Re: Upgrade to a more useful, sexier, *real* operating system. Linux
"* No Metro - Linux Mint comes with Gnome 2 fork - Mate."
Yes, and GNOME sucks. It's the worst user interface ever. Even your hero Linus Torvalds thinks the same. GNOME 2 is a bit less painful than GNOME 3 but both are made by people that have no idea about Human Factors and UI design..
"* No need for an Antivirus scanner - Linux simply cannot catch a virus in the real world (ignoring daft hypothetical lab stuff that doesn't work in the real world), which is why no Linux viruses exist in the wild."
Great. The same can be said about Windows because the traditional viruses are a thing of the past. Modern malware consist of Trojans and worms to which a Linux distribution is also susceptible.
"* Secure (secure UNIX architecture)."
It's an illusion that UNIX which it's everything-is-a-file mantra and primitive file access controls is inherently secure. It took great lengths to actually make modern day Linux as secure as it is, and the sloppy development in many of its userland programs certainly didn't help.
"* Developed by the best teams. You do not get stronger than Torvalds at OS design."
Nonsense. Torvalds is certainly a very good developer but even he got a lot of things wrong in the Linux kernels, and there have been more than one really embarrassing flaws in Linux over the years.
And the best developers don't pay for free, they actually get paid for their work. And it's unlikely that most of them work on Linux.
"* Choice of window managers - use whatever UI suits you whenever you want."
Yeah, choice. Many desktops just suck, and it's not rare that the next version does things completely different. The greatest consistency probably comes with KDE. Linux desktops are a good example that quantity doesn't equal quality.
And if you need a touch UI then it gets even worse.
"* Better Server - Linux is the best of class server."
Most major corporations around the world most certainly would disagree, as their backbones runs on Windows, Exchange and ADS and not Linux.
But at the end of the day the OS doesn't matter (both Windows and Linux make for great server OSes), it's the applications that count.
"* No commercial licences, no licence management overhead."
Right. Unfortunately these are not the only costs that come with a platform choice. And in many cases it's simply more economical to pay for Windows than to use free Linux.
"* Brilliant command line available for power users."
Yeah. Same with Windows (ever heard of 'PowerShell'? Guess not). It may be news for you but Windows development has not stagnated since Windows95.
"* Easy to install"
Linux got better, but still doesn't match the simple installation procedure of Windows 7 or Windows 8. And there still are too many cases where an installation will just fail and needs manual intervention on the command line.
"* Out of the box Linux comes with LibreOffice, and many other applications. Windows gives you minesweeper."
Out of the box, Linux comes with a kernel, period. A Linux distribution may come with LibreOffice (which sucks donkey balls), though. Unfortunately the only way to run a proper office application is to use Wine.
Oh, FYI (since your Windows 'knowledge' seems to be stuck at Windows 95): Windows 8 doesn't come with Minesweeper (you can download it from the Microsoft Store, though).It comes with lots of other stuff, though.
"* User Friendly"
In your dreams. Aside from the desktop suckage, there are still too many instances where something doesn't work (even some very simple things like a OS upgrade), and too many instances where there are just too many (and often useless) changes between versions. For those users that can't cope with the new Windows 8 user interface, Linux will be the worst nightmare.
"* Runs fast on even old hardware. (Better memory management, less bloat, etc, availability of fast windows managers)."
Utter bullcrap. I guess you never tried a current Linux distro on older hardware, otherwise you had known that this results in a sluggish system which is a pain to use. Yes, Linux can be very fast on old hardware, if you strip everything out that makes a modern Linux distro.
And you have to be really obtuse to ignore all the what you call 'bloat' that is in every major Linux distribution for generations.
BTW: Windows 7 runs just fine on old hardware, and guess what, Windows 8 runs even better.
Yes, Linux is great (especially for embedded devices), but everyone who believes that it will come without major issues will be disappointed. The change between the various versions of most major Linux distros is even bigger than the change between Windows 7 and Windows 8, and that was the only major UI change in the Windows world since Windows 95 some 18 years ago. Your post is the typical fanboi-ism that makes a certain part of the Linux community as enjoyable as Athlete's foot. And of course you (like most fanbois) totally miss the important point that an OS is not a purpose in itself (and most certainly won't compensate for the lack of joy in your life), it's a means of running the applications you need, period. And at the end of the day, the majority of apps most people want to run are on Windows only. And when Windows not only runs all the apps they want but almost everything that is available on Linux, no-one with at least half a brain would move to Linux.