannot hold me liable for anything. You give me credit. You make sure that any changes made are made public under the same license. If you use even one line of this code on your own code, your code must also be put on the same license. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

As for linux, it have come a long way since its humble beginnings. Still have its bugs here and there, but overall it competes well with windows, OSX and BSD.

[kalos]

(see attachment in previous post)

Matt Hartley's points are true to my experience. Point is, not to believe the rumors, rumors about rumors, and counter-rumors! 

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3925611_1/20-New-User-Misconceptions-about-Linux.htm

did you notice that his "Linux video games" link says client=Safari? lol he praises linux, while he is on a mac (or even Windows)?
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3925611_2/20-New-User-Misconceptions-about-Linux.htm

[Renegade]

My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer. A license is never about freedom. Public domain is about freedom.

Public Domain : Do whatever you want.

BSD : Do whatever you want as long as you do not hold me liable for anything. And, if you distribute the source, you give me credit by keeping this license somewhere in the source.

LGPL: I allow you to use this library as long as you give me credit. Do not hold me liable for anything. And make sure that ANY change you made to it you put it back into LGPL or GPL. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

GPL : I allow you to use this code. You cannot hold me liable for anything. You give me credit. You make sure that any changes made are made public under the same license. If you use even one line of this code on your own code, your code must also be put on the same license. And if you distribute a compiled copy you must promise to send a cd of the code to whoever ask for it.

As for linux, it have come a long way since its humble beginnings. Still have its bugs here and there, but overall it competes well with windows, OSX and BSD.

On the public domain side, I think you can add this license in the same category: NSFW - the WTFPL license.