I use XP SP2 and Mandriva Linux both quite a bit (have both at work and at
home). I've used both for years in various capacities and develop and
support various custom apps and configurations on both.

My experience is that end-users feel more comfortable with XP to start with.
It's what they know, it's familiar, they know they can ask everyone and
their brother for advice with it when it goes bad. However, my experience
is also that those that end up using Linux (generally as part of their job
function; I work in BioTech and Linux is the dominant application platform
for that industry), that they find the Linux desktop environment pretty
much a drop-in replacement. More advanced Windows users typically take
longer to get used to it, but when accustomed tend to prefer the Linux
environment (so far, especially true for scientific staff).

I find that hardware support on Linux also tends to be different, not better
or worse on Linux. Unlike Windows, most hardware is supported in a generic
fashion, does not require additional drivers (and generally no
configuration), and is automatically recognized -- it's very plug-and-play.
Windows has an edge with very new hardware, and some very specific
exceptions, but is otherwise less plug-and-play. I've had issues with
certain hardware on both platforms, but it's quite rare. Linux typically
has a resolution if you research it, whereas Windows tends not to (if it
doesn't work for some reason, you're pretty much stuck) -- neither is a
terribly good solution for the end-user.

As far as games go, the situation on Linux is still better than the Mac if
only because with a little effort you can run most Windows games under
Linux -- sometimes with better performance (World of Warcraft is a good
example).

As far as software development goes, I think that Linux is clearly preferred
at least in the embedded, consumer electronics, telecom, pharma, and
biotech industries. There's considerably more adherence to standards, open
APIs, and more documentation (that's more up-to-date and accurate).
Tool-wise, Linux and Windows are very much on par. Most higher-end stuff is
equally available on both platforms. Linux only misses Visual Studio, which
is fine as most of the features of VS that are applicable to non-MS
technologies exist elsewhere.



flatfish+++ wrote:

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=140
>
> This reads like it came right out of COLA!!
>
> (Note the 1 percent desktop user base figure.)
>
> "But hardware support on Linux is good - all my stuff works!
>
> If all your hardware works, great. Congratulations. But ask yourself
> these two questions:
>
> * How much extra effort did you have to go to to get it to work?
> * Did you research your purchase in advance to make sure that it would
> work?
>
> If you answered "yes" to either of these questions then you are willing to
> go to more effort than the average home buyer looking for a new printer,
> scanner or video card. Your average buyer isn't even willing to do enough
> research to make sure that they get the lowest price (that's how stores
> that charge over the odds stay in business). Is this the kind of person
> who's going to check to see if there's Linux support for what they want?"
>
>
> and.........................
>
> " Poor hardware/software/games support is not a Linux issue
>
> True. It's a developer issue. But developers (and the folks who pay
> their wages) are following the money, and at present there's not a lot of
> money to be made from the Linux market.
>
> Another reason that hardware support is patchy is that manufacturers don't
> want their code secrets going open source - it's easier for a business to
> deal with another business than it is to deal with the open source
> community."
>
>
>
> and.................................
>
> " Linux is more secure than Windows
>
> Yes, but ? do you think that the average user who runs executable
> attachments sent to them by email or who consents to the installation of
> adware or spyware on their machines would really be safer on Linux?
>
> At present there's a bar of technical competence that users wanting to
> make use of Linux have to be able to clear. This alone makes them
> unlikely to be the kind of people who do things that put their systems at
> risk. Security is not about software, it's mostly about education."
>
>
>
> and........so much more.........
>
> Read it and decide for yourself.
>
> I expect total and complete denial, discrediting the author and the usual
> grade school tactics used by the COLA gang to save Linux from bad press.