OS wars, just like Browser wars, will be perpetual.  The reality, AFAIC, is that whatever you're comfortable with is the "right" OS for you, and no amount of argument is going to change that.  Consequently, I'm not about to say one OS is "better" than another.  It's like saying white wine is better than red wine.  That's an opinion based on taste . . . by definition an opinion can neither be "right" nor "wrong".  Supported?  One would hope, but sometimes it's not that simple.

'Nix proponents have their "studies", and Windows proponents have their "studies."  And all that proves is that each is good at using Google.  It doesn't prove (to me, anyway) that one is better than the other.  At the end of the day it comes down to an individual's comfort level.  (Some 'nix people seem to be obnoxiously arrogant about the security aspects of that OS . . . saying that it is more secure than Windows.  B.S.!!!!!  It has vulnerabilities, it's just that it doesn't have the market share of Windows, consequently malware writers get a bigger bang for their buck writing malicious code for Windows.  But cross-platform malware is getting to be more common.  'Nix is NOT invulnerable.)

A few years ago, I was a refugee from Windows (a whole 'nother story and I'm not about to bash MS . . . suffice it to say I was very angry with a tactic of MS and THAT was what motivated me to try a switch) and tried 'nix (Ubuntu).  I didn't have the installation problems that Jim and others have spoken of here or else I likely would have dropped the effort too.  Had I had installation problems, I likely would have moved on to try the next OS . . . whether that would have been another 'nix flavor or something else, I don't know.  But I was definitely determined it was NOT going to be MS (guess I am sort of bashing them here, but my own experience with MS was less than satisfactory . . . had my experience with 'nix been the same, I would have . . . and STILL will if that circumstance prevails . . . left them in a heartbeat.)

While the transition was rocky in the fist few weeks, especially the command line which can be intimidating for someone coming from primarily a point-and-click GUI (Gnome desktop helps), I persevered and resisted the temptation to go back to the easy GUI of Windows, and now I'm glad I did restrain myself.

But what I'm really getting at is this "comfort" level and choice of OS.  I can't really say that Windows is "bad" . . . it just wasn't right for ME.  You like white wine (Windows), I like red wine (Ubuntu) . . . big deal, that doesn't say that universally one is "better" than the other.  It just happens that Ubuntu was better . . . FOR ME.  That doesn't necessarily mean it would be better for you.

I like Firefox.  Others swear by IE, Chrome, Opera, Safari . . . whatever.  As long as they're comfortable with their choice and it meets their needs, fine by me.  I'm not going to argue that FF is "better".  I am certainly comfortable with it and it meets my needs, just like Ubuntu, but if either one of them pisses me off like MS did, I'll switch in a heartbeat.  I'm "loyal" to neither FF nor Ubuntu.  I'm "loyal" to my comfort level (which contains elements of security, usability, speed, and some other things.)

Have I had problems with 'nix?  Of course.  But so far none of them have been deal breakers and I've solved them.  Does it have some disadvantages?  Yes, but again no deal breakers . . . yet, anyway.

Right now, I'm a 'nix kinda guy.  Tomorrow I may not be.

Mindblower said

Excellent post BJ

Thanks for the kind words.

Mindblower said

one can still use Firefox

But not IE. So I have a VM for Windows to use IE for testing (tried Wine and found it too buggy.)