I disagree. GNOME is highly professional and minimalistic: I'n not experienced with a terminal and rarely use it. If anything Ubuntu was easier to set up than Windows: all my favourite programs were preinstalled and my graphics drivers were even on the CD. In Windows, my wireless doesn't work and games have corruption and crash. I've always been a Windows user but Ubuntu was easier to learn. Media playing software "nice"? Totem (preinstalled) plays all major video and audio formats just like WMP, except it has a much smaller memory footprint and faster decoding. It even automatically fetches codecs that aren't preinstalled. Security holes: No, but it's much, much harder to get malware than Windows - you have fo work at it, entering root passwords, ignoring security alerts, disabling popup blockers and turning off spam filters. Windows is default root and built-in programs often require opt-in security. Name one successful Linux virus. I consider myself competent with Windows, and yet I have to wipe my system yearly due to slowdown and random crud.

The perception that Linux is harder to use probably has been passed down from years ago when Linux GUI weren't as they are today.

I think many Linux distros nowaday are even friendlier than windows. At least, I find it easier to do any sort of system management, update, etc.

The best thing that I like about linux? No antivirus app needed. I hate antivirus app which is essential to windows. It does nothing but to hog memory, disk space and scan your hdd when you lease expected and bring your system down to a crawl.

Did i mention no spyware crap that installs itself aren't possible on Linux?

Ok, after reading everything you just have posted let say:

Fact: Linux is a better OS than Windows in memory managing, security issues and lets suppose media (if I care about media I buy an apple, but ok).

Fact: 90% of PC games run over windows, and need some special app to run them over Linux, as well as a lot of scientific apps which I use. If you use Linux, for sure you will hace troubles for new hardware or even the old one, for one, I never was able to program my PICS in Linux, and Microchip won't give Linux assistance. And like this I have ton's of examples, which wont happen in windows, because all the hardware software is written for windows.

Conclusion: I stick with Windows.

By the way, I have used MAndriva, Mandrake, Debian (Which is by far best than Ubuntu) and Fedora, and believe me if you don't know how to use a terminal, well, you are not getting Linux full potential.

OK then. It's not for everybody - I do find driver/software support lacking but if more people used it that would improve. As I've said, I dual-boot for those essential programs.

And I would know how to use a terminal if I had to, but haven't memorized the basic commands beyond cd, sudo and apt-get.

again, probably you're one of those who never even seriously TRIED a newer linux dist.

Please stop spreading false rumours and try it out first.

A first time PC user will have much less trouble with the newest Ubuntu release compared to Win XP. Some Examples:

Installation: Linux, answer 5 questions, Windows 20 at least. (time 20mins vs 1h)

Totem player looks 1:1 like Windows media player, the same 3-d blah-Effects when playing mp3 etc.

Play a divx movie: Ubuntu will install the right Codec when needed. Windows will also say its gonna look on the internet for a codec, but will it find a divx codec??? no. You'll have to install it manually

Drivers for all my Hardware: Ubuntu installs them AUTOMATICALLY, Windows? ehhhmm. No.

On my new PC which I've setup a few weeks ago, there's an ubuntu with Vmware server on it, so i can run Windows in a window. (Ha, what a pun!). I even left some unpartitioned space, so i could install a native Windows whenever i need it. But guess what, I never needed it for 1 second yet.

I'd bet a lot of money, that a first time PC user (who doesn't know windows) will have a much easier time with ubuntu rather than windows.

I'm no linux zealot, but i just want to use the system which takes the least time to setup and operate and this happens to be ubuntu. Of course it's by far not perfect but please if you do have to be against it, then bring valid arguments.

 Edit: Of course if you want to play games, THAT IS a valid argument ;)

I understand most Linux advocates conviction in situations like this. They're tired of the Windows flaws, they sought an alternative, found an affordable one with Linux and now want to preach of it's benefits. This is the wrong approach people.

Linux is perfect for first time computer users, so the people spreading that propaganda need to cut it out, and here's why. First time computer users, DO NOT KNOW OR HAVE ANY STIGMAS regarding Linux. They don't know things in Windows don't need a terminal, they don't know the difference between Office and Open Office, Internet Explorer and FireFox, Aero and Gnome, et cetera. They won't have any pre-attachments from previous Windows use, so using Linux won't be as hard as these "lobbyists" state.

Secondly, Linux is perfect for the "average user". The average user checks their e-mail, browses the internet, uses some social networking site, checks their banking, writes up documents and spreadsheets for whatever reasons, and uses the calculator (

Linux is better at non-gaming functions, but there is really little games on it, so unless you get vista, or you are a programmer, you probably won't need to switch Linux at the moment.

rendo: I agree with all of that, but a video game sales forum does not usually contain people who have no attachment to an operating system already. What can be done about your audience is distributing it with new PCs at a discount to Windows-preinstalled machines (obviously) - Dell's Ubuntu range, for instance.

All the support in this topic is positive: core-gaming-audience trends usually become mainstream after a time, so Linux may gain wider support in the future, which removes the main problem with it now.

Distributing Linux on OEM machines is perfect for the casual computer user market, not the gaming market and it won't be for quite some time. It's a step in the right direction however since a greater market share of the OS world means more support from developers all around the world which means eventually, I'd say in 1-2 years, we'll see some real games coming to Linux with native support. Until then it's just a waiting game. And I agree with the other guy. When you preach Linux, don't try and come off like a Mormon, NO ONE LIKES MORMONS, except other Mormons. :P